Talk:BP/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Incorrect information and repeated linkage

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

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

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

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

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

Judge, jury, and executioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some relevant quotes from WP:RS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was referring to the edit I made here [1]. Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BP Wikipedia outreach team

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

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

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

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

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

unrelated tangent

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

Why is there still discussion in this forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, me too. Gandydancer (talk)

"Controversy emerged"

We currently say "Controversy emerged in 2013 over the amount of content from BP that had entered the article". How can we, in good conscience, include that in the article when our sources are both online news sources of little importance [2] [3]. This isn't an issue being reported by major news organizations like the BBC, CNN, Fox, or the New York Times. If it isn't being discussed, it doesn't have the significance required to be in the article and violates WP:UNDUE. Ryan Vesey 02:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

request for arturo - maps with waiver of copyright

Hi Arturo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Way forward–example of FA class article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are we to do???

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

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

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

NTY

DemNow

NTY

Re entire history

Guardian

HuffPo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content-based comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving for this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOM global output

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

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

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

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

Oil rigs

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

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

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

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

I just remembered. It was at good old Wikipedia. @ the Gulf Coast of the United States article. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

More to update: BP to sell US wind farms

From The Independent:

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

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

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

More:

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, BP noted that their departure from wind doesn’t mean the company is completely out of the alternative energy business. BP still produces ethanol in Brazil and the United Kingdom, and is also conducting biofuel research in the United States. “This is not an exit from alternative energy,” wrote Hartwig. Beagel (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

This is from Ted Magazine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing context

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

Removed text and misinterpretation of sources

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

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

The cited source, which is a reputable news source says, 'BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)'.

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

Now let is look at what is claimed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is, however, a reliable source of the DOJ's position, and the DOJ's position, and its stated determination to extract maximum penalties, is material to this article. It would be to the article on any company. I think that your continual efforts to minimize the impact of this trial are not constructive, considering that a $16 billion settlement has been discussed.[4]. Wikipedia editors should reflect what is in reliable secondary sources and not utilize our supposed "expertise" to exclude such facts from the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so. If Microsoft had produced a product that killed 11 of their employees during the "before market" stage, I'm sure the editors at the article would have created a "criticism" section. Or lets say a warehouse full of Microsoft products all of a sudden self-combusted and emitted a dark ominous cloud of smoke and carcinogens over a 20 mile area...for almost four months... I think the Microsoft editors would mention it. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

some material for global safety and comparison with peers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

some notable thigns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-Reader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fully agree that we should not label other editor as I already wrote here less than month ago.[5] I would appreciate if the creator of this thread confirms that all above-said applies also to labelling editors as 'pro-BP', 'hard-core volunteer BP p.r. reps', or 'the guys and gals in the white biohazard suits w/ the BP sunburst'. I also appreciate if the same applies to the practice to describe editors representing a certain POV as 'independent editors' while implying that editors disagreeing with that POV are not independent. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Texas City refinery addition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petrarchan, thank you for the prompt response. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Iran Coup missing info

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

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

To this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would you both care to look at this as well? All media, including a BP spokesman, declared that BP was refocusing on oil and gas when they put their wind farms up for sale (which followed their departure from solar). But we are not allowed to say that here, according to Beagle. See here and here, as well as yesterday's editing. petrarchan47tc 01:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and unfortunately it seems that the article needs to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb, to see if optimal sources are used and if the quoting of the sources accurately reflects the source materials. For example, in reviewing the sourcing of the oil spill criminal complaints text, I noticed a single line saying that the company had been barred from bidding on new federal contracts. It is dealt with in such a clipped fashion that it sounded almost like a bureaucratic step. But what was omitted, and was reported very high in the articles reporting on it, was that the US had cited BP's "lack of business integrity." That kind of detail is needed in this article, and omission of it really skews the POV in the direction of whitewash. Coretheapple (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)