Binksternet (talk | contribs) →QQ lede: fooling yourself |
→QQ lede: question |
||
Line 1,016: | Line 1,016: | ||
:::Trying to source reliable fact about BP from US business books aimed at the airport market is a bit like trying to source info on the Queen from Hello magazine or on GE from Noel Tichy but thats your preference. There is a valid point about management culture and approach to costs and risks of course. But more credible commentary would help. --[[User:BozMo|BozMo]] [[user talk:BozMo|talk]] 19:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
:::Trying to source reliable fact about BP from US business books aimed at the airport market is a bit like trying to source info on the Queen from Hello magazine or on GE from Noel Tichy but thats your preference. There is a valid point about management culture and approach to costs and risks of course. But more credible commentary would help. --[[User:BozMo|BozMo]] [[user talk:BozMo|talk]] 19:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::Fool yourself if you must, but the books include high quality scholarly texts from Cengage Learning, Macmillan and Princeton. Credible sources are all I've listed... there are no unbelievable or unlikely ones. A good effort, though, on your part, to undermine this extensive list. Better luck next time. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 20:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
::::Fool yourself if you must, but the books include high quality scholarly texts from Cengage Learning, Macmillan and Princeton. Credible sources are all I've listed... there are no unbelievable or unlikely ones. A good effort, though, on your part, to undermine this extensive list. Better luck next time. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 20:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::As it happens these days producing vaguely relevant lists of book reviews is a job which can be done with a robot. However, even in the dumbed down world of modern university that will get little credit towards making a coherent place. So, I ask you a question. Which of these books (not book reviews) have you actually read? Could I have a cogent and relevant passage from a couple of the better ones? Not that it matters to the article of course since I agreed at the outset that there was involved in several major incidents, I was just making the point that you were thinking about smallish US ones; and I have also not disputed that these three should be mentioned although too many column inches are given to Texas and Prudhoe. Funnily I would argue for more coverage of Deepwater (which in financial terms at least was a hundred to a thousand times bigger than the others) but no doubt you'll find a reason to disagree with that as well. --[[User:BozMo|BozMo]] [[user talk:BozMo|talk]] 20:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Torrey Canyon == |
== Torrey Canyon == |
Revision as of 20:18, 18 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
"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)
- The "Political record" section is essentially just (another) "controversies" section which has been filled up with context-less and crude attack content. Why don't you want to add mention of the pipeline to either the history or operations section?Rangoon11 (talk) 20:37, 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.[1] 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 [2] appears to have no clear status - essentially, it is just some blokes opinion and fails WP:RS. I don't think [3] 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 [2] appears to have no clear status - essentially, it is just some blokes opinion and fails WP:RS. I don't think [3] 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 [4]. 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. [5] 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 [6] 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: [7] 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)
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)
- Now done. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:21, 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)
- No, we should not start such an article. BP and Amoco merged in 1998; there is no separation now. BP's operations are global as are their headaches. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- So we should not have more detailed articles about the major subsidiary companies? In this case, what about BP Canada? Merging into BP? Could you please elaborate your point of view little bit more? Beagel (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just a question, what percentage of BP is BP Canada? A subsidiary make me think of a smallish division. BP America is one third of BP. If there is a "BP" separate from "BP America", where is it located and what percentage of BP's operations exist there? Thanks. petrarchan47tc 01:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Beagel, Shell is significantly different in that Shell USA operated substantially independently of its parent company for decades. On the other hand, once BP and Amoco merged there was nothing like this sort of independence. From that point forward, the BP CEO was often in North America acting prominently as the head of the company. Profits and risks were assumed by BP. Today, even BP corporate uses the name "BP" to describe its operations in the USA, not "BP America" or "BP Products North America" or "BP USA". To indicate USA-based BP operations they use the phrase "BP in the United States". The only time the designation "BP Products North America, Inc." is used is when there is a legal situation specific to national or regional courts, courts that have no sway over a multinational corporation. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 12 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)
- Makes sense. Beagel (talk) 06:30, 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 [8] 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[9][10][11] 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.[12][13][14]}}
- 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.
- [15]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.[16][17][18] 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.[19][20][21] 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,[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 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,[34][35][36] price manipulation,[37] and greenwashing.[38] 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.[39][40][41] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor[42] 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.[43][44][45] 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: [46], BP [47] and Exxon: [48]. 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 [49] 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: [46], BP [47] and Exxon: [48]. 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)
- I agree 100% with Binksternet's final comment. petrarchan47tc 07:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear, I agree with Rangoon11. "WP is not here to provide a soapbox platform for crude anti-BP campaigning." I have no strong feelings about BP. Based on only recently coming to the article, my impression is strongly that there are a couple of editors trying to unbalance the article towards criticism in a way which is completely inappropriate and outside WP guidelines. It looks like it may have been happening for a little while. Undue weight is being given all over the place to even minor negative comments with poor sources. This bias is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article about one of the world's largest multinationals. I suggest the two editors who appear to have strong personal feelings about BP stand back and wider participation is invited to try to balance the article. --BozMo talk 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- "there are a couple of editors trying to unbalance the article towards criticism in a way which is completely inappropriate and outside WP guidelines" --BozMo
- Could I ask you to substantiate that comment about editors? I've reviewed recent edits, and it appears to me that editors are trying to balance the article in accordance with WP guidelines by incorporating missing encyclopedic information, which directly contradicts your observation. I would like to know what specific comments or edits indicate to you a desire to "unbalance" the article; I seem to be missing it. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear, I agree with Rangoon11. "WP is not here to provide a soapbox platform for crude anti-BP campaigning." I have no strong feelings about BP. Based on only recently coming to the article, my impression is strongly that there are a couple of editors trying to unbalance the article towards criticism in a way which is completely inappropriate and outside WP guidelines. It looks like it may have been happening for a little while. Undue weight is being given all over the place to even minor negative comments with poor sources. This bias is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article about one of the world's largest multinationals. I suggest the two editors who appear to have strong personal feelings about BP stand back and wider participation is invited to try to balance the article. --BozMo talk 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree 100% with Binksternet's final comment. petrarchan47tc 07:07, 16 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 [50] in turn cites [51] 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 [52], which is not a reliable source per consensus on WP:RSN. Now it cites [53] 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 [54] 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 [55] 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 [56], 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. [57] and [58] 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)
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)
Splitting the controversy related sections into a new page
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)
- Exactly! Negative information must not be shoved into a criticism ghetto and forgotten. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- support in opposition to the conspiracy theory just above William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone that's been around the Wikipedia block a few times knows very well that the moving of controversy to a different article is a common form of attempt to "fix" an article. In fact, it is almost a given that someone will come along and suggest a split. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your logic is faulty. "bad things have happened in the past" does not imply "this is a bad thing" William M. Connolley (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone that's been around the Wikipedia block a few times knows very well that the moving of controversy to a different article is a common form of attempt to "fix" an article. In fact, it is almost a given that someone will come along and suggest a split. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 11 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.[59] In 1990 BP began sponsorships of the National Portrait Gallery and Tate Britain.[60] 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.[61] 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.[62] BP's arts sponsorships have attracted the criticism of environmental campaigners.[63]
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.[64] 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."[65]
Through its Castrol brand BP has been a sponsor of the UEFA Euro 2008 and UEFA Euro 2012 tournaments.[66][67]"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)
- It is standard content appearing in thousands of high profile articles and is an area of the company's activities which has received quality third party coverage. How would you propose integrating it into the History section?Rangoon11 (talk) 13:20, 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)
- I am happy to support Arturo's suggestion. However putting up two drafts to "pick" from is simplistic and has wholly failed as an approach in the current, still open, RfC. It is not an approach I support.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't we already post a request for comment? Gandydancer (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes and it's still open. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:31, 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)
- If the criteria of "fresh" viewpoint and not involvement is only joining the dispute during DRN procedure or later, all editors here but petrarchan47 and Rangoon11 qualify for this. Beagel (talk) 15:33, 11 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)
- I don't like being put in a position where I feel I need to defend my editing of this article. Like Binksternet, I came to this article and was concerned about the whitewashing in the lead. I took a look at the edit history and it was my impression that Rangoon was responsible for the extreme bias that I was finding. Right from the start she has called my suggestions personal attacks, edit warring, against some policy or another, and a waste of time. It's hardly fair to say that because I have stood my ground that I have helped to create a battleground atmosphere here and that the article would be better off if I would just back away. I find Rangoon responsible for the fact that this article still does not have a lead that reflects Wikipedia guidelines and I refuse to accept the suggestion that I should share responsibility for the deadlock here. Gandydancer (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even when piously defending yourself and trying desperately to grab hold of some moral high ground you can't help but make even more personal attacks. It is those whose sole interest in this article is adding and puffing up negatives about BP who have and continue to poison this talk page. They are also the ones showing a complete contempt for open talk page discussions, RfCs and the views expressed by multiple editors.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have come late to this section and find that I am being labeled a "BP critic", with which I take huge issue. While I agree that this same group of editors who attempted to discuss the Lede over the summer doesn't show promise of making headway, and could use more unbiased editors to join in, my edits have NOT been from a standpoint of criticizing BP. I am criticizing what I see as spin in the Lede as well as the article (mainly by what is omitted or the slight changes of wording, subtle though, compared to the last paragraph of the Lede). I have updated this article with information that goes both ways and that is well documented. Though the news about BP lately has been quite negative, and no one should be criticized for adding it. I am PRO Wikipedia, and my impetus for trying to fix the Lede comes not from some hatred for an oil company, but rather for a love of the encyclopedia and a distain for propaganda and misuse of this medium, which is run by and exists for the "little guy" - the people. There are inexplicable things going on at this page, where a simple addition with ample RS turns into what looks like a court case on the talk page. At some point, this nonsense may very well attract attention that BP may not appreciate. petrarchan47tc 23:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Very well said. I take back my "BP critic" label. Your final comment sounds like the Streisand effect is liable to come into play for BP if their promoters continue pushing such an obvious agenda. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- You have no reason to apologize, you were not the one who named me nor did I feel as if you were referring to me. The idea that this activity could hurt BP comes from a read of the WP page on COI editing (though I am not accusing anyone at this time). This is something to consider: "COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment for the individuals and groups being promoted." and from the footnote, "Wikipedia is a very public forum, and news of what occurs here is frequently reported in the media. "Anything you say here and anything you do here can have real world consequences." I am NOT claiming anyone is being paid or COI editing - I have no way of knowing that, but I do feel this section from the COI page could still be relevant to our experience here. I also wonder if it's too much to ask at this point for editors who hold stock in BP sit out these discussions, as we have such a problem agreeing on NPOV as it is. Just a thought. petrarchan47tc 01:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone editing here while holding stock in BP is of course under a conflict of interest. Such editors should stay on the talk page rather than make content changes to the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not really, millions of people own BP shares directly and indirectly. And in the case of a company of this scale, and which is covered so heavily across the mainstream media as a whole, the likelihood of any editing behaviour on this article, even hundreds of edits, having any effect whatsoever on the share price is also essentially nil. There is therefore no reasonable expectation of deriving monetary benefit from editing here. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Quite. You might equally well ask all citizens of the US to step aside from editing the article in view of the involvement of their government in legal actions against BP. I do not currently hold BP shares by the way and agree Wikipedia has no chance of affecting the share price. --BozMo talk 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not really, millions of people own BP shares directly and indirectly. And in the case of a company of this scale, and which is covered so heavily across the mainstream media as a whole, the likelihood of any editing behaviour on this article, even hundreds of edits, having any effect whatsoever on the share price is also essentially nil. There is therefore no reasonable expectation of deriving monetary benefit from editing here. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone editing here while holding stock in BP is of course under a conflict of interest. Such editors should stay on the talk page rather than make content changes to the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- You have no reason to apologize, you were not the one who named me nor did I feel as if you were referring to me. The idea that this activity could hurt BP comes from a read of the WP page on COI editing (though I am not accusing anyone at this time). This is something to consider: "COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment for the individuals and groups being promoted." and from the footnote, "Wikipedia is a very public forum, and news of what occurs here is frequently reported in the media. "Anything you say here and anything you do here can have real world consequences." I am NOT claiming anyone is being paid or COI editing - I have no way of knowing that, but I do feel this section from the COI page could still be relevant to our experience here. I also wonder if it's too much to ask at this point for editors who hold stock in BP sit out these discussions, as we have such a problem agreeing on NPOV as it is. Just a thought. petrarchan47tc 01:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Very well said. I take back my "BP critic" label. Your final comment sounds like the Streisand effect is liable to come into play for BP if their promoters continue pushing such an obvious agenda. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 12 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)
- Reiterated here:
- I will try to post some text up in the next day or two. I want to be clear though that I will not be proposing it as the whole text for the section, but merely part of it. That is why I have invited others to assist, I am clear that a decent, comprehensive text which is as neutral as possible will require the contributions of more than one editor. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Should I assume that this proposed text will not be forthcoming anytime soon? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Reiterated here:
- Yes I do still intend to do this shortly, thanks for the prompt.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:09, 18 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: [68] and [69] 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)
We cannot possibly separate BP from "BP America" or "BP USA" or "BP Products North America". BP is the central topic here. BP is a global company with global problems; the huge problems in North American cannot be shunted off to the side in an attempt to make BP look nicer. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- That is true that activities of a subsidiary company can't be fully separated from the parent company. However, on the other hand removing information about the exact company involved in this case is not NPOV. Hugh problems in North America may be true; however, this case is a separated case which according to the court documents is limited to the BP Products North America. It says nothing about the parent company being involved or even aware of the traders' actions. And even more, the case was dismissed by US courts. If this is a problem, I don't knew. I personally have been raised in spirit to respect the court, at least in the democratic countries. Beagel (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- No effing way are we going to clean up the BP article by removing North American material. Amoco and BP merged in 1998; from that time forward Amoco's legacy became BP's business. The two cannot be dealt with separately here. They can only be separated artificially by national or smaller jurisdictions that have no authority over a global company. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you probably misunderstand the issue. As far I understand nobody suggested to remove North American material. If you have another information, please provide diffs. The issues are mentioning the exact company name (and yes, to be encyclopaedic, it should be mentioned), and if this paragraph belongs here at all as the court dismissed all accusations. I don't have strong feelings about the second, but WP:WEIGHT should be considered here in the context of the whole subject. Also, having a laundry list is not the way to create a good article. Beagel (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do wish you would have made this change and argument while 203 was still here - which is when I re-added this section after someone had removed it. Everyone was silent about my edit when 203 was here. Now it's being argued that a primary source (court document) wording take precedent over reliable secondary sources - which is NOT how Wikipedia works. I will see if 203 can stop and comment about this, and if s/he is busy I will seek an unbiased second opinion elsewhere.
- The story of the accusations and subsequent court findings is perfectly acceptable for this article, whether a judge found them innocent or not, BP for some reason paid over $3 Million to defer charges, and that is all I've attempted to add to article, using the language found in reliable secondary sources.
These are the sources cited, their wording, and the two versions of this story:
Primary source
- Court case wording "1. As is more fully alleged below, Defendant BP Products North America, Inc. ("BP" or "Defendant"), by and through it's employees, including but not limited to....(lists specific traders)" From PDF via Beagle
Secondary sources
- MSNBC "The Commodity Futures Trading Commission said Wednesday that BP traders — with the consent of senior management — “purchased enormous quantities of..." and "BP denied any wrongdoing, but a former employee admitted taking part in a conspiracy and agreed to cooperate with criminal prosecutors...."
- Houston Chronicle"...dismissal of charges against four former BP propane traders" and "The decision is unlikely to change an agreement BP made with the government to pay $303 million in fines to avoid charges."
My version:
- "The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused several BP traders with conspiring to manipulate and corner the propane gas market in 2004.[256][257][258] In 2007, BP paid approximately $303 million in restitution and fines as part of an agreement to defer prosecution.[259] In 2006, one former trader pleaded guilty.[257] In 2007, four other former traders were charged; however, charges were dismissed by an U.S. District Court in 2009. The dismissal was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011.[258]"
Beagle's version (presently on page, after reverting mine several times):
- The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused the BP Products North America Inc. (subsidiary of BP plc; former Amoco Oil Company) traders with conspiring the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2004.[265][266][267] In 2007, BP paid approximately $303 million in restitution and fines as part of an agreement to defer prosecution.[268] In 2006, one former trader pleaded guilty.[266] In 2007, four other former traders were charged; however, charges were dismissed by an U.S. District Court in 2009. The dismissal was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011.[267]
From what I can see, "BP Products North America, Inc." is used in the court document interchangeably with "BP", and all secondary RS refer to this as "BP traders", and as a case against "BP". I cannot see how this present version fits Wikipedia's penchant for secondary sources, and for keeping things more simple so that non-industry insiders understand what they are reading. If one feels a need to add that the court documents refer to not only BP but more specifically BPPNA, I don't see how it improves the article, but also have no problem with it. But to argue the words "BP traders" appear no where in the section does not seem NPOV at all.
Are we attempting to deflect blame from BP, and to tell a new story (an argument not found in any RS) here at Wikipedia ("it wasn't BP traders, it wasn't even actually BP, really... and plus it USED to be Amoco, so...")? That is NOT how this works and I feel confident everyone here is well aware of it. petrarchan47tc 22:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- We cannot be trying to deflect blame from BP that is attributed to them by reliable secondary sources such as MSNBC, Houston Chronicle, etc. Any attempt to recast BP as some other entity is misleading and violation of NPOV. I will restore the name "BP" to re-align this section with NPOV and WP:SECONDARY. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Beagle, this encyclopedia likes secondary sources, you have again added your own take, diverging from RS.
- With this in the intro "British Petroleum merged with Amoco", why does the reader get reminded again in this section? Please explain your thought process. petrarchan47tc 04:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody is deflecting flame as it is still the part of BP as a group, although I don't understand what blame you are talking about as all court cases are dismissed. At the same time, removing completely the exact company name is misleading and violation of NPOV. As I already mentioned above, the news written 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, also secondary sources also use the exact name describing the case, so there is no problem with WP:SECONDARY. At the current version the exact name is mentioned in the first usage and BP is used afterwards, so I hope this addresses your concerns.
- For Petrarchan47. If you look for the history of discussion this topic, you see that the main issue that time was (and maybe still is) if this paragraph after all belongs here taking account the fact that court dismissed cases. Also, the source about court dismissal provided by William M. Connolley was ignored while re-adding the text. Beagel (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I did not see WConnolley's discussion. Reliable sources are still mentioning this case, including the judge's decision - which makes it applicable for this article regardless of WC's opinion. Though the judge found the actions to have been lawful, it is still a story, with BP admitting to a problem and paying a large fine:
- " BP conducted its own investigation of the trading fraud and has since determined ways to increase compliance within trading regulations. BP has also worked on better training for traders and improved monitoring of transactions. The internal investigation also concluded that the illegal trades resulted in $10 million in losses for the company.
- In the oil company's press release, BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone said, "These agreements are an admission that, in these instances, our operations failed to meet our own standards and the requirements of the law. For that, we apologize." He added, "This settlement acknowledges our failure to adequately oversee our trading operation. The agreement provides compensation for victims and establishes a foundation for working with the government to ensure our participation in the nation's energy markets is always appropriate. We are determined to restore the trust of regulators in our trading operations." YAHOO petrarchan47tc 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- On 3 July William M. Connolley added on the talk link to the source which provided information that charges were dismissed. [70] The sub-section about accusations on the market manipulation was re-added on 26 August by edit which ignored this link and totally dismissed the information about dismissal of charges. [71] Beagel (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
More secondary sources, just to name some of them:
- ...Regulators allege its BP Products North America subsidy... (BBC)
- ...a civil lawsuit the CFTC filed against BP Products North America Inc., a Warrenville, Ill.-based unit of London-based BP PLC.... (AP/Fox)
- Employees at BP Products North America Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of BP Plc, sought a profit of at least $20 million through its actions, the CFTC said at the time. (Reuters)
- ...the filing of a civil enforcement action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against BP Products North America, Inc. (BP), a wholly owned subsidiary of BP plc,... (Finfacts)
Beagel (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- These sources generally revert to using "BP" for brevity, as do the justice department papers, the primary source ("hereinafter "BP"). Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a justification to remove entirely the exact company name. "Hereinafter "BP"" does not mean that in first time using you don't have to use the exact name. Not mentioning the exact name against reliable primary and secondary sources is violation of NPOV. Also, primary sources are reliable sources if used to state the pure fact (it is different with using the interpretations provided by primary sources) and the defendant exact name in the filed complaint is a pure fact. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- As long as there is no attempt to dodge higher responsibility, the full name of the subsidiary is okay for one mention. How about this:
The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused several BP traders and BP's US-based operations (BP subsidiary BP Products North America Inc., formerly Amoco) with conspiring to fix the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2004.
- That wording keeps the higher responsibility where it belongs. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- It should be other way around: the full name should be first and BP later. Our responsibility is to provide straightforward facts, not our point of view about higher or lower responsibility. Beagel (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- My opinion? The great majority of reliable sources say that BP was ultimately responsible, not the subsidiary of BP. Here's a typical example: "BP Settles Propane Price-Fixing Suit". BP has agreed to pay $303 million to settle civil charges that it cornered the propane market three years ago and inflated heating and cooking costs for about 7 million mostly rural American households, a source familiar with the accord said. The London oil giant has been fighting criminal and civil charges..." (emphasis added). Another example, from TIME: "BP traders tried to corner the market for propane 'with the knowledge, advice and consent of senior management.' This wasn't the first time BP has been accused of price fixing." Higher responsibility is BP corporate in London. Again, I am against any attempt to make it appear that BP central was not so much involved. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please avoid stating opinions as facts. Beagel (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I guess you would rather we follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and say that BP headquarters in London has been blamed for the BP problems in the USA by the Washington Post, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the New York Times, Newsweek, Business Week, Reuters, Bloomberg, the Independent, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Esquire, The Daily Beast, ProPublica, CBS News, ABC News, MSNBC, PBS, Amy Goodman, Abrahm Lustgarten, CNN Money and John_Browne,_Baron_Browne_of_Madingley. That way we could make sure the opinion is attributed properly. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please avoid stating opinions as facts. Beagel (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey I have a novel idea: why not just stick to the simplified wording used in the vast majority of RS? We hear "BP traders" "BP" was charged, "BP" paid the fine. "BP" said it will do better next time. If you want to let the reader know the exact language in the court file, it should be stated clearly that is what you are doing, otherwise a reader is led to believe we aren't really talking about BP. We don't want to mislead anyone. Most readers are not as well versed in legalese or the oil industry as some who might be editing this page; it is for the average reader we should write this article. In no sources did it say "formerly Amoco" so that was an addition made solely on this page, a subtle argument, wholly against Wiki principles. Hopefully it will remain off the page. petrarchan47tc 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopaedia and that means that information should be correct. The average reader is not an idiot as you seems to imply. If the article says that it is BP's subsidiary, I think that the average reader understands what it is and what it is not. As for Amoco, well, BP Products North America was Amoco Oil Company, one of the three major subsidiaries of Amoco, and not Amoco itself. As there is no article about BP Products North America (in the discussion above one could see that creation of that article is opposed by the same editors who are trying to remove the exact company name from this paragraph to make a false impression that there are only bad guys in London who manipulated the market and it has nothing to do with our own fellows here in Texas) where the roots of this company could be mentioned. Sorry to say but arguments of the last proposal seems more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. Beagel (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, and since this is providing information about criminal charges it is crucial that the information is 100% correct. If we can be 100% in this case, and we can be, then we should be. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I like the present wording, with the court terms but without mention of amoco. No one is trying to say there are bad guys in London, come on. I am trying to replace a section that was removed and shouldn't have been. Then it was reworded without mention of BP or BP traders. Now I'm a pov editor because I'm trying to stick to RS? Anyway, for the reasons you both put forth, its only fair we should also add some of BPs statement. petrarchan47tc 03:30, 15 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: [72] 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): [73].
- 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)
- I thoroughly agree with that statement - bring the RS, no matter if it makes BP look good or bad. See? This is called NPOV.
- For clarity, the whole subject of adding history regarding accidents and Lorde Brown's reign came about initially because my suggestion for the Lede was criticized by one editor for being all so recent, and all so US-centered. There is a good reason that the major accidents were recent and based in the US, and Lorde Brown's history is the explanation. The reason BP grew into such a large profitable company so fast, was due to Brown's acquisition a large US company like Amoco. So while folks may love how large BP is, they seem to want to run from any responsibility that came with buying Amoco, and distance BP from it when it doesn't suit the narrative. petrarchan47tc 22:19, 11 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)
Edit 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 occasions 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)
- Do not change other editors talk page contributions as you did here: [74].
- For the changes, I'm not sure why couldn't you look at the edit history of the article, where the content, and its repeated reversion by multiple editors, is clear. However here are some links [75], [76], [77].Rangoon11 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have reverted your change to this Talk page header, which you describe as a "contribution". Per WP:TALKNEW, Never address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. And per WP:TALKNEW, Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. And per WP:TPO, Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided.
- I'd rather not escalate this discussion on the issue of Talk page section headers to the Administrator notice board, but I will certainly join you there if you feel we should. (I won't be addressing this matter further on this page.) Just say so, or revert to the grossly inappropriate header again - I'll get the signal, and I'll open the discussion for us at ANI for review. While we are there, we can maybe explore in more depth my observation on how such knee-jerk reverts of constructive edits are symptomatic of the larger collaboration issue here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of that guideline. However it is also the case that editors are not allowed to change other editors' talk page contributions, certainly not to wholly change the meaning as your change did, and a talk page header is clearly a part of a talk page contribution. You should have asked me if I would change the heading. You certainly should not have edit warred to try to impose a change to another editors contribution. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- There are a LOT of rules; one can't be expected to be aware of all of them - I'm glad I was able to help you with this one. If you do not wish to have your contributions edited, don't place them within Talk page headers, where they can (and in this case of clear policy violation, absolutely will) be modified. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure why you are linking to that policy since stating that this editor has been edit warring in contempt of open talk page discussions and an open RfC which they are fully aware of, is not a personal attack within the definition of the policy but a plain statement of fact. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- The personal attack was your header: "Binksternet attempting to force changes to article through edit warring". Regarding edit warring, you are responsible for knee-jerk wholesale reversions of everything I do including well-cited text I added, taken from high quality reliable sources. Any uninvolved admin will quickly see that my additions were reasonable but that your deletions were reactionary. Your strategy of sidelining all negative article text (no matter how reliable the source) into discussions which go nowhere is a battleground mentality which must be stopped. You have developed article ownership issues which must be released. I have begun a discussion on your talk page but you have not seen fit to accommodate my concerns in the slightest. If you continue to block article development this dispute is on its way up to higher authority. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your attempts to push me off this article through personal attacks and disruption and threats so that you and a couple of others can have free reign to add in all of your desired crude attack content will not be successful.
- Your sole interest in this article to date has been in adding in and puffing up attack content. And you have gone about it in a highly uncivil and disruptive manner which has also involved multiple attempts to force changes when you were fully aware 1. there was not consensus for, 2. there were multiple open talk page discussions and an open RfC about, and 3. your text about John Browne had been reverted by multiple editors. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note that no "crude attack content" has been brought forward by Rangoon11 as an example. There is no such editing coming from me. I have written about negative assessments of BP that are widely reported in newspapers, magazines, industry journals and books. Furthermore I have never engaged in personal attacks on Rangoon11, who appears to repeat the same false things about me as a strategy for making untruths stick to the target. I have persistently maintained here that Rangoon11 is not helping this article move forward, so I "get" why she is so vociferously fighting me. What I will not stand for is constant repetition of falsehoods about me. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- The personal attack was your header: "Binksternet attempting to force changes to article through edit warring". Regarding edit warring, you are responsible for knee-jerk wholesale reversions of everything I do including well-cited text I added, taken from high quality reliable sources. Any uninvolved admin will quickly see that my additions were reasonable but that your deletions were reactionary. Your strategy of sidelining all negative article text (no matter how reliable the source) into discussions which go nowhere is a battleground mentality which must be stopped. You have developed article ownership issues which must be released. I have begun a discussion on your talk page but you have not seen fit to accommodate my concerns in the slightest. If you continue to block article development this dispute is on its way up to higher authority. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure why you are linking to that policy since stating that this editor has been edit warring in contempt of open talk page discussions and an open RfC which they are fully aware of, is not a personal attack within the definition of the policy but a plain statement of fact. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- There are a LOT of rules; one can't be expected to be aware of all of them - I'm glad I was able to help you with this one. If you do not wish to have your contributions edited, don't place them within Talk page headers, where they can (and in this case of clear policy violation, absolutely will) be modified. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of that guideline. However it is also the case that editors are not allowed to change other editors' talk page contributions, certainly not to wholly change the meaning as your change did, and a talk page header is clearly a part of a talk page contribution. You should have asked me if I would change the heading. You certainly should not have edit warred to try to impose a change to another editors contribution. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would expect a person in your position could pull a specific sentence out to demonstrate the notional "attack content". It is revealing that you cannot. Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your attempted additions speak for themselves, I have provided links although there was no real need for me to do so, there is no point picking out particular sentences as it is all crude attack content, just like everything you have attempted to add to the article to date. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note that no "crude attack content" has been brought forward by Rangoon11 as an example. There is no such editing coming from me. I have written about negative assessments of BP that are widely reported in newspapers, magazines, industry journals and books. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rangoon11, I have checked the three links you have provided. I'm not seeing anything that rises to the level of "attack content on John Browne" (which sounds very much like an allegation of BLP-violation). I see content additions in those links that can be considered unflattering or critical, but they appear to be accurate conveyances of reliably sourced encyclopedic information -- not "attack content on John Browne". I note significant overlap across all three of those links - sometimes identical paragraph additions; can you cite from those edits a single example representing what you feel is the most egregious "attack", so we can focus on that? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- This thread is for discussing Binksternet's edit warring. We have a separate thread for discussing the specific BLP issue above.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, this talk page is for discussing article improvement. If you wish to discuss an editor's edit warring, please raise that issue at the appropriate noticeboard. Or, if you wish to request "that this article be locked from editing", you should make that request at this location, as editors with the ability to implement your motion aren't likely to see it here. Hopefully this is helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- This thread is for discussing Binksternet's edit warring. We have a separate thread for discussing the specific BLP issue above.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your attempted additions speak for themselves, I have provided links although there was no real need for me to do so, there is no point picking out particular sentences as it is all crude attack content, just like everything you have attempted to add to the article to date. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Mediation
This dispute is going for long time without any significant progress. Over the time there have been several compromise proposals which did not receive clear support. There has DRN process which ended without results. There is open RfC which at the moment seems to end without results. There was attempt by 203.27.72.5 to draft the compromise which ended without results. Maybe it would be time to request a formal mediation? Beagel (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. What method seems best to you? petrarchan47tc 22:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I mean Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Beagel (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's probably inevitable that we will need to do this at some point, but I would like to hear from all editors involved. petrarchan47tc 00:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I mean Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Beagel (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would be up for that. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Do we wait for all to reply? How long do we wait? petrarchan47tc 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've got no objections but I will note that I spent a fair amount of time on a DR process, only to find that just a couple of weeks later exactly the same issues were brought up again here, and text for the lead was being proposed which had failed to gain a consensus in that process. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Per guidelines, mediation is voluntary and all involved parties should agree with it. By my understanding, also Gandydancer and WMC may be classified as involved parties. Maybe also BozMo and Martin Hogbin are interested to take a part? Beagel (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I, too, would be interested in participating in the mediation. While I only have a couple edits to this article on a single day, and didn't have much of an interest to begin with, I must admit that my interest in this matter has since been piqued by the acerbic responses of certain editors. So count me in; I've just now put this page on my watchlist. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Corporate affairs
The Corporate affairs sections seems problematic. I don't think that the list of senior management should be included per WP:NOTDIR. Of course, the information about chairman and CEO (and maybe about some other top-ranking officials) should be included in the form of prose. Also the table about financial data seems problematic as it is not updated and it is not attributed with body text explaining this topic. Beagel (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- The financial data table certainly needs updating, perhaps a bit of expansion too. In my view the list of board members should stay, it is significant information and not especially long. It is also info which appears in a large number of major company articles. I can imagine many readers would be interested in the names of board members. A prose section is a good idea though. We should probably also have some info on heads of the most significant divisions who are not members of the board e.g head of E&P. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- As of the pure list of the board members, what is the objective value of this? "Other stuff exists" is not the best argument to use in Wikipedia. I agree that prose should be preferred to the lists and financial data should be updated (if not, then removed). Beagel (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Information about board members is precisely the sort of information which I can imagine many readers would be interested in. I would ask it the other way, how would the article be improved by removal?Rangoon11 (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Due weight
This article suffers a lot from problems of due weight and very strong US bias. BP is a significant and notable company is getting on for a hundred countries and attracts plenty of newspaper coverage in each of them. In some countries some official organisation will have a go at local oil companies in the hope of gain every few months. I think a reasonable test for sufficient notability for inclusion in this article rather than in a sub article on a topic is non-copied media coverage in at least five countries, but perhaps other people have a better proposal? Otherwise we are taking a random selection of thousands of pages of media coverage. --BozMo talk 08:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- There have been major problems with BP in the US which is why the article seems to be US-centric. If there were huge problems with BP Sweden (just making it up here), with the largest-ever oil spill in the Baltic Sea, and fatal explosions in Gothenburg, and toxic releases in Kiruna then there would a heavy amount of coverage about BP in Sweden. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- That would be why the article on Microsoft is dominated by EU anti-competition lawsuits or Google's article is dominated by issues of censureship in China? Oh, but hang on a minute those are just mentioned but not to the point of dominating the actual content. Stuff like "U.S. regulators may file charges against BP related to..." is just not in the top thousand things one could mention. --BozMo talk 19:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- On my PC I make it four and a half screen fulls of negative content versus less than a screen for each of Microsoft and Google. That is undue weight; BP doesn't get more negative inches in mainstream papers aside from recent political posturing in the US. --BozMo talk 19:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Software doesn't kill people or cause environmental catastrophes. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nor, 99.9999% of the time, do oil companies. It is reasonable having some coverage about BP's recent US pollution because it was a high profile event with a lot of political fuss and it was material enough to change the perspective of investors and some customers in the US. But a lot of this four screens is about stuff which is mundane and immaterial on the scale of a company which on turnover, energy use, direct and indirect employment etc would as a country be about the 12th biggest country in the world. Sure they employ criminals inadvertantly and people die in their operations but so does Belgium and working for BP is safer than living in New York and New York certainly causes a lot more pollution....I wonder without looking how much of the coverage of a typical US city is about the crime rate. --BozMo talk 05:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- If the 0.00001% kills and maims people and leaves horrific environmental damage then it will take a lot of column inches to describe it. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- On which basis I take it you are on your way over to the main United States of America article to put in many thousands of pages on the Gulf Wars, use of depleted Uranium shells, torture of detainees etc. What is that you say, "water boarding" should not even appear in the main article on the USA? I wonder why? That has has more notable comment from serious sources than any BP disaster. The thousands of people executed by then US government gets one line. You cannot be a world scale operation without issues which appear big compared to an individual but Wikipedia has to give due weight to them. --BozMo talk 07:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bozmo, are you suggesting somehow that this talk page would be better served if the editors were also pursuing NPOV at US Govt related pages (like this)? How so? We have quite a task on our hands here, bringing in false equivalencies only compounds it. Please also add your suggestions to how each problematic sentence below could be remedied. Thanks. petrarchan47tc 00:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Um. It does suggest how they should be remedied. Most should simply be removed. --BozMo talk 05:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bozmo, are you suggesting somehow that this talk page would be better served if the editors were also pursuing NPOV at US Govt related pages (like this)? How so? We have quite a task on our hands here, bringing in false equivalencies only compounds it. Please also add your suggestions to how each problematic sentence below could be remedied. Thanks. petrarchan47tc 00:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- On which basis I take it you are on your way over to the main United States of America article to put in many thousands of pages on the Gulf Wars, use of depleted Uranium shells, torture of detainees etc. What is that you say, "water boarding" should not even appear in the main article on the USA? I wonder why? That has has more notable comment from serious sources than any BP disaster. The thousands of people executed by then US government gets one line. You cannot be a world scale operation without issues which appear big compared to an individual but Wikipedia has to give due weight to them. --BozMo talk 07:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- If the 0.00001% kills and maims people and leaves horrific environmental damage then it will take a lot of column inches to describe it. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nor, 99.9999% of the time, do oil companies. It is reasonable having some coverage about BP's recent US pollution because it was a high profile event with a lot of political fuss and it was material enough to change the perspective of investors and some customers in the US. But a lot of this four screens is about stuff which is mundane and immaterial on the scale of a company which on turnover, energy use, direct and indirect employment etc would as a country be about the 12th biggest country in the world. Sure they employ criminals inadvertantly and people die in their operations but so does Belgium and working for BP is safer than living in New York and New York certainly causes a lot more pollution....I wonder without looking how much of the coverage of a typical US city is about the crime rate. --BozMo talk 05:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Software doesn't kill people or cause environmental catastrophes. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Examples of sentences which should be removed
"According to the Public Interest Research Group, between January 1997 and March 1998, BP was responsible for 104 oil spills" as an isolated snippet this is completely meaningless
"According to activist Antonia Juhasz,..." (whole section is just not notable enough... "green activistic slates oil company" come off it)
"Prudhoe Bay" section much too long given it has its own article
Whole section "2008 Caspian Sea gas leak and blowout". There are hundreds of instances on this scale in every large oil company.
"Colombian farmland damages claim" again, there are loads of these kind of things. This one wasn't big, expensive, particularly noxious, it was settled etc.
"2010 Texas City chemical leak" this is recent enough to stay in but why are pollutants suddenly in pounds weight rather than more usual measures like tonnes
"Mist mountain project" immaterial raking around with nothing notable excepr "green activistic slates oil company"
"1965 Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster" too old and two few causalties. BP operations probably kill what, 50 people a year (as I say safer than New Yord). 13 people 47 years ago should not go in unless it drove particular change or was otherwise notable.
The more recent refinery stuff is ok. The political stuff also. The market manipulation shouldn't be in the political section. --BozMo talk 06:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Would you mind reworking this entry to look a bit more like this so each point can be seen clearly and dealt with separately? petrarchan47tc 22:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- It looks pretty clear to me. I agree with BozMo, there is too much soapboxing going on here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Martin, can you explain your comment? I don't see where bozmo claimed there was soapboxing, what do you see going on here (do you mean on the talk page or article)? Examples might help. Thanks petrarchan47tc 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is evidence of scrapping around trying to find any kind of insufficiently notable negative material to include. A much lower standard of notability being applied for negative items is a form of soapboxing.--BozMo talk 05:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Martin, can you explain your comment? I don't see where bozmo claimed there was soapboxing, what do you see going on here (do you mean on the talk page or article)? Examples might help. Thanks petrarchan47tc 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- It looks pretty clear to me. I agree with BozMo, there is too much soapboxing going on here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly as as BozMo says, a lower standard of notability seems to be being applied to negative reports about BP than to positive items.
- I might add the I am a completely independent editor with no connection with BP or the oil industry and that I am not part of any tag team or grouping of editors. I just do not like to see WP used as a vehicle for smear campaigns. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see. You've come with your list of suggestions, and strange "go pick on your own country" argument above at a bad time. This group of editors has been going at it all summer. The problem of bias in the article isn't going to be solved by having even more biased editors piling on. The fact that you were invited by WMC to 'add a voice of sanity' to the BP page, and after seeing you mention at the COI you believed the only reason there is anything negative in the media about BP is due to political posturing by the US government shows me you've come with bias. Now is not a good time to deal with this (tag teaming). It's the last thing we need to move forward. You may have some good points above, but we have an open RfC on the Intro, and as a group are considering turning this whole thing over to formal mediation. Regarding BP and RS, in general, all of the articles I've ever read about BP (excluding purely financial ones prior to 2010) have mentioned some sort of controversy, with the majority pointing out it's pretty serious and pervasive with BP. There are endless deaths, accidents, disasters, that's true. But a finite number are written up in multiple RS or are otherwise notable - and more importantly, a finite number have been included or considered for inclusion in this encyclopedia. There are reasons for everything that has been included in the article. Though it needs improvement and pruning (and additions), every change deserves a discussion - and this is not the time to push for a whole bunch of changes on an already stressed group of editors. I don't have the time to explain why certain information should be kept in the article and then be forced to defend and argue each point. petrarchan47tc 06:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please immediately withdraw the unacceptable personal attack, it does your case no favours. Being asked to "add a voice of sanity" to a page and topic where I have no position is not a basis for claiming a bias and I do not "team tag". I have produced a list of material which obviously should not be in this article on the talk pages. If no one provides a reason why it should in fact be included I will go ahead and remove it. --BozMo talk 08:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, you have entered this discussion with a to-do list at a very bad time. Your saying the only reason one finds negative information online about BP is due to political posturing by the US government shows you are massively ill informed and need to do some research before helping out here. I assume since you have said you are unbiased (and if true, I withdraw my comment) you will be more than happy to see what RS says, regardless of how good or bad BP might end up looking. I don't see any evidence that that is the case, but I am happy to be proven wrong. petrarchan47tc 20:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am interested to hear your answer to my question in the argument above ("Bozmo, are you suggesting somehow that this talk page would be better served if the editors were also pursuing NPOV at US Govt related pages? How so? "). How does my attempt to add NPOV to US govt articles in any way relate to this page? How does that argument add sanity to this talk page? I await your reply. petrarchan47tc 20:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Aside personal attacks, and other unfounded items (including one silly attempt to misrepresent me with the sentence starting "your saying"), the gist of your comments eludes me. Therefore, I suggest you stick to the point raised. There are loads of negative items of insufficient weight which need removing. I have given an initial list. Please defend any which you think genuinely merit being in the article and explain why. Then we can move on to the next list. --BozMo talk 21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Make that "Your having said,..." (that the only reason there was negative media regarding BP has to do with US political posturing). Did you not say that? It is important because if you do believe that, it shows you have an incomplete and skewed idea of what RS says about BP. That may very well have to do the with location from which you access the internet. But it is no less true. BP is 1/3 US. It's not a separate entity. What happens in the US is important, just as what happens in Russia or the UK, given its importance in the world and with BP. I noticed you complained that we have not listed BP-TNK information regarding spills. The reason is that the company is only half owned by BP and soon to be divorced from it (this, per Beagle). I believe you can edit without bias, but your recent comments regarding America (in another section) are troublesome, very negative, not grounded in any RS and without basis. Again, if you have a bias against the US that is a problem if you are editing this article. By the way, since the Sea Breeze is BP's first every accident, why would you suggest it isn't noteworthy? petrarchan47tc 23:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, I did not say "that the only reason there was negative media regarding BP has to do with US political posturing". I did not even say anything like that. I said political posturing was the reason why it had relatively more negative media in the US than equally morally dubious US companies, which is quite different in meaning. This is not the first time in the above that you have taken time to misrepresent other people in the above rather than concentrating on arguments presented. Despite your deep belief in everyone else's bias, none of us appear to be trying to whitewash BP's record. Some of us are trying to improve this article which gives undue weight to relatively minor US-centric events; to the point that a numerate reader finds surprising. Please could you take time out and go and read WP:AGF a few times. Then read it again. Only return when you think you can try to live by what it suggests because at present that seems to present somewhat of a challenge. --BozMo talk 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Make that "Your having said,..." (that the only reason there was negative media regarding BP has to do with US political posturing). Did you not say that? It is important because if you do believe that, it shows you have an incomplete and skewed idea of what RS says about BP. That may very well have to do the with location from which you access the internet. But it is no less true. BP is 1/3 US. It's not a separate entity. What happens in the US is important, just as what happens in Russia or the UK, given its importance in the world and with BP. I noticed you complained that we have not listed BP-TNK information regarding spills. The reason is that the company is only half owned by BP and soon to be divorced from it (this, per Beagle). I believe you can edit without bias, but your recent comments regarding America (in another section) are troublesome, very negative, not grounded in any RS and without basis. Again, if you have a bias against the US that is a problem if you are editing this article. By the way, since the Sea Breeze is BP's first every accident, why would you suggest it isn't noteworthy? petrarchan47tc 23:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Aside personal attacks, and other unfounded items (including one silly attempt to misrepresent me with the sentence starting "your saying"), the gist of your comments eludes me. Therefore, I suggest you stick to the point raised. There are loads of negative items of insufficient weight which need removing. I have given an initial list. Please defend any which you think genuinely merit being in the article and explain why. Then we can move on to the next list. --BozMo talk 21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- BozMo, you are welcome to put waterboarding and whatever else you see fit into the USA article. You might be successful, probably not, but that does not concern us. What we are discussing here at Talk:BP is the BP article, nothing else. Due weight includes all the problems of the late '90s merger with Amoco, the problem of BP wanting the oil income but misunderstanding or downplaying the cost of getting it. The merger is a third of BP financially but the hassles that can be traced to the merger overshadow everything else at BP. Yes, we should have a prominent part of this article about the problems in the US. Absolutely. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Should I take that as a "I offer no objection to what you propose to remove"? It doesn't seem to. --BozMo talk 21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- BozMo, it should be obvious that an editor should not make a list of "I don't like it" stuff and threaten to remove it if it is not defended to your satisfaction - fortunately Wikipedia does not work that way. And to bring your list up at this time shows, IMO, an extreme lack of willingness to try to move forward to article content that we can all agree to. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I hear you, but your charactisation of the above is unfair. The list is clearly framed within the issue on "undue weight" which is an important one for the article. A perception exists that undue weight is being given to items simply because they are negative or American whilst other things are neglected. No one seems to disagree that the list is items which are undue and US centric. Not a single argument has been ventured as to why any of these should be retained, just lots of off-topic hot air, personal attacks and outrage about other stuff. If we focused on obvious improvements to the article it might be better. Some editors seem to be wilfully missing the point. --BozMo talk 14:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- BozMo, it should be obvious that an editor should not make a list of "I don't like it" stuff and threaten to remove it if it is not defended to your satisfaction - fortunately Wikipedia does not work that way. And to bring your list up at this time shows, IMO, an extreme lack of willingness to try to move forward to article content that we can all agree to. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is NOT acceptable that you make a long list of items that you plan to remove if not defended to your liking. At a glance I agree with the info you just deleted, but I do not agree with your summary, "meaningless snippet which no one has defended including on talk" and if you continue to remove items on your list I will start to revert your edits with a summary, "please see talk page". Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- And I encourage other like-minded editors to do the same. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I look forward to your contributions and suggestions to improving the actual article. Which is a disgrace of course. --BozMo talk 15:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- By the way I am sure you did not mean to sound like you were inciting people to edit war. Now that wouldn't have been constructive, would it? --BozMo talk 15:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
"Political influence" revisted
The phrase "BP has been criticized for its political influence" has been removed from the Intro, due to supposed lack of references.
Here are some references that might be a good first start to properly adding this information to the article and restoring the phrase. petrarchan47tc 23:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
BP's Influence Peddling In Congress Bears Fruit Two Years After Gulf Spill - HuffPo
Politico - BP PAC pads political pockets
BP is getting more political, and that may help weather oil-spill storm WAPO
(from an earlier post)
Fifty-one percent of BP was owned by the British government until recently.
BP is receiving tens of millions of dollars in US government contracts[78][79]. See also BP Hires a Pentagon PR Warrior
BP is said to be the initiator of the Iran Coup of 1953. See Stephen Kinzer on the History of BP/British Petroleum and Its Role in the 1953 Iran Coup.
(from another earlier post)
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). US Environmental Protection Agency's lawyer, for 10 years was in charge of investigation to see about BP's possible debarment, Jean Pascal:
- 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.
- This is a poor start. Take [80] for example. This is an example of - oops - the US govt breaking the law and bullying BP into paying for the gulf oil spill (and its yet another example of how distorted all this discussion is by the gulf spill). It is an example of BP's lack of political influence. Your first ref has no clear status. Your last one - which you're obviously pleased with, as you quote from it - is just one woman's opinion with no evidence.
- We all know that all big companies lobby pols and govts. Does BP lobby more or less than most? We won't find out from your links. I've no objection to some section about lobbying providing its written on a sensible basis. [81] is yet another angry article that was written in the aftermath of the gulf spill and it doesn't even say what you want it to say. It doesn't support BP having political influence William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The last quotation is not just someone's opinion. That EPA lawyer oversaw a ten year investigation into BPs safety practices prior to the gulf spill. Reliable sources are determined by the media outlet or by the reliability of the person being quoted. Her claims are considered highly valuable. You removed (two or three times now) any mention of political influence from the intro, saying we should at least have a good section in the article first. You do no research and make no effort to this end, and when I post many good links, you attempt to discredit the idea by cherry picking links you consider weak, calling my efforts a poor start? We have the EPA saying BP has direct access to the White House. There is enough here to expand on the few sentences regarding lobbying and other political influence as well as to restore the phrase to the intro that was agreed to by every single editor who has been working in this page all summer, including an admin, Johnfos, who you called "some bloke". Since you removed the content, it's on you to help put together a proper section and if you don't like my research, please do your own. You could begin research on how BPs political influence and lobbying compares with others, since you seem to think that's an imperative addition. Also "everyone does it" is a baffling argument when it comes to writing an encyclopedic article. Because - so? That makes it irrelevant? Is that the point being made? petrarchan47tc 18:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some of your ideas are wrong. This matters, so let me go into this in detail. You claim "Since you removed the content, it's on you to help put together a proper section" - this is completely wrong. I'm fully entitled to remove stuff that is bad and under no obligation at all to replace it with something else on the same subject that is good. Anyone is entitled to do the same. Of course whether the section was bad or not is another issue but if its bad then I can remove it, without needing to replace it. However, I am happy to try to help replace it.
- Secondly, you seem to think that admins have some special role in content matters - at least, I can't understand your "including an admin, Johnfos" any other way. That is completely wrong, too.
- Third, and now onto the issues at hand: I've attacked 3 of your references. You've defended - weakly, in my opinion - only one of them. All your references need to be defensible. You've can't just throw a pile of references up and hope a few of them stick - you have to do the work in advance of producing decent quality references that are to the point, because you want them in the article.
- I post many good links, you attempt to discredit the idea by cherry picking links you consider weak - you post links you think are good. I point out why I think they aren't good. You defend them, if you can. But if you put up 8 or so links, and I can find flaws in 4 of them, I'm not obliged to wade through the whole lot before I complain. And no, I wasn't "cherry picking", please drop your bad faith William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The last quotation is not just someone's opinion. That EPA lawyer oversaw a ten year investigation into BPs safety practices prior to the gulf spill. Reliable sources are determined by the media outlet or by the reliability of the person being quoted. Her claims are considered highly valuable. You removed (two or three times now) any mention of political influence from the intro, saying we should at least have a good section in the article first. You do no research and make no effort to this end, and when I post many good links, you attempt to discredit the idea by cherry picking links you consider weak, calling my efforts a poor start? We have the EPA saying BP has direct access to the White House. There is enough here to expand on the few sentences regarding lobbying and other political influence as well as to restore the phrase to the intro that was agreed to by every single editor who has been working in this page all summer, including an admin, Johnfos, who you called "some bloke". Since you removed the content, it's on you to help put together a proper section and if you don't like my research, please do your own. You could begin research on how BPs political influence and lobbying compares with others, since you seem to think that's an imperative addition. Also "everyone does it" is a baffling argument when it comes to writing an encyclopedic article. Because - so? That makes it irrelevant? Is that the point being made? petrarchan47tc 18:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
You removed "BP has been criticized for their political influence" which I take to mean that you see no good sources supporting the fact that they have been. You then argued that because they are getting kicked out of Russia (and you mentioned something about the Gulf - you seem to think they aren't drilling there?), they have no political influence. But that wasn't actually the claim you removed. It didn't say "BP is politically influential". I don't need to throw up 100% everyone-agrees-these-are-good references when it's just a list on a talk page with the intro: "this is a first step" (ie, beginning research) to re-adding the phrase and to create a proper section in the article. That you focus on 3 or 4 you didn't like, but ignore the rest instead of using the RS you find applicable in order to build the article, or make a suggestion for it, gives me pause. We all agree that TIME magazine is RS. It's not cutting edge independent Eco-journalism by any means. That said, a quotation TIME: "...the seeming inability of the government to staunch the flow (after DWH explosion) without BP's aid — has provided a stark reminder of the power that Big Oil still holds over national politics and the fate of entire communities that live in its shadow... BP has long wielded such influence — in fact, the story of its origins is moored in empire and controversy..." and it goes on. I am unable to comprehend why the facts about BP's political influence (and controversial aspects) are so difficult to add to the Wikipedia article. (And your insinuation that articles written post-Gulf Spill are somehow not RS because of an assumed rage on the part of the author is bogus.) Now that you've highlighted what doesn't work, can you speak to the RS that do? Do you still stand by your proclamation that BP has not received criticism for its political influence, after viewing said RS? The reason I believe "it's on you" to defend your removal is because the removal is not supported by RS (facts). RS show BP has most assuredly been criticized for, and does have, political influence. petrarchan47tc 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Contributions to political campaigns
Per BP's announced policy and its audited annual report ([http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/set_branch/STAGING/common_assets/bpin2011/downloads/BP_Annual_Report_and_Form_20F_2011.pdf}) (p 74), BP does not participate directly in party political activity nor make political donations and has not done so for a number of years. The reference in the article to donations to the campaigns of Barack Obama and Ron Paul are actually to BP employee political action committee contributions. Considering the small size of the donations and the fact that they are not actually by BP the text should in my view be removed. The current text misleadingly suggests that BP has broken its commitment not to make such donations, and somehow endorsed/endorses Ron Paul and Barack Obama. Neither is true. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- That link isn't quick to download... On the lede I agree with you (now I have read the annual report section). That stuff will be compliance checked pretty seriously --BozMo talk 18:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry link may have been broken this should work [82]. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- The source we were using for this section, Open Secrets, has: "BP's political action committee and employees contributed more than $530,000 in the 2008 cycle and $6.2 million since 1989" under their section "BP basics". I think it remains a question whether donations by BP's political action committee and employees are considered for inclusion in this article or not. To me it seems a matter of correct wording. I assume we'll have the same argument with the same editors opposing each other on this too. petrarchan47tc 01:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry link may have been broken this should work [82]. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- We cannot accept BP's own publication about an internal policy as a rebuttal for observed action. Internal policy is not always followed, is it? Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I've temporarily removed:
- During the 2011-2012 election year, Barack Obama received $23,210 in contributions from the oil company, almost twice that of the second largest recipient, Ron Paul.
because its clear that it is wrong as it stands. Whoever added it has badly paraphrased the source, which itself may have been misleading. So if we're all agreed that BP, as a company, doesn't give to pols, then what is the correct wording? I suspect this is some kind of employee-contribution-with-tax-benefits thing? We can't just say:
- During the 2011-2012 election year, Barack Obama received $23,210 in contributions from BP employee political action committee contributions, almost twice that of the second largest recipient, Ron Paul.
or somesuch, because no-one outside the US will know what that means. So could someone who does understand it please tell us? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am struggling to see why this article about a $400 billion turnover global company with an over 100 year long history which operates in over 80 countries should include information that its employees, not BP made some really pretty modest donations to the campaigns of Barack Obama and Ron Paul. This seems about as clear a case of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTIST as I can imagine. The sole reason for inclusion seems to be to imply that BP has broken its own commitment - wholly volunatary of course, and not matched by most of its US-based peers - to not participate directly in political campaigns. It has not.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Once again you've mistaken this topic for the one that has yet to be written: History of British Petroleum. This current article about BP will include all the main points summarizing the last few decades. As is normal for any article, the most recent events are densest, the most strongly represented. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- No I think that yourself a couple of others seem to have mistaken it for Criticisms of BP America, 2000 to present.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- That would be "1995 to present", to match reliable sources tracing the blame for the current mess to John Browne's changes in corporate culture. We've already argued the issue, whether criticism should remain in this article or be shunted to a ghetto article, and consensus is to keep it here. Your wish that criticism be greatly reduced is not constructive. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Rangoon and WMC on this one. $23,000 is so small an amount that it's meaningless and its inclusion does appear to suggest that BP went back on their word. Gandydancer (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- One might be able to flush out the lobbying section with these links, to start. If i am wrong, and these links aren't helpful, my apologies. petrarchan47tc 00:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
BP Lobbying Europe (section 4)
BP's Influence Peddling In Congress Bears Fruit Two Years After Gulf Spill - HuffPo
Politico - BP PAC pads political pockets
BP is getting more political, and that may help weather oil-spill storm WAPO
QQ lede
"BP has been involved in several major environmental and safety incidents". Aside the one mentioned, which were considered the others making up "several".? --BozMo talk 08:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- See above. 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 Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- That is why I asked the question. As I imply below, I would question whether the Prudhoe Bay spill or the Texas City explosion are objectively speaking "Major" on the scale of BP's activities or count as world scale events. Prudhoe Bay was less than a thousand tonnes with a $20m fine. Not "major" in world scale terms at all. By contrast in Siberia TNK-BP have spilled many hundreds of times more and spent $2bn cleaning it up (with another $500m of provision) but the US goggles of the article does not even mention it. The Texas city explosion was also no Bhopal despite 15 dead. Again, not a major environmental incident. I am afraid even I have been involved in an incident with more than 15 dead and you won't find it on Wikipedia although it is elsewhere [83]. These things need to be in perspective --BozMo talk 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what you seem to think of as a clever Perry Mason performance here, I see as as a rather poor attempt at grandstanding. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- If I knew who Perry Mason was...or what grandstanding you meant. To be serious, why doesn't one of those who seem to want to smear BP go and do it properly rather than focusing on US oddities? --BozMo talk 14:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what you seem to think of as a clever Perry Mason performance here, I see as as a rather poor attempt at grandstanding. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- What a crock of shit. We have whole articles on the death of one person, but you wish to delete or downplay a section about the death of 15 people because it is just the price of doing business, because it is not Bhopal? Dude, your bias is showing. What we look to are reliable sources, and there many, many high quality sources discussing the Prudhoe Bay spill and the Texas City explosion (and subsequent violations). Jeez... Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- That is why I asked the question. As I imply below, I would question whether the Prudhoe Bay spill or the Texas City explosion are objectively speaking "Major" on the scale of BP's activities or count as world scale events. Prudhoe Bay was less than a thousand tonnes with a $20m fine. Not "major" in world scale terms at all. By contrast in Siberia TNK-BP have spilled many hundreds of times more and spent $2bn cleaning it up (with another $500m of provision) but the US goggles of the article does not even mention it. The Texas city explosion was also no Bhopal despite 15 dead. Again, not a major environmental incident. I am afraid even I have been involved in an incident with more than 15 dead and you won't find it on Wikipedia although it is elsewhere [83]. These things need to be in perspective --BozMo talk 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- We have also an article about the Texas City Refinery explosion as also we have an article about the Prudhoe Bay spill. Fact that reliable sources about both of them are exist does not eliminate the question asked by BozMo. Beagel (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- You seem, again, Binksternet, to be rather lacking the degree of objectivity needed to be involved here. As I say the undue weight placed on some small incidents distorts the article. Why not try to get the worldwide fatality figures from BPs operations and talk about that? Or pick up one some other major issues which are not in the USA. Other things can be in other articles if there are notable but not the main BP one. --BozMo talk 05:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you have not seen the excellent articles, popular books and school textbooks which tie together these three disasters, set their relative importance, and comment on BP's collective guilt in them? Let me inform you:
- Lundborg, Zinta (15 February 2011). "How BP's Browne Created Culture of Risk, Incompetence". Bloomberg.
- Vaughan, Bernard (29 February 2012). "Browne's BP cost-cutting led to Gulf spill, book says". Reuters.
- Lustgarten, Abrahm (2012). Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 214. ISBN 0393083160.
- Reed, Stanley; Fitzgerald, Alison (2011). In Too Deep: BP and the Drilling Race That Took it Down. Bloomberg. Vol. 137. John Wiley & Sons. p. 98. ISBN 0470950900.
- Brent, Coon (28 June 2010). "The Inside Story of BP's Negligence on Oil Safety". Esquire. Hearst Communications.
- Bower, Tom (1 July 2010). "July Fourth Outrage: British Gov't Elevates Disgraced BP Boss". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
- Elkind, Peter; Whitford, David; Burke, Doris (24 January 2011). "BP: 'An accident waiting to happen'". CNN Money. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
- Lustgarten, Abrahm; Knutson, Ryan (June 7, 2010). "Reports at BP over years find history of problems". The Washington Post.
- Lustgarten, Abrahm (October 29, 2010). "The Questions BP Didn't Answer". ProPublica.
- Lustgarten, Abrahm (26 October 2010). "Furious Growth and Cost Cuts Led To BP Accidents Past and Present". ProPublica.
- Lustgarten, Abrahm (19 April 2012). "A Stain That Won't Wash Away". The New York Times.
- Korosec, Kirsten (May 7, 2010). "BP's History of Oil Spills and Accidents: Same Strategy, Different Day". CBS News.
- Thomas, Pierre (May 27, 2010). "BP's Dismal Safety Record". ABC News.
- "The Spill: BP's Troubled Past". Frontline. PBS, ProPublica.
- "HSE fines and penalties: Fines and penalties can result from alleged violations of HSE legal requirements". Sustainability. BP.
- Jennings, Marianne M. (2010). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment (9 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 365. ISBN 0538470542.
- Jennings, Marianne M. (2011). Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings (7 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 419. ISBN 0538473533.
- Baltimore, Chris (June 26, 2012). Marguerita Choy (ed.). "A short history of BP's U.S. mishaps". Chicago Tribune. Reuters.
- Karey, Gerald (August 16, 2010). "The Barrel: Oil and gas industry's safety and environmental record leaves much room for improvement". Platts. McGraw-Hill.
- Nocera, Joe (June 18, 2010). "BP Ignored the Omens of Disaster". The New York Times.
- Demer, Lisa (December 7, 2011). "BP oil spill case goes to judge". Anchorage Daily News.
- Perrow, Charles (2011). The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial. Princeton University Press. pp. xvi–xvii. ISBN 0691150168.
The spill story starts with John Browne...
- Halbert, Terry; Ingulli, Elaine (2011). Law & Ethics in the Business Environment (7 ed.). Cengage Learning. pp. 23–24. ISBN 0538473517.
- In Deep Water: The Anatomy of a Disaster, the Fate of the Gulf, and How to End Our Oil Addiction. OR Books. 2010. pp. 95–97. ISBN 1935928090.
- Steinberg, Richard M. (2011). Governance, Risk Management, and Compliance: It Can't Happen to Us—Avoiding Corporate Disaster While Driving Success. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 92–93. ISBN 1118024303.
- Magner, Mike (2011). Poisoned Legacy: The Human Cost of BP's Rise to Power. Macmillan. ISBN 1429962186.
- Welch, Susan; Rigdon, Susan M.; Thomas, Sue (2011). Understanding American Government (13 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 572. ISBN 0495910503.
{{cite book}}
:|first2=
missing|last2=
(help); Unknown parameter|lst2=
ignored (help) - Olsson, Gustaf (2012). Water and Energy. IWA Publishing. p. 161. ISBN 1780400268.
- Bergin, Tom (2011). Spills and Spin: The Inside Story of BP. Random House. ISBN 1446457087.
- Scarpino, Cinzia (2011). US Waste. Rifiuti e sprechi d'America. Una storia dal basso (in Italian). Il Saggiatore. p. 102. ISBN 8842816701.
- Mecklenburg, Katharina (2010). Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Corporate Social Responsibility und der Fall BP (in German). GRIN Verlag. p. 34. ISBN 3640774191.
- Mouawad, Jad (May 8, 2010). "For BP, a History of Spills and Safety Lapses". The New York Times.
- Somaiya, Ravi (June 7, 2010). "Leaked Reports Expose BP's Safety Record". The Daily Beast. Newsweek.
- Stier, Ken (May 11, 2010). "BP's murky deep-water future". CNN Money.
- Watkins, Michael (May 19, 2010). "How To Punish Leadership Negligence". Harvard Business Review. Bloomberg.
- Chernoff, Allan (July 27, 2010). "Outgoing BP executive blames 'many companies' for Gulf crisis". CNN World.
- Goodwyn, Wade (May 6, 2010). "Previous BP Accidents Blamed On Safety Lapses". NPR News. NPR.
- Fisk, Margaret Cronin; Calkins, Laurel Brubaker (February 4, 2011). "BP's Pursuit of Cost-Cutting Led to Gulf Spill, Lawyers Say". Bloomberg.
These all list the Prudhoe spill, the Texas City explosion, and the Macombo Deepwater Horizon disaster together as BP's significant, "major" accidents. Most of these sources give them as examples of a sequence of events that demonstrate continuing poor management (despite changes in CEO). Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you try to find a couple of serious credible source which supports your claim rather than expecting me to check through a list of dubious parochial ones. Book reviews are reporting opinion pieces designed to sell, not reporting credible objective judgements. I started with the last one on this list and it did not "list the Prudhoe spill, the Texas City explosion, and the Macombo Deepwater Horizon disaster together as BP's significant, "major" accidents". They were all accidents, were significant locally in the US and I do not disagree about continuing poor management. However the article is absurdly US-centric and ignores far more significant and important issues. --BozMo talk 08:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- These are all serious and credible sources which list the three accidents under discussion. Every one of them. If you do not wish to understand what respected publishing houses are printing about BP then it is hardly likely your opinion will be considered here. Talk about "parochial"... Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Trying to source reliable fact about BP from US business books aimed at the airport market is a bit like trying to source info on the Queen from Hello magazine or on GE from Noel Tichy but thats your preference. There is a valid point about management culture and approach to costs and risks of course. But more credible commentary would help. --BozMo talk 19:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fool yourself if you must, but the books include high quality scholarly texts from Cengage Learning, Macmillan and Princeton. Credible sources are all I've listed... there are no unbelievable or unlikely ones. A good effort, though, on your part, to undermine this extensive list. Better luck next time. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- As it happens these days producing vaguely relevant lists of book reviews is a job which can be done with a robot. However, even in the dumbed down world of modern university that will get little credit towards making a coherent place. So, I ask you a question. Which of these books (not book reviews) have you actually read? Could I have a cogent and relevant passage from a couple of the better ones? Not that it matters to the article of course since I agreed at the outset that there was involved in several major incidents, I was just making the point that you were thinking about smallish US ones; and I have also not disputed that these three should be mentioned although too many column inches are given to Texas and Prudhoe. Funnily I would argue for more coverage of Deepwater (which in financial terms at least was a hundred to a thousand times bigger than the others) but no doubt you'll find a reason to disagree with that as well. --BozMo talk 20:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fool yourself if you must, but the books include high quality scholarly texts from Cengage Learning, Macmillan and Princeton. Credible sources are all I've listed... there are no unbelievable or unlikely ones. A good effort, though, on your part, to undermine this extensive list. Better luck next time. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Trying to source reliable fact about BP from US business books aimed at the airport market is a bit like trying to source info on the Queen from Hello magazine or on GE from Noel Tichy but thats your preference. There is a valid point about management culture and approach to costs and risks of course. But more credible commentary would help. --BozMo talk 19:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- These are all serious and credible sources which list the three accidents under discussion. Every one of them. If you do not wish to understand what respected publishing houses are printing about BP then it is hardly likely your opinion will be considered here. Talk about "parochial"... Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Torrey Canyon
One additional one might be the Torrey Canyon in which BP was certainly "involved". Clearly I remember Torrey Canyon oil over all my favorite beaches as a kid, and more importantly remember the detergent which hung around for years longer. However I was looking at this article and the one on Torrey Canyon, both of which claim BP as the vessel operator. As far as I can tell BP were charterer, not operator although I think the distinction (some might say loophole) was only tidied up legally after the incident when it was realised they were not legally liable (reputation was another issue). Can anyone find a reference for "operated"? --BozMo talk 08:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks BozMo, that's a very interesting read. I googled it and found this up-to-date article that compares it to the Gulf spill - also a good read. This comparison was really interesting:
- Although the government got a kicking in the press, the attitude towards the implicated oil companies was strikingly mild compared with today's blame game. "If Wilson had been going on at the people responsible like Obama is, he would have been regarded as a bit eccentric or out of order," says Barker. In 1967, BP chartered the vessel but was widely exonerated. There was little hostility towards the ship's captain. "Today there would have been a lynch mob after him," observes Barker.
- Also, I note that it seems that the editors that seem to be more critical of BP are Americans and those less are from the UK - I wonder if that is just by chance or perhaps not...? Gandydancer (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your question US v UK is off topic so someone can collapse this in due course. There is an Atlantic effect in a number of articles (eg male circumcision which AFAICT is pretty much consensus viewed in the UK as unjustifiable child mutilation but is viewed very differently in the US where some parents still agreed to it). In this case offhand I only know the Geolocation of one other editor involved, WMC. I have never met him but his location is fairly memorable as the city I work in. There do appear to be two American editors defending trivia critical of BP in a very disproportionate way. Certainly the EU press has been less critical of BP and more critical of others (broadly, the US players) in Deepwater. But more significant negative stuff around BP in Russia is ignored here. For my tuppence worth I think BP in its heavy involvement in both Russian and the USA is taking a very risky game; these are not business environments in which Brits are familiar. BP is naive in takeovers and joint ventures and expected US politicians to play fair which is a bit like expecting Myra Hindley to be a good child minder. A lot of the mud throwing is also praising with faint damnation; we should not put in trivial junk and we should ensure our criticisms are spot on. We should also let facts speak for themselves. There are more serious facts but the current list with comments looks like a really incompetent hatchet job. --BozMo talk 19:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- As an example, where is the section on pollution in Siberia? According to Business Week each year for a decade, TNK-BP has had the biggest share of 300,000 metric tons to 500,000 tons of oil and products leaked into the Ob and Yenisei river basins, 1186 leaks last year alone and $2bn spent on clean up so far. [84] No, thats Siberia. Lets talk about 200 tons of leaks into Alaska bay and quote it in pounds so it sounds more. Both were inherited, one was nearly a thousand times the size of the other. The trivia has to go. --BozMo talk 19:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- The response of the US media and a number of senior US politicans to Deepwater was deeply cynical, hysterical and protectionist, to the point that the British Prime Minister was forced to intervene and point out that this is not the kind of behaviour expected towards the most strategically important company of America's "closest ally". Compare it to the reaction of the British media and British politicans to Occidental Petroleum's Piper Alpha disaster in the UK which killed 167 people and knocked out 10 per cent of North Sea production. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- At least there are reliable sources declaring it as such. I do not think that BP's board can have understood they would get no fair hearing if they took over liabilities in terms of people and business practices and something went wrong. The US is a quite different business and political environment with a lot more political opportunism and a shabby legal system. There are loads of dodgy companies taking big risks for this years bonuses but you cannot venture there with deep pockets, recruit from the same pool and act the same way. The employees themselves will take risks and not care unless you invest heavily in culture. BP should never have bought stuff there in the first place. --BozMo talk 20:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nonetheless of course, no one disputes Deepwater was a big spill and notable on the scale of BP. The oil is biodegradable will get eaten by bugs if left alone (unlike detergents) but it did affect a fair area for a while and was a big volume. I don't have a problem with Deepwater its the "someone in a BP garage picked their nose" stuff which undermines Wikipedia's credibility. --BozMo talk 20:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I remember Piper Alpha rather well. Whilst on conspiracy and the like, remember how the Greenpeace protestors painted out the Exxon logo on Brent Spar so that only the European Company, not the US one, got the rap? I never did work that out. --BozMo talk 20:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- The response of the US media and a number of senior US politicans to Deepwater was deeply cynical, hysterical and protectionist, to the point that the British Prime Minister was forced to intervene and point out that this is not the kind of behaviour expected towards the most strategically important company of America's "closest ally". Compare it to the reaction of the British media and British politicans to Occidental Petroleum's Piper Alpha disaster in the UK which killed 167 people and knocked out 10 per cent of North Sea production. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Russia
As the issue of Russia has raised recently, I would like to say that BP's operations in Russia are rather different from BP in some other countries, e.g. United States. According to the agreement to create TNK-BP, BP is not allowed to operate in Russia beside of TNK-BP. It is well illustrated by the wreckage of BP-Rosneft deal to develop Arctic Basin, which was legally blocked by co-owners of TNK-BP. BP has 50% stake in TNK-BP, but already for long time it does not control it. While in the beginning the management of TNK-BP was appointed by BP, this is not the case anymore since once TNK-BP CEO Bob Dudley was forced to escape from Russia after long-time harassment by Russian state structures and co-owners (AAR group). Therefore, I don't think that we could associate TNK-BP wrongdoings and incidents with BP. At the same time, Russian operations are deserved to be mentioned, e.g. the same story about loosing de facto control over TNK-BP, wrecked deal with Rosneft etc. Beagel (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- No doubt the degree of control is significant. But the events are huge and the lede said "involved in". We seem to mention quite a lot of stuff about Shell in Nigeria where control issues also exist. BP sits on the board and takes huge dividends. And as I say a number of issues are far more important that the US stuff--BozMo talk 05:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not saying that TNK-BP should be not mentioned. But the BP's stake is a non-operating stake, so one could ask how much BP is responsible for TNK-BP activities. As for the Board, it has eleven members and only four of them are representing BP. Chairman of the board is representing AAR, not BP. However, as a starting point, the information about TNK-BP environmental record should be added to the TNK-BP article. At the moment, it has corporate disputes section but no information about environment is included. Beagel (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- TNK-BP should of course be mentioned in this article and we should probably have a Joint ventures section which has a paragraph on its structure, operations, formation, key events etc. However we should remember that TNK-BP is not a controlled subsidiary of BP, and that it has its own WP article where detailed information and full coverage should go.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not saying that TNK-BP should be not mentioned. But the BP's stake is a non-operating stake, so one could ask how much BP is responsible for TNK-BP activities. As for the Board, it has eleven members and only four of them are representing BP. Chairman of the board is representing AAR, not BP. However, as a starting point, the information about TNK-BP environmental record should be added to the TNK-BP article. At the moment, it has corporate disputes section but no information about environment is included. Beagel (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oil spill removal
For context on removing the comment "According to the Public Interest Research Group, between January 1997 and March 1998, BP was responsible for 104 oil spills.[40] " BP's own record on oil spills [85] shows it has never had less than 200 in a year. Funnily, some people include oil spills outside the USA...although BPs figures exclude Siberia. --BozMo talk 08:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Accidents and Environmental record
Could we combine these two sections as a single section on, say "HSE record". All the accidents listed had significant environmental consequences and it seems odd to double list the entries. I suggest we have HSE record in two parts "as an operator" and "as a shareholder/owner" which would allow us to list some of the major Siberian incidents etc. ? --BozMo talk 14:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Section on Shareholdings
Presumably third after operations and before corporate? I guess we should write it here first. --BozMo talk 14:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- The biggest ones they exclude from their annual HSE reporting are SAPREF & TNK-BP. I wonder what proportion of their worldwide income comes from entities where they do not report HSE violations? --BozMo talk 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note 45 in their annual report. Non controlled entities contribute $1.8bn profit. The main ones they list are (the number after name is percentage holding) %
Angola Angola LNG Supply Services 14 US LNG processing and transportation
Argentina Pan American Energya 60 US Exploration and production
Canada Sunrise Oil Sands 50 Canada Exploration and production
China Shanghai SECCO Petrochemical Company 50 China Petrochemicals
Germany Ruhr Oel 50 Germany Refining and petrochemicals
Trinidad & Tobago Atlantic 4 Holdings 38 US LNG manufacture Atlantic LNG 2/3 Company of Trinidad and Tobago 43 Trinidad & Tobago LNG manufacture
Taiwan China American Petrochemical Companya 61 Taiwan Petrochemicals
UK Vivergo Fuels 46 England & Wales Biofuels
US BP-Husky Refining 50 US Refining Watson Cogenerationa b 51 US Power generation a The entity is not controlled by BP as certain key business decisions require joint approval of both BP and the minority partner. It is therefore classified as a jointly controlled entity rather than a subsidiary. b As at 31 December 2011 the group’s interests in Watson Cogeneration have been classified as assets held for sale. See Note 4 for further information. Associates % Country of incorporation Principal activities
Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi Gas Liquefaction Company 10 United Arab Emirates Crude oil production Abu Dhabi Marine Areas 33 England & Wales Crude oil production Abu Dhabi Petroleum Company 24 England & Wales Crude oil production
Azerbaijan The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company 30 Cayman Islands Pipelines South Caucasus Pipeline Company 26 Cayman Islands Pipelines
Russia TNK-BP 50 British Virgin Islands Integrated oil operations
The omission of Sapref is not clear; did they sell it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BozMo (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 September (UTC)
- BP still owns 50% stake in Sapref. Maybe it is was not because it does not own it directly by BP plc but through its wholly owned subsidiary BP South Africa (Pty) Ltd, and results of Sapref are already calculated in the results of BP South Africa. Beagel (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I support the creation of this section although I would prefer it be titled "Shareholdings and joint ventures" for accuracy. In terms of placing in the article, either just before or just after the Corporate affairs section would be logical, my preference is for the former. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Stock history
- The previous discussion about this topic is discussed here. Beagel (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Petrarchan asked if I would be able to provide some material or input into creating a section focusing on BP's stock history. After some research and with assistance from others at BP more knowledgeable about our stock history, I have prepared a new subsection for review. This covers the stock history since 1979, the beginning of its privatization, and details major changes from that point. An aspect I am curious about here in describing historical events related to the company's UK history: I've written in American English, but perhaps words such as "privatization"/"privatisation" should be in the UK spelling?
The draft is in my user pages here: User:Arturo at BP/Stock history
I have also created and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons two graphs, showing the stock price on the NYSE from 1979 to 2000 and on the LSE from 2000 to 2012. The range of data for the LSE did not go as far back as that for the NYSE, hence the older data being specific to that stock exchange. For the more recent data, as there is already a graph for 2000 - 2012 for the NYSE in the article, I thought the LSE data would provide a non-US view of the stock price for this time period.
The images are here: File:BP stock price NYSE 1979 - 1999.png and File:BP stock price LSE 2000 - 2012.png
I've written this with the intention that it will be added to the Corporate affairs section, if there is agreement to do so. As it has worked before with drafts I've prepared, please review and make any changes to the draft in my user pages, but let's keep the discussion of the draft on this page so that it is easier to follow. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just one question: why are the share prices quoted in dollars if the primary market is the LSE? --BozMo talk 15:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a month ago 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. The first oner is currently used in the history section. Beagel (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi BozMo, the reason that I used U.S. dollars in the draft is that BP uses the U.S. dollar as its functional currency and its ordinary shares are also denominated in dollars, as mentioned on the company's website. Additionally, the sources I used here gave the figures in dollars, so I felt that it did not make sense to convert them to British Pounds. Having said that, I am open to whatever currency makes the most sense to use here. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- For consistency across the article and for the reasons given I think US dollars is fine. The draft text is excellent and I support its inclusion in the article as propsed in the Corporate affairs section. I would suggest that the stock price graph currently in the History section be moved to the new sub section. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi BozMo, the reason that I used U.S. dollars in the draft is that BP uses the U.S. dollar as its functional currency and its ordinary shares are also denominated in dollars, as mentioned on the company's website. Additionally, the sources I used here gave the figures in dollars, so I felt that it did not make sense to convert them to British Pounds. Having said that, I am open to whatever currency makes the most sense to use here. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:17, 18 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.
- ^ [86]
- ^ [87]
- ^ [88]
- ^ [89]
- ^ [90]
- ^ [91]
- ^ a b "Gulf Spill Is the Largest of Its Kind, Scientists Say". New York: New York Times. 2 August 2010. Retrieved 24 August 2012.
- ^ [92]
- ^ [93]
- ^ [94]
- ^ [95]
- ^ [96]
- ^ [97]
- ^ [98]
- ^ "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] - ^ a b BP: Summary | OpenSecrets
- ^ "SaveTheArctic.com". SaveTheArctic.com. Archived from the original on 16 December 2008. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)