Binksternet (talk | contribs) |
Xenophrenic (talk | contribs) +q |
||
Line 1,120: | Line 1,120: | ||
:::::::I have no problem with any reliable source being quoted as long as it is the proper context is provided. It would be perfectly legitimate to point out that BP was once thought of as best-in-class in terms of green initiatives in the oil industry. Naturally, the context would have to be continued to say that BP has since fallen from that pedestal. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::I have no problem with any reliable source being quoted as long as it is the proper context is provided. It would be perfectly legitimate to point out that BP was once thought of as best-in-class in terms of green initiatives in the oil industry. Naturally, the context would have to be continued to say that BP has since fallen from that pedestal. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
== |
== Alleged attempts to force changes to article through edit warring, and resultant revert warring == |
||
Binksternet is repeatedly attempting to force changes to this article through edit-warring of the most cynical and contemptuous kind. |
Binksternet is repeatedly attempting to force changes to this article through edit-warring of the most cynical and contemptuous kind. |
||
Line 1,133: | Line 1,133: | ||
:At [[User talk:Rangoon11#Disruptive reversions at BP]] I have requested Rangoon11 to step back from the battleground attitude and allow high quality reliable sources to be used in developing the article. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 00:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
:At [[User talk:Rangoon11#Disruptive reversions at BP]] I have requested Rangoon11 to step back from the battleground attitude and allow high quality reliable sources to be used in developing the article. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 00:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Can I see a link to the above-mentioned "attack content on John Browne" please? [[User:Xenophrenic|Xenophrenic]] ([[User talk:Xenophrenic|talk]]) 11:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:10, 11 September 2012
BP was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stock value
Hi there, where would the information about BP's stock value be placed in the article? I don't see it anywhere. "[BP]'s stock price is down about 30 percent from its level at the time of the disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill in April 2010" - NYT July 31, 2012 petrarchan47tc 23:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that what is needed is for some of the Deepwater content to be moved to the History section (that which does not specifically detail the environmental impact of the accident). This text could then fit in there. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is stock history, not oil spill history. However, if one were inclined to hide this information, your suggestion would be a good one. petrarchan47tc 00:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- From the link Arturo at BP shared with DR regarding company articles:
- 'For publicly-held companies, a long term stock history (ideally a total shareholder return line including dividends), possibly shown relative to the industry benchmark appropriate to the company's line of business, would not be out of place' petrarchan47tc 00:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- This proposal makes sense if the full long term stock history with all major milestones is added. On the other hand, if the proposal is just about adding the price information only regarding the Deepwater Horizon accident, it violates WP:NPOV and is not suitable per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SOAP as was already discussed previously (please see this talk page archive for relevant discussion). Beagel (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was not proposing that this be the only mention of BP's stock history. That would be silly petrarchan47tc 00:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
(Refs for addition of stock history, most recent:
- BP Posts $1.4 Billion Loss, Surprising The Market and the NYT article quoted above
- Series of Write-Downs Leads to a Loss at BP) petrarchan47tc 04:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I said it makes sense if the all history is covered. Suggested sources imply more WP:RECENT. Beagel (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like "history" would have past, including recent past, data. petrarchan47tc 07:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that here (from "Removal of entire section without discussion") Beagle is contradicting what was said above: "And what is the BP's stock value at the moment? It was relevant at the moment of Deepwater Horizon accident but is it relevant in this article in the long-term? I don't think so. It may be relevant for Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster but for this article it is WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SOAP applies here. Beagel (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2012 petrarchan47tc 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand what contradiction you are talking about. My point was that you can't just add a stock value at the certain moment without providing the long term history. This was repeated above if you read what is actually was said and if you stop making your own interpretations. I may repeat one more time: your proposal makes sense if the all history with all major milestones is covered, but it is not acceptable if you just suggest cherry picking supporting your POV. Please be aware of WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. I also find your latest comments at this talk page quite disruptive and the last comment above is may be considered as a harassment of a fellow editor. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free then to report me for harassment. In the meantime, would you care to help construct this stock history section together? I have only knowledge of the past 2 years. Would you be willing to look for earlier history so we can get the whole story? petrarchan47tc 06:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
All stock values are available in Google Finance or Yahoo Finance, e.g. here. However, as these are raw data, one could be very careful making conclusions and interpretations to avoid potential original research. Diagram showing the development of adjusted stock values (e.g. starting from merger of British Petroleum and Amoco) may be useful. Beagel (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- So you can see why it would be helpful for more than one person to construct this section. Maybe we could bring findings here and then construct the section on the talk page first, making sure to stay away from interpretations and just present the facts. I can begin with presenting the past 2.5 years. Are you knowledgeable about how to make diagrams for Wikipedia? If that task presents a challenge, we could also consider perhaps sticking with something simpler for now, knowing it can grow with time. I could imagine this being presented in a few simple paragraphs. I look forward to your help. petrarchan47tc 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I made two diagrams (File:BP stock value on the NYSE in 2000-2012.png and File:BP stock value (closing price v. adjusted closing price) on the NYSE in 2000-2012.png) based on historical data from http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=BP+Historical+Prices. The first diagram shows monthly open, high, low, and close values of the BP's share in 2000–2012. The time period was chosen after merger of British Petroleum and Amoco, and after split of share in 1999. The second diagram compares monthly closing and adjusted closing values for the same period. I hope these would be useful. Beagel (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Most excellent, thank you kindly. petrarchan47tc 18:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I made two diagrams (File:BP stock value on the NYSE in 2000-2012.png and File:BP stock value (closing price v. adjusted closing price) on the NYSE in 2000-2012.png) based on historical data from http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=BP+Historical+Prices. The first diagram shows monthly open, high, low, and close values of the BP's share in 2000–2012. The time period was chosen after merger of British Petroleum and Amoco, and after split of share in 1999. The second diagram compares monthly closing and adjusted closing values for the same period. I hope these would be useful. Beagel (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- On second thought, the years 2000-2012 is a good start, but doesn't follow your own suggestion, with which I agree: " makes sense if the full long term stock history with all major milestones [is added]". Would you be willing to make a new graph? petrarchan47tc 00:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is possible to make a chart starting with listing on the NYSE in 1977. However, in this case it should be adjusted closing value only and not all four values (open, high, low, close) as BP has had a number of stock splits before 2000 (the last in 1999). I may try to make the new one when I will have more time for this. Unfortunately I am not able to produce more sophisticated charts. Beagel (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Take your time. Even unsophisticated charts are a great addition to the text. petrarchan47tc 07:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is possible to make a chart starting with listing on the NYSE in 1977. However, in this case it should be adjusted closing value only and not all four values (open, high, low, close) as BP has had a number of stock splits before 2000 (the last in 1999). I may try to make the new one when I will have more time for this. Unfortunately I am not able to produce more sophisticated charts. Beagel (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
One note about this section: I noticed the removal of facts from the article one day, and this one, which was the only mention of BP's stock value in the article, was alarming. The news of BP's stock value after the Gulf spill was nightly news for months. Now it is argued that to (re) add anything stock related, whether the information that the drop during the spill was the 8th largest in the history of the stock market, or the current 30% drop in value since before the Gulf spill, one must create an entire section including BP's entire stock history. So removal of negative info doesn't warrant a mention on the talk page, but addition of it proves to be a pretty big task. petrarchan47tc 23:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- This has been discussed in this talk page several times. Very shortly and last time: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, and WP:SOAP. However, I am confused about the statement that the purpose is to include just one episode of the stock history related to the sad event of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and not the more comprehensive history. Beagel (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, I agree that a full history is needed, I am just pointing out that the removal happened without any discussion, but to include either of these 2 references that I've quoted requires someone to write up a whole new section. Seems a bit unbalanced that it is so much easier to remove than to add facts to this article. petrarchan47tc 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Questioning the insistence on mentioning BP's green commitment in the Lede
Rangoon seems obsessed with mentioning BP's green promises in the Lede, going so far as to argue for over a month that it should be there and should be mentioned alongside BP's negative history, even though they are completely separate issues. I would appreciate an explanation given his prior attitude:
- "BP has invested much more in renewable energy sources than most of its competitors over the past decade. It was also one of the first major oil companies to accept man-made global warming was real. These facts should also NOT go in the introduction, as to mention them there would, in the context of BP's overall sweep of activities and history, be distorting and misleading." Rangoon11 (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2010
I agree with you, Rangoon. To add this to the Lede is greenwashing. To add it right next to the mention of negative is whitewashing and POV editing.
From an earlier remark I made here regarding the story behind BP's green commitment (context):
- BP, under Lord Browne, stopped supporting anti-climate groups and as part of his idea to completely change BP's image to "green", he announced that climate change is real, changed the name to "Beyond Petroleum / bp", bought a large solar company and spent millions on an ad campaign. The problem with this tidbit being added to the article at all, let alone the lede, is that there is no context for the statement. Browne's predecessor Tony Hayward announced he was turning the company away from alternative energy to focus on shareholder value, safety and meeting tough engineering needs (see 11:30) Therefore it continues to be greenwashing in my opinion, and perhaps outdated information.
Since this is an encyclopedia, we should be here not to make BP look good or bad, but rather to unemotionally add verifiable facts, with context. petrarchan47tc 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can I ask you, what evidence do you have that BP, across the whole of its activities, and the whole of its history, has an environmental record which is worse than either its peers or the industry average? The title of this article is not "BP America 2000 to present", but "BP". Because your desire to puff up the lead with negative aspects of its environmental record can only be justified on such a basis. Otherwise the additions would be pure recentism, misleading, contextless, grossly simplistic, undue, essentially just crude attack content.
- What I find puzzling is how a small number of American WP editors are persistently trying to add details to the lead of this article which would suggest that BP has an exceptionally poor safety/environmental record (even the current text does this to a considerable degree - but it isn't enough for them), whilst showing no interest at all in editing ExxonMobil, responsbile for among other things the Valdez accident which devastated the pristine coast of Alaska, which has continued to actively support climate change denial long after BP was the first major to acknowledge it, and which has invested virtually nothing in renewables.
- Nor Chevron Corporation, which has a long list of environmental controversies. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- It wouldn't surprise me if many corporation's articles need some work--I'd guess that most editors are more drawn to more fun and exciting articles. I was only drawn to the Cracker Barrel restaurants article because it was mentioned on a page I was watching and I ended up getting involved. I only happened to look at this one because I was so involved with the BP spill article while it was going on. And then when there was not even a mention of the spill in the lead, I had to wonder what on earth was going on? And what I found, Rangoon, did not sit very well with me. I found that you were the one that removed mention of the spill from the lead with this edit summary on Sept 20, the day after the well was finally plugged: (Deepwater reference deleted from intro - now leak has stopped this is a breach of WP:RECENT). Still looking at the article history I found that you "compromised" by prefacing mention of BP's environmental history with, "Like all corporations, BP has...". Reading such obvious problematic editing in your past combined with the fact that this article has a paid editor suggested to me that there was every reason to have concerns regarding potential bias for this article. Since I've been here it has been little more than repeated series of hoops that editors that don't see BP's environmental history in the same manner that you do need to jump through--in other words, just wear opponents down till they just give up. You even argued that it's open to debate about whether the spill is actually the worst in history. Now it seems you want to argue about the "old BP" as opposed to the "new BP" in an attempt to water down their environmental record. PBS FRONTLINE had a good documentary--you should watch it or at least read this article. [1] Gandydancer (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here is another article from the NYT's that compares BP to Exxon-Moblile. [2] Gandydancer (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's getting so I can scarcely be bothered to engage with either you or Petrarchan. You both have just one interest in this article - puffing up perceived negative aspects of the company's history. That's it.
- You have wasted inordinate amounts of time on Talk page discussions, and on a very long DR discussion, but can't accept that there was no consensus for what you are seeking so just keep reopening the issue. A number of other editors who are highly experienced in editing company and energy related articles have disgreed with your proposals, but you misleadingly suggest that I am the sole participant.
- You make endless personal attacks whilst failing to address the core issue.
- You have been engaging in improper canvassing to try to recruit others to your cause e.g. User talk:NuclearWarfare#Advise please (I made some comments there but they were swiftly removed ([[3]]).
- I will ask again, what evidence do you have that BP's environmental and safety record is, over the whole of its activities and history, any worse that either the industry average or peers. You linked sources do not provide it.
- The title of this article is not "BP America safety and environmental record 2000 to present", nor "BP America 2000 to present", nor even "BP America", but "BP". Rangoon11 (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rangoon, it is not canvassing to ask an admin for advice. Gandydancer (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Internet searches are easy to do. Google: "Compare Exxon Mobile with BP, safety":
- :"NYT ...something was systemically wrong with BP’s culture. Mr. Browne had built BP by taking over other oil companies, like Amoco in 1998, and then ruthlessly cutting costs, often firing the acquired company’s most experienced engineers. Taking shortcuts was ingrained in the company’s culture, and everyone in the oil business knew it. The accidents should have been the wake-up call BP needed to change that culture. But the mistakes and negligence that took place on the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico — which are so profound that everyone I spoke to in the oil business found them truly inexplicable — suggest that the two men never did much more than mouth nice-sounding platitudes. Which also makes [the BP oil spill] even more unforgivable than it already is. BP executives had four years to fix the company’s problems before an accident took place that was truly catastrophic. And they blew it.
- Before the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the greatest oil disaster in American history was the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, which spewed 10.8 million gallons of crude into Prince William Sound in Alaska. (By comparison, the gulf blowout is pouring out that much oil every four or five days.) That experience was searing for the country — but it was also pretty searing for Exxon (now known as Exxon Mobil). “A low point in the history of the company,” Exxon Mobil’s chief executive, Rex Tillerson, called it when he testified before Congress on Tuesday.
- There is a reason Exxon Mobil has not had a serious accident in the subsequent 21 years. Unlike BP, it used the accident to transform itself."
- Jean Pascal "On her watch she would see BP charged with four federal crimes—more than any other oil company in her experience [10 years] —and demonstrate what she described as a pattern of disregard for regulations and for the EPA."
For some perspective, here is the last of 4 paragraphs in the Exxon Mobile intro:
- A 2012 article in The Daily Telegraph says that ExxonMobil has “grown into one of the planet’s most hated corporations, able to determine American foreign policy and the fate of entire nations”.[14] In terms of its environmental record, ExxonMobil increasingly drills in terrains leased to them by dictatorships, such as those in Nigeria, Chad and Equatorial Guinea. There are also growing public concerns about its pipeline and sea spillage disasters, the worst of which was the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker accident. Lee Raymond, the corporation’s chief executive until 2005, was “notoriously sceptical about climate change and disliked government interference at any level petrarchan47tc 20:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I think history shows that BP is a more progressive company than ExxonMobil, with more involvement in alternative energy and a more progressive stance on climate change. There is plenty of scope to expand the last paragraph of the Lead to talk more about BPs environmental record and accidents. Johnfos (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Rangoon won't allow any expansion of BP's environmental record in the Lead. Now what? petrarchan47tc 22:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- As per the DRN, Beagle did say s/he preferred this: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence. 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." From 1 July 2012. petrarchan47tc 22:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Another step that could be made, based on Rangoon's statement I quoted at the very beginning of this thread, is to remove the statement about BP being green. As he says, in the whole scope of things, it doesn't deserve mention in the lead. I thought that it was noteworthy that BP was the first company to acknowledge global warming as real - until I read up on the history of how that came about and what has transpired since then. I mentioned this also at the beginning of this thread. At the very least, it should be separated from the mention of accidents, etc. Again I quote from the DRN:
- It looks to me as if Rangoon11 is the one introducing POV into the article, the one advocating greenwashing by butting together in one paragraph the mention of severe environmental criticism with the mention of slight environmental commendation. Though the one cannot possibly balance the other, it is made to seem so. Rangoon11's style of communication has been bullying and stultifying rather than collegial... [Binksternet 20:17, 21 June 2012] petrarchan47tc 23:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion break
e/c What I would not be averse to is some content in the lead which gives proper overall context on BP's environmental (and safety) record across the whole business. In my firm opinion stating individual incidents, particularly from just one part of the company's activities and over just one of its ten decades of history does not do this. In fact it gives a wholly misleading impression.
What I expect we would all agree on, and what the sources given above support, is that, over the last 10 or so years, in the United States, BP has had a worse safety record than ExxonMobil (not necessarily a worse environmental record though, as this is even more complex and subjective and one would have to consider things like BP's investments in renewables, its stance on climate change etc). However even this a hugely complex issue, as this article discusses: [4] The reasons for that worse safety record in the US over that period are also complex and capable of debate.
The issue for me has always been that this is an article about the whole of BP, and the whole of its history. BP's safety and environmental record worldwide and over its whole history is in fact good. Were it not BP would not have been welcome to drill and develop resources in all manner of sensitive locations including Alaska, the North Sea and indeed the Gulf of Mexico. It would not have been welcome to acquire so many oil and gas assets in the US. It would be fair to say that safety at BP facilties such as Saltend in the UK is not merely world class but world leading. There are issues in the US part of the business which in my view relate to issues to do with legacy assets from Arco and Amoco, and issues of under investment and culture in those businesses, which have not been helped by the challenge of integrating them with the rest of the company. Here is a quality third-party source which states: "Throughout its history, British Petroleum has made health, safety and environmental standards the pinnacle of its operations" [5].Rangoon11 (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- For me, the issue has always been bias. Rangoon11 literally put a false statement in the first paragraph of the intro, saying BP had "major" investments in green energy (it's about 2.5% right now). He defended that and every bit of the Intro as being perfect since it had been longstanding, and no one should question it. Also, the minimal mention of BP's accidents followed by 'but they are very green' is alarming to many. The claim BP has about reducing greenhouse gas emissions is very outdated. What is the recent status? Didn't Hayward drop the green campaign? If BP is interested in the environment, why then sell the Solar programme simply because it was not profitable enough? Why too are they aggressively pursuing tar sands extraction in Canada, when that practice is known to produce 3 times the greenhouse gas emissions that regular oil drilling does? In other words, let's be honest if we are to mention this at all. Context is best for an encyclopedia. BP is, as all profitable companies, in business for their shareholders, not the environment. It doesn't make them evil, it makes them successful. But it is being used in the intro as greenwashing. It is misleading at best.
- When I first saw this article, I was astounded at the obvious bias in the Lede. I am still astounded by the lengths Rangoon will go to keep it there. He complains that editors are here to add negative things about BP, but please know that had Rangoon not overplayed his cards by adding untruths and extreme, obvious bias to the Intro, I for one would have stayed away. petrarchan47tc 00:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Per usual lots of personal attacks and whinging but no constructive suggestions and no engaging with the prior post. BTW it is your opinion that BP's investments in renewables are not major, $10 billion is in my view major, and the "major" claim is very easily cited in quality sources eg [6]. I agreed to deletion of the word purely in order to achieve a consensus on the lead. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I also seem to recall in the DR stating that I would be happy to lose the reference to BP's stance on climate change in order to achieve a consensus, but others in fact stated that they felt it should stay.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is why I believe context is important. "Major" only applies when compared with something. You were not in agreement that since the dollar amount for green energy investments was mentioned, so too should the non-green (for both context and encyclopedic information). It would have shown context, rather than a false impression by showing a giant number.
- "The spill has wiped out years of and spending for the company -- but it has also highlighted how disingenuous much of that advertising was. Despite all BP has spent on rebranding, the company hasn't done nearly as much to move "beyond petroleum" as its campaign implies. In fact, BP has been turning away from investments in nonfossil energy, last year cutting investment in alternative sources from $1.4 billion to $1 billion. Weeks before the spill, BP announced that it was shuttering its solar manufacturing plant in Maryland. The company brought in $73 billion in revenue in the first quarter of 2010, but only about $700 million of its business was alternative energy sources like wind and solar. [Source] How can this be called "major"?
- And why did you, Rangoon, without prompting try to distance yourself from these edits, saying in the DRN that you did not write them. Then, when I showed you the edit history proving otherwise, you said Ocaassi helped you to write them. But this is not born out on the talk page. This is one reason I don't feel that you are being straightforward.
- Rangoon:
- Why not mention exactly how much BP invests in both green energy and other forms?
- And why did you say that it should not be mentioned on the lead, but are now adamant that it should be? (I have asked you twice and you responded by changing the subject.)
- Rangoon:
- Anyone who is here to provide unbiased information to the reader should have no problem with the highlighted text, and would agree that this information belongs in the article in some form - even in the intro, if green energy is to be mentioned there. Or is there something about encyclopedias that I don't understand? petrarchan47tc 00:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why not mention exactly how much BP invests in both green energy and other forms?
- - I'm not averse to this in principle, although I wouldn't want the information to be used purely in order to give the impression that BP's renewable investments are small when they are in fact the largest in the industry and dwarf those of all peers apart from compatriot Shell. Plenty of sources can be found which describe BP's investments in renewables to be major, large etc. Since these issues are subjective and complex and the lead does not afford room for analysis the two pieces of information should be presented neutrally and non-comparatively.
- And why did you say that it should not be mentioned on the lead, but are now adamant that it should be? (I have asked you twice and you responded by changing the subject.)
- - I may have changed my mind on some things in the two or so years I have been editing this article based on the comments of others, or my own reflections. However I said in the DR and still say that I am willing in theory to lose the reference to BP's leadership on climate change from the lead but only as part of an effort to build a wider consensus on the lead. Dormskirk, whose views I respect a lot and who has a great deal of experience editing company articles (and who has done a lot of work on this article in the past), did state that they felt this text should stay, and that does bear on my thinking though.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- It was only one person who said that the mention of climate change recognition could stay, and that was me. But as I said earlier, that was before I read the history: that it was a part of Browne's campaign to change BP's image, and is not supported by action, and was followed by Hayward ending the focus on green energy. If BP's green energy investments are larger than all other oil companies, it would be better to say that - "Major compared to..." because that would be a true statement.
- So, since you have twice said it shouldn't be in the intro, will you remove it? I know you are uncomfortable with the mention of BP's environmental accidents being only one single sentence (which would be the result of this removal), and contrary to your claim that I never add substantive suggestions, I do have additions to make as suggested by Johnfos. You have repeatedly suggested you'd rather BP be treated (by Wikipedia editors) like Exxon Mobile. I copied the 4th paragraph of their intro above. It does not shy away from mentioning recent events.
- The reason the list of BP's accidents is so recent, as I've mentioned before, has to do with BP being a sluggish company until Browne expanded it while tightening the budget by not fixing/updating equipment. This happened recently. Drilling more = more accidents for BP. And since BP America is the largest division, most of the accidents are going to occur in America. Additionally, I am not sure how well incidents were recorded prior to the internet. This makes it challenging to add early history.
- This argument that recent events should not be mentioned doesn't seem to hold true when it comes to the green energy claims, why is that? petrarchan47tc 01:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- That paragraph in the ExxonMobil article is a very recent addition (added at the start of this month). It remains to be seen if it will be staying for long. I doubt it, at least in anything resembling its current form. Quotes are deprecated in leads, particularly when used in that way. It is highly POV, makes some sweeping generalisations - apparently not even cited in part - and has yet to be discussed on the Talk page.
- By revenues BP America is actually around a third of BP, so two thirds of BP are not in the US.
- Do you have any evidence that BP's safety record ex the US has been worse over the past 10 years than the 10 years prior?Rangoon11 (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion break
No, but it might be because BP is less than open about their accidents. From the 2008 Caspian Sea Blowout, which we only know about thanks to Wikileaks: Striking resemblances between BP's Gulf of Mexico disaster and a little-reported giant gas leak in Azerbaijan experienced by the UK firm 18 months beforehand have emerged from leaked US embassy cables.
The cables reveal that some of BP's partners in the gas field were upset that the company was so secretive about the incident that it even allegedly withheld information from them. They also say that BP was lucky that it was able to evacuate its 212 workers safely after the incident, which resulted in two fields being shut and output being cut by at least 500,000 barrels a day with production disrupted for months.
Other cables leaked ... claim that the president of Azerbaijan accused BP of stealing $10bn of oil from his country and using "mild blackmail" to secure the rights to develop vast gas reserves in the Caspian Sea region.
In reference to an earlier point you made, yes, the US government does business with BP. They were found to be in collusion during the Gulf spill. BP is the #1 supplier of fuel for the Pentagon. The US government is not an unbiased entity. Not every government likes BP; as of this year, Russia will no longer work with them. petrarchan47tc 06:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Sources for Caspian Sea Blowout 2008: Guardian / TIME petrarchan47tc 06:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
TIME: Ambassador Derse described the Azerbaijan government's annoyance over what they said was BP's secretiveness about the incident — a charge which would be repeated by President Barack Obama less than two years later, when he lashed out at BP for obfuscating over the Gulf blowout. petrarchan47tc 06:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to correct one misinterpretation. As I already pointed out in the specific discussion about Caspian incident at Azeri field, the information about the accident was reported by the mainstream media (not talking about industry-specific media sources) at the same day. The relevant discussion providing more details is archived here. So, the claim that we know about this incident only because of Wikileaks is not true and one could say even ignorant. Beagel (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate being corrected, the main points I was trying to make are not affected by your revelations. I do not, however, appreciate personal attacks. Using the term ignorant is not cool and I would appreciate your keeping things impersonal here. You are in violation of WP:INDCRIT petrarchan47tc 07:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry if you take this as personal attack, it was not intended to be. However, from the archived discussion it is clear that you were aware of the fact that the information was reported at the same day. So the question is, why you repeated this inaccurate claim again one month later if you were aware that this is incorrect. If you say that this is not ignorance, I am more than glad to believe this; however, please stop repeating that kind of practise. Beagel (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't a practice, it is a mistake. I cannot promise to never make one again, and if you correct me just do it without name calling. petrarchan47tc 07:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This might be something to consider: From NYT Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits Most of the corporate revisions did not stay posted for long. Many Wikipedia entries are in a constant state of flux as they are edited and re-edited, and the site’s many regular volunteers and administrators tend to keep an eye out for bias. In 2004, someone using a computer at ExxonMobil made substantial changes to a description of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, playing down its impact on the area’s wildlife and casting a positive light on compensation payments the company had made to victims of the spill.
I am seeing bias that looks like what any 3rd grader could expect to see IF a corporation or special interest group was editing on their company's behalf. It's silly to think that the company responsible for £1 in every £6 paid out in dividends to British pension pots would not want to have someone fighting to keep bad news about their stock value, and about their accidents and record, out of the intro and as far down the page as possible. I see all of this happening here. I expect to be attacked for saying this. But that is wrong. This is Wikipedia, it's not for sale and if someone is being harassed for trying to call attention to it, Wikipedia should be doing something to stop that, in my opinion. I am not saying that some people are sitting at BP typing away. But let's be honest here. Obvious bias is extremely obvious. Why should Wikipedia editors have to strike a bargain for content if a corporate PR rep is part of the negotiations? (They do exist) I am not saying that anyone here IS doing this, only that it is what I would expect to see if corporate interests were being represented on this page. I could be totally wrong.
COI editing: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest"Source
CNN mentions "there are a few firms out there who can take care of Wikipedia problems discretely. I won't recommend any, but they are out there" in How to solve your Wikipedia problem. petrarchan47tc 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47tc 07:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47tc 08:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is going quite far from the original discussion about the lead. However, if you think that there is any COI editor involved in editing this article, please go forward and report this on the relevant notice board. Otherwise, please do not make allegations. Beagel (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- This has been Petrarchan's modus operandi from the start, unable to gain a consensus for their desired changes, they have resorted to continuous personal attacks, allegations of paid editing, and allegations of harassment.
- Petrarchan - what harassment has been taking place exactly, apart from your own allegations of harassment (in WP unjustifed accusations of harassment are themselves regarded as harassment), and repeated unevidenced claims of paid/COI editing?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rangoon, you seem to be addressing your post to Petrarchan however you then state "...their desired changes, they have resorted...". Are you referring to me? As for Petrarchan's post, I don't see it as an accusation of secret paid editing but rather as a statement of what every WP editor should keep in mind when they see what they consider to be obvious biased editing for any corporation. I think that we'd all agree that editors are sometimes quite passionate and dedicated to their POV about plenty of WP articles--one that comes to my mind is the extremely long and dramatic argument over the picture for the Pregnancy article--hundreds of posts went on for months till one day (pretty much out of the blue) Jimbo changed the photo and that ended the discussion. On the other hand, when one sees a steadfast determination to hold to a certain positive POV in an article about a corporation, it should not be considered odd to wonder about motivations such as being a stockholder in that company. Some people never like it when someone in a group mentions the elephant in the room, while others may feel that it's good to clear the air. The same mention (of stockholders) came up early in the BP Gulf spill article when some editors seemed to be using a lot of bias in their editing and nobody suggested that the idea was outlandish at all. Gandydancer (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that you have repeatedly called my talk page edits a waste of time, asked if I was just here to edit war, and now accuse me of canvassing, and I can't remember what else--so you hardly have room to complain about other editors. Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have been following part of this discussion and I'd just like to say that I am the only authorized person from BP involved here. I have not made any edits to the article, nor do I intend to in the future. I see my role here as to provide constructive suggestions for improvements to this article within Wikipedia's guidelines. If you have any questions about my role, I would be happy to discuss further on my Talk page and leave this page for discussions regarding article content. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Arturo, your activity has been stellar, but thanks for making another note here as your first one is hidden in the archives.
- Rangoon, did you ever explain this? Would you please show me where you received help in writing this section (here and here) you claimed not to have written (later stating you meant to say you hadn't written it alone)? My apologies if you did respond and I simply missed it.
- The mention of BP's monetary investments in green energy were added to the Lede with the citation "detail added" by Rangoon. Yet when I sought to add balance by adding details about petrol investments, that was labeled POV by Rangoon, and unfortunately Arturo never has responded to my request for accurate, up-to-date petrol figures. petrarchan47tc 22:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is a talk page for discussing the BP article. And yet you keep repeatedly using it as a forum to simply make personal attacks, unfounded accusations and to analyse other editors' behaviour.
- Just a few lines above you made serious allegations. Upon returning to the page, not only do you not apologise or retract those comments, you simply move on to make even more irrelevant comments and to infer again that a mistake on my part is evidence of dishonesty (per your comment above that this same mistake was "one reason I don't feel that you are being straightforward"). So someone else makes a mistake, you suggest that they are a liar, however when Beagle pointed out a mistake you had made you were immediately jumping up and down saying "It isn't a practice, it is a mistake. I cannot promise to never make one again, and if you correct me just do it without name calling".
- Furthermpre one minute you are stating "I do not, however, appreciate personal attacks. Using the term ignorant is not cool and I would appreciate your keeping things impersonal here. " the next minute you are making serious accusations of harassment and paid editing, whilst providing no evidence of either. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I still don't hear any explanation for your talking in circles regarding the addition of greenwashing to the Lede. Why did you try to distance yourself from those edits when no one even brought up the subject of who did them? Clearly you are uncomfortable with the edits yet you continue to revert editors who try to separate the mention of BP's accidents from the green claim. Furthermore, as this was one of your earliest comments to me: I suggest that you go off and write a blog, realize that you set a precedent. I mentioned the obvious: the edits to this article LOOK exactly like COI editing (which doesn't mean that it was compensated necessarily). That is NOT an attack. "Go off and get a blog" - is. Your history at the Administrator's Noticeboard shows you've been accused of, and blocked for, the very points I have been making for two months now. My mentioning in the discussion that BP's earlier blowout is known only because of Wikileaks, even though I had been told that some small publications had mentioned it right away was a mistake. Your trying to equate this incident with multiple false claims you made in the DRN makes you look desparate. petrarchan47tc 08:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your presence on this talk page has become - in fact it has been for a while - highly negative, disruptive and non-constructive. You have accused others of harrasment. Where is your evidence.
- You have also accused others of paid editing, despite your attempt to backpedal in your latest post. Where is your evidence? Rangoon11 (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Do not put words into my mouth. Show me where I accused someone of paid editing with a diff, please. petrarchan47tc 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- In the DR you said things like "As for saying you worked for BP, I am questioning it." and "it looks to me like he is working on behalf of BP"
- On this page your post above is very clear in what it is suggesting: [7].
- Wording like "This is Wikipedia, it's not for sale and if someone is being harassed for trying to call attention to it, Wikipedia should be doing something to stop that, in my opinion. I am not saying that some people are sitting at BP typing away. But let's be honest here. Obvious bias is extremely obvious. Why should Wikipedia editors have to strike a bargain for content if a corporate PR rep is part of the negotiations?" and "CNN mentions "there are a few firms out there who can take care of Wikipedia problems discretely. I won't recommend any, but they are out there"" are very clear in their implication, particularly when taken with your earlier comments as well as your hawking round to others about my having a COI and your seeking a topic ban to stop me editing the article [8].
- You have ZERO EVIDENCE of any paid editing, or of harrassment and yet are making disruptive and wholly inappropriate and unacceptable allegations.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your edits indeed look EXACTLY like what I would expect to see if someone had a COI - either by being compensated, or for whatever reason. I stand by that. It looks bad. You are well aware that you can use the Admin noticeboard if I am doing something wrong. You STILL haven't explained your addition of greenwashing and later claim that you didn't write it. Of course you find this all quite negative and tedious, even offensive - you are being called out for inappropriate, promotional and biased editing of the highest order. Not only did you add the greenwashing, but you did not bring it to the talk page first and you have stood by those edits for well over a year like an armed guard. I am not the first person to try and fix the Lede by undoing some of your spin. You simply revert everyone immediately. petrarchan47tc 18:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have said from the very beginning, in the intro to the DRN, that I am questioning whether there is some editing being done on behalf of BP, because no other explanation for your edit history here makes sense to me. But: I have never said that you are being paid. I didn't ever claim to know what was going on behind the scenes and I don't find it relevant since COI is proven by actions alone. In your partial quote above, I mentioned various examples of how COI editing on behalf of a company could come about. I am pointing out the fact that professional spin doctors exist on Wikipedia because it is something all editors should keep in mind. What you left out was that I also quoted from the description of COI, and showed it isn't dependent on someone being paid. If your edits are spinning the page to benefit BP's reputation, it looks like what one would expect from a PR rep and is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. I don't believe negotiations for content should include arguments from someone with an edit history like yours, which looks like a PR rep for BP (for whatever reason), hence my mention of a ban. Also, "This is Wikipedia - it's not for sale..." was most assuredly NOT directed at you. I was speaking to us all, giving my position. You have yet to explain the edit history I've asked you about. petrarchan47tc 04:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your edits indeed look EXACTLY like what I would expect to see if someone had a COI - either by being compensated, or for whatever reason. I stand by that. It looks bad. You are well aware that you can use the Admin noticeboard if I am doing something wrong. You STILL haven't explained your addition of greenwashing and later claim that you didn't write it. Of course you find this all quite negative and tedious, even offensive - you are being called out for inappropriate, promotional and biased editing of the highest order. Not only did you add the greenwashing, but you did not bring it to the talk page first and you have stood by those edits for well over a year like an armed guard. I am not the first person to try and fix the Lede by undoing some of your spin. You simply revert everyone immediately. petrarchan47tc 18:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
"Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" petrarchan47tc 05:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC) ""COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups" (It matters not which category one falls into, to me anyway.) petrarchan47tc 05:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
"and received criticism for its political influence"
So, what is
- and received criticism for its political influence
in there for? In the case of the Gulf, or Russia, what I see is a *lack* of political influence. But if you can find good cites to the contrary, please provide them William M. Connolley (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- See the above discussion, especially this. The article itself provides this section, which is enough to warrant a mention in the Lede. So far, you are the only editor who has opposed it and who removed it. Are you trying to make the argument that since BP cannot get along with Russia any longer that it proves BP has no political influence? And what exactly are you referring to in regards to Gulf of Mexico? Or do you mean a different Gulf? petrarchan47tc 06:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't good enough. Its just one bloke's opinion, and provides no justification for the text. The [record] section isn't good enough either - half of that isn't even politics. "2008: Oil price manipulation" is nothing to do with politics at all. Neither is "Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline". I see you've added some refs, but really, they aren't good enough either: any large corporation is going to get this kind of stuff thrown at it (and especially after the gulf, lots of people said lots of things in heat). These are essentially primary refs. What you need is something more synthetic.
- Are you trying to make the argument that since BP cannot get along with Russia any longer that it proves BP has no political influence? - I'm pointing out that BP's record in Russia provides no support for the idea that it has strong political influence, quite the reverse. And the same applies to the Gulf oil spill. The US govt completely ignored the law in that case in threatening BP William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't a place to make arguments that aren't represented in mainstream literature. Anyway, in the Gulf of Mexico, as you can see from my link, BP is still a major player. Ever since the UK PM visted Obama in June 2010, Obama has never said one word against BP. We have to look at the whole of the story, not moments in time. Read: How British oil giant BP used all the political muscle money can buy to fend off regulators and influence investigations into corporate neglect - From the last 2 paras (Italics mine):
- But Pascal quickly ran into the oil-company equivalent of “too big to fail”—and knew that her threat was essentially empty. Although this is not widely known, BP has been one of the biggest suppliers of fuel to the Pentagon
- If she pushed debarment too hard, Pascal was sure the Pentagon would simply invoke a national-security exception that would allow BP to continue to sell it oil. “When a major economic and political giant" tells you it has direct access to the White House, it’s very intimidating,” says Pascal. After nearly two years of trying, Pascal retired from the EPA in February with the settlement agreement unsigned. “I can’t tell you that if my compliance agreement had been signed it would have prevented what happened in the gulf,” she says. “We just don’t know.” Whether that unfortunate history will repeat itself, with the company facing its worst crisis ever, is also unknown. But for BP, finding its way around Washington is terrain far more familiar than the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. petrarchan47tc 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't a place to make arguments that aren't represented in mainstream literature. Anyway, in the Gulf of Mexico, as you can see from my link, BP is still a major player. Ever since the UK PM visted Obama in June 2010, Obama has never said one word against BP. We have to look at the whole of the story, not moments in time. Read: How British oil giant BP used all the political muscle money can buy to fend off regulators and influence investigations into corporate neglect - From the last 2 paras (Italics mine):
- You are right that there should be a section covering BP's political influence and the criticism they have received for it. I would suggest it's better to create the section yourself, than to remove the claim in the Lede against other editor's wishes and demand someone else do the work. You have stated that you are a BP stockholder, and that really shouldn't matter - I trust you can still edit with NPOV in mind. From what I have seen your only additions to this article are to remove negative claims instead of actually building the article and doing research. It's easy to nitpick but if you want to appear unbiased, it would be better for you to work with other editors here to build this article based on reliable sources. To argue BP has no political influence skirts the issue at hand and has no backing in RS. The claim you removed says "BP has received criticism for..." and indeed they have. Those sources showing criticism BP has received for political influence should be made into a well written section and the statement should be re-added. The onus may be on you since you removed it, though I doubt that's a steadfast Wikipedia guideline. The only other person to mention having any issue with the statement in question was me. In the DRN I asked what that statement meant, because I couldn't find a clear support for it in the article. Very shortly after asking that question, you simply removed it instead of helping to answer the question, and began removing other things from the article, saying this article needs a lot of work. Yet we haven't heard from you until today when you come to again remove the statement. In general, for this encyclopedia it is best to add and fix rather than to simply remove factual material. petrarchan47tc 21:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
"Political record"
The political record section is rather odd. I've removed the first two sections. The first one doesn't really have anything to do with politics that I can see - unless people are intending to suggest that the Russian court decision was politically motivated? That was entirely likely true, but would probably be OR. The second is "human rights, environmental and safety concerns" mostly, not really politics, unless you apply an unfeasibly wide defn of politics. Most of the section appears to be a quote from the Prez of A, and doesn't talk about BP at all William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
2008: Oil price manipulation
In May 2010, the Supreme Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation agreed in support of the country’s antimonopoly service’s decision to a 1.1 billion Ruble fine ($35.2 million) against TNK/BP, a 50/50 joint venture, for abusing anti-trust legislation and setting artificially high oil products prices in 2008, TNK and BP declined comment.[1]
Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline
BP has been criticised for its involvement with Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline due to human rights, environmental and safety concerns.[2] The project was also criticized for bypassing Armenia. Ilham Aliev, the president of Azerbaijan, which is in conflict with Armenia, was cited as saying, "if we succeed with this project, the Armenians will end in complete isolation, which would create an additional problem for their future, their already bleak future".[3]
- Sorry, I was not aware that you had started a "talk" section and thought you were referring to old discussion from a few weeks ago. I will revert my article change for now. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, yes I see your point about this info not being "political". On the other hand, I do believe that it is important enough for mention in the article...somewhere--except for the section you mentioned about Armenia, which was added by an editor from Armenia. Someone caught it the first time but it was returned and not reverted that time. Gandydancer (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- The editor from Armenia has again added the Armenian information with a summary stating that it was related to geopolitics. With that in mind, I read the source for the BTC pipeline and, reconsidering, it all seems pretty political to me. For example, a little info from the source:The project is governed by an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) between the governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, which was drafted by BP’s lawyers, and by individual Host Government Agreements (HGA) between each of the three countries and the BP-led consortium. Georgia’s new president, Mikheil Saakashvili, has described the Georgian agreement for BTC as “a horrible contract, really horrible”. These agreements have largely exempted BP and its partners from local laws – and allow BP to demand compensation from the governments should any law (including environmental, social or human rights law) make the pipeline less profitable. There is also concern that, rather than adding to the local economies in the areas surrounding the pipeline, BP will pressure the three nations to give them tax breaks. Gandydancer (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm removing it again. This can go into the Armenia article if the "editor from Armenia" wants it, but he should not be importing his national conflicts into this article. Some of the refs used (e.g. http://bradsherman.house.gov/2006/06/pr-060614a.html.shtml) don't even mention BP. Another ref (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/92c5e7f6-cd84-11d9-aa26-00000e2511c8.html#axzz24O6kB8zB0) which claims to support "BP has been criticised for its involvement with Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline due to bypassing and regional isolation of Armenia" does no such thing - there is no crit of BP in the article at all, as far as I can see. This article should not be a coatrack for axe-grinders or a laundry list of problems, nor should people be abusing refs in order to fake up support for their text William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not call me an "editor from Armenia". For such reasons I have a nickname so civil people may use it. OptimusView (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please accept my apology OptimusView. I did not mean to be uncivil, never the less, it was thoughtless on my part. Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- It’s all right.OptimusView (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please accept my apology OptimusView. I did not mean to be uncivil, never the less, it was thoughtless on my part. Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support removal, per William M. Connolley, inadequately sourced synth.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not call me an "editor from Armenia". For such reasons I have a nickname so civil people may use it. OptimusView (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm removing it again. This can go into the Armenia article if the "editor from Armenia" wants it, but he should not be importing his national conflicts into this article. Some of the refs used (e.g. http://bradsherman.house.gov/2006/06/pr-060614a.html.shtml) don't even mention BP. Another ref (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/92c5e7f6-cd84-11d9-aa26-00000e2511c8.html#axzz24O6kB8zB0) which claims to support "BP has been criticised for its involvement with Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline due to bypassing and regional isolation of Armenia" does no such thing - there is no crit of BP in the article at all, as far as I can see. This article should not be a coatrack for axe-grinders or a laundry list of problems, nor should people be abusing refs in order to fake up support for their text William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I did quite a bit of reading. I would prefer to include it in the article--it need not be seen as an attack on BP if presented properly. However, I will concede and add it to the "See also" section. Gandydancer (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is not a 'national conflict'. it is a regional political problem funded by BP. I'll use more correct wording but the subsection must remain as your discussion doesn't reach a consensus.
- "BP is involved with the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline project which was criticized due to bypassing and regional isolation of Armenia, as well as for human rights and safety concerns. Ilham Aliev, the president of Azerbaijan, was cited as saying, "if we succeed with this project, the Armenians will end in complete isolation, which would create an additional problem for their future, their already bleak future".OptimusView (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Did you have a reference for that (it can't be added without one)? petrarchan47tc 05:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Off course. Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline; Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Pipeline; Background on the BTC Pipeline; The politics of pipelines; BTC pipeline the 'new Silk Road', By Vincent Boland in Baku; Sherman Joins Amendment to Block Funds For Railroad Route Bypassing Armenia - June 14, 2006; The Baku Ceyhan Pipeline: BP's Time Bomb. OptimusView (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Did you have a reference for that (it can't be added without one)? petrarchan47tc 05:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It does seem odd to me that it has not been mentioned in this article even though it has its own article. I think it needs discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Any other views? OptimusView (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree that BP's participation in BTC should be mentioned and the best location is the history section (2000 to 2010). However, presenting it as BP's project is oversimplifying the issue. BP is the operator of BTC but its share in the project is just 30%. The geopolitics behind of this project was Azerbaijani and Turkish national interests, US and Russia influence in the region etc which is more than just interest of one (although supemajor) company. Of course BP was also interested about BTC as all partners of ACG, looking for alternative routes for their production. This is described in the BTC article. Beagel (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The text I presented says BP is involved. Off course, it's not just BP's project, despite BP is the biggest shareholder. I'm afraid the current text will not fit in the "History" section, but if you want you may reedit it to be included in that section. OptimusView (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree that BP's participation in BTC should be mentioned and the best location is the history section (2000 to 2010). However, presenting it as BP's project is oversimplifying the issue. BP is the operator of BTC but its share in the project is just 30%. The geopolitics behind of this project was Azerbaijani and Turkish national interests, US and Russia influence in the region etc which is more than just interest of one (although supemajor) company. Of course BP was also interested about BTC as all partners of ACG, looking for alternative routes for their production. This is described in the BTC article. Beagel (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Any other views? OptimusView (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It does seem odd to me that it has not been mentioned in this article even though it has its own article. I think it needs discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I added text about the pipeline into the history section.[9] Mentioning of concerns is based on the previous text (including same references); however, I removed Aliev's citation as this is not about BP. However, it is included in the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline article and I think it suites there well. Beagel (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's fine! OptimusView (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, it isn't fine I'm afraid. The only "comment" there is criticism. Whereas the first ref cited says stuff like "Ilham Aliyev, the Azeri president, said the pipeline would bring economic benefits to all participating countries." Why so one-sided? http://bradsherman.house.gov/2006/06/pr-060614a.html.shtml, one of the refs for the crit, isn't about the pipeline at all. Its about a railroad. The onyl ref to the pipeline is a glancing "The Export-Import bank is the federal government agency that helped finance the ill-conceived Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline to transport crude oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea." The third ref - The Export-Import bank is the federal government agency that helped finance the ill-conceived Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline to transport crude oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. - is the onlt one with any crit. But gnn doesn't look fair and balanced to me William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- William, we already discussed the matter during the last six days (you didnt join us even to left a 'sorry' for your incorrect expression). And so please read the links I added here on 24 August. I'm more than sure it is enough. About being one-sided: off course, if even the pipeline was much more criticized and dangerous, you will find some participant sides like Azerbaijan, Turkey and BP, who are happy, but sorry, they're involved parts. OptimusView (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. Secondly, please leave your nationalism out of the discussion. If you can't, then find something else to edit. Thirdly, no: you're not allowed to be one-sided. Fourthly, please read and respond to the criticism of the links I've provided William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- The only nationalist here is you. The sources are provided here, just read them. OptimusView (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think so; you're only here because you care about the Armenian angle, yes? You've re-added the same refs that I've pointed out, above, can't be used. So far you've failed to address the reasons why they can't be used. So I'll remove them again. You've added some new links. This one [10] appears to have no clear status - essentially, it is just some blokes opinion and fails WP:RS. I don't think [11] is an RS either; and so it goes on. What you need is *one* (or two :-) good-quality WP:RS's. Not lots of non-RS's. Quantity does not outweigh quality William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you believe the sources are not RSs ask for a third opinion. All are enough reliable. This is a consensused information so try to avoid of editwarring. OptimusView (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- BTW it is really strange for me to hear that The Corner House (organisation) is not a RS on environment. Any reasons? Do you know any reliable ones except of BP itselves? OptimusView (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- With regard to consensus, you raise a good point. I don't believe that you do have consensus for your additions. But if you do believe what you say, then I suggest you test it: stop reverting your change back in, and wait for someone else to do it for you. If you think your sources are RS then I suggest that you ask for an opinion on them. As for the editwarring: please try to avoid hypocrisy. As for TCH: why do you think they *are* an RS? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think so; you're only here because you care about the Armenian angle, yes? You've re-added the same refs that I've pointed out, above, can't be used. So far you've failed to address the reasons why they can't be used. So I'll remove them again. You've added some new links. This one [10] appears to have no clear status - essentially, it is just some blokes opinion and fails WP:RS. I don't think [11] is an RS either; and so it goes on. What you need is *one* (or two :-) good-quality WP:RS's. Not lots of non-RS's. Quantity does not outweigh quality William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- The only nationalist here is you. The sources are provided here, just read them. OptimusView (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. Secondly, please leave your nationalism out of the discussion. If you can't, then find something else to edit. Thirdly, no: you're not allowed to be one-sided. Fourthly, please read and respond to the criticism of the links I've provided William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- William, we already discussed the matter during the last six days (you didnt join us even to left a 'sorry' for your incorrect expression). And so please read the links I added here on 24 August. I'm more than sure it is enough. About being one-sided: off course, if even the pipeline was much more criticized and dangerous, you will find some participant sides like Azerbaijan, Turkey and BP, who are happy, but sorry, they're involved parts. OptimusView (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, it isn't fine I'm afraid. The only "comment" there is criticism. Whereas the first ref cited says stuff like "Ilham Aliyev, the Azeri president, said the pipeline would bring economic benefits to all participating countries." Why so one-sided? http://bradsherman.house.gov/2006/06/pr-060614a.html.shtml, one of the refs for the crit, isn't about the pipeline at all. Its about a railroad. The onyl ref to the pipeline is a glancing "The Export-Import bank is the federal government agency that helped finance the ill-conceived Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline to transport crude oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea." The third ref - The Export-Import bank is the federal government agency that helped finance the ill-conceived Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline to transport crude oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. - is the onlt one with any crit. But gnn doesn't look fair and balanced to me William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Propane price manipulation
The new subsection named "Propane price manipulation" was added to the Political record section. Reading this new subsection, I can't find anything political about this. Market abuse, yes, but probably belongs in some other section, not in the political record section. Beagel (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Scroll down and see that it was under the "political" section previously. What section would you see "market manipulation" falling under? petrarchan47tc 17:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I just discovered that this issue was discussed less than two month ago [12]. During this discussion, William M. Connolley provided a link that says: "An appeals court has upheld a lower court's dismissal of charges against four former BP propane traders, saying the 2004 transactions in question weren't against the law. [13] Therefore, it is confusing that this subsection was re-added without any discussion just little bit after the relevant discussion thread was archived. Unfortunately, this has happened also with some other topics before. However, taking account the fact that charges were dismissed (according to the link provided by William M. Connolley (dated 29 January 2011 which is later than accusations by other provided sources on this case), I am changing my position about including this in the article. Beagel (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- It should be more clear now, having updated with the dismissal. Recent, reliable sources still mention this and don't seem to consider it a non-event. I changed the heading to "market manipulation". petrarchan47tc 23:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's been updated with an article from 4.20.12 so that it tells the whole story (which is what people come to Wikipedia for). You might feel to add the quotation above (the findings of the lower court) to the section, feel free. petrarchan47tc 23:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Reuters article from 20 April 2012 says: "During the Bush administration, the Justice Department charged several BP traders with conspiring in 2004 to manipulate and corner the propane market, but a federal judge a year later dismissed the indictment against the traders." Notwithstanding the deferred prosecution agreement, that means that no violation of law was proved.
- As for TNK-BP, this is a separate company which is not integrated into BP's business. If you look what is going on around TNK-BP, you see that notwithstanding its 50% share, BP does not have any control over the company. 2008 was time of conflict between local oligarchs and BP, when Bob Dudley had to escape from Russia and this case should be seen in this context. Beagel (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so it's a question of how to word the first case. As for TNK, I'll remove that part. petrarchan47tc 09:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is how it reads now: In 2004 the US Justice Department charged several BP traders with conspiring to manipulate and corner the propane gas market. In 2005 a federal judge dismissed the indictment against the traders. BP was required to pay approximately $303 million as part of an agreement to defer prosecution.
- Is there any part of this that's untrue, and does anything need to be added? petrarchan47tc 09:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- If charges were dismissed, why it should be added in the article in the first place? Also, the reference provided by William M. Connolley about the appeals court ruling in 2011 [14] is still ignored. This actually changes the perspective of the timeline of this case. Beagel (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- This earlier charge seemed to stick: [15] Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously Reuters considers it worth mentioning, we have no right to censor it for WP readers. In April 2012, they printed "During the Bush administration, the Justice Department charged several BP traders with conspiring in 2004 to manipulate and corner the propane market, but a federal judge a year later dismissed the indictment against the traders". Reuters is considered neutral and reliable. It is also recent. If you feel to add the link to the court ruling, it would make sense to me. petrarchan47tc 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Lobbying
Did anyone check up:
- BP has lobbied to gain exemptions from US corporate law reforms.<ref>{{Cite web| title = BP |publisher=The Center For Responsive Politics | url = http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000091&Name=BP}}</ref> Additionally, BP paid the [[Podesta Group]], a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm, $160,000 in the first half of 2007 to manage its congressional and government relations.<ref>{{Cite web| title = BP |publisher=The Center for Responsive Politics | url = http://opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?year=2007&txtname=BP}}</ref>
When I look at http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000091&Name=BP I get a nearly blank page. Also, it isn't really clear to me why "BP paid the Podesta Group, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm, $160,000 in the first half of 2007..." is notable. All large firms pay for lobbying somewhat, no? This stuff is all anecdote and laundry-list; there is no attempt at any kind of systematic analysis of BP's lobbying William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Is "Open Secrets" an acceptable source to use on Wikipedia? It wouldn't seem so, though it makes a good place to begin research sometimes. petrarchan47tc 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest removing HR 910 from the lobbying section. A little research suggests (to me anyway) that it is not worth a mention. Gandydancer (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually the more I look at the new additions re lobbying efforts, I'm sure tempted to just remove them all. IMO one can get into pretty nasty shark-infected waters when it comes to mentioning specific bills voted for or against by members of congress (or in this case lobbied for or against): How many times have you seen the political ads with "and [my opponent] voted to not honor mothers and apple pie!!!" when that is actually a twisted reading of the bill or something that a particular congressperson buried deep in the bill somewhere. Thoughts Petrarchan? Gandydancer (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with removal of the specific bills. Go ahead. petrarchan47tc 01:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- You have removed even the mention of bills, I was saying OK to removal of specific ones. I'll re add the general statement. petrarchan47tc 04:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I tried to re-add the line, but it looks pretty awkward so I'm leaving it out. As is, the section is 2 lines, so it looks a bit awkward anyway. petrarchan47tc 05:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- You have removed even the mention of bills, I was saying OK to removal of specific ones. I'll re add the general statement. petrarchan47tc 04:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with removal of the specific bills. Go ahead. petrarchan47tc 01:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually the more I look at the new additions re lobbying efforts, I'm sure tempted to just remove them all. IMO one can get into pretty nasty shark-infected waters when it comes to mentioning specific bills voted for or against by members of congress (or in this case lobbied for or against): How many times have you seen the political ads with "and [my opponent] voted to not honor mothers and apple pie!!!" when that is actually a twisted reading of the bill or something that a particular congressperson buried deep in the bill somewhere. Thoughts Petrarchan? Gandydancer (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed some text re previous record amounts with an edit comment that didn't make my issue clear. P then readded it [16]. My issue is twofold: firstly, the text there is essentially a copyvio from the Grauniad article. Secondly, that text made some kind of sense in 2010 when the article was written, but it doesn't really make sense now. We don't write "in 2001 it broke its 2000 record; in 2002 it broke its 2001 record..." etc etc. Because there is no reason to do so. Incidentally, using as ref just an article written by someone clearly heavily critical of BP isn't great, either William M. Connolley (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- By your edit summary, it looked like the removal was based solely on awkward wording, as that is what you said. It makes sense to mention BP's biggest and second biggest lobbying years. But I'm fine with the removal of it. I don't believe my editing is fueled by criticism of BP, but wanting to get the article up to speed factually and to remove bias. When you remove parts and ask for proof in order to re-add it, as has happened a few times, I will inevitably end up looking critical of BP when I present it. petrarchan47tc 07:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh dear, awkward phrasing again. By "written by someone clearly heavily critical of BP" I meant the author of the Grauniad ref, not anyone here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- That is really nice to hear. petrarchan47tc 08:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh dear, awkward phrasing again. By "written by someone clearly heavily critical of BP" I meant the author of the Grauniad ref, not anyone here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Tag: This intro does not adequately cover this article's contents
Do not remove this tag until the bottom 2/3 of the article has an adequate representation in the Lede. If you remove this tag, please present your argument as to how the Intro covers the contents of the article in a fair manner. I'm not seeing it. petrarchan47tc 17:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring to impose tag
Not satisified with using this talk page as a forum to make all manner of personal attacks and accusations, Petrarchan has now decided to add edit warring to their list of disruptive behaviour by attempting to impose a tag at the top of this article.
The tag having been removed not once but twice, Petrarchan has simply re added it. The tag should be removed and a consensus established for its inclusion, it does not form part of the stable version of this article. It is an opinion that the lead does not adequately summarise the article, and an opinion that has thus far failed to achieve a consensus. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- What do others think of the Intro - does it cover the article's contents in a fair and balanced way? petrarchan47tc 17:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- We have been having extensive discussions on the lead both in a DR and on this talk page, you have been involved in both and are therefore fully aware that your views on the lead have not achieved a consensus. Please remove the tag. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your view that the Lede is perfectly representative of the contents of this article has not established consensus. You know that my views are not held by me alone, and that a number of editors including an admin have found your 4th para: 'BP had some accidents. They are green though' to be inappropriate. In fact, it is one of the best examples of greenwashing I can imagine. Your sticking by these edits does not make you look like an editor interested in NPOV. petrarchan47tc 18:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus is not unanimity. You have patently failed to achieve any consensus for your proposed changes to the lead despite very lengthy dicussion. The addition of the tag was reverted for good reasons. Twice. Until its addition - since it does not form part of the stable version of the article - has achieved a consensus it should be removed. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your "stable version of the article" was won by your reverting anyone who tried to fix the Lede. Also, based on your statement you should be adding what William Connolley continues to remove - namely the statement about BP's political influence, as it was part of your "longstanding" Lede. Why aren't you insisting it be re-added? petrarchan47tc 18:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus is not unanimity. You have patently failed to achieve any consensus for your proposed changes to the lead despite very lengthy dicussion. The addition of the tag was reverted for good reasons. Twice. Until its addition - since it does not form part of the stable version of the article - has achieved a consensus it should be removed. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your view that the Lede is perfectly representative of the contents of this article has not established consensus. You know that my views are not held by me alone, and that a number of editors including an admin have found your 4th para: 'BP had some accidents. They are green though' to be inappropriate. In fact, it is one of the best examples of greenwashing I can imagine. Your sticking by these edits does not make you look like an editor interested in NPOV. petrarchan47tc 18:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- We have been having extensive discussions on the lead both in a DR and on this talk page, you have been involved in both and are therefore fully aware that your views on the lead have not achieved a consensus. Please remove the tag. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
How about we drop all the personal stuff and just talk about the article? As for the tag, you can't establish a good it should be in / it should be out. Does anyone really think this article is so good that the tag disfigures it? The tag is the least of the problems here; just... don't care about it.
If you mean that the env / accidents / pol isn't in the lede, this is likely because those are very poor sections and very hard to summarise. Its all laundry-list stuff, very badly done William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes those section are poor quality laundry-list type content, in fact that's being kind, it's recentist, US-centric attack content in the main which gives no real encyclopedic information about the company's record in those areas worldwide, over the span of its history, and in comparison to peers and industry averages.
- In my view the tag does disfigure the lead. More importantly it gives a misleading impression that there is a consensus that the lead is grossly deficient. We know well that no such consensus exists as the lead has been the subject of very extensive discussion. The tag should be removed unless and until a clear consensus can be established for its addition. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rangoon you keep saying that the lead has been the subject of very extensive discussion as though Wikipedia has been discussed and decided and we're all done now. Furthermore, actually, when all mention of the Gulf spill was removed from the lead, you removed it and you did not bother to discuss it at all but rather just said the day after they plugged the leak there was no longer any need to keep that info in the lead. I've been saying for about two months now that I believe that the lead is grossly deficient. Gandydancer (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- The reason the accidents and controversies aren't in the Lede is not because the article is messy. It's because it's been blocked from being added. petrarchan47tc 05:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- They are in the lead, just not in as undue, US-centric, recentist and misleading manner as you would like.
- The lead has been discussed at length and you have failed to achieve a consensus for your proposed changes. Numerous editors who are far more experienced than either of you in editing company articles have stated that the lead is broadly fine as is. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- If indeed you are correct in that editors with a great deal of experience in working on company articles are responsible for the existing lead which contains next to nothing about BP's extremely poor environmental history, perhaps it is good that I have chosen to edit the article since I have experience working on environmental subjects. On the other hand, what I am arguing is related to WP policy, not expertise in one field or another. I have been arguing that the lead does not adequately reflect WP policy which states that the lead should be able to stand alone as a general overview of what one will find in the article. One need not be a company expert to know that, one need to look at what WP policy says and that should settle any problems. That's why I went to an admin who is assumed to have more knowledge/experience in WP policy than I (referring to the incident that you choose to call canvassing). Gandydancer (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I will quote some of the response which the said admin gave you "Hey Gandy, sorry for taking so long to respond. I'm not sure you'll like what I have to say. I think the article is actually fine as is or at most could use one more sentence on BP's safety record." and "discussing proper weight of points in the lead is a matter where reasonable people can disagree quite extensively"
- The lead needs to achieve a number of objectives, to offer a standalone introduction to the topic, as well as a summary of the article. Clearly space in a lead is limited, and there are a number of pieces of information which the lead must contain, such as details of name, HQ, stock market listing, operations, history, products and relative position in its market. To fail to give these would be to wholly fail to provide an overview of the topic.
- In terms of "contoversies" - if these are to be dealt with in the lead then it must be in a way which is not merely crude attack content, and which provides some sense of context. For example, all major oil companies will be involved in many safety issues, all have had large spills, all have lost numerous staff in accidents. To therefore just list a small number of incidents tells the reader nothing encyclopedic but gives the misleading impression that the company's record in this area must be especially bad.
- This is also not an article on "BP America safety and environmental record 2000 to present" but on BP, its whole history and its worldwide operations. No sources have been provided which state that BP has a worse record than peers or industry averages worldwide. No sources have been provided which state that BP has a worse record than peers or industry averages over the span of its history.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I added a neutrality tag since a tag seems justified to me. Rangoon's requests for extraordinary documentation to show BP's environmental record for the span of its history, industry averages worldwide, etc., are not reasonable--if one reads the article and the sources the information is sufficient. Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sources are required in WP for factual claims, particularly of this nature, and no such sources have been provided as yet, and no such sources exist in the article. The only wide ranging source provided to date has been the one which I provided, which states "Throughout its history, British Petroleum has made health, safety and environmental standards the pinnacle of its operations" [17].
- So essentially you want the right to have this article reflect your own personal view, which you have stated explicitly, that BP has "the worst environmental record in the industry", but don't even feel that you need to provide sources to justify it. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- In fact this is the exact wording which you used in your canvassing : "Considering that they have the worst environmental history in the oil industry and one of the worst in general, I believed that the lead should reflect that". [18] That personal POV is what you are seemingly on a mission to make this article reflect. Sources please. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There is NO consensus that the dispute over neutrality of Intro has been resolved. Quit removing the tag - doing so means you can prove there is no longer a dispute. If someone cannot admit that there is a dispute going on - for over two months now - well, I'm at a loss for words. Again, it is exactly the behaviour one could expect from an editor with COI. petrarchan47tc 23:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- What is the big problem Rangoon? What is so hard to swallow about the fact that the Intro is in dispute? Did ANYONE agree with your removal of the tag? I know I didn't, William C. also did not, and I assume Gandydancer did not either, as he posted a tag today. You are not the sole decision maker. And to make comments about someone's inability to spell consensus is just catty. petrarchan47tc 00:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The only proposals for changing the lead which have been made have been wholly unreasonable and have been rejected by multiple editors. No constructive proposals are now being made for how to change the lead, all that is happening is that two editors are repeatedly, repetitively and unconstructively stating that they do not like the current text. In the circumstances it is not reasonable for a tag to be placed on the lead. BTW I shan't be replying to any more of your comments on COI, harassment etc but am keeping a detailed record of them. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am fully aware that everything I type at Wikipedia IS a record. Your mention of it? An attempt to scare me and to intimidate me, and to get me to shut up. It's a waste of your time, but have at it. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- No please keep on making the comments. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't a game. You made wildly slanted changes to the Lede and protected them for many months on end. Now you are trying to intimidate the person who speaks out about it. You told what looks to me like a bold faced lie regarding your edits, and have yet to explain why it was not a lie, as you have suggested with "Again you accuse me of lying". petrarchan47tc 00:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- No please keep on making the comments. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am fully aware that everything I type at Wikipedia IS a record. Your mention of it? An attempt to scare me and to intimidate me, and to get me to shut up. It's a waste of your time, but have at it. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The only proposals for changing the lead which have been made have been wholly unreasonable and have been rejected by multiple editors. No constructive proposals are now being made for how to change the lead, all that is happening is that two editors are repeatedly, repetitively and unconstructively stating that they do not like the current text. In the circumstances it is not reasonable for a tag to be placed on the lead. BTW I shan't be replying to any more of your comments on COI, harassment etc but am keeping a detailed record of them. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
(More) canvassing
There has been more canvassing which should be recorded on this page: [19]. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rangoon, quit trying to turn this discussion into a battleground. There is nothing wrong with inviting a fellow editor who has been editing the article to join in on the discussion! I noted that the editor does not use English as his/her first language and thought perhaps they may be "shy" for that reason. I would consider it helpful to hear from a Russian, etc., editor for a more global view for this article about a global corporation. Gandydancer (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- [Some canvassing by Rangoon], since we're keeping track. petrarchan47tc 00:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It was inappropriate, as the editor in question had shortly before been adding "controversy" type content to the article and it could therefore be assumed that they would be far more likely to be supportive of your approach to the article than an editor chosen at random.
- I had no reason to know what approach Beagle would take on any of these issues, and Petrachan also placed an invitation on their talk page: [20].Rangoon11 (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- In other words, we're all doing it. So pipe down. petrarchan47tc 00:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but this is really just getting silly. I am very well aware that my every edit is being watched by Rangoon--does anyone really believe that I would be so stupid as to try and sneakily notify the Armenian editor to come and make some edits so that I could...what?...since I already said that I concede re the addition that was in dispute. Gandydancer (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think inviting someone to join in discussion on the talk page, when that person has already been editing the article, is canvassing, or indeed worth raising here. Please can we go back to actually discussing the substantive issues? William M. Connolley (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Concur, none of the examples shown above fulfill the policy complaint of canvassing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is a subjective point in this case, the individual contacted was in my view not nonpartisan. However this cannot be seen in strict isolation, the same editor has also been posting campaigining posts away from this talk page, with wording such as "Considering that they have the worst environmental history in the oil industry and one of the worst in general" [21].Rangoon11 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that would obviously be POV, but we have to treat each article and the edits as they come. Looking back through the recent history, I'm not quite clear what the big issue is for you Rangoon, are you against BP's environmental/political record featuring? I would suggest that all of the big oil corporations have a good deal of sourceable and notable stories in these arenas and it isn't POV to give them high billing - any responses from the corporations or efforts they made to clean up or ammend their ways can also be posted. Is this the problem for you? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is an opinion which I have no problem with GD expressing here and am happy to debate with them (although they have thus far failed to provide any sources which support the claim), but doing so when seeking the assistance of a non-involved editor was not strictly speaking appropriate.
- There are a few issues regarding the points which you touch on in the second part of your post and they are complex.
- All major oil companies are involved in safety, environmental and political issues. All will have been involved in multiple oil leaks, will have lost staff in accidents, will have attracted "controversy" for being active in certain countries. One could produce a long laundry list of accidents which have involved, say, Exxon, Total, Shell, Chevron or Conoco. That list on its own would however mean little without context about the relative safety performance relative to peers and industry averages. All of these companies are very large, active in inherently hugely complex operations which are potentially highly dangerous and have a significant environmental impact.
- A couple of editors here are of the opinion that BP has "the worst environmental history in the oil industry" and want the article to reflect that viewpoint. It is an opinion which is uncited, highly subjective and not supported by the laundry list content in the last three sections of the article.
- The Deepwater accident is hihgly unusual in its size, profile and impact, including financially on BP, and I recognise that a good case can be made for specifically mentioning it in the lead (a good case can in my view also be made against, although I have personally long accepted such a reference being included and am not seeking to remove it, indeed I am happy with the lead as is).
- However what I would like is for content on these issues to have context and to reflect the complexity of these issues. That is very hard to do in a lead and it is very easy for this type of content in a lead to be recentist/attack-style content/undue/unbalanced/misleading etc. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rangoon, your claim that a couple editors are of the opinion, and are trying to push the idea that BP has the worst environmental record needs to be proven with diffs. I feel that you might be referring to me, though I have never said that. I do not want you assigning words or motives to me, whether directly or indirectly, so please from now on bring diffs when making accusations.
- BP is however, an outlier in the field. And that is well-sourced. Since we're building this encyclopedia based on reliable sources rather than personal views, I offer the following:
Comparing BP record with competitors
- This ProPublica article has 2 charts (1/5 down the page) that make comparison with fellow oil companies easy to see.
- From ABC news: BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
- The violations are determined when an employer demonstrated either an "intentional disregard for the requirements of the [law], or showed plain indifference to employee safety and health."
- OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation.
- From NYT: There is a reason Exxon Mobil has not had a serious accident in the subsequent 21 years. Unlike BP, it used the accident to transform itself.
- NYT: BP compared with Exxon But BP, the nation’s biggest oil and gas producer, has a worse health, environment and safety record than many other major oil companies, according to Yulia Reuter, the head of the energy research team at RiskMetrics, a consulting group that assigns scores to companies based on their performance in various categories, including safety.
- The industry standard for safety, analysts say, is set by Exxon Mobil, which displays an obsessive attention to detail, monitors the smallest spill and imposes scripted procedures on managers.
- From the Houston Chronicle: BP leads the nation in refinery deaths, Chronicle analysis shows "Records show big gap between company and top U.S.-based peer" petrarchan47tc 03:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Any CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions for the lead?
Speaking purely for myself I am now finding this Talk page both boring and timewasting. Do either of Petrachan or Gandydancer have any CONSTRUCTIVE proposals for how to take the lead forward? Rangoon11 (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking for myself, I am not going to fall into the trap again where you ask for a proposal with no intention of negotiating any change. In the DRN, you asked me this same question, and I spent literally ten days researching and writing up a proper paragraph. In one second it was declined full stop. I have said before that I am not willing to negotiate with someone who has an edit history such as yours because I don't feel I can trust your words or motives, until you explain why they weren't lies, as you have suggested. This is the 5th time I have asked you. Credibility can be ruined in an instant. I continue to look forward to your explanation. petrarchan47tc 01:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have no interest in your opinion of me. And my opinion of you is exceptionally low.
- Do you have any CONSTRUCTIVE sugguestions to make regarding the lead? Your previous suggestion was ludicrous and was rejected by multiple editors. And it doesn't surprise me that it took you ten days to produce a low quality piece of writing a few lines long which someone of basic competence could have put together in 30 mins, but that is your problem, indeed your tragedy. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- And the put downs do not help the process. You ignore my request to explain yourself again and instead attack below the belt. Let me be clear: until you make me understand how that was NOT a lie regarding your additions to the Lede, I will not negotiate with you over content or anything else. petrarchan47tc 01:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The proposal was declined by you and Beagle, who as yet has never disagreed with you on anything that I have seen. So from now on, if Gandydancer agrees with me on anything, we are going to take that as carved in stone Truth, based on your argument. petrarchan47tc
For the record, here is my CONSTRUCTIVE suggestion for the lead. It can be followed by the green claim, or the green initiatives could be made into its own paragraph, cutting some of the fluff from the first 3 to make room, per WP:LEDE.
To judge whether this paragraph is NPOV, etc, to first do a cursory search to get acquainted with what's out there is only fair. I used sources like the NYT and used references from the first few pages of Google searches. I searched "BP, safety" and "BP, accidents". I looked at all the literature I could find, then boiled it down according to its prominence in reliable, oft-sourced media and its weight globally. I wrote every word myself and received no help from anyone, but I did seek a second opinion from journalist Jason Leopold, who did excellent work during the Gulf spill and was quoted on CNN and elsewhere. His response was one Tweet: 'It is excellent. But you left out [BP is still receiving government contracts]'. I didn't take his advice to add that as it didn't really turn up in mainstream media, and would have been an outlier and not NPOV. His article would, however, help support the "criticized for political influence" claim that was removed for lack of evidence.
One note: on second look, it should be added that the Gulf spill was the largest accidental marine oil spill in the world - it could replace the "largest in US history" to make the paragraph more global in scope. The argument that it's too recent or covers too little a time frame is bunk. T he green initiatives started recently too, but they are notable enough to merit inclusion in the Lede. As I've argued before, the recent, US centered history of accidents is directly related to BP's growth under Lorde Brown's expansion and cost-cutting. This is all well documented and was argued here.
- BP has received criticism for its political influence,[22][23][24] price manipulation,[25] and greenwashing.[26] In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history.[27][28][29] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor[30] and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.[31][32][33] petrarchan47tc 02:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted, this was written when the article still had a section on "price fixing". It has been since been removed, even though supportive refs were brought to the discussion about the removal. There is enough to the story to warrant re-inclusion, in my opinion. petrarchan47tc 03:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
For scale, this is Rangoon's version (not including italicized text). The mention of accidents and green energy remains to this day together in one paragraph due only to Rangoon, though other editors have disagreed with it and tried unsuccessfully to separate them:
- "BP's track record of corporate social responsibility has been mixed. The company has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. However, in 1997, it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over $1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend $8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period."
Which explains why we don't see eye to eye. petrarchan47tc 04:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, the introduction should provide a summary of what the article says but what is included and how much is written depends on how important it is, as established in reliable sources. I refer to this line from WP:LEAD:
- The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources
On that basis, it is fair that there be a summary of the most widely reported criticisms and major accidents. However, I do not believe that details such as the OSHA fines, or specific investigations should be placed in the lead. Based on the current content of the article, I would like to suggest that the following sentences be used in the lead as a compromise:
- BP has received criticism for its environmental and safety record and its perceived political influence. In the 2000s the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the United States including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, considered the largest accidental marine oil spill.
In this version, the issues described further into the article are summarized so they are not ignored, while the most significant among them, the Deepwater Horizon spill, is given a specific mention. My goal is a proportionate representation of these topics.
Please note that, per WP:CITELEAD, I have not included sources here for details that are included with reliable citations in later sections of the article. Per the current supported version in the article, I have also used "largest accidental marine oil spill" rather than "largest environmental disaster". If this seems like an appropriate compromise, please feel free to use this as replacement text. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for this constructive proposal, which I would personally be willing to support. For the avoidance of doubt are you proposing that the text which currently follows this wording ("In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change") be retained or removed? Rangoon11 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Rangoon, I do mean for the wording about climate change to be retained in addition to the wording I suggested. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
A proportionate representation of the topics would not merit only 2 sentences followed by a third mentioning the green initiatives. One look at the article - just a quick eyeball - will tell you that you are way off. Greenwashing was removed from your version, yet it has a section and prominence in media with more weight than green initiatives. I am not sure that a BP employee can truly be objective, so perhaps would not be the best candidate for proposing a criticism section that has been the subject of heated arguments for 2 months. petrarchan47tc 03:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the issue is that the current proportions are focused too heavily on the controversy/accidents/etc. (This does not mean that those sections should be reduced but that the other sections should be expanded.)
- I will also note that there is an overuse of words like "over," "almost," "nearly," etc in the article. This is POV language used to imply that a number is large (just like "less than" and "below" implies that a number is small). Either the exact number from the source should be given, or if there is no significant difference the number should be rounded. (To be clear - this POV is going in both directions in the article.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Outside independent help is needed, it seems. We should all be in agreement that as independent editors just wanting to provide balanced, unbiased info, any outside help with removing POV is very much welcome. This has been an overwhelming experience that I thought would only take a few days. I am really burning out. It's difficult when removal of bias in the Intro takes 2 months, my actual work gets ignored. petrarchan47tc 05:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
As it is now, the climate change statement reads like an argument (POV) and is confusing, as it changes the subject of the paragraph drastically. One consideration could be to make a 5 paragraph Intro, and the 5th paragraph could begin "In 1997 became the first..." and include the statement about its green energy investments being larger than any other company (or whatever the stats are). "BP also has major investments in ... compared with ....". The other paragraphs should be looked at for what can be trimmed. The article begins with history, so it might not be necessary to go into their history quite so much in the Intro. If a 5th paragraph about green energy is made, the mention of green energy in the 1st paragraph could be merged with the previous sentence since it's about to be mentioned again. petrarchan47tc 06:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Saying that "it might not be necessary to go into their history quite so much in the Intro" while insisting detailed information about environmental issues seems not the most balanced approach. The first para lists all fields of operations. Moving mentioning some operations to the separate location is not the best idea. Beagel (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I see no reason to pare back any information in the lead in order to add a reasonable amount of information regarding their environmental record--the length of the lead would not be excessive with a few sentences added.
- I do not believe that the very short mention of criticisms as suggested by Arturo is adequate. I spent a lot of time reading the sources in the article and again and again found the complaint (as stated by Petrarchan) " BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance" come up. If we feel that BP deserves mention because they were the first oil company to admit that global warming is "real", we need to mention that they also stand out as having a the worst, or one of the worst, environmental histories.Gandydancer (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- they also stand out as having a the worst, or one of the worst, environmental histories -but do you have an RS for that? Synthesising this conclusion from various stories of accidents is WP:SYN. There is also the presentism problem William M. Connolley (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I do not believe that the very short mention of criticisms as suggested by Arturo is adequate. I spent a lot of time reading the sources in the article and again and again found the complaint (as stated by Petrarchan) " BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance" come up. If we feel that BP deserves mention because they were the first oil company to admit that global warming is "real", we need to mention that they also stand out as having a the worst, or one of the worst, environmental histories.Gandydancer (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Must we forever go around in circles? Over a month ago I complained that you and Rangoon refused such information as being too recent, not recent enough and/or lacking context. Then Petrarchan listed this information and you offered no comment what so ever, and that was the end of the discussion. Actually, I am not suggesting that the article lead must state BP IS THE WORST OIL COMPANY EVER!!! But I do believe that if their history shows egregious disregard for safety and the environment, the lead needs to reflect that reality. Frankly, the conversation between the six of us with Petrarchan and I on one side of the fence and you, Rangoon, Beagle and Artero on the other seems to be going nowhere. We really do need other editors to help us sort through our disagreements. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- The way to answer the question do you have an RS for that? isn't a paragraph of words - its a couple of well-chosen RS's. If you've got those, the answer is "yes". If you haven't, the answer is "no" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Must we forever go around in circles? Over a month ago I complained that you and Rangoon refused such information as being too recent, not recent enough and/or lacking context. Then Petrarchan listed this information and you offered no comment what so ever, and that was the end of the discussion. Actually, I am not suggesting that the article lead must state BP IS THE WORST OIL COMPANY EVER!!! But I do believe that if their history shows egregious disregard for safety and the environment, the lead needs to reflect that reality. Frankly, the conversation between the six of us with Petrarchan and I on one side of the fence and you, Rangoon, Beagle and Artero on the other seems to be going nowhere. We really do need other editors to help us sort through our disagreements. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- they also stand out as having a the worst, or one of the worst, environmental histories I am missing the context for this. Is someone wanting to add this into the article? Why is this being argued in the Intro section? Mr. Connolley, did you look at the links I provided in the section above? petrarchan47tc 22:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- @P: errm, the context is, I'm replying to G, who made the assertion. As to "Is someone wanting to add this into the article?": I took the prefix "we need to mention that" to mean eactly that. How do you interpret it? Oh, and please read User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that now. It makes sense. So, to be clear, you need to be called Dr. Connolley, WMC, or referred to by using your whole name, correct? And, on that note, calling me "P" isn't the clearest, it took me a good while to realize you meant me. Try something more precise.petrarchan47tc 18:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- @P: errm, the context is, I'm replying to G, who made the assertion. As to "Is someone wanting to add this into the article?": I took the prefix "we need to mention that" to mean eactly that. How do you interpret it? Oh, and please read User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- From the NYT: But BP, the nation’s biggest oil and gas producer, has a worse health, environment and safety record than many other major oil companies, according to Yulia Reuter, the head of the energy research team at RiskMetrics, a consulting group that assigns scores to companies based on their performance in various categories, including safety. petrarchan47tc 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- A single highly subjective and vague quote. Here is a reliable source which states "Throughout its history, British Petroleum has made health, safety and environmental standards the pinnacle of its operations" [34].
- Here is a source which states "An inquiry ordered by US President Barack Obama into the BP oil spill has given support to many of the company's own findings, challenging claims BP sacrificed safety to save money." and "Among the commission's preliminary findings, released on Monday, was that there was "no evidence at this time to suggest that there was a conscious decision to sacrifice safety concerns to save money". [35].
- Here is a source which states "While there's little doubt the energy and chemical industries are hazardous, two sets of data show that making absolute judgments on one company's safety versus another is not simple." and "according to data reported by companies to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, BP's rate for injuries, illnesses and fatalities is less than one-quarter that of the chemical industry's average and is falling." [36]
- Here is a source in which BP is described as the most environmental friendly oil company [37], "which received top marks for its investments in renewable energy, environmental reporting, climate change stance, and greenhouse gas emissions."
- Here is a quality source which states "As Energy Roundup has written, though BP has been chastised for its safety record in the past two years, it has not lost as many employees and contractors to death as rival Royal Dutch Shell, which employs roughly the same number of people.
- they also stand out as having a the worst, or one of the worst, environmental histories I am missing the context for this. Is someone wanting to add this into the article? Why is this being argued in the Intro section? Mr. Connolley, did you look at the links I provided in the section above? petrarchan47tc 22:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a source which states "No other integrated oil company — certainly none with $285 billion in sales — has made a bigger commitment to alternative energy, cutting greenhouse gases and educating the public about conservation." [39]Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a source which describes BP's LNG safety record as "exemplary" [40].Rangoon11 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is an interesting source: [41]
- A few quotes "There are a handful of corporations which dominate the OHSA safety violations record over the decade 2000-2009. Note that none of the large firms of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhilips or Texaco are included in the list of drilling companies with 20 or more safety violations over the decade" "drilling-related accidents and oil discharge statistics suggest that large companies are under-represented in the statistics and run safer and cleaner operations than the industry average" , "we see that while the largest three companies, BP Exploration, Shell Offshore and Chevron represent 60.8% of crude oil extracted in the Gulf of Mexico in 2009, they represented just 22 of 130 injury reports in 2009" "The safety record among the largest deepwater drilling companies is also reflected in the annual Minerals Management Service fatalities reports, published online since 2006. Over a four-year period from 2006 to 2009, there were a total of 30 fatalities. With the exception of Chevron, which was the listed responsible party for three fatalties in three separate incidents, and Exxon, with one fatality, all U.S. fatalities occured at platforms owned by companies other than the major oil companies". Rangoon11 (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, three of your sources about how safe BP is were written well before 2 of their largest disasters, including the Gulf spill. You quoted a preliminary report from the Oil Spill Commission. Here is one write up on the final report. "The commission's findings contradict its initial report released in November, which found no evidence that workers cut corners on the Macondo project to save money"
- An EPA lawyer charged with overseeing BP for 12 years regarding their possible debarment, reported similar findings: "At first, Pascal thought BP would be another routine assignment. Over the years she’d persuaded hundreds of troubled energy, mining and waste-disposal companies to quickly change their behavior. But BP was in its own league. On her watch she would see BP charged with four federal crimes—more than any other oil company in her experience—and demonstrate what she described as a pattern of disregard for regulations and for the EPA. By late 2009 she was warning the government and BP executives themselves that the company’s approach to safety and environmental issues made another disaster likely".
- As for their green initiatives, I have said I do see that being its own paragraph in the Lede. It could go either way. But no one can argue that BP was the first to acknowledge climate change. Their efforts in Canada with Tar Sands kind of makes one scratch their head, though, as that form of energy extraction is 3 times more damaging to climate than normal oil drilling. petrarchan47tc 00:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- BP's safety and environmental record needs to be analysed in the round. Of course Deepwater massively skewed the safety/spill record for the year in which it happened, just as Valdez would have for Exxon. It is necessary to look at a multi-year period which my sources do. It is also necessary to look outside the US, which a couple of my sources do.
- These are highly complex and subjective issues. My sources show that these are issues capable of extensive debate. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, actually, it's simple. BP is the most unsafe and unhealthy petroleum company, bar none. Your sources depend largely upon corporate PR, not third party assessments. They cannot overrule the very negative reports. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- "unhealthy"?! And you have clearly not looked at the sources, not one of which has any connection to BP. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your first example is the book The Business Communication Casebook: A Notre Dame Collection, which takes some of BP's PR fluff and analyzes it. The text you quoted as from "a reliable source" is within the portion which is being examined. It is there only to show an example of corporate PR, not as an assertion of truth. So who is not reading the sources? Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- No the work is analysing BP's public reputation. It is patently clear that that sentence is the view of the authors of the book. "Throughout its history, British Petroleum has made health, safety and environmental standards the pinnacle of its operations" is a statement by the authors of the book, and that is 100% clear from even a cursory read. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed the list of references on page 14, the one showing an over-reliance on bp.com PR fluff. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- In a work about BP it is unsurprising that BP's own reports have provided some factual information, just as they do in this article. A company is for much information about itself the best available source.
- "Throughout its history, British Petroleum has made health, safety and environmental standards the pinnacle of its operations" is a statement by the authors of the book, not by BP. Period. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed the list of references on page 14, the one showing an over-reliance on bp.com PR fluff. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- No the work is analysing BP's public reputation. It is patently clear that that sentence is the view of the authors of the book. "Throughout its history, British Petroleum has made health, safety and environmental standards the pinnacle of its operations" is a statement by the authors of the book, and that is 100% clear from even a cursory read. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your first example is the book The Business Communication Casebook: A Notre Dame Collection, which takes some of BP's PR fluff and analyzes it. The text you quoted as from "a reliable source" is within the portion which is being examined. It is there only to show an example of corporate PR, not as an assertion of truth. So who is not reading the sources? Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- "unhealthy"?! And you have clearly not looked at the sources, not one of which has any connection to BP. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, actually, it's simple. BP is the most unsafe and unhealthy petroleum company, bar none. Your sources depend largely upon corporate PR, not third party assessments. They cannot overrule the very negative reports. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You are being very selective in your choice of sources to say the least Rangoon. (1) that pre-dates the Gulf spill and (2) it's a business PR book, not an academic survey of oil company behaviour in the environmental field. Contrast with a list of sources from leading sources in the arena citing a catalogue of BP misbehaviours quoted higher up this section. I'm not in favour of an unbalanced series of attacks, but I am starting to feel that you aren't seeking a neutral assessment here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is just one of multiple high quality third party sources which I have provided above. And a perfectly resonable one in providing an overarching opinion on BP's historical safety and environmental record (BP is over 100 years old).
- I have never suggested that the sources I have provided above represent a complete and full picture of BP's record, and haven't even proposed adding them into the article, although a number would be useful in helping to describe BP's safety record in particular.
- This is a debate on BP's record and the point that I am seeking to make is that these are highly complex issues. The other side in the debate are putting forward wholly negative sources about BP. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would worry less if I were you about reliable sources portraying BP as wholly negative than about reliable sources that do not take the whole picture into account. The Notre Dame business PR book is exactly that sort of source; they did nothing to discover the truth of BP's self-serving website statements, as demonstrated by their demonstrably wrong assertion: "Throughout its history, British Petroleum has made health, safety and environmental standards the pinnacle of its operations." Anybody making this kind of statement in the face of extremely strong evidence to the contrary has just made themselves a laughingstock. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
US operations
In my previous request on this page I mentioned that I intend to provide additional new material regarding BP's operations and have now prepared a new subsection for other editors to review. The section expands on the information in the overview to provide more in-depth detail of the company's American activities to add to the Operations section.
The draft is in my user pages here: User:Arturo at BP/US operations
I hope editors will review the draft. If you have any changes, please make them in the draft but leave comments here so that others can follow the discussion.
The other request I would like to raise here is regarding the material I prepared on the company's UK operations that was added into the Operations section previously. My intention was for this to form a subsection of Operations after the overview, which would give an introduction to the overall organization and to brief introductions to the UK, US and rest of world activities. If there is agreement to do so, I'd like to see the Operations begin with the overview text that was added on July 5th, then the UK operations and US operations become subsections below this. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse the off-topic comment here, but if you get a chance, we could really use your help here, trying to write up the stock history section per guideline on company articles. Thanks petrarchan47tc 04:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
My comments based on your draft:
- Although it is mentioned in the history section, maybe it is worth to mention that the US operation are largely inherited from AMOCO?
- Instead of "current" and "currently" it would be better to use more precise time, e.g. "in 2012", "as of 2012" etc.
- I understand that these oilfields are operated by BP but maybe it would be worth of mentioning if there are other stakes in fields operated by other companies (if any)?
- I understand that there is an agreement sell the Carson refinery. In this case I don't see the need to add information about this refinery in this article. Same will apply to the Texas City refinery when the sale will be agreed.
- As of "enough power for around 586,000 homes", it is true and usual practice by wind farm developers to advertise, of course; however, I personally find this promotional and better avoid (not only here but in all articles about wind farms).
- We have an article about Vercipia Biofuels, so maybe it would be practical to name and link it in this section?
Beagel (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Beagel, these are good suggestions so I have made the changes that you recommend in the draft in my user pages. I have a few notes for you, first with regard to the oil fields in which BP has a stake, I have listed the ones included on the BP website page for Gulf of Mexico although these include two fields that are up for sale. For now I have included these in the sentence noting the fields that are for sale, but once these are sold this information will need to be updated. For Carson City, I have taken out the line focusing on this refinery, but it should remain listed as one of the refineries BP operates for now.
- You raise an interesting question about the biofuels company, since it is no longer called Vercipia. My thought was to keep the link but use the new name, providing the link to the BP website to support this, and I hope that sounds ok to you. Since it might cause confusion for people to follow the link labeled "Highlands" and have the page be named "Vercipia Biofuels", I'll make a request on that article's Talk page to have this updated.
- Here is the link to the draft again: User:Arturo at BP/US operations
- Would you be able to add this into the article if you feel it is appropriate? Also, as I mentioned before, if there is agreement, I'd like to see the Operations begin with the overview I prepared previously, then for the UK operations and US operations to form subsections below this.
- Petrarchan, I am doing some research into the stock history and I hope to have something to offer soon. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- In my view the draft text is quite excellent and much needed. I would be happy to add it in to the article, unless Beagle wishes to do so?
- I think that the Upstream and Downstream texts should be left in their current positions however. The way I envisage the Operations section being structured is 1. brief overview, 2. detailed description of operations by geography, 3. detailed description of operations by business segment/division. There is no "perfect" way of doing it though, and either way a subheading along the lines of "By geography" is in my view needed before the country info.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I aon't have any further questions or remarks about proposed text, so please feel free to add it. As we have now operations described by sectors and by countries, the question is how to avoid repetitions. Beagel (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you for your comments, and thank you Rangoon for adding in the US operations material. Having thought some more, I agree with Rangoon's suggestion for how to structure the section. My only concern is that facts from the overview text I originally supplied, but are not in this latest proposed text, not be lost. Information such as BP is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the US are now not included anywhere. Rangoon or Beagel, could you replace the section with the latest version of the draft in my userspace? I've added the missing facts to my draft, so that a straightforward replacement can be made and all the details are kept. I've also taken this opportunity to update a reference where the link was dead. If one of you is willing to make that edit, the draft is ready here: User:Arturo at BP/US operations Thanks again. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I aon't have any further questions or remarks about proposed text, so please feel free to add it. As we have now operations described by sectors and by countries, the question is how to avoid repetitions. Beagel (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
As the US operations are significant part of BP operations, maybe we should start an article on BP Products North America, which will consist more detailed information about its operations. It would be similar to the case with other Europe located supermajor Royal Dutch Shell, which has a separate article for its American subsidiary Shell Oil Company. Beagel (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Mentioning environmental, safety record in the lede
How should BP's environmental and safety record be mentioned in the article's lede; what wording would best give due weight to the positive aspects (e.g. renewable energy initiatives) and the negative ones (e.g. Deepwater Horizons oil spill, result of investigations)? petrarchan47tc 01:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Suggested wording
The paragraph that is the subject of this dispute currently reads:
“ | BP has been involved in several major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, considered to be the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change. | ” |
I propose that we substitute it for the following:
“ | While BP and its supporters have cited its stated commitment to practicing corporate responsibility[4], investments in renewable energy[5], and published reports indicating its safety and environmental records outperform the industry average[6][7]; critics such as Greenpeace, George Monbiot, Antonia Juhasz and the Multinational Monitor, have called the corporate responsibility commitment "a fraud"[8], its saftey record "horrible"[9], its alternative energy projects "greenwashing"[10], and its behaviour in the aftermath of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill "shameful"[11]. | ” |
The origninal paragraph just listed a pro and a con of their record and left the two ideas disjointed. I've tried to report the varying views in contrast to one another without crossing over into sythesis, attributing the opinions to avoid weasel words. The references are reliable sources and used appropriately for the facts they are citing in a way that provides due coverage to the conflicting opinions. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- (Or, we could just separate and deal with the two disjointed ideas individually in the Intro, as they are dealt with separately in the article. Intro gives us an idea of what to expect from the article; no one will find an argument or anything combining green energy + accidents/environmental/safety record in the article.) petrarchan47tc 23:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47tc 00:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The prose itself was disjoined. The ideas are related under the field of corporate social responsibility. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, for example, is relevant to both the enviromental and safety records of BP. The Environmental record section actually does combine green energy initiatives, accidents, etc. under one heading. You can only put so much stuff in the lede before it fails to provide a concise overview of the topic. To help reduce it to a concise overview, there's ample justification to mention opposing views of BP corporate responsibility record contrasted against one another, as a prelue to further discussion under various subheading in the subsequent article. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- (Or, we could just separate and deal with the two disjointed ideas individually in the Intro, as they are dealt with separately in the article. Intro gives us an idea of what to expect from the article; no one will find an argument or anything combining green energy + accidents/environmental/safety record in the article.) petrarchan47tc 23:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47tc 00:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right, the prose is disjointed to begin with, that's been my complaint since day 1. Admittedly, I'm still confused by the idea of an 'argument' in the Lede. A point, counterpoint presentation is not something I am used to seeing on Wikipedia. Nothing in the article yet synthesizes the two issues, or mentions them together at all. Even under the Environmental Record section, the green mention seems disjointed. But you make sense: that section can be created, supporting your Intro suggestion.
- Another way to look at what deserves mention in the Intro would be to (zoom out, get the big picture) look at the weight of these two issues within the article, as well as after a cursory internet search, seeing what comes up for "BP, green" and then "BP, safety", for example. The green bit is comparably minuscule in RS and in the article, from my observations. It may be better to begin from scratch rather than play off what may be a POV paragraph and try to make sense of it. Maybe it's best to stay away from arguments in the Lede? petrarchan47tc 02:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Prefer the second. It is more detailed, factual and it is well sourced. LK (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support the proposal by 203.27.72.5 as neutral and balanced. The only thing is that maybe we should remove "and its supporters " as non of them is mentioned and therefore it may qualify as weasel wording. Otherwise, it looks good. Beagel (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The views are attributed through citations. As an example, I don't think it would be very enlightening to name Caroline Wagner specifically. Though on second though, labelling her as a supporter is not a good idea either. Better would be to change the wording to, "While BP has a stated commitment to...and published reports indicate that..." and leaving out the "supporter" bit altogether and letting the reader refer to the sources themselves. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Neither. The proper weight to give BP's internal sources is very low. Weight should be much higher for government watchdog organizations, all of which dismiss BP's positive self-assessment. The paragraph cannot say "BP and its friends thinks it is fine, while its enemies disagrees." This construction is artificially equating the two points of view, though by Wikipedia's measure, the two POVs should be skewed toward the neutral third parties. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that no internal BP sources are cited at all in my proposed wording. The references are all reliable 3rd party news coverage (e.g. news coverage of testimony to the UK parliament on BP's safety record) and one book on corporate social responsibility by an expert in that field. Given that coverage by reliable news sources regarding BP's safety record is a mix of both positive and negative, the paragraph must mention both in order to maintain WP:BALANCE. References to government watchdog organisations would be good too, but we have to be careful to report their findings without synthesis. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I still support Binksternet's point though. We need to have something based on neutral sources. Quite obviously BP will state that they are great and anti-oil environmental sources will state that they are bad. This tells us nothing about BP's real record. We need a neutral source that compares BP's safety and environmental record with that of other similar oil companies, otherwise we must say nothing at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Martin, could you please assist to find that kind of source(s) which is considered neutral and makes this comparison between oil majors? Beagel (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can try but I am no expert on this subject. One comment I have is that sources comparing oil companies, (including those from the oil industry or environmental groups) published before the disaster are likely to be more reliable.Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Martin, could you please assist to find that kind of source(s) which is considered neutral and makes this comparison between oil majors? Beagel (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:Reliable sources are never neutral and WP:Reliable sources may be non-neutral. 149.135.147.23 (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I accept that point completely, especially when so much money is involved. Government sources, which are usually considered reliable, are likely to reflect national interests. However, my real point, and I think that of Binksternet is that it is wrong to use BP sources or generally anti-oil sources, we need to find good quality sources that say that BP's environmental or safety record is better or worse that other similar oil companies. I think I am essentially agreeing with Gandydancer and Rangoon11 below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note that, as I've mentioned elsewhere, none of the sources cited are BP or anti-oil. They are all 3rd party news items bar one which is a book written by an academic in the field of corporate social responsibility. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the problem is that there is no reason that the article needs to offer PROOF that "BP is the worst oil company ever!". Petrarchan's suggested lead does not say that--it says that the Gulf spill was the worst spill ever, which is well-sourced. IMO Rangoon has set up a sort of straw man here based on my words here on the talk page, but I've never suggested that the lead should say that their environmental record is worse than other major oil companies. Here is Petrarchan's suggestion again:
- Yes I accept that point completely, especially when so much money is involved. Government sources, which are usually considered reliable, are likely to reflect national interests. However, my real point, and I think that of Binksternet is that it is wrong to use BP sources or generally anti-oil sources, we need to find good quality sources that say that BP's environmental or safety record is better or worse that other similar oil companies. I think I am essentially agreeing with Gandydancer and Rangoon11 below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I still support Binksternet's point though. We need to have something based on neutral sources. Quite obviously BP will state that they are great and anti-oil environmental sources will state that they are bad. This tells us nothing about BP's real record. We need a neutral source that compares BP's safety and environmental record with that of other similar oil companies, otherwise we must say nothing at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- BP has received criticism for its political influence,[23][24][25] price manipulation,[26] and greenwashing.[27] In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history.[28][29][30] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor[31] and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.[32][33][34]. Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- That wording is wholly unacceptable to me because it is wholly negative, narrow, completely US-centric (2/3rds of BP is outside of the US), recentist (this is a company with an over 100 year history), and highly selective in its use of information regarding safety record (eg those refinery violations refer largely to one BP site, which constitutes a small part of BP America and a miniscule part of BP overall, it is also a site inherited from Amoco and now up for sale; all manner of other metrics could be picked out which show BP America to have a better than industry average safety record even over the past decade). There is simply no way that wording can be regarded as neutral. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- @ Rangoon Of course it's wholly negative, this is intended as a criticism. BP's version is just as important and readers can decide for themselves which version seems more reasonable. That's how WP works. We're generally not supposed to say [as much as] "Bp has a terrible environmental record, but it actually has a very good record." To be unbiased we need to present both versions of the "truth" and let people decide for themselves. We've covered your other arguments several times already. Gandydancer (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutrality_and_verifiability, particularly, "Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance". 149.135.147.22 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, that is an essay, not a guideline. The precedent to ignore essays with regards to this page was set during the DRN in June. petrarchan47tc 04:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutrality_and_verifiability, particularly, "Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance". 149.135.147.22 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- A few points. 1. There is no such thing as "truth" here as these are all inherently subjective (and highly complex) issues. 2. Glad that you accept that that wording is wholly negative, where did you propose the balancing wording go? And why is it not in the draft if that is the proposed text. 3. We are talking about the lead here not the main text and at most we have four to five lines to deal with the whole of safety, environment, CSR etc. 4. It isn't just a case of needing to reflect "BP's version" but that of the reliable third party sources which also make clear these are not simplistic black and white issues. 5. I'm not sure what "We've covered your other arguments several times already." means, perhaps you could explain. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- @ Rangoon Of course it's wholly negative, this is intended as a criticism. BP's version is just as important and readers can decide for themselves which version seems more reasonable. That's how WP works. We're generally not supposed to say [as much as] "Bp has a terrible environmental record, but it actually has a very good record." To be unbiased we need to present both versions of the "truth" and let people decide for themselves. We've covered your other arguments several times already. Gandydancer (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- That wording is wholly unacceptable to me because it is wholly negative, narrow, completely US-centric (2/3rds of BP is outside of the US), recentist (this is a company with an over 100 year history), and highly selective in its use of information regarding safety record (eg those refinery violations refer largely to one BP site, which constitutes a small part of BP America and a miniscule part of BP overall, it is also a site inherited from Amoco and now up for sale; all manner of other metrics could be picked out which show BP America to have a better than industry average safety record even over the past decade). There is simply no way that wording can be regarded as neutral. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rangoon, when a person writes "truth", rather than writing: truth, "inherently subjective" is exactly what they mean. As for only four or five lines to use in the lead, nowhere is it carved in stone that we need use only four or five lines. Actually, if the concept is so complex, as you continue to state (though I don't agree), it would actually be mandatory to use a little more space in the lead to present a full overview of BP's environmental/safety record. Gandydancer (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Neither The reader will not be any more informed about what to expect from the article. I could imagine the second version as a paragraph within the article, though. petrarchan47tc 09:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose To go from calling the Deepwater Horizon oil spill the worst disaster in the U.S. or the largest spill ever to merely calling it "shameful" is not at all acceptable.The lead should not and need not get into a point, counter point argument. It is misleading to present BP as a corporation that has stated it's commitment to practicing corporate responsibility on one side and a few critics calling BP a fraud, horrible, shameful, etc. on the other. To use this sort of language suggests that the criticism of BP is merely the rants of a group of known critics such as Greenpeace, Nader, Monbiot, and a fourth person I assume most people have never heard of. And especially so directly following BP's fair-sounding, supposedly verifiable, wording: "commitment to practicing corporate responsibility[4], investments in renewable energy[5], and published reports indicating its safety and environmental records outperform the industry average". I much prefer Petrarchan's suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - the text proposed by W203.27.72.5 - misleading and far too simplistic. Numerous authoritative third parties wholly unconnected to BP have commented on BP's strong record in the areas of alternative energy, climate change, relative openness about environmental reporting etc.
The safety record issue is hugely complex and multifaceted. Of course Deepwater was a major safety disaster, and there have been issues in the US over the past decade with refineries acquired from Amoco. High quality reliable third party sources can be found however which describe BP's historical safety record as good compared to both peers and industry averages, some parts of it exceptionally good, its record overall in the US over the past decade as good, and even aspects narrowly and directly connected to Deepwater - such as its safety record in Gulf of Mexico drilling - as good excepting Deepwater itself and way ahead of industry averages (I have provided some sources above in the other thread. This [42] I have found a good one on safety as it uses all manner of metrics and looks at both sides, no single source can possibly be definitive on these subjective issues however). Quotes are also deprectated in leads, particularly when used in this type of manner i.e. to make negative or positive value judgements on the topic. This discussion should not be seen as a "pick one of the above" process. Others should feel free to either propose changes to the two texts above, or to propose other wholly different texts for discussion.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- How about:
- BP has received criticism for its political influence[43][44][45] and has recently been involved in a number of serious accidents including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest accidental marine oil spill worldwide. During this period, the company was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.[46][47][48]}}
- This leaves intact the "criticism for political influence" which is well sourced (though some pertinent articles have yet to be added to the body, including those I've referenced), and has reached some level of consensus. The second part has reached full consensus, and is almost identical to the present version on the page (except it reads "several accidents"). The OSHA stats hint at why the investigations were initiated, though "during this period" could be better defined. The final sentence about investigative findings is also well sourced, but the sources have yet to be added to the article (I'm not keen on the grief I may receive for attempting it). It is the summation of the Oil Spill Commission's findings, and that of a 12 year study into BP's accidents and safety violations by EPA lawyer Jean Pascal. So the reader not only gets an idea of BP's record, but a "why" - the result of much investigation. The sources are: Newsweek, CNN, NYDailyNews, ProPublica, UK Telegraph and the New York Times. According to many RS, the US-centric nature of BP's accidents is directly related to the growth spurt by BP in the US during Lord Browne's reign, when he simultaneously expanded BP by buying up other companies, and cut costs, leaving the infrastructure and safety issues to take the brunt of the cost cutting, and this understanding should also be added to the article.
- This could be followed by a 5th paragraph about BP being the first to acknowledge climate change, with "major" investments in green energy "as compared with..." , etc. petrarchan47tc 18:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- In case anyone missed it, I've put together a list of RS comparing BP with fellow oil companies here. petrarchan47tc 19:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is pretty similar to the text which GD copied above and my comments on that text largely apply here too - wholly negative and US-centric and recentist regarding safety. I strongly oppose mention of the OHSA fines in the lead as they largely apply to just one refinery and this is a single very narrow metric. Metrics could be provided which also suggest BP America has a good safety record over recent years.
- The reasons for Deepwater itself are also far more complex than is suggested here with significant factors including contractor and equipment failures and a general failure of the wider industry to develop proper responses to deep water spills (Halliburton oversaw cementing for the well, Transocean owned and operator of the rig, the report stated "The root causes are systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur" etc). A very long Commission report simply cannot be summarised in one or two lines in a neutral fashion.
- [49]Rangoon11 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are not finding it difficult to summarize. One example: "BP bears ultimate responsibility for the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, a key government panel said Wednesday in a report that assigns more blame to the company than other investigations and could hurt its effort to fend off criminal charges and billions of dollars in penalties. The report concluded that BP violated federal regulations, ignored crucial warnings, was inattentive to safety and made bad decisions during the cementing of the well a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico". See also: New York Times BP Shortcuts Led to Gulf Oil Spill, Report Says" As for the OSHA quotation, there does need to be some understanding given that the amount of accidents and safety violations were enough to warrant investigations, which introduces the next sentence. Though this OSHA stat may not the best way to go. petrarchan47tc 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- (One note on my proposal, this wording was in the "long standing" Lede (scroll down) and is much more accurate, "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence." I would revise my proposal to use this wording instead.) petrarchan47tc 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose as an argumentative and wildly undue change (Greenpeace? A group run by Nader? Come on.) that would remove mention of the significant fact of BP's position on climate change, which counters the common claim about oil companies and climate change. I will say that material about BP's position on climate change should be replaced with some better-sourced and original material since it is just a close paraphrasing of a claim in a BP advertorial, but this fact is definitely worthy of mentioning in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
New proposal
- BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence.[50][51][52] The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill was named the largest accidental offshore spill in history. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.[53][54][55] petrarchan47tc 20:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC) NOTE: the information in the links needs to be added to the article, and the links would then not appear in the Intro. petrarchan47tc
- For comparison and links to sources, my original proposal:
- BP has received criticism for its political influence,[56][57][58] price manipulation,[59] and greenwashing.[60] In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history.[61][62][63] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor[64] and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.[65][66][67] petrarchan47tc 21:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The first sentence,BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. This could apply to almost any major oil company. You have no source that says this applies to BP any more than to any other oil company?
- In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US. What about the rest of the world. What about other oil companies? Is there a source which says BP has had more serious incidents worldwide than other oil companies.
- The third sentence,A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance. The cited sources do not constitute, 'A series of investigations' The sentence is far too general and vague. Where did BP take these risks? Just in the USA or worldwide? Only one (not very reliable) source suggests that BP was worse than any other oil company. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The standard for inclusion is not whether BP is better or worse than any other oil company, it's whether the incidents are notable and verifiable with reliable sources, and the presentation must maintain a neutral point of view. 149.135.147.22 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are other factors to consider also such as due weight and recentism. It is generally accepted that Deepwater have a name check mention in the lead though. And I think there is a reasonable consensus for also stating that Deepwater was "the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters". At the present the issues of debate primarily concern whether and how BP's overall safety record be presented in the lead, and whether and how BP's share of responsibility/factors responsible for Deepwater be presented. My view is that the latter should not be included in the lead, as an analysis there is undue and too complex to be done with any neutrality. It is sufficient to state that 1. BP was involved in Deepwater (or this could be stated "was partly responsible for") and 2. that it was "the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters".Rangoon11 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- So, from your comment above, you seem to be saying that you'd be satisfied with just stating something along the lines of:
- There are other factors to consider also such as due weight and recentism. It is generally accepted that Deepwater have a name check mention in the lead though. And I think there is a reasonable consensus for also stating that Deepwater was "the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters". At the present the issues of debate primarily concern whether and how BP's overall safety record be presented in the lead, and whether and how BP's share of responsibility/factors responsible for Deepwater be presented. My view is that the latter should not be included in the lead, as an analysis there is undue and too complex to be done with any neutrality. It is sufficient to state that 1. BP was involved in Deepwater (or this could be stated "was partly responsible for") and 2. that it was "the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters".Rangoon11 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
“ | On 20 April 2010, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in BP's Macondo Prospect caused the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters. | ” |
- And totally leave out any mention of BP's record of corporate responsibility both negative and positive in the lead. Do I understand you correctly? 149.135.147.67 (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would find that much more acceptable. It is a purely factual report of a very notable event; anything about corporate responsibility must, by its very nature, be comparative. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- And totally leave out any mention of BP's record of corporate responsibility both negative and positive in the lead. Do I understand you correctly? 149.135.147.67 (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the new proposal is excellent. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
A statement of fact ("BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence") in the Lede, which sums up a good 30% of the article's contents, is perfectly justified by WP:Lede. It does not have to be "the most" or "the biggest bar none" to be included in the Lede. To preface with "Like all major oil companies, (BP has had some accidents while drilling)" is not needed in the Lede and is in fact, a "yeah but" (POV). This statement was included in the Lede for past year and a half, and has a good level of consensus.
The second sentence is again doing what the Lede is meant to do: give the reader an idea of what to expect from the article. In the last 10 years or so, BP grew rapidly from a sluggish company to a very large, lucrative one. They did that by buying up large companies, with America being a focus of growth (I believe) and for reported, well documented accidents and safety violations. I do have references that show the accidents were caused by their cutting costs while ignoring maintenance and skirting safety regulations (and have left them on this talk page). Ergo, we have a period of notable, well documented accidents by BP in the US recently. Reliable sources do support that the number of accidents and safety violations were far more numerous than other oil companies (I left a list of refs for this in the section above). I hear more oil is spilled in Russia each year than the Gulf spill, but if it isn't documented, it will be hard to include in Wikipedia. If BP was extremely or notably safe and wonderful in some way, in some other part of the world, please bring RS and it will be considered for inclusion. The investigations were: a 12 year study by EPA lawyer in charge of overseeing BP, and US governmental investigations spurred by the Gulf spill. I have no problem with a change to the wording. It would be better to specify "An EPA lawyer found", etc. Also, this information has yet to be added to the article, which is in need of updating in more than a few places. I can get to it soon.
If no one is suggesting some form of "BP is the worst oil company" be added to the Lede, we don't need support for it. petrarchan47tc 20:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- First two sentences (criticism and DW accident) of the new proposal are ok. Concerning the last (third) sentence about taking risks, I share concerns described by Martin Hogbin. Beagel (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- In addition to the Presidential Oil Spill Commission findings, and the EPA lawyer's, internal BP reports support the 3rd sentence. Here is a snippet:
- "A series of internal investigations over the past decade warned senior BP managers that the oil company repeatedly disregarded safety and environmental rules and risked a serious accident if it did not change its ways.
- "The confidential inquiries, which have not previously been made public, focused on a rash of problems at BP's Alaska oil-drilling operations. They described instances in which management flouted safety by neglecting aging equipment, pressured employees not to report problems and cut short or delayed inspections to reduce production costs.
- "Similar themes about BP operations elsewhere were sounded in interviews with former employees, in lawsuits and little-noticed state inquiries, and in e-mails obtained by ProPublica. Taken together, these documents portray a company that systemically ignored its own safety policies across its North American operations -- from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico to California and Texas. Executives were not held accountable for the failures, and some were promoted despite them."
- I am sorry that my work IRL is keeping me from this project right now, I will find time soon to properly add these findings to the article... petrarchan47tc 04:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like undue weight to me to add these 'findings' to the article. Have you mane an equal effort to find positive reports about BP? How you looked for negative comments about other oil companies? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've been attempting to edit the lead since June and Petrarchan since May without any success what so ever, unless it would be considered a success that the lead now mentions the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest spill in history. Now Petrarchan has offered a suggestion that has dropped every one of his inclusions except, "A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance". And still it is being refused! This is not the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. One should always try to not feel angry with other editors but it can be difficult when one feels that some editors are just not playing fair. As far as I can tell, Petrarchan has, after putting untold hours into working on this article, tried everything that has been suggested to move forward to a more reasonable lead. Nothing has happened and at this point I doubt that anything will. In the meantime between now and when the lead is changed to actually reflect the article, I am going to accept Petrarchan's earlier suggestion as the best wording and one that includes the absolute minimum of what should be included. Since it seems that there will be no changes to the lead, I can be satisfied that at least I supported the best possible suggestion. That would be this version:
- BP has received criticism for its political influence,[68][69][70] price manipulation,[71] and greenwashing.[72] In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history.[73][74][75] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor[76] and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.[77][78][79] Gandydancer (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here's my slightly more wikified version of that paragraph:
The plain URL references need to be fleshed out with authors, titles, works, dates, publishers, accessdates, etc. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)BP has received criticism for its political influence,[12][13][14] price manipulation,[15][16] and greenwashing.[17] In the last decade the company was involved in major accidents in the US including the Texas City Refinery explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest environmental disaster in US history.[18][19][20][21] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor[22] and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventive maintenance.[23][24][25]
- What is the point of this discussion? It has consumed considerable time and involved a number of editors, but two or three on one side are simply ignoring the clear consensus displayed and constantly re-proposing the same rejected text in a slightly modified way? Consensus is not unanimity and we are never going to get unanimity here. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- This paragraph was removed by William M. Connolley with the edit summary of "rv: dailybeast not RS. CNN is, but the story doesn't support the text. As per talk page: you need a few good refs, not loads of bad ones." This is a partial complaint, insufficient to delete the whole thing. First off, the Daily Beast article is reprinted from Newsweek; it was written by respected investigative reporter Michael Isikoff and Newsweek senior editor Michael Hirsch. Yes, the CNN article is insufficient and should be removed. Shall we continue with the rest of the sources? That way we can get down to the kernel and mount a proper paragraph that does not contain PR fluff such as an announcement about climate change. An announcement in the lead section? Surely we restrict the lead section to the most important points, and actions of BP—the results of those actions—will be what is important. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- My assumption was that since the first two sources were bad, the rest would be. I think its incumbent on you, when you're reverting back in contested text, to make sure they're good. Can you put forward a proposal with good refs? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I can. I will do so later today. Let's not see the goalposts repositioned afterward, making my effort for naught. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- The issue is not just references, in fact that is a secondary issue. The key points in contention are regarding due weight, recentism and neutrality, as discussed at great length already. I could easily produce a draft which is impeccably sourced which gives a glowing impression of BP's safety and environmental record. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I can. I will do so later today. Let's not see the goalposts repositioned afterward, making my effort for naught. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- My assumption was that since the first two sources were bad, the rest would be. I think its incumbent on you, when you're reverting back in contested text, to make sure they're good. Can you put forward a proposal with good refs? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- To Rangoon11: I would note that "clear consensus" which you claim here is contradicted by the fact that the group of "I don't like it" BP-friendly editors have not come up with a compelling argument. It is logic and the weight of sources which should inform consensus, not a bloc of !voters who fail to convince. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Endless relevant arguments have been made as to why a text such as this is inappropriate. You simply ignore them however and then just re-propose the rejected text. And trying to force this text into the article today by edit warring is beyond the pale for me. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- This paragraph was removed by William M. Connolley with the edit summary of "rv: dailybeast not RS. CNN is, but the story doesn't support the text. As per talk page: you need a few good refs, not loads of bad ones." This is a partial complaint, insufficient to delete the whole thing. First off, the Daily Beast article is reprinted from Newsweek; it was written by respected investigative reporter Michael Isikoff and Newsweek senior editor Michael Hirsch. Yes, the CNN article is insufficient and should be removed. Shall we continue with the rest of the sources? That way we can get down to the kernel and mount a proper paragraph that does not contain PR fluff such as an announcement about climate change. An announcement in the lead section? Surely we restrict the lead section to the most important points, and actions of BP—the results of those actions—will be what is important. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Unaware of further talk page discussion, I reverted William F. Connolly. However, even after reading the discussion it seems reasonable to me. Other than the CNN source, they seem to be OK. Furthermore, I certainly have to agree with Binsternet's statement, "Let's not see the goalposts repositioned afterward, making my effort for naught." Again and again on this talk page we have heard from Rangoon that any disagreement with her opinion is just a waste of time. We all value our time and don't like to see it wasted. Hopefully we can all look to WP policy which dictates that the lead give a summary of the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well it would be normal on a key article big lede change to take a quick peek at the Talk to see what battles are currently underway. :) I would like to hear a little more from William about his difficulties with it, my take is that some of the material is pretty good but I'm not convinced it's all intro-worthy - however, as a general point, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Exxon and other big oil majors are all subject to major controversies concerning not just their environmental records but also political corruption and inolvement in human rights abuses. It may not be NPOV to not include reference to a summary of these in the intros of each article. I note that Royal Dutch Shell doesn't have anything on their serial activities in the murkier zones of forced wars, exploitation and enviro-damage, yet the web contains abundant reference to plentiful examples in all three cases: Shell: [80], BP [81] and Exxon: [82]. It's probably close to censoring to miss this material out in the intro sections. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to see more consistency in the structures of the articles about the misc Big Oil companies (but, I'm not about to do it myself, thats just a hope). As to the "goalposts" stuff: no. Having decent references is a sine qua non, but doesn't of itself make the text acceptable. B offered to propose a text with cleaned-up refs; that seems a reasonable thing to do, and I'll be happy to read it. I'm not at all convinced that the text about political influence can be sustained. The CNN article is irrelevant. Ref #3 [83] is no good either (c'mon, did those who reverted it back in actually read it?). Ref #1 as "daily beast" seems dubious; it might be less dubious as newsweek. However, its all about Deepwater and aftermath, and its just wildly unbalanced since what that showed was BP's lack of influence - after all, the US govt made it clear it was going to ignore the law in going after BP. So, you'll need much better William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well it would be normal on a key article big lede change to take a quick peek at the Talk to see what battles are currently underway. :) I would like to hear a little more from William about his difficulties with it, my take is that some of the material is pretty good but I'm not convinced it's all intro-worthy - however, as a general point, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Exxon and other big oil majors are all subject to major controversies concerning not just their environmental records but also political corruption and inolvement in human rights abuses. It may not be NPOV to not include reference to a summary of these in the intros of each article. I note that Royal Dutch Shell doesn't have anything on their serial activities in the murkier zones of forced wars, exploitation and enviro-damage, yet the web contains abundant reference to plentiful examples in all three cases: Shell: [80], BP [81] and Exxon: [82]. It's probably close to censoring to miss this material out in the intro sections. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is discouraging that this version has been posted for some time now and you are just getting around to objecting to the references when Binsternet edited it into the article. Are you even reading or taking Petrarchan's suggestions seriously? Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is discouraging that people are introducing text which contains clearly spurious references. I haven't bothered to check up exactly who originated it, but the CNN ref is - we are all agreed I think - entirely inappropriate. To me, this smacks of people having a conclusion they want to see, and casting about for stuff that looks vaguely like it supports that conclusion. That is a bad way to work. Anyway, B promised us a new cleaned-up version William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is discouraging that this version has been posted for some time now and you are just getting around to objecting to the references when Binsternet edited it into the article. Are you even reading or taking Petrarchan's suggestions seriously? Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Summary of article body criticism, per WP:LEAD
The WP:LEAD guideline says to summarize all important points covered in the article. If we scan the BP#Environmental record and BP#Political record sections, we can easily support a paragraph in the lead section which says the following:
- BP has been recently criticized for their environmental record based on toxic releases such as oil spills and the dumping of hazardous substances.
- BP promotes their involvement in alternate fuel research, but with only 4% of their research budget invested in that direction the company has been accused of greenwashing.
- BP was fined for safety, environmental and criminal violations such as the Texas City Refinery explosion in 2005, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006, ongoing safety violations and worker fatalities through 2010, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010—the largest accidental marine oil spill in history.
- BP has given money to elect politicians, and they have lobbied for their political interests such as the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
- BP pays 47 lobbyists in Washington, DC.
- BP paid $303 million to end a 2004 charge of market manipulation to monopolize the propane gas market. Subsequent investigations were initiated for similar violations.
Per WP:LEAD, if I write a paragraph containing all that and put it into the lead section, I will not need to cite sources. All of the information is cited in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- What do you think the current wording is? "BP has been involved in several major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters" is a summary. It is just not a long enough or negative enough one for your liking.
- There are fundamental issues of neutrality, recentism and balance which need to be respected.
- This is not standard factual content such as describing the location of the HQ or the date of foundation, but content which addresses areas of great subjectivity and nuance.
- All of your highlighted issues are US-centric and recentist and highly selective. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I chose/selected the largest themes of the critical sections. What you see as "highly selective" is normal summarization. If BP has had a more controversial US presence than global presence, so be it. I'm not going to try and diminish what US observers call the worst or the top ten worst company for this or that metric.
- You know, if you or other pro-BP editors were able to effectively write for the opponent there would be a satisfying conclusion to all this bickering. Instead, the disproportionate rah-rah tone you consistently defend has created a battleground atmosphere. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you could drop the "pro-BP" nonsense, that would be great, and would lead to a happier atmosphere on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are a multifaceted editor with objectivity. Some others are not. Binksternet (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Binksternet it is highly regrettable that you are now resorting to edit warring to try to force your preferred changes to the lead, despite your being well aware not just that there is an ongoing discussion here (and an open RfC), but that in a very long series of discussion there has been no consensus for the type of crude attack content which you are seeking to add.
- What exactly are you hoping to achieve? The next time you attempt this I will request the article be locked from editing. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Regrettable" is in the eye of the beholder. I thought it was regrettable that a very widely observed and commented-upon phenomenon—the Browne era of cost-cutting and risky ventures resulting in a terrible safety and environmental record (which continued after Browne left)—was not being told to the reader. I wish to bring a sense of balance and completion to the article. Such a completion involves bringing in the investigative work of journalists from ABC, CBS, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and so on. It's your personal choice to call these fine sources "crude". Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- The sources are OK, if all rather narrowly focused. It was their attempted use which was so crude.
- I think that there is general agreement that both the Accidents and Environmental record sections require proper overviews of BP's record in those areas in the round. I propose that we focus efforts there rather than on the lead as at present people are trying to summarise something which doesn't actually exist in the article except in recentist laundry-list form.
- In view of the contentious and highly complex nature of the issues the texts should in my firm view be developed on this page prior to being added in the article. I will start new Talk page sections shortly.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is not recentism to describe a problem that began in 1995, continues through recent events, and has resulted in many millions of dollars of fines for huge toxic spills. I focused on the lead section because it did not meet the WP:LEAD guideline; it did not summarize the extensive criticism leveled at BP for more than a dozen years. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are clearly wanting to use this article to promote as fact your opinion that Browne took over as CEO, immediately ordered drastic cuts in safety expenditure, and that those drastic cuts directly caused the Texas City and Deepwater accidents. Apart from being factually incorrect, and not supported by evidence, you seem unable to grasp that this is an opinion. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- That fact is noted in countless articles, how it can be called an opinion is beyond me. I ran into it over and over. If it shows up in RS, then it can be added to the article. Full stop. petrarchan47tc 02:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- "My opinion"? That's rich. I did not even know who John Browne was before a couple of days ago... I don't have any sort of ulterior motive or pre-existing opinion on the matter. I don't eat and sleep BP; I just read reliable sources. I found Browne's name repeatedly mentioned in reliable sources regarding BP's abominable safety and environmental record, the sources agreeing that Browne caused the downward slide in BP's practices beginning in 1995. The "factually incorrect" text I added is a summary of five national news articles from five publishers. I see a consensus on the supposed "opinion" about Browne taking BP down. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- So your knowledge of this topic is so completely lacking that you did not know who Browne was until a couple of days ago, yet have for a considerable period prior been participating in discussing complex issues regarding this article, and making extreme comments such as "BP is the most unhealthy oil company" (sic). You seem to have some fairly major competence issues, to go with your incivil, accusatory and edit warring tendencies. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm proud to say that I am a fresh viewpoint here, that I have been looking at the sources since June 21 but not before. I have looked at the sources and seen what they say; I don't have an entrenched position. I am about as neutral as it gets, here. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- You have been looking at sources since June 21 but only now discover who Browne is? You are making yourself look increasingly ludicrous. "I don't have an entrenched position" - yet you have made extreme comments on this page such as "BP is the most unhealthy oil company" and have tried to add all manner of crude attack content about Browne to the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I guess we'll have to disagree about what my skills are. Prior to writing the Featured Article Port Chicago disaster I had never heard of the event. Prior to writing the Featured Article Henry Edwards (entomologist) I had never heard of the guy. Prior to writing the Featured Article Santa Maria de Ovila I had only casually wondered what all those carved stones were doing scattered in the weeds at Golden Gate Park. I'm a quick study; I am good at summarizing reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia is all about. On June 21 at DRN I looked at this BP dispute, checked out the sources under discussion and quickly zeroed in on the problem. I determined the larger problem was Rangoon11 and, to a lesser degree, other editors preventing negative but very prominently reported information from staying in the article. My first entry to this dispute was me identifying you as the main problem, so of course I can understand that you now oppose anything I bring here. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- You have been looking at sources since June 21 but only now discover who Browne is? You are making yourself look increasingly ludicrous. "I don't have an entrenched position" - yet you have made extreme comments on this page such as "BP is the most unhealthy oil company" and have tried to add all manner of crude attack content about Browne to the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm proud to say that I am a fresh viewpoint here, that I have been looking at the sources since June 21 but not before. I have looked at the sources and seen what they say; I don't have an entrenched position. I am about as neutral as it gets, here. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- So your knowledge of this topic is so completely lacking that you did not know who Browne was until a couple of days ago, yet have for a considerable period prior been participating in discussing complex issues regarding this article, and making extreme comments such as "BP is the most unhealthy oil company" (sic). You seem to have some fairly major competence issues, to go with your incivil, accusatory and edit warring tendencies. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are clearly wanting to use this article to promote as fact your opinion that Browne took over as CEO, immediately ordered drastic cuts in safety expenditure, and that those drastic cuts directly caused the Texas City and Deepwater accidents. Apart from being factually incorrect, and not supported by evidence, you seem unable to grasp that this is an opinion. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is not recentism to describe a problem that began in 1995, continues through recent events, and has resulted in many millions of dollars of fines for huge toxic spills. I focused on the lead section because it did not meet the WP:LEAD guideline; it did not summarize the extensive criticism leveled at BP for more than a dozen years. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Regrettable" is in the eye of the beholder. I thought it was regrettable that a very widely observed and commented-upon phenomenon—the Browne era of cost-cutting and risky ventures resulting in a terrible safety and environmental record (which continued after Browne left)—was not being told to the reader. I wish to bring a sense of balance and completion to the article. Such a completion involves bringing in the investigative work of journalists from ABC, CBS, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and so on. It's your personal choice to call these fine sources "crude". Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are a multifaceted editor with objectivity. Some others are not. Binksternet (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you could drop the "pro-BP" nonsense, that would be great, and would lead to a happier atmosphere on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The following paragraph change appeared to be an improvement, but has been reverted, with a demand to discuss the changes here under this RfC. Present paragraph:
- BP has been involved in several major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters.[18] In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change.[26]
Contested paragraph:
- In 1997 BP became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change.[27]
- Since the management and operational changes implemented in the mid-1990s, BP has been criticised for their environmental record based on toxic releases such as oil spills and the dumping of hazardous substances. BP promote their involvement in alternate fuel research, but with only 4% of their research budget invested in that direction the company has been accused of greenwashing. BP were fined for safety, environmental and criminal violations such as the Texas City Refinery explosion in 2005, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006, ongoing safety violations and worker fatalities through 2010, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010—the largest accidental marine oil spill in history. The company has given money to elect politicians, and they have lobbied for their political interests such as the release of the Lockerbie bomber; they have 47 lobbyists focused on the United States Congress.
The new paragraph summarizes criticical content from the body of the article while maintaining previous information. Are there specific objections to to this? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just dropping into this discussion (haven't looked at it since the first time I commented), I think that's a reasonable paragraph. I would leave out the last sentence though - a lot of big companies spend on lobbying and it's not clear to me that BP's should be considered especially important. I would also replace "fined for safety, environmental and criminal violations" with "responsible for," which is established by the fact that they were fined, and that also avoids any potential contention over the word "criminal." Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- The draft text is very similar to previous texts which have been proposed and rejected and raises many of the same objections, although in a few ways this text is actually even worse. It directly links management and operational changes in the mid-1990s with incidents a decade or more later like Texas City (2005), the Prudhoe Bay oil spill of 2006 and Deepwater Horizon (2010). This is an opinion, and a very narrow and highly debateable one. Each of those incidents had complex causing factors, each highly different.
- The text is completely US-centric. Over 2/3rd of BPs operations are outside of the US, but the text almost exclusively addresses the US.
- The text is recentist, focusing on a five year time frame for safety.
- It is highly selective in terms of information given, giving only information which is perceived to be negative (even the mention of investment in renewables is merely done in a way in which to make an attack on BP). It is so selective and one sided as to be in essence attack-content.
- It gives absolutely no context in terms of comparing BP's safety and environmental record to either peers or industry averages. Not even in the US, let alone worldwide.
- "The company has given money to elect politicians, and they have lobbied for their political interests ...they have 47 lobbyists focused on the United States Congress" - so what? Again this is wholly US-centric. It is also something which applies to most major companies with activities in the US. It is a reflection of America's broken democracy.
- Beyond those fundamental issues with the draft it is also badly written and has factual errors. For example it starts off "Since the management and operational changes implemented in the mid-1990s", without explaining what these are but written as if they have already been mentioned.
- "but with only 4% of their research budget invested in that direction" is fundamentally wrong. I think that what is meant here is perhaps 4% of capital expenditure.
- "dumping of hazardous substances" - presumably this refers to dumping, not by BP but by a BP contractor, in Alaska in 1993 to 1995. BP's involvement was in failing to report the dumping when it learned of the conduct. Coverage of this incident in the lead is again undue and selective, but also contextless and misleading.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rangoon11's complaints are invalid. Many observers link past and present disasters to BP's corporate culture, a culture instituted by CEO John Browne and continued, probably unwillingly, by his replacements. See Talk:BP#BLP concerns regarding Browne material for an extensive list of sources connecting BP's culture of cost-cutting to the various disasters. The Amerocentricity quality of the criticism is perfectly apt: BP's American projects are its most infamous violators of safety and health codes. The negative cast given to BP's very small focus on renewables is perfectly appropriate; even John Browne says in his memoirs that the "Beyond Petroleum" greenwash turned out to be a load of hypocrisy. Many other observers also note that BP's minor focus on alternative energy was but a tiny flyspeck compared to its petroleum business, and that corporate PR to the contrary was a smokescreen. If the paragraph gave any comparison between BP and its competitors then BP would end up looking worse: there's the 760 "egregious, willful" violations of safety and health codes that OSHA found, compared to a total of 19 such violations by all of BP's competitors combined. The 4% number is taken from cited article text, so as a lead section paragraph the article is suitably represented by that number. (If the number is wrong or the context is wrong then change the article body text.) BP's choice of putting contractors in charge of its dirtiest jobs has been noticed by multiple reliable sources, so the Alaska dumping cannot be separated from BP's culture of cost-cutting coming before safety. I think the paragraph is good to go. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your attitude is repeatedly showing an editor unwilling to listen, to discuss, to respond properly to points made by other editors and to reach proper consensus. This text is in no way "good to go". It is wholly unacceptable and is very close to text which has been opposed by multiple editors in very lengthy discussions on the lead. This text is even less balanced and more attack-style than those rejected drafts so is even less likely to be acceptable to those multiple editors.
- This draft represents a highly selective (and inaccurate) use of information to form what amounts to nothing less than attack content. WP is not here to provide a soapbox platform for crude anti-BP campaigning. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- You say "opposed by multiple editors" but I see opposition, led by you, based on entrenched pro-BP positions rather than opposition based on any of Wikipedia's guidelines. What we have under discussion above is a fairly good representation of the WP:LEAD guideline, offering a summary of negative material that is found down in the article body. Could the text be tweaked slightly? Sure. Should the text be deleted in its entirety? Certainly not! I see opposition based on "I don't like it" which does not cut it at Wikipedia. Your continued refusal to include high quality and reliably sourced but negative news articles is astounding. From my first contact with this article two months ago I saw that it would be better for the article's development if you were not involved. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Review of Environmental record section
Removed sentence from Environmental record section
I removed the following from the Environmental record section:
“ | BP has been charged with burning polluted gases at its Ohio refinery (for which it was fined $1.7 million), and in July 2000 BP paid a $10 million fine to the EPA for its management of its US refineries.[28] | ” |
The source it cited [84] in turn cites [85] which was published in 1992, so can't have reported on incidents in 1999 and 2000. Additionally, it doesn't contain the words "burning", "polluted", "$1.7" or "$10" and I can't find any similar incident that it might have been describing. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- For the Ohio refinery charges, I found this reference. petrarchan47tc 07:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- That source is talking about a completely different incident that happened during the Obama administration, but you can go ahead and add something about it using that source. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. Will do. petrarchan47tc 07:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- That source is talking about a completely different incident that happened during the Obama administration, but you can go ahead and add something about it using that source. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- This quotation about the burning of gasses charge turns up quite a bit, actually. Here is one ref. petrarchan47tc 23:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is an opinion, not factual reporting. Also, being "a senior tourism professional and the former Chief Executive Officer of Serendib Leisure Management Ltd., now attached to the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce as Project Director of the Greening Hotels SWITCH ASIA project" does not qualify as an expert in this field, so this is even not an expert opinion." Beagel (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Changed reference
I also changed the reference for the sentence:
“ | BP was a member of the Global Climate Coalition an industry organisation established to promote global warming scepticism but withdrew in 1997, saying "the time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point.". | ” |
The original reference was to [86], which is not a reliable source per consensus on WP:RSN. Now it cites [87] published by the Stanford Graduate School of Business. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Removed sentence
I removed the following sentence from the Environmental record section:
“ | BP is a sponsor of the Scripps Institution CO2 program to measure carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.[29] | ” |
The source cited [88] actually says "This material is based upon work supported by...BP", not that BP sponsor the Scripps Institution itself. The source actually names only the Center for Earth Observation and Analysis (CEOA) and the Comer Foundation as financial sponsors. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Reworded paragraph
I reworded the following paragraph from the Accusations of greenwashing subsection:
“ | BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget, but they have since closed their Solar Programme[30] as well as their alternative energy headquarters in London. As such they invest more than other oil companies, but it has been called greenwashing due to the small proportion of the overall budget.[31] | ” |
It now reads:
“ | According to activist Antonia Juhasz, BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget prior to cutbacks, including the discontinuation of the Solar Programme and the closure of the alternative energy headquarters in London.[32][33] Juhasz claims this amounts to an exercise in greenwashing. [33] | ” |
This makes clear the attribution to Antonia Juhasz and the prose flows nicer. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Removed non-notable award
I removed the following from the Accusations of greenwashing subsection:
“ | BP was a nominee for the 2009 Greenwash Awards for deliberately exaggerating its environmental credentials. | ” |
The awards [89] return no google news hits beyond their own website. The awards seem to be entirely non-notable. Being nominated for a nonnotable award does not merit inclusion. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Removed sentence
I removed the following sentence from the subsection Accusations of greenwashing:
“ | In July 2006, critics pointed to the relative lack of press coverage about a spill of 270,000 gallons of crude oil that spread into the Alaskan tundra, noting this as evidence that BP had successfully greenwashed its image, while maintaining environmentally unsound practices.[34][35] | ” |
This is not supported by either source. One doesn't even mention that spill and the other doesn't point to a lack of press coverage; it actually notes how press coverage caused BP to have to come clean with its shareholders. The source that does mention the spill is an opinion column anyway, and while I've found a better source [90], there's no point in reporting on the spill alone here as it doesn't relate to this sections topic. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Reworded sentence
I reworded the following sentence from the Accusations of greenwashing subsection:
“ | According to Greenpeace, in 2008 BP invested $20 billion in fossil fuels, but only $1.5 billion in all alternative forms of energy.[36] | ” |
It now reads:
“ | Greenpeace has questioned BP branding itself "Beyond Petroleum, citing its 2008 budget which included $20 billion in fossil fuel investment and $1.5 billion in all alternative forms of energy.[36] | ” |
This prose flows better and avoids engaging in sythesis of the source. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Accusations of greenwashing section
I've removed the following paragraph from this section:
“ | In 2008, BP was awarded a satirical prize, the "Emerald Paintbrush" award, from Greenpeace UK. The "Emerald Paintbrush" award was given to BP in order to highlight its alleged greenwashing campaign. Critics point out that while BP advertises its activities in alternative energy sources, the majority of its capital investments continue to go into fossil fuels.[37] BP was also one nominee for the 2009 Greenwash Awards.[38] | ” |
The first sentence is about a non-notable award that has no google news hits and can only be found referenced in primary sources and blogs, the second is just repeating what's already mentioned in this section, and the third is a repeat of a sentance I already removed from above. I reformatted the remaining text into one paragraph. Please note that this remaining text appears to be contradictory, as $1.5 billion is 7.5% of the 2008 budget of $20 billion, not 4%, and the claim that 4% was the peak was published in 2010. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if this is notable, BP was criticized for "greenwashing" the 2012 Olympics. [91] and [92] petrarchan47tc 17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Coverage in multiple reliable sources looks pretty good to me. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Adding this source for later addition. petrarchan47tc 18:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Coverage in multiple reliable sources looks pretty good to me. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Removal of information concerning alternative energy investments and expectations about biofuels
The last paragraph of the Environmental initiatives section was changed without discussion and proper explanation. The previous text was:
“ | BP’s Alternative Energy division began in 2005. They planned to invest $8 billion over a 10-year period. The company has invested a total of $7 billion, $4 billion of that in the United States, and is ahead of schedule. BP plans to have invested all $8 billion by the end of the 2012 and says that it expects biofuels will make up 30% of the gasoline pool by 2030. BP says it views cellulosic ethanol as the energy to watch, noting the biofuel will compete in the market at $80 per barrel by 2022, with a yield 4 to 5 times that of corn.[39] | ” |
The changed paragraph reads:
“ | In BP reports, the revenues for its Alternative Energy business is combined with its Shipping, Treasury and corporate activities. The alternative business is a negligible part of BP's overall value, though the division generates more than a billion in revenues annually.[40] | ” |
That removed all information about the BP's announcement and its estimates about development of biofuels. The previous text was problematic, but the change is definitely not neutral. Moreover, the practice of making potentially controversial changes without discussion, something we have seen several cases during last days, is something we should avoid. Beagel (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note that both the first and second versions were done in edits by Petrarchan47. The second formulation was sumbited with the edit summary, "rmvd redundant/added revenues". 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to alarm you. I added that whole paragraph yesterday, today noticing there is already an Alternative Energy section - which does indeed have BP's announcement, stated almost exactly as I had. So I removed all of it, but only later remembered to check whether the AE section had the bit about cellulose ethanol. Just now I added that part to the AE section. petrarchan47tc 09:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Env lede
Contains:
- In 1991 BP was cited as the most polluting company in the US based on EPA toxic release data. According to the Public Interest Research Group, between January 1997 and March 1998, BP was responsible for 104 oil spills.[133]
However "In 1991 BP was cited as the most polluting company in the US based on EPA toxic release data" doesn't appear to be cited, and 133 (http://savethearctic.com/arctic.asp?id2=3865&id3=arctic&) is a 404. Nor is it clear why picking out one year, 14 years ago, with no context, is a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would say remove it. petrarchan47tc 20:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I believe I have found sources for this: [93] [94] and [95] petrarchan47tc 23:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill section
I believe that this section is not very well structured and has too much information. I have deleted two sections, one re dolphins and whales, though perhaps a new brief mention that relates more to ecological effects in general could be included. I also deleted the info re apparent continued seepage which I think would be best left at the main article. I plan to do a little more restructuring. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please leave them at DWH spill talk page, as a to-do list, just in case the information needs to be added there. petrarchan47tc 01:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
While editing the BP page, I found it difficult to navigate through useful information; such as operations, history, and other useful business info. The sheer passion shown in populating the controversies has led to a situation, where the sections related to the same is as big ( or getting bigger) as the company related information. I do understand the controversies should be outlined, and there is an equal number of people who find that info useful. To that note, could we split the controversies - say from British Petroleum#Environmental record till British Petroleum#Accusations of market manipulation - to a new page. We could leave a small mention in the main BP regarding the controversies - in a para. As a result, due weight-age could be given to populate the future history and evolution. A compromise in short. Your thoughts please. Jean Julius Vernal 20:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- For clarity, in my understanding, Wikipedia articles are about a subject as well as the 'story' of the subject. In this case, the controversies constitute a good portion of notable 'stories' about BP. Some 'company (or special interest) articles' on Wikipedia look more like brochures (like US Army). But that is a gross misuse of this medium (and I realize that wasn't your aim). "Useful business info" is best found on the company's website; links to that are found at the bottom of the article. petrarchan47tc 02:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The controversies do not overwhelm the article, in my opinion. The article is not yet large enough to require splitting; it has about 50k characters of readable prose. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the opinion. Jean Julius Vernal 18:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support - the laundry-list of recent accidents in the US is unbalancing the article and is well suited to a break out article. This article should have an overview section on BP's safety record in the round, putting it in historical context, in the context of its industry, and of peers, worldwide. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Do some internet searches to see what comes up regarding BP, and you will see that we have a challenge here. Most that comes up is very negative, specially right now, with BP stock down 30% since the Gulf spill and the US accusing BP of gross negligence in the Gulf - all this in the past week. There is not a lot of good news coming out about BP, so any editors who simply wish to update this article are going to look like "POV pushers". If in reliable sources, there is much controversy about a subject, its Wikipedia entry should rightly reflect that fact. petrarchan47tc 02:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The inclusion of controversy sections in the article does not make it harder to edit or navigate. It is well-known that any information that is split off from an article is much less read. In an article that is not at all too long, it may appear that to split off controversy is an attempt to conceal negative information from the general reader. Gandydancer (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Daily Beast as RS
According to a RS noticeboard discussion, the Daily Beast does indeed meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable source. Keep in mind too, the definition of RS: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."
- You've misread the report you point to. It doesn't say that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to simply bring sources to the noticeboard if they present a big problem for editors here. petrarchan47tc 03:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- So in future, if someone challenges something as an RS, the person wanting to re-add it should get it agreed *before* reverting it back in William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- It should be discussed here first. The Daily Beast does appear to contain some articles that could be regarded as citeworthy, at least if they are by people considered to be authoritative, etc, but it's one of the many problem areas for Wiki-sourcing in that it also contains lots of low-level opinion stuff - the web is increasingly fragmenting what is considered "news" and "reliable news sites" and Wikipedia has to keep up. We should discuss each source as they get offered. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- So it looks like with Daily Beast, the articles' worthiness as RS as decided on a case by case basis. So something like this, where we have a copy of a document, with BP responding with "We're better now" instead of "This isn't ours" would be considered reliable. Does the fact that other media like Village Voice and Huffington Post refer to it improve RS? petrarchan47tc 01:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Sponsorships
Per standard for major companies I propose adding a Sponsorships section to this article. I propose that it be positioned after the Political record section.
Here is a proposed draft text.
"BP has been actively involved in arts sponsorship in the United Kingdom for a number of years.[96] In 1990 BP began sponsorships of the National Portrait Gallery and Tate Britain.[97] Later in the decade it began additional sponsorships of the British Museum, Natural History Museum, National Maritime Museum, National Theatre, Royal Opera House and Science Museum. Most of these sponsorships have continued unbroken to the present day.[98] In December 2011 BP announced that it was renewing its sponsorships of the British Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, the Royal Opera House and Tate Britain, pledging £10 million over the following five years.[99] BP's arts sponsorships have attracted the criticism of environmental campaigners.[100]
BP has been active in a number of major sports sponsorships. In July 2008 it was announced that BP would be a tier one official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics and Paralympic Games in London, and would also be responsible for providing fuelling facilities for vehicles used during the events.[101] Following the Deepwater Horizon accident Lord Coe, the chairman of the Games organisers, confirmed that BP would be remaining as a sponsor and supplier, stating that BP "clearly have a big issue to deal with and are dealing with it as a world class company. Ours is a very strong relationship and I am delighted they are with us."[102]
Through its Castrol brand BP has been a sponsor of the UEFA Euro 2008 and UEFA Euro 2012 tournaments.[103][104]"Rangoon11 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, although some company articles have a section called "Sponsorship", it is quite problematic as highly promotional. I think that information about notable sponsorships should be added but maybe in History section, not in the separate section. Beagel (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Article introduction: a fresh perspective needed?
Before I outline my suggestions for how to proceed with the introduction, I recognize that as a BP employee my past suggestions for wording of the introduction were (rightly or not) met with skepticism and I hope that my concerns here will be received in good faith and with an open mind.
The major issue as I see it is that antagonism over exact information to add has led to formation of two camps of editors: one that wants a very short summary, and one that wants to insert much detail. Arguably, either position is problematic. From my perspective it is particularly problematic to insert details that introduce bias and I would prefer to find a middle ground that summarizes just the most important information in an accurate and neutral manner.
Given that discussions here have not led to an outcome that either side is comfortable with, I'd like to suggest that outside views are needed from those who have not been involved in discussion so far and who can provide a dispassionate opinion. I propose that we close the current discussion and open a new request for comment, invite relevant WikiProjects and also experienced editors, such as admins or those who are familiar with dispute resolution to participate. If this seems reasonable, I would be happy to start this process. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please make sure your RfC has a clearly stated outcome rather than ideological generalities. One fairly successful strategy is to have editors choose between two versions. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't we already post a request for comment? Gandydancer (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- You know what's funny is that I am not in any one "camp"; instead, I am that "fresh" viewpoint you are looking for. I came upon this dispute at the Dispute resolution noticeboard on June 21 when I looked over the arguments, scanned the edit history, and concluded that an imbalance existed at the article, making it too whitewashed/promotional for BP and not enough critical. That's the fresh perspective. Because of the battleground atmosphere here, I was immediately seen as joining the polarized battle rather than suggesting a solution for it.
- I think the only thing to be done for this article is to block participation by BP promoters and BP critics and let uninvolved people (such as myself) who have not previously studied the topic take a look at all the sources and rewrite it. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- More personal attacks. Please provide evidence for who here is "involved", which I take it to mean has a COI. And what a joke after your comments on this page, including that BP is "the most unhealthy oil company", which reflect someone with a far from neutral and balanced approach. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have not attacked anyone, I have only stated my opinion on what this article needs to move forward.
- Regarding BP being the unsafest and least healthy oil company, the US-based Occupational Safety and Health Administration determined BP to have committed more than an order of magnitude more "egregious, willful" safety and health violations than other oil companies (see ABC World News "BP's Dismal Safety Record"). ABC World News said BP was "breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws and committing outright fraud." That's strong language. It was clear to me after reading that and other critical pieces that BP was outstanding in the field of safety and health violations for workers, and that the health of people who live near toxic spills was the most threatened by BP. I am perfectly comfortable in summarizing investigative news articles by saying BP is the oil company which is the least healthy for workers and the world population. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well that would be a strange approach. Because I've done considerable research (though nothing compared to the work that Petrarchan has done) I would be grouped into a camp of BP critics and be asked to step aside, is that correct? It is hard to believe that that is what you are proposing, but Petrarchan and I have been the only recent critics before you came along, so I don't know who else you could mean. Gandydancer (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is what I am saying but I don't expect that to happen. What would be great is if the battleground atmosphere could be neutralized. We can take incremental steps in that direction rather than my radical suggestion. There's probably one single step which would help immensely. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Safety record overview
I would like to involve other interested editors in the drafting of a Safety record overview section for this article. I propose that this be added ahead of the current Accidents section, with that then becoming a subsection of the new overarching section.
In my view this overview should address the safety record of BP worldwide, where possible compared to industry averages and peers using proper metrics. Highly notable individual accidents should of course be mentioned, but within a wider context. Although there will inevitably be a greater focus on the past two or so decades, and a greater focus on the second than the first of those decades, all events must be placed in a historical context and the section does need to address the fact that BP has a much longer history.
I will prepare a draft text of certain aspects of BP's safety record. I will not be proposing it as finished text for the section, but merely as content which can form a part of it. I would be grateful if others can do the same. This is very much something which will require multiple editors to contribute ideas, facts and references to in order for it to be as comprehensive and neutral as possible. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- This not the History of British Petroleum article where a greater emphasis on pre-1995 operations would be expected. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Why this change from "BP traders" to "BP Products North America Inc. (former Amoco Oil Company)"
Why was this change made when it diverges so drastically from the sources used?
In 2004 the US Justice Department charged several BP traders with conspiring to manipulate and corner the propane gas market. In 2005 a federal judge dismissed the indictment against the traders. BP was required to pay approximately $303 million as part of an agreement to defer prosecution.
Changed to: In 2004 the US Justice Department charged five BP Products North America Inc. (former Amoco Oil Company) traders with conspiring the price of propane flowing through a pipeline that starts in Mont Belvieu, Texas.
Here are the sources: [105] and [106] petrarchan47tc 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is quite natural that journalists do not make a distinction between BP and its subsidiary BP Products North America Inc. However, if you look for the court case filed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, you see that it was filed against BP Products North America Inc. and its traders. Correct information restored and the reference to original complaint is added. Beagel (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- For readers, it is confusing to suddenly hear a novel phrase with no explanation - I had never heard of "BP Products North America" until last night, but there was no further understanding given and just left me confused. I felt like I was being told "This is not really BP" but didn't know what it actually was, other than formerly Amoco, again confusing because the reader has already been told that BP bought Amoco (in the Lede), why are we being reminded in this section?
- I looked up the company, and I added the description I found, "a subsidiary of BP" to the section, in case others aren't aware.
- So, is this the same as "BP America"? I'm still a bit confused. petrarchan47tc 22:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I just read the sources and they both say "BP traders" then it explains the lawsuit was filed against "BP Products North America", describing it as "a Warrenville, Ill.-based unit of London-based BP PLC." I am not comfortable with the change made to exclude mention of "BP traders". Your argument may well be true, that these were not in fact BP traders and that the RS got it wrong, but you cannot add that understanding to Wikipedia without a secondary RS to back it up. Otherwise it is verging on WP:ORIGINAL and it still diverges wildly from the sources. This recent case shines a light on the need for secondary sources at WP, regardless of an editor's expertise in the subject. petrarchan47tc 23:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The PDF showed that the court order used "BP Products North America" interchangeably with "BP" - I think it is much more clear to just stick with "BP". I'm going to change it to fit the references and for clarity. petrarchan47tc 23:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is not original search. The court case filed by CFTC says clearly that it was filed against BP Products North America, while BP is used as a short form of the name. It lists also accused persons (traders) names and their positions–all named as employees of BP Products North America. Also the story by AP says: "In addition to Abbott, Radley and the company itself, other current and former BP Products North America employees who face charges include: Donald Cameron Byers, the unit’s former chief operating officer; Martin Marz, the compliance manager; James Summers, the vice president of natural-gas liquids; and Cody Claborn, a propane trader." So, the sources make it clear that the accused company was BP Products North America. Beagel (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
U.S. Dept. of Justice
- "GMI Ratings Governance Issue: BP Plc", Business Insider, 6 September 2012. The author is GMI Ratings, an independent ratings and research group focusing on corporate governance.
This new source shows the US Justice Department tracing the history of BP's environmental and health violations. It is a profoundly negative salvo:
- "...gross negligence and willful misconduct"
- "BP has an ESG [ Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance ] rating of 'D' due to serious concerns related to environmental and social impacts."
- "...higher accounting and governance risk than 38% of comparable companies."
- "The company has a long record of legal and ethical violations."
- OSHA says BP "has a serious, systemic safety problem in their company"
This new source can help bolster article text about BP's history of willful safety violations. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I added this info to the spill article a few days ago and it really should be mentioned here as well. Here is the DoJ statement: [107] Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
BLP concerns regarding Browne material
The material that Binkster and Xeno are trying to insert appears to be problematic from a BLP perspective as it gives undue emphasis to a single former executive who resigned from the company in 2007. I see a serious problem with inserting into the lede of the article the claim that Browne was responsible for BP's recent environmental disasters and there is also a problem with placing it prominently at the top of the section on the company's environmental record. The bio on Browne is thisaway. BP's article is not the place for hanging up claims about a single former executive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- We also have an open discussion (and RfC) on the lead which editors are failing to respect by simultaneously trying to edit war preferred changes.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Browne instituted changes that affected BP. It is as simple as that. The applicable part of BLP is WP:WELLKNOWN... a company CEO is never immune to negative analysis, and that sort of analysis is exactly what the Guardian, Fortune, the New York Times, Front Lines, the Independent, etc., are all publishing. These voices are highly regarded and they speak in concert; that Browne caused BP to slide downward. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, this is not Browne's bio. Adding this material so prominently in the article is a serious BLP problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, this is about BP's safety record under its CEO and the corporate legacy he left behind. The too-easily misunderstood BLP guideline includes WP:WELLKNOWN. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, this is not Browne's bio. Adding this material so prominently in the article is a serious BLP problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm having difficulty wading through the mixed messages here. Neither your tenative assertion that an edit "appears to be problematic from a BLP perspective", nor the stronger assertion of a "serious BLP problem" appear to be clearly substantiated (and yes, I've read Devil's talk page). It almost appears as if BLP policy is being cited merely for effect, and without justification. Unless you intend on clearly citing an actual BLP violation, can we please not keep frivolously interjecting references to the BLP policy willy-nilly into discussions? And yes, the bio on Browne is thisaway ...so? The BP article is here, and last I checked, Browne has something to do with BP, so expect to see content related to him here. With that silliness addressed, we can move on to legitimate concerns raised about weight and location.
- If I correctly understand what you have written, you take issue with 1) Brown being unduly highlighted by locating him in the lead, 2) Brown's changes, and resultant safety & environment ramifications, are given undue prominence by their location at the top of a section. Without making a judgement on the merit of your two complaints, I can make two observations: First, the material you claimed was improperly located has been purged, rather than relocated. That doesn't appear to be constructive. Second, I note that additional material was also purged with that same edit, yet went completely unmentioned here or in the edit summary. Also unhelpful. Can we try again to edit with a goal of improvement? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- 1. There is a open thread, and an open RfC, on the lead above. And there have been very lengthy discussions on the lead prior, including at DR. If you have comments on the lead please make them there. 2. Please do not attempt to force changes to the lead through edit warring, particularly whilst an RfC is open on it. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Per #1 - I have made comments on the lead (and proposed additions to the lead) to that section, per your suggestion. Per #2 - I haven't, and wouldn't. Experienced editors know that one cannot "force changes" in Wikipedia, regardless. If you are referring to content that I added to the lead, I have removed it; sorry for any confusion, I haven't edited this article prior to today. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- 1. There is a open thread, and an open RfC, on the lead above. And there have been very lengthy discussions on the lead prior, including at DR. If you have comments on the lead please make them there. 2. Please do not attempt to force changes to the lead through edit warring, particularly whilst an RfC is open on it. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- If I correctly understand what you have written, you take issue with 1) Brown being unduly highlighted by locating him in the lead, 2) Brown's changes, and resultant safety & environment ramifications, are given undue prominence by their location at the top of a section. Without making a judgement on the merit of your two complaints, I can make two observations: First, the material you claimed was improperly located has been purged, rather than relocated. That doesn't appear to be constructive. Second, I note that additional material was also purged with that same edit, yet went completely unmentioned here or in the edit summary. Also unhelpful. Can we try again to edit with a goal of improvement? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The material regarding Browne is actually well documented. Some snippets from a bit of research on BP's safety and accidents records:
- The fact that these two accidents — thousands of miles apart, and involving very different parts of BP — took place within a year showed that something was systemically wrong with BP’s culture. Mr. Browne had built BP by taking over other oil companies, like Amoco in 1998, and then ruthlessly cutting costs, often firing the acquired company’s most experienced engineers. Taking shortcuts was ingrained in the company’s culture, and everyone in the oil business knew it. FROM NYT
- Two decades ago, British Petroleum, a venerable and storied corporation, was running out of oil reserves. Along came a new CEO of vision and vast ambition, John Browne, who pulled off one of the greatest corporate turnarounds in history.
- BP bought one company after another and then relentlessly fired employees and cut costs. It skipped safety procedures, pumped toxic chemicals back into the ground, and let equipment languish, even while Browne claimed a new era of environmentally sustainable business as his own. For a while the strategy worked, making BP one of the most profitable corporations in the world. Then it all began to unravel, in felony convictions for environmental crimes and in one deadly accident after another. Employees and regulators warned that BP’s problems, unfixed, were spinning out of control, that another disaster—bigger and deadlier—was inevitable. Nobody was listening. Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster by Abrahm Lustgarten
- Some critics attribute these disasters to Lord Browne's drive to cut costs and expand BP. Lord Browne's successor, Tony Hayward, described it as "a management style that has made a virtue out of doing more for less. Independent UK
- Browne is widely blamed for the drastic cuts of BP’s safety and maintenance program of its oil installations in the U.S. while he was BP’s CEO between 1998 and 2007. The consequence of those cuts were three major accidents in the U.S. Daily Beast petrarchan47tc 23:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Personally I could accept specfic mention of Browne in the context of something like "Some critics have attributed some of the accidents which affected BP America in the decade prior to 2007 to Lord Browne's drive to cut costs and expand BP whilst CEO.". I cannot accept that opinion being presented as a plain fact in WP's voice. I am also firmly of the view that such opinions must be explored in a proper overview of BP's safety record, for which I have started a thread above. I would be strongly opposed to specific mention of Browne in the lead as undue and out of place. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agree about it being undue in the lede and would add that I feel it is also undue to lead with it in the environmental records section since the Deepwater Horizon spill came after his resignation, along with several other environmental hazards, and at least one issue regarding environmental hazards is mentioned that predates his promotion to CEO. The article also mentions a listing in 1991 that cites BP as having a poor environmental record so presumably there have been at least some other noteworthy incidents prior to Browne becoming CEO that could be mentioned so I think starting out that section about BP's environmental record with a mention of Browne is about as bad as putting it in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Personally I could accept specfic mention of Browne in the context of something like "Some critics have attributed some of the accidents which affected BP America in the decade prior to 2007 to Lord Browne's drive to cut costs and expand BP whilst CEO.". I cannot accept that opinion being presented as a plain fact in WP's voice. I am also firmly of the view that such opinions must be explored in a proper overview of BP's safety record, for which I have started a thread above. I would be strongly opposed to specific mention of Browne in the lead as undue and out of place. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Browne is widely blamed for the drastic cuts of BP’s safety and maintenance program of its oil installations in the U.S. while he was BP’s CEO between 1998 and 2007. The consequence of those cuts were three major accidents in the U.S. Daily Beast petrarchan47tc 23:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rangoon11, "some" critics and "some" of the accidents is weak wording and wrong. I have not seen any third party observers who think Browne's cost-cutting was unconnected to safety failures and fines. Similarly, none of these observers separate "some" accidents from others—rather, they point to an overall corporate culture of deferred maintenance and "willful" violations that manifested in all of the accidents. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have raised these concerns at the BLP noticeboard.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- ...And I have responded there with a massive list of writers telling the world that Browne was responsible. Browne himself agrees in his autobiography. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong venue for this complaint. The UNDUE noticeboard (let's say WP:NPOVN) is where this concern should be taken, and even then I don't think a problem would be discovered with neutrality or undue weight. There is certainly no BLP violation; the WP:WELLKNOWN section of BLP is what is applicable here. For crying out loud, the negative information about Browne echoes what Browne himself wrote in Beyond Business, his memoir! John Browne was CEO of BP and he instituted sweeping changes. These changes have been seen as negative by observers from more than a dozen major news outlets and authors. The Browne changes (severe cost-cutting, deferred maintenance, reliance on contractors for dirty jobs) have continued to have a negative safety effect at BP even after he left the company.
- "How BP's Browne Created Culture of Risk, Incompetence", 15 February 2011, Bloomberg
- "Browne's BP cost-cutting led to Gulf spill, book says", 29 February 2012, Reuters
- "Browne censured by US safety panel", 16 January 2007, The Guardian
- "BP's Browne bears responsibility – safety panel", 16 January 2007, ICIS News
- "How the Sun King sank BP: He was hailed for turning round a dying oil corporation. But John Browne laid the ground for this Gulf disaster", 2 June 2010, The Guardian, by investigative historian Tom Bower, the author of Oil: Money, Politics, and Power in the 21st Century
- "July Fourth Outrage: British Gov't Elevates Disgraced BP Boss", 1 July 2010, The Daily Beast, by Tom Bower
- "BP Ignored the Omens of Disaster", 18 June 2010, The New York Times. Quote: "...something was systemically wrong with BP's culture. Mr. Browne had built BP by taking over other oil companies, like Amoco in 1998, and then ruthlessly cutting costs, often firing the acquired company's most experienced engineers. Taking shortcuts was ingrained in the company's culture, and everyone in the oil business knew it." (emphasis added)
- "Why the former BP boss's new government job is beyond parody", 2 July 2010, The Independent. Quote: "But critics have suggested that his [Browne's] determination to bear down on costs at BP, where he was chief executive in 1995-2007, contributed to the company's patchy safety record... Some critics attribute these [post-Browne] disasters to Lord Browne's drive to cut costs and expand BP."
- "Reports at BP over years find history of problems", 7 June 2010, The Washington Post.
- "BP's History of Oil Spills and Accidents: Same Strategy, Different Day", 7 May 2010, CBS News.
- "BP's Dismal Safety Record", 27 May 2010, ABC World News
- Amazon.com book review: Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster.
Two decades ago, British Petroleum, a venerable and storied corporation, was running out of oil reserves. Along came a new CEO of vision and vast ambition, John Browne, who pulled off one of the greatest corporate turnarounds in history.
BP bought one company after another and then relentlessly fired employees and cut costs. It skipped safety procedures, pumped toxic chemicals back into the ground, and let equipment languish, even while Browne claimed a new era of environmentally sustainable business as his own. For a while the strategy worked, making BP one of the most profitable corporations in the world. Then it all began to unravel, in felony convictions for environmental crimes and in one deadly accident after another. Employees and regulators warned that BP’s problems, unfixed, were spinning out of control, that another disaster—bigger and deadlier—was inevitable. Nobody was listening. - Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster, by Abrahm Lustgarten. Quote: "'BP appears to have had a corporate blind spot relating to process safety', [U.S. Secretary of State] James Baker said, taking aim directly at John Browne: 'Leadership from the top of the company... is essential. BP has not adequately established process safety as a core value... While BP has an aspirational goal of "no accidents, no harm to people", BP has not provided effective leadership... Significant process safety culture issues exist at all five U.S. refineries, not just Texas City.'" (emphasis added)
- "A Stain That Won’t Wash Away", 19 April 2012, The New York Times, by Abrahm Lustgarten
- "BP's Sun King Lord Browne reveals his darker side", 8 February 2010, The Guardian. Quote: "Lord Browne has... suggested in his revealing memoirs published this week that his arrogance and a culture of complacency contributed to BP's failure to prevent a huge oil spill in Alaska."
- "BP: 'An accident waiting to happen'", 24 January 2011, CNN Money. Quote: "Browne would define the future of BP, the entire oil industry... John Browne's legacy as CEO would be enormous—for better and worse. After taking over in 1995 he imposed a tough bottom-line mentality, ever focused on cutting costs... Browne's 'decentralized management system and entrepreneurial culture' had 'delegated' safety issues."
- "BP's Troubled Past", PBS Frontline
- "In BP’s Record, a History of Boldness and Costly Blunders", 12 July 2010, The New York Times
- "http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-accidents-past-and-present", 26 October 2010, ProPublica, by Abrahm Lustgarten.
- "Drilling Down: A Troubled Legacy in Oil", 1 May 2010, Wall Street Journal.
- "Former BP chief brought in to axe jobs in Whitehall and save taxpayers billions of pounds", 1 July 2010, The Daily Mail
- "BP Safety Record in Question Following Two High Profile Events", 2007, Maritime Executive
- "For BP, a History of Spills and Safety Lapses", 8 May 2010, The New York Times
- Amazon.com interview with authors Stanley Reed and Alison Fitzgerald regarding their book In Too Deep: BP and the Drilling Race That Took it Down. Quote: "The culture he [Browne] instilled at BP stressed financial performance and risk-taking while paying only lip-service to safety. Even before the end of Browne's tenure at BP in 2007, those shortcomings were revealed by the explosion that killed 15 people at the Texas City refinery in 2005. Tony Hayward vowed to fix those problems, but he was a protégé of Browne, and in the end couldn't do enough to change his predecessor's legacy."
- In Too Deep: BP and the Drilling Race That Took it Down, by Stanley Reed and Alison Fitzgerald. Quote from page 98: "Getting rid of Browne was not enough to fix the entrenched troubles at BP or to restore its reputation... Many experts, adversaries and employees laid the blame at the financially-focused culture that Browne had created... which didn't put enough value on the safe operation of a complex and dangerous enterprise." (emphasis added)
- "BP's Fall From Grace: Disgraced Oil Giant Was Once Favored by Green Groups", December 2010, Green Watch, by Kevin Mooney for Capital Research Center. Describes the media's history of gullibility in believing the positive words of John Browne while ignoring the negative results.
- "BP and Public Issues (Mis)Management", September–October 2010, Ivey Business Journal
- "BP = Beyond Petro-safety", 17 June 2010, The Washington Times. Quote: "...his [Browne's] mismanagement was at fault for massive oil spills in Alaska and a deadly explosion with nearly 200 casualties at a Texas refinery."
- "The Inside Story of BP's Negligence on Oil Safety", 28 June 2010, Esquire. Quote from Mark Warren: "According to [Brent] Coon, both the 2005 disaster and the current hell in the Gulf [the Deepwater Horizon disaster] go back to 1999 and Lord Browne, who was then BP's CEO. It was that year that Browne ordered drastic budget cuts for all BP refining facilities worldwide. Now, refining crude is an expensive proposition, carrying many fixed costs, and so those cuts would come straight out of regularly scheduled reinvestments in BP's infrastructure. Meaning that the moment Lord Browne issued his budget order, BP had given thrown [sic] safety in favor of profit, and it was just a matter of time before something catastrophic happened. Texas City, BP's largest refinery, was first. Deepwater Horizon was next."
- "Five Lessons From the BP Oil Spill", 3 June 2010, Harvard Business Review
- "BP's Bubbling Cauldron: Some unattended HR issues regarding culture and leadership may have contributed to the Deepwater Horizon's tragic explosion and spill.", 1 March 2011, Human Resources Online. Quote: "...John Browne's focus on numbers, set the tone for the company, with shareholder value being the ultimate goal, often to the detriment of safety."
- "The Real Scandal At BP", 13 May 2007, Bloomberg Businessweek. Quote: "John Browne's exit in disgrace from BP last week... likely is due to the conflict between how he actually managed the company and the public principles he claimed were the essence of BP's corporate character. Tragic mishaps in safety, environmental lapses, and questionable competitive maneuvers—not his lifestyle—eroded the company's self-righteous advertising image and Browne's legitimacy to lead."
- "Previous BP Accidents Blamed On Safety Lapses", 6 May 2010, All Things Considered, PBS. Despite Browne's having promised to address safety issues, "BP fought to deflect blame down the chain of command while denying there were any larger issues about the company's corporate culture and its approach to safety."
- I cannot see any concerns related to BLP in telling the reader that Browne was responsible for taking BP into an era of cost-cutting and safety violations. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- At first glance an impressive looking list of sources. Upon closer inspection rather flaky though. For example the Harvard Business Review sounds high quality, but what we actually have is a blog entry. And it doesn't actually state what it is being used in support of (one thing that it does include which is interesting is that "For years, the sustainability community has praised BP as best-in-class.".Rangoon11 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- The NPR source also does not support the claim made specifically about Browne ("BP management" does not equal "John Browne" in a $400 billion turnover multinational): [108].
- Quotations from people like Brent Coon (lead lawyer who sued BP on behalf of the families of the workers who injured and killed at Texas City) also need to be taken with a few lorry loads of salt.
- These are the sort of issues which arise when editors go searching for sources to support a pre-conceived view, rather than doing open-minded research with a view to produce neutral content.
- I should add that the patchy nature of the sources above does not change my own view that mention of the opinions about Browne's responsibility is acceptable, but subject to the caveats which I have mentioned earlier. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- The Harvard Business Review article is an op-ed piece written by Andrew Winston, an author who has previously written about BP in his book Green To Gold. Winston is an expert on the topic.
- Anybody with reading comprehension skills can see that the NPR piece juxtaposes Browne's promise to improve BP's safety with the subsequent battle to "deflect blame down the chain of command". NPR's quote of Brent Coon raises his level as a source for reliable information about BP. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Coon is clearly an interested party so if quoted in this article it would have to be stated what his role was in the Texas City litigation. Readers can then make up their minds about the reliability of his comments.
- The HBR article does not make the statement about Browne which you claim it does. You are inferring something extra from the text which is not stated in it. But since you have so much respect for Winston I assume you will be happy for his explicit statement that "For years, the sustainability community has praised BP as best-in-class." be included in this article?Rangoon11 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Coon is also raised up by Esquire editor Mark Warren who quotes him regarding Coon's strong opinions about BP's corporate culture and the post-Browne accidents that may be laid at Browne's feet. Coon is further raised by an interview by Tim Webb for The Guardian. Abrahm Lustgarten uses Coon as a reliable source in Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. Tom Bower uses Coon as a reliable source in Oil: Money, Politics, and Power in the 21st Century. Coon is cited straight up in more books: Chao, petróleo (in Spanish), Poisoned Legacy: The Human Cost of BP's Rise to Power, In Too Deep: BP and the Drilling Race That Took it Down, Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding, and Barbarians of Oil: How the World's Oil Addiction Threatens Global Prosperity.
- Regard Winston's statement about early praise for BP's sustainability projects, you would not want to misrepresent Winston by quoting him out of context, right? Misrepresenting a source violates the pillar of NPOV. Winston's context is that BP was praised at one time but soon BP was seen to have "reduced its investment in renewable energy to a negligible percentage of sales and profits." Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Since you didn't answer the question (as usual) I will repeat it - I assume you would be happy for Winston's explicit statement that "For years, the sustainability community has praised BP as best-in-class." be included in this article? That BP's sustainability activities were viewed in this way for an extended period is clearly highly significant. Surely you wouldn't want to censor such an important statement from someone you regard as such an expert, and given in what you regard as such a high quality source?
- That Coon is quoted does not mean he is neutral or is even being presented as such by sources. Coon is widely quoted in respect of BP because he played a key role in a high profile litigation involving BP. Coon is not, as regards BP, being quoted as a neutral expert on oil industry safety standards. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with any reliable source being quoted as long as it is the proper context is provided. It would be perfectly legitimate to point out that BP was once thought of as best-in-class in terms of green initiatives in the oil industry. Naturally, the context would have to be continued to say that BP has since fallen from that pedestal. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Alleged attempts to force changes to article through edit warring, and resultant revert warring
Binksternet is repeatedly attempting to force changes to this article through edit-warring of the most cynical and contemptuous kind.
Adding attack content on living person John Browne which has been reverted on multiple occaisons by multiple editors, and which is the subject of two open discussions.
And adding a large amount of attack content to the lead, despite the lead having the subject of very lengthy discussions involving multiple editors, a long DR process, and despite there being an open RfC on the specific issue of the lead.
Binksternet cannot deny knowledge of any of these discussions, having actually participated in them.
I move that this article be locked from editing until Binksternet commits to not edit war futher in contempt of open discussions and proper process. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- At User talk:Rangoon11#Disruptive reversions at BP I have requested Rangoon11 to step back from the battleground attitude and allow high quality reliable sources to be used in developing the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can I see a link to the above-mentioned "attack content on John Browne" please? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Platts, Russian supreme court backs antitrust fines against TNK-BP, 26 May 2010, accessed 1 June 2010, Nadia Rodova, http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews.aspx?xmlpath=RSSFeed/HeadlineNews/Oil/8751289.xml
- ^ "The Baku Ceyhan Pipeline: BP's Time Bomb". Gnn.tv. Archived from the original on 2008-12-16. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ Sherman Joins Amendment to Block Funds For Railroad Route Bypassing Armenia - June 14, 2006
- ^ Wagner, Caroline (2008). The New Invisible College: Science for Development. Brookings Institution Press.
- ^ Dixon, Darius (7 August 2012). "Obama administration moving on seven renewable energy projects". Retrieved 27 August 2012.
- ^ Pearce, Jeannie (1 August 2012). "Is Chevron The Right Stock For Your Portfolio?". Seeking Alpha. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
- ^ Kemp, Danny (16 September 2010). "BP boss defends safety record to British MPs". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
- ^ Monbiot, George (13 June 2006). "Behind the spin, the oil giants are more dangerous than ever (column)". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
- ^ Veneziani, Vince (2 June 2010). "BP's Horrible Safety Record: It's Got 760 OSHA Fines, Exxon Has Just 1". Business Insider. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
- ^ Pearce, Fred (20 November 2008). "Greenwash: BP and the myth of a world 'Beyond Petroleum'". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
- ^ Lomax, Alyce (1 August 2012). "Now this is a worthwhile investment idea". Daily Finance. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
- ^ [109]
- ^ [110]
- ^ [111]
- ^ [112]
- ^ [113]
- ^ [114]
- ^ a b "Gulf Spill Is the Largest of Its Kind, Scientists Say". New York: New York Times. 2 August 2010. Retrieved 24 August 2012.
- ^ [115]
- ^ [116]
- ^ [117]
- ^ [118]
- ^ [119]
- ^ [120]
- ^ [121]
- ^ "BP tackles climate change threat with £200m boost for energy efficiency". London: The Telegraph. 25 October 2005. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
- ^ "BP tackles climate change threat with £200m boost for energy efficiency". London: The Telegraph. 25 October 2005. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
- ^ "bp: Beyond Petroleum?". Uow.edu.au. Retrieved 5 Jun. 2010.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help)[dead link] - ^ "Scripps Institution". Scrippsco2.ucsd.edu. Retrieved 5 Jun. 2010.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help) - ^ BP turns out lights at solar business | Reuters
- ^ Interviewer: Amy Goodman, Guest: Antonia Juhasz (5 May 2010). "BP Funnels Millions into Lobbying to Influence Regulation and Re-Brand Image". Amy Goodman's Weekly Column. Democracy Now.
{{cite episode}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|serieslink=
(help) - ^ BP turns out lights at solar business | Reuters
- ^ a b Interviewer: Amy Goodman, Guest: Antonia Juhasz (5 May 2010). "BP Funnels Millions into Lobbying to Influence Regulation and Re-Brand Image". Amy Goodman's Weekly Column. Democracy Now.
{{cite episode}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|serieslink=
(help) - ^ Monbiot, George (13 June 2006). "Behind the spin, the oil giants are more dangerous than ever (column)". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 26 April 2010.
- ^ "BP beyond petroleum? Not just yet". The Scotsman. 26 October 2005. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
- ^ a b Carbon Scam: Noel Kempff Climate Action Project and the Push for Sub-national Forest Offsets Sub-prime carbon brought to you by AEP, BP, and Pacificorp, Greenpeace 10/2009 pages 4–5
- ^ "BP wins coveted 'Emerald Paintbrush' award for worst greenwash of 2008". Greenpeace.org.uk. 22 December 2008. Retrieved 1 May 2010.
- ^ "BP – nominated for green spin on the activities of the company". Climategreenwash.org. Retrieved 5 Jun. 2010.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help)[dead link] - ^ BP eyes wind, biofuels in alternative energy - MarketWatch
- ^ Don't Laugh At BP's 'Green' Side - Forbes