Talk:BP/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 20

Reversion of edits of past two days

I have reverted the radical changes made to this article of the past two days. These edits would greatly chang the article, moving it considerably further in the direction of being a crude attack piece. Virtually none of them have been discussed here, and they involved the bulk deletion of large amounts of cited and long standing text, as well as the addition of large amounts of attack content.

They were also ham fisted and crude, as is hardly surprising. For example, moving "positive" aspects of BP's environmental record to the Corporate affairs section. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of "ham-fisted and crude," your WP:OWN tactics, inter alia, restored the error that incorrectly stated that there are three main business segments, when there are two. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If you think that you can cynically bypass this talk page and impose radical changes to this article - changes which you know do not enjoy consensus and are highly controversial - by making large numbers of edits over a short period of time then you are sadly mistaken.
And BTW personally I would support some reduction in the text on "Alternative Energy", perhaps even as much as a halving of the current section in terms of words (and I didn't support the recent addition of large amounts of text on biofuels). I think that actually that is a change which will have consensus, if not the manner in which you have attempted to make the cuts. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Rangoon11 also restored a bit that BP had requested be removed. It was: "and adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum," which remains in use today. It states that BP was never meant to be an abbreviation of its tagline." The BP PR team explained this is inaccurate: in this entry. petrarchan47tc 20:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The change in context made by the recent changes to AE section is the fist topic on this talk page. Rangoon, read the talk page before doing drive-by edits, please. You are wasting the time of editors working for free to bring balance to this article. It will NOT be tolerated. petrarchan47tc 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
He also made the article inaccurate by restoring the miscount of main business segments, proving he either didn't read the talk page or didn't give a hoot. Nor did he respond when it was pointed out above. Not an indication of a good-faith, non-tendentious edit. Coretheapple (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
And edit warring over it.[1] He apparently wants the article to inaccurately state that the alternative energy segment is a main business segment, and for it to not contain accurate information about this company in general. Why is that? Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Until you respect WP policies, this talk page, and your fellow editors I am struggling to see any point in wasting my time communicating with you. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you respect WP policies enough to obey them? Such as by, for instance, not making something wrong? Not reverting reliably sourced text aimed at making an article complete and unbiased? Your use of the word "cynical" in your edit summary is ironic. You still haven't addressed how you made the "business segments" aspect incorrect, even though it has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This again just demonstrates your pure cynicism. You are well aware that out of the vast number of changes made to the article over the past two days, there are some which I may agree with, and which may enjoy wider consensus. However when vast changes are attempted to be made to an article over a short period of time through a deeply cynical flurry edits and tag teaming, making changes which are highly controversial and run against very extensive discussions on this talk page, then reversion is the only appropriate response. It is impractical to pick through massive changes to find a tiny number of acceptable ones.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Tag teaming? Please explain this accusation with examples. The 'flurry of edits' was not done by a team as far as I am aware. If we do have a team, please put me in contact with them asap, thanks. petrarchan47tc 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If you had actually been following the talk page, you would have known that there was a serious error in the Alternative Energy segment of the article, incorrectly putting it on a par with "Upstream" and "Downstream," even though BP's own annual report states explicitly that it is not a "main business segment." Indeed, the annual report uses the specific phrase "two main business segments" when the article said "three main business segments." You repeatedly restored inaccurate information, and repeatedly did so even after it was pointed out to you at least twice. Cynical indeed. Apart from name-calling and claiming that there was "no consensus," which is not a valid reason for your wholesale reverts, see WP:DRNC, you haven't produced a single valid, non-argumentative reason for your actions. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You clearly show your bad faith since, rather than simply reintroduce that specific edit, you attempt to force all of your changes of the past two days, which you know absolutely do not have consensus, through edit warring.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
She clearly did a drive-by edit, defending it with the exact same language and tactics used against me when I tried to undue the spin in the lead about Green Energy which was placed there by Rangoon, but which she lied about in a DrN. I have asked time and again for an explanation, but have not received one. SlimVirgin discusses this section and edit here. Personally, I remain unwilling to trust someone caught lying in a DrN until they have convinced me they have reversed their ways. I do not see any reversal. petrarchan47tc 21:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Rangoon, wholesale reverting is inappropriate when there are just a few issues at stake. Please consider reverting yourself, then restoring whatever issues you felt were better expressed in earlier versions. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The changes which are attempting to be imposed through edit warring radically change the article. I have said I am happy to discuss a substantial reduction of the text of the Alternative Energy section - although this needs to be done in a more intelligent and considerered manner. It makes a complete farce of the hours which numerous editors have spent discussing this article on this talk page if one or two editors will then attempt to force large scale changes through edit warring. Why have talk pages or WP policies at all if that kind of behaviour is going to happen?Rangoon11 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Every word you wrote could be written about your contributions here. You have repeatedly edit warred, radically changed the article, ignored discussion, and made a farce of process. Why don't you discuss points rather than revert? Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon has reverted at least three times today

This behaviour cannot be tolerated. She has not read the talk page, as evidenced by three examples above, and is making changes and accusations out of thin air. Is there a response in Wiki guidelines regarding this editing? petrarchan47tc 21:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

the edit summary is funny given what I have just revealed: complete contempt for very extensive talk page discussions, tag teaming, cynicism of the highest order petrarchan47tc 21:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Latest edit war

As far as I can see the current set of reverts are over an extensive list of edits by Coretheapple. Some of these edits look like improvements and others not. However I think we probably need to break them up and look at them bit by bit rather than revert in and out a whole list. --BozMo talk 08:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The article was such a mess I don't really know where to begin. With its depiction of alternative energy as one of "three main business segment" (with commensurate attention, co-equal placement in the article, and POV wording) when Alternative Energy has one-seventeenth of the company's employees, had been widely criticized as greenwashing (not mentioned in the Alternative Energy segment) and the 2012 Annual Report specifically stated that there were "two main business segments," and Alternative Energy wasn't one of them? See [2] Note that the erroneous language has been in this article for the past ten months[3], and was based upon wording that was suggested by a BP employee who monitors this article. Coretheapple (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
There was a lavish list of the top institutional investors, only one with more than 5% holdings, down to the second decimal place - which is not standard for articles about large companies. Yet the segment on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest oil spill in history, was treated as just another "industrial accident." Major regulatory proceedings, some involving criminal proceedings, were likewise given short shrift and were misleadingly referred to in the section header as "accusations." Basically the article selectively abused the concept of "summary style" to give short shrift to aspects of the company that were unflattering, and, as indicated by the overemphasis, wording and co-equal placement of alternative energy - which actually got a multiple of more space, with names of tiny ventures included, than its immense oil drilling operations! - in significant part read as if it had been drafted by the subject of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement w/ Coretheapple's assessment. Volunteer editors are just not capable of doing the legwork necessary to prevent this article from becoming a copy of the BP Annual Report to Stockholders. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
We might be capable of the legwork to create and maintain an NPOV article, were we not drawn into unending talk page arguments and edit wars, confronted with BP's Wikipedia Engagement Team. It would really be nice if Wikipedia itself would step in and help: with a change to the guidelines. Wiki should provide an intermediary to help BP and Wikipedia meet their stated goals: content correction and an NPOV article respectively. petrarchan47tc 19:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
What's happened in recent years, apparently, is that the editing dynamic became one in which a principal objective has become: How can we help BP make this article more to its liking? How can we satisfy their objections? How can we make them happy? When BP posts sources, we say, "Where can we add those sources," and not "Do we need to add those sources" or "are there other sources that BP hasn't mentioned, that don't advance its narrative?" In other words, BP asks editors to jump, and they sometimes tend to reply, "How high?" BP has a "take charge" attitude, notwithstanding its absence from actual article editing, that is forcefully but politely found on this talk page. This dynamic needs to change, whether or not Wikipedia engages in structural changes to deal with this situation. Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
That is a perfect assessment. petrarchan47tc 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Current version of the article

The current version of this article does not have consensus, and has been imposed by edit warring and in complete contempt of extremely extensive talk page discussions relating to this article, as well as a DR process. Multiple editors have spent a very long time discussing this article, over months, only for a small group of editors - who have been engaging in extensive discussions on this article amongst themselves away from this page - to seek to impose their favoured approach.

The current version of this article is unstable. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually rather disturbed by some of the earlier talk page discussions that I've seen in the archives, such as one instance in which editors were threatened with topic bans by an editor who indicated previous career ties to the petroleum industry. Earlier versions of this article don't thrill me either. But there's no use in dredging up ancient history; let's move forward and concentrate on content and making this an informative article. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Update (rescued from archives set at 10 days)

Damning update

  • Hertsgaard, Mark (April 22, 2013). "What BP Doesn't Want You to Know About the 2010 Gulf Spill". Newsweek. The Daily Beast. Retrieved April 20, 2013. 'It’s as safe as Dawn dishwashing liquid.' That’s what Jamie Griffin says the BP man told her about the smelly, rainbow-streaked gunk coating the floor of the “floating hotel” where Griffin was feeding hundreds of cleanup workers during the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. 
The article is dated Apr 22, 2013 4:45 AM EDT. —Pawyilee (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Few updates about the effects of this oil/Corexit spill are not damning. I've also added this article above for editors wishing to help update the related section. petrarchan47tc 03:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Pawyilee and Petrarchan. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, Beagle has informed us this is not relevant to BP but belongs in the oil spill consequences article (read by no more than 20 people a day). petrarchan47tc 20:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I haven't followed what any editor does or doesn't do here, but if there is conduct that is delineated by WP:OWN I hope that you aren't discouraged from taking necessary steps to add quality sources here. The source in question is totally relevant to the BP main article. Not at rhapsodic length, but I'm sure that was not your intent in the first place. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to a comment made here. petrarchan47tc 00:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This comment alone has shown your WP:POV on the matter, saying that it shouldn't be in the other article because it is only read by 20 people a day. The number of people that read an article is irrelevant. You're not trying to "expose" BP and get people to read about it.
These sections are already far too large in the article and should not be expanded anymore. If anything, they should be split off and shrunk, because there is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT going on in this article. SilverserenC 02:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that it is just a matter of WP:WEIGHT, there is a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of WP here. I post under my real name and I have no connection whatsoever with BP or the oil industry. If you look at my editing history you will see that I have defended several more minor articles against people who think the purpose of WP is to be a forum for exposing the bad things that organisations may have been involved with. We know how articles about large multinational organisations should be written because we have the example of Microsoft, an article that has be judged to meet the highest standards of WP yet, for some reason, editors here do not follow that example.
I understand that the DWH disaster caused immense damage and hardship to many people and organisations and, of course, it deserves mention here but that is not a reason to turn this into an attack site. I am also rather puzzled as to why the hysteria is directed solely at BP rather than Halliburton or Transocean. There are several pending court cases at which the blame may be finally apportioned but until those cases are complete it is not that clear where most of the blame lies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Interesting choice of words...hysteria. Is that how you view your fellow editors...as hysterical? The reasons (we don't follow the lead of MicroSoft) have been stated, repeatedly. It is not the fault of your fellow editors that BP has so many challenging issues to deal with. It doesnt seem right to mention some and ignore the rest because in some editors mind the article is too long. I don't carry a Manual with me. Is there a "drop dead" length to WP articles? ```Buster Seven Talk 00:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe my choice of words was a little over enthusiastic but I find it hard to think of another word to adequately describe what has happened to this article.
I have never seen any valid reason why we do not follow the lead of the FA Microsoft. Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the environmental and safety record of BP is far worse than that of any major oil company yet you have never produced a single source which says this. Editors here seem to have trawled though press and news reports on BP and put everything negative that they can find into the article. You could do that for any company, including Microsoft, but we should not, because that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.
I have still seen no explanation of why all this negative editing is directed at BP rather than Halliburton or Transocean.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Martin, though I disagree that Buster's entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the environmental and safety record of BP is far worse than that of any major oil company, I would like to respond to your claim that no supportive references for that stance have been provided. They have, repeatedly. Here is a copy of some sources I dug up months ago:

Comparing BP record with competitors

  • This ProPublica article has 2 charts (1/5 down the page) that make comparison with fellow oil companies easy to see.
  • From ABC news: BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
The violations are determined when an employer demonstrated either an "intentional disregard for the requirements of the [law], or showed plain indifference to employee safety and health."
OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation.
  • From NYT: There is a reason Exxon Mobil has not had a serious accident in the subsequent 21 years. Unlike BP, it used the accident to transform itself.
  • NYT: BP compared with Exxon But BP, the nation’s biggest oil and gas producer, has a worse health, environment and safety record than many other major oil companies, according to Yulia Reuter, the head of the energy research team at RiskMetrics, a consulting group that assigns scores to companies based on their performance in various categories, including safety.
The industry standard for safety, analysts say, is set by Exxon Mobil, which displays an obsessive attention to detail, monitors the smallest spill and imposes scripted procedures on managers.
  • From the Houston Chronicle: BP leads the nation in refinery deaths, Chronicle analysis shows "Records show big gap between company and top U.S.-based peer" petrarchan47tc 17:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And more, from the same time period.

  • Separately and collectively, (the reviews) show that when it comes to companies operating in the Gulf, BP is the exception and not the rule. The 50,000-plus wells other firms have successfully drilled in federal waters of the Gulf offer further evidence of how rare these instances are... Forbes
  • There is a widespread sense in the industry and in government that BP was a worse operator, a more dangerous operator, than other oil companies, even before the spill happened. Bloomberg
  • BP was fined $87 million last year for safety violations. According to ProPublica, it’s the largest reparation in the history of the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Over the last three years, BP racked up 760 violations. By way of comparison, Exxon had just three. “Exxon could get 70 times the willful, egregious safety violations and still be 90 percent safer than BP” Vanity Fair
  • Government probes, court filings and BP’s own confidential investigations paint a picture of a company that ignored repeated warnings about the plant’s deteriorating condition and instead remained focused on minimizing costs and maximizing profits. According to a safety audit BP conducted just before the 2005 blast, many of the plant’s more than 2,000 employees arrived at work each day with an “exceptional degree of fear of catastrophic incidents.” ProPublica
  • A review of BP’s history, however, shows a pattern of ethically questionable and illegal behavior that goes back decades… McClatchy
  • “Some investors and analysts say BP’s culture encourages greater risk-taking than rivals, contributing to more higher returns. Critics have also blamed this culture for the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon CNBC petrarchan47tc 17:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Copying without proper attributions

On 28 April, a lot of information from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article was copied here without proper attributions and therefore violating WP:COPYWITHIN. Although the text in Wikipedia is licensed under liberal CC-BY-SA and GFDL, it is still licensed and needs attributions even for copying from one article to another. The best way to resolve this is if the author of these edits will add the properly filled {{Copied}} template to the original article's talk page and this article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on Scope of DW Spill?

Is there or is there not consensus as to whether to provide the details of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in this article? It is my opinion that it does not need to be copied in full into this article, but some editors think that is appropriate. Is there or is there not consensus? If not, is a article content Request for Comments in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am confused by your question. Please explain your contention that some editors want the DWH article "copied full" into this one, with diffs, thanks. There has never been disagreement about providing details of the spill, until yesterday, as evidenced by the section above, which involves editors who have never stepped foot on this page heretofore. petrarchan47tc 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus as to the level of detail on the DWH spill on this page. Many (old and new) believe the current level is excessive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The above statement that "there has never been disagreement about providing details of the spill, until yesterday," is absolutely incorrect. The scope and undue weight of that section has been a subject of the long time dispute. A number of editors have expressed concerns that the article is overloaded with details which does not belong here. The version you reverted back was inserted on 28 April and as there was edit warring about that version, it is clear that there was and is no consensus for it. Beagel (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no consensus as to the level of detail on the DWH spill on this page. Many (old and new) editors believe the current level (prior to todays edit war0 to be balanced and impartial.```Buster Seven Talk 19:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Note that Buster's preferred "level" did not exist before April 30. Shii (tock) 22:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The original question: Is there or is there not consensus as to whether to provide the details of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in this article? , Beagle, asks whether we have argued not over how much detail, but about adding any details. That's how I read these words. I have yet to hear anyone argue against adding details of the spill, rather what I have observed is that feathers are ruffled when we mention any details regarding health or environmental impacts. By your revert today, it appears you and Shii would support three large paragraphs about court cases and financial impacts from the spill, while stating that the health and environmental impact is "incalculable" (avoiding citing RS that does indeed calculate these impacts, and without for supportive RS for that summation). Meanwhile, we have an ongoing conversation here to hash out this section by looking at the science. I don't see science being used to back up your preferred version, and that concerns me. petrarchan47tc 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This is very subjective reporting. There has been constantly posts that the size of DWH (as also also some other safety and environmental issues) has undue weight in this article, so there is no consensus. RS does not mean that any information which is reported by some RS automatically belongs to the article but there are also other policies. Also, I don't say that the version by Shii is perfect but it is clear improvement compared to the version inserted in 29–30 April without consensus and by edit warring. Beagel (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaming the system

Reverting this article three times in 25 hours to include controversial non-consensus content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill while an RFC is in progress on its inclusion is gaming the system on the 3-revert rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Updates - from independent editors

In the spirit of NPOV, the non-BP sanctioned updates should be given equal weight, consideration and respect. Buster suggests using the "done" symbol when Arturo's suggestions are completed. Please do the same for these. A list can be maintained here for the purposes of organization (  Done ), but we might use the individual talk page sections to discuss: petrarchan47tc 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Gulf spill environmental section update/expansion needed

AE missing context Done see this change petrarchan47tc 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, not done. All my work was undone by Beagle. petrarchan47tc 19:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you please stop making personal remarks. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Florida becomes fourth state to sue

Why haven't we added the four states suing over the Gulf spill yet? It seems pretty simple. I've tended to two of Arturo's requests while this list just sits here. petrarchan47tc 00:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Mexico sues BP over Gulf disaster as oil giant faces 2,200 new lawsuits in less than two months

Added content needed, new revelations re Gulf Spill

BP claims fraud

Response one by one:
  • Gulf spill environmental section update/expansion needed. The main articles for this are Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Taking account WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARY, this article does not include all details but it should just be a summary.
  • AE missing context. This was actually already answered in the relevant section. Notwithstanding the fact that some media sources describing the selling of wind assets as "its final exit from Alternative Energy and is fully focussed on oil and gas now", this is an opinion, not fact and therefore, it can't be stated as fact per WP:RS. The news story saying: However, BP noted that their departure from wind doesn’t mean the company is completely out of the alternative energy business. BP still produces ethanol in Brazil and the United Kingdom, and is also conducting biofuel research in the United States. “This is not an exit from alternative energy,” wrote Hartwig, was provided in the original thread.
  • 4th State sues BP. Again, the main articles for this are Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Deepwater Horizon litigation.
So, to be clear, information about states suing BP belong in the BP oil spill articles, not the BP article, according to Beagle. petrarchan47tc 19:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
That article is 100% BP-focused. Have you read it? petrarchan47tc 19:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Beagel (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You can't be serious. petrarchan47tc 20:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • 4th State sues BP. All five Coastal states have now sued BP. How is that not relevant to this article? ```Buster Seven Talk 21:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Director of BP's Claim Fund Convicted of Fraud. It IS relevant here. He was an employee of BP, acting as a agent of BP, His actions reflect on BP not on the Deepwater Horizon accident. Did BP set up the fund or did Deepwater? Moving it to Deepwater will likely obfuscate the reader rather than enlighten them. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you please provide a working link? I find a story with a similar title (FBI press release a linked above and several news repeating what the FBI's press release said). Did you mean that story? If yes, it is not relevant here. But as you saying that your story is about a BP employee, it can't probably be that story. There is a separate case of BP asking for an injunction against the fund's administrator Patrick Juneau, but in this case: 1) there is no conviction; and 2) Junea is not an employee but a court-appointed administrator. Again, how this is relevant in this article here? (It may belong to Deewater Horizon litigation if the court supports BP's claim. Beagel (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm traveling---no notes or high beam access.I'll find a solid link tomorrow and advise. Here is the FBI link----[4] ```Buster Seven Talk 06:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
My mistake. Jean Mari Lindor is NOT an employee of BP. See [5] When I first became aware of the story I heard that Lindor was a disbarred lawyer and had worked for BP. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon cleanup

The Deepwater Horizon section of this article fails to keep BP the main subject. It was imported wholesale from the article Deepwater Horizon oil spill last week, shortly after Violet Blue violated WP:SOFIXIT by complaining about the editing process of this article on a tech news site. BP, of course, has some responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon accident. But the article should focus on those parts of the accident which pertain to BP:

  1. BP's safety procedures at the rig, and what failures have been determined by independent sources.
  2. The legal responsibility assigned to BP by involved governments.
  3. BP's role in the cleanup.
  4. Brief (sentence-long) summaries of damages. The Mississippi shimper must be removed.

Everything else belongs in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. People who want to know the impact on individual creatures, even cute ones like dolphins, should be reading that article, not the BP article. The BP article is meant to summarize information about BP for people who want to know about BP. I will rewrite this section shortly. Shii (tock) 03:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Shii's intention. WP already has an entire article on the DH debacle, and readers can go that that article for details. This BP article should only have material about DH that is directly relevant to BP. For example, appropriate material includes: what was BP's role in causing DH incident? How was BP culpable? Legal proceedings? Recovery efforts? Impact to BP profits? etc. The sections on Environmental Impact & Health Effects could be removed entirely. --Noleander (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I have just removed the environmental and health sections as suggested, along with extraneous information like judge names and case numbers. If anyone thinks this is an attempt to "whitewash" the article, they should see what the section looks like now. It is at least readable now. Unfortunately it does not yet summarize BP's negligence nor post-spill cleanup efforts but that information should not be hard to integrate. Shii (tock) 04:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
What source is being used to support this statement: (caused) incalculable amounts of chemical poisoning? I ask because I've never seen that claim in any article but this one, and I read a lot about this subject so I am not sure how I have missed that. Specifics about the chemical poisoning as well as BP itself, is the topic of this article. Chemical poisoning is indeed being calculated, apparently folks have missed this.
The court cases and financial hit to BP are not the only gulf spill details relevant to this article. Why in the first place are they in trouble for spilling oil? Because of its toxicity to the environment, and the damage it leaves behind. But in the case of this spill, the oil is 52 times more toxic than normal, because of the use of Corexit - the most ever used by a long shot, and the only time it was ever used under water. It made this spill unique in its destructiveness (not only to BPs stock value...). It seems ridiculous to overlook this while financial costs take center stage at this article. Realize that the court cases and financial effects of the spill also have their own pages. If editors interest is truly NPOV and to "keep BP the center of the article", i imagine gratitude will be the response to being shown the Newsweek piece. petrarchan47tc 06:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
It is good to see some editors here who want to turn this back into an encyclopedia article. I have repeated two points which need to be addressed in sections below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Petrar, I don't disagree with anything you say. But the effects of Deepwater Horizon are large and trying to summarize the whole Newsweek article here would be a disservice to our readers. We would (1) fail to accurately describe all the effects, (2) create potential for constant further nitpicking over what specific details of a very obviously bad situation should be included, and (3) make the section messier and take the focus away from BP's role. Readers who are interested in the subject should be directed to the five preexisting articles about Deepwater Horizon. I do invite you to correct any errors in my descriptions. Shii (tock) 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Shii, of course "all the effects" will not be described here or in any article; every edit we place in WP involves selection of the main points. It's not called opening the articles we write to nitpicking or creating messy articles--it's just what we do. Gandydancer (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that I strongly disagree with such a drastic cut to the Gulf oil spill section, as it throws the entire section out of kilter. After an all-too-brief description of the enormous effects of the oil spill, we then get a justifiably substantial description of the civil and criminal proceedings that followed. But as a result of the cuts, these are now stripped of context. I'm going to restore the previous language and structure, and if anything is inappropriate it can be changed if justified. However, it is hard to conceive of any major aspect of the Gulf oil spill that is not related directly to BP. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 13:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This article is not the main article for the DWH as there is a series of articles about the spill and its different aspects. It should be included here, of course, but it should to cover the aspects relevant to BP, not the whole oil spill. There are all links and also templates, so if anybody has interest about the different aspects of the spill, it all is just one click away. It is also logical to assume that people looking for information about the spill, will use the search of 'Deepwater Horizon' or something similar and not necessarily BP. In its current form that subsection here violates WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT and potentially WP:POVFORK. Therefore I will restore the version by user:Shii. Beagel (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Figureofnine, you are in a minority of one as things currently stand. Shii (tock) 14:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Beagel, I would suggest that the entire Gulf oil spill is relevant to BP. I find it shocking that an effort is being made here to downplay the oil spill on this page. This truly is a whitewash. Shii, I wasn't counting votes here but I think the rule is that neutrality and completeness of articles is a matter of policy and not of whoever happens to be present on the talk page at any one time. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 14:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, as there are more relevant articles for DWH. Copying all this information here while more relevant articles exist violates different policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT as also creates a risk for potential WP:POVFORK. One may call following these policies "whitewashing" but one may call this also a step towards re-creation of neutrality. It really depends of POV. Concerning your comment to Shii, there had been several attempts to find consensus concerning of the structure and scope of different sections of this article, unfortunately there have been no willingness by some editors to agree with any consensus other than their POV. Beagel (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The use of the term "whitewash" for the removal of content from this article that is contained in another article to which this article links is harsh and could be seen as violating the rules about civility. It would be a whitewash if the information was deleted from article on the spill. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it is plain and simply a whitewash of this article. But not to worry. I see that this article is a basket case and hopeless, not worth my time. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Beagle reverted back to the contested version saying "per talk". I do not see any consensus here, so please don't revert until there is one. petrarchan47tc 18:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Concensus for any change was never discussed By known-to-be-concerned editors over the last day or so. You cant say :"per talk". That implies agreement. A new editor, with complete disregard for the efforts of previous editors, walks in the door, moves the furniture around and throws half of it in the trash. And, to compound it, some editors support the action...while the rest of the "room-mates" are at work at their RL jobs. Amazing!. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Per talk page meant that I explained my reason at the talk page. There is no consensus, that true. There was also no consensus for the previous version forced by edit warring by some editors. The version of User:Shii was made in good faith and it was explained at the talk page. It was definitely a step toward more neutral version. There was no consensus for reverting it. Beagel (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It was a step that should have been discussed BEFORE it was taken not just a statement made that "I'm gonna disregard any history here and just make a drastic changhe tgo a highly contentious article"!!!. I don't have the time or desire to check, but has Shii edited this article to any extent before now? The concensus for reverting it is understood. Petra intuitivelly knew she had the support of editors that were not present. I Assue Good Faith....while at the same time assuming that this wasa back-door attempt to get the changes that you want. It wont work. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Buster, are you familiar with WP:BEBOLD? I'm going to be bold enough right now to revert to my version again, since I don't see any coherent arguments against it here. How about at least waiting through the RFC before you decide I haven't been arguing long enough to be allowed to make changes. Shii (tock) 22:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm familiar with everything. Its not that you are new here. Its that you ignored the existing editors. BEBOLD doesnt mean BEDISRESPECTFUL ```Buster Seven Talk 13:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of editors making coherent arguments, including the one I just made in the new RfC. But your reversion provides what is not even a slightly coherent argument, which is that there is a copyright issue because it was copied from other articles on Wikipedia! That's nonsense. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 23:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipeady is a subject of copyright policy and therefore should be properly attributed. This is not nonsense. Please see WP:COPYWITHIN. Beagel (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The template at the talk page applies only to the 13 April edit copying one sentence. All edits on 28-29 April copying text without proper attributions are not covered by this template.Beagel (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Collapsing unconstructive thread initiated by blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I invite anyone interested in the truth and in building a quality article here to look carefully at this revert by Binksternet: [6]. It speaks for itself. Note that BP has no such business segments as "Oil and natural gas" or "Oil refining and marketing", the segments are called "Upstream" and "Downstream", as anyone within even a slight knowledge or interest in BP would know. Note also that even as generic descriptions of the activities of these segments, "Oil and natural gas" and "Oil refining and marketing" are incorrect and misleading. Again, anyone with even a slight knowledge of either BP or the petroleum industry would know this. Edits like this demonstrate not just a complete lack of knowledge of BP and its industry however, they show clearly that the only reason for the editor's presence here is to promote a negative view of BP. 2.101.0.131 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Says the now blocked anti-Semite. petrarchan47tc 19:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Calling someone 'anti-Semite' is as bad as calling someone 'a a group of Jewish Wikipedia editors'. I hope that the admin. taking care of this article will remove that comment. This is concerning if instead of edits and how to improve the article there are comments about other editors. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Regrettably, promoting a negative view of BP seems to be the mission of several editors here. We can only hope that new editors will arrive who would like to restore this to being an encyclopedia article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Martin Hogbin that the article has acquired too much non-neutral content. However, those on both sides of whether to include large amounts of negative content or whether to trim the negative content from this article (because it is in linked articles) should remember to be civil and refrain from personal attacks on editors with whom they disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality again

I've stayed out of this article for a while because I don't want to deal with the anti-BP POV-pushers, but I just decided to check out the article again and saw that it had gotten worse by an enormous margin. When I haven't even scrolled down half the length of the article yet and the entire rest is about controversies, you know you have a neutrality issue. Isn't it about time that you guys split off a Controversies article all on its own? SilverserenC 08:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
A controversies article would serve BP very nicely, taking most of the negative text out of this article and therefore ghetto-izing it. At 71,000 characters of readable prose, the article is large but not too large. I don't think it needs to be split, and even if I did I would split out the history of British Petroleum into its own article. Neutrality problems should be dealt with here. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not supporting the split specifically just pointing out that the article has completely lost its encyclopedic purpose. Have a look at Microsoft. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the content is relevant, meaning that it would be appropriate to put it in a separate Controversies article or the content isn't relevant, which means it should be removed altogether. SilverserenC 17:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Question: If you have a Controversies article, how much controversy would be left here? Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Microsoft and Jesus articles are mentioned by different editors as model examples, so they will give some understanding what is meant by the split proposal. I think that the practice of the Category:FA-Class articles should be followed, although the controversies section here would be probably little bit (but not significantly) longer than for the average of FA-class articles. Beagel (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look at those articles and see what you mean. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Split. In its current form the different controversies sections have undue weight and as such, violate WP:NPOV. We should look how the controversies are addressed at the FA-class articles as the ultimate goal of the all articles is to be FA-class articles to serve our readers in the best way. Beagel (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No. Definitely not appropriate to split off controversies. Not even a close question. The two articles cited as examples (Microsoft and Jesus Christ) are not comparable to this one. I see no major emphasis issue here that would require such radical action. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • NoI do not think a split is the right way to go. Most of the so-called controversy should be removed completely. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No , not for the reason given. That would be a WP:POVFORK. But consideration should be given to a split of BP history, as has been suggested by Slim Virgin, Binksternet, and most recently Smallbones. petrarchan47tc 21:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Political controversies

I don't think "Political controversies" is a neutral headline for the "Contributions and lobbying" sub-section, so I think it should be changed. As for the Lockerbie affaire, I can assume it was controversial, but it does appear like lobbying the way it is described in this article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, lobbying for the release of the Lockerbie bomber is not a neutral event and is more accurately described as a controversy than as mere lobbying. petrarchan47tc 18:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
There are two sections under "Political controversies" Lockerbie and contributions/lobbying in USA. The last one, does not describe major controversies; even though I am sure some are negative to it, it isn't primarily a controversy. And we should't have a headline called "controversies" for two sub-sections, if only one is controversial in a qualified way. That goes against NPOV and the principle of conservative editing. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. Just to be clear, it bothers you that we call the following controversial, and you would rather we address this as a neutral event:
BP lobbied the British government to conclude a prisoner-transfer agreement which the Libyan government had wanted to secure the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing over Scotland, which killed 270 people. BP stated that it pressed for the conclusion of prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) amid fears that delays would damage its "commercial interests" and disrupt its £900 million offshore drilling operations in the region, but it said that it had not been involved in negotiations concerning the release of Megrahi.
Your point that one controversy doesn't justify a "controversy" section heading is good. But your solution, a change to a neutral section title, does not help the Wikipedia reader one iota and makes this page less encyclopedic. It does help BP's image, I would point out. petrarchan47tc 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I do think the main section headline should be neutral as it covers both controversial and relatively uncontroversial material, and thus a headline called controversy in misleading. Removing a misleading headline is in line with Wikipedia policies and in the interest of serious readers. The natural solution here appears to have a neutral headline for the main section and then "controversy" can be added to the sub-section about Lockerbie. I didn't do it because I am generally not so happy for controversy headlines and often think the stuff can speak for itself. But I see other positions can be valdid regarding the Lockerbie sub-section. Your comment about the implicacations for BP's image is somewhat irrelevant; the point is to uphold Wikipedia's standard for neutrality and correct labels. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems like an argument that can go either way. The section is 50% controversial, but that controversy is pretty immense. As a compromise, I've changed the heading from 'controversies' to "Political influence". This phrasing comes from the 2011 version of the Intro:
BP's track record of corporate social responsibility has been mixed. The company has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. However, in 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over $1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend $8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period. petrarchan47tc 22:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Then can we have a section on actual Contributions and lobbying, a section that should be in any company article that is involved in such? Because clearly this "Political controversies" section, yet another attempt to turn this article into a POV fork, has nothing to do with the topic of Contributions and lobbying or is a very minor subtopic. SilverserenC 18:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Silver, do you do any research before commenting? There IS NO political controversies section. petrarchan47tc 19:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
There was. And now it is "Political influence", which seems like a ridiculous section title and doesn't explain anything. Everything is political influence. By existing, they have political influence.
Not to mention that the Lockerbie section appears to be written in a biased manner. Why doesn't it mention that the reason why the deal was proposed was because doctors believed he was going to die within three months of advanced cancer? So BP pushed for the transfer agreement to make Libya happy with the UK, since it wouldn't matter in the long run if he was released, because he was expected to die. Why isn't this mentioned? SilverserenC 23:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
So make a constructive suggestion. You have a hectoring tone that is unhelpful. Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
How would I know why this isn't mentioned? If you have a ref, add it. petrarchan47tc 02:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The refs in the section already state this. So why wasn't it added when the section was created? You all are complaining about Arturo's POV on the matter and his POV writing, what about how all of you are writing in a manner that is purposefully ignoring or omitting information? SilverserenC 03:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I think expanding that section is a good idea, not because it's such a terror from the BP standpoint, which it most emphatically is not, but because it is too bare bones at present. It needs to have more detail on the whole affair, including in particular that Hilary Clinton has said the US will investigate BP's role. This company gets in so much hot water, and this article has such a history of omission of unflattering details, that this may be the only article in Wikipedia that would omit such a thing and it would be such a routine thing that nobody noticed. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
So this is about berating other editors, not about the section in question or article content. If you spot POV problems with "you all", please take your concerns to the proper noticeboard rather than hijacking discussions about the article. People will stop AGF after a while and will stop reading your contributions if you become known as a whiner and/or time-waster. Lockerbie Bomber Release A Worldwide Embarrassment - Doc Admits Libyan Government Paid Him To Falsely Diagnose Al-Megrahi Sentenced to life in prison, the terrorist was released last summer because his cancer allegedly left him with just months to live. But nearly a year later, he's still alive. And the doctor who examined him now admits he was paid by the Libyan government and that al-Megrahi may live for another decade. He lived three more years. You apparently do not do much research before commenting here. But, it's never too late to start. petrarchan47tc 08:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I already know that he lived for three more years, but it was stated at the time of the lobbying that it was believed he would only live for three months. And unless you have evidence showing that BP knew the doctor was being paid by the Libyan government, it has nothing to do with BP at all. SilverserenC 09:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thats the problem with information. Once you give the reader a little taste, it requires that we show the whole piece of cheese to provide deeper understanding...and we just can't do that with everything. There was no purposeful ommitting of info. Such a claim is unpleasent and only causes strife. If we mention that the reason why the deal was proposed was because doctors believed he was going to die within three months of advanced cancer? So BP pushed for the transfer agreement to make Libya happy with the UK, since it wouldn't matter in the long run if he was released, because he was expected to die. then we need to mention Sentenced to life in prison, the terrorist was released last summer because his cancer allegedly left him with just months to live. But nearly a year later, he's still alive. And the doctor who examined him now admits he was paid by the Libyan government and that al-Megrahi may live for another decade. He lived three more years. And the article becomes longer and longer while other editors claim it is too long already. We are having enough debate on the depth of describing the DWH incident. Do we really need to start another contentious topic? Omitting info is at the heart of most of the discussions about mentioning DWH here at the BP article. Its hard to understand how we should omit balanced info for one Major topic and include minutia on another. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

@SilverS: As far as al-Megrahi is concerned, the article is already slanted in favor of BP by not mentioning that the U.S. Secretary of State said[7] that the U.S. would investigate BP's role in the matter. If anything, the "politics" section gives short shrift to the political controversies this company is involved it. It is yet another example of how WIkipedia is not treating BP in a neutral manner in this article. This huggy-kissy protective attitude toward BP really has to stop. It's embarrassing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Core, I would agree to reverting my change. There is no way we can refer to the Lockerbie release as anything but controversial (though the original complaint on this thread is correct - the section heading "controversies" doesn't really apply to lobbying).
An excerpt from The Hill

BP has admitted it pushed London to expedite a prisoner-exchange deal with Tripoli to smooth the way, Schumer said. “We then know that the British government agreed to release al-Megrahi based on a fraudulent doctor’s prognosis that he had three months to live,” Schumer said. “Once Megrahi is released, all the roadblocks to that oil deal [are] removed.” Straw has denied any link between the oil deal and the terrorist release, but Schumer said, “If anyone thinks this is a coincidence, I have a bridge to sell them in Brooklyn.” petrarchan47tc 18:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well you know, I'm not sure "controversies" is optimal as much of what is contained in that section is not controversial. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"Influence" is accurate and I actually I think it is OK for now. Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Categories

The article currently includes category:Companies based in DuPage County, Illinois and category:Economy of Alaska which seems to be too subjective categories to be included. Companies based-categories list companies usually by their headquarters but DuPage County is not even the location of the BP America headquarters (which is Houston, Texas. I am not even sure if the category:Companies based in Houston, Texas should be included but it has at least some justification). In case of Alaska, BP has its role in Alaska economy, of course, but it would be probably more logical to categorize by this category more Alaska specific articles and not the article about the company in general. Therefore I propose to remove these categories. Beagel (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to remove these two categories per above. Beagel (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do we not follow the example of the only FA on a large multinational company, Microsoft?

Despite assertions to the contrary, I see no reason, based on WP policy, why this article should not follow the lead of what has been judged to be one of the best written articles in WP on a large multinational. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Compared to this article Microsoft looks like a corporate promotional brochure.

Maybe yoiu missed this reason back in April. Here it is again: Not so. If Microsoft had produced a product that killed 11 of their employees during the "before market" stage, I'm sure the editors at the article would have created a "criticism" section. Or lets say a warehouse full of Microsoft products all of a sudden self-combusted and emitted a dark ominous cloud of smoke and carcinogens over a 20 mile area...for almost four months... I think the Microsoft editors would mention it. . Can you see the difference? Can you understand how, other that being large corporations, there is no simalarity between Microsft and BP? None. And being an FA is not the be-all and end-all of an article. Providing info is. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
BP is an oil company. Oil is a dirty and dangerous but necessary business. If you drive or use oil or gas for heating or use oil based products then you depend on the oil industry. We therefore need to compare the safety and environmental record of BP with other oil companies. If you can find a reliable source that shows that BP as a company has a generally and significantly worse record that that of other supermajors then there might be a case for extended content on negative aspects of the company. No one has so far produced such a source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
No, there will be "extended content on negative aspects of the company" if there is extended content on the negative aspects of the company in the reliable sources, which there obviously is. As for the study to which you allude, if we can get some kind of perfect study fitting all the criteria we went, fine. Failing that, whatever articles are available on this point in reliable sources are eminently usable. This is not the Quest for the Perfect Source. There are plenty of impeccably reliably sourced content that contrasts BP with other major oil companies. Setting the bar higher than exists in the sources would be a form of censorship and whitewashing, which we don't want to do, lest we violate NPOV. Coretheapple (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Sources Martin has been requesting are listed here. petrarchan47tc 21:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Editor Petra. That is, indeed, a lot of sources stating that BP outdistances its competition when it comes to negative safety and environmental issues. My hope is that the "pro-informing the reader" faction isn't blamed for being negative and anti-BP. Can we now expect to see extended coverage of negative aspects of BP Corporation and a halting of trying to compare the Microsoft "clean hands" article to the BP "hands covered in oil" article. Or is the pressure to compare the two based on the fact that Pro-BP Corporation editor Rangoon11 had edited the Microsoft article...so it has his seal of approval? ```Buster Seven Talk 06:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Petrarchan has kindly put the sources on my talk page where I have offered to discuss, away from the heat of this page, the reasons that I do not consider those sources remotely sufficient to treat BP completely differently from other large multinationals and what sources might be sufficient to do this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. We don't decide how to "treat" BP. The reliable sources do. We reflect that. If we reflected fully how the reliable sources cover BP, this article would be far more negative than it is now. That is the difference between Microsoft, Mother Teresa, Saint Joan and BP. Coretheapple (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Not so, there are many of sources in BP, we have to decide which ones to use. Petrarchan put some sources on my home page which were claimed to show why we should give particular weight to certain topics. They are nor reliable or authoritative for that purpose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Since you reject inclusion of reliable secondary sources of indisputable quality as being "not reliable or authoritative," I'm not sure there is much point in trying to argue the point with you.Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why has the BP article been selected for excessive unencyclopedic content?

Two other companies were, to some degree, responsible for the DWH disaster Transocean and Haliburton. Until the legal cases between BP and these companies are settled we have no reliable way of knowing where the blame lies. The Transocean and Haliburton articles remain unscathed and give us and idea how this article should look. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  1. REDIRECT Target page name - Petrarchan, is this an error or is it supposed to mean something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
No serious answers then? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
What???? petrarchan47tc 02:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Where is your serious answer then? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The Transocean and Haliburton articles remain unscathed... You're welcome to scathe them if you are so inclined. Coretheapple (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
See my comments below about sarcasm. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Why do you not answer my question? Why is it just BP?
I do not intend to add volumes of negative content to the Transocean and Haliburton pages because I believe that they represent much better quality articles than this one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I did answer your question. My philosophy is "one mess at a time." If you don't like my answer, ask someone else. Coretheapple (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
So are you going to add the same volume of negative material to those articles? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If you feel those articles are good quality, why do you want me to add negative material to them? Your remarks are not constructive. Please stop wasting people's time. Coretheapple (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
On the Internet, no one can tell when you are being sarcastic, so please avoid sarcasm. At least I assume that the question about adding negative material to Transocean and Haliburton was sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You're wasting everyone's time because they have to clean up your attempts to POV slant the article. SilverserenC 01:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The posting of angry comments is wasting everyone's time. Please be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Coretheapple, I do not want you to add negative material to Transocean and Haliburton articles, I am just asking whether it is your intention to do so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and I think that this section is an excellent example of the misuse of the talk page without constructive purpose. Coretheapple (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Correcting some errors

There are a number of small factual errors in this article that I have noticed. As Buster Seven has done before, I will place these under separate headings to make it clearer and so that editors can mark each as done, as needed:

History: 1979 to 2000

  • Not an error, per se, but under "History", in the section "1979 to 2000", there is no mention that Robert Horton was the CEO of BP America before he was appointed to replace Sir Peter Walters as BP chairman. See the following source: The New York Times.
In general, I am not against adding this but is it really important here? We have a separate article for Robert Horton, which is linked from this article, and the information could be found there. Beagel (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Horton appears in the article without any kind of description so I thought it would be helpful to readers to mention he was previously CEO of BP America, but I defer to other editors' opinions on this. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, not exactly an error, but current article has very little about BP's history in Russia before the 2000's. Here's an article discussing BP's first office in Moscow in 1990, which could be noted in this portion of "History". See this Moscow Times article.
I agree that the information how and when BP's operations in Russia started should be added. However, the Moscow Times article talks about acquiring 25% stake in Sidako but adds no more information. For this addition we will need additional sources providing more information. Beagel (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a sidebar to the Moscow Times article that provides a chronology of BP's operations from the establishment of the first Russian office in 1990 onwards. Is that enough information to make a small addition noting the company's entry into Russia? There are also several other articles with timelines available that might be useful for adding summarized details on BP's historical Russian operations, for example this Reuters article. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added two sentences about early Russian operations. Beagel (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

BP America headquarters

Seems that Bloomberg made just a mistake and this correction seems to be technical, non-controversial. Beagel (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Beagel (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

BP Explorations headquarters

  • In the first paragraph of "Operations", it indicates that BP Exploration headquarters are located in Houston, TX. However, this is incorrect: BP's North American headquarters are located in Houston, but BP has no specific Exploration headquarters. See the list of important business addresses on the BP website.
I propose the we just will remove the second part of that sentence "...and its exploration headquarters are located in Houston, United States." as also the second reference after this sentence by Petroleum Economist. [8] Beagel (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Beagel (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon

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

The main spill article says that the total estimated volume of leaked oil approximated 4.9 million barrels (210,000,000 US gal; 780,000 m3) with plus or minus 10% uncertainty, [9] of which over 810,000 barrels (34 million US gal; 129,000 m3) was collected or burned before it could enter the Gulf waters.[10] To avoid confusion between different sources talking about 4.9 million barrels and 4.1 million barrels, it should be explained what is the difference. Beagel (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Beagel, the sources above explain that the 4.1 million barrels estimate is the current estimate being used for the Clean Water Act trial. I also found this Houston Chronicle article that more clearly explains that the difference between the earlier government estimate of 4.9 million barrels and the 4.1 million barrel estimate is the more than 800,000 barrels that were collected from the well before they could enter the Gulf waters. It may be helpful for readers if this could be explained in the section, perhaps wording similar to "earlier government estimates for the spill were around 4.9 million barrels but this was lowered in early 2013 to a new official estimate of 4.1 million barrels, in order to exclude over 800,000 barrels that were collected before entering the Gulf". Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Has any editor reviewed these changes and then made the subsequent changes to the article?. I ask since none of the threads have been discussed or noted as {{done}}. ```Buster Seven Talk 10:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the timing, this laundry list was placed here right in the middle of very active, ongoing discussions. Until things slow down, I am not going to tale on another assignment. By the way, the independent list has not been attended to either. petrarchan47tc 18:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
As you see, I commented two of these proposals but I did not want make any changes without discussion. So far nobody has made any changes. Beagel (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies here, Beagel and for making two of the above edits. I've replied to your questions under the individual sections above. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I've moved the "survey" section up to the RfC, as it is identical in scope Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 12:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Investigation of suspected anticompetitive practices

Recently, the following paragraph was added to the article:

In May 2013, BP's London offices were raided by regulators from the European commission investigating allegations the company "colluded" for over a decade to rig oil prices, and to inflate the cost of petrol.[1] Officials launched unannounced inspections involving several other oil companies at the same time, charging they had "colluded in reporting distorted prices to a price reporting agency...to manipulate the published prices for a number of oil and biofuel products".[2][3]

This is a strange addition as unannounced inspections are a preliminary step to investigate suspected anticompetitive practices and usual actions practice of all competition authorities when investigating potential market abuse. Similar actions have been carried out in finance, IT and other sectors but if they not politically motivated (as happens in some countries) they does not sere mentioning as an encyclopaedic fact. There is nothing similar in the Microsoft article, however, similar investigations have been carried out in several times in the Microsoft's headquarters. According to the European Commission, the fact of unannounced inspection "does not mean that the companies are guilty of anti-competitive behaviour nor does it prejudge the outcome of the investigation itself."[11] In addition, the current paragraph is WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS written in non-encyclopaedic bad journalism style. The text is also factually incorrect as the Commission says that "the companies may have colluded in reporting distorted prices" not "charging they had colluded in reporting distorted prices". However, instead of removing it, I propose more precise and encyclopaedic text:

In May 2013, the European Commission announced an investigation on suspected anticompetitive practices involving several oil companies, including BP.[4][5] The Commission suspects that companies may have reported distorted prices to the price reporting agency Platts to manipulate the published oil prices and prevent others market participants from participating in the price assessment process.[4][5][6][7][8] Beagel (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be very easy to fill up the Microsoft article with negative press and media comments but that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Coretheapple just reverted the edit without discussion although it was explained at the talk page what are thge problems. In addition, some relevant references were removed and correct formatting of others were reverted to ugly form of bot-style reference filling which is disrespect against fellow editors. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Your editing obscured the fact that these companies are investigated for bid-rigging. Let's use English please, and keep the jargon to a minimum. This is an encyclopedia article, not a corporate press release. Coretheapple (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

More comments about the recent changes:

  • The European Commission memo says: "companies may have colluded in reporting distorted prices". Coretheapple change it: "companies have colluded in reporting distorted prices". "May have colluded" and "have colluded" are very different things. While in the first case it may have or may have not happened, in the second case its says that it have certainly happened. This is a classic example of POV editing reporting suspicions has facts. Even more, the European Commission explicitly states that "The fact that the Commission carries out such inspections does not mean that the companies are guilty of anti-competitive behaviour nor does it prejudge the outcome of the investigation itself. "
  • As it was said, unannounced inspection (which is the official and encyclopaedic term instead of 'raiding' -- we should use encyclopeadic terms instead of media language) is an usual part of any investigation of suspected market abuse. Reporting this to make a false impression, particularly taking account the disclaimer by the European Commission cited in the previous point, is a POV which does not belong here.
  • There are other subjects of the investigation than BP, Shell, Statoil and Platts. E.g. Eni has disclosed that they have received the Commission request for information in this case. There may be other companies has the Commission has not disclosed the list of companies under investigation. However, as this article is about BP, the names of other companies are irrelevant (and we don't know the full list anyway).

Beagel (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

When a sentence reads "The Commission suspects that companies colluded..." saying "may have colluded," adding the word "may," adds absolutely nothing, because the verb "suspects" makes that word unecessary. We definitely need to add the names of the other companies, because they have been announced by the EC, so it's incorrect to say that "we don't know the full list anyway." Omitting the names of the other companies gives the incorrect impression that there are dozens and dozens of other companies, when in fact there are just two others. And yes, "raiding" is fine, as it is used by the reliable sources. Whether you like those reliable sources or not is neither here nor there. Wikipedia is not censored. We don't have to protect our readers, or BP, from the unpleasant fact that BP and other offices were raided. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
...they have been announced by the EC... This is incorrect as no name has been disclosed by the EC. All names in media are from the companies who has disclosed this. However, there may be more companies. As it has been reported, e.g. Eni has get an request from the EC to provide documents/information. Therefore, we don't now the full list who is under the investigation. Beagel (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. We report what the reliable sources say, and that is all we say. We don't give some kind of murky wording of our own invention that will mislead our readers.Coretheapple (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)... and also cast suspicion on companies like Exxon and Chevron that have not been raided and are apparently not under investigation. Again, we're not mother hens, we're editors, and our job is pure and simply to reflect what is in the reliable secondary sources. Coretheapple (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
No source says that there is no more companies under investigation. Beagel (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
That's right. We have an easy job. All we do is reflect what is in the reliable secondary sources. If BP feels that the coverage is skewed or unfair or flawed, it can contact the editors. That is not our concern. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Sources about Eni: [12], [13] Beagel (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Eni was just asked for information, but it hasn't been raided. We can add a sentence saying that, but aren't you the one who was saying how fit and trim this article has to be? Up to you. I have no problem with adding a sentence saying that Eni was asked for information but, unlike BP and the others, was not raided. Coretheapple (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, it is not important who was inspected (or has you prefer to say: 'raided') but who is under investigation. And in long run even this is not important but important is what the result of the investigation will be. At its current form this is very WP:RECENT and WP:NEWSPAPER. Beagel (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Wrong on all counts. It is important if the reliable secondary sources say it is important, and they certainly do in this instance. This is a significant probe that is sweeping the European media. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia, not newspaper. Beagel (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
You should try reading that guideline you keep quoting. It says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage." That's what's happening here. One of the distortions prevalent in this talk page is that "recentism" has been distorted as an excuse to prevent content on the numerous scandals in which BP is enmeshed. Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The latest addition citing the EC (The EC said that "Even small distortions of assessed prices may have a huge impact on the prices of crude oil, refined oil products and biofuels purchases and sales, potentially harming final consumers.") without adding the other part of the EC statement, which says: The fact that the Commission carries out such inspections does not mean that the companies are guilty of anti-competitive behaviour nor does it prejudge the outcome of the investigation itself. is violation of NPOV. However, with all these addition, this is WP:DUE about WP:RECENT and WP:NEWSPAPER. What was wrong with the two sentence saying that: 1) there is an investigation involving BP; and 2) what the investigation is about? Beagel (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So add a disclaimer if you think it is so important. I don't. But that EC statement is important because it tells our readers why this probe is important to them. We don't want to purge this section of any value and muck it up in industry jargon to submerge its significance, do we? Nor do we want to make the reference to the investigation so bare-bones that the reader doesn't know what it's about. Your language made it read like some kind of remote little technical thing, involving a host of unnamed companies.
And let me just clarify something for you. The term "raided" was not my word but has been utilized by multiple, impeccably reliable sources. You're the one who says "inspected." It is not our job to be mother hens or to behave as if the subjects of these articles are our paid clients, whom we must protect from unfavorable news coverage. And no, it is not important if there was a request for information but yes, it is important if a company was raided in connection with this probe. Coretheapple (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
"But that EC statement is important because it tells our readers why this probe is important to them. " You mean like a... newspaper would? Your definitions of newspaper and encyclopedia seem to be completely muddled.
I agree with Beagel, your version of the paragraph is much too long for an investigation that only just started. Shii (tock) 22:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that whether you're dealing with a newspaper or encyclopedia, the contents need to be comprehensible and complete. More generally, if BP were involved in fewer serious scandals, there would need to be less content in the article on its serious scandals. There is no Wikipedia policy that requires us to be uninformative about recent scandals, or to barely say a thing about them because they are recent. This is not celebrity gossip, or whether or not an actor with a long record on the stage was arrested for wife-beating. This is a major oil company with a truly scandal-plagued recent history, the magnitude of which is amply explored in reliable secondary sources. I fear that the phalanx of editors who wish to softpeddle all of the many negative aspects of this company's actions has discouraged editors making good-faith attempts to make this into a complete and informative article that does not read as if it was generated by BP's public relations department. Coretheapple (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The EU also investigated Microsoft. Here's the reference to that in the Microsoft article: "In March 2004 the European Union brought antitrust legal action against the company, citing it abused its dominance with the Windows OS, resulting in a judgment of €497 million ($613 million) and to produce new versions of Windows XP without Windows Media Player, Windows XP Home Edition N and Windows XP Professional N." One sentence. BP should look the same way. Shii (tock) 21:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it's absurd to suggest that because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that we are somehow hamstrung from providing a clear but concise explanation of the investigation of BP and these other companies for rigging the oil markets over a ten-year period. It appears to be three sentences at the moment, which is the bare minimum to convey the character of the investigation, though I imagine that the third sentence is not burningly needed. Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

References