Talk:BP

Further facts to update

As editors are working on consolidating information in the Operations section of the article, I have been reviewing the details to see if there are any pieces of information that can be updated in this section. The following are a few details that I noted are now out-of-date.

In the United States section under Operations:

# of employees

• The number of employees is no longer 23,000 since the sale of the Texas City refinery in February; the current number is 21,000. Additionally, the investment in the U.S. can also be updated. See the Forbes source below and the Investment in America page on the BP website

Proposed change:

As of March 2013, the company employs approximately 21,000 people in the US, where it has invested $55 billion in energy development.

 Done ```Buster Seven Talk 08:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster Seven, I think that this change wasn't completely made in the article or has been partly undone: I see that the investment number has been updated but not the total number of employees in the first paragraph of the United States section has not. Would you be able to update this? I appreciate your previous assistance. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done The number of employees in the U.S. was updated per above. Beagel (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

# of leases

• In the paragraph on operations in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, the company was awarded 40 leases following the June 2012 bid. See The Washington Post source below

Proposed change:

In December 2011, BP acquired 11 newly available leases for resource exploration rights to areas of federal waters in the Gulf and in June 2012 it acquired 40 further leases.

• The Washington Post article is interesting. To a layperson, the language used in the article is much clearer than the above version and would be preferable for an encyclopedia: leases for "offshore oil and gas prospects". I am guessing "resources" is industry speak, but if you mean "oil" then that's probably what we should say. The article also mentioned BP is the largest producer in the Gulf, why not mention that too? As a reader, I would appreciate this tidbit. From WaPo: The London-based oil giant is the largest leaseholder in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico, with more than 700 leases, and it is the gulf’s largest producer of oil and gas, from more than 20 fields there. It won 40 new leases in June. petrarchan47tc 08:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Petra here about mentioning that BP is the "gulf's largest producer of oil and gas". This is the perfect location and the same ref can be used for both pieces of information. Being the largest producer is important especially if we are going to change the ranking (requestd below)```Buster Seven Talk 09:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Change of 43 leases into 40  Done Note: I did not remove the "in the central region of the Gulf" ending which was part of the sentence in the article prior to Arturo's request but not included in Arturo's request. If the 40 leases were not "in the central region of the Gulf", please advise. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • Petrarchan, while The Washington Post's article linked above is a good reference for the leases acquired in June, it is otherwise out of date regarding BP's presence in the Gulf. As I've explained below, BP is no longer the largest producer in the Gulf. Also, due to a divestment completed at end of November (see this Houston Business Journal article), the number of fields BP has in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico is now more than 15 fields, rather than 20. I believe that due to some expiring licenses, the company has nearly 700 leases, rather than "more than 700" although I am still confirming that. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
      • That's an important factoid. Can you point to a reliable source that provides more updated data? Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Coretheapple, I have not been able to locate a secondary source that clearly details the reduced number of fields, but as you can see from the Houston Business Journal source I linked above, since The Washington Post's article, BP sold its interests in around seven fields. The total number is now definitely less than the "more than 20" reported in The Washington Post. I do know the actual number of fields is 16 now. If you were referring to number of leases, there is an internal database we are able to access for lease information but it is not public and I am not aware of any news articles revealing the latest numbers. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Macondo field

• In the same paragraph there's a strange sentence that states:

It also owns corrupted Macondo field.

I'm not sure what this should say, but the source cited doesn't say anything about Macondo at all.

• The Macondo field is the site of the DeepWaterHorizon drilling rig explosion. True, the ref doesnt mention Macondo or DWH but I'm sure a source can be found that makes that point. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• When I get a chance, I will search out a reference that makes the connection between Macondo and DWH. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• A new sentence with a reference has been suggested below. I don't presume to be the only one capable of making the suggested changes. I just trust myself the most. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested sentence....BP is also the leaseholder and operator of the Macondo well, the site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

Just a technical clarification: it is correct to say that BP is (was?) operator of the Macondo well, but the lease is not for the well but the whole Macondo Prospect (Mississippi Canyon Block 252). It is interesting what actually happened with this lease after the spill: is it still in force or was it cancelled by authorities? If yes, I propose a modified text: BP is also the leaseholder of the Macondo Prospect and was operator of the Macondo well, the site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

Beagel (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, let me check with folks who know better than me so we have the best, most precise wording. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have heard back from my colleague who confirms that the most precise way to explain the lease is the following:

BP is the leaseholder of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 and the operator of the Macondo well, the site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

The additional source here is a Platts article that explains that BP owns the lease for MC 252 until 2018. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done I also added Macondo Prospect in brackets after MCB252 to avoid confusion if the MCB252 and Macondo are the same or not. Beagel (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

gas production figure

• For the paragraph beginning "In the lower 48 states", the gas production figure can be updated to the 2012 amount. See The Wall Street Journal source below and BP Annual Report, p88

Proposed change:

In the lower 48 states, BP has a presence in seven of the top gas basins and in 2011 2012 produced more than 1,651 million cubic feet per day (46.8 million cubic metres per day) of natural gas.

 Done ```Buster Seven Talk 13:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

U.S. gas producer ranking

• The company is no longer the sixth largest natural gas producer in the U.S. due to lower production, so I believe this information can be removed from the article.

• Rather than remove we should replace with the current ranking (seventh, ninth, twelfth), whatever it is. Why should the ranking not be mentioned just because it went down? ```Buster Seven Talk 08:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good catch, Buster! petrarchan47tc 23:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Below, Arturo states that specific ranking is not available but that BP is within the Top Ten. Until specific ranking is provided, I suggest we mention the Top Ten status. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Arturo. Where is mention of this "sixth largest natural gas producer in the U.S," made in the article. I can't find it in the U.S. section. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster Seven, thanks for asking. It is at the beginning of the second sentence after the first sentence which has the natural gas production number and reference to seven gas basins. I made a mistake though in the language you just put in. 1,651 is for 2012 not 2011. I gave that number and said it was for 2012 and the sources show it is for 2012, but then in the language I proposed, I accidentally put 2011. Can you change 2011 to 2012? Arturo at BP (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I will change 2011 to 2012.  Done The other, later today. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

retail site

• Finally, there are now 10,000 retail sites within the U.S., not 11,000. See BP Annual Report p77

•  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 19:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

possible fines

Also, it is good to see that in the section on Deepwater Horizon that there has been clarification regarding the $42 billion reserve. I also have a clarification to offer here regarding the figure for the possible fines under the Clean Water Act: more recent articles than the one currently cited state that the maximum penalty would be $17.5 billion due to a recent court ruling. See this Huffington Post article, this Reuters article that explains why the amount of the potential maximum penalty dropped and this New York Times article.

•  Done via this diff [1] 4/17/2013

References

References

If someone is able to make these updates, I would be grateful. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And, if the someone that makes these changes would be so kind as to "sign-off" here by marking each request above as  Done, I would be grateful. Thanks also. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Buster Seven, thank you for your responses above and for making two of the requested edits. Regarding the notes from you and Petrarchan about BP being the largest oil and gas producer in the Gulf of Mexico, I realize that this is currently included in the article but it is no longer the case. See this Reuters article that explains BP is currently the second largest producer in the Gulf and also this article from The Wall Street Journal noting that Royal Dutch Shell is now the largest. Would you mind updating this, too?

To explain my question about the Macondo sentence, I understood that this referred to the Macondo prospect that was the site of the Deepwater Horizon, however the phrasing "It also owns corrupted Macondo field" is confusing. I found a source to add here and think it might help to rewrite this to state that:

BP is also the leaseholder and operator of the Macondo well, the site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

For the ranking for natural gas in the U.S., I expect BP is still in the top 10, but do not have a source to show this yet. We have yet to compare production for 2012 with other companies and there are no news articles stating our ranking.

Also, I would appreciate it if you or someone else would be able to make the remaining edits that I've requested above regarding the gas production in the lower 48 states, number of retail sites in the U.S. and the clarification of the maximum potential penalty under the Clean Water Act? Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I will consider the changes over the weekend. Your responding is appreciated. While I am against paid editing on the whole I respect that you are up-front and working within the guidelines set by Jimbo elsewhere. My hope is that by working with you to create the Best article for our reader, this article can be a template for future paid advocate editing. I have always edited articles like this (corporate/political/religious) with the foregone conclusion and the inevitability that some of my fellow editors were on the payroll. I think it is to the detriment of the article and our reader but...it's the old "rock and a hard place". At least if I do the changes you request, I'll trust my "antennea" for spin and sanitizing. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Arturo. I believe all your requests have been initiated. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

More to update: BP to sell US wind farms

From The Independent:

"BP's one-time drive to move "Beyond Petroleum" is sputtering to a halt after the FTSE 100 giant put its US wind power business up for sale for an estimated $1.5bn (£990m).

"A month after BP's chief executive, Bob Dudley, said he had "thrown in the towel" in solar, the company is trying to sell its interests in 16 US wind farms in a move that would see it exit wind power altogether.

"The sale would leave BP's renewable energy division – once a key hope for growing the company – with a handful of biofuels businesses and low-key research projects. A BP spokesman said: "BP has decided to market for sale our US wind energy business as part of a continuing effort to become a more focused on oil and gas company and reposition the company for sustainable growth into the future."

More:

"BP to Sell U.S. Wind Business in Retreat to Fossil Fuels"

"BP: Back to Petroleum and Beyond Puff-power" petrarchan47tc 03:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. If you look at the article, the information that BP plans to sell its wind power unit in the United States was added to the article on 3 April and the operations sections were updated accordingly. Beagel (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What has not been added from these media sources is the context: all of them saying BP has now made its final exit from Alternative Energy and is fully focussed on oil and gas now. This understanding requires changes to the first paragraph of the lede and to any mentions of the alternative energy initiatives within the body, imo. Right now all we've done is state "wind up for sale", allowing no context for the reader. petrarchan47tc 23:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe this is true, petrarchan. As far as I can see BP remains committed to biofuels which are not oil and gas. Edits I made, made it clear that they have exited wind and solar, that is true. If you think about it, those businesses don't fit BP's DNA -- they both require major manufacturing, and BP is essentially a chemical company, and biofuels are a fit with that. Just a different kind of refining and the expansion from chemicals into biotechnology has been done lots of times before. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's true or not, my comment was referring to what WP:RS were saying. When it comes to article content, I am not interested in anyone's WP:OR, including my own. petrarchan47tc 04:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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. Beagel (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, BP's official stance should be added as well.

This is from Ted Magazine:

"Mark Salt, a London-based spokesman for BP, said in an e-mailed statement to Bloomberg. The company will also sell projects in various stages of development including 2,000 megawatts of wind poised to start construction, he said.

BP, which in the past had promoted a “Beyond Petroleum” public relations campaign emphasizing renewable and alternative sources of energy, is focusing now on oil and natural gas following the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"BP has decided to market for sale our U.S. wind energy business as part of a continuing effort to become a more focused oil and gas company and re-position the company for sustainable growth into the future," Salt said." petrarchan47tc 05:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You are dead on correct here. I stand corrected. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've started adding the missing context with changes to the last paragraph of the AE section. petrarchan47tc 23:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Added the second part of the communication from the company which says that "this is not an exit from alternative energy". This information was added at this talk page twice but for some reasons were ignored. Also removed the journalist's opinion and change the past tense as the wind energy unit is still a part of BP. The plan to sell was announced but when it will happen is not disclosed yet. Beagel (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing context

BP to sell US wind farms as it sticks to oil and gas petrarchan47tc 03:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC) ping petrarchan47tc 18:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Gulf spill section

Speaking about the Gulf spill section, on April 5 Jytdog said he planned to "do some condensing too, as these sections contribute to the article's bloat. For example, I think there is fat in DWH section... the 2nd paragraph in particular could go altogether, and the 3rd and 4th paragraphs could be condensed into one, with the quotes all taken out." and on April 6 he did complete these edits. On that date I objected with only one editor in agreement, however that editor made no move to restore a more balanced version. So, consensus remains in agreement with the new version, is that correct? Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a lengthy reply to you, to which you did not reply.... we achieve consensus by talking and reasoning. I gave reasons for my changes. Why don't you respond? This is not "my way or the highway" - we should be able to reason our way to a consensus. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get I'm saying "my way or the highway"? I stated that I was not satisfied with the changes but I did not revert you, and now I am asking other editors for input on the section. If the other editors are satisfied then it should be left as is. If not it should be adjusted. What is wrong with that? Gandydancer (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with that. You are free to do as you please. But we are apparently the two most interested parties. I don't understand why you wouldn't continue the conversation to reach consensus with anybody who is talking. No obligation of course. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What would you all think of updating and expanding a bit the environmental impact mention in this section? Presently, the article has "there was damage" and leaves it at that. I don't see why the reader isn't allotted a bit more detail. In my view, the amount of information given about the effect on the environment should exceed the court-related information. The only reason BP is in court over this is because it was so harmful to the environment. If they'd spilled a non-toxic substance, they probably wouldn't be in court in the first place. So it's baffling to me that we act as if the environmental damage deserves barely a mention. At the anniversaries of this accident (right now we are approaching the third year anniversary), good summaries of these effects appear in the media - always they mention "we won't truly know the environmental effects of this for years" - but we do know some results. The latest:

"Three years after BP oil spill, USF research finds massive die-off"

"Dolphin Deaths in the Gulf Three Years After the Oil Spill"

Commentary on above NWF piece

"Three years later, oil effects still unfolding"

(related) :

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

Perhaps the related oil spill article can be updated while we're at it. petrarchan47tc 05:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think some compressed, very summarizing statements on environmental consequences would make sense. Right now we have compressed, summarizing paragraphs on the event and on legal consequences, both very relevant to BP as a company. We have "main" links to the 2 "main events" - the explosion and the spill. We have "see also" links to several of the subarticles from the spill (just added one for environmental consequences) The subarticle on the environmental consequences should be the most up-to-date and detailed; the section in the article on the spill should summarize that (for instance, via a copy of the lead of that article), and as I mentioned, a very compressed summary of that section could go here. One of the big problems with wikipedia is the way that content isn't kept harmonized -- people often just want to load content into the topmost article in the chain, which leads to bloat in that head article and what is worse, a poor (uneven, duplicative, and often contradictory and because of all that, time-wasting) presentation of information for anybody who actually cares and wants to learn about what happened. (fixing this elsewhere is what got me active as an editor) I would support an addition of information done that way - there should be no source here is that is not in the detailed article. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The legal ramifications and the environmental ones should be given due weight in this article - we just have to figure out what due weight means in this case. It is certainly unbalanced now and represents a major disconnect - the highest fines of all time are being levied because of the amount of damage done. I should have been more clear: I am asking for help updating all 3 relevant articles with this new information. I would need help to add anything to the main oil spill article (long story, see the talk page there to understand the problem). Also, the split-off article dealing with environmental damage needs tremendous help. It was cut off from the main article without any agreement on the talk page, and the summary was created and added by one person without any input from the group (and continues to be trimmed in a way not in keeping with Wiki guidelines). The split-off page gets about 20 views per day and is quite a mess. When I try to make an update to these two articles, it is followed by the removal of other content. I have reason to believe my work as an editor is more harmful than good on these BP oil spill articles due to personal games being played, therefore I am asking for other editors to please help with this. As for, "but we do have links to related articles" - we also have links to related "litigation" article but yet have a giant paragraph here representing about 2/3rds of the coverage of BP & the world's largest accidental marine oil spill. There was never consensus to cut the Gulf spill section down to two paragraphs, that I'm aware of. I think it would be good to question "due weight" once again with regard to this section and BP's article as a whole. petrarchan47tc 22:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, I can understand how difficult it is to find yourself in a position where it appears that signing your name to an edit is a kiss of death for it--see for instance my recent attempts to edit the Purdhoe section that were instantly deleted along with Arturo's as well because it was thought that it was all my work. When it was thought that it was Arturo's work there was no objection. So, it is a problem. As for the way the splits were done, it was indeed about the nuttiest thing I've ever seen. First someone that had never worked on the article dropped in out of the blue and did a bunch but left no summaries and then the editor from Hell popped in and then I asked for help from a stranger and got a lot more than I had asked for... *gandy crosses her eyes* I wonder--where would be a good place to start? Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, thank you so much for your response. I have two thoughts. BP has a "Wikipedia editing team" or some such thing (as per the HuffPo article). It is clear to me that because taking them on, so to speak, is so challenging and stressful given their limitless resources and fantastic support system here at Wiki that, as you earlier suggested, the only answer is to 'combat' it with an equal force. As you said, that would very literally mean that a COI editor from the 'other side' should be here doing the same thing Arturo does. We would also need a team like CREWE. When I first heard you suggest the Greenpeace rep (was that your example?), I thought it sounded ludicrous. Now I see it is exactly as ludicrous as having BP PR write this article. I watch the indies here bite each others' ankles every time one turns around. And it strikes me this is a function of our working for free, and for very little reward. This is why an organized team somewhat like CREWE, even if more loosely organized and with few members, is actually a good idea. If Wiki editors are now seriously being asked to do what we are doing at this page, we need to take a moment and reflect on what that really means. We are up against a PR department of one of the most powerful, wealthy companies in the world. And they are not about to stop caring A LOT about what this page says. They have loyal editors here who seem much more organized and less emotional than those of us interesting in removing spin. If that doesn't change, nothing will change with regard to the POV in the article. Another idea also is to keep this talk page very content-focused and the moment feelings are hurt, personal talk pages could be used instead of this one to deal with it. But I also agree that we must not silence ourselves or each other regarding the bullshit that has gone on at this page for about a year now. We've really only just begun uncovering the story.

The way to move forward in my opinion, is to keep talking about all of this: problems with the BP page, the oil spill page and its insane editing history, etc. Lastly, as either Core or Carbuncle said, the indies do need to just start being bold and making edits. The assumed suggestion is that with a lot of eyeballs now on these pages, edits sticking to guidelines should have enough support to remain in one form or another (ie, our efforts won't be thoroughly wasted). petrarchan47tc 23:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it surely was not Carbuncle that boldly edited--Jytdog told him to be bold and edit and instead he sulked off calling us shills. Re paid editors, I agree that we need something in place for corporations when they believe that their article is not accurate, but the scenario that you put on you talk page with an paid environmental editor rewriting entire articles as company editors are doing really does give a person something to think about. I wonder if anyone of the Higher Ups have given any serious thought to the idea of having watch dogs or watch dog groups for any article with a paid editor? Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

From my read, it seems the really High Ups prefer to assume all is going well with Paid Editors on talk pages. No investigation into the truth of that has been made, and it appears that will remain the case. petrarchan47tc 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I think it's important to expose this article to as many eyes as possible within Wikipedia, and to utilize adjudication boards/procedures as much as possible, such as the RfC that I just commenced when editors repeatedly removed text from the Clean Air Trial section, and demoted it to subsection. If nothing else, doing so will get more editors involved. The paid editor issue is not the only one troublesome in this article; the rest seems to be concerted whitewashing, which may or may not have a COI element. Your general point on paid editing is an important one. We have a paid editor to point out when the article tilts in one direction, but no countervailing force when the article points in another direction. The article cries out for expert attention from persons versed in environmental issues and this company's track record. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right. To give you some background, in the past, our RfCs have not attracted much attention. The last one filed by Martin Hogbin attracted literally no one. But perhaps you know some secrets? And I really do agree that a counter-force should be called in here. Of course, with the attitude towards environmentalists, I can't imagine anyone accepting that delicious offer, unless they were paid like Arturo. Non-profits probably don't have extra help and resources lying around to spend time in the recesses of Wikipedia. What would be the payoff for them? petrarchan47tc 20:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Updating

Leading to the third anniversary, lots of good summary articles will emerge. I'll leave them here:

On dolphins, shrimp, etc.. petrarchan47tc 04:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On seafood petrarchan47tc 06:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On use of Corexit - Newsweek

On use of Corexit - GAP report petrarchan47tc 03:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Corexit, human health, coverup

Louisianna update petrarchan47tc

"Three years after BP oil spill, USF research finds massive die-off"

"Dolphin Deaths in the Gulf Three Years After the Oil Spill"

Commentary on above NWF piece

"Three years later, oil effects still unfolding"

(related) :

"Take It With a Grain of (Sea) Salt: Gulf Microbe Study Was Funded by BP" petrarchan47tc 06:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Archiving for this article

Edits a late as April 2 have been moved to Archives. Is this reasonable? Sometimes quick archiving has been used as a way to cut discussion short. I believe that this very quick archiving is not helping to write a balanced article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. An article such as this, which requires research and vetting of changes by volunteers (with RL time-constraints)should have at least a 2 to 3 week window. Anything less is a rush to judgement. Please reconsider for the benefit of the article, our reader, and all editors working toward improvement. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The article archiving time was shortened when after recent editing the talk page included almost 30 talks and was about 300k in size which made it quite unmanageable. Right now the archiving is set for 1 week (that means 1 week without any edit) and it still too long. What archiving time you suggest? Beagel (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Two weeks seems fair. I think is is advantageous to have discussion available. To just scrool up to a previous discussion saves time. I'm a bit forgetfull. I need what I read last week to be easily available. Is their a limit as to the size of the talk page? I see no detriment to letting conversations smolder a bit. 3 weeks would be better but I will be satisfied with 2. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)BTW....Who shortened the archive time? Buster Seven Talk

The last change (1 week) was made by Wwoods. Before that it was shortened by me for reasons explained above. Beagel (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer three wks but will accept two, esp. if slowness is a problem for many people. Just curious, do a lot of people still have slow computers? Gandydancer (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed the autoarchiving to two weeks at the moment and we could change it longer when intensity of edits decreases (number of open sections falls under 10). Beagel (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Beagel. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Wwoods changed the archive time to 10 days on April 21...which is fine with me. Thge threads are quite long. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Canadian oil sands

The latest addition to this section says that "In 2013 shareholders criticized executive pay regime and carbon-intensive projects in Canada." However, the source was published before the annual meeting, so we actually need a reference published after the meeting, which says what exactly happened. In addition, the critics about the executive pay regime does not belong here but should be moved into the corporate affairs section.

I also re-arranged the latest addition by Watti Renew to make it fit with the existing text. Beagel (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the story by Reuters about what happened on the annual shareholders' meeting. [2] Beagel (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Two more articles on the stockholder resistance to BP's tar sands project:

• "Oil giant BP today signalled it would press on with a controversial Canadian tar sands project despite facing a showdown with environmental campaigners and shareholders." Independent
• "The board of U.K. oil giant BP successfully defeated an AGM resolution Thursday from activist shareholders who wanted a full investigation into the company’s plans to launch a major oil sands project in Alberta, Canada" WSJ: BP Defeats Oil Sands Critics, But Controversy Won’t Die

Something else to consider for this section, "Legally speaking, diluted bitumen like the heavy crude that's overrun Mayflower, Arkansas, is not classified as 'oil'. And it's that very distinction that exempts Exxon from contributing to the government's oil spillage cleanup fund." (Source). It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to refrain from clarifying the definition of "Canadian oil sands" for the reader. Most likely they will leave thinking this is something different from tar sands, something cleaner, and that it is actually oil. Both are false understandings put forth by BP's version this section. In my understanding, this name change is akin to "KFC" changing from "Kentucky Fried Chicken". Fine for the company, not good for an encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 23:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We have articles oil sands and Athabasca oil sands–both linked from this article. As the term "oil sands" and its alternative names are described in the oil sands article, I don't think that we should to discuss here what oil sands are. I don't think that we should speculate what our readers think or not. If you have a question, you will check the relevant article. As for the media report by Russia Today that diluted bitumen is not 'oil', this is just the journalist misinterpretation 'oil' as a synonym for petroleum (crude oil). Diluted bitumen is not petroleum but it is still covered by more broader term 'oil'.

There is also a problem that Sunrise, Terre de Grace and Pike projects are duplicated here and in the North America section. The North America section seems to be more precise. I think they should be merged. Beagel (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I will add a short explanation to the section. As for the RT article, you didn't read it very carefully. It was regarding US law, which states that dilbit is not oil. The journalist simply conveyed that information. petrarchan47tc 23:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide what the law (and not Russia Today) says exactly? You see that it is about conventional oil (crude oil). Oil is more general term. And in the case of Russia Today I read it. It uses in the first paragraph incorrectly the term "oil" but later it uses term "conventional oil":

"The IRS has classified tar sands as different from conventional oil, and thus the tax levied to fill the liability trust fund is not levied on tar sands crude."

You had added this oil sands section, and Mining.com was one of the refs you used, so I'm not sure why you have a problem with RT, but this article has all the information you want about the law. A snippet: The oil industry has often said that dilbit, a heavy crude oil from Canada's tar sands, isn't much different from conventional crude oil. But when it comes to paying into a federal fund used to clean up oil spills, it's different enough to deserve a sizeable tax break. Dilbit is exempt from the tax, because the 1980 legislation that created the tax states that "the term crude oil does not include synthetic petroleum, e.g., shale oil, liquids from coal, tar sands, or biomass..." The Internal Revenue Service cited that 1980 text in a 2011 memo that confirmed the exemption for at least one company. petrarchan47tc 05:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask you do not put your comments inside my comments as it makes hard to follow who said what. As I explained, the problem with Russia Today is that it confuses conventional oil (petroleum) with oil, which is a general term. The same does the insideclimatenews.org. However, I would like to thank you for the 2011 memo as it says that "tar sands imported into the United States are not subject on the excise tax on petroleum ...". So, the IRS talks about petroleum (crude oil, conventional oil) and not about oil, which is broader term. Also, it regulates the fiscal aspects and actually says nothing about the chemical properties.

I did not understand what you meant by your comment that I added the oil sands sections, but I would like to make correction that I did not create that section. What I did was implementing Arturo's proposal after it was vetted at the talk page. As for Mining.com reference, is there any problem with this? Beagel (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Your addition is also incorrect as dilbit is not the same as oil sands. The synonym (and geologically more correct term than oil sands or tar sands) is bituminous sands. Dilbit is a man-made mix of bitumen or heavy oil and diluent, usually natural gas condensate. It is used for transportation by pipeline as the viscosity of bitumen is otherwise too high. Beagel (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

These are very good additions, and should remain intact, regardless of whatever other articles may exist in the general vicinity of this subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We should distinguish what is the critics about exploiting oil sands in general (that means what applies to all oil sands projects as such notwithstanding which company does this) and what critics is specifically about BP activities. At the moment they are somehow mixed. E.g. Hansen's critics is about the oil sand exploitation as such and not about the BP activities specifically. It should be more clear what is what. Beagel (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hansen's comments came from an article about BP's Canadian oils sands project, and Hansen's comment is about that very project. It's perfectly fitting. Also, I've boldly replaced the wikilink to "Oil sands" article. It seems quite ludicrous to argue it shouldn't be linked. petrarchan47tc 04:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually that article is not specifically about the BP project but UK governments lobbyng for BP and Shell projects. And Hansen's comment is not about the BP project. The paragraph before Hansen's comment talks about the all Canadian oil sands. It followed by the Hansen's comment "Nasa scientist James Hansen says if the oil sands were exploited as projected it would be "game over for the climate"." This is clearly about the oil sands development in general, not specifically about the BP's project. The link is here so everybody could take a look what the source actually says.

As for the link to oil sands, this term was/is already linked in this article before that subsection. I don't knew how you come to the conclusion that someone argues that this term should not be linked. The link was removed per WP:OVERLINK but as you re-inserted it, let it stay now. Beagel (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Beagle, your argument would necessitate the removal of this sentence, as it is not about BP specifically: "...using recycled groundwater makes in situ drilling a more environmentally friendly option when compared with oil sands mining". petrarchan47tc 04:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (later edit) Er, I guess you didn't say "remove" but 'make more clear'. I don't think the section needs more clarity. Like you said, we shouldn't underestimate the intelligence of the reader. petrarchan47tc 04:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, please read what I wrote. I did not said that Hansen's statement should be removed. I said that "we should distinguish what is the critics about exploiting oil sands in general (that means what applies to all oil sands projects as such notwithstanding which company does this) and what critics is specifically about BP activities." That means reorganise the text in way that the reader can easily understand what critics is about using oil sands in general and what is the BP specific critics. There was no proposal for removal. Beagel (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Reread my entire comment, please. petrarchan47tc 05:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I wrote my answer before you added the second part of your comment. If I understand correctly, you say that we should not make distinction between the critics about extraction of oil sands in general and specific critics about BP's activities? As your comment about removing information about SAGD process used by BP, I think that probably we should reconsider and rewrite the whole subsections to remove all potential issues which may be with this subsection. Beagel (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm lost now. Do you have any issues with this section as it is currently? Please state them clearly if so. For the record, I do not. Also, please make sure your suggestions are in keeping with your past editing. In other words, don't suggest we create a new guideline for this section which you have not applied to your other additions. NPOV editing is uniformly applied across articles and with regard to "negative" or "positive" additions. So I get concerned when I see suggestions that would treat information differently based on its color. petrarchan47tc 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, we should make distinction what critics is about exploiting oil sands in general (notwithstanding who is the operator) and what critics is focused on the BP oil sands activities. In its current form (Hansen's statement in between two BP specific critics) it makes a false impression that also Hansen's statement is about BP, and therefore it violates NPOV. I also understand from your comment that you have a problem with mentioning SAGD process (in-situ processing) although I did not understand what was the exact problem with this. It seems that I misunderstand you and I am glad you are saying there is no problem with this. Beagel (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oil spill trial

There needs to be a section on the Gulf oil spill trial now underway. It may be lost somewhere in the verbiage of this article, filled as it is with routine corporate material about stock issuances and underplaying the company's record of environmental disasters, but I am not seeing it. This trial is just warming up and will be the main reason people come to this article, as I am sure that the BP article will be linked from Google News. At this point I think the absence of a section on that trial is the article's main deficiency. Yes, I know Wikipedia is "not news," but its articles on controversial companies, of which BP is the most prominent, need to give proper emphasis to the controversies and this article does not. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This may be a good site for updates: [3] Gandydancer (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It is, thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am fully agree that the summary of the court decision and findings should be added here (about BP) and in the relevant DWH articles. However, I don't see how it could be done here when the process is ongoing. The trial to determine the liability of BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other companies, started on 25 February and it is still going on. The second phase scheduled in September 2013 will focus on the flow rate of the oil and the third phase scheduled in August 2014 will consider damages. There are hundreds of witnesses and thousands of pages testimonies. I just don't see how to make an objective decision what to add and what not do add before the court decision. E.g. expert witness by prosecution Alan Huffman accused BP of deviating from industry standards, expert witness by BP Adam Bourgoyne Jr. disagreed with this stating that "I even noted that they were taking extreme care to follow all the safety procedures with respect to reporting little minor things that happened, like washers falling out of derricks." and disagreed a lot of other conclusions.[4] I really don't see how to put all this in this article. Therefore, lets wait the court decision. Beagel (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The trial is majorly significant to BP and needs to be added, and its absence is a major deficiency from an NPOV standpoint. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I'm not seeking "approval" of such an obvious addition on the talk page. That is not how Wikipedia works, even if that is how the editing culture of this article has been distorted. However, I was hoping that someone with a greater technical background than myself might add this. If no one comes forward, I will. Coretheapple (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Information about trials were copied from Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Beagel (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see that the problem lies in the oil spill article, which has not described the trial in an up-to-date manner and has given the trial amazingly short shrift. Rather than carry over that problem to this article, it needs to be fixed in both. Coretheapple (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, what sort of information were you thinking of adding? I did add a paragraph to the DWH explosion section when it still existed and suggested it needed further info rather than just let it hang in the air, but Beagle suggested we wait for the trial to end and that seemed reasonable to me. However even that has been removed now that (to my extreme dissatisfaction) Jtydog edited the new combined spill and explosion sections, cutting them drastically, saying that the article as a whole was too long. Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that we need to bring readers up to speed on what is happening in the trial, as reported in reliable sources. According to the Wall Street Journal, in an article that is cited in the oil spill article and needs to be added here, there has been talk of a $16 billion settlement. So obviously this is not a nickles and dimes affair. We need to know who the plaintiffs and defendants are, as it is more than BP, and a sense of the testimony from both sides. BP just began presenting its case. Mind you, we don't have to report every turn of the screw. As for the supposed "size" problem of this article, I couldn't disagree more, and I notice that the edits that have taken place over the past couple of weeks have not made this article smaller. Again, concerning this trial, the same problem exists in the oil spill article. I haven't even looked at the articles of the other defendants. It seems strange that this major trial is underway, billions of dollars are at stake, and we just get a few sparse sentences as if space is at a premium and this is just a minor thing that doesn't require much of a mention. It should be mentioned in the lead section too. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking around for a good recap article. Here is one:[5] and I am looking for more. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Haha, it sounds like a good movie. It opens with Brad Pitt's dramatic ocean rescue in the dark oiled waters with flames in the background and then he is sequestered in the hotel room in New Orleans where his girlfriend Julia Roberts is screaming at the guards as she frantically attempts to make it past their barricade... Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The trial deserves its own article, and that would also be the most practical approach as it saves lots of duplication in the articles for each of the parties. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It may, but it also requires significant, prominent discussion within this article, given the immense potential civil liability for BP and the hard line the DOJ has been taken. I am flabbergasted that the DOJ's stance had not been mentioned in either this article or the oil spill article. What is going on here? Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Correction - DOJ took that position in papers filed in the settlement litigation, so I moved it to that section. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I removed the separate section as WP:UNDUE. This article is not about the oil spill and stating what DOJ says before trial or speculation about potential fines is WP:UNDUE in this article here. Lets wait the court ruling and we have exact information who is guilty in what and who has to pay how much. Beagel (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm reinstating. You removed not just the section header but also some important facts concerning the case, specifically the fact that BP faces potentially enormous liability. It is "undue emphasis" not to include this extremely important information. Coretheapple (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Including this section seems reasonable to me. Gandydancer (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I said why this does not belong here. Beagel (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've only just begun examining the reliable sources covering the trial, and my amazement grows that this has not only not been a separate section, but until I raised the issue not even mentioned. According to Fortune, a finding of gross negligence means BP would have to pay $20 billion in additional penalties under the Clean Water Act. And you say this has no relevancy to BP? Are you serious? Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this content! I think it is overblown to make it, its own section, so I got deleted the section break. Also the 2nd paragraph repeated the fact that gross negligence and resulting increased penalties are at stake (but giving a dollar figure than the "four fold" that was already there in the 1st paragraph) so I combined the sentences and carried the ref up. The sentence in the 2nd paragraph about strategy and risks, is one of thousands of comments in the media that could be discussed and quoted -- unclear why any one of them should be included, much less this one. And there should not be detail in this "head article" that is not in the section on the trial in article on Deepwater Horizon litigation, where detail and - to the extent it is merited - blow by blow should go, IMO. So I deleted that sentence. But thank you for adding this content -- it does need to be referenced in this article as the stakes for BP are high. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The stakes are so high, so mind-blowing, that I feel very strongly that a separate section is warranted. This is like an article about OJ Simpson without a separate section on his murder trial, and just a few paragraphs under "Controversies." This section also will require expansion - nothing major, just another paragraph or two - as the trial progresses. Right now the coverage of the trial in this article, as well as the other articles of course, is not adequate. I won't know just how inadequate until I've examined the sources in greater detail. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that blow by blow belongs here. Decisions for each phase should be stated though. Let's keep blow by blow in the Deepwater_Horizon_litigation#Trial_on_civil_charges section, and when and if that blows up to the point that it needs to be split off into its own article (as per Rangoon's comment above) that would be the time to do that. There should be no detail and no source here, that is not there - we have to keep this organized for the reader.Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not "blow by blow," but enough to give the reader a sense of the major developments in the trial, and what is at stake. The absence of the reference to a potential $20 billion in liability is one major aspect. There may be more. Let's not prejudge. Let's see what is out there. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

separate section or no? Core and Gandy vote yes. Beagel and I vote no... Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought these things weren't "votes"? Besides, what is the hurry? If necessary we can get an article RfC going. First let's see what is in the sourcing out there, let's see what has actually been happening in the trial, before you firmly decide you don't want a section. Remember that until recently there was sentiment, which was apparently enforced, for there to be not even a mention of this trial. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"NPOV" tag on section

There's a drive-by "NPOV" tag placed on the section. If there is no effort made to justify this tag, if all we have is an assertion that it is "undue" without further explanation or justification, this won't be a bona fide NPOV dispute as best as I can determine, and the NPOV tag will be removed. Coretheapple (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It was explained several times but your reaction was to call the explanation "ridiculous". Not only me but some other editors have expressed their opinion that this section does not belong here. Beagel (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't explained even once how it is undue emphasis to have a separate section on a trial in which the Justice Department is seeking maximum penalties from BP, after criminal proceedings on the same issue in which the company pleaded guilty. $20 billion in penalties is sought. How is a section on that trial "undue emphasis"? Just to remind you, your previous position just a few hours ago was that there shouldn't be one word on this trial in the article, that you "don't see how it could be done here when the process is ongoing." That was indeed ridiculous. It is all over the media, and has been reported in every newspaper and wire service in the country. Now Wikipedia is like everybody else and is reporting the reality of that lawsuit trial. Now you're saying it's "undue emphasis" to have a separate section. Why? Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Once more, by points:

• This article IS NOT the main article for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. There are several relevant articles, linked also from this page. There is a summarised section here regarding aspects of that event related to BP. Having TWO sections about this event gives undue weight. It is important (and just for a record – it was me who added mentioning of DWH in the lead) but taking account the company as whole, it does not justify to have two sections.
• Being all over the media is not an argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not online news service and this is a fundamental difference (therefore, the concern about Google News is irrelevant). WP:RECENT and WP:Not News are relevant here. Speculations what would be penalties if charged may be relevant in the specific article but in this article let have information about the court ruling and not about speculations.

Your claim that my position was that "there shouldn't be one word on this trial in the article" is misinterpretation (I hope not intentional). If you read my post you see that it was about covering what's going on on trial (and yes, as I mentioned above–speculations). Again, it was me who added fact about the trial and its stages. Beagel (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your position was very clear. You said "let's wait until the court decision." Your entire post is directly above, so there can be no misunderstanding.

This section is about today's BP and the fault-finding taking place through the court system, with potential liability running into the billions as well as a final adjudication as to fault. That process is a seminal event for the company and yes, the fact that it is all over the media is an indication of the importance that it attached to it in every publication in the world except, until I raised the issue, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper but it is supposed to reflect reality, and the reality is that BP's reputation and many billions of dollars hangs in the balance. We have now "broken the silence" as it were about the BP trial, so let's not continue the shameful practice for many months and now bury it in the DWH section, but break it out into a separate section where it manifestly and I think self-evidently belongs. Coretheapple (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy for your enthusiasm Core, but as I wrote above, 1) this should not have its own section, and 2) detail should go in the litigation article, specifically in the section on this litigation that already existed there -- Deepwater_Horizon_litigation#Trial_on_civil_charges. There should be no detail and no source here, that is not there - we have to keep this organized for the reader. Also, you should not be surprised that the section was tagged, as both Beagel and i expressed unhappiness with the section - it was not "drive by." This article is about BP, and yes the trial should definitely be mentioned as there is a lot at stake. But not so much detail here. You have complained in the past that people rushed ahead with changes.... now you are doing it! Anyway, I am happy for the content generation, but my druthers would be, once this surge is spent, to take this new detail and put in the litigation section, and leave only high level stuff here - pretty much just your original post, after i edited it to 2 paragraphs. Too much detail here. UNDUE-ish. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that more details need to go into the Deep Water Horizon litigation article. A lot more. However, what's in this article so far strikes me as reasonable. There has been a bad habit in this article to "outsource" so to speak unflattering information to other, low-readership articles, with the effect of giving short shrift to those aspects in this article. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the addition of the trial information to this article, nevertheless it disturbs me that previous efforts to place that information in that article were made (I believe) and were rebuffed. Two months into the trial, we now have that information in a fashion that is most digestible to readers. I think that what we have in that section now is balanced, and provides really the most bare-bones detail. You call it "undue" but what information is contained in that section that should not be there? That is what the undue tag says. Coretheapple (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you want a lot of detail about this. I do. If you look at how long DWH + this new content it, is just about as long as the entire section on BP's operations. Its longer than the whole corporate affairs section. Please don't assume bad faith. Content gets split off not to "bury" things - content gets split off in the normal, daily-grindy course of wikipedia article generation because otherwise articles become too big and lose their balance. Right? This is the head BP article -- it's gotta cover everything. And there is still a lot of factual information that needs to go in here -- as Rangoon has pointed out many times, the description of BP's operations is still woefully thin - not even close to covering everything BP is doing worldwide. I love it that you are generating content. And it is natural that you want the issues you care about to discussed in great detail in the topmost article. But no other section has the kind of color and quotes you are bringing here. Think about it this way -- folks who are more focused on the corporate content have not put in glowing quotes saying how great BP is. Have they? They are aiming for an even-keeled article that describes the company and its businesses, factually and neutrally. Even outlines that Arturo provided a long time ago left sections for environment and industrial accidents. Those are part of the facts. But having this in its own section, and these quotes you put in about the US govt trying to claim that BP is grossly negligent and BP saying it was not (which are duplicated now, btw, between the two sections - already we are having problems with having a separate section) -- this is unnecessary color that doesn't add any information. Content along the lines of what was there originally, "The plaintiffs are seeking a finding of gross negligence, which would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims." is pretty much all that is needed to convey the key information, which is pretty much all there is room for in this article. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that it is "undue" to state that the trial is over a potential $20 billion in additional liability? We're talking three paragraphs about a trial that is going to drag on through 2014 and make headlines all the way, and you're making it seem as if it is as long as Gone With the Wind. Perhaps you could list here, since the amount of text is so short, the extraneous information currently in that section. Coretheapple (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

To make your job easier in addressing that point, here is the language in the "undue" tag: "An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole."

Below is the text of the section. Please let me know what words in the following three paragraphs "lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole."

(begin copied text)

BP, Transocean and Halliburton went on trial on 25 February 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans to determine payouts and fines under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment. The plaintiffs included the U.S. Justice Department, Gulf states and private individuals.[23]

The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible, and has said it will seek to prove that that BP "was grossly negligent and engaged in willful misconduct in causing the oil spill." BP has denied that, saying that gross negligence is a high bar that cannot be surmounted, and that the oil spill was a "tragic accident."[21] A finding of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, which could amount to $20 billion, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims that weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs in 2012. [23][24] [348]

The trial's first phase is to determine the liability of BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other companies, and if they acted with gross negligence and wilful misconduct.[349][350] The second phase scheduled in September 2013 will focus on the flow rate of the oil and the third phase scheduled in 2014 will consider damages.[351]

(end copied text)

Well? Coretheapple (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but as I noted, the 2nd paragraph duplicates almost word for word the 2nd paragraph in the DWH section. And as I noted above, the quotes are already overkill (much less having them twice...) I know you worked all ablaze today -- hopefully tomorrow things will not seem like such a dire battle. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that the duplicative language has been removed, please explain in what way does this section "lend undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole"? Coretheapple (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning above, right above where you said "to make you job easier..." -would you please respond to that? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have, and if you'll read my answer you still haven't explained what in those three bare paragraphs gives undue weight. Is it that the maximum penalties being sought by the Justice Dept. could come to $20 billion? As for it being a separate section, not long ago you reverted me when I removed a separate section on Wikipedia controversy.[6] How can you suggest that a multi-year trial on such a crucial issue does not warrant a separate section, when you felt that the Wikipedia controversy warranted a separate section? Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information

The first sentence of this section states:

BP and its partners in the Deepwater Horizon oil well, Transocean and Halliburton, went on trial on 25 February 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans to determine payouts and fines under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment.

This is factually incorrect. BP, Transocean and Halliburton were not partner on the well, and Deepwater Horizon was a drilling rig, not the well (well was Macondo). Partner for the BP operated Macondo Prospect lease were BP, MOEX Offshore 2007, and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. Transocean and Halliburton were contactors—Transocean was owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig, Halliburton was contractor for the well cementing job. In addition to these companies, also Cameron International, a manufacturer of the blowout preventer, and M-I LLC, a subsidiary of Schlumberger providing drilling fluid, went on the trial but as of today, claims against these companies are dismissed. Beagel (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reduced the anti-BP bias in the text and absorbed into the section above. Tthis, I think, justifies removal of the POV tag. This is quite obviously part of DWH spill section and should not have a section of its own.

It is interesting to note that there is no similar section in the Transocean and Halliburton articles. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Big picture question

One of the key themes of the ongoing battles here, is the question of weight. Now that I have been here a while, and seen what it is like to edit here, and have read the entire archive of Talk (which I finally finished last night), it is clear to me that one of the ongoing points of contention is weight. In my eyes, the folks who want to add more content on environmental issues - especially about the bad ten year run that BP had in the US, believe that stuff is really important and deserves extended discussion - a lot of weight, in good faith. Folks who are focused on BP as a business, believe this article should be focused on just that -- BP as a business - what does it do, how and where does it make money, etc., - again, in good faith. And I imagine that before the page was semi-protected, there were a lot of drive-by edits from IP addresses that added hyper-negative content about BP being an evil monster. (I have not gone through the History of the article, blow by blow yet - just a guess). A bit further on this - in general, content that environmental-oriented editors have wanted to add, is often (not always) "colorful" - quotes with strong language, that sort of thing. In contrast, edits that the business-oriented folks have added is generally colorless - extremely neutral; very fact-oriented; almost no quotes. 2nd to last point; I have not seen the environmentalist-editors ever revert content added by the business folks to the business-y sections, on the grounds of undue weight, but content added by environmentally oriented editors often gets straight-up deleted (less, now). Last point: a lot of the discussion on Talk about proposed environmental content seems to me to come from a concern from business oriented editors about - "where is this going? if we let this in, how much more will there be?"

So I want to ask everybody 2 questions... everybody is free to ignore this of course --1) Apportionment: if you could sit by yourself and write this article so that it was the perfect expression of your vision of a complete, Featured Article that is the main article about BP worldwide in wikipedia, how much space (by percentage) would you give the Industrial Accidents in the US in the 2000's and their consequences? And how would you apportion space within that content (by percentage)? 2) Color: how much colorful language should this article have, overall? Should we have more quotes everywhere - for example in the business side, commenting on things like (for example only) the boldness and speed of their transformation from a being a moribund remnant of british imperialism to a lean, powerful competitor on the global stage? (which I am sure there is endless commentary on); or should we use color commentary rarely to never? If so, when?

If everybody has a chance to articulate his or her vision, not in the context of arguing against something, but making a nonargumentative, positive statement about what should be, maybe we can then have a conversation to try to reach agreement, and maybe that could relieve some of the tension at least for the current batch of editors. I'll set up 2 subsections below for answers. And I'll start. again, i won't be offended if nobody cares - everybody works on what interests them. If you want to play, do so however you want, but this will work best if you say what you want, instead of arguing against what other people say. Yes I am inviting ~some~ soapbox here. The goal is that everybody understands the other guy's vision. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Apportionment

As the main article about BP worldwide in wikipedia, there is a ton of ground to cover, in time and space. The article will have several subarticles because there is so much ground to cover. Right now, the worldwide business stuff (above the "environmental" section) is roughly twice the length of everything from Environmental on down (roughly measured using my browser window - about 7 windows vs about 3.5). About 80% of the lower part is focused on the US roughly since 2000 (with 4 exceptions - Sea Gen rig collapse in the North Sea, Columbia farmers, Caspian Sea, Lockerbie bomber.. canadian oil sands are on the US radar b/c of the Keystone project). In my understanding, while of course making money is the most important thing to BP (as to every company), corporate social responsibility (CSR), globally, is also important to BP - they emphasize that stuff in their annual report, and in things they measure (which means more than those few words imply), in a way that I have seen few other big companies do. And that makes it reasonable to have a good chunk of the article deal with things related to corporate citizenship... but maybe a third of the article overall, and that third should definitely cover the globe, and the whole history. There is content we haven't generated yet.. for example there were concerted attacks against BP's operations by FARC in Columbia and BP needed protections for its operations there, which meant turning to the Columbian government... which is not the most human-rights friendly government in the world. How did that go? How does that compare with say, Shell in Nigeria? Super interesting and important topic. And how much oil did TNK-BP spill in Russia? Will we ever know?

So: I would say: 33% to CSR issues, globally and historically. Good and bad. Within that, events in the US since 2000 are definitely important to BP today (as the article states, "BP's operations in the United States comprise nearly one-third of its worldwide business interests, with more investment and employees than any other nation), and they unfortunately include the biggest oil spill that has ever happened, anywhere. So giving say 33% of that section to the US since 2000 is reasonable to me. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that what you're suggesting that we do is mischievous and could easily result in an article that is unbalanced and violative of the bedrock principle of NPOV.

What you're suggesting is that the editors come to a kind of "grand bargain" among themselves, in advance, over the proportion of space devoted to various topics and themes in this article. But as was mentioned below, the weight of the coverage of the topic in reliable sources determines the overall slant and emphasis of an article, not how editors feel about it. That coverage needs to be reflected in the article. We don't need a grand scheme and neither is one desirable. With all due respect, I suggest that your zeal to play a kind of Henry Kissinger role is clouding your best judgment. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent observations Core. Suddenly we find ourselves in a "Shock Doctrine" situation in which we must declare percentages because obviously if we are concerned about the environment we obviously are against devoting a reasonable amount of article space to anything else. And we must do it now. This entire Jytdog attempt to show what he has predetermined to be factual is set up to show that his observations are indeed correct. If this was just an attempt to herd cats that would be one thing, but it is my impression that this is an attempt to prove that the cats with a different point of view than his own are obviously wrong-minded cats. Gandydancer (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I offered this, and asked if people wanted to participate. No "must" here. I expected different viewpoints from mine. I asked people to not to argue, but instead to offer their own vision. Almost nobody has done it, but have just kept arguing - now with me. That's what people wanted to do, that's what they have done. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I also take exception to his characterization of editors as being "environmentalist" or whatever term he used, and more "corporate oriented." I have far more of a corporate than any other kind of background and have no involvement whatsoever in either environmentalism or the environmental movement, on or off Wikipedia. In point of fact, this article suffers from a lack of input from persons with expert knowledge of this company's track record on the environment. I strongly resent his effort to pigeonhole editors in this fashion, while he in effect positions himself as a kind of Kissinger-like mediator who is the only fair party here. Coretheapple (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm right here. And no I don't think my perspective is better than anybody else's. I am very capable of being wrong and am, far too often. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, as I stated earlier today, this is literally the first time in my life I've been referred to as an environmentalist. Somehow it doesn't feel like a compliment. It should, though, from what I understand we all very much need clean water and air and so on. So, if that label is used to denigrate someone, I am left with a lot of questions (much like how I feel after watching Fox news). I strongly resent his effort to pigeonhole editors in this fashion, while he in effect positions himself as a kind of Kissinger-like mediator who is the only fair party here. Couldn't have said it better, so I'll just highlight it. petrarchan47tc 20:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not denigrating anybody. People are free to care about whatever they want to care about. Again I opened this section to see if people would be interested in and willing to make positive statements about what they want the article to look like, in the big picture, so we can negotiate the big picture, instead of the incessant battles that go on about undue weight on every little thing. And it is clear that not enough people want to play, to make this work. That is fine! I will go back to working on content. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Color

Color commentary is generally not helpful. And with so much ground to cover, we don't have space for it. Use rarely if ever. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "color commentary." Coretheapple (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Jytdog, I don't know if this comprehensively answers your question, but I think that overall we should use OJ Simpson as a general template or role model of how to apportion the article. There you had an extremely successful football player who became a successful actor, but later in life became embroiled in a murder trial and other legal issues that re-defined his life from the perspective of reliable sources. To me that's the key. Not the perspective of the OJ Simpson legal team or Simpson's PR man or Simpson's fans.

I think that we are defining this company not the way it portrayed in the sourcing available to us, but as it is defined by the company, with excessive weight devoted to corporate history that can and should be spun off to a separate article.

Instead, we've spun off what makes BP significant, which is its atrocious environmental record, which culminated in the Gulf oil spill for which it has admitted criminal responsibility, very much unusual and unique for a major corporation. The pattern that I've noticed is that every time an expansion of an environmental issue is proposed, it is indeed deleted/reverted as you point out, along with a recommendation that it be "outsourced," in effect, to separate articles.

Separate articles do indeed need to be the place where you get into the weeds of BP's environmental messes. But the overall balance of the article needs to reflect the reality of BP as seen by the outside world, as reflected in the voluminous and, yes, largely hostile and skeptical coverage in reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Would love it if you would provide concrete percentages, in the apportionment section above. And respond to the color thing, directly. With positive statements of what you want. If you don't want to, that is fine. If you want to argue instead of putting out your vision, that is fine too. My intention was not to open another front of arguing, but instead to give people a chance to say what they do want. But everybody will do with this, whatever they want. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll try, but I hesitate to give hard-and-fast percentages because I simply don't know enough about BT to do so. I'm just looking for the time being at the general thrust of the article, viewed from space. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, Core. Looking at the OJ Simpson article, the article is roughly half and half on his career before the murder and after. His pre-murder career is completely handled in the article, and the murder has a long discussion in the main article and a much longer subarticle; the robbery has a longish discussion in the main article and subarticle, and there is a longish section on other miscellaneous legal troubles. So that is roughly your vision for allotment of space in the article? Would the half on the "atrocious record' be about BP in the US in the last ten years? That seems to be your main concern. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That's just a rough guide. I'm just suggesting that we get the needle out of our arms and recognize that we're dealing with a company that has committed criminal conduct, the OJ Simpson of corporations, regardless of its illustrious history dating back to the horse and buggy age. That can and should be getting short shrift, not its environmental issues that totally if not exclusively dominate the record of this company as reflected in reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre that comparison is being made between an article on an individual and an article on a 100 year old multinational company, truly bizarre that the article on O. J. Simpson is being held up as the model for this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, so happy you are here! I would LOVE to hear your vision on apportionment and color, if you care to add them above. Ideally everybody gets a chance here to put out their vision; ideally not attacking the other guys (we've been doing that a long time, kind of dull to go around the same tree again no?). Core made it clear where he is coming from and how he would weight things... would love to hear yours. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments... Jytdog, I am not sure you've done enough research to summarize the "big picture", because you've missed something. I wouldn't call this language bland. This comes from the Intro from March 2012. The paragraph mentioning controversy (I found it quite colorful and lively):

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 US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period.

Secondly, there seemed to be an insinuation that "environmentally focused" editors want emotion and possibly excessive weight placed on these issues. If you look at the article now, the Gulf spill section is equal in weight to BP's "environmental initiatives", and not larger than most other sections. Yet this event was easily one of the most pivotal in BP's history save for its inception. The mention of human health and environmental effects from the spill is one single line. It's equal in weight to a random mention of one Senator who called for Obama to lift the drilling ban. The litigation section of this bit is 12 sentences. Earlier on this talk page, I asked if editors could consider adding to that one line. So, your summary above is puzzling to me. I don't find it accurate at all.

Regarding "wanting to add content from the past ten years", that is unfair. Most of the news about BP is from the last ten years, and most is ugly. And truthfully, I am sorry about that. But as editors what are we to do??? If we want to update this article, we are soon tagged as BP haters. (Unless we add bland, neutral content, but others seem to have that covered.) petrarchan47tc 05:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC

In regard to Apportionment, Wikipedia guidelines say this is is based solely on what's found in WP:RS. It isn't decided by how editors feel. Slim Virgin said it well when she was here regarding Arturo's drafts:

"Wikipedia articles are meant to be a summary of the body of published literature – mostly high-quality secondary sources – that exists on a subject. We reflect the tone and content of that source material, and present issues in rough proportion to their appearance in that literature. We can use primary sources with caution (e.g. a company's own literature), but we don't let primary sources set the tone. So if the good secondary literature dwells on X, we dwell on X. If it is mostly negative about X, we are mostly negative about X. If it barely mentions X, we barely mention X. That's what "neutrality" means on Wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:NOR/WP:PSTS, and WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE." SlimVirgin (18:36, 18 March 2013) petrarchan47tc 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan and SlimVirgin - thanks for commenting here. I am sorry you both chose to argue instead of putting your own vision for apportionment out, but there you go. It is true that news over the past ten years has been full of negative stories about BP and the environment. However, you both seem to be confusing "news" with "reliable sources." News is a subset of RS. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (fixing reference to slimvirgin, my apologies! I was rushing to get to a meeting and should not have responded at all - my apologies again.Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC))

Jytdog, I need to respond to your comments point-by-point. I don't like to cut up an editor's comments this way, but there is too much to deal with as a whole. First, would you please explain how this: We reflect the tone and content of that source material, and present issues in rough proportion to their appearance in that literature. became this: I am sorry you... chose to argue instead of putting your own vision for apportionment out. To my knowledge I am only supporting Wikipedia guidelines, and I meant to convey that your idea we decide the weight/tone of the article before researching or consulting available RS is not in keeping with those guidelines. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here. You asked for our idea of Apportionment, when Wiki has already dealt with this extensively in the guidelines (see those highlighted above by Slim). petrarchan47tc 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, I will do my best to respond to your wishes and will sign each section, so you can respond point by point if you wish.Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

1) This section started with my request above for people to offer a positive vision of how they would apportion content in this article. I asked people not to argue, but instead focus on what they actually wanted. Core chose not to offer a positive vision but instead to argue. I really meant it what I said to you - I wish you would put your positive vision out, too. Do you see the misunderstanding?Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you tend to characterize editors who disagree with what you're doing here as people who are "arguing" with you, in contrast to the nice people who are producing a "positive vision." Please stop using this kind of loaded terminology. It isn't at all helpful. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This section actually started with your assessment of the "environmentally focused" vs the business focused editors. It was to your initial comments that I made mine. I have not responded to your request for a positive vision except to remind you that we follow the Wiki guidelines, period. petrarchan47tc 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

2) I'm starting to repeat myself, but it is very clear to me that the environmentalists see the world one way, and the business-oriented editors see the world another way. Mostly, as noted, the environmentalists look at sources and they see the ones that are about the US environmental disasters over the past 10 years. You all repeat that, over and over. And really, I have heard you! Really I have! Really! I am saying this many times so you know I heard you. I heard you. You don't need to say it more. The news (especially in the US) has had tons of stories about BP's US disasters over the past 10 years. True! What I am hoping you, Petrarchan, will hear from me - is this: the business oriented editors actually see a bigger set of sources. Of course they see the articles about environmental damage, but they see the business reporting too, and read journal articles and books on the industry. Can you hear that? It like Fox News Nation vs the Rachel Maddow Fanclub. Not seeing the same world. Can you hear that? In this context, making a general statement about policy, is not helpful. The base of reliable sources is different. the reason I asked for apportionment was as a way to bring this to the surface, quantitatively. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have never thought of myself, nor have I (this is the truth) EVER been referred to as an "environmentalist". I would appreciate if you would cease to categorize me unless you can back it up. If you look at my edit history at Wiki, you would be hard-pressed to categorize me at all. My intention as a Wiki editor is to be NPOV-focused, full stop. petrarchan47tc 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

3) I think those are the only two issues you raised. I have one last thing to say though. Some of the environmentally oriented folks here have said that they don't know much about BP and the fields they work in, and have made it clear they don't intend to know. Statements along these lines have stunned me. Especially when they arise in the context of a conversation about UNDUE. This is an article on BP - the whole company. If you don't know (and willfully don't know!) about the company as a whole, and have not gone and looked for and studied comprehensive, NPOV sources on the company as a whole, in what rational world, guided by wikipedia policy, can you make any claim about weight at all? I really, really do not understand this.Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone say they don't intend to know more about the subject of this article, would you be so kind as to provide a diff for this?

...the business oriented editors actually see a bigger set of sources Where are those sources? I am happy to work with ANY and ALL RS provided. I can only come up with what my search engine finds. Other "business-minded" folks might have different resources and I can only wait until those are offered here. petrarchan47tc 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

People would seem to prefer to argue than try to work something out. My hope was that we negotiate our way to percentages of length for sections to finally resolve the relentless fight over that. So again...

Arguing and commenting are not the same. Why do Beagle and Rangoon11 receive special invites and shows of appreciation from you, while the reception and response to others is vastly different? I see an unfortunate lack of balance that does not help the talk page process one iota. petrarchan47tc 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Several editors here are focused on environmental issues - that is the lens through which they are looking at BP and at this article. From that standpoint, and through that lens, the news of BP in the US in the past ten years looms very large and they want that weight reflected in the article. That is painfully obvious to them. Several of the editors working on environmental issues don't know much about BP as a whole or about many aspects of its business, and some also seem uninterested in learning about it or addressing those things - these things are not important to those editors. This of course leads to those matters deserving little weight in their eyes. It is easy to see where the article ends up, weight-wise. Right? In absence of statements, I would guess that they would say that this article should be at least 50% about those issues, or more. That is what I wish the environmentally oriented folks would have come out and said. (I agree that the bad stuff needs to be very clearly stated in the article. NOT absent. NOT sanitized. But also NOT given undue weight and not with color. there is also a lot of the sense of "david vs goliath" - of the righteous battling the oppressor in trying to get more, and more colorful content added, which is unfortunate and dehumanizing of the other side - a product of this war that you guys are in.)

Who are those several editors? I'm begging for help updating the environmental sections of the Gulf spill and no one has stepped up yet. So I have to assume you're speaking of me. And this is why I say you have not done enough research to be making these sweeping statements about the dynamics of this page over the past year. What is being reflected in this article now, for the most part, is BP's version of things. That is the result of having BP PR team drafts inserted word-for-word. The article is not a reflection of what RS says. You have to do research to understand this. Your comments about BP's departure from AE, as seen in the "BP leaving Wind" section of this talk page tells me you are shooting from the hip rather than using your search engine. Here are some examples of what you would have found:1 [2 3

It is a fallacy that I am coming 'through that lens'. The news of the past ten years regarding BP is what it is. BP in the US in the past ten years looms very large and they want that weight reflected in the article Damn straight. What looms large in RS is what should be reflected in ANY Wiki article. Several of the editors working on environmental issues don't know much about BP as a whole or about many aspects of its business, and some also seem uninterested in learning about it or addressing those things Again, you have not done your research. Can you name an editor here who does have intricate knowledge of all the aspects of this company, or who is willing to acquire and share that knowledge in the article? The BP PR team is covering certain issues in a particular way. But they are not helping inform the reader about the six-fold increase in Gulf dolphin deaths. So someone else has to step in. They should be appreciated for that effort as much as BP is appreciated for their help with updates, even though it covers only certain types of information. Your statement that "environmentally focused folks" show interest only in the ugly stuff is again false. Assuming you're speaking of me, I need to ask you to review the article changes over the past year as well as the talk pages. I worked on the AE section and added positive content, I have updated the history section and helped with the stock section (because after negative info about BP's stock was removed from the article, my attempt at re-adding it resulted in the claim that to do so I must create an entire Stock History section). And, I have barely added content about negative environmental issues to this article except maybe wikilinking to related articles. So I am just not sure what your position and above comments and are based on, but it isn't reality. petrarchan47tc 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing that business-oriented editors think this article is about BP as a whole. They look at business-oriented sources and they actually see see many many sources that barely discuss environmental issues. I would guess that they would want to give the environmental stuff something like 25% weight. Maybe less. I wish some of the business oriented people would have stepped up and made their statements. (I think 25% is too little, as I wrote above. I see that among business-oriented editors there is unfortunately a lot of ugly belittling of the willful ignorance of a lot of the environmentally oriented editors with respect to BP's actual business. this too is unfortunate - another product of this war you are in.)

We work with RS, no matter if it's positive or negative. Where are those links to the business articles? I am happy to work with any RS available, and there is no evidence to the contrary. petrarchan47tc 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The source of the problem is obvious.

Yeah, a lack of true research and time invested. A blame game by self-appointed Arbiters Of Fairness. petrarchan47tc 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If you all don't step up and negotiate a solution on the big picture - on weights, you are going to be bound to stay in the hell of this endless warfare, calling each other nasty names and being very frustrated. Without a sense of boundaries, the environmentalists are always going to push for more, and the business-oriented people are always going to push back. You all want to be like those sad places on earth where there is endless civil war -- the places we look at and shake our heads? Neither side is going away. You all are choosing this. So step back from the war and negotiate already. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you quite get the point that Petrarchan47 made. I'm not even sure that you even read her remarks very carefully, as she was quoting SlimVirgin; that editor has not made an appearance here. (And neither the present nor absent editor "chose to argue." That's just a mischaracterization.) It's very simple: the weight of the reliable secondary sources determine the weight of an article.

In other words, it is not a touchy-feely process that tries to find a middle ground between what editors feel. Coretheapple (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, copied your signature below to your comment above, so I could respond to this. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Will fix that. As I wrote above "However, you both seem to be confusing "news" with "reliable sources." News is a subset of RS." And yes, the weight of ALL RS should determine the weight of an article -- not just the news about BP's record in America over the past 10 years. Please respond to this. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have made no such confusion. The amount of coverage of this company in reliable sources is staggering. And yes, obviously that includes non-news sources, but we must be mindful of the limitations on use of primary sources in the RS policy. Thus the desire of certain editors to find "reports" by supposedly neutral governmental bodies had to be balanced against that. The effort to shrug off the coverage of BP in reliable sources is one of the characteristics of some of the editing that has taken place in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, I am not interested in "touchy-feely". I negotiate for a living. Negotiations are hard and require discipline. But when they are handled well they solve problems and lay the groundwork for future success. When I say "you are choosing this" - I mean all the editors who are doing trench warfare on both sides with respect to environmental content, not just one set of editors. The trench warfare is repetitive and frustratingly unproductive. And boring. And painful. It was very unpleasant to reach the Talk archives - the way people conducted themselves and treated each other has been really horrible. It must have been uglier to live through. Anyway, I am inviting people, including you, out of the trenches and to a negotiation. Which again, would be hard, and would require discipline. If you want to stay in the trenches, that's what you will do. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some of the editing has bordered on the tendentious and violative of WP:OWN, especially the hairtrigger reverts that I've seen. But the solution is not for one editor to appoint himself as impartial editor, "negotiating" an "apportionment" agenda that has the potential to make this article even more unbalanced and more of a whitewash than it currently is. Even if you found agreement among the editors here on apportionment, it would not overrule NPOV.

Now that I've addressed your questions, can you please address mine, which relate to what sentences in the litigation section violate NPOV, and how you can reconcile your position on that section with your position a few days ago advocating a special section for the Wikipedia controversy. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't slice and dice my comments. Can you please reasssemble my comment and rejigger your response accordingly? Coretheapple (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reassembled my 12:47 comment. Please, I'd very much appreciate it if you wouldn't edit my comments in that manner. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Beagel

I did not understand do you expect all comments is this section or comments by different questions by different sections. Therefore I will put all my comments here.

• Apportionment. The 33% and 33% proposal is interesting and it has some certain logic. However, I am not able to say if these figures are adequate, too much or too little. I see the potential risk that implementing any percentage we may ending by counting the prose of different sections instead of concentrating to the substance. E.g. just adding some hilarious quotes to fulfil the room of 33% or vice versa–deleting substantial content just to fit within the 33% limit. I believe that all major aspects should be covered according to NPOV but there we have a problem that different editors have very different understandings what that means. So, before talking about any percentage we should find and agree the proper structure for this article–covering all aspects related to the company but at the same time avoiding fragmentation of the text. I knew I am repeating myself but T think that without that we are not able to solve the problems related to this article.

• Color. The main principle is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not media outlet. That means the text should be businesslike, neutral and without emotions. There has been problems with over-quotations. Probably there are cases when quotations may be justified but in the context of this article I don't see any potential case at the moment when it would be necessary. So, the answer is that we should not use the color language. I think that we should use the comparison with Britannica: if we can't imaging that the given language will be published in Britannica, why it should be in Wikipedia? The second issue is tone. There seems to be a theory that writing about negative things we should use negative tone. I disagree with this. While, facts may be positive or negative, the tone should be neutral. The third issue here is redundancy which is a problem with some sections. If you can to report the fact with less words, you should to do it. Again, The Tony1 redundancy exercise is a good tool to improve the encyclopaedic writing. Beagel (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Beagel! I think we agree on the "color" thing. On apportionment, I hear you, on the danger of apportionment being used like a "quota system". I hear you on the outline idea, and I noticed in the Talk archives that work started on an outline. However, at the end of the day, decisions will still need to be made on the length of each section with the outline... on the weight each topic is given.. right? My question about percentages was jumping all the way to the end. I don't know if enough editors are going to join this conversation to provide for a meaningful negotiation... we'll see! Thanks in any case for joining this conversation, in the midst of all the other editing work you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This was a failed experiment. Thanks to everybody who participated. Sorry to those who found the effort or my comments offensive. I'm going back to working on content. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I for one appreciate the effort. It was the labeling and characterization that was not in keeping with the editing records of this article and talk page that I found a bit offensive, to be clear. But I meant to add clarifying and informative statements in response to you, I hope it wasn't taken as "I'm offended! How dare you?!". I'm simply aiming for fact-based communication. I don't feel, and hope I didn't express, any hostility towards you. I do wish to stress that a greater effort towards neutrality with regard to your treatment of the material and the editors might be in order.

As for content, if you feel to work on the expansion of/updating environmental aspects of the spill, I've left some links at the "Gulf oil spill" section above. But my feeling differs from yours in that I don't believe every editor is obligated to work on all aspects of this or any Wiki article, so if you're not interested in putting in the time and research, please ignore my request. But, due to practices at this page like the aforementioned labeling, I cannot expect to work on this section alone without causing myself a lot of grief. petrarchan47tc 23:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for my mischaracterizations. Thank you for the corrections and for the advice. I have done too much meta-discussion already and do not intend to do more, so you don't have to worry about that! A correction for you: I don't expect you to read everything I have written, but you and I are on the same page -- I absolutely do not believe every editor is obligated to work on all aspects of this or any Wiki article - in fact if you do look at what I have written here on Talk, I say all the time that volunteer editors do exactly whatever they want to and nobody has the right to boss us around. (my failed experiment was very carefully framed as an invitation, and I explicitly wrote that if people want to join, great, and if they don't, great. I don't know how you got the wrong impression.. actually maybe I do. I wrote above that if somebody doesn't have a grasp of the subject matter of an article, that they are in a very weak position when discussing the appropriate weight that any topic should be given in the article. I actually do believe that is true and wish that people who were in that position would argue more.. humbly. They often don't. Their choice! To me that line of reasoning is different from obligating anyone to work on anything....maybe to you it is not different) About working on environmental stuff here -- thanks for the invitation {which is how I took it - not as bossiness :)}. Gandy invited me to work on the prudhoe spill sub-article, and that is what I am doing now... will be happy to look at the other stuff when I am done. I am sorry again, and thank you for your kind note. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked you a lot of pointed questions; I took about two hours responding to you today, and would very much appreciate if you would respond to them (when you find time). Please take a look at your point #3 above - this looks to me as if you do expect us to research all aspects of this subject, and you seemed upset that some weren't willing to. What did you mean by that? Thanks in advance. petrarchan47tc 03:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Confused... Above, I wrote (with some edits here for clarity): if somebody doesn't have a grasp of the entire subject matter of an article, they are in a very weak position when discussing the appropriate weight that any given content should be given in the article about that subject. I actually do believe that is true in policy and wish that people who were in that position would argue more.. humbly. They often don't. Their choice! To me that line of reasoning is different from my obligating anyone to work on anything....maybe to you it is not different. And below I provided the part of UNDUE that is relevant to that, with emphasis added this time: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The only way to put news in context - to judge its appropriate weight with respect to its significance to the subject - is to have a grasp of the subject as a whole. Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that you spent a lot of time on that, and this is what made me realize that the experiment was a failure. It had become focused on things I wrote (which I should not have written in the first place as they were not helpful), instead of the experiment. I am sorry you spent so much time critiquing my viewpoint, but I don't see any point in spending more time on that here - the experiment failed, and my statement of my views on what is going on here, and your critique of my views, don't help advance the content of the article - I would just be compounding my original error by digging further. If you are really interested and want to keep discussing on my Talk page or yours, I would be willing to do that. But you are 100% right that I mischaracterized you as "environmentally oriented." That was dead wrong and sloppy of me. Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How about answering just this one question, then? ...the business oriented editors actually see a bigger set of sources Where are those sources? petrarchan47tc 22:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the business oriented content in this article, you will find it is supported by business oriented sources. In terms of internet searching, you can go here http://quotes.wsj.com/BP or here http://www.economist.com/topics/bp or here http://www.ogj.com/topics/search?&q=%22british+petroleum%22+OR+BP&y=-156&x=-1060&sort=date Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

btw petrarchan, does my response to your question about "point 3" answer your question? do you see my reasoning? do you agree? (3 questions) Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional note - this is the part of WP:UNDUE relevant to what i wrote above: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Judge, jury, and executioner

It seems that some editors here somehow 'know' that BP are a bad lot and that they have the worst safety and environmental record of any oil company and that is its our job to structure the article to reflect that 'fact'.

That is not how WP works. We do not design articles to promote our own personal opinions, neither do we apportion content in accordance with our own personal views or coverage in recent news sources.

I do not actually know how BP's overall safety and environmental record compares with, say, the other supermajors but all we need to settle this are some quality, independent, reliable sources giving us this information. If such sources say that BP has a particularly bad safety or environmental record compared with comparable oil companies then we can say that here. If there are no such sources the we simply cannot make statements of that nature in this article, neither can we imply such by the way we structure the article or apportion content.

Reliable sources for this purpose do not include investigative news reports following a major disaster. The purpose of investigative journalism is to find out hidden bad stuff about a person or organisation. They serve a useful purpose in bringing to out attention people or organisations doing things that they should not be doing, but investigative reports they have no obligation to present a balanced overall picture; we do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for this purpose do not include investigative news reports following a major disaster. Of course they do. You can't possibly be serious. The notability of this company is intrinsically tied to its criminality, offenses for which it has pled guilty and for which it is being exposed to daily exposure in an ongoing civil liability trial for which it faces enormous further exposure. Coretheapple (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The notability of this company is intrinsically tied to its criminality, now who cannot be serious? One of the largest companies in the world and you claim it is notable only for one thing!!

News reports cannot possible be regarded as reliable sources for the overall safety and environmental record of a large company. The media have neither the resources or the inclination to carry out detailed comparisons between similar companies over a period of years. Indeed it is not their job to do this. To make proper comparison between BP and other large oil companies we need an independent international or governmental source with knowledge and expertise in the subject that has carried out a proper study.

Here are some relevant quotes from WP:RS:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content.

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"News reports cannot possible be regarded as reliable sources for the overall safety and environmental record of a large company"? Of course they can. You just cited RS, and it says so. Coretheapple (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you read that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

With my two eyes. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you have your eyes closed to the obvious facts. Which bit of WP:RS do you claim means that a news report can be a reliable source on the overall comparative safety record of a multinational company? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The comparative safety record of BP is a question of fact, as determined by reliable sources, and there is no special exemption for BP on that point. Coretheapple (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Core have you found any RSs that compare BP and its peers, globally? I have been looking and have been having a hard time finding anything. There is lots on the US over the past ten years, but even those do not touch on the global record. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I have mainly been dealing with your failed "experiment" and coping with editors engaged in hair-trigger reverts of a section that describes the serious and significant exposure that BP has in its current litigation. I am not employed for the purposes of contributing to this article, as is the case for many if not most of the other editors working here, and I have to apportion my time according to the priorities that, unfortunately, are being set by other editors with agendas of an unclear character. Coretheapple (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, in the course of doing some cursory research on this topic, I came upon BP's guilty plea to criminal charges connected to its 1999 North Shore oil spill. The section on the oil spill made it seem as if this was the settlement of a civil charge, and no mention was made of the guilty plea. Can you please explain to me, if you know, how this article got to the point where a guilty plea to criminal charges is not even mentioned? I mean, is this article so totally an NPOV disaster as that omission gives the impression of its being? Coretheapple (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, I can't quite figure out what you are referring to here. Can you please go into more detail? Gandydancer (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the edit I made here [7]. Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Question: 'Core have you found any RSs that compare BP and its peers, globally?'
Answer: 'No'

That means we cannot say or imply that BP has a worse record than its peers. Neither can we structure the article to suggest that, or apportion content on that basis. That is the rules. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I haven't even looked, Martin. Words in my mouth please do not put. Gracias. Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

'No' is exactly what you said above. Whether the answer is 'no' because you have looked and found nothing or because you have not looked at all is immaterial. The onus is on you to produce a source for what you say here. If you have no source that globally compares BP to its peers you cannot make or imply any comparison here. That is the rules.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by, 'I am not employed for the purposes of contributing to this article, as is the case for many if not most of the other editors working here'. We have one editor, Arturo, who is employed by BP and who has quite properly disclosed his interest here. As far as I know, no one else has any connection with BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that proves that only one editor is employed by BP? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster, perhaps you should have a look through WP:FIVEPILLARS again. Reliable sources are required for adding content to the encyclopedia not for talk page discussions where editors should assume good faith. Only one user here has disclosed any connection to BP so we must assume that others have no connection. Attacks on other editors should be avoided. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion and would like to note again, as I have elsewhere if not on this Talk page, that I am the only authorized representative of BP on Wikipedia. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree Arturo. You are the only self-identified Authorized representative of BP on Wikipedia. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have never added any text to the article on BP's safety record compared to other companies. Maybe that accounts for your confusion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Any confusion is likely to be in the minds of our readers, who, on reading this article, will get the clear impression that BP has the world's worst environmental and safety record. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. Until recently, the reader did not even know that BP pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from its 1999 oil spill. Coretheapple (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

BP Wikipedia outreach team

According to BP, Arturo is the head of the company's "Wikipedia Outreach Team". Arturo serves as the voice for BP PR on Wikipedia. Administrator "Ocassi" claimed he had connected BP with Rangoon11 via the OTRS system for the purposes of helping this article. This was before Arturo introduced himself, and was never revealed to anyone on this page. (Since that time, the Administrator backtracked on his previous claim.) It is important we remain fact-based at this talk page and especially with regard to BP's direct involvement here. They have already admitted there is a team at work here, it makes no sense to ignore this fact. petrarchan47tc 20:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just above (at 16:01) Arturo says he is "the only authorized representative of BP on Wikipedia". I think he is the only "self-identified" representative on Wikipedia. Your research shows that he is the head of the "WP Outreach team". Are we not on a need to know basis as to which one is fact? ```Buster Seven Talk 22:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster and Petrarchan, there is no "Wikipedia outreach team", the article in The Huffington Post got that wrong (the statement released by BP is quoted in full in this article, it's the same one that was sent to The Huffington Post). I am the only person working for BP active on this article. Also, I never had contact with Ocaasi or Rangoon11 through the OTRS system. See Ocaasi's question about this on my Talk page last month.

In response to Petrarchan's other comment about the level of involvement by BP here: again, read the statement which makes clear I have many other duties as part of BP's corporate communications team, which is why it sometimes takes me time to answer queries from editors or to respond here. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for straightening that out Arturo. It eases my mind. Not completely :~) but enough to be comfortable. BTW...I have no problem with you and I respect the difficult position you are in. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

unrelated tangent

I just want to call your attention to WP:OUTING which is a sub-policy of WP:PERSONAL Please read. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC) This was already discussed on Jimbo's talk page. No one is being outed. BP made an official statement that I outlined above and Arturo agreed it was correct. Them's the facts. No one is trying to hide it, but obviously not all editors here read every single BP/Wikipedia-related comment (and I don't blame you!). Please, Arturo or anyone, if I am mistaken do correct me. As for Ocassi, I have already discussed all of this with him, and it's all in the records beginning at SlimVirgin's talk page, if you're interested. petrarchan47tc 02:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC) "Outing." That's a hoot, when nobody knows what anyone else's name is. Jytdog, why the red herring? Coretheapple (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Core, did you read WP:OUTING? It is not a laughing matter. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC) In order to not strike fear in people, and yet allow for open communication about open facts, let's just state it clearly: Do Not Ever Link To An Article Which Would Give Away An Editor's Name. petrarchan47tc 02:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC) it is not about fear.. this is one of the few really unforgiveable sins in wikipedia and everybody should be very aware of it if they are not already. Don't try to dox somebody, don't speculate about who somebody might be, and do not confirm or deny anybody's outside identity. just stay away from the topic. it is completely out of bounds and going there can lead to you being banned permanently. Talk about content, not editors. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC) It certainly isn't a laughing matter, which is why it shouldn't be invoked unless it is warranted, and it clearly isn't in this case, unless someone's real name is floating around somewhere associated with someone's user ID. I certainly am not aware of that. Are you? If you are not, you're raising a red herring. Coretheapple (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC) The warning was directed to Buster, under whose comment my comment directly falls. What provoked my comment was that for the second time he wrote that Arturo is the "only 'self-identified'" BP rep and that he leads a "team". And Buster raised the issue above the section break that Petrarchan created as well. The direction of Buster's inquiry is clear and I was warning Buster against going there. The warning stands. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC) "Outing" as described in that policy is posting of personal information. Nothing remotely of that kind was contemplated in Buster's comment, so far as I can see. I'm just not following you here, sorry. Coretheapple (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC) @ Jytdog. Is there another editor at these pages that identifies himself as working for BP? Arturo admits, on his own page, that he chose his user name to comply with the spirit of WP:COI. Within the many far-ranging paid advocate/operative/agent conversations on Wikipedia, self-identifying is a common term. Arturo "outed" himself and I commend him for his openness and honesty. He complied and we, and our readers, are better served. To his credit. Your warning is out of place, acknowledged, and will be ignored as a red herring. I like my herring pickled in wine vinegar....but not red. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC) I think the direct question you ask above does not violate policy. I don't know why you are asking it again as it has been answered several times in this section and the one above. What worried me was your broader question and direction "I think he is the only "self-identified" representative on Wikipedia." which you wrote twice with some variation. If you are not pursuing the statement implicit in that - namely "there are editors here who are representatives of BP but have not self-identified themselves as such" - then great! Then my warning was indeed irrelevant. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

request for arturo - maps with waiver of copyright

Hi Arturo

I've been wanting to revise the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article (along with Gandy) so it is of better quality. I would like to then generate a summary of the improved article for inclusion here. I want to understand the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field better and have been reading about that and its context - the Alaska North Slope article and the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska. I found some maps and added them to those articles, but I don't want to address the Prudhoe spill article until I understand the physical context of Prudhoe. It would be awesome to add a couple of maps to that article. The state of alaska has this http://doa.alaska.gov/ogc/annual/current/18_Oil_Pools/Prudhoe%20Bay%20-%20Oil/Prudhoe%20Bay,%20Prudhoe%20Bay/Map_Area_Loc.pdf and this http://doa.alaska.gov/ogc/annual/current/18_Oil_Pools/Prudhoe%20Bay%20-%20Oil/Prudhoe%20Bay,%20Aurora%20-%20Oil/Map_Area_Loc.pdf which are definitely helpful, but a) while content produced by the US government has no copyright in the US, the same is not true of state government produced content, and with that uncertainty I cannot use these maps in Wikipedia (I am writing them to see if I can use them); and b) they are not detailed with respect to fields and pipelines within those units.

So here is a request -- would BP be willing to provide maps of the Units around Prudhoe where it works and detail within them, and release the copyright on them so they can added to Wikipedia articles? Specifically, it would be great to have one map at the scale of the State of Alaska maps above, showing the Units, and another one or two that show clearly where fields and pipelines are within Units, so I can add them to relevant articles to help readers get grounded in the basic layout of the units and fields and pipelines, and also to make sense of what happened with the spills at Prudhoe. This would be very helpful. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, I am checking on whether this is possible. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, I will be able to share a Prudhoe map. Will follow up soon. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arturo, thanks for checking, but I am no longer working on this article, so I will not be using it. Someone else might. Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Clean Water Act Trial: How much detail?

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

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

References for paragraph

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

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

Comment by RfC initiator

The above text has been repeatedly removed. The subsection in question is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#Clean_Water_Act_trial The edits that gave rise to this RfC are [8] and [9], removing the above text and demoting this from section to subsection.

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

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

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

Comments by uninvolved editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by involved editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less detail here?

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

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

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

It can be reduced in size without it being a "brief summary," especially since some editors have been striving to make that "brief summary" so uninformative that it fails to contain a reference to the billions of dollars ($17 billion at last count) that is being sought by the Justice Department. This RfC was brought about because of the whitewashing of that very section, removing the reference to the billions sought in damages by the Justice Department. That's why we're here. Let's be clear on that. What we're seeing at work here is the same kind of overly aggressive slashing that resulted in the section on the punishment for the 1999 oil spill not mentioning BP's guilty plea. JYTdog, you sought aggressively to remove any mention of the billions in exposure from this section and now you remove efforts to take out extraneous detail[10]. I just can't figure out what you're doing here. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My overall thoughts on the issue

The problem that I'm seeing here in this article is a difficult one to address because it is part of a larger problem seen throughout the encyclopedia. Traditional encyclopedias have never devoted as much of individual articles to controversies for very good reason. Controversies receive significant coverage in news media because they are interesting to read. Nobody cares about the day to day operations of BP, but they'll go to a news website to read about the latest scandal or economic disaster related to the company. That information is perfect for newspapers, but encyclopedias are reference works. We shouldn't ignore these, and it's appropriate to have articles on the controversies, but the amount of prose we devote to this is not supposed to be more than a broad mention of the fact of the issue's existance, especially since we use summary style. Nowhere is this more important than in the lead. We currently devote 150 of 528 words in the lead (or 28.4%) to a paragraph about controversies. That is wholly inappropriate. BP is over 100 years old, there is absolutely no way that controversial information makes up almost 30% of a broad overview of the company. Ryan Vesey 03:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you will find that many here agree with you. I find myself defending BP here, not because I have any connection with them or special love for them but because the article has become a soapbox for anti-BP sentiment. The standard rules for sourcing seem to have been abandoned and any news report, from wherever, is accepted as a reliable source for sweeping statements about the company as a whole.

I recognise that mention of controversies is the norm for WP and I would certainly expect to see something about major incidents such as the DWH disaster here. Unfortunately, the argument being used here is that because we somehow 'know' that BP are bad lot we must express this in the volume of negative text about them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that there's too much about the controversies in the lede, so I trimmed out the last few sentences giving details of current events. The details should be in the article, but putting details of recent events in the lede is undue emphasis IMO. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information and repeated linkage

By one of the latest addition the sentence "In 2000, Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) sold its Carson, California refinery to BP." This information is not correct as ARCO was acquired by BP, not the refinery was sold. This information is provided in the 'History' section.

Second problem is that all this environment and safety subsections are developed as mini (or even not so mini) articles. In addition to fragmentation of the text it has resulted with a practise that editors are trying to format these subsections as separate article, that means linking names and terms, already linked in the article, in every separate subsection. According to WP:REPEATLINK, a term should be linked, generally, at most once in an article's lead, perhaps once again in the main article body, and perhaps once at first occurrence in each infobox, table, caption, and footnote. Even within these general limits, the choice of whether or not to repeat a link should consider whether the added value of linking a particular occurrence outweighs the consequent dilution of the value of other links. Beagel (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's incorrect, why didn't you fix it? Coretheapple (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

First, to avoid any potential misinterpretation of my action. Second, I disagree with the whole addition for reasons what I have stated at this talk page several times (creation of new fragmented multiparagraph sections about any incident one could find). Beagel (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Beagel, I fixed it. About linking, I try to consider what will work best for the reader than go by any hard and fast rules. In the case of linking ARCO, it was linked in the history section but I doubt that a person reading the article would remember much about it. But I added the source and removed the link as it is probably better. Gandydancer (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Way forward–example of FA class article?

After the last days actions it seems that the common understanding of WP:DUE will unlikely achieved. As a way forward, I still return to the idea proposed by Uzma Gamal and discussed here but which unfortunately achieved minimal attention. As Microsoft is the only FA-class article about any major multinational company and (and it has went through the FA review which is a quite hard process) maybe we should follow the Microsoft practice to resolve the undue weight issue. In the Microsoft article there is a summary section called 'Criticism', which summarizes Criticism of Microsoft article. Maybe there should be [Criticism of BP]] (or something similar) article which is summarized in BP article. This will resolve the undue weight issue as it would be possible to provide more detailed information in the Critics that here without violating WP:DUE. Beagel (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds an excellent idea to me. I have not even looked at the Microsoft article yet but the principle of using a FA-class article on a large multinational company as a guide seems a sound one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We have to be careful to avoid a POV fork... WP:CFORK Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That is easy - have no 'Criticism of BP' article. The FA status of Microsoft is in no way dependent on the existence of the Criticism of Microsoft article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha. But not really funny. Editors who are critical of a company insist that the criticisms be represented well. This was solved at the Microsoft article by what I can only assume (since it reached FA status) that the summary left enough criticism in the main article, and that the forked Criticism article was balanced enough, that they both became stable, which is a key criterion for FA. We are really far from a consensus on weight, and I sense that there is no way that the environmentally-oriented editors will settle for there being only brief summary statements here with no extended discussion somewhere. Even where we already have extended subarticles (eg DWH matters), the discussion of those matters here is still growing and the enviro-editors even write that the subarticles don't matter -- only this one does. The lack of consensus on weight in this article is still the key issue holding us back. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not intended as a joke. The Microsoft article shows how an encyclopedic article in a large multinational company should be written. The opinions of the environmentally-oriented editors are irrelevant to WP's primary purpose, which is to be an encyclopedia.

The title of this article is 'BP' and it should be modelled on what is generally accepted as the highest standard in WP, the Featured article, a relevant example of which is Microsoft. There is no obligation whatever to have an extended discussion or mention of environmental or safety issues here. Of course if some users what to start a page called 'Criticism of BP' they are free to do so. Even then, that new page must present a neutral POV and not be a soapbox for anti BP sentiment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you missed my point. You cannot reach FA unless the article is stable, and this article will not be stable until we reach consensus on weight. I agree that the Microsoft article might be a useful model - let's see if any of those who want more detail on the negatives in this article would agree. The problem, though, is that the question about how weight to give something like DWH is not "criticism" per se -- it is a question of how much weight to give objectively bad things the company has done. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The stability criterion for an FA is no reason to compromise on encyclopedic quality. The DWH incident was the largest marine spill in history and the biggest disaster in the history of BP, both for themselves and others so, of course, it should be given some weight in this article, but in an encyclopedic manner. The facts speak for themselves, there is no need to embellish them with media speculation and sensationalising.

Regarding those who want more detail on the negatives, the question they must explain why the detail is required. Are the details important facts about the company in question or are they there to make some kind of point by volume of text? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

While I might support using the Microsoft article as a basic model, I don't think the comparison follows thru on one basic issue. Has Microsft ever expienced the type of calamity that BP did with DSH? Maybe Microsoft had to pay a $17+ Billion dollar fine? If so, how did the editors of that article handle it? Maybe a better choice would be one of the other Oil Industry Company articles. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh, one can argue that Windows 8 was a disaster! But I'd say no, in general, Microsoft would not be a valid role model. Totally different business, totally different kinds of consequences from its actions. The remark about "criticism" is correct; we're not dealing with that level of controversy but something different. Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also it's correct that this article is not stable. There are NPOV tags on it and outstanding issues, including whether the environmental aspects have been soft-peddled. I was deeply concerned by the omission of the guilty plea in 2006. There may be more omissions like that. Really premature to talk about this as a featured article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstandings. Some of these things were explained earlier this year in the original discussion linked in the first posting of this thread; however, I am more than happy to explain again if this would help to facilitate finding the way forward.

• The Microsoft article was proposed as an example for a reason that this is the only FA-class article about major multinational companies. There is no other FA-class major multinationals articles nor articles about oil companies. Alltogether, so far only 13 company articles have achieved the FA status.
• The are 91 GA-class company articles. No major multinationals and only one oil company (Gulf Oil). The Gulf Oil article does not have any critics, controversies etc section.
• There seems to be confusion between nominating article for FA and taking FA article as an example of way forward. It is true that the article is not at the FA-level yet and it is not stable. However, how this prevent us to agree the structure which could be acceptable for the FA article?
• Arguments that Microsoft has not done something like DWH and that there is no serious ongoing controversy at Microsoft are correct in some way but not exactly. That's true that there has been no case reaching to $17 billion (but make clear–there is no verdict yet); however, Microsoft has been fined by the European Commission at least four times for its market dominance business practices with the total amount of fines being about €2 billion. The last one one was only in March this year and was €561 million.

If you could propose better FA-class example, let discuss it. (O. J. Simpson is not FA or GA). Beagel (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What are we to do???

This question was posed to jtdog earlier but received no response. Hopefully the group can help to answer this query. The meme continues that any editors who find it prudent to add "negative" content to this article have a bias problem.

My question is, if the subject isn't necessarily "neutral", what are we to do?

A few times on this page, the question about whether we have RS for a comparison of BP with other similar oil companies, as well as RS about BP's entire history (to help determine weight/color for the article) was raised. My search engine found the following articles; they are not cherry-picked. If these are considered RS, how is one to integrate any content without being categorized as biased? Indeed, how does one update this article at all without such a judgment? Neutral and dry, business-based content does not need updating, it is being taken care of by the BP Wikipedia outreach team. petrarchan47tc 21:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

NTY

DemNow

NTY

Re entire history

Guardian

HuffPo

Must be true then, I read it in the papers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your continued hostility for and refusal to reference WP:RS needs to stop if you expect to be respected as a Wikipedia editor and participant of this talk page. petrarchan47tc 21:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Martin you should take a look at the "risk factors" and "pending litigation" sections of the BP annual report in all their grandeur. They make the media coverage seem timid in comparison. Coretheapple (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I was about to reply, "Must be true, I read in in the BP Annual Report". But I see that Editor Coretheapple has made the same point. When viewed from their polarized positions, opposing editors are viewed as the opposition and therefore must be opposed. When viewed as collaborators at work at creating a Quality Article they are viewed as fellow editors and must be assisted. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear about something, annual reports have a much higher standard of verification than news articles as it is actually illegal to lie on an annual report and they are independently audited. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The facts and numbers have a high standard of verification, Yes, but not the words. The words in an Annual Report can deceive without being illegal. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That is true, and also annual reports are a primary source, and are subject to the restrictions of WP:PRIMARY. I think the annual reports are useful because they indicate how the oil spill and attendant litigation are viewed gravely by BP, by dint of their potential for a material impact on the company. Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Content-based comments

• I think that the sources listed under the bullet points at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BP/Archive_8#Proposed_RfC address what you've raised, P. I've already utilized a couple of them. They are secondary sources of unimpeachable quality. btw, I thought I was being innovative proposing an RfC, but I see that previous editors have gone down that road before, and the article still has been systematically whitewashed. Really sad. Coretheapple (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry petrarchan, what question did I not answer? There are so many conversations going on - I have tried to be responsive to you. With respect to the list you provide (and the one that Core linked to.. all but one suffer from WP:RECENTISM and all of them are about BP in the US. (the one exception is the guardian article which is really biased... I am surprised your brought it up) This list - its recentism and US focus -- is the bias of your search engine. This is what search engines find. (btw, do they not teach research skills in school anymore? has our scholarly ability degenerated to the point where google has actually replaced the reference librarian for conducting research that matters -- that will be fought over in a public forum? the humanities are really dying.) Yes without a doubt BP had a bad ten years in the US and yes it was entirely due to underinvestment and bad management. Yes that is worthy of mention. What the "opposition" keeps asking (and in this case I ask it too!) is this: how do you justify putting this much weight on what happened in the US over the past ten years? I have never seen an answer to that other than "look here are reliable sources". The opposition says, these suffer from recentism and none are global, and the response is again, "here are reliable sources that google found for me." that is as far as the "conversation" ever gets before it gets nasty and personal. The question is about weight -- how do you justify giving so much weight to content from these sources? Maybe if I put the question this way. A guy from India reads this article, and comes to this looooong section all about BP in the US. Sees where this is going, closes the article and goes to look for better information, muttering "More f-ing US cultural imperalism. Who gives a rat's ass? Nothing - NOTHING - about India or much about Asia at all. grr" What do you say to that guy? Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Add content to the article." Coretheapple (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Jytdog, if you feel that there is a crying need for text about Asia/India, I'm sure that nobody would squawk if you added it before that hypothetical Indian reader materializes. Coretheapple (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

How do i justify "so much weight"? How much weight did I suggest?

These are the sources that come up for me when do I search for the questions you and Martin raised: how does BP compare to other companies, and how do events in its history rate in terms of importance. I would love to see sources you consider worthy. We could look at all of them together and go from there. It's strange that I feel as if I've just been kicked in the shin for bringing my search results.

My question wasn't rhetorical, I asked "What are we to do???" (with these sources and their content). I guess your answer is to disregard all of them wholesale, and that I should be ashamed to even bring up the Guardian article. I have yet see evidence that your proclamations of being a very balanced and NPOV editor are true, tbh. You categorized me as an environmentalist who wishes to drench the article in ugly details, and commented in the "Wind" section of this talk page that BP wasn't getting out of the AE biz, you didn't *think*, because they still have some bio-fuels. Both of these positions were based an assumption and a complete disregard for facts. Why would you comment on content when you haven't even looked at any references? I again showed you these references and you ignored me. I believed you that you were here to bring balance, as you claimed, and that because of your past with the Monsanto article, you had special skills in this area. Your actions, however, tell a different story. They are divisive and little cutting remarks make it into many of your comments, unless they are directed at Beagle or Rangoon11, then it's "LOVE" (literally). When I think of an NPOV-focused editor, it is someone who is very willing to look at all RS - by Wiki standards (your comments about the sources above are not in keeping with any guidelines) and to add content in a balanced way, regardless of which 'side' it falls on. Please bring sources we can work with, and let's go from there. petrarchan47tc 02:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought your question was great. My answer is that these sources (with the exception of the guardian article) are fine and should not be ignored - but they are only good as far as they go; they are not sufficient in scope to provide insight into the company as whole, and if we want to give them appropriate weight then we need to find sources that actually address the broader record in space and time. To get them we have to go outside the top internet hits. To work on the Monsanto article I had to spend hours reading about the company as a whole, from all over the place on the internet and outside of it. I have been doing the same with BP. I have not yet found great sources on their global safety record - I did find a couple that address their global corporate social responsibility record (both by different authors at the same org - here http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/FNI-R0704.pdf and here http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/FNI-R0602.pdf) but these are not dead on, on safety. (You are right on the biofuels thing btw, I need to get back up there are retract. sorry for not doing it sooner, will do it now) Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan - I apologized for mischaracterizing you as an environmentalist. Are we not past that issue? I feel like we are building a relationship and would like to be able to address things as they arise and move forward. If we cannot lay things to rest then there is little point in my responding when you criticize me... Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You've made general comments about "environmentalist" editors, not just relating to Petrarchan specifically, and also fumed about "ignorant" editors, berating me on that point on more than one occasion. Honestly, I don't care what you do or say, it doesn't offend me in the least, but they don't help your credibility in the slightest. Coretheapple (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't care either. My point was clear (it had nothing to do with hurt feewings): bias has been established by this categorization and the other behaviours I pointed out (or, "criticisms"). I've also seen numerous occasions that prove comments are not being read nor is activity on this Talk page taken seriously. I'm done wasting my time communicating in this way. petrarchan47tc 04:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey all, I am done working on this article. I have made mistakes, and have acknowledged them and apologized. But there is no room to move forward. Good luck with this article - I mean that. Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is there still discussion in this forum

Here's another major question I've need to ask. Why are we still discussing the article in this forum? We've got a couple of POV pushers whose goal is to portray BP in as negative of a light as possible, we've got people attempting to maintain a neutral article, and we've probably got some people who really like BP and want to make it look good as well. This isn't an issue that will ever be adequately resolved on the talk page, it needs to go to dispute resolution of some form. Ryan Vesey 02:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It really is time to take this issue to the proper noticeboard, would you be happy to do so?174.71.84.85 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I left a message for a knowledgeable admin, User:Mr. Stradivarius. He'll be able to point us towards the correct forum. Ryan Vesey 02:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Another RfC? We have one freshly started. Aren't RfCs part of the dispute resolution process? Coretheapple (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be interested to see if and how someone can help! Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, your help would be most welcome. If you want to see what this article should look like, have a look at Microsoft, which is an FA. It look like a corporate promotional brochure compared with this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I also look forward to the learning process of direct, sanctioned administrator involvement in the creation of a quality article.```Buster Seven Talk 18:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, me too. Gandydancer (talk)

"Controversy emerged"

We currently say "Controversy emerged in 2013 over the amount of content from BP that had entered the article". How can we, in good conscience, include that in the article when our sources are both online news sources of little importance [11] [12]. This isn't an issue being reported by major news organizations like the BBC, CNN, Fox, or the New York Times. If it isn't being discussed, it doesn't have the significance required to be in the article and violates WP:UNDUE. Ryan Vesey 02:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That began as a separate section, which I removed, but then (as is usual around here), I was immediately reverted. As a compromise it became part of a larger section that you see now. This actually turned out to be one of the less contentious disputes on this page. Coretheapple (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed text and misinterpretation of sources

Recent removed text provides an excellent example of how sources are being misapplied and misinterpreted to add negative material to this article.

The removed text makes the sweeping statement, 'BP has one of the worst safety records of any major oil company that operates in the United States'. It continues to justify this by saying, 'Between 2007 and 2010, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas...'.

The cited source, which is a reputable news source says, '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)'.

This statement is a media opinion based on a report by another organisation, the 'Center for Public Integrity' an investigative journalism organization whose stated mission is "to reveal abuses of power, corruption and dereliction of duty by powerful public and private institutions in order to cause them to operate with honesty, integrity, accountability and to put the public interest first." and which has has been characterized as a "progressive" and "liberal group." Not necessarily a bad thing but hardly a neutral source. This report was based on the writers understanding of information published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. We have no idea what else the OSHA might have said, all we have is one piece of data, chosen to make a point.

Now let is look at what is claimed:

What does the report tell us about BP from 1909 to 2008? Absolutely nothing.
What does the report tell us about BP from 2011 to 2013? Nothing.
What does the report tell us about BP's activity outside the US? Nothing.
What does the report tell us about BP's activities in any of the US states outside the two mentioned? Nothing.
What does the report tell us about BP's exploration and production, drilling, distribution, marketing, petrochemicals, power generation and trading activities? Nothing.

To sum up, we have a news report about a report about a report referring to a tiny fraction of BP's total activity (even in the US) which is cited to support the statement, BP has one of the worst safety records of any major oil company that operates in the United States'

It should not be necessary to point this out to editors here, who should be assessing references for their suitability and strength in supporting the statements made but, regrettably, it looks like it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Actually I watched the video, and it was very good direct reporting - you mischaracterize it. They talked to a lot of people, looked at how BP was spending money, etc. The main reporter also produced a book. However, I agree that the content generated from this source is too general and sweeping. In my mind it would be a great source to justify a more limited statement along the lines of: "BP's operations in the US in the 2000's suffered a string high profile industrial accidents, including the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, and many safety violations by OSHA and other regulatory bodies, which were brought about by an emphasis on cost-cutting and growth, and a concomitant under-investment in infrastructure and in risk management policies and management." with a following sentence along the lines of: "As a result, BP was compelled by the US government to pay record breaking fines, invest in infrastructure, put strong risk management policies and management in place, and undergo monitoring." (sourced appropriately) This is a) true, and b) importantly in the real world, there are editors here to whom what happened in that time and place is very important and the page will never become stable if we don't reach a compromise - which will include an explicit statement like this and very likely more discussion of the details (along the lines currently in the article, but perhaps more compressed). That statement would best be part of a section-lead paragraph that did cover the whole span in time and space of BP's operations and would have comparisons to its peers. btw, I have been having a very hard time finding sources that address BP's broader safety record - especially globally, and especially historically. my sense is this is not available on the internet and I am going to have to hit the library. But do you know of any? You keep (rightly) mentioning we should do that, so I wonder if you know of any so I could help generate content. thx! Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to find some middle ground here but there is no way that news sources can be used to make even the toned down statements that you propose. It simply is not the purpose of the media to make detailed comparisons of any kind between companies; they have neither the will, nor the purpose, nor the expertise to do this.

Cost-cutting is a red herring - innuendo. It is the job of commercial companies to cut costs and maximise profits. The question is whether BP took more improper risks and had more accidents that comparable companies. The real answer to this question is likely to be given in a very long and rather boring document full of statistics. I imagine it would be produced by an international, or governmental body of some kind with expertise in the business. Unfortunately, I do not know where to find such a document or even if there is one but, until somebody finds an authoritative source we must say nothing.

What is the purpose of your proposed wording? It seems to me an attempt to appease those who want to increase the volume of negative text in order to create a bad impression. Your proposal, "As a result, BP was compelled by the US government to pay record breaking fines, invest in infrastructure, put strong risk management policies and management in place, and undergo monitoring." adds little in the way of facts to what we already have. We already state the value of the fines, which the US government always force you to pay. There rest is so vague as to effectively say nothing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Record breaking fines is nothing? Undergo additional (more than than normal Industry-wide) monitoring is nothing? Being "compelled to invest in infrastructure" is not normal business practice. I seem to recall that the USDJ said something to the effect of "BP was grossly negligent in causing the DeepWater Horizon explosion and subsequent spill". Would that not be in the court decree? I'm sure there must be some reference that can achieve enough broad-based support to provide our reader the facts as Jdog presents them. Our task is to find the necessary references. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi buster. The statement by DOJ about gross negligence is litigation-posturing, at this point. Not a reliable source as to whether BP actually was. The court may find BP to have been grossly negligent. It might not. But there are sources to support the summary statement I drafted. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It is, however, a reliable source of the DOJ's position, and the DOJ's position, and its stated determination to extract maximum penalties, is material to this article. It would be to the article on any company. I think that your continual efforts to minimize the impact of this trial are not constructive, considering that a $16 billion settlement has been discussed.[13]. Wikipedia editors should reflect what is in reliable secondary sources and not utilize our supposed "expertise" to exclude such facts from the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The DOJ's objective in extracting the maximum penalty has nothing what ever to do with BP. It is the job of the DOJ to press for maximum penalties in cases like this. It is in no way special to BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It has everything to do with BP. You're not making sense. Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, thanks for continuing the dialogue. Something like the text I proposed is intended as a summary statement in the lead paragraph of the section, and therefore necessarily going over the same ground covered in more detail in the section following the lead. So of course it is repetitive and lacks detail; I am not sure why you are criticizing it on those grounds. If you are saying you don't want there to be a lead paragraph for the section, I would be interested in hearing that. Can talk about your other grounds after clarifying this... Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is normal to have a summarising lead paragraph at the head of each section, but also the language is all wrong, 'record breaking', 'compelled by the government'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if there is no lead paragraph for the section then a summarizing sentence like this doesn't have much use in the IA section. No more to talk about for now... thanks for talking though! (i have a draft of such a lead paragraph i have been working on, btw - it was started by rangoon and abandoned some time ago.) Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a look again at the Microsoft article. There is nothing like this 'criticism by volume of text' there. That is the example we should be following. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus yet that the Microsoft article should be our template for reconstruction. It may turn out to be but let's not assume that a decision has been made. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft is an FA. That means it has passed the most rigorous quality test that we have in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Martin, and a FA because there is no serious ongoing controversy at Microsoft. I can't see that happening here anytime soon. Gandydancer (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That is because editors at that article, wishing to produce an article if high quality, have stuck to WP policy and added only verifiable facts in an encyclopedic manner, rather than filling the article with media opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you know even Jesus has a criticism section? But not BP. I find that interesting. petrarchan47tc 22:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This is very good example. There is a two-paragraph section which is summarize Criticism of Jesus but does not try to add every single piece of it to the Jesus article "because Jesus article has more visitors". These two paragraphs are not comparable with more than 1/3 of the article's body text which we have here. Beagel (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Texas City information improvements requested

Recently there have been a few edits to this article regarding the Texas City refinery, including the addition of a new paragraph on a recently filed lawsuit. This information was added in the "Air pollution violations" section, although BP was not charged with any violation for the incident in question. The addition repeats the allegations in the lawsuit, which without context creates the impression that BP was in violation of air pollution laws. As media reporting at the time explained, the gas that was released was odorous but was not dangerous (see this StateImpact report and this ABC News article). No charges of air pollution were brought against BP. As it is written, the information in the article is misleading to readers and places undue weight on this incident, particularly since the lawsuit has only just been filed.

Can other editors look at this addition and consider removing or amending it? If some of this information should remain, would it be better placed in the "Refinery fatalities, safety violations, and leaks" section?

Texas City Refinery

Request collapsed here - explained more below

On the same topic, I have been looking at the information under the "2005 Texas City Refinery Explosion" and would like to request an update to be added to here. Specifically, following the Clean Air Act sentence, I suggest adding this sentence or some language that includes this detail:

In March 2012, the probation was lifted when the U.S. Justice Department stated that the company had addressed the most serious of the safety issues related to the accident and otherwise satisfied the terms of its agreement.

I have collapsed this request here so that I can explain it further in a new request below. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"...fatalities, safety violations, and leaks

I would also like to request a change to the wording in the "2006–2010: Refinery fatalities, safety violations, and leaks" section to provide some more detail and clarify information regarding the lawsuits. The additional detail needed is described below:

Current:

In June 2012, over 50,000 Texas City residents joined a class-action suit against BP, alleging they got sick in 2010 from the 41-day emissions release from the refinery. Texas has also sued BP over the release of emissions. BP says the release harmed no one.

Clarification:

More detail recommended re Texas suing BP: In August 2010, the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit seeking civil penalties against BP Products North America in relation to the leak. As of June 2012 should replace “In June 2010” in sentence describing class-action suit and same source currently in article can be used.

References

References

your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light.It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light. I would like to ask that you please follow WP:AGF in regard to your interactions with me.===Safety and Health violations=== As a separate point, the new "Safety and health violations" seems out of place in the "Environmental record" section and is very detailed. Perhaps editors could also look at this. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

To facilitate editor awareness, please mark the changes you make with the done tag. It really helps to inform all editors as to the status (open or done) of Arturo's requests. [ 00:21, 19 April 2013‎ Buster7]

Can you please point out any factual inaccuracies in the section, along with references to support your contention that the statements are inaccurate? There is ongoing litigation going on and it concerns me that we make the extensive changes that you describe, without clear inaccuracies, based on the views of one party to the litigation. In fairness I think that someone should contact the plaintiffs to this litigation to see if they share the BP rep's views of this section, and to ascertain if there are, in addition to any errors pointed out by the BP rep, any other material matters that were omitted and need to be mentioned. I think that we should obtain such input prior to considering any of these changes. Whether or not such input is obtainable, unless there are clear inaccuracies, not just alleged "misimpressions" and the opinion of BP that it is undue weight, I don't think that we should act on this request concerning ongoing litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the BP rep took several weeks, (or was it months?) to get back to editors on the Prudhom Bay spill information, I just can't see a reason for any rush here. I am still trying to untangle that mess and expect no assist from BP. If corporate editors are going to be allowed to offer their requests, they should be responsible to offer answers to requests of their corporation as well. And those requests should be answered in a timely manner. Gandydancer (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@Core. The point you make about the views of only one side of the litigation is valid. I would hope no changes occur until we can come to agreement as to what to do. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that we need to bend over backwards to be even-handed, which means not altering the "spin" of an article on litigation at the request of one side or another. If there any factual inaccuracies it is one thing; inaccuracies should be corrected immediately. But one side or another not liking the slant of a section, not feeling it is getting proper weight as the BP rep says here, is another matter entirely. An independent editor created this section and I believe it was edited by other independent editors thereafter. The text should not now be shaped by one party to the litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I moved this text from its own section to a subsection - but I agree this doesn't make perfect sense. Should it be its own section? I also agree it could be trimmed, but this is before having read it carefully. It just looks more meaty than what we usually add. I noticed also that the Gulf spill section (except the coverage of court cases) is dwarfed by both this and the Prudhoe Bay spill. I wonder if this is well-balanced coverage given what we find in RS. Imbalance happens naturally after an active editing period. We could take a moment to do a 'big picture' review of the article, imo, and expand/update the first section of the Gulf spill. petrarchan47tc 04:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The section is no longer under "Environmental record", thanks for pointing out my mistake. petrarchan47tc 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that it is back in its own section, it's certainly not too meaty. I shouldn't have commented before reading the section. petrarchan47tc 03:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I was the one that wrote the Safety and health section. I did not feel that it fit under the Environmental section and put it under a third heading but another editor moved it to the environmental section. I have nothing against shortening it but since it does not have its own article it tends to be a little longer. I'll copy it here to see what other editors think about the depth of coverage:

Safety and health violations

Citing conditions similar to those that resulted in the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion, on April 25, 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined BP more than $2.4 million for unsafe operations at the company's Oregon, Ohio refinery. An OSHA inspection resulted in 32 per-instance willful citations including locating people in vulnerable buildings among the processing units, failing to correct de-pressurization deficiencies and deficiencies with gas monitors, and failing to prevent the use of non-approved electrical equipment in locations in which hazardous concentrations of flammable gases or vapors may exist. BP was further fined for neglecting to develop shutdown procedures and designate responsibilities and to establish a system to promptly address and resolve recommendations made after an incident when a large feed pump failed three years prior to 2006. Penalties were also issued for five serious violations, including failure to develop operating procedures for a unit that removes sulfur compound; failure to ensure that operating procedures reflect current operating practice in the Isocracker Unit; failure to resolve process hazard analysis recommendations; failure to resolve process safety management compliance audit items in a timely manner; and failure to periodically inspect pressure piping systems. Here's the OSHA report: [14] Gandydancer (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To respond to Coretheapple's comment above asking to clarify what the inaccuracy is: the information about the Texas City lawsuit is placed under the heading "Air pollution violations", but this does not relate to an air pollution violation. As I explained above, BP was not charged with any violation for the incident in question, so placing it under this heading is incorrect. There are no sources that state that BP was charged with an air pollution violation for this incident.

As to the points raised regarding information about the lawsuit representing "only one side": the information currently does only provide the views of one side, since it details only the claims of those bringing the lawsuit against BP.

The other changes I've presented above are small changes to bring information up to date (adding the sentence about the probation being lifted) and adding clarity (the new sentence about the lawsuit brought by the Texas Attorney general, to replace the sentence saying "Texas has also sued BP").

I would also like to respond to Gandydancer's comment above: editors are welcome to respond or ignore my requests as they wish. I do my best to reply to any questions that editors here have for me. Regarding Prudhoe Bay, I replied to you explaining it would take me some time to look into the details (as I am not an expert on all areas of BP and the people who are have more important priorities) and provided a full response within one week of your questions. As you did not reply again, I assumed this provided the information you needed. It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light. I would like to ask that you please follow WP:AGF in regard to your interactions with me. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the above post. First of all, re the last point, I do not believe that BP's rep here, acting in the scope of his employment, should be citing WP:AGF in addressing editor comments. This is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I think that as a general proposition that that policy is not applicable to editing by PR personnel acting within the scope of their employment. But that is a discussion for another time and place.

Secondly, the section reports what is stated in the suit. It is highly material - very serious allegations that "BP’s oil refinery released highly toxic chemicals for 15 consecutive days in November 2011 and inflicted permanent environmental and health damages upon the local community. BP allegedly knew about the potential harm these chemicals could do, but 'failed to take proper action to stop or control the release,' the lawsuit states."[15] If that is not air pollution, I don't know what is.

It is true that these sources do not contain BP's point of view or response. However, that was by BP's choice, According to the footnoted Houston Chronicle article, "'We will review this matter and address it through the court system,' BP spokesman Scott Dean said in an email."[16] That is BP's choice. If it's changed, if there has been a statement responding to the suit, I'd like to know about it and if BP's rep can site one, on the BP website or elsewhere, it should be added. We should not go beyond that without obtaining input from the opposing party. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Arturo. Yes, looking back I see that you replied after 8 days to my Prudhoe Bay question. I had lumped my previous experience when it actually did take several months for you to respond and came up with a sarcastic response. I should know better by now--never use sarcastic remarks on Wikipedia because you will live to regret it. However, yes, one's "reputation" is important to most editors. Mine is important to me. You say, "It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light. I would like to ask that you please follow WP:AGF in regard to your interactions with me." I'd really appreciate it if you'd point out the other inaccurate observations I have made so that I may either defend my position or apologize. It may be appropriate on this page if it would clear something up, but if not you can reply on my talk page. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

According to The Courthouse News Service: "in 2011, BP agreed to pay $50 million in fines for emissions from the facility, and that the fine was the largest for Texas Clean Air Act violations at a single facility." So while the "incident in question" may not have received penalties from Texas, there was a history of penalties for emissions from this plant that is the subject of the lawsuit. Therefore I do not think that a change in the header is appropriate. If one reads the Courthouse News Service article, from a secondary source noted for its objective reporting of lawsuits, one can read more about the background of this situation. If BP has not taken a position on this lawsuit that's its privilege, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with a BP rep, at a time when BP is silent on the lawsuit, attempting to influence what appears in Wikipedia on this subject, especially since no inaccuracies have been brought to the attention of editors. We are under no rush here, and again i am not in favor of responding to requests to add "context" from one side of this litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, unless I missed something, none of the sources about the lawsuit say that the complaint the suit focuses on was an "air pollution violation" and there is no source to say that BP was charged with air pollution violations in this case. Keeping information about this lawsuit under a heading of "Air pollution violations" appears to be incorrect, but obviously that is for editors to decide. The fine that you added to this section is already covered in the "2005 Texas City Refinery explosion" section, and relates to that event (see this source), not to the case that is the focus of this new lawsuit. The lawsuit may mention other incidents involving the Texas City refinery, but as the Houston Chronicle and Associated Press articles explain, the specific event at the center of the lawsuit is a leak in 2011.

Gandydancer, I would be happy to discuss on my discussion page or yours, if you think that's more appropriate. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, your page is fine. BTW, we were in an edit conflict when I make my post below. Gandydancer (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Further thoughts from Gandydancer. Arturo, I think that perhaps you do not appreciate some of the dynamics of what has recently transpired. You are complaining that I have not used WP:AGF while I am saying that that is exactly what got me into trouble here in the first place. I had specifically asked you about the follow up re pipe replacement after the 2006 Prudhoe spill and you replied only that the pipeline had been replaced. And I looked no further. I said, "Great rewrite!" or some such. Only later did I find that there was much more to that story...

Do you really believe that the editors here should accept in good faith that you were not aware that as a matter of fact BP had not resolved the actions that it had been directed to and was fined a further $25 million civil penalty, the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill? But after this was all published outside of WP, rather than complaints regarding your work here, I saw nothing but high praise for your outstanding performance, including from Jimbo. As for the lowly editors that work here for free, like me, complaints such as, "asleep at the wheel" and such. So all in all, it should not be surprising that I have become a little disgruntled from time to time...and be a little sarcastic... Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are obligated to fact-check BP's drafts and respond to talk page comments, the work of a professional PR team. Content is being checked and responded to by unpaid editors in their free time. With that in mind, please quadruple-check everything coming from your department to ensure no wild goose chases. petrarchan47tc 23:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Arturo, the article indicates that the $50 million fine was for violations for the Texas Clean Air Act. Here is another article on that.[17] What you're talking about was the $50 million criminal fine for the federal clean air act. I know, there are so many fines and penalties imposed on your company that it's easy to be confused. Coretheapple (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be sure this is clear: You said The fine that you added to this section is already covered in the "2005 Texas City Refinery explosion" section. That does not appear to be true. The coverage indicates otherwise; i.e., that it was not already mentioned in the article, and that the $50 million fine mentioned in the section was paid out to the federal govt. The settlement of Texas clean air act charges was not mentioned. I've put it in the air pollution section. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, you are right, I had read the line in the "Texas City Refinery" section quickly and missed that this related to the federal Clean Air Act, whereas the information you added related to the Texas Clean Air Act. I apologize for the mistake. Thank you for clarifying and to Petrarchan for moving the information relating to the recent lawsuit to the Texas City Refinery section. When editors have time, it would be great if they could revisit the other recommendations made in my post which I believe will improve the article. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not. We should not adopt any wording recommended by BP's rep here, and certainly not the wording suggested above.

The first suggestion recommends the following wording: "In March 2012, the probation was lifted when the U.S. Justice Department stated that the company had addressed the most serious of the safety issues related to the accident and otherwise satisfied the terms of its agreement."

This wording is problematic for two reasons:

1. It was drafted by BP's public relations department, and our readers should not be reading text that is drafted by BP's public relations department, regardless of any other factors.

2. The suggested text does not completely reflect the source text, which is an article by Abraham Lustgarten in ProPublica entitled, "Feds Let BP Off Probation Despite Pending Safety Violations." Lustgarten's article states, inte alia, " As the probation expired, confusion remained about exactly what improvements BP had made at its refineries. According to the 2010 agreement with OSHA, BP pledged to address the risk of catastrophic chemical releases and to install new protective equipment and instrument systems across the sprawling refinery’s 28 units. It was not clear how much progress the company had made, however, and BP spokesman Daren Beaudo characterized the OSHA issues as Unresolved." This provides nuance that is required for this article, and needs to be reflected.

I'm not going to be able to work on this article for most of the next week. I suggest that editors, when they have time, independently decide, without BP's input, whether further text is needed for that section of the article. Given that litigation is ongoing, it concerns me that a situation that is complicated - so complicated that BP's own rep here is understandably confused over the various penalties imposed - and that we need to be wary of allowing any party to litigation to influence the wording of a section that pertains to the litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we find a speed other than high gear to edit this article. BP is 100 years old. It's not going anywhere. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the above 4 requests (by thread) are still open. Please...NO rush to complete conversations, I just want to be sure that they get marked as  Done if that is the case. I think monitoring Arturo's requests in this manner (creating individual threads to seperate and manage discussions and marking as done) is a good idea and may be something to consider within the ongoing Paid Editor Conversation elsewhere. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

some material for global safety and comparison with peers

I started working over an intro to the Safety/IA section started by rangoon ages ago. below are initial results of my search for sources and draft of a first paragraph. didn't get very far on this..

things to think about. break this up in BP's operating divisions? upstream, downstream, and alt energy? http://www.bp.com/subsection.do?categoryId=11&contentId=2001810

would allow sorting of refinery safety plan and its reports for safety plan for rigs.

must globlize, too.. what is record outside the US? scotland fires in rGrangemouth refinery in scotland in 2000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/785438.stm and another review http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/bp-broke-safety-rules-54-times-in-five-years-1.1037490 seem balanced and global.. http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/FNI-R0602.pdf and http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/FNI-R0704.pdf - note gandy objections....

comparision with shell http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2007/03/20/ft-compares-deaths-at-oil-majors/

might be someting useful here http://ccrm.berkeley.edu/pdfs_papers/bea_pdfs/dhsgfinalreport-march2011-tag.pdf probably cannot use but maybe some good sources http://ccrm.berkeley.edu/pdfs_papers/DHSGWorkingPapersFeb16-2011/Perspective-on-ChangingSafetyCulture-and-Managing-Risk-WEG_DHSG-Jan2011.pdf from berkeley's center for catastrophic risk management http://ccrm.berkeley.edu/

a review http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2010/05/18/bps-systemic-safety-problem/

note on BP's investigation of DWH - BP says that it excluded effects of cost cutting in their own report. crazy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21623195

some notable thigns

alaska http://www.law.state.ak.us/department/civil/enviro.html wrt 2006 splils paid $25M in 2011 settlement http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/May/11-enrd-560.html more on same http://www.justice.gov/enrd/5812.htm suit filed 2009 http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-enrd-287.html

2000 feb dumping in alaska http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2000/February/047enrd.htm pleads guilty and agrees to put plan in place to avoid in future more or same? http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1999/September/437enr.htm

problems with data collection and reporting across the industry - important to NOTE http://www.chron.com/business/steffy/article/Oil-industry-hasn-t-learned-from-past-mistakes-3732070.php

sources http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703964104575335154126721876.html http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/24/24greenwire-before-rig-explosion-in-gulf-scant-difference-58182.html - great! http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/business/09bp.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/business/energy-environment/13bprisk.html?pagewanted=all

source for refinery stuff http://www.osha.gov/dep/bp/bp.html

other frontline/propublica info http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/10/bps-dismal-safety-record-and-the-gulf-oil-spill.html

criminal charges to corp and individuals http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324556304578120140555122104.html

rest of industry hangs BP out to dry news on it http://www.fastcompany.com/1667839/fossil-fuel-industry-hangs-bp-out-dry http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/03/AR2010080306818.html the actual site http://www.saveusenergyjobs.com/resources/the-corner-cutting-culture

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/business/bp.html

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2010/06/24/1 works off this decision http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/GENERAL/Notices/10-1663_doc67.pdf

below is the first paragraph that I worked over - carats around "ref" have been converted to parentheses.

Mining and oil and gas extraction is ranked second among the most hazardous industries in the US in terms of deaths per employee, after agriculture, forestry and fishing, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.(ref)Staff, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. September 20, 2012. National Census Of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2011 (/ref) As the Financial Times reported: "Indeed, the industry is inherently dangerous. It involves handling explosive and inflammable materials, often at high pressures and temperatures, and often in spectacularly inhospitable environments, whether for reasons of natural extremity or political instability."(ref name=EC-FT) Ed Crooks for the Financial Times. March 20 2007 Safety record is put in spotlight(/ref) Additionally, comparing the safety record of companies within the industry is not simple due to differences in the data sets available for analysis. (ref)Tom Fowler for the Houston Chronicle March 26, 2005 It's hard to figure out BP's safety record(/ref)

maybe this will be useful to someone here. Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic work. Obviously alot of time was devoted to this. Why not consider this maybe----> that you stay and finish what you started. This is too good an effort to throw into the waste bin and HOPE that someone else sees it and saves it from the trash. Editors here are bumping heads, getting in each others face, nose to nose, but thats OK. Its understandable. Its part of the Wikipedia editorial process. There is Great potential here for all of us. Not just the challenge to bring BP to Featured Article Status but the opportunity for each of us to grow as editors. I want to leave, too. But I see the potential for enormous personal growth as a Wikipedia editor. Please stay and help every editor that has ever set fingers to type anything into this article. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster ther is no possibility of this article approaching FA status while it functions as a soapbox for anti-BP opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, I appreciate your efforts to get some balance here but in terms of assessing BP's overall safety record this is pure OR. We are not competent to carry out research into BP's overall comparative safety or environmental record and, in any case, original research is not allowed. Even trying to form an opinion from disparate reliable sources is not allowed, seeWP:synth. The one thing your sources do tell us is that assessing a safety record is difficult, and we are certainly not up to that task.

We may wish we had some idea of how BP's safety and environmental record compares with that of its peers but the facts are that we do not and that means that we must not say or imply anything that indicates that we do know this information. To do so discredits WP.

We need an proper report from a body qualified to make comparative safety assessments for large companies. There may not be such a thing, in which case we must stick to WP principles and say nothing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

How about the United States Government? AFAIC...Anti-BP = Pro-Reader. Please shift your rhetoric to Pro-Reader when bunching some of your fellow editors into a box and describing them. Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I think that it would be an unending quest if we go on a hunt for the Perfect Source. If an RS source makes a factual finding on the safety/environmental record of BP we should record it in the article, however limited in scope it may be, and not twist ourselves into knots because it's not a "perfect" source meeting artificial criteria that we dream up ourselves. Let's stick to WP:RS. And yes, if the US government has made certain factual findings on that point, I don't see any reason why we should come up with pretexts not to use it. Here's a fun fact: "Wikipedia is not censored." Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

GOM global output

The correction in the Reuters piece is now reflected in the article, thanks to a note from Arturo on my talk page. We still have the same quoted output in terms of volume, though. What are the updated numbers?

Present wording: The company produces roughly 10% of its global output in the region, over 200,000 barrels per day (32,000 m3/d) of oil equivalent. petrarchan47tc 21:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan, the wording is still correct at "over 200,000 barrels per day" as the total net for BP in the Gulf in 2012 was 214,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (including both oil and natural gas in that figure), but as the figure fluctuates editors might decide it is best to keep it at "over 200,000" so that it doesn't have to be updated from year to year, unless there's a dramatic change. For a source, the details are in the BP Financial and Operating Information 2008-2012 report on p64 and p65, however the natural gas figure needs to be converted to "barrels of oil equivalent per day" from the "million cubic feet per day" used in the report. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No more changes needed for now, then. Thanks for the prompt response. petrarchan47tc 21:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Pro-Reader

In the spirit of collaborating, community building, andencouraging positive inter-play and exchange between editors, Please refrain from referring to some of the editors that work here as "anti-BP". It is not an accurate depiction of their intent and only serves to drive a wedge between volunteers that work on this article. It is a distortion intended to seperate us. There have been comments about achieving FA status. There have been further comments that FA status is impossible as long as anti-BP editors are present. What is clear is that many of us have a deep desire to weave this article into FA status. What stands in the way is generalizing about the intent of fellow editors and then working against that intent. From my vantage point editors referred to as "anti-BP" are no such thing. What they are is "Pro-Reader". Please use the more accurate term when describing them. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Another way I've been referring to the driving force of my work here is "pro-Wikipedia". Same thing right? Wikipedia is meant to be a gift to the Reader, but some are concerned lately that it has become a gift to the Special Interest. As Jimbo pointed out, it is the job of the independent editor to, in essence, spin/fact-check everything that comes from the paid editors, as we do any suggested addition to Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 20:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. And we shouldn't be chastised or characterized as anti-this or negative-that if our fact checking turns up questions or mistaken requests. it is just what happens. There is no harm intended toward BP or their representatives. Pro-article, pro-reader, pro-Wikipedia: all the same for all of us. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

By all means go for a WP:peer review and see what feedback you get. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds remarkably like a threat hidden within a challenge. All I'm asking to get is a little common courtesy. All I am requesting is to be referred to accurately. We are not against BP or Arturo. We are for a balanced article that the reader can depend on to be impartial, informative and up-to-date. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:peer review is the standard way to find out how an article is received by the wider community. Why not give it a try? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Going for a peer review seems like it would be valuable here to get a wider view of how the article is viewed by the community and also as a review for sections where editors are particularly concerned to make sure that details are written impartially. If no one else has done so later this week, I may look into that process. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not against a peer review. Because of Arturo's unique position here, I think someone other than Arturo should request one...but if he does, so be it. But a peer review has nothing much at all to do with the theme of this thread. I'm just asking some editors not to refer to their fellow editors in a toxic, ineffective manner by labeling them as Anti-Article. Unless peer review looks at the talk page, I dont see it as related to the issue I brought up. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the peer review page, peer review "is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent." This article isn't "decent" as there is a big fat "NPOV" tag right at the top, and this lack of decency has received ample outside publicity because of the presence of a BP corporate rep proposing text and generally mixing it up with the editors here. If the BP corporate rep decides to mix it up further by going ahead and asking for peer review, the irony would be unbearable but I don't see any problem beyond that. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that we should not label other editor as I already wrote here less than month ago.[18] I would appreciate if the creator of this thread confirms that all above-said applies also to labelling editors as 'pro-BP', 'hard-core volunteer BP p.r. reps', or 'the guys and gals in the white biohazard suits w/ the BP sunburst'. I also appreciate if the same applies to the practice to describe editors representing a certain POV as 'independent editors' while implying that editors disagreeing with that POV are not independent. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. My foibles precede me. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oil rigs

Of the almost 4000 oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, how many are under the control of BP? ```Buster Seven Talk 17:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Buster Seven, I am not sure that 4,000 rigs is correct, but in any case BP currently has four platforms in operation as stated in this article although number of operating rigs is now seven or if one prefers to go by how many are “in place”, it would be eight as predicted in this article Huffington Post. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

""Buster, I have a vague memory that in doing research I came across the fact that hundreds of wells have been drilled and capped in the Gulf. Or at least that's how I remember it... Could that be where you are getting this large number? Gandydancer (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Arturo.Tks Gandydancer. It was a photo from spacewith an overlay grid showing all the oil rigs. I seem to remember 3900+. I saw it sometime last week and just now thought to ask so I would know. Afterall, knowledge is why we do this. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I just remembered. It was at good old Wikipedia. @ the Gulf Coast of the United States article. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:20, 22 April 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

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.
• Damning update. The main article for this is Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
• Director of BP's Claim Fund Convicted of Fraud. The link is dead. However, the FBI press release is available. It is relevant to the Deepwater Horizon litigation but not here.

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----[19] ```Buster Seven Talk 06:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Jean Mari Lindor is NOT an employee of BP. See [20] 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)

Texas City refinery addition

I would like to restate one of my requests from the earlier section on this page regarding Texas City, so that it is a little more clear.

In the "Texas City Refinery" section, I would like to request an update to be added to inform readers that the company's probation following the federal Clean Air Act settlement was lifted in 2012. My suggestion is to add this sentence or other language that includes this detail:

In March 2012, the probation was lifted when the U.S. Justice Department stated that the company had addressed the most serious of the safety issues related to the accident and otherwise satisfied the terms of its agreement.

As Coretheapple mentioned above, there may be other details that editors feel relevant to include here. Similarly, editors may wish to change the wording. The main point that I request to be added is that the probation was lifted in 2012, as explained by these sources: Galveston County Daily News, Reuters and Fox Business News.

Can editors review the above request and make changes to the article as appropriate? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem  Done in this edit. petrarchan47tc 23:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Iran Coup missing info

The history section is being redone by Beagle. In the process, the Iran Coup went from this

By spring of 1953, incoming US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorised the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to organise a coup against the Mossadeq government, known as the 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Classified documents show British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining control over Iranian oil.[24] The coup had its roots in Britain's conflict with Iran.[25] On 19 August 1953, Mossadeq was forced from office by the CIA conspiracy, involving the Shah and the Iranian military, and known by its codename, Operation Ajax.[24] Mossadeq was replaced by pro-Western general Fazlollah Zahedi[26] and the Shah, who returned to Iran after having left the country briefly to await the outcome of the coup. The Shah abolished the democratic Constitution and assumed autocratic powers. After the coup, Mossadeq's National Iranian Oil Company became an international consortium, and AIOC resumed operations in Iran as a member of it.[22] The consortium agreed to share profits on a 50–50 basis with Iran, "but not to open its books to Iranian auditors or to allow Iranians onto its board of directors."[27] AIOC, as a part of the Anglo-American coup d'état deal, was not allowed to monopolise Iranian oil as before. It was limited to a 40% share in a new international consortium. For the rest, 40% went to the five major American companies and 20% went to Royal Dutch Shell and Compagnie Française des Pétroles, now Total S.A..[28]

To this

1954 to 1979 In 1954, the AIOC became the British Petroleum Company. After the 1953 Iranian coup d'état Iranian Oil Participants Ltd (IOP), a holding company, was founded in October 1954 in London to bring Iranian oil back to the international market.[33][34] British Petroleum was a founding member of this company with 40% stake.[35][33] IOP operated and managed oil facilities in Iran on behalf of NIOC.[33][34] Similar to the Saudi-Aramco "50/50" agreement of 1950,[36] the consortium agreed to share profits on a 50–50 basis with Iran, "but not to open its books to Iranian auditors or to allow Iranians onto its board of directors."[37][38]

How this serves the reader is beyond me. petrarchan47tc 20:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is not named 1953 Iranian coup d'état as we already have an article about that. Beagel (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

When I read this section last week Friday, I got a quick lesson in Iranian history and the oil industry. I could connect names and places I got information about how the profits were to be split. Now all I get are numbers. I guess I'm lucky I read it last week.```Buster Seven Talk 20:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It is still possible to read (and even in more details) in Anglo-Persian Oil Company and of course, in the specific article 1953 Iranian coup d'état. The first one is linked and provided as the main article for the early history section, and the second one is also linked. Beagel (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's how it works. Now who wants to go through and analyze more of this editor's work, as Jimbo had suggested we do? petrarchan47tc 22:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The former version is better and should be restored, if that hasn't already been done. I've heard some carping in the past about how there isn't enough of a global perspective in this article. But I guess that a global perspective is only considered desirable if it reads like a press release. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"If it hasn't already been done" - hilarious! If it isn't done by Beagle, it won't stay on the page more than a few hours. Why would anyone bother to revert her? I'm done with this page until someone gets this craziness under control. petrarchan47tc 19:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't be discouraged. Let's focus on this edit. I would have changed it back myself but the editing history was bewildering. Feel free to be "bold" and change it back. Summary style is fine but this edit ripped the life out of it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the earlier text, with tweaks I felt made for better reading flow. Here's the diff showing how my wording is different from before Beagel deleted too much of the section. (Ignore the text changes below the coup section; those are from intervening changes, mostly by Beagel.) Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

So glad you did that. Sometimes my head swims when I try to tackle this article. Is there someone out there who will pay me to work on this, so as to justify my time? (I thought not....) Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what the pay is for corporate PR writing on Wikipedia. For a large company like BP it ought to be at least US$50 per hour, what would be a full-time salary of US$100,000 per year, because of the importance and visibility of the position. From my reading of the editors at this article, it seems more than just Arturo are getting paid. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)