Talk:Chevron Corporation

Follow-up: Section 6.4 proposals from 20 December 2012 and 30 January 2013 (Environmental damage in Ecuador)

Hi everyone. After giving the community a few months to provide feedback, I’ve made changes to my proposed Ecuador section revisions, based primarily on Lexein’s comments and feedback. This proposed revision can be found here: User:Chevron_justinh/sandbox

In summary, I’ve taken out language like “purported” and I’ve also added opposing viewpoints on Chevron’s RICO lawsuit while keeping the entry up-to-date. The entry is factual and stripped of adjectives and hyperbole. Additionally, all items referenced are backed by credible third-party sources. I hope we can work through this proposal and get a final product published that meets the community’s standards for transparency and that is as accurate and up to date.

That said, I’d also like to address a recent edit to the section. On May 9, Gandydancer added a picture captioned “Oil pollution in Lago Agrio, November 2007.” My hope is that we can all agree to remove this. The picture was taken 20 + years after Texaco left Ecuador and does not accurately reflect the complexity of the issue and case, nor the ongoing operations in Ecaudor. At the very least, without the appropriate context, this image presents serious bias.

I want to reiterate my hope that everyone is held to the same standards in editing and contributing to this page, especially the most controversial sections. I appreciate the time everyone is devoting to this and look forward to your feedback. As these proposed edits are reviewed by the community, I would again draw your attention to two disturbing documents that we uncovered through discovery proceedings in the United States. These documents demonstrate that the plaintiffs’ team, lead by their lead U.S. attorney, Steven Donziger, were/are non transparently editing this page and using surrogates to make biased changes. [1] [2]

Thanks for your time and consideration! Chevron justinh (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I am new to this page. Perhaps someone can clear up something for me. Is it correct that this ENTIRE talk page has been, de facto, turned over to the subject of the article, responding to requests to add text proposed and written by Chevron? If so, how long has this been the case and does anyone other than myself feel that there is something dreadfully wrong going on here? Coretheapple (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, some of us reverted some major changes made by Chevron a while back due to loss of RS and introduction of what we felt was bias by Chevron. So we suggested proposing changes here or in staging pages under user pages, and that's what has been happening since then. Please review the archives for those earlier discussions. Basically Chevron proposes changes and we (others, mostly) vet the changes, rejecting for tone or insufficient sourcing or imbalanced representation of sources. What's wrong is that very few volunteer non-aligned editors are available, or interested in, working on this article, even though the number of watchers is high. But plenty of kibbitzers are available to scream at any work that is done on the article. I stepped back a bit because some of those stalkers-but-not-editors yelled at me in email that I was a horribly biased editor because I don't work for oil or greens or lawyers, so I sorta said, "f y'all, then." Is it "horribly wrong" for a COI editor to propose changes, and not put them in unless there's at least a bit of discussion and consensus? Or to put them in if they're met with stony silence? Violet Blue apparently thinks so, calling me out in public for seeming to drop the ball. Infuriating. If someone's going to bitch, they might as well edit, then the energy's expended doing work. That's, to me, what's "horribly wrong." I can guarantee one thing: nobody would like the changes I would make to this article, if it was left up to me. See, I believe in strong distancing language, and strong attribution, such as "Chevron stated in a 2013 press release that it is the", rather than "Chevron is the", but that seems to have been just fscking ignored. So I spend time doing other WP:Wikignome work that makes me happy. --Lexein (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for bringing me up to date. We have had much the same problem at the BP article but then outside editors found out about the situation and took the time to focus on it, so the situation is improved there. What seems to be the case in both articles, but especially here, is that corporate reps are a permanent presence on their pages, micromanaging the content. That seems to be happening here as well. The fact is that nobody has quite so strong an interest in the article as the company itself does, and outsiders have limited time and expertise. So the result is what you see here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to answer one question you pose: Or to put them in if they're met with stony silence? Yes, I think that is wrong. If editors don't jump to attention and act like errand boys every time a corporation wants its article changed, that is a sign that the change is not agreed to, and the company needs to disengage. No, I do not believe that corporations should edit articles about themselves, or become involved in the editorial content of articles about themselves. I think that they should be strictly limited to fixing errors. Attempts to alter the slant and POV-push in articles is what has resulted in outside attention. Wikipedia readers have a right to expect that Wiki articles are written by third-party editors, and are not edited (or unedited) versions of text provided by the subjects of the articles, especially when the subjects are important multinational corporations. Coretheapple (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Core, it is hard for me to get back into this article as that whole Violet episode left a very bitter taste in my mouth (and actually I doubt that very many understand my feelings about that). I understand how Lexein feels and as the other editor mentioned in Violet's article, I felt pretty pissed off too. I wrote a fairly long reply to your question but will cut it short.

I did say this: ...Who in their right mind really enjoys working on an article like this for free? While the big boyz sit in ivory towers and say idiotic stuff like "over 200 editors are watching this article--what's there to worry about???" (as they did at the BP article), in the real world nobody has been watching this article with any serious questioning as to what has been going on here. See here [3] for instance where I question the COIs edit and receive no response. And I did not follow up either--in fact I completely forgot about it till the more recent Ecuador section came up.

@ Justin--about the photo. Why didn't you just say something when I posted it? I did a copy edit on the section and found the photo at commons. I had no dark plan to bias the public against Chevron. Actually I am a reasonable person and would be glad to consider removing the photo if it is not appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Who in their right mind really enjoys working on an article like this for free? Exactly. It simply is not right for Chevron to burden editors with efforts to micromanage the article about them. The bosses should be grateful for your pushback. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Reading what I posted, I want to make it clear that I am not at all saying anything negative about Lexein. From memory he made an excellent post to Justin about the problems with his rewrite--it was much more intelligent than anything I could have come up with and far more work than anything that I was willing to do either. Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

CoreTheApple – I assure you that my activities here have been above board and executed in good faith. I began participating in the process to point out inaccuracies on the page largely due to the article’s state of neglect. My intention has always been to participate along with others who could improve the quality of the article; I continue to strive for the same now. As you’ll see by my previous posts, I’m in no way asking for immediate action or for editors to make frequent, nit-picky, updates at my request (although it may look that way based on the limited engagement on the talk page). The edits I’ve proposed have been spaced out over a period of 3+ years and have only been suggested to improve the level of information contained on the page and its accuracy.

Gandydancer – Thank you for the response regarding the picture, I certainly didn’t intend to imply any ill will or bias on your part. I do believe the picture to be misleading, however, and hope that with the renewed attention to the page by editors- including the Ecuador section- we can collectively agree to remove it. As I said earlier, the picture was taken 20 + years after Texaco left Ecuador and does not accurately reflect the complexity of the issue and case, nor the ongoing operations in Ecuador today. I agree that your respective feedback to my earlier draft entry for the Ecuador section was good advice and informed my revisions. As I hope you’ll see, I have taken it to heart and have tried my best to present an up to date, accurate entry, that is deficient of bias and hyperbole. The case has swung dramatically in the last year and the current entry doesn't reflect any of the latest ruling or significant developments.

Again, I really do appreciate your collective attention to the page and hope that we can work together to improve it for people looking for accurate and up to date information about Chevron.Chevron justinh (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Justin, considering that you either are a lawyer or have a considerable amount of knowledge of legal matters (judging by the extensive amount of legal references you gave in your first suggested rewrite), how can I possibly be expected to evaluate your version compared to say, this one [4] I just do not believe that it is reasonable for this encyclopedia to expect editors to vet a section about an ongoing legal battle when only one side is being represented. As you may know, the problem at the Prudhoe Bay section at the BP article was not that the company rep wrote falsehoods, but rather that he left some very damaging information out of his rewrite. Gandydancer (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that editors should not rely on Chevron for text in the article, so as to avoid the kind of issues that Gandydancer highlights above. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer – I agree with you that the case is complex and would require that an editor have considerable knowledge about its proceedings to properly vet the entry. Although I believe I have drafted a neutral and appropriately supported account based on editor feedback, I think it is becoming clear that, given the amount and polarizing nature of information published about the case, an entry that covers all the details might not be feasible, at least not at this time. Taking from Lexein’s comments back on 26 December 2012, perhaps an entry that covers “just the bare facts to convey the story to a non-specialist reader” would, in fact, be the best course of action, especially while the case remains ongoing, as you mentioned.

I’ve taken the liberty of drafting a new proposal to illustrate my idea of what a basic entry that provides the overall narrative and only the most central, agreed-upon facts might look like:User:Chevron_justinh/sandbox

I'd apprecaite it if you and/or other editors can take a look and let me know if you think is a more reasonable and manageable approach. If you agree, I'm not asking that you use this langugage- it is only a suggestion. Perhaps some of the links I've included in both drafts on my sandbox will be of use. Again, I'd like to stress that the current entry carries bias, is outdated and incomplete. One way or the other, it would benefit the community to update the entry. As always, I appreciate your time. Chevron justinh (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you may be misinterpreting what is being said here. Whatever the complexity level of the material in question, the text needs to be drafted by someone not employed by Chevron. Coretheapple (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple- I'm hoping that you or other editors or some combination thereof will work to balance and update the section. That is all I've ever asked for and continues to be my hope. It's been my goal all along to work with the community to better the page and make it accurate for readers of this entry. I'm not asking you to adopt what I've posted on my Sandbox page, but it is a good, factual, summation of the case and it's latest developments that could potentailly assist with source material for updates. Thanks for your time and attention. Chevron justinh (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, but utilizing text provided by the company as a "baseline" for further edits is inherently problematic. Coretheapple (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I’m referring to the third-party links provided, not the text of my proposed entry. Given this viewpoint, would you be interested in addressing/updating the section in question? Thanks! Chevron justinh (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No. I believe that such editorial functions need to be initiated by as well as implemented by independent editors, not by the subject of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

CoretheApple – In light of the current impasse, I’ve reached out to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard in an attempt to locate an editor that is willing to constructively update the section in question. As I’ve said, my only goal here is to improve the accuracy and quality of the page. I did not intend for my suggestions to be adopted without discussion or alterations. I continue to hope that a Wikipedia editor will devote the time necessary to update this page to best serve its readers.Chevron justinh (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors not doing what you want them to do is not an "impasse." It is "editors not doing what you want them to do." Editors are free to do, or not do, whatever you want them to do. The fact that they have not adopted text proposed by the company, concerning an area in which the company is involved in litigation, would appear to indicate that editors don't want to make this change, and that there is no agreement with the company that the article needs to be changed in this area to make the article more satisfactory to Chevron. Coretheapple (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone - I came here from COIN. I don't intend to comment further after this, but my impression is that the Ecuador version currently in the article is superior to Chevron justinh's proposed version. Among other things, the proposed version's style is opaque, and focuses almost exclusively on the legal issues. It should be clear from the first paragraph what the issue is about, i.e. it should be clear what the controversy is. Most of the proposed content has little relevance to a general interest reader, and in my opinion should only be included in a separate article dedicated to this issue, if one is created (WP:Summary style).

I'm not endorsing the current version as I know little about this issue (and for the same reason, I will not comment on whether either version is biased, of course). But if there are factual issues or omitted details in the section - I have no idea if there are - then I suggest Chevron's editor needs to specifically identify them, and make specific sourced proposals in each case. Also, a note (mainly for Chevron justinh) for evaluating objectivity: remember to distinguish between statements of opinion (for which both sides should be presented) and statements of fact (which don't need any counterbalance). Which statements fall into which category, plus the application of WP:DUE, should be what determines whether or not the section needs to be changed. (And yes, if editorial consensus is against you, as it seems to be, and you can't find any compromise, then the correct thing to do is to walk away from the proposal.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not working on the litigation section because I do not feel qualified to do so with only one side of the legal proceedings being presented here. However, I did spend a little time looking for recent information on the environmental effects that still exist because Justin has requested that the lake photo is not appropriate. It seems to come from a string of photos that are found here [5]. It does not seem inappropriate to me, but I hope that others will give feedback. As I was doing a search this information [6] came up. This is what I meant earlier when I said that it is hard to vet a COI edit that replaces an entire section of an article when only one side is presented and one is not aware of what may have been excluded--perhaps on purpose. Gandydancer (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We have few editors interested in business topics and those most likely to cover oil spills are environmentalists, who would be equally POV. Of course, if we had a plethora of editors interested in the article, there would be no valid reason for a PR editor to get involved.

The burden we place on PRs (however impossible) is not to do PR, but to do a form of sponsored self-journalism. I felt the draft content on Ecuador was close, but feel the need to ask Chevron to "try harder."

Most of the edits I made, I would have made if you just said "this section has a lot of POV and sourcing issues. Since I have a COI, do you think someone could give it a quick once-over?" The proposed copy used a lot of sources from the company website and omitted POVs that dissented from Chevron's. But I did add some of it and it helped clear up the chronology of events. Also, when you propose copy that removes well-sourced criticism, this will also damage your credibility here and make it more difficult to contribute. This kind of thing sets a very high bar that is difficult to reach in your position.

I will not be a permanent installment here, because, like others, I don't have the interest. But am willing to provide advice to other PRs. CorporateM (Talk) 01:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM, I sure can't agree with you when you say you believe that Justin's latest draft was close and all he need do is to try harder! I see it as a very biased presentation. On the other hand, all things considered, I think you were wise to just leave out the back and forth legal battles. And now with these recent developments [7] and now this one dated June 26 [8], the Chevron article is certainly not the place to attempt a fair and balanced presentation. I'm glad you stepped in and updated the section. Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I only meant it was "close" to providing enough "value" for it to be worthwhile for an editor to take an interest in the project. We should go into a topic like this with the expectation that it will be authored independently, not copy/pasted from PR. On the other hand, it is often beneficial to have the PR person do a first draft, which provides a chronology of events and collects sources. Another approach, if the company's corporate cycles prohibit them from deviating from the company's POV, then they should stick to pointing out errors and problem content for us to fix. CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM, with all due respect I do not believe that your suggestion that drafts written and sources collected by company reps are helpful. Using the example of the company rep's draft for the Prudhoe Bay section of the BP article, that is exactly how I screwed up when I said that his draft seemed "great!" or whatever I said. The PB section in the article, before his rewrite, really was a mess and he did a good job of organizing it and seemed not only to have included any negative aspects, but even expanded and updated them. But what he skipped was that at a later date the DOJ was not happy with BP's follow-up and slapped them with another significant fine. I only discovered that information when I later had a disagreement with a couple of editors over the exact wording to be used in the PB section and happened to run across it in my googles for information. (Actually I still don't think that Arturo was aware of it either rather than trying to pull a fast one over us--but as the company rep, he certainly should have been. Well, that's another story...but it does show how we can be lulled into believing that a company rep knows the company facts.) And then, there is the other problem with drafts, the problem that Silverseren and similar editors show up at corporate articles and insert them as was done at the BP and the Cracker Barrel article. As for sourcing, again there is the strong possibility that corp rep editors will select sources that are biased to their POV, as I felt was done at the CB article. I made that same complaint here when Justin threw out news sources and replaced them with numerous legal references. Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the inappropriateness of "recommended copy" drafts from corporate representatives, also from the copyvio angle. See my comment at Tackling the issues below. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

See my comments at the bottom of Talk:ETF_Securities. I had volunteered to write the article for them based on the sources provided, but once I saw that the sources were cherry-picked, I was not interested in "helping" and essentially locked them out of the article, which they continued to spam with promotional copy.

But the advice we provide is unique to the circumstance. Will you tell AfC that they should no longer accept articles submitted with a COI? Would you criticize me for re-writing promotional articles where I have a COI and bringing them up to GA?

However, once it's established that you can't trust a specific editor, this will make it very difficult for them to contribute. CorporateM (Talk) 23:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

AfC is a somewhat different situation. The reviewers there are expected to ensure as much as possible that the draft contains no copyvio before moving it into article space. It's part of their "job description" (although many of them don't do a good job of it). I'm talking about the attempted micro-management of content and wording by COI editors in an existing article as has been going on here. As for you re-writing promotional articles where you have a COI and bringing them to GA, I'm sure many would find that very laudable, and it is obviously not forbidden. But in my purely personal opinion, you shouldn't touch them. Not because I think you'd introduce copyvio. I'm sure you wouldn't. But because, and again in my purely personal view, it's unethical. Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The micro-management issue strikes a chord with me. Philosophically, the ethical justification for public relations as a practice is that the company's point-of-view should have its day in the court of public opinion and be weighed based on its merits. And to a certain extent, there is value in PRs advocating that - among other POVs - that the company's be included and that they work to ensure the company is fairly represented, much like we do in the media.

However, PRs do not have an endless court. A court with a lawyer for only one side and endless appeals. Could you imagine if a PR person called The New York Times and asked them to "reword" things a very specific way? "We think this wording is more neutral." On the other hand, PRs do routinely tell the press when they feel the article has omitted their point-of-view or is unfair and it is normal practice for journalists to make adjustments on that basis. Also, there are a great many issues that can't be corrected any other way but to offer content (this was not one of them) and many wordings that genuinely are sufficiently bias to need rewording.

Therefore there is no guidance we could provide that would be applicable in every case. PRs must exercise good judgement and we should provide better documentation to guide them on what good judgement means. (*end rant) CorporateM (Talk) 17:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright issues

I've randomly googled some words in this article, and the searches are returning Chevron's or other websites. Examples:

• From Chevron's website: "initiated its enduring marine history when it launched California's first steel tanker" (recently removed by CorporateM)
• Ditto: "Key producing assets include Tahiti and Blind Faith, the company's deepest operated offshore production facility."
• Ditto: "The Karachaganak Field in northwest Kazakhstan is one of the world's largest oil and gas condensate reserves."
• Ditto (dates back to the company website from 2007): "Key producing assets include Tahiti and Blind Faith, the company's deepest operated offshore production facility."
• Wikipedia, added 14 Nov 2011:

• "Also in 2010, Chevron sanctioned the Jack/St. Malo project, the company’s first operated project located in the Lower Tertiary trend in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The Jack and St. Malo fields are located within 25 miles of each other in the Gulf of Mexico, about 280 miles southwest of New Orleans in water depths of 7,000 feet. The initial development of the project will require an investment of approximately $7.5 billion. It will be comprised of three subsea centers tied back to a hub production facility with a capacity of 170,000 barrels of oil and 42.5 million cubic feet of natural gas per day."

• Rigdata, added 25 Oct 2010:

• Chevron Corporation has sanctioned development of the Jack/St. Malo project, its first operated project in the Lower Tertiary trend in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The Jack and St. Malo fields are located within 25 miles of each other in 7,000 ft of water. Initial development will require an investment of about $7.5 billion. It will comprise three subsea centers tied back to a hub production facility with a capacity of 170,000 b/d of oil and 42.5 MMcfd of gas."

It's possible that Chevron is copying Wikipedia, but it's more likely the other way round. The Rigdata material pre-dates it being added to this article, so that does appear to be a copyright violation. I've only spent a short time looking at this, so it's possible that's all there is. But if there is any more of the same, it ought to be removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just noting here that this material has to be identified and removed, and if there's a lot of it, we should revert to an earlier version. That should be done before any further copy editing, which will make it harder to spot the copy-pasted material. See WP:COPYVIO:

If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. {{subst:Cclean|url=insert URL or description of source here (optional)}} has been created for this. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored. If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, check the page history; if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Tackling the issues

I was approached from one of the editors here for advice about tackling the problem of copyright violations scattered throughout the text. First of all, there is no tool which will find it in one operation, especially since the instances I've seen are pasted or very closely paraphrased from multiple sources. The only way to tackle it is the way SlimVirgin has done—googling suspect phrases, finding the web page they are potentially copied from, and then checking to see which came first. This often requires use of the Wayback Machine. Where an inline cite is given, you can also compare the text to that. Once you have a specific page, you can compare that page to the article (or previous versions of the article) using the Duplication Detector. (Duplication Detector in action.)

Unfortunately, I suspect this article is full of copied sentences from a variety of sources. I also found this:

Added to Wikipedia 8 January 2012: Another side of the genealogical chart points to the founding of The Texas Fuel Company in 1901, a modest enterprise that started out in three rooms of a corrugated iron building in Beaumont, Texas, United States.

Rigzone as of 22 December 2011: Another side of the genealogical chart points to the 1901 founding of The Texas Fuel Company, a modest enterprise that started out in three rooms of a corrugated iron building in Beaumont, Texas..

Most (but not all) of the instances seem to come from the editor who's working for Chevron (User:Chevron justinh). In my view, he must stop adding material himself to the article altogether, and he must stop writing text in drafts (or on this talk page as "recommended copy") for "approval" from other editors. This can lead to the independent editors unwittingly adding the material on the basis that it is reasonably neutral but without realizing that it has been copied or closely paraphrased from other sources. They should not be burdened with checking it for copyvio as well. At most, Chevron justinh should put a brief description of what might improve the article on this talk page and give potential sources for other editors to work from. Examples:

The History section needs some expansion of the early years. Suggested sources are Z, Y, and Z.

The Oil spills in Angola section could be balanced by noting Chevron's response. Suggested sources are X, Y, Z.

This approach is more likely to produce original rather than copy pasted or closely paraphrased prose.

Before further copyediting or expanding the article, I suggest you all prioritise finding and removing/rewriting the close paraphrasing and copy-pasting. The best places to start are the versions where large chunks have been added:

• 31 January 2012
• 20 December 2011
• 1 December 2011
• 14 November 2011
• 23 September 2011

Note that I have excluded 19 October 2012. This "Organization Overview" section was pasted in, but from a student's essay and was part of an editing assignment in a course at Harvard University, Introduction to the Sociology of Organizations [9], [10]. The students put sections like these in multiple articles on corporations.

Hope this helps. Voceditenore (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I wondered why that "organization overview" section had been added, because it seemed so incongruent.

Removing the plagiarism/copyright violations has to take priority for the moment over other editing. I suggest that we revert to the version before it began to be added, which would be this version from May 2011. After that, material that is known not to have been copy-pasted from other sources can be added back in. Are there any objections to that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As Voce says it would be preferred if someone was willing to check the material for copyright violations and alter it if needed. But seeing as nobody has done this and the issue must be correct immediately, I went ahead and removed the content based on his links above. If anyone has time, a lot of this content is good and could be reincorporated if it is checked for copyrights, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

After splits and summarizing done by CorporateM, I don't think that any copyvio (at least in the large scale) remained in this article. Therefore, I don't think that reverting this article will solve any problem. The problem may be with the split-off articles. Beagel (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The usual thing to do with extensive copvio is to revert to an earlier version and have an admin delete all later versions (not just remove, but delete from the history). However, if you think it's all gone maybe that's enough. The articles it may have been moved to should ideally be redirected here, or rewritten from scratch, otherwise we're just moving the problem elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind either way. The article splits were pretty sloppy anyway and the prior version may be better. OTOH, hopefully they'll all get cleaned up a bit over time. CorporateM (Talk) 04:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Operations

Actually, also alternative energy is a part of operations. Beagel (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that - just hadn't made up my mind yet. Give me a few mins to avoid edit-conflict please ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 19:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

All done for now. I realize it's a huge mess now, but this can be expected with such a sweeping restructure. I might circle back to clean it up a bit more after I finish my work on History of public relations CorporateM (Talk) 20:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Beagel (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

NiMH batteries

I don't think that the NiMH batteries issue fits into the 'Environmental record' section. It seems to be more about competition practices and trade disputes than environment. Beagel (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

^ Agree CorporateM (Talk) 12:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Article structure

Link to original discussion

FYI - There is an ANI post that seems to propose that the article would have been better without article-splits. Alternatively, if someone wants to address the "needs expansion" tag by expanding and improving the summary of the environmental record page, that might also be a way to address the editor's concerns. I don't have a strong opinion, but I did notice the original Talk page string about article structure has already been archived and it would be worthwhile to revisit. Now that the Talk page is moving at a normal pace, we may want to slow the archiving too. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 05:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If the pre-split version to be restored, we should take a care that we restore a version before massive copyvio was inserted in this article as user:SlimVirgin mentioned in this section. I personally prefer that the split-off articles are cleaned up and developed after which they should be properly summarized in this article. Unfortunately it seems that this is a priority in nobody's to-do list. Beagel (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I did finish my first draft of History of public relations and have some volunteer time while I wait for GA reviewers and corporate approvals on some of my client work, so I could donate some time to this page. It is a high priority business page that hasn't attracted any editors, which is one of the types of pages I tend to contribute to, like Playtex and Credit Suisse.

The issue with an article on such a vast topic spanning three pages is that the task is overwhelming. Any thoughts on a single distinct topic to start on first? CorporateM (Talk) 14:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I was very unhappy with the splitting but the other three editors were in support of it and I had neither the time nor the energy to protest it alone. CorporateM farmed out so much information that it has been left as hardly more than a stub--and all that without previous discussion. I mainly work on environmental sections and that section was left without a single reference. I added the one it has now and I assumed that as time permitted he would add more. That has not happened. The photo that the paid editor objected to has been removed from the main article as well. Some editors suggest that splits are sometimes used to "hide" contentious information, and I am one of them. IMO, editors that do not agree with this suggestion are either very naive or are suggesting that Wikipedia editors would never resort to underhanded maneuvers. Due to article lengths, splits can become a necessity, but they should always be carefully discussed beforehand. I will say, in my case, CorporateM certainly did lose my trust in him in the way that he split this article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Gandydancer's comment above in full. This article was quite decent before User:CorporateM decided to break it up. Now it is FUBAR and no one has the time, energy, or interest to clean up this mess. Chevron PR's corporate bozos must be laughing their heads off about how Wikipedia is another step closer towards looking like Uncyclopedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I had mentioned at the time that I was busy with some other articles, but would circle back. In any case, I've reverted it to the May version as originally suggested by User:Slimvirgin, which is before all the COI and copyright problems were introduced and I will setup redirects from the other pages and try to salvage all the improvements other editors have made since then. CorporateM (Talk) 06:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I restored some clean-up edits which were reverted while restoring the earlier version. The article still needs to be checked against copyvio issues. Beagel (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as soon as I did it, I realized the better way to go about it would be to just consolidate the current articles as to carry all the recent improvements, or do you think we should leave it like this at this point? CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As of 'Operations' section, 'Alternative energy' subsection is based fully on Operations of Chevron Corporation. I try to look how to add information about upstream and downstream operations. As for 'History', it may be an option to replace the current text with text from History of Chevron Corporation. I don't have any position concerning Environmental record of Chevron Corporation at the moment. Beagel (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. I probably missed some things, but I did some quick comparisons to make sure all the major topics from the sub-articles were included here and it looks like the necessary edits have been made, though anyone willing to make a more thorough vetting is welcome to. Another issue that comes to mind from a structure perspective is that "Controversies" is a poor title. We might want to divide this up into sections like Accidents/Oil Spills/Environmental Record, History, Operations or a new Business practices section. The political donations could probably fit under some kind of Business Practices or Operations header as well. CorporateM (Talk) 17:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Your proposal has merit if we should avoid diving it too many too short sections, e.g. like was 'UN sanctions' as a separate main section. Beagel (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I made a quick comparison as well and quickly saw that you have not returned all of the environmental sections. Rather than a breezy "anyone willing to make a more thorough vetting is welcome to", I think you should recheck your work. Beagle, when I worked on photo placement this AM I reduced the size of the Houston bldg and you reverted me without comment. Why do you feel that the photo needs to be so large? Gandydancer (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@Gandydancer. As a rule, it is preferable if images are provided in thumb-size and not in non-standard size. There are exceptions but I don't see a reason for this in this case. All thumb-size images have the same width. This image is bigger by its area because it is in portrait and not in landscape mode, but its width in the page is the same. Beagel (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you are much more WP-experienced in how to use photos than I. I was going by what a more experienced editor than I has done in similar cases. It would help me to better understand WP guidelines if you would point me to the guideline you are using since the photo seems to me to be unnecessarily large. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:IUP, more precisely in this case WP:IMGSIZE. It says that "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". It does not forbid using smaller size than standard 220px of thumb size but it also does not encourage doing this. Your resizing decreased the overall image size but at the same time the width of the image became too narrow by my subjective opinion. I personally prefer that the images have the same width. Beagel (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fourth-level headings

I created in the 'Operations' section fourth-level headings, mainly for making re-creation of that section easier. However, all that level subsections are small. Do you think we need them or would it better to to have only subsections such like 'Upstream', 'Downstream' and 'Alternative energy' without further division? Beagel (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if something like "Mining operations" might be better, so another section can be used for business operations. But "mining" is not actually the right word, since solar for example is not mined. Maybe "Energy operations"? I believe our manual of style discourages really small sub-sections and my first reflex looking over the operations section is that there is a huge number of sections, which is overwhelming the navigation box. A lot of these distinct topics can be covered with only a paragraph break. CorporateM (Talk) 17:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Foundation

Doing a quick Google Books search, a lot of sources say that Chevron's earliest predecessor is Pacific Coast Oil & Company. This is also what Chevron's website says. However, this source, which is much more thorough than most other sources, says Pacific Coast Oil & Company was formed in order to acquire Star Oil's assets and that it was actually Star Oil, not Pacific Coast that discovered the first major oil field in California.

While this source may be in the minority, I find it persuasive, because it is much more thorough and detailed than most sources, though I can't say for sure what each author's process is for fact-checking to assess their reliability more formally. Was curious what others thought about this claim of "earliest predecessor" given the contradictions among sources. CorporateM (Talk) 21:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Here we go. Chevron's more detailed history does include Star Oil. Despite sources calling Pacific Coast the earliest predecessor, it seems like Star oil is. CorporateM (Talk) 22:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Lago Agrio section

I found the ordering of sentences in this section to be highly confusing, and have reordered them so that I could make sense of it.