Talk:BP

RfC: Clean Water Act Trial: How much detail?

Should the "Clean Water Act trial" section of BP be a section or subsection, and should it contain the following paragraph (subject to alteration of the amount of potential fines to $17 billion, as suggested by the BP corporate editor) :

The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible. A finding of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, which could amount to $20 billion, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims that weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs in 2012.

References for paragraph

Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue was discussed previously in Talk:BP#Oil_spill_trial.

Comment by RfC initiator

The above text has been repeatedly removed. The subsection in question is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#Clean_Water_Act_trial The edits that gave rise to this RfC are [1] and [2], removing the above text and demoting this from section to subsection.

I believe that the text should be reinstated. I believe its relevancy, neutrality and significance is self-evident and indisputable. The trial in question, which commenced in February and will run through 2014, is clearly deserving of a separate section, given the potential enormous exposure that BP has and the fact that this trial will be ongoing, generating headlines, through next year. The text in question states that the Justice Department is seeking maximum penalties that could run into the billions.

The trial, which has received extensive coverage in the media, deals with BP's actions in the Gulf Oil Spill for which BP has already pleaded guilty, and faces fine of up to $20 billion. The presence of other articles is immaterial. This is a very serious trial, and it behooves us to mention it to readers, and state what is at stake. Failure to do so would be a serious NPOV violation, as is the fact that the legal jeopardy that BP faces is not mentioned in the article thanks to the recent edits, and I have so tagged the article.

On the "$20 billion" figure, the BP Corporate editor monitoring the article on the talk page here has indicated that other sourcing states that the actual figure of BP's exposure from this trial is really $17 billion, not $ 20 billion. If that can be verified, the figure can be adjusted, but first we need to deal with whether we are going to deal with this in the article at all. Right now we are in the extraordinary position of an article on BP not stating that the U.S. Justice Department is seeking maximal penalties in the billions concerning an issue in which BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

• I have been involved in the article in the past but I have not yet taken part in discussion or editing of the trial section. I think the paragraph is generally good, after expanding the contraction, and after telling the reader that one estimate is $20B while BP's estimate is $17B. This is an astoundingly large amount of money, unique in global corporate history let alone BP's 100-year history. It must be in the main article because of its great significance. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by uninvolved editor The amounts involved are material, considering BP has a market cap of 130 billion dollars, and should therefore be mentioned. TFD (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that there is any argument against mentioning the figures involved. The RfC is about whether the court case deserves it own top-level section and the wording of the text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On re-reading the text that I removed I see that the figures are pure speculation. There would be no objection to adding some figures when we actually have some. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification regarding figures Coretheapple mentioned above that I had offered a clarification previously about the maximum penalty under the Clean Water Act and I'd like to explain this again for those who may not have seen. Following a judge's ruling in February, oil recovered by BP will not be included in calculations of any penalty that the company faces, which reduced the potential maximum penalty from $21 billion to approximately $17.6 billion. This estimate is explained in the Reuters source I linked before, and also the Environment News Service article provided by Petrarchan below. Recent articles about the trial including coverage by The Huffington Post, The New York Times, Bloomberg and Reuters as well as many more refer to a maximum penalty of around $17.5 or $17.6 billion, clearly showing this is the widely accepted estimate of the potential maximum penalty amount currently. These links should provide the verification of the lower estimate. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would have no objection to a short sentence saying something like, 'BP is expected to have to pay from $XXX to $YYY in further penalties, dependent on the outcome of court cases'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Per the new references, I made the change to $17.6 ealy this A.M. I think that concludes all of Arturo's requests from the 10th. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor This is the biggest accidental oil spill in the history of the oil industry, and an important event for the company to the extent that it even threatens its survival (not to mention the long-term prospects for the area's fishing industry and the health of the ocean). As it is now, it certainly does not violate WP:WEIGHT, as long as the editors remember WP:NOTNEWS, which can be a fine line to walk in an article of this nature. I'm actually surprised the coverage is not three times its present size. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

• Comment by involved editor. This article is about BP as more than 100-years old company. It already has a separate subsection about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Taking account that this article should cover all aspects about BP and its history, as also the fact that there are more specific articles about the the oil spill (namely: Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its series, for the court proceedings there is a separate article Deepwater Horizon litigation), having two sections about this event in this article gives undue weight to this event compared with the other aspects related to the company. As the trial is going on at the moment, the above-mentioned paragraph is speculative. It is justified to be added in the Deepwater Horizon litigation article but not here. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by involved editor As per Beagel above. I removed the content shown because, even based on the sources cited it is clearly biased against BP. Compare, for example the article text, "The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible", with the title of the supporting reference, "BP vows to 'vigorously defend' itself at US oil spill trial".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)
• Stating the Obvious. I'm pretty sure you meant to write "Clean Water Act", is that correct? Why would the Clean Water Act trial (aka, "phase two" of the BP Gulf spill trial) be handled separately from the other litigation revolving around this spill? Right now, the explosion, spill and related court cases are covered together in one small section. I would suggest splitting the Gulf spill litigation into its own section, and the upcoming Clean Water Act trial could be handled within that. BP did recover some of the spilled oil, and the court agreed that amount would be deducted from their CWA fines. This is why the figure dropped. Source petrarchan47tc 19:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the error. Yes, that's not a bad idea. (the separate section on the environmental litigation, that is) Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by involved editorDoes not deserve its own section or subsection. I edited this down to something similar to the current statement, and removed the section divider, shortly after Core originally posted this. Reason it does not deserve its own section or subsection: This article is about BP as a whole; there is already a section on Industrial Accidents and within that, a subsection on DWH. DWH as a topic has 2 main articles (explosion and spill) and each of those has spawned several sub-sub articles. One of them is on litigation. These main DWH articles and the subarticles, including litigation, are linked as "see main" in the BP DWH section. Detail on this trial should go in litigation article. A summary of that should go into the 2 main DWH articles. And very compressed and highlevel content should be in the BP article, as brief sentences in the DWH section. Not blow-by-blow, which would quickly blow up to overwhelm the BP article. About the specific content. The content itself is overly florid and detailed for its desired location in the BP article - already getting into the blow-by-blow. I would edit as follows (just the facts, ma'am): (strikeouts are deleted text, italics are added text) "The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible.[2] A a finding of gross negligence, which would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, which could amount to $20 billion, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims that weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs in 2012. [3][4] [5]" Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As ugly as it may be, we need to reflect on what this trial means in light of BP's history and the history of this type of fine in general. BP has a 100 year history. If we find one singular event that effects the company as much as the Gulf spill has, that should be reflected in the coverage given by this article. As it is, Wikipedia is saying that the Gulf spill and related court cases are barely a side-note, indeed as influential as their "environmental initiatives" if judged by article space allotted. In fact, BP's stock since the spill has fallen by 1/3rd. Did any other event in this company's history have such an effect? The fines in this case are outstanding in terms of being the 'first ever of this size'. That fact alone warrants a reconsideration of the weight given by Wikipedia (ie, we, the editors). To argue that we are making too big a deal out of this, or because it's covered in other spin-off articles (the litigation article received 36 hits today) there is little need to mention it here, makes no sense to me unless NPOV isn't the true goal. petrarchan47tc 20:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question - Most important events in BP's history! Destruction of its colonialist business model in the ME and Africa. Divestment by British gov't. The Torrey Canyon spill (at that time, the biggest spill ever - gets a single sentence.). Pioneering role in Prudhoe Bay field (not mentioned) and in North Sea. Remaking under Browne via M&A. Involvement in Caspian projects which are of enormous geopolitical significance vis a vis Russia and Europe. Maybe pioneering role in deepwater Gulf of Mexico and off coast of Brazil. String of Big 3 disasters in the US over past 10 years are important for BP itself due to the loss of trust in the country where the "new BP" has made its biggest investments and concomitant increasing size of penalties. Even if DWH were the only one, it would have been significant. This is very US/Euro focused - I am still learning about BP in Africa, far east, and S America. How would you answer the question? Jytdog (talk)

Sorry, what question exactly? Since this conversation is similar enough to a past one with Rangoon11, instead of repeating myself, here is my comment about US centered, recent content. petrarchan47tc 20:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't take questions as rhetorical, and you asked only one: "Did any other event in this company's history have such an effect?" ie. What are the most important events in BP's history? (if we are trying to judge weight...)Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to focus on bite-size pieces? It seems we do have enough information about the impact of the Gulf spill to see that its coverage in the article is massively imbalanced, for the reasons I described in my response to your 'failed experiment". After the media coverage of the problems at this page, there was a suggestion that each section written by BP should be analyzed for spin or missing content. Why don't we, as a group, decide a plan of action and focus on one thing at a time. As for a list of "worse things ever" for BP, this might prove helpful. petrarchan47tc 22:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a wholesale reappraisal of the POV of this article is urgently needed. Hopefully this RfC will be the catalyst for such a reappraisal, and also will get more eyes on this article. I also think that your idea of breaking out a section on the litigation has merit. However it is structured, the information contained in the paragraph that is the subject of this RfC is either going to be in the article or not. That's the issue before us. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree too. This page needs to revert to being an encyclopedia article about a company rather than an attack site. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• 'Re-comment by involved editor - last night I actually added to this section, although I do not believe that the subsection should exist and there is already too much information on the litigation here. I did that because the material added recently by editors who want this information here, was of embarrassingly poor quality. Information was spread across two sections (the DWH section and this subsection) and the content expressed no understanding of the flow of the litigation nor how the DOJ's Aug 31 filing fit into it - it was just a tactical step, not a dramatic change in strategy - and not the Dramatically Important Action that the content made it out to be. This is what litigation is like. The parties have goals (for BP, come through this with as few penalties as possible; for the plaintiffs, come out of this with the maximum penalties they can win) and there are endless tactics deployed and postures taken to achieve those goals. The article detailing the litigation (Deepwater Horizon litigation) is even worse - people "cared" enough to post a lot of fragments based on news reports, but not enough to fit them into a coherent narrative. My hope is that the text currently here gets moved as a whole into the litigation article and a brief, summary statement as per my post above is stated here, in the DWH section - not in a subsection. Again, blow by blow descriptions of tactical filings (and reactions to them) and daily trial reports should NOT be here. I don't understand how editors can be so passionate about driving this content into this article and including it in WIkipedia, but have not put in the time to understand even these issues enough to write about them accurately. I don't get it. Jytdog (talk)

I was also wondering how it came to be that there was no mention of BP's guilty plea to criminal charges connected to its 1999 North Shore oil spill. That kind of inexplicable omission troubles me, and there may be a good deal more, which is why I am not enthused with the kind of wholesale slashing that you advocate. This article has gone through the whitewash mill already, it doesn't need to go through it again. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Less detail here?

I wonder if the following paragraph could be cut back some?:

On August 13, 2012 BP filed papers with the court urging it to approve an estimated $7.8 billion settlement reached with 125,000 individuals and businesses in the consolidated suit, asserting that its actions "did not constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct."[370] In response to the BP filing and in order to ensure that BP could not use its filing and any possible acceptance of the settlement to escape a judgement of gross negligence,[370] on August 31 2012 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed papers describing the spill as an example of "gross negligence and willful misconduct".[371][21] BP rejected the charges saying "BP believes it was not grossly negligent and looks forward to presenting evidence on this issue at trial in January."[370] A ruling of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in Clean Water Act penalties, which would cause the penalties to reach approximately $17.6 billion, and would increase damages in the other suits as well.[372][373][374] Gandydancer (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed somewhat. All this should go into the Litigation article with only a brief summary left behind. This is directly related to the topic above, not sure why you made a new section. The last sentence is all that is needed out of what you pulled out here. Core insisted on the 2nd and 3rd sentences. The 2nd sentence makes no sense without the first, which I added along with the prefacing phrase to the 2nd sentence. . Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It can be reduced in size without it being a "brief summary," especially since some editors have been striving to make that "brief summary" so uninformative that it fails to contain a reference to the billions of dollars ($17 billion at last count) that is being sought by the Justice Department. This RfC was brought about because of the whitewashing of that very section, removing the reference to the billions sought in damages by the Justice Department. That's why we're here. Let's be clear on that. What we're seeing at work here is the same kind of overly aggressive slashing that resulted in the section on the punishment for the 1999 oil spill not mentioning BP's guilty plea. JYTdog, you sought aggressively to remove any mention of the billions in exposure from this section and now you remove efforts to take out extraneous detail[3]. I just can't figure out what you're doing here. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I just implemented what I wrote above, and Gandy's suggestion too. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and in the course of that you removed any mention of the fact that the Justice Department was claiming gross negligence and willful misconduct, while you included the docket number. I've fixed that. Why did you include the docket number, which is unencyclopedic and trivial, while not including a reference to the gross negligence/misconduct claim even though it is nowhere else referenced in that section? Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Jytdog Please read my post again because actually I didn't make any suggestions. I was looking for input. Again and again one finds the ol' Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive, eliminate the negative here and I want to avoid that. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's right. All you did was say that it could be "cut back some," and most certainly did not suggest that it be trimmed so as to exclude any mention of the Justice Department's contention that BP committed gross negligence. Without that sentence on what the DOJ is seeking, the sentence that follows (about quadruple damages) makes no sense. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, sorry I took it as a suggestion. I agreed with your "wondering." And i am NOT downplaying the negative. I did remove blow by blow which is too much detail for this article. I left the biggest thing, which is that BP is at risk for a finding of gross negligence - which it always was - and what the consequences of that finding would be. Core, it figures that you don't find the docket number important. If you want to do any actual research on this - you know, so you can actually know the details of what you are writing about - the docket number is essential for finding information. And as I wrote above, BP was ALWAYS at risk for a finding of gross negligence -- DOJ only filed those papers in response to BP's attempt to establish a judge-approved record that it was not. As stated in the reliable source that Core provided. All of that is entirely normal in litigation, where everybody maneuvers to maximize the chances of getting what they want, in a settlement or in court. Which I explained above already. Frustrating. You don't understand these things, in the big picture (i.e. how litigation goes) nor in the details of this specific litigation, yet you are so demanding that your expression of them be accepted as correct. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Very simple question: Why did you omit that the DOJ accused BP of gross negligence and willful misconduct, and that it was seeking the maximum penalties? Don't give me the "big picture." Give me an answer. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Third time. Will just copy/paste this time. "And as I wrote above, BP was ALWAYS at risk for a finding of gross negligence -- DOJ only filed those papers in response to BP's attempt to establish a judge-approved record that it was not. As stated in the reliable source that Core provided. All of that is entirely normal in litigation, where everybody maneuvers to maximize the chances of getting what they want, in a settlement or in court." The reueters article (originally cited via Guardian's publication of it, which is now dead) is the source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/gulf-oil-spill-2010-bp-gross-negligence_n_1856209.html Here is what it says: The new comments do not represent a change in U.S. officials' legal stance, said David Uhlmann, a University of Michigan professor and former environmental crimes prosecutor. "The Justice Department has consistently maintained that BP and Transocean were grossly negligent and engaged in willful misconduct in the events leading up to the Gulf oil spill," Uhlmann said in an email to Reuters. The department's latest filing "contains sharper rhetoric and a more indignant tone than the government has used in the past," he said. But the filing does exhibit exasperation on the part of government lawyers. They wrote that they decided to elaborate on BP's alleged gross negligence because they believed BP was trying to escape full responsibility. The Justice Department said they feared that, "if the United States were to remain silent, BP later may urge that its arguments had assumed the status of agreed facts." End of quote. BP has an obligation to its shareholders to make its liability as small as possible and that is what they are doing. The DOJ has a responsibility to get the max for the people, which is what they have always been doing. This is just legal maneuvering, blow by blow stuff. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that your position is that because all that stuff was in the source materials it didn't have to be mentioned in the Wiki article. That's what I thought, but I just wanted to be sure.

"Legal maneuvering, blow by blow stuff"? That's your opinion. We just have to reflect what's in the reliable sources and not what any particular Wiki editor thinks. I know, you're the expert, and the rest of us (particularly me) are morons, but that's how it has to be. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Core my understanding is that you based the "going for the max" content on the August DOJ filing. Is that accurate? Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not accurate. Nowhere did I insert anything about "going for the max." The sentence on "stiffest fines possible" is from an article from Feb 2013 at the commencement of the oil spill trial. It's easy to find the source for that sentence; just look at the footnote. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I see, so my understanding was wrong. Thanks for pointing me to the obvious thing I should have looked at. my bad. I can admit when I am wrong. And oh please pardon me for using a brief slang phrase to describe going for the "stiffest fines possible". The source is covering the immediately pre-trial posturing tactics that go on in every litigation. It is still an absurd detail to include. of course DOJ is going for the max. of course BP will try to minimize its liability. It is blow by blow stuff. Not important. It doesn't tell the reader anything that is not painfully obvious. Now if in reality the DOJ said "oh, we intend to treat BP with kid gloves in this trial" and BP said "Oh, in this trial we want to pay as much as possible to atone for the terrible thing we did" this would be Significant. But in the real world, if they saw eye to eye enough, there would have been a settlement already. You can leave this, it is not worth fighting about with you.Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be pretrial posturing if this was a traffic accident lawsuit. But this is more like the civil trial that followed the OJ Simpson prosecution, except that Simpson was acquitted while BP was convicted. BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from the very same acts that are the subject of the criminal trial. So no, I don't think that we should whitewash this particular aspect of the proceedings. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Already said I am not arguing with you on keeping this or not. And I am not whitewashing. It is not fair. Discussions about weight are honest differences of judgement. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about "weight." We're talking about necessary information being omitted from the article on specious grounds. Coretheapple (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

whether the detail is ncecessay is exactly about weight. Reasonable, good faith people can differ on weight. Please stop violating the AGF policy. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in your motives for your particular actions and I have no idea what they are. However, your removal of significant detail for reasons that make little sense, combined with your insults and your denigration of other editors as "environmentalists" and "ignorant," has not made it easy. Coretheapple (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not a bad thing to be an environmentalist. Not at all. And it is not bad to be ignorant, either. I am ignorant about a lot of things. These things only become issues if people who are environmentalists, or business people, are too singly focused and won't compromise and start POV-pushing on those issues. And ignorance is only a problem if judgments based on it are pushed too hard and there is no willingness to learn and change. And I do insist that the only thing that 'whitewash' means is POV-pushing, bad faith editing. I told you before that i completely agree that bad things need to be in the article and I pushed for the end to "quick delete" so there would be room to add it (remember?). But good faith disputes are possible over the level of detail. I'm repeating myself. Should stop. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. I don't want to repeat myself either. I just wanted to convey to you the message that while you may have a self-image as being a neutral arbiter, you tend at times to project a level of condescension that undercuts that image, and can tend to raise concerns among other editors as to whether you are contributing in good faith. Please take this as a friendly remark, nothing more. Just to be clear, I'm not at all offended by any of your remarks, including the one that I was moved to delete from my user talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article contain the Deepwater Horizon oil spill series navigation template?

Should the article include the {{Deepwater Horizon oil spill series}} navigation template (see below right), as in this version? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Include. The spill was a serious environmental disaster that had a significant financial and legal impact on BP. Several readers are likely to come here to find out about the spill, rather than about the company, and the navigation template will help them find their way to the relevant articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Include at top of page. There should be no question the template belongs here. As it is, the template exists on all related pages but this one, even though BP is listed first in the series. petrarchan47tc 21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose 1. We already have a navbox for Deepwater (shown below) and this is wholly duplicative, and also less comprehensive. 2. The said nav box is already included in this article. 3. This article is not part of a "series" of articles on a narrow topic, Deepwater is rather a small part of BP as a topic, and BP existed long before Deepwater. Side bar navigation devices are used for closely defined series of articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Include BP is included in the box as part of the series for a reason: even if totally whitewashed and turned into a reflection of the agenda of the BP p.r. department, the BP article is an intrinsic part of the Deepwater Horizon series. It contains information not available elsewhere on the impact of the disaster on the company, even if all other information reflecting negatively on the company is blotted out. Thus it would be difficult to conceive of a BP article that does not belong in that box. The box is there for a reason, and its placement at the top of the article is designed specifically to guide readers toward articles of interest. Coretheapple (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Include BP will forever be connected to the Deepwater disaster. Various people, from Presidents to paupers, have called DWH "the worst environmental catastrophe in history." You can.t hide from over 200 million gallons of oil spilling into the gulf. Millions of people (see:readers) were affected. Why would we even think of hiding a connection (BP to DWH) that every knowledgeable adult on the planet makes. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Include I had to take some time to think about this. My decision rests on the fact that the Gulf spill has been called the second greatest environmental disaster in American history and the oil company BP is largely responsible. So with that thinking it should be obvious that it belongs in the series. Gandydancer (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As per Rangoon11. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Include As the editor that created the template I can at least attest to the reason it was created and some small background about its use so far. The Deepwater Horizon article had already been split several times. The article had consensus to split a number of sections even further and reduce them in the main article to smaller summaries. One concern raised was that, with all the splits, the bulk of the information was now in separated articles and links may not be as obvious to some readers. I proposed using a template to organize all the articles under the scope of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into one "series" template as is done on a number of FA articles. The opinion of some is that using a template in this manner is not appropriate, but as I said I based this on an FA articles use of a similar box. See Mitt Romney. The navigation boxes are currently hidden and the casual reader may not ever click the two un-collapse buttons required to see it. The template is about a specific event and the related subjects. That event is the oil spill itself and all those related articles and provides "at a glance" information the reader can see quickly, where the reader may be expecting such information. I believe that readers are looking for this information and believe the "series" template to have encyclopedic value. I should note that I did not add the template here originally, when the template was created, because I figured a bold addition such as that would surely be reverted. After the Arturo controversy I went ahead and made the bold edit to add the template and it was indeed reverted. Any addition such as this on an article like this one requires a consensus. I am glad we are having the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am struggling to see the relevance of the Mitt Romney article. Having both a nav box and a side bar for exactly the same topic is a mess and sets a bad precedent for this project, particularly as those in favour primarily want it there purely to provide greater emphasis on Deepwater in this article rather than for any policy reason or to serve genuine navigational needs.

The nav box is also far more comprehenive and is the appropriate form of navigation feature. The possibility also exists to make the navbox more visible.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite the opposite of a mess. It's a finding aid. Look at Mitt Romney. Totally on-point. If anyone has a problem with the Romney template or this one, they can nominate it for deletion. The fact is that there is a gulf oil spill template, it relates to an immense and complex controversy, and every assistance we can render to our readers in navigating the articles is helpful. You know, Wikipedia is not exactly user friendly, and readers need all the help they can get. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Romney article is one of the 4 million or so WP articles. So what. It's not even a particularly good article, despite being FA, and it certainly didn't achieve FA because of a side bar. Having a nav box and a side bar for exactly the same topic is messy, duplicative and confusing.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

State of Palestine is another with top and bottom navboxes. So were the articles on the Second World War that I skimmed. If I was a betting man, I'd wager you a nice sum of money that just they are commonly found in large and complex subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And why do you keep saying "confusing"? That's like saying that having more than one dictionary on your desk is confusing. It makes no sense to say that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

particularly as those in favour primarily want it there purely to provide greater emphasis on Deepwater in this article rather than for any policy reason or to serve genuine navigational needs. Not so. Serving the readers needs is a primary concern of most quality editors. Also, most editors here can navigate articles like a Gran Prix racer. But thats not so for our readers. Giving our reader as much assistance as we can is logical. If its not a principle, it should be. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - 1) This is a pretty clear example of recentism. BP as a whole is a much more important and notable topic than the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Placing the template so prominently is clearly undue. It looks like some kind of scarlet letter. 2) This is obviously an other stuff exists argument, but can any shows me where the "Exxon Valdez template" is at the top of ExxonMobil? 3) One minor caveat here; I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to putting the template under the appropriate subsection (i.e. BP#Deepwater_Horizon_well_explosion_and_oil_spill). NickCT (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons given by Rangoon11 and NickCT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment A direct comparison between the Valdez spill and BP's gulf spill cannot be made for 3 reasons. 1) the Gulf spill lasted 87 days and was the equivalent of a Valdez-sized spill every three days during that period. 2) The massive devastation caused (during the clean-up) by the Valdez spill is actually the fault of BP, not Exxon]. 3) The Deepwater disaster caused a 30% drop in BP's value, which remains the case to this day. Exxon is the number one company in the world right now, at this point the company is obviously unscathed by the spill. If a company is all about stock value, and an event impacts that stock by 1/3, that event is pretty damn important to the story of the company as a whole. Were the trials long-past, and the stock value closer to pre-spill levels, I would agree the navbox could go under the DWH spill section rather than the Lede. petrarchan47tc 19:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@petrarchan47 - Not really. The two spills are quite comparable. True the BP spill involved about ten times as much oil, but oil dumped in the middle of the gulf is significantly less meaningful than oil dumped off the coast of Alaska. In total the economic impact of Valdez was probably over half of the impact Deepwater created. In terms of the company's stock value, give it 30 years and I'm pretty sure BP will be sitting as pretty as ExxonMobile is. ;-) NickCT (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but just as we want to avoid recentism, we have to be cognizant of reality, which is that the Deepwater Horizon spill continues to reverberate after three years, which is precisely why readers seek out articles on this topic and why this template is warranted as a reader guide. It was an exceptional event. The fact that it was recent just makes it more important, really. We don't have "Eruption of Mt. Vesuvius" templates. Coretheapple (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@ NickCT -- Except that "oil dumped in the middle of the gulf is significantly less meaningful than oil dumped off the coast of Alaska" is untrue. 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 whistleblowers with video evidence, are alleging a coverup of the true amount. petrarchan47tc 05:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@Coretheapple - I largely agree with what you're saying. But at the same time, I'm sure Valdez was "reverberating" about as much a Deepwater is three after the event.

@petrarchan47 - Mate, if you think me dumping 100 barrels of oil in the middle the Atlantic is going to be as environmentally harmful as me going to your local protected nature reserve and dumping it there, you've got to check your perspecitive on reality. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@NickCT -- Reality: "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 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Include - if this template doesn't belong in the BP article, then the template shouldn't exist at all (not an invitation to argue for the deletion of the template).  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that there is a more expansion template (which is already included in the article) of the subject that is the oilspill, one can say that the inclusion of the less expansive template is unnecessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• One or the other - not both Wikipedia does not need multiple inter-article links. If the only choics is up or down on the pretty template oppose inclusion if that is the choice offered. Personally, a link to other articles is good, multiple links is not so good. Collect (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The guideline that applies then is WP:OVERLINK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, "overlink" applies to those pesky internal links that assume the reader doesn't know simple words. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this clause of OVERLINK/REPEATLINK:

A term should be linked, generally, at most once in an article's lead, perhaps once again in the main article body, and perhaps once at first occurrence in each infobox, table, caption, and footnote.

Using the logic of REPEATLINK and extending it to templates, there is already a template which is far more expansive regarding the subject of the oil spill, as such the more expansive template should be used over the less expansive navigation box. That is my opinion, which others can differ from. This is an RfC after all, which is designed to get multiple opinions to see what the greater consensus is (especially from editors who were not previously engaged in editing an article).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Include -- a useful feature for readers, and in my mind that's a sufficient reason to include it. Funny how some editors want to make it more complicated than that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rangoon11, NickCT and RightCowLeftCoast although arguments presented by Amdasscientist are valid. I would find the inclusion of this template justified and being reader-friendly if the DWH section in this article would be just a "normal" mentioning of this event which is usually expected if more specific articles exist. Instead of this, we have undue weight section which could without problem serve as a separate article. Links to all relevant articles are already provided in that section. In these conditions including this template does not have any added value for readers but rather serves to point to BP. As for argument that if not included here the template should not exist at all, I disagree with this logic. The template is useful for the DWH articles, particularly after several splits of the main article (which is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and not BP). This was already explained by Amadscientist. At the same time the question is if the BP should be included in this template or not. All articles included in this template, except BP, deals with the DWH or with the different aspects of the spill as a main topic of the articles. The only exclusion id BP in which case the DWH or any of its aspects is not the major topic of the article. This article also does not cover any aspects of the spill which is not already included in or which does not belong the more specific article. Beagel (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose - This article is not part of a series on DWH, it concerns a topic which existed long before DWH. It looks like it is being shoe horned in here simply to give more prominence to DWH in this article.2.101.1.7 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Sock of User: Rangoon11 petrarchan47tc 21:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Move to Deepwater Horizon section. It's certainly appropriate for content contained in this article, but it is general practice to place navigation templates at the head of the associated content. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose (or move to DH section) - This is a tough call, but BP is a huge company, and it seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE to emphasize this one incident with a prominent sidebar at the top of the article. There are at least 3 better approaches: (1) use a footer navbox; (2) move the sidebar into the DH section; or (3) create a new DH category and put the article in that category. Bottom line: a colorful, large sidebar near the top offends both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. --Noleander (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Include. A helpful graphic. Does no harm, and I don't see any NPOV issue because of the prominence of the oil spill in BP's history. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Include the template. Much better idea than including the attack material in this article, subject of a separate survey below. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose - Why BP and none of the other organisations relevant to the spill (Halliburton, Transocean, Gulf Coast Restoration Organization, MMS, Anadarko etc)? Why have two navigation templates on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Why place the template in pride of place at the top of this article? The template and its placing in this article seems at best badly thought out and executed, and at worst simply another attempt to give even more prominence to Deepwater in this article. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11 Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support using this template, and any other features that make Wikipedia easier to use. Let's think of the 11-year-olds who are trying to find material for a school project, and make it easy for them. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no basis for including BP as part of the template on Deepwater Horizon unless we list every involved company. We definitely should not have this template at the top of the article. The current section on the spill is excessive and WP:UNDUE in the first place with this just magnifying the problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: not sure what other companies you are talking about. No other company is named on the template, nor does Halliburton oil spill redirect to BP oil spill. A Google search of Halliburton oil spill found this New York Times/Reuters article, The big oil services company set aside $637 million to settle some claims from the 2010 BP oil spill. Notice how WP:RS refers to the spill in question? To ask for this template to be placed at Halliburton is WP:UNDUE. petrarchan47tc 21:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons above, unless moved to the relevant section. To put simply, the article is not part of a series of articles on the Deepwater Horizon spill - rather, it is a related article about the involved company, but nevertheless an article that contains a whole lot more information beyond just BP's involvement in the spill. The template being near the top places undue emphasis on this particular event in the history of BP, and while it is probably the most notable thing that BP is known for, it is not the reason for BP's notability. Putting the template in the DH section would also allow us consolidate all the hatnotes on top of that section right now.  — daranz [ t ] 20:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Move to Deepwater Horizon section as per Vanisaac. It also looks like we're unlikely to get consensus on either inclusion at top or removal. ~KvnG 12:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Deepwater Horizon section

In the recent expansion of the Deepwater Horizon section, a lot of information has been added that provides only a negative view of the company, even where sources exist that show a more balanced view. In particular, it is concerning that studies are discussed in this article that have only provided initial findings or whose findings are contradicted by other research available. I have cited a few sources below, but there are quite a few more that I am more than willing to share.

Environmental impact

For the "Environmental impact" subsection, there is no mention of the increase in bacteria which broke down oil in the Gulf:

• "An explosion in oil-munching bacteria made fast work of BP oil spill, scientist says" The Times-Picayune, 8 April 2013
• "Study: Oil-Eating Bacteria Mitigated Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill" US News, 8 April 2013
• "Gulf of Mexico cleans itself naturally from Deepwater Horizon blowout" Ottawa Citizen, 8 April 2013

And recent research contradicts the research cited in the article that one-third of the oil remains in the Gulf:

• "UT experts: BP oil spill gone from deep ocean, but remains in marshes", Knox News, 28 April 2013

Regarding the impact of oil and dispersant on the food chain, samples of fish and crustaceans have been tested by the NOAA and FDA, and by state agencies:

• "Three Years After Gulf Oil Spill, Continued Testing Shows Gulf Seafood Safe to Eat Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 19 April 2013. Quote: "All findings were well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s levels of concern; 96 percent had no detectable levels of PAH or DOSS."
• "Consumers Can Be Confident in the Safety of Gulf Seafood FDA, March 2011. Quote: "In October, the agencies announced the results: every sample tested was far below the safety threshold established by FDA, and over 99 percent of the thousands of samples tested showed no detectable residue."

Independent context

(Added by Petrarchan47)

• Take It With a Grain of (Sea) Salt: Gulf Microbe Study Was Funded by BP:

“ Earlier this week, major news outlets ran with headlines about how a new microbe has been found eating up BP’s oil, and how microbes have degraded the hydrocarbons so efficiently that the vast plumes of oil in the Gulf are now undetectable. No joke. A bit skeptical of all the oil-is-mostly-gone claims [7], the day that microbe study was released we chose instead to focus on the Gulf’s thousands of dead fish. Lucky for us. MIT’s Science Tracker, in a post published yesterday, noted that the microbe study was conducted by U.C. Berkeley scientists through a grant with the Energy Biosciences Institute, and that the Energy Biosciences Institute is funded by none other than BP, through a $500 million, 10-year grant. (To the researchers' credit, they also mentioned the funding in their press releas — you just had to read about three-quarters of the way through.") ”

• Three Years After the Gulf Spill, Oil Is Still Washing Up in Louisiana

• 3 Years After Deepwater Horizon, Report Shows Devastating Impact of Dispersant Used in "Cleanup" related report Newsweek - these articles point out that BP lied about the safety of Corexit. This has not been added to the article.

“ What’s more, the combination of Corexit and crude oil also caused terrible damage to gulf wildlife and ecosystems, including an unprecedented number of seafood mutations; declines of up to 80 percent in seafood catch; and massive die-offs of the microscopic life-forms at the base of the marine food chain. ”

• A Deadly Paradox: Scientists Discover the Agent Used in Gulf Spill Cleanup Is Destroying Marine Life

• Dead dolphins and shrimp with no eyes found after BP clean-up

• Comment: The linked ProPublica blog source regarding the microbe study was published in 2010 and refers to research from U.C. Berkeley, whereas the links I provided above are from this month and report on more recent research by researchers at the University of Tennessee. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they both involve Terry Hazen, who has made presentations frequently along the same lines in the past, when he was at Berkeley, and whose work has been very generously funded by BP. He made the same point in 2010, and I found the following in a U of C Berkeley press release entitled "Study shows deepwater oil plume in Gulf degraded by microbes":

"Hazen, who has studied numerous oil-spill sites in the past, is the leader of the Ecology Department and Center for Environmental Biotechnology at Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division. He conducted this research under an existing grant he holds with the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) to study microbial enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. EBI is a partnership led by the University of California (UC) Berkeley and including Berkeley Lab and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP."[4] (boldface added)

So while I'm not entirely clear on his present funding, his (at least) past relationship with BP is clear and has received quite a bit of publicity. This does not disqualify his research from Wikipedia by any means, but his BP ties would have to be disclosed. This indicates why it behooves us to be careful, to not rush, to not accept sourcing suggestions and claims of "imbalance" from anyone (especially a party to litigation) at face value, to obtain countervailing expert opinions if at all possible, and to deal with these sources with care, if at all. Coretheapple (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to thank Petrarchan for her excellent work in providing an independent perspective that is greatly needed, and without which I do believe this article and Wikipedia readers would be dealt a severe disservice. As the above indicates, we need to examine all sources with appropriate skepticism and not make any changes/additions to the article based on the complaints of one party to litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Core. If you want to read about the Gulf oil spill, you have to look at the 2012 version of the article (before the ecology section was split away on Christmas Eve without any consensus, followed by cutting the article almost in half) - today Hazen is not mentioned in the main oil spill article (it is in the "oil spill response" which got 14 views today), but here is what I had recorded before the great pre-trial scrubbing: petrarchan47tc 06:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

“ Oil eating microbes In August (2010), a study of bacterial activity in the Gulf led by Terry Hazen of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, found a previously unknown bacterial species and reported in the journal Science that it was able to break down the oil without depleting oxygen levels. [247] Hazen’s interpretation had its skeptics. John Kessler, a chemical oceanographer at Texas A&M University says “what Hazen was measuring was a component of the entire hydrocarbon matrix,” which is a complex mix of literally thousands of different molecules. Although the few molecules described in the new paper in Science may well have degraded within weeks, Kessler says, “there are others that have much longer half-lives – on the order of years, sometimes even decades.”[248] He noted that the missing oil has been found in the form of large oil plumes, one the size of Manhattan, which do not appear to be biodegrading very fast.

By mid-September, research showed these microbes mainly digested natural gas spewing from the wellhead – propane, ethane, and butane – rather than oil, according to a subsequent study published in the journal Science.[250] David L. Valentine, a professor of microbial geochemistry at UC Santa Barbara, said that the oil-gobbling properties of the microbes had been grossly overstated.[251] Methane was the most abudant hydrocarbon released during the spill. It has been suggested that vigorous deepwater bacterial bloom respired nearly all the released methane within 4 months, leaving behind a residual microbial community containing methanotrophic bacteria.[252]

”

Thanks very much. Clearly this article and the Deepwater Horizon article have been subjected to grotesquely skewed editing over these past months, and need to be fleshed out to make them even marginally useful to readers. BP's involvement in the article serves primarily to highlight how inadequate this article is, how much it needs to be improved, and why BP's involvement in the editorial process of Wikipedia is problematic and represents a significant challenge for editors on this page. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

you do realize that aurturo doesn't edit the article, which goes above and beyond WP:COI... so quit complaining about it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Accurately stated, Aturo doesn't "directly" edit the article. Myself and other editors have acted as his proxy. Coretheapple is right when he states that BP's presence at the article is a challenge. The challenge is to make sure that the article is ABOUT BP, not BY BP. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Remaining oil

• One-third of the oil may be mixed with seafloor sediments

• 'Dirty Blizzard' in Gulf of Mexico May Account for Missing Deepwater Horizon Oil

“ At the 2013 "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference", oceanographer David Hollander presented data that showed as much as one-third of the oil released during the spill may still be in the gulf. Researchers described a phenomenon called "dirty blizzard": oil caused deep ocean sediments to clumped together, falling to the ocean floor at ten times the normal rate in an "underwater rain of oily particles". The result could have long-term effects on both humans and marine life. Commercially-fished species feed on sediment creatures, meaning oil could remain in the food chain for generations. CBS ”

• Dirty Blizzard troubles scientists studying Gulf oil spill

“ Soon after the BP gusher was plugged last summer, the oil seemed to vanish as if entirely eaten by bacteria, evaporated by hot sun and sea breezes or swept to far reaches of the Gulf of Mexico. But a two-day scientific gathering at the University of Central Florida last week unveiled several findings that crude oil still troubles the Gulf to a surprising extent. "Just because you can't see it or touch it doesn't mean it isn't there," said Benjamin Flower, University of South Florida oceanographer. In the wake of the three-month, 5 billion-barrel blowout, Flower and a team of USF and Eckerd College scientists retrieved dozens of samples from the Gulf's bottom. What they found over several months was that the seafloor, from south of Panama City to south of Alabama, had become coated in many places with a dark muck. ”

petrarchan47tc 23:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Many more references are listed here

• Comment: The information about the oil on the seafloor and the "dirty blizzard" are currently included in the "Environmental impact" section, so the inclusion of these sources is redundant here. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Food Safety

• FDA Allowed Unsafe Seafood Onto Market After BP Oil Spill Disaster

• Study: Gulf Seafood Unsafe for Pregnant Women and Children? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279457/

• Scientist Questions Safety of Gulf Seafood:

“ [Subra] is concerned about cancer-causing chemicals called Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, or PAH's. And after the oil spill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised the allowable amounts of those chemicals in the seafood they test. And FDA established these levels specifically for the spill and in some cases they are ten times higher than the levels that were already on the books," said Subra. ”

• FDA's standards for Gulf seafood may be lower than those in past oil spills

• Study: Gulf Seafood Unsafe for Pregnant Women and Children?

• Review of following 2 studies

“ A study by two of the most tenacious non-government scientists reveals that FDA Gulf seafood "safe levels" allowed 100 to 10,000 times more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in seafood than what is safe. The overarching issue the report addresses is the failure of the FDA's risk assessment to protect those most vulnerable to the effects of these chemicals, such as young children, pregnant women and high-consumption seafood eaters. ”

• Seafood Contamination after the BP Gulf Oil Spill and Risks to Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment

• FDA Risk Assessment of Seafood Contamination after the BP Oil Spill: Rotkin-Ellman and Solomon Respond petrarchan47tc 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Related to Coretheapple's point below about being careful in using scientific studies, it's important to note as best I can tell that the sources above all relate to one study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, critiquing the FDA's risk assessment of seafood. (I didn't see a second study mentioned in third source linked, perhaps there's some confusion in that the NRDC study was carried out by two scientists per the quote Petrarchan highlighted.) Per the Time article linked above, the results of this study contradict both the FDA and other agencies' findings:

Quote: "The FDA said most of the seafood it sampled after the spill had no detectable trace of oil. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals calculated that every day for five years the average person could eat 1,575 jumbo shrimp or 130 oysters without health concerns."

The current details in the article only tell one side of the story, but as I have shown above, there are sources that justify giving a more rounded perspective on this issue, assuming editors think this level of detail deserves to be in the article at all. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying that you want a "rounded perspective" and that the current article tells only "one side of the story," but at this point the detail is so bare bones that it barely even touches on he Gulf situation at all. There is not one word about food safety. In what way is that unbalanced on the subject of food safety? The article says that the oil and dispersant entered into the food chain. Are you saying that it didn't? When you make an accusation of bias in the article, and then propose a raft of sources, I think that it would give your statements considerably more credibility if you presented some evidence of imbalance and did not just make conclusory allegations. Doing so is not constructive. Coretheapple (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Economic impact

The section on "Economic impact" relies on anecdotal evidence about the impact on catch size, which goes against official reporting about the Gulf seafood industry. See:

• "U.S. seafood landings reach 14-year high in 2011", NOAA, 19 September 2012. Quote: "Catches throughout the Gulf of Mexico rebounded in 2011 to the highest volume since 1999, following a curtailed 2010 season due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill."

Additionally, there is no note of the recovery in the tourism economy. See for example:

• "Two years after BP oil spill, tourists back in Gulf Coast" Reuters, 27 May 2012.

While this section mentions $42 billion in charges to BP, it fails to give much detail including the compensation provided by BP to support economic recovery, which totals $10.7 billion paid as of March 31, 2013. Additionally, the section does not mention the efforts by BP to clean up the spill, including the $14 billion spent on cleanup operations (see the Congressional Research Service report from January 2013). If there is to be such a high level of detail on the Deepwater Horizon spill, BP's response should be noted. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if we had someone monitoring this page from the environmental movement, who could correct errors that favor BP? Or sources that don't further the BP narrative? Or can point out gaps and omissions in the article, the absence of which tilts the POV of this article on behalf of BP? We can be reasonably certain that any adverse fact that is unflattering to BP will be countered on this page, and that those efforts will be treated with the utmost deference by editors here. But we have no countervailing force and that is a continual issue that has already had a deleterious effect on the article, tilting it far in favor of BP and allowing a serious error to go uncorrected, tilting the POV of the "Alternative Energy" area, for a period of ten months.

As far as the above suggestions are concerned, I recommend that we keep the principle of "no deadline" in mind, and evaluate them in conjunction with other source material that has also not been used, such as the recent Newsweek article, "What BP Doesn’t Want You to Know About the 2010 Gulf Spill". Keep in mind, too, that virtually all of the additions to the Gulf Oil section was taken from other Wiki articles, which are a wealth of material that can be used for this article if that is necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Wouldn't it be nice if we had someone monitoring this page from the environmental movement" - yes! It's a heck of a lot to ask of us! petrarchan47tc 21:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be an excellent idea if these representatives of environmental movements will be the subject of the same rules as other COI editors, inter alia declaring COI at the user page as also here at the talk page, including the Connected contributor template, restricting editing to the talk page, and their requests/proposals are considered in depth as requests/proposals of any other COI editor. Beagel (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the idea. Coretheapple (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to weigh in here, if you have concerns about how a response to BP's Wikipedia engagement team is being addressed. petrarchan47tc 19:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "BP's Wikipedia engagement team"? I knew one person, Arturo, who has been engaged here on behalf of BP. One person is not a team, so you probably mean something else. Beagel (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In a response to media following the Violet Blue article, BP acknowledged what they referred to as their "BP Wikipedia engagement team" operating on Wikipedia. Ask Arturo for more information, that's all I have. petrarchan47tc 02:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan, your comment here was brought to my attention by Beagel and I would like to again explain that there is no "BP Wikipedia engagement team". I have previously explained on the Talk page here, but that comment is now in archives and perhaps you did not see it. For you and any other editors who are confused on this matter, The Huffington Post incorrectly stated that there is a BP Wikipedia engagement team, based on their interpretation of a statement from BP. The full statement can be seen here and you can see that there is no mention of a "Wikipedia engagement team". Once again, I am the only representative of BP here. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but shouldn't your complaint be directed at the Huffington Post? If a retraction is in order, it should be obtained. Then it will be up to that organization to either stand by its story or issue an appropriate correction. The article does not state that it was interpreting the statement in question. Coretheapple (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

While the Huffington Post story was far more accurate than many others, we did express our concerns to them on a number of issues with their story to no avail. However, our statement was a written statement so it is not in dispute. That written statement was quoted in full by the Nola.com story which I link to in the archive discussion. The Huff Post just carelessly paraphrased it. I would not expect anyone to know this without me pointing it out, but I have done so in the past, and I am doing so again. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

But you see, that's my point. You raised the "team" issue with them and they did not correct it, and you are making an assumption about where this "team" phrase comes from that is not evident in the article. Perhaps they were misquoting your statement, but perhaps not. It's not evident from looking at that article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope the issue is cleared now and hopefully these allegations about undercover BP team editing here would stop. Beagel (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

These aren't allegations of anything "undercover" - don't put words in my mouth. Do you not have Google in your country? Do a search for the phrase in question. Please stop harassing volunteer editors. petrarchan47tc 21:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not refer only to your comment but also this comment by other user at this talk page and a number of similar comments at the different talk pages by editors representing certain POV. I agree that you did not used the word 'undercover' - that was logical conclusion of these comments. If you say that there is a "BP's Wikipedia engagement team" but at the same time only Arturo has disclose his COI, there is only two options: other "team members" edit undercover (that mean no disclosing their link to BP) or there is no such team. However, there is no proof presented and Arturo has provided his clarification, so could we please stop making that kind of allegations. Beagel (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As indicated above, the "team" phraseology was mentioned in a Huffington Post article which it has declined to retract despite being asked to do so by BP. Therefore I think that whole "team" issue is between BP and Huffington Post and that it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to act as nannies here, denouncing other Wikipedia editors who utilize that phrase. Frankly it strikes me as not being a very serious issue, considering that BP is represented on this page in a corporate capacity. Hence there is a team aspect whether or not the Huffington Post article is correct. Personally I prefer to simply say that BP is represented here, avoiding reference to individual editors entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK the purpose of a talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. If any editor thinks that there are editors who have not disclosed their COI properly, it should be reported at the relevant discussion/notice board. Making allegations about opponents without providing proofs (other than misinterpretation of poorly written media which is clarified now) is poisoning to the editing atmosphere and one could say it is even disruptive to Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Beagel. Let me tell you what is poisoning the atmosphere here and what is disruptive to Wikipedia (wherever it happens) but especially here. You see us (me and petra and core and gandy and maybe 3 or 4 others) as opponents. That is why you have a problem with us. You don't see us for what we are--collaborators. We are not your opponents or Arturos opponents or Martins opponents. I may not agree with 80% of what you do but I dont see you as my opponent. I see you as a fellow collaborator trying to whittle this article into something we can ALL be proud of. Maybe I get confused about who or what preceeded the most recent edit war and who was involved prior to April 28th (or was it the 29th?) and why it resulted in one of the two (or is it 3?) RfC's. But I'm not confused about one thing-- I am a collaborator here. I am not anyones opponent. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Beagle, you have extrapolated from my comments things I haven't said. Why is that? No one should be blamed for quoting directly from what appeared to be a BP official. According to WP:RS, the Huffington Post is a better source than any comments made on this talk page by insiders. As for comments about non-declared COI editors at this page, I have made none. Again, you imply that I have said (or meant) things I haven't and then berate me with claims of poisoning to the editing atmosphere ... disruptive to Wikipedia, which is itself disruptive and poisonous to the atmosphere. petrarchan47tc 06:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that editors need to desist from causing a drama over this, as was the case here when an editor went specifically to the BP rep here to make trouble over this. Look, "engagement team" is in a reliable source. BP tried to get HuffPo to retract that and failed. BP is now claiming that we need to side with it anyway, not in the article but in our own talk pages and internal deliberations. The fact that BP is here is bad enough, but trying to get BP involved in intra-editor discussions, making a mountain out of a molehill, is making a bad situation even worse. Making a fuss over an extremely minor issue is disruptive and has to end. Coretheapple (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@Buster7. Please let me clarify. By opponent I meant a person who does not share the certain POV of other editor. I agree that you are fellow collaborator and so I am. However, there are different comments, where editors say that the sides do exist or describing editing in Wikipedia as a battle, so it seems that this concept does not have an unanimous support. But I hope we really could cooperate to improve this article. This is hard but not impossible.

@Petrarchan47 and Coretheapple. Notwithstanding what Huffington Post says, Arturo has explained this. I would just repeat what I said: If any editor thinks that there are editors who have not disclosed their COI properly, it should be reported at the relevant discussion/notice board. I would like also say that making allegations about fellow collaborator without providing proofs is not "an extremely minor issue" but harassment and disruptive behaviour. Also, asking clarification from the editor who was specifically named by other editor (quote: Ask Arturo for more information) is not "causing a drama" and "make trouble over this", but is a request for clarification. To end this issue, could we, please, stop making accusations and respect our fellow editors? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. I personally don't talk about "teams" or whatever as I feel that it isn't necessary. BP has an acknowledged presence here, period. For what it's worth, I always have assumed that "Wikipedia engagement team" refers not to hidden cadres of editors but of a team of people at BP, not necessarily editors here. As for its precise meaning, you'd have to write the Huffington Post. Since it isn't being used in the article I'm not sure why we're discussing it here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree. I am also not sure why we are discussing it here or why comments about "engagement team" or "more than just Arturo are getting paid" were being added at this talk page in the first place. As I said, if anybody think that that kind of things are hapepning here, it should be reported at the relevant noticeboard. But as these comments were being made, it needed clarification. As the issue is clarified right now, I assume that there is no such kind of allegations anymore and we could end this discussion. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Huffington Post article does not have "BP's Wikipedia engagement team" in quotation marks. I am not assuming anything about where they got it from. I know they are mischaracterizing that written statement because I work in the Communications department that provided it to them. Numerous other sources like Nola.com who were provided the same statement did not engage in the same mischaracterization. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood. You know, since it is not contemplated that we use the "team" language in the article space, it might be best in the future to deal with this in dialogue with the individual editors. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Another useful source: Corexit: Deadly Dispersant in Oil Spill Cleanup, Government Accountability Project, April 2013. It may not be a bad idea if editors not paid by the company would list other sources that they are aware of, which can then be used in this article and the other articles on this subject. Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, I have started this thread for the purpose of discussing points that I think should be included in the article, and if you'd like to discuss other sources or other topics, please edit the article as you may or begin a different thread. If you're willing to help address the issues I have raised, that would be excellent. If you're not interested, that's fine too. I am willing to work with anyone who is willing to help me address the omissions I've raised here. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not about addressing your issues. This is about improving the article, which may or may not involve addressing your issues or making you happy with the article. Also I certainly hope you are not suggesting that this thread is only to discuss what you want it to discuss. That's not how talk pages work, and people who commence discussions do not dictate how they are to be conducted. Coretheapple (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, I agree that making me happy is not the goal of this article or this discussion. However, I have pointed out some specific problems with the Deepwater Horizon section, and I believe these points deserve a fair hearing. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but the editors need to make a determination if there are problems with what is there now. Please be mindful of the fact that the additions to that section were directly taken from material existing elsewhere on Wikipedia, inluding the highly trafficked Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill article. You're acting as if they plopped down from the heavens. They have been in Wikipedia for years. I assume that BP, given its close monitoring of Wikipedia, is cognizant of those other articles. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors also need to be mindful of the fact that BP is a defendant in litigation concerning its role in the Gulf oil spill. As I have previously indicated, I do not think that it is right for one party to this litigation, the defendant, to be quite so active and influential in an article that relates directly to the issues of the litigation, with so many billions at stake. This goes well beyond a party to a suit complaining about content. We're talking about intimate involvement here, as a participant, a degree of access to the Wikipedia editorial process that the other parties to the suit do not have, either through choice, ethical qualms, or ignorance. I think that we owe it to the reader to be mindful of this and vigilant to be sure that the sourcing is determined for the purpose of making the article better, not pleasing or assuaging the feelings of one party to the litigation or the other. Coretheapple (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There was mention of BP's compensation in the August 2012 version, I put it there. I wonder how it was removed. petrarchan47tc 23:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Tourism

The tourism should be noted along with mention of BP's efforts to promote it:

“ "Tourism doesn't happen on its own, it takes marketing dollars, particularly if you're battling an image crisis like the oil spill," New Orleans convention and visitor bureau spokeswoman Kelly Schultz said.

A chunk of the $15 million BP initially sent to Louisiana in June 2010 funded emergency advertising to quell misperceptions that New Orleans was laden with oil, and Schultz says it worked. Hotel tax collections in the third quarter of 2010 jumped 33 percent from year-earlier figures Since then, BP has sent more than $150 million to Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi to aid tourism, and will shell out close to $30 million more by the end of 2013. Another $82 million was committed for seafood marketing and testing, BP spokesman Craig Savage said.

”

petrarchan47tc 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

These are great sources. Thanks very much. (I was referring to Petrarchan's list of sources under "independent context." By the way, I was going through one of the articles quoted by the BP editor and I found something that is worth underlining. It's found in this article[5], and it says as follows, concerning scientific studies published concerning the environmental impact of the Gulf oil spill: "As with similar research results released in peer-reviewed scientific magazines or at other scientific meetings, the results of the two researchers represent only small slices of the wide body of research being conducted into the effects of the oil spill. Much of that research is being done to support the ongoing lawsuits by the federal government against BP and other parties believed responsible for the spill, and many of the results of that research are still being withheld from the public until the legal battle is over." (boldface added to original)

Those are important points, I think that it's important, in using scientific studies quoted in the media, that we make an effort to actually get hold of the studies in question and ascertain their funding, which is ordinarily disclosed within the body of the study. Also, as indicated in that article, we want to use with caution scientific studies that are outside the scientific consensus or represent a minority point of view. I have access to scientific studies, and can obtain them as required. If a study was financed by either the petroleum industry or critics thereof, or parties to lawsuits, we need to be cognizant of that and say so. There may be studies that summarize the existing literature, and if so we can obtain them or I can if it is behind a paywall. If there is a particular search logic that I should use, please let me know. P.S. I wasn't addressing those comments to you, P., as I know you're already aware of this, but making a general observation, really more for my own benefit as anyone else's. Coretheapple (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I do wish a knowledgeable environmentalist was available to answer your question about search terms. I'm not sure at the moment. Another point, though, about available studies is discussed here: BP’s Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative issued 19 grants for about $20 million last year. Only two were for environmental toxicology projects.petrarchan47tc 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A related comment: I remember reading that BP had bought out quite a few university science departments to do their own research, but put a three year gag order on the researchers supposedly with the intent to have them on their own payroll rather than that of their opposition in the upcoming lawsuit. Gandydancer (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well-documented, that. I think it is covered in the recent slew of 3rd-year anniversary articles, I'll dig it up at some point (I've got about 30 new articles filed away). petrarchan47tc 19:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is context yet to be added: BP buys up Gulf scientists for legal defense, roiling academic community. Also related, from Scientific American ""Free and open access to scientific information concerning oil spills is not a given," noted the authors of a Congressional Research Service report (pdf) on the oil spill's ecosystem impacts last October. For example, dead dolphins that washed ashore earlier this spring have been seized by the U.S. government. "NOAA and other federal agencies came into every lab with a dolphin in the fridge and confiscated it," says Casi Callaway, baykeeper for Mobile Bay in Alabama. "All data, all studies, all work on dolphins was sequestered." petrarchan47tc 20:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"The contract makes it clear that BP is seeking to add scientists to the legal team that will fight the Natural Resources Damage Assessment lawsuit that the federal government will bring as a result of the Gulf oil spill." That's the lawsuit that is underway now. This underlines the necessity to be cautious in scrutinizing sources, and to ascertain their funding. We don't want to be manipulated by anybody's p.r. campaign. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, it sounds like we are in agreement that the recovery in tourism should be mentioned in the "Economic impact" section. Would you like to propose a sentence to add to this section? Arturo at BP (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Reuters article in Huffington Post indicates a mixed picture, and more than one sentence may be warranted. Also, obviously, it is not necessary for Petrarchan or any uninvolved editor to "propose" anything. It just can be added to the article directly, along with material from other sources that might be utilized. Coretheapple (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again, Core. I must admit, the to-do list was weighing on me a bit. petrarchan47tc 19:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but I won't be able to get around to it for awhile. petrarchan47tc 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Civil litigation underway

I just wanted to remind editors, in dealing with sourcing issues and in particular the sourcing requested by BP itself at the top of this section, that BP is a defendant in litigation concerning its role in the Gulf oil spill in which billions of dollars is at stake. The issue of damages, if any, will be determined by test jury trials. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#Civil_proceedings Given the sensitivity of this matter, we need to be extremely cautious in dealing with efforts to influence the content and POV of the Deepwater Horizon section by parties to this litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Specific issues to address

Elsewhere on this Talk page, Coretheapple has asked that I explain the errors or omissions in the Deepwater Horizon section that have led to it presenting just one side, so here are the main issues I see:

• The section does not discuss BP's cleanup efforts except in passing in "Economic impact", and nothing at all is said about the $14 billion spent on cleanup operations.

• There is no mention in the section that BP has funded independent research on the impacts of the spill in the Gulf. As Petrarchan mentions above, BP has committed $500 million to funding independent scientific study through the Gulf of Mexico Research Institute. To be clear: BP has no influence on the studies funded through the Institute, as the GoMRI website explains. Also, I've seen that arguments have been made about taking into account whether studies were funded by BP, I think that this is an over complication given that BP has no input into or control over the findings of that research.

• Although the "Environmental impact" section notes that research is ongoing, it then devotes most of the second paragraph to research findings relating to one specific hypothesis. There is no mention that other studies have found contradictory data, for example the UT study I linked above. Also, federally funded studies have found that bacteria was able to consume spilled oil, including a 2012 study published by the National Academy of Science, reported on by the Wall Street Journal, CBC News and a study also in 2012, funded by a number of organizations including the National Science Foundation, NOAA and Gulf of Mexico Research Institute reported in Live Science.
• The "dirty blizzard" described in the "Environmental impact" is also contradicted by findings of scientists forming the Operational Science Advisory Team (comprised of scientists from governmental agencies as well as BP) found that no oil or sediments exceeding the benchmark for aquatic life that were consistent with MC252 oil either offshore or in the deepwater Gulf. See the OSAT-1 final report.

• The "Environmental impact" section repeats information about tar balls continuing to wash up. This is mentioned as happening 2 years after the spill in the second sentence of the second paragraph, then in the final sentence of that paragraph it is mentioned as occurring 3 years after the spill.

• In the "Economic impact" section anecdotal information is included, particularly the sentence "One Mississippi shrimper who was interviewed said he used to get 8,000 pounds of shrimp in four days, but this year he got only 800 pounds a week." However, data from the NOAA in 2012 indicating a recovery in catch size to the highest volume since 1999 is not included. Given that other factors such as flooding or changes in water temperature can affect fishing in one particular location (see this article from The Times-Picayune), so it is important to consider the whole industry rather than highlighting individual examples such as the quoted shrimp fisherman. Additionally, it is problematic to rely on anecdotes like this as there are plenty of those offering a different perspective including this Houma Today article and this WLOX 13 article both on the rebound in charter fishing, raising the question of why the negative shrimp fisherman quote should be included but not a quote from a charter fisherman whose business has improved.

• Also in the "Economic impact" section, I think the second sentence is a nod to BP's efforts toward Gulf restoration but it is poorly worded and unclear.

• Additionally, as discussed above where Petrarchan indicated they may make an addition: the recovery across much of the tourism industry and BP's efforts to assist with that are also not currently included.

• I bring up the "Health impacts" section last as I feel that this is potentially a question of weight and judgement that may be best for volunteer editors to review carefully and consider, but: the list of health effects is based on self-reporting, rather than findings of a study and there is no official data given here to support this information. (There's also a small typo at the beginning of this section "csurvey".)

• Another point worth considering regarding the "Health effects" section is that the EPA monitored air quality following the spill and the CDC reviewed their results, both finding that air quality was generally normal for the Gulf coastline and that the low levels of pollutants in the air were not expected to cause long-term harm. See the details on the EPA website, which states "The levels of some of the pollutants that have been reported to date may cause temporary eye, nose, or throat irritation, nausea, or headaches, but are not thought to be high enough to cause long-term harm."

• Finally, I mentioned the findings from the FDA and other agencies regarding seafood, this is relevant to include regarding potential health effects that seafood testing showed that 96 - 99% had no detectable oil or dispersant residue.

This hopefully demonstrates why this section is one-sided at the moment and provides a basis for editors to look at making updates as they feel are needed. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Dirty Blizzard findings from 2013 cannot be refuted by a government report from 2010, Arturo. petrarchan47tc

Newer findings:

"In April 2012, Louisiana State University’s Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences was finding lesions and grotesque deformities in sea life—including millions of shrimp with no eyes and crabs without eyes or claws—possibly linked to oil and dispersants.

■ Toxins at 3000 times the acceptable level in gulf seafood

■ Dead dolphins in record numbers, killed by weakened immune systems and brucella bacteria

■ Blue crab populations wiped out

■ Oyster beds not reproducing

■ 60% of coral on platforms killed

■ Toxicity to rotifers, base of food chain, is 52 times higher with Corexit"

And from Scientific American Remember the BP Oil Spill? Malformed Fish Do-A new study shows that sediments fouled with oil from the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico caused problems for fish embryos.

With recent, independent findings in mind, the section seems out-of-date and whitewashed in favor of BP. Indeed, a real disservice to readers. petrarchan47tc 00:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Petrar, it may be helpful to link to the science and not press releases.

• Chase, D. A., Edwards, D. S., Qin, G., Wages, M. R., Willming, M. M., Anderson, T. A., et al. (2013). Bioaccumulation of petroleum hydrocarbons in fiddler crabs (Uca minax) exposed to weathered MC-252 crude oil alone and in mixture with an oil dispersant. Science of The Total Environment, 444, 121–127.
• Goodbody-Gringley, G., Wetzel, D. L., Gillon, D., Pulster, E., Miller, A., Ritchie, K. B., et al. (2013). Toxicity of Deepwater Horizon Source Oil and the Chemical Dispersant, Corexit® 9500, to Coral Larvae. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e45574.
• Rico-Martínez, R., Snell, T. W., & Shearer, T. L. (2013). Synergistic toxicity of Macondo crude oil and dispersant Corexit 9500A® to the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera). Environmental Pollution, 173, 5–10.

Et cetera. Many good papers all saying that the dispersant will have long-term negative effects. On the other hand, these papers affirm that the oil itself has been largely cleaned up. I appreciate Arturo's editing here and if we supply him with good references maybe he can respond with equally good sources of his own. Shii (tock) 13:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, it is important to note that the CBS News report about the 2013 findings and the Science Daily report you link here are very clear that this is an initial presentation of evidence to support a hypothesis. (Also, I did not say "refuted", I said "contradicted", I was pointing out that other research has had different findings on this matter.) Notice that the Science Daily report (which is taken from an FSU press release) says the dirty blizzard "may account" for missing oil, not that it does. The Take Part story (which seems to be an activist source) says deformities are "possibly linked" to oil and dispersants, not that they are. Additionally, editors may be interested to read this scientific paper pointing out methodology issues with the research that found toxicity to be 52 times higher with Corexit. Lastly, I am not sure what you mean by "out-of-date and whitewashed" when it was written within the past few weeks by Coretheapple, whose views on this article you seem to share.

It doesn't matter who added the part, it comes from the BP oil spill article, which has been whitewashed and is very out of date. Unlike "CREWE", independent Wikipedia editors don't team up and agree mindlessly with each other, we are here to build an informative encyclopedia. The "activist source" is no less qualified than the BP website or the US Government for discussion about article content. BP's active presence on this page is calling for an "activist" presence, and I am looking into that presently. petrarchan47tc 20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Shii, thanks for joining this discussion and I take your point about sources: I have mainly focused on news items but if you feel it would be helpful, I can certainly link to scientific reports in future. Also, I am not arguing for the removal of information derived from credible sources on long-term impacts from the oil and dispersants, but am rather making the point that information on the DWH oil spill currently included in this section is distorted and one-sided. As I have detailed above, the section currently provides only one view. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

From 2010, The federal government — which has had to repeatedly revise its estimate about how much oil has gushed into the gulf from the Deepwater Horizon disaster — announced Wednesday that "the vast majority" of the oil appears to be gone.

Most of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil that spewed out of the collapsed well has "either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed," according to a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Interior Department.

Independent scientists scoffed at the report's findings. Several pointed out that the report estimates that a quarter of the oil is still floating in the gulf or contaminating beaches and marshes, while another quarter was dispersed, either with chemicals or naturally. In other words, half of it, or about 2.5 million barrels, is still unrecovered.'

Primary sources can be found, but we don't rely on them exclusively, as everyone here knows (per WP:RS). The government is not necessarily a reliable source at this point, with regard to Gulf spill science. According to independent scientists, government agencies like NOAA and the EPA have been (per EPA's Hugh Kaufman) "sockpuppets for BP" in the post-spill response. I've brought evidence of this to this talk page in the past. Therefore, we need to consider what independent scientists are saying, whether it's printed in Tampa Bay Times or any other RS. (We use BP press releases in this article all the time.) The government has displayed a clear POV with regard to the spill, that context needs to be considered when looking at the science, imo. petrarchan47tc 19:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, other editors may have a better understanding of the policy on sourcing than me, but it seems counterintuitive to say that governmental agencies' official reports are not reliable, even if they might be primary sources. On your points raised above, I have no idea what you mean regarding CREWE. I know of the group through a post to my user Talk page, but I am not a member. Also, I feel I should point out that I have had no involvement at the main DWH oil spill article to date, and so as far as I am aware any discussion of content in that article was by independent volunteer editors. Finally, I noted that one of the articles you linked was an activist source so that editors were aware of its POV, not to suggest it is not a valid source for use in the article. Arturo at BP (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Arturo, I did not say nor imply that you were a member of CREWE. Silver Seren is one of the big supporters of that group, which supports paid editors. And you reach out to him for support, so whether you are a 'member' or not, BP does indeed use their services. But that was not my point, I was replying to your insinuation that because Core made the edits, I should not find fault with them, ie, because we are a team or somehow aligned. My point was that CREWE and others who (like many Republicans who signed an oath to never raise taxes no matter what) have agreed to support paid editors of Wikipedia and work as a team, differ from independent thinkers/editors who will naturally diverge from each other regularly. petrarchan47tc 18:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• 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)
• 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. What are we having here, two surveys on the same subject? 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)

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)
• 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[6] 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)

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)

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)

Archiving time (again)

Minor issue. Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The talk page has currently 27 open discussions and the size is 370+k. This is to much keep the talk page navigable and manageable. Maybe we could reduce the archiving time to 14 days? Two weeks without any comment seems to long enough time taking account the current active watching and editing of this page. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC) No, 14 days is far too short. Given the complexity of the subject matter and the tendency of the same subject coming up over and over again,30 days is more appropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Right now it seems to be 20 days. That's really not long enough. Coretheapple (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC) I was just about to change the bot to 10 days when I noticed this. I agree that the page is getting hard to navigate. If someone hasn't commented on a thread for 10 days on such a busy talk page it's probably safe to assume that the discussion is over. If someone raises the same issue again, they could be directed to the archive to review the discussion, and if they continue it, the old discussion can be linked from the new one. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Makes sense to me Shii (tock) 06:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Can't say I feel strongly about it. Personally I like a nice long retention time, but given the circumstances, I reckon that the majority of people interested enough to participate would look in at far shorter intervals than that, so not much harm should be done by shortening the hold time to 10 days. JonRichfield (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC) I just felt that given the repetitive nature of the disputes here, having a longer retention time would be more useful. Also we have RfCs that keep getting prematurely archived before 30 days. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC) If there is majority support for 10 days, I accept this instead of 14 days proposed myself. Concerning archiving RfCs, this issue was resolved by user:Wwoods, so all RfCs stays at least for 30 days. Beagel (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC) I can support 10 days. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Did I see where someone changed it to 15 days? The only problem I have with 15 days is that "we achieve consensus on 10 days and then it gets changed to 15 WITHOUT discussion" .We get consensus on a little issue and it gets ignored within days. It may seem trivial, but the small agreements lead to bigger ones. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC) No, the archiving time is still 10 days. What was changed to 15 was the archive number as there seems to be some problem with bot and archive 14. Hopefully this will fix the problem. Beagel (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Beagle, for straightning me out. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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".

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."

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)

References

Alternative energy section and Antonia Juhasz

Separately to the above request, I wanted to bring two things to editors' attention regarding the "Alternative energy" section. First of all, recent edits to the section have perhaps gone too far in downplaying BP's investment in alternative energy (nearly $8 billion since 2005) prior to the recent wind sale announcement. Comparing BP's Alternative Energy business with other alternative energy companies you can see how notable and large this business is in relative terms: last year BP Biofuels was ranked 12 in BioFuel Digest's list of hottest biofuel companies and BP was ranked 6th for market share and 5th overall for new wind energy installation in the US last year, this ranking is higher than many companies that specifically focus on wind energy. This is useful context for the multiple criticisms of "greenwashing" in the article that may be a bit much. I also think it is important when judging the size of BP's AE business before the wind sale to look at how it ranked in comparison to competitors in the industry and not just to the size of its other businesses.

Additionally, while I was re-reading this section I noticed that the description of Antonia Juhasz reads "oil and energy analyst", which does not seem NPOV to me, given that her writing focus is on criticism of the oil industry (her books are titled The True Cost of Chevron, The Tyranny of Oil etc). I was curious and looked at her Wikipedia article, as it seems the description came from there, then I noticed that she seems to have added this description herself. I am aware there is no rule specifically against editing articles where you have a COI (it is my preference not to do so here) but it does seem that there is a neutrality issue here of using a description word-for-word in this article that Ms. Juhasz wrote in her own article. Would someone be able to update the "Alternative energy" section to provide a clearer, more NPOV description of Ms. Juhasz? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The words "oil and energy analyst" are hardly anything that should cause concern. Never the less, I have supplied a source in hopes that that will satisfy your request. Gandydancer (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

She is referred to as an "analyst" by the New York Times[7] and as an oil industry analysts by many other reliable sources. She is indisputably an oil industry analyst. I really think that this is precisely the kind of input from BP that is not welcome. We don't need the opinion of the subject of this article as to whether or not a source is described to its liking. We certainly don't need any tsk-tsking on conflict of interest. No, that we absolutely do not need from the subject of this article, with its staggeringly large presence on the talk page, which at one point resulted in over four-tenths of this article's text originating from the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

One other point: Antonia Juhasz is hardly a model article. But if I or any editor make changes to her article or to this one in response to what BP is suggesting, I can see a media furor erupting, and Ms. Juhasz complaining, perhaps publicly, for one could accurately describe any such edits (such as a COI tag, if warranted) as "inspired by BP." She could further point out with justification that the comment was not made on her talk page. I think this points up why it is not a good idea for subjects of articles to make comments on articles concerning their critics. In fact, as I've indicated previously, the presence of BP in this talk page, arguing to make this article more to its liking and trying to spin this article in its favor, is not a good thing and really needs to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

When Juhasz was first named in this article, it was done by User:Was 203.27.72.5 and according to this explanation at the talk page. In his proposal Was 203.27.72.5 used the word 'activist', not 'oil and energy analyst'. That time this was not opposed by any editor and Was 203.27.72.5 made a good job cleaning up the article and making it more NPOV. It was only recently when the word 'activist' was replaced by 'oil and energy analyst' by arguing that this is what the Juhasz's article says. However, the current version of that article was mostly written by Juhasz herself (should we expect an article by Violet Blue about this?). Although the reference of the Institute for Public Accuracy was added, it is not clear if that source qualifies as RS or not. As the reference by The New York Times, it says that "an analyst with Oil Change International, a watchdog group". Oil Chaqnge International describes itself as "a research, communication, and advocacy organization". Hiding fact that she is representing an institutions having certain POV about oil industry and making impression that she is an independent 'oil and energy analyst' is POV itself. Beagel (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

She is an independent oil and energy analyst. The fact that she is critical does not remove her independence; indeed it confirms it. Regardless of the merits of this BP-requested change, and I see none here, I think that we need to move with great care in dealing with any request that impacts upon a living person by the corporation that is the subject of this article. Quite frankly, I think that any changes made to anything that relates to this person is an open invitation of still more reputational lumps for Wikipedia. 17:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Coretheapple (talk)

Person working with an advocacy organization is not independent. Also, please correct me if I understand you not correctly, but did you just said that writing most of the text of the article about yourself and violating COI policy in most serious way is less "reputational lump for Wikipedia" than talking about this? Beagel (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Beagel. Can you rephrase that last sentence? I have no idea what you are asking and I would bet that neither does Core. Talking here about this and resolving any issues is one thing....but acting on Arturos request is another. I would hope that nothing gets done antil editors collaborate. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I think I understand what Beagel is referring to. I would put it this way: taking "requests" from BP for this article presents its own set of problems, given how far beyond simply "correcting errors" this has come. But if editors here start to do this company's bidding when it comes to BP's critics, if we change the way those people are referred to because BP doesn't like it, or start editing the articles of BP's critics because of remarks made on this talk page by BP, I think it is self-evident that we would be crossing a "red line" of sorts and really making Wikipedia look like bad. It doesn't matter whether the requests have merit or not. We're going to get some awful publicity and richly deserve it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should not accept what BP says about their critics. However, as the word 'activist' was replaced by 'oil and energy analyst' just a week ago [8] and the previous version was not proposed by Arturo, so why not to restore the wording which was there for nine months? Beagel (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: Although your arguments have merit, this can't be justification for the most serious violation of COI. Beagel (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Activist," which was the previous terminology, is pejorative and POV. "Analyst" is accurate, however it might discomfit BP. That was a good edit. "COI" certainly has nothing to do with it, as that description was not added by the lady and it may well have come from a different source than the Wiki article. However, I am grateful this issue has been raised as it demonstrates very clearly how ridiculous it is for BP to be actively involved in its Wiki page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That description was added by "the lady" to Antonia Juhasz and was cahnged here by the edit summary: "Juhasz not called "activist", changed to what his Wiki says "oil and energy analyst"". That means, it was added here based on primary sources. Beagel (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In case of using "expert", the affiliated organization which was at the time should be added for clarification. Beagel (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean let use what the NYT says. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that we have done, already, far more than is necessary, and wasted already far too much time, to make BP feel all warm and fuzzy about this article's references to this lady. I also feel that your edit to Antonia Juhasz[9], prompted as it was by comments in this article by BP, was ill-advised. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Re your 19:13 comment, you'd have to ask Petrarchan, but I have no information that "analyst" was taken from the wiki article. Doesn't matter. It's accurate. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple and Gandydancer, my only point in bringing up the current description of Ms. Juhasz is the questionable source used and that the description creates the impression she is an analyst working within the industry. I thought editors might want to look into it, especially since this is a rather new description of her in this article.

To reply to Core's second response above: my request above strictly focuses on her description in this article. I have not suggested any change in her own article nor have I criticized her for editing her own article. I don't appreciate your repeated characterizations of my participation here as "trying to spin this article". If you disagree with me on a substantive issue, I'm always willing to discuss that. I wish you would refrain from making statements that I should not be involved here at all, which is not productive and is directly contradictory to Jimmy Wales' expressed view and Wikipedia guidelines that advocates like myself are welcome to participate in these discussions. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. You're injecting yourself directly into the Wikipedia editorial process, where you don't belong, to change an NPOV and accurate description of this person, who has been critical of your company, into something more favorable and hence less NPOV. That's spin. If you don't want editors to say that you are trying to spin this article, don't do stuff like that. As for her article: No sooner did you write those words than someone trotted over to her article and engaged in drive-by tagging. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So you say that the article violating WP:COI and WP:BLP has some kind of immunity which does not allow adding maintenance tags because of ... Because of what exactly? Beagel (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss that article. Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed the situation at some length in Talk:Antonia Juhasz. I'd urge you to read my post and reflect on the desirability and implications of further disruptive tagging of noncontroversial biographical info on that page. Coretheapple (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems reasonable that the description of Ms. Juhasz in this article should be based on how she is described in independent sourcing. Based on a quick Google News search, I found the following few articles (which I do not believe could be construed as hostile or POV), which provide the following descriptions of Ms. Juhasz:

• NPR: "Author and activist Antonia Juhasz"
• CNN: "Antonia Juhasz, an activist shareholder from the Gulf Coast"
• USA Today: "Juhasz — a scholar, author and activist"

As I have explained above, referring to her as an "oil and energy analyst" creates the impression she is an industry insider, rather than an individual who has worked with advocacy organizations with an anti-oil POV, including (as NPR describes it) "the petro-critic organization Oil Change International". As I obviously have a POV here myself, my suggestion is that editors look at neutral, reliable sources and decide based on those how she should be described in this article so that it is clearest to readers. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as the suggestions above are concerned, I for one now have the additional headache of dealing with the drive-by tagging in Antonia Juhasz, thanks to the gratuitous reference by the BP rep at the top of this section. Making BP happy on this issue is definitely not at the very top of my list of priorities, especially since the current wording is fair, NPOV and accurate. However, I must say that there is considerable entertainment value in seeing BP getting exercised about COI on Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Let stop the drama and discuss the issue. It seems that CNN and USA Today are more reliable sources about that person than the Institute for Public Accuracy. Beagel (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, let's not. It's time we stopped allowing BP to set the agenda of this talk page. The Times calls her an analyst, as do other sources. We have better things to do, a long list of better things to do, than spending our time making BP happy with every little thing in this article. The gratuitous, unnecessary, I daresay rather mischievous reference made by BP to her Wiki article is what caused the drama and wasted time that is now extending over to the article on this poor woman. I'd sure hate to be a BLP who falls afoul of the BP publicity machine. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the New York Times, why not to use what the source says. It says: "an analyst with Oil Change International, a watchdog group", not just an analyst. It is important difference. If you prefer the NYT, let use the exact wording from that source. Beagel (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Because there is no need. She has written two books on oil. She obviously gets on BP's nerves, given the hyperfocus on her by the Wikipedia engagement team. Coretheapple (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Arturo, upon what reliable source are you basing your claim that only an "industry insider" can be an "oil and energy analyst"? One can "analyze" from an outside perspective just as validly - and perhaps more so, given the lack of potential for conflicts of interest - as someone with an inside perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, the question is how have reliable, independent sources described her. Based on what I've found, "author" and "activist" seem to be the most common. I'm leaving it up to the editors. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Analyst" is fine, accurate and neutral, BP's opposition notwithstanding. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Analyist" works, however the most-used description for her that arose in my research was "oil and gas analyst", which makes her an even more RS for this particular article than some random analyst. I would prefer that title remain, rather than simply "analyst". Is there an attempt to discredit her a bit, based on her analysis of the subject of this article? It appears so. petrarchan47tc 21:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, actually, sorry for being murky. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Analyst? Reliable Source? Author? What would serve this article and the reader best would be to ask her to edit alongside all of us. I suggest User:Antonia not at BP as her user name. Then we could refer to her as a "self-identified Wikipedia editor/analyst/author/critic". IMO that would provide the balance that some editors feel is missing. We wouild finally have a paid advocate with the capacity to spend time and resources on the side of the reader. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent observation by Buster. He is exactly correct in this suggestion. Think about it: Arturo's only reason for editing here is to present BP's best interest and he has a number of co-workers that work on the article as well. He works on no other articles. On the other hand, I am always working on several articles where I need to retain enough expertise to make intelligent edits and I watch over quite a few others as well. This is the case for most of the editors such as Bink, Buster, Petra, and others. I think it would be a great idea for someone to ask an expert that compares to Arturo, such as Antonia, to help out with the article. Others, such as Riki Ott, could be invited as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This really makes a tremendous amount of sense. petrarchan47tc 21:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Question for Arturo re alternative energy

The article states BP spent $1.5 billion in all alternative forms of energy in 2008. Could you please let us know what forms of alternative energy are included in this figure. Also, is there an updated figure? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, according to the Annual Report for 2008, the investment was in "alternative forms of energy such as wind, solar, biofuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS)". In the pages of the report focusing on AE, you can see that the operations included wind, solar, biofuels, hydrogen power and gas-fired power. See: BP Annual Report 2008, p5 and p37-38. Interestingly, the Annual Report states investment that year was $1.4 billion. For more recent investment figures for the Alternative Energy business, here's what I have been able to find:

• $1.3 billion in 2009 (6% of BP's total investment that year). Source: Reuters, April 2010, "Landis said BP spent $1.3 billion in the alternative energy sector last year, which represented some 6 percent of the company's overall investment." See also: BP Annual Report 2009, p42.

• As of December 31, 2010, total investment since 2005 was over $5 billion, see BP Annual Report, p61, but I have not been able to find a published figure specifically for investment in this year.

• $1.6 billion in 2011, and $6.6 billion in total between 2005 and December 31, 2011. Source: BP annual reporting for Alternative energy for 2011.

• $7.6 billion in total between 2005 and December 31, 2012. Source: Annual Report Summary Review 2012, p18.

Based on the difference between the totals since 2005 for 2011 and 2012, the company spent approx. $1 billion in 2012. Investment in 2012 focused on "biofuels, wind and a range of other longer-term technology investments", see BP Annual Report 2012, p82. AE activities last year are also shown on this page of the company's website. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we have a problem when we continue to accept BP's use of the term alternative energy when perhaps it needs to be defined in the article. According to Wikipedia, The nature of what constitutes an alternative energy source has changed considerably over time, as have controversies regarding energy use. According to Oxford dictionary alt energy is, "Energy fueled in ways that do not use up natural resources or harm the environment." I bring this up because in their alt energy figures BP includes natural gas-fired power, CCS, biofuels, and hydrogen power. There is plenty of argument about whether or not these forms of energy are harmful for the environment and the issues about whether they are actually environmentally sustainable are far from settled. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I know this issue came up awhile ago and some of us (myself included) thought that alternative energy referred only to wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal...come to mind. So I'd assume that many of our readers are not better informed than I was. Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought of it and I think it needs to be explored. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Natural gas / fracking (Arturo, does this category include the tar sands project, and could you break down for us exactly which projects are included?):

• PLOS: For frack’s sake, stop calling natural gas “green”
• MIT: Just How Green Is Natural Gas? Not green at all, reports a study suggesting that the methane released by fracking and drilling makes it worse than coal.
• NTY: Another look at natural gas hydraulic fracturing could worsen climate change
• Nature: Methane leaks erode green credentials of natural gas
• Removing the green cloak from natural gas

(Commentary) For decades, natural gas (methane) has been touted as a greener energy alternative to coal, when, according to a new Cornell University study, in considering its whole lifecycle, natural gas appears to be worse for climate change than the coal industry and is more toxic to the environment and human health.

The driver of gas' green halo is true: methane burns cleaner than coal, thus contributing less to global warming during combustion. However, the hydraulic fracturing process — the only way industry knows to get the gas that's left — releases significant amounts of methane, unburned, directly into the atmosphere. When methane isn't burned, it's 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Combine that with the 1,000 truck trips, on average, 2 million to 8 million gallons of water, and 10,000 to 40,000 gallons of chemicals used per well.

Sixty percent of those chemicals can harm the brain and nervous system, 40 percent are known endocrine disrupters, 30 percent are suspected carcinogens, 30 percent are developmental toxicants. In fact, the natural gas industry is the only industry that permanently removes water from the natural water cycle.

I am not comfortable with BP's characterization of this process as "alternative energy". A good option for now would be to simply remove "Alternative energy" from the section heading, and replace it with something like "Wind, Solar, Biol-fuels and Natural Gas" - that way we remove the possibility of spin. The different forms of energy production should be listed from most-used to least. petrarchan47tc 21:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If we're sure that natural gas is included in that category (I find it murky, but I've had a bad day), then yes, we need to change the header. Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• From a 2010 BP ad: we've invested $28 billion over the last five years in U.S. energy supplies, including solar, wind, hydrogen and natural gas. It's a start: BP, Beyond Petroleum. NPR.
• From the Guardian: Let's get real. BP likes to say that it is investing $1.5bn (£980,000) a year in "alternative energy". True, I am sure. But that word "alternative" is clever. Delve a little further and it turns out that BP's alternative energy division includes not just wind and solar and biofuels but also natural gas-fired power stations. Natural gas may be less polluting than coal and oil, but at the end of the day it's a fossil fuel filling the atmosphere with CO2. Alternative? Not by my definition petrarchan47tc 22:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• From HuffPost: only a tiny percent of BP's annual revenue has come from things "beyond petroleum," and most of that is from natural gas. (The exact amount of BP's renewable energy revenue isn't known, since in its annual report, the company lumps together "Gas, Power, and Renewables," which includes natural gas as well as solar) petrarchan47tc 22:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. I guess "gas-fired power," the euphemism used by the BP rep above, is called "natural gas" in English. Thanks. Yes, we absolutely do not want to use "alternative energy" as a header for that section. Coretheapple (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, BP has a natural gas business (considered part of the company's Upstream business), so it is highly doubtful that has much at all to do with our alternative energy investments. I will look to see if I can provide more detail about the breakdown of investment into alternative energy, but I believe the vast majority of the spend will have been into biofuels (cellulosic ethanol) and the wind business, both ranked fairly high as sourced on this talk page. The wind business grew significantly in the past few years. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. petrarchan47tc 08:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

To add further detail, the "gas-fired power" I mentioned above (using the exact wording from the Annual Report) does not relate to development of natural gas resources. We have a natural gas business that is part of our Upstream business which is a totally separate business than our Alternative Energy business, clearly indicated by looking at our 2012 Annual Report, so investments in that business would not be counted as alternative energy. Also, after a quick read of the Huffington Post story cited, it doesn't say anything about investment into the alternative energy business, only that revenue from that business is categorized along with revenue from gas power as well. The quote doesn't say that natural gas is considered part of BP's alternative energy business. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Gas-fired power" appears to mean power plants fueled by natural gas. http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021518&contentId=7040019 Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 23 May 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Update needed

Another rescue from the archives. These haven't been added to the Gulf spill litigation section yet. petrarchan47tc 02:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• BP hit by wave of new spill lawsuits ahead of April deadline
• Florida becomes 4th state to sue BP over oil spill
• Texas joins flood of states suing BP over 2010 Gulf spill