Wikipedia

Talk:BP/Archive 18

< Talk:BP
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Nathan Johnson in topic RFC About BP Article
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Archiving time (again)

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
Minor issue. Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The talk page has currently 27 open discussions and the size is 370+k. This is to much keep the talk page navigable and manageable. Maybe we could reduce the archiving time to 14 days? Two weeks without any comment seems to long enough time taking account the current active watching and editing of this page. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, 14 days is far too short. Given the complexity of the subject matter and the tendency of the same subject coming up over and over again,30 days is more appropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Right now it seems to be 20 days. That's really not long enough. Coretheapple (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I was just about to change the bot to 10 days when I noticed this. I agree that the page is getting hard to navigate. If someone hasn't commented on a thread for 10 days on such a busy talk page it's probably safe to assume that the discussion is over. If someone raises the same issue again, they could be directed to the archive to review the discussion, and if they continue it, the old discussion can be linked from the new one. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense to me Shii (tock) 06:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Can't say I feel strongly about it. Personally I like a nice long retention time, but given the circumstances, I reckon that the majority of people interested enough to participate would look in at far shorter intervals than that, so not much harm should be done by shortening the hold time to 10 days. JonRichfield (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I just felt that given the repetitive nature of the disputes here, having a longer retention time would be more useful. Also we have RfCs that keep getting prematurely archived before 30 days. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
If there is majority support for 10 days, I accept this instead of 14 days proposed myself. Concerning archiving RfCs, this issue was resolved by user:Wwoods, so all RfCs stays at least for 30 days. Beagel (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I can support 10 days. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Did I see where someone changed it to 15 days? The only problem I have with 15 days is that "we achieve consensus on 10 days and then it gets changed to 15 WITHOUT discussion" .We get consensus on a little issue and it gets ignored within days. It may seem trivial, but the small agreements lead to bigger ones. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No, the archiving time is still 10 days. What was changed to 15 was the archive number as there seems to be some problem with bot and archive 14. Hopefully this will fix the problem. Beagel (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Beagle, for straightning me out. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative energy section and Antonia Juhasz

Latest comment: 11 years ago36 comments7 people in discussion

Separately to the above request, I wanted to bring two things to editors' attention regarding the "Alternative energy" section. First of all, recent edits to the section have perhaps gone too far in downplaying BP's investment in alternative energy (nearly $8 billion since 2005) prior to the recent wind sale announcement. Comparing BP's Alternative Energy business with other alternative energy companies you can see how notable and large this business is in relative terms: last year BP Biofuels was ranked 12 in BioFuel Digest's list of hottest biofuel companies and BP was ranked 6th for market share and 5th overall for new wind energy installation in the US last year, this ranking is higher than many companies that specifically focus on wind energy. This is useful context for the multiple criticisms of "greenwashing" in the article that may be a bit much. I also think it is important when judging the size of BP's AE business before the wind sale to look at how it ranked in comparison to competitors in the industry and not just to the size of its other businesses.

Additionally, while I was re-reading this section I noticed that the description of Antonia Juhasz reads "oil and energy analyst", which does not seem NPOV to me, given that her writing focus is on criticism of the oil industry (her books are titled The True Cost of Chevron, The Tyranny of Oil etc). I was curious and looked at her Wikipedia article, as it seems the description came from there, then I noticed that she seems to have added this description herself. I am aware there is no rule specifically against editing articles where you have a COI (it is my preference not to do so here) but it does seem that there is a neutrality issue here of using a description word-for-word in this article that Ms. Juhasz wrote in her own article. Would someone be able to update the "Alternative energy" section to provide a clearer, more NPOV description of Ms. Juhasz? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The words "oil and energy analyst" are hardly anything that should cause concern. Never the less, I have supplied a source in hopes that that will satisfy your request. Gandydancer (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
She is referred to as an "analyst" by the New York Times[1] and as an oil industry analysts by many other reliable sources. She is indisputably an oil industry analyst. I really think that this is precisely the kind of input from BP that is not welcome. We don't need the opinion of the subject of this article as to whether or not a source is described to its liking. We certainly don't need any tsk-tsking on conflict of interest. No, that we absolutely do not need from the subject of this article, with its staggeringly large presence on the talk page, which at one point resulted in over four-tenths of this article's text originating from the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
One other point: Antonia Juhasz is hardly a model article. But if I or any editor make changes to her article or to this one in response to what BP is suggesting, I can see a media furor erupting, and Ms. Juhasz complaining, perhaps publicly, for one could accurately describe any such edits (such as a COI tag, if warranted) as "inspired by BP." She could further point out with justification that the comment was not made on her talk page. I think this points up why it is not a good idea for subjects of articles to make comments on articles concerning their critics. In fact, as I've indicated previously, the presence of BP in this talk page, arguing to make this article more to its liking and trying to spin this article in its favor, is not a good thing and really needs to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
When Juhasz was first named in this article, it was done by User:Was 203.27.72.5 and according to this explanation at the talk page. In his proposal Was 203.27.72.5 used the word 'activist', not 'oil and energy analyst'. That time this was not opposed by any editor and Was 203.27.72.5 made a good job cleaning up the article and making it more NPOV. It was only recently when the word 'activist' was replaced by 'oil and energy analyst' by arguing that this is what the Juhasz's article says. However, the current version of that article was mostly written by Juhasz herself (should we expect an article by Violet Blue about this?). Although the reference of the Institute for Public Accuracy was added, it is not clear if that source qualifies as RS or not. As the reference by The New York Times, it says that "an analyst with Oil Change International, a watchdog group". Oil Chaqnge International describes itself as "a research, communication, and advocacy organization". Hiding fact that she is representing an institutions having certain POV about oil industry and making impression that she is an independent 'oil and energy analyst' is POV itself. Beagel (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
She is an independent oil and energy analyst. The fact that she is critical does not remove her independence; indeed it confirms it. Regardless of the merits of this BP-requested change, and I see none here, I think that we need to move with great care in dealing with any request that impacts upon a living person by the corporation that is the subject of this article. Quite frankly, I think that any changes made to anything that relates to this person is an open invitation of still more reputational lumps for Wikipedia. 17:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Coretheapple (talk)
Person working with an advocacy organization is not independent. Also, please correct me if I understand you not correctly, but did you just said that writing most of the text of the article about yourself and violating COI policy in most serious way is less "reputational lump for Wikipedia" than talking about this? Beagel (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Beagel. Can you rephrase that last sentence? I have no idea what you are asking and I would bet that neither does Core. Talking here about this and resolving any issues is one thing....but acting on Arturos request is another. I would hope that nothing gets done antil editors collaborate. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I think I understand what Beagel is referring to. I would put it this way: taking "requests" from BP for this article presents its own set of problems, given how far beyond simply "correcting errors" this has come. But if editors here start to do this company's bidding when it comes to BP's critics, if we change the way those people are referred to because BP doesn't like it, or start editing the articles of BP's critics because of remarks made on this talk page by BP, I think it is self-evident that we would be crossing a "red line" of sorts and really making Wikipedia look like bad. It doesn't matter whether the requests have merit or not. We're going to get some awful publicity and richly deserve it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we should not accept what BP says about their critics. However, as the word 'activist' was replaced by 'oil and energy analyst' just a week ago [2] and the previous version was not proposed by Arturo, so why not to restore the wording which was there for nine months? Beagel (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
PS: Although your arguments have merit, this can't be justification for the most serious violation of COI. Beagel (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
"Activist," which was the previous terminology, is pejorative and POV. "Analyst" is accurate, however it might discomfit BP. That was a good edit. "COI" certainly has nothing to do with it, as that description was not added by the lady and it may well have come from a different source than the Wiki article. However, I am grateful this issue has been raised as it demonstrates very clearly how ridiculous it is for BP to be actively involved in its Wiki page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
That description was added by "the lady" to Antonia Juhasz and was cahnged here by the edit summary: "Juhasz not called "activist", changed to what his Wiki says "oil and energy analyst"". That means, it was added here based on primary sources. Beagel (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
In case of using "expert", the affiliated organization which was at the time should be added for clarification. Beagel (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I mean let use what the NYT says. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that we have done, already, far more than is necessary, and wasted already far too much time, to make BP feel all warm and fuzzy about this article's references to this lady. I also feel that your edit to Antonia Juhasz[3], prompted as it was by comments in this article by BP, was ill-advised. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Re your 19:13 comment, you'd have to ask Petrarchan, but I have no information that "analyst" was taken from the wiki article. Doesn't matter. It's accurate. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple and Gandydancer, my only point in bringing up the current description of Ms. Juhasz is the questionable source used and that the description creates the impression she is an analyst working within the industry. I thought editors might want to look into it, especially since this is a rather new description of her in this article.

To reply to Core's second response above: my request above strictly focuses on her description in this article. I have not suggested any change in her own article nor have I criticized her for editing her own article. I don't appreciate your repeated characterizations of my participation here as "trying to spin this article". If you disagree with me on a substantive issue, I'm always willing to discuss that. I wish you would refrain from making statements that I should not be involved here at all, which is not productive and is directly contradictory to Jimmy Wales' expressed view and Wikipedia guidelines that advocates like myself are welcome to participate in these discussions. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. You're injecting yourself directly into the Wikipedia editorial process, where you don't belong, to change an NPOV and accurate description of this person, who has been critical of your company, into something more favorable and hence less NPOV. That's spin. If you don't want editors to say that you are trying to spin this article, don't do stuff like that. As for her article: No sooner did you write those words than someone trotted over to her article and engaged in drive-by tagging. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
So you say that the article violating WP:COI and WP:BLP has some kind of immunity which does not allow adding maintenance tags because of ... Because of what exactly? Beagel (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss that article. Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I've addressed the situation at some length in Talk:Antonia Juhasz. I'd urge you to read my post and reflect on the desirability and implications of further disruptive tagging of noncontroversial biographical info on that page. Coretheapple (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems reasonable that the description of Ms. Juhasz in this article should be based on how she is described in independent sourcing. Based on a quick Google News search, I found the following few articles (which I do not believe could be construed as hostile or POV), which provide the following descriptions of Ms. Juhasz:
  • NPR: "Author and activist Antonia Juhasz"
  • CNN: "Antonia Juhasz, an activist shareholder from the Gulf Coast"
  • USA Today: "Juhasz — a scholar, author and activist"
As I have explained above, referring to her as an "oil and energy analyst" creates the impression she is an industry insider, rather than an individual who has worked with advocacy organizations with an anti-oil POV, including (as NPR describes it) "the petro-critic organization Oil Change International". As I obviously have a POV here myself, my suggestion is that editors look at neutral, reliable sources and decide based on those how she should be described in this article so that it is clearest to readers. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as the suggestions above are concerned, I for one now have the additional headache of dealing with the drive-by tagging in Antonia Juhasz, thanks to the gratuitous reference by the BP rep at the top of this section. Making BP happy on this issue is definitely not at the very top of my list of priorities, especially since the current wording is fair, NPOV and accurate. However, I must say that there is considerable entertainment value in seeing BP getting exercised about COI on Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Let stop the drama and discuss the issue. It seems that CNN and USA Today are more reliable sources about that person than the Institute for Public Accuracy. Beagel (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
No, let's not. It's time we stopped allowing BP to set the agenda of this talk page. The Times calls her an analyst, as do other sources. We have better things to do, a long list of better things to do, than spending our time making BP happy with every little thing in this article. The gratuitous, unnecessary, I daresay rather mischievous reference made by BP to her Wiki article is what caused the drama and wasted time that is now extending over to the article on this poor woman. I'd sure hate to be a BLP who falls afoul of the BP publicity machine. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Concerning the New York Times, why not to use what the source says. It says: "an analyst with Oil Change International, a watchdog group", not just an analyst. It is important difference. If you prefer the NYT, let use the exact wording from that source. Beagel (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Because there is no need. She has written two books on oil. She obviously gets on BP's nerves, given the hyperfocus on her by the Wikipedia engagement team. Coretheapple (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Arturo, upon what reliable source are you basing your claim that only an "industry insider" can be an "oil and energy analyst"? One can "analyze" from an outside perspective just as validly - and perhaps more so, given the lack of potential for conflicts of interest - as someone with an inside perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, the question is how have reliable, independent sources described her. Based on what I've found, "author" and "activist" seem to be the most common. I'm leaving it up to the editors. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
"Analyst" is fine, accurate and neutral, BP's opposition notwithstanding. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"Analyist" works, however the most-used description for her that arose in my research was "oil and gas analyst", which makes her an even more RS for this particular article than some random analyst. I would prefer that title remain, rather than simply "analyst". Is there an attempt to discredit her a bit, based on her analysis of the subject of this article? It appears so. petrarchan47tc 21:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant, actually, sorry for being murky. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Analyst? Reliable Source? Author? What would serve this article and the reader best would be to ask her to edit alongside all of us. I suggest User:Antonia not at BP as her user name. Then we could refer to her as a "self-identified Wikipedia editor/analyst/author/critic". IMO that would provide the balance that some editors feel is missing. We wouild finally have a paid advocate with the capacity to spend time and resources on the side of the reader. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Excellent observation by Buster. He is exactly correct in this suggestion. Think about it: Arturo's only reason for editing here is to present BP's best interest and he has a number of co-workers that work on the article as well. He works on no other articles. On the other hand, I am always working on several articles where I need to retain enough expertise to make intelligent edits and I watch over quite a few others as well. This is the case for most of the editors such as Bink, Buster, Petra, and others. I think it would be a great idea for someone to ask an expert that compares to Arturo, such as Antonia, to help out with the article. Others, such as Riki Ott, could be invited as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
This really makes a tremendous amount of sense. petrarchan47tc 21:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Lamentably, and this is true of other experts on BP, their involvement in this article would be dictated entirely by their interest in improving the project, as they have no intrinsic financial interest in counteracting the BP presence in the editorial process here. They may not like it, but, like us and unlike BP, they are not paid to have a presence here. Hence their motivation is not quite the same as BP's and it is going to be harder to persuade them to come here than we might think. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Question for Arturo re alternative energy

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

The article states BP spent $1.5 billion in all alternative forms of energy in 2008. Could you please let us know what forms of alternative energy are included in this figure. Also, is there an updated figure? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, according to the Annual Report for 2008, the investment was in "alternative forms of energy such as wind, solar, biofuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS)". In the pages of the report focusing on AE, you can see that the operations included wind, solar, biofuels, hydrogen power and gas-fired power. See: BP Annual Report 2008, p5 and p37-38. Interestingly, the Annual Report states investment that year was $1.4 billion. For more recent investment figures for the Alternative Energy business, here's what I have been able to find:
  • $1.3 billion in 2009 (6% of BP's total investment that year). Source: Reuters, April 2010, "Landis said BP spent $1.3 billion in the alternative energy sector last year, which represented some 6 percent of the company's overall investment." See also: BP Annual Report 2009, p42.
  • As of December 31, 2010, total investment since 2005 was over $5 billion, see BP Annual Report, p61, but I have not been able to find a published figure specifically for investment in this year.
Based on the difference between the totals since 2005 for 2011 and 2012, the company spent approx. $1 billion in 2012. Investment in 2012 focused on "biofuels, wind and a range of other longer-term technology investments", see BP Annual Report 2012, p82. AE activities last year are also shown on this page of the company's website. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if we have a problem when we continue to accept BP's use of the term alternative energy when perhaps it needs to be defined in the article. According to Wikipedia, The nature of what constitutes an alternative energy source has changed considerably over time, as have controversies regarding energy use. According to Oxford dictionary alt energy is, "Energy fueled in ways that do not use up natural resources or harm the environment." I bring this up because in their alt energy figures BP includes natural gas-fired power, CCS, biofuels, and hydrogen power. There is plenty of argument about whether or not these forms of energy are harmful for the environment and the issues about whether they are actually environmentally sustainable are far from settled. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I know this issue came up awhile ago and some of us (myself included) thought that alternative energy referred only to wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal...come to mind. So I'd assume that many of our readers are not better informed than I was. Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought of it and I think it needs to be explored. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Natural gas / fracking (Arturo, does this category include the tar sands project, and could you break down for us exactly which projects are included?):
(Commentary) For decades, natural gas (methane) has been touted as a greener energy alternative to coal, when, according to a new Cornell University study, in considering its whole lifecycle, natural gas appears to be worse for climate change than the coal industry and is more toxic to the environment and human health.
The driver of gas' green halo is true: methane burns cleaner than coal, thus contributing less to global warming during combustion. However, the hydraulic fracturing process — the only way industry knows to get the gas that's left — releases significant amounts of methane, unburned, directly into the atmosphere. When methane isn't burned, it's 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Combine that with the 1,000 truck trips, on average, 2 million to 8 million gallons of water, and 10,000 to 40,000 gallons of chemicals used per well.
Sixty percent of those chemicals can harm the brain and nervous system, 40 percent are known endocrine disrupters, 30 percent are suspected carcinogens, 30 percent are developmental toxicants. In fact, the natural gas industry is the only industry that permanently removes water from the natural water cycle.
I am not comfortable with BP's characterization of this process as "alternative energy". A good option for now would be to simply remove "Alternative energy" from the section heading, and replace it with something like "Wind, Solar, Biol-fuels and Natural Gas" - that way we remove the possibility of spin. The different forms of energy production should be listed from most-used to least. petrarchan47tc 21:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If we're sure that natural gas is included in that category (I find it murky, but I've had a bad day), then yes, we need to change the header. Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • From a 2010 BP ad: we've invested $28 billion over the last five years in U.S. energy supplies, including solar, wind, hydrogen and natural gas. It's a start: BP, Beyond Petroleum. NPR.
  • From the Guardian: Let's get real. BP likes to say that it is investing $1.5bn (£980,000) a year in "alternative energy". True, I am sure. But that word "alternative" is clever. Delve a little further and it turns out that BP's alternative energy division includes not just wind and solar and biofuels but also natural gas-fired power stations. Natural gas may be less polluting than coal and oil, but at the end of the day it's a fossil fuel filling the atmosphere with CO2. Alternative? Not by my definition petrarchan47tc 22:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • From HuffPost: only a tiny percent of BP's annual revenue has come from things "beyond petroleum," and most of that is from natural gas. (The exact amount of BP's renewable energy revenue isn't known, since in its annual report, the company lumps together "Gas, Power, and Renewables," which includes natural gas as well as solar) petrarchan47tc 22:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I see. I guess "gas-fired power," the euphemism used by the BP rep above, is called "natural gas" in English. Thanks. Yes, we absolutely do not want to use "alternative energy" as a header for that section. Coretheapple (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, BP has a natural gas business (considered part of the company's Upstream business), so it is highly doubtful that has much at all to do with our alternative energy investments. I will look to see if I can provide more detail about the breakdown of investment into alternative energy, but I believe the vast majority of the spend will have been into biofuels (cellulosic ethanol) and the wind business, both ranked fairly high as sourced on this talk page. The wind business grew significantly in the past few years. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. petrarchan47tc 08:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
To add further detail, the "gas-fired power" I mentioned above (using the exact wording from the Annual Report) does not relate to development of natural gas resources. We have a natural gas business that is part of our Upstream business which is a totally separate business than our Alternative Energy business, clearly indicated by looking at our 2012 Annual Report, so investments in that business would not be counted as alternative energy. Also, after a quick read of the Huffington Post story cited, it doesn't say anything about investment into the alternative energy business, only that revenue from that business is categorized along with revenue from gas power as well. The quote doesn't say that natural gas is considered part of BP's alternative energy business. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"Gas-fired power" appears to mean power plants fueled by natural gas. http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021518&contentId=7040019 Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to all for input. I made some article edits and people seem OK with them. It seems that this issue has been resolved. Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Update needed

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Another rescue from the archives. These haven't been added to the Gulf spill litigation section yet. petrarchan47tc 02:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I to understand that no one feels this content should be added? What policy would support leaving these lawsuits out? Thanks, petrarchan47tc 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming the opposite: that there is no objection. Besides, I think that we've gotten away from the days when it was considered essential to post stuff on talk pages, lest they be removed en masse by editors with quick trigger fingers. Or at least I hope those days are past. Coretheapple (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm suspicious that it's this type of addition that would qualify as "POV pushing" to the newer editors at this page. I'm trying to get clarity from Robert about this. petrarchan47tc 03:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
We don't have to satisfy the common denominator or any particular contributor, though I'll admit it's frustrating to add amply sourced content and see it immediately chucked off. This has happened previously on this page, and caution is understandable. Coretheapple (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you consider parking this at Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Legal_aspects_and_settlements until we finish current discussion about how much DWH detail is appropriate in this article. ~KvnG 23:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
No, this is about legal issues related to the spill. They are suing BP, so according to the gathering consensus at the RfC, as well as common sense, this would be the perfect article for this content. petrarchan47tc 07:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you arguing that the above material is more relevant to this article than to Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill? ~KvnG 13:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. A read of the RfC will show you how this idea was crystallized. petrarchan47tc 03:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Deepwater Horizon section

Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

(Rescued from archives) petrarchan47tc 03:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact (From BP/Arturo)

In the recent expansion of the Deepwater Horizon section, a lot of information has been added that provides only a negative view of the company, even where sources exist that show a more balanced view. In particular, it is concerning that studies are discussed in this article that have only provided initial findings or whose findings are contradicted by other research available. I have cited a few sources below, but there are quite a few more that I am more than willing to share.

For the "Environmental impact" subsection, there is no mention of the increase in bacteria which broke down oil in the Gulf:

And recent research contradicts the research cited in the article that one-third of the oil remains in the Gulf:

Regarding the impact of oil and dispersant on the food chain, samples of fish and crustaceans have been tested by the NOAA and FDA, and by state agencies:

Response from Hugh Kaufman

I've shown Hugh Kaufman (EPA whistleblower) the above and asked for any help in getting a fuller picture. I've italicized (and highlighted) his words. These are the links and selected text I received, in this order: petrarchan47tc 03:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Hazen's position BEFORE BP paid him off:

Some experts have also said that the use of Corexit has prolonged by decades the presence of toxic crude oil, because the dispersant sinks the oil beneath the ocean surface, where it cannot be quickly broken down by sun, waves and microbes.

And the head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Ecology Department – Terry Hazen – argues that the use of dispersants can delay recovery of ocean ecosystems by decades:

Hazen has more than 30 years experience studying the effects of oil spills. He says the oil will be damaging enough; toxic dispersants will just make it worse. He points to the 1978 Amoco Cadiz Spill off the coast of Normandy as an example. He says areas where dispersants were used still have not fully recovered, while areas where there was no human intervention are now fine.source

Use of Corexit in 1978 Oil Spill Delayed Recovery by DECADES

I previously pointed out: Some experts have also said that the use of Corexit has prolonged by decades the presence of toxic crude oil, because the dispersant sinks the oil beneath the ocean surface...

---

"Just three days after the U.S. Coast Guard admiral in charge of the BP oil spill cleanup declared little recoverable surface oil remained in the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana fishers Friday found miles-long strings of weathered oil floating toward fragile marshes on the Mississippi River delta..." source

'Serious problems' for wildlife forecast if the oil gets into coastal marshes

---

"The criticism of the government report comes as other independent studies this week concluded that not only has the oil not vanished, but it could be significantly more dangerous that we've been led to believe. Scientists at the University of Georgia have found that the vast majority of the oil is still in the water. Scientists from the University of South Florida have a new study finding that the oil suspended underwater may be more toxic to microorganisms in the Gulf than researchers previously thought. And researchers from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution released yet another study contradicting government reports. Theirs found that not only is the dispersed oil hanging in a 22-mile-long, one-mile-wide plume, it's also degrading much more slowly in the plumes than it would at the surface. 'The plumes could stick around for quite a while,' study co-author Ben Van Mooy told the AP. source

Government officials admit the now-infamous report was just an "estimate."

---

The Toxic Gulf - The uncalculated aftermath of the deepwater horizon oil spill

---

(Petrarchan's question to Hugh Kaufman: "from an initial glance, it looks like there is no new direct refutation of Hazen's findings.
In an article from 2012: "Ira Leifer, a petroleum geochemist also at UC Santa Barbara who co-wrote a rebuttal to the 2011 paper published in Science, said the latest study was limited because it was based on a computer model "which is only as good as the input or assumptions" on which it is based. He noted, for example, that the authors had neglected to include a discussion of whether the bacteria would run out of critical nutrients necessary for them to consume the oil and gas and reproduce" source
I think from your reply, any proof of plumes is proof that microbes didn't eat all the oil, so more of an indirect refutation?

Hugh Kaufman:

Dispersants sink the oil, shielding it from the natural processes like sun, waves and microbes which break it down:

[Texas A&M University coral reef expert Wes Tunnell] stood in the clear, waist-deep water of the protected reef lagoon holding what appeared to be a three-inch-thick slab of sandy gray clay. When he broke it in two, it was jet black on the inside, with the texture and smell of an asphalt brownie. Here on the lagoon side, where the reef looked gray and dead, the Ixtoc tar mat was still partially buried in the sediments. But on the ocean side of the reef, where winds and waves and currents were stronger, no oil remained. The lesson for Louisiana and the other Gulf states is clear, Tunnell thinks. Where there is wave energy and oxygen, sunlight and the Gulf’s abundant oil-eating bacteria break it down fairly quickly. When oil falls to the bottom and gets entrained in low-oxygen sediments like those in a lagoon—or in a marsh—it can hang around for decades, degrading the environment.

source

---

The study found that mixing the dispersant with oil increased toxicity of the mixture up to 52-fold over the oil alone If the 4.9 million barrels of oil that spilled into the Gulf of Mexico during the 2010 Deep Water Horizon spill was a ecological disaster, the two million gallons of dispersant used source

(This is the last communication from Hugh. I've invited him to leave further comments here.) petrarchan47tc 03:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

--

Can you please clarify what is coming from your expert and what is commentary or additions. Not clear. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I've put his comments in bold now. The other text was what he highlighted from the links. petrarchan47tc 23:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
That helps a little but I'm still not sure. You have in boldface "the study found" but then the rest of the paragraph is not, so does that mean he only wrote the words in boldface. Not clear who is offering the sources, you or him? It might be better if you could simply replicate the email that you got from him, deleting the email addresses. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a replica of a series of about 6 emails I received, all with very little commentary (save the highlighted above) and some selected text (included without highlight). I used --- to differentiate between in each email. petrarchan47tc 21:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Independent context

(Added by Petrarchan47)


  • Comment: The linked ProPublica blog source regarding the microbe study was published in 2010 and refers to research from U.C. Berkeley, whereas the links I provided above are from this month and report on more recent research by researchers at the University of Tennessee. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but they both involve Terry Hazen, who has made presentations frequently along the same lines in the past, when he was at Berkeley, and whose work has been very generously funded by BP. He made the same point in 2010, and I found the following in a U of C Berkeley press release entitled "Study shows deepwater oil plume in Gulf degraded by microbes":
"Hazen, who has studied numerous oil-spill sites in the past, is the leader of the Ecology Department and Center for Environmental Biotechnology at Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division. He conducted this research under an existing grant he holds with the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) to study microbial enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. EBI is a partnership led by the University of California (UC) Berkeley and including Berkeley Lab and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP."[4] (boldface added)
So while I'm not entirely clear on his present funding, his (at least) past relationship with BP is clear and has received quite a bit of publicity. This does not disqualify his research from Wikipedia by any means, but his BP ties would have to be disclosed. This indicates why it behooves us to be careful, to not rush, to not accept sourcing suggestions and claims of "imbalance" from anyone (especially a party to litigation) at face value, to obtain countervailing expert opinions if at all possible, and to deal with these sources with care, if at all. Coretheapple (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I want to thank Petrarchan for her excellent work in providing an independent perspective that is greatly needed, and without which I do believe this article and Wikipedia readers would be dealt a severe disservice. As the above indicates, we need to examine all sources with appropriate skepticism and not make any changes/additions to the article based on the complaints of one party to litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Core. If you want to read about the Gulf oil spill, you have to look at the 2012 version of the article (before the ecology section was split away on Christmas Eve without any consensus, followed by cutting the article almost in half) - today Hazen is not mentioned in the main oil spill article (it is in the "oil spill response" which got 14 views today), but here is what I had recorded before the great pre-trial scrubbing: petrarchan47tc 06:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Thanks very much. Clearly this article and the Deepwater Horizon article have been subjected to grotesquely skewed editing over these past months, and need to be fleshed out to make them even marginally useful to readers. BP's involvement in the article serves primarily to highlight how inadequate this article is, how much it needs to be improved, and why BP's involvement in the editorial process of Wikipedia is problematic and represents a significant challenge for editors on this page. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
you do realize that aurturo doesn't edit the article, which goes above and beyond WP:COI... so quit complaining about it. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 15:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Accurately stated, Aturo doesn't "directly" edit the article. Myself and other editors have acted as his proxy. Coretheapple is right when he states that BP's presence at the article is a challenge. The challenge is to make sure that the article is ABOUT BP, not BY BP. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Remaining oil



petrarchan47tc 23:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Many more references are listed here

  • Comment: The information about the oil on the seafloor and the "dirty blizzard" are currently included in the "Environmental impact" section, so the inclusion of these sources is redundant here. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Food Safety


  • Comment: Related to Coretheapple's point below about being careful in using scientific studies, it's important to note as best I can tell that the sources above all relate to one study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, critiquing the FDA's risk assessment of seafood. (I didn't see a second study mentioned in third source linked, perhaps there's some confusion in that the NRDC study was carried out by two scientists per the quote Petrarchan highlighted.) Per the Time article linked above, the results of this study contradict both the FDA and other agencies' findings:
Quote: "The FDA said most of the seafood it sampled after the spill had no detectable trace of oil. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals calculated that every day for five years the average person could eat 1,575 jumbo shrimp or 130 oysters without health concerns."
The current details in the article only tell one side of the story, but as I have shown above, there are sources that justify giving a more rounded perspective on this issue, assuming editors think this level of detail deserves to be in the article at all. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You keep saying that you want a "rounded perspective" and that the current article tells only "one side of the story," but at this point the detail is so bare bones that it barely even touches on he Gulf situation at all. There is not one word about food safety. In what way is that unbalanced on the subject of food safety? The article says that the oil and dispersant entered into the food chain. Are you saying that it didn't? When you make an accusation of bias in the article, and then propose a raft of sources, I think that it would give your statements considerably more credibility if you presented some evidence of imbalance and did not just make conclusory allegations. Doing so is not constructive. Coretheapple (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Gulf spill section (rescued from archives)

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Until the Gulf spill section and related RfC are squared away, it's helpful if these links remain on the talk page. They come from the archives. petrarchan47tc 03:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC) ping petrarchan47tc 19:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


Reviews of Corexit/health findings

Related

For help with summary; my comments from RfC Survey on template:

The Deepwater was an oil gusher, not spilled oil, but emanating from the seafloor where it was immediately mixed with an industrial strength solvent called "Corexit", which made the toxicity of the oil 52 times greater, and made the toxic compounds airborne and more permeable to humans, fish (chemicals that can emulsify crude oil can do a number on cell walls and anything made of lipids) and the environment. That dispersed oil, as well as tar balls and tar mats, continue to wash up, and cause massive health and ecological problems on the coasts of four US states. The air in oiled marshes is killing off the insects in Louisiana. We also don't yet know the amount of oil "spilled", as whistle-blowers with video evidence, are alleging a cover-up of the true amount. "The spill fouled 1,100 miles of beaches and marsh along the Gulf coast" source -- "from the Louisiana barrier islands west of the Mississippi River to the white sands of the Florida Panhandle. A still-unknown portion settled on the floor of the Gulf and the inlets along its coast. Tar balls are still turning up on the beaches, and a 2012 hurricane blew seemingly fresh oil ashore in Louisiana. Well owner BP, which is responsible for the cleanup, says it's still (April 2013) monitoring 165 miles of shore" source "I have seen some of the smaller islands, that birds nest on, literally disappear in the past three years. The oil killed the marsh grass and the mangrove roots leaving the islands with nothing to hold them together and now some are completely gone. As far as the amount of tar balls washing up on beaches — it varies from day to day. BP’s claims that the Gulf Coast is back to normal are simply not true." source petrarchan47tc 23:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Ping petrarchan47tc 08:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Third party sources

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are lot of references citing the annual report(s) or the website of the company. While that kind of sources may be useful, it would be better to find also third party sources to support the information provided by the company-related sources only. Beagel (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beagel, for information on the company's operations the Annual Report is often the best resource since the media either tends not to report on details of that kind or they do so inaccurately. If there are specific pieces of information where you think a third-party source would be better than the Annual Report, I can help to find sources. I see that below you mention the research and development facilities in the UK. I will see if I can find an alternative source for that and if not, will let you know the page number in the Annual Report where that information can be found. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Beagel that it would be better to stick to independent sources. The point of WP:UNDUE is that the article should reflect the coverage found in reliable sources. If the media or academia don't report on something, it may be better to leave it out. That doesn't have to be adhered to slavishly: primary sources are allowed and sometimes it's fine to add a detail here and there directly from the company, especially where accuracy is an issue. But doing it too much would make this page an extension of, or platform for, the company's own publications, and that's what needs to be avoided. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Although I agree with changing the archiving time to 15 days, there was a consensus that archiving time should not to be changed without discussing it at the talk page. Also, if the archiving is reverted and the thread is restored, it should be also undone in the archive to avoid duplicated archive entries. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Once more, if the thread is restored from the archive, please also remove it from the archive. Otherwise it will be resulted with archiving the same thread several times, or even worse, archiving different versions of the same thread which creates confusion. Beagel (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Petra, if you want to keep certain sections containing sources, you could move them to their own page (e.g. Talk:BP/Gulf spill sources). There's a way of adding links like that to the archive box, which would mean they'd be accessible to anyone in future who needed them. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Deepwater Horizon

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

The main spill article says that the total estimated volume of leaked oil approximated 4.9 million barrels (210,000,000 US gal; 780,000 m3) with plus or minus 10% uncertainty, [5] of which over 810,000 barrels (34 million US gal; 129,000 m3) was collected or burned before it could enter the Gulf waters.[6] To avoid confusion between different sources talking about 4.9 million barrels and 4.1 million barrels, it should be explained what is the difference. Beagel (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Beagel, the sources above explain that the 4.1 million barrels estimate is the current estimate being used for the Clean Water Act trial. I also found this Houston Chronicle article that more clearly explains that the difference between the earlier government estimate of 4.9 million barrels and the 4.1 million barrel estimate is the more than 800,000 barrels that were collected from the well before they could enter the Gulf waters. It may be helpful for readers if this could be explained in the section, perhaps wording similar to "earlier government estimates for the spill were around 4.9 million barrels but this was lowered in early 2013 to a new official estimate of 4.1 million barrels, in order to exclude over 800,000 barrels that were collected before entering the Gulf". Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored this edit request as it was not done. However, this needs proper discussion. Beagel (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Beagel. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on the provided sources and the text in the main article I propose to change the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Deepwater Horizon section as following:

Before the well was capped on 15 July 2010, an estimated 4.9 million barrels (780×10^3 m3) of oil was leaked with plus or minus 10% uncertainty.[1] 810,000 barrels (34 million US gal; 129,000 m3) of oil that was collected or burned while 4.1 million barrels (650×10^3 m3) entered the Gulf waters.[2][3][4] 1.8 million US gallons (6,800 m3) of Corexit dispersant was applied.[5][6]

Beagel (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done. Updated per proposal above. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

R & D facilities

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The current UK section says at the end of the first paragraph: "BP also has three research and development facilities in the UK." This claim has a reference to the 2011 Annual Report. However, there is no page number and therefore it is hard to find a verification in the report. It would be useful if the page number is provided (better the page number in the 2012 Annual Report and even better some reliable third party source). Beagel (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, I have found the following sources for BP's research and development centers in the UK:
BP's evidence to the UK Parliament Commons Committee on Science and Technology:
BP spends 40% of its total research & development funds in the UK and has three major research centres in Sunbury, Pangbourne and Hull. The excellence of UK academic research is a key factor in determining why companies like BP choose to site their R&D activities in the UK.
BP invests over £25 million per annum in R&D programmes with UK universities, with the greatest amounts going to Cambridge, Imperial, Manchester and Oxford. The UK university sector is a key resource for recruitment, with BP sourcing 25% of graduates globally from UK universities. The 2012 UK graduate intake has increased 50% compared to 2011.
News sources for the three research centers:
Also, here is some news coverage on research and development investment into other institutions:
I hope that this is helpful to editors. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done. Changed reference to the Parliament website. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Deepwater Horizon

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

The main spill article says that the total estimated volume of leaked oil approximated 4.9 million barrels (210,000,000 US gal; 780,000 m3) with plus or minus 10% uncertainty, [7] of which over 810,000 barrels (34 million US gal; 129,000 m3) was collected or burned before it could enter the Gulf waters.[8] To avoid confusion between different sources talking about 4.9 million barrels and 4.1 million barrels, it should be explained what is the difference. Beagel (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Beagel, the sources above explain that the 4.1 million barrels estimate is the current estimate being used for the Clean Water Act trial. I also found this Houston Chronicle article that more clearly explains that the difference between the earlier government estimate of 4.9 million barrels and the 4.1 million barrel estimate is the more than 800,000 barrels that were collected from the well before they could enter the Gulf waters. It may be helpful for readers if this could be explained in the section, perhaps wording similar to "earlier government estimates for the spill were around 4.9 million barrels but this was lowered in early 2013 to a new official estimate of 4.1 million barrels, in order to exclude over 800,000 barrels that were collected before entering the Gulf". Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored this edit request as it was not done. However, this needs proper discussion. Beagel (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Beagel. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on the provided sources and the text in the main article I propose to change the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Deepwater Horizon section as following:

Before the well was capped on 15 July 2010, an estimated 4.9 million barrels (780×10^3 m3) of oil was leaked with plus or minus 10% uncertainty.[1] 810,000 barrels (34 million US gal; 129,000 m3) of oil that was collected or burned while 4.1 million barrels (650×10^3 m3) entered the Gulf waters.[2][3][4] 1.8 million US gallons (6,800 m3) of Corexit dispersant was applied.[7][8]

Beagel (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done. Updated per proposal above. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources for figures in the introduction

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Some time ago now, the details in the introduction about BP's ranking among companies worldwide and among oil and gas companies was updated to reflect the data available from 2012, but the sources for this sentence were not replaced with newer ones. As the Fortune Global 500 has not yet been published in 2013, I have found some alternative sources. These source confirm that BP is the fifth-largest energy company based on market capitalization, the fifth-largest company globally by revenue and the 6th largest oil and gas company based on production, all based on 2012 performance.

There are several ways to measure a company’s size, and the figures that I am providing are one option, so if others prefer to use different figures that would be fine too. I mainly wanted to bring attention to the out-of-date citations.

The new sources I found are:

I also suggest a change to the wording of the sentence to reflect these new sources. This is what I propose (with the new sources as citations):

It is the fifth-largest energy company by market capitalization,[9] fifth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues, and is the sixth largest oil and gas company measured by 2012 production.[10]

Would someone be able to update the introduction with this information? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. There is an additional issue. Information in the lead should be a summary of the information provided in the more specific sections of the article. Therefore I think that this information as also financial data in the infobox should be presented also in the 'Corporate issues' section. Beagel (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done References in the lead are updated (in addition to sources provided in this thread also source provided in this archived thread was added) and the information was included also in the 'Corporate affairs' section. Also financial data for 2012 were added and information about the total number of employees was moved into that section. Beagel (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Beagel, for making these updates in the introduction and the "Corporate affairs" section. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

R & D facilities

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The current UK section says at the end of the first paragraph: "BP also has three research and development facilities in the UK." This claim has a reference to the 2011 Annual Report. However, there is no page number and therefore it is hard to find a verification in the report. It would be useful if the page number is provided (better the page number in the 2012 Annual Report and even better some reliable third party source). Beagel (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, I have found the following sources for BP's research and development centers in the UK:
BP's evidence to the UK Parliament Commons Committee on Science and Technology:
BP spends 40% of its total research & development funds in the UK and has three major research centres in Sunbury, Pangbourne and Hull. The excellence of UK academic research is a key factor in determining why companies like BP choose to site their R&D activities in the UK.
BP invests over £25 million per annum in R&D programmes with UK universities, with the greatest amounts going to Cambridge, Imperial, Manchester and Oxford. The UK university sector is a key resource for recruitment, with BP sourcing 25% of graduates globally from UK universities. The 2012 UK graduate intake has increased 50% compared to 2011.
News sources for the three research centers:
Also, here is some news coverage on research and development investment into other institutions:
I hope that this is helpful to editors. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done. Changed reference to the Parliament website. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC About BP Article

Latest comment: 11 years ago127 comments30 people in discussion

There is disagreement among editors of the BP article as to how much content should be in that article about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill as opposed to in the the article about the incident. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Per below, respondents to this RFC should look at the following questions:

  1. The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill section of this article already has sentence-long summaries for health, environmental, and economic damage, respectively. Should these be expanded into full sections?
  2. Does this article in general contain too much negative information and fail in our quest to provide a neutral point of view?

Shii (tock) 22:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

*I don't get it. This is a statement of fact. Where is the Question? ```Buster Seven Talk 19:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement of fact is that there is disagreement. The implied question is what the consensus is, whether to keep the level of detail about the spill that you and I consider to be excessive in this article, or to reduce the amount of detail here with the link to the spill article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to begin this, which is fitting since I came here originally because of an RfC, I think that the case is clear for a need for substantial detail on the Gulf oil spill in the article on the epicenter of the spill, which is BP. It is enough for us to know that BP is paying billions of dollars in claims related to all the elements of the Gulf oil spill, in settlement of criminal charges to which it pleaded guilty. If you examine the press coverage on the anniversary of the disaster, it overwhelmingly focused on BP, over and above any other corporate player. It is not for us to parse the evidence and decide what is related to BP and what is not. That is in effect being "more Catholic than the Pope" as BP has already accepted culpability for the entirety of the Gulf oil spill, with all of its economic, health and ecological effects. So let's stop the nonsense. An article on BP without a good discussion of the Gulf oil spill is nothing less than a whitewash article that would stand in violation of WP:NPOV and would have no place in Wikipedia.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree for the most part. That the topic of neutrality would become a matter of debate on this particular article is probably inevitable. Luckily we have another major policy principle to guide us in refining just what constitutes NPOV - go with the sources. While a company of BP's extensive history and influence is going to have no shortage of reliable sources exploring many of its facets, it's pretty clear that contemporary sources, including not just those from popular media but also scholarship of various kinds and business/legal press, are overwhelmingly, if hardly exclusively, concerned with the spill. Likewise, I think that the majority of our readers would likely consider this germane information for the article. Mind you, I don't know that a section for each of a dozen categories of consequences for the spill is necessary, but a one-sentence reference to all the ecological effects is clearly not cutting it either (those are the two extremes that have framed what I've seen of the debate above). There are plenty of places where content can be linked to the other relevant articles to keep things trim, but in general I favor an approach that is permissive of significant detail from the spill, especially in-so-far as the consequences of the spill for BP are concerned; that is certainly relevant information for this article. Snow (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why this RFC can't be used for that purpose. I think that it would be confusing to have two RFCs attached to the same article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, at the moment there are three open RfC at this article, so maybe you are interested to look other two. Beagel (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I see two open RFCs. I see mine, on whether to include content on the Deepwater Horizon spill, and SlimVirgin's on whether to include the Deepwater Horizon spill template. Maybe the oldest one has been removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The third one is in the second thread by the title: RfC: Clean Water Act Trial: How much detail? Beagel (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't see it because, first, it is at the top of this talk page (and so will be archived by Miszabot next week), and, second, it isn't listed as a business and economics RFC and so isn't on that page, being listed as a law RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Suggesting that this has become an attack page simply as a result of editors having included information that reflects the commentary of reliable, high-profile sources is hyperbolic, contrary to an important principle of Wikipedia editing, and just all-around counter-productive. Not to mention counter-intuitive; our job her is to represent an understanding of the topic at hand (including, or indeed especially, contentious topics) through the lens of appropriate sources, not our own personal views on the nature (or even the importance) of said topics. The particular issues of this RfC require a somewhat subtler parsing of those guidelines, yes, but we can easily proceed with the discussion about how much of the relevant information should be located here without implications of malicious editing when the information in question is immaculately sourced and well within the guidelines of appropriate content. Snow (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Very well said. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and expressed with admirable restraint. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
...our job her is to represent an understanding of the topic at hand... I am fully agree with this. However, there seems to be a problem with understanding what the topic is. The topic is not the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (which is a topic of the separate article), topic of this article here is BP.Beagel (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Snow Rise, Figure of Nine and the good ole Wiki guidelines - our articles should reflect the sources. How much should be included in this article regarding the Gulf spill, particularly with respect to environmental damage (is this the RfC question, it still isn't clear?). Do the math: it is the largest environmental disaster ever in the US, it is the largest oil spill of its type in the history of the petrol industry, BP used the largest ever amount of Corexit to sink the oil, without knowing the damage it would cause (and it turns out the solvent made the spilled crude 52 times more toxic than if they'd let it rise to be skimmed). More math: this spill caused BP to drop from #1 to #4 largest oil company. The spill caused a 30% drop in their stock value, which remains the case to this day, and alone justifies a good-sized section in this article. The damage to BP as a company, the damage to the gulf ecosystem, it's people and BP's cleanup workers (due to BP flat-out lying about Corexit toxicity - see here and here to catch up on this) requires an appropriately sized, well-rounded section. A major disconnect exists between editors at this page. Some like to refer to any negative details (excluding financial or legal matters) about the worst accidental oil spill in history as "attack content". Those same editors think three paragraphs about court cases and two sentences about ecological and human health damage sum up this spill perfectly. petrarchan47tc 18:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy too, because there is such blatant ignorance of site policies on this talk page. In fact, that is what attracted me to this article in the first place. There is an RfC on something that is just utterly obvious: yes, BP obviously warrants a reader-friendly guide to other articles on the Gulf oil spill. Then, as I read further, I found a kind of delusion taking place on the page in which a cadre of editors were trying to argue that black is white, that BP is only remotely involved in the Gulf oil spill. So now we have this great drama caused by that delusion. Yes, this article obviously requires some summary paragraphs on the Gulf oil spill. Nothing immense, but enough to be informative. No, POVFORK has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. UNDUE does because it would be undue emphasis to under-emphasize the Gulf oil spill by cheaping out a couple of sentences on the severe consequences of the spill. The problem is not with the content but with editors who want to be more Catholic than the Pope, and want to exonerate BP for the Gulf oil spill when BP itself has admitted culpability, and has pleaded guilty in a court of law. It's a kind of surrealistic atmosphere here, like nothing I've seen ever before. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
"As I read further, I found a kind of delusion taking place on the page in which a cadre of editors were trying to argue that black is white, that BP is only remotely involved in the Gulf oil spill." Who are you talking about specifically? I can't find that comment anywhere on this page. Shii (tock) 06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia - where some argue black is white, and where tar inexplicably becomes "oil" (regardless of what the community says). petrarchan47tc 00:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Related conversation here. petrarchan47tc 21:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This comment has nothing to do with the current RfC, so I kindly request to remove it. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Include sections on disasters, and disagree that there is "too much negative information". I cannot support the position that this article about BP is guilty of having "too much negative information". How much is too much? If it takes a lot of negative text to convey the right amount of information, then so be it. There should never be an externally defined determination of how much information should be positive, and how much should be negative in an article. What we do is cite reliable sources in global media, and we summarize for the reader what is said about BP. The disasters have been clearly BP's, with guilt admitted and payments made or in progress, so we write about them in some detail, especially with regard to BP's actions, inaction, and reaction. Make this article be about the corporate culture, the corporate response, the corporate culpability, and yes, about the corporation's good works, too, in proper proportion. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. There is too much negative information in this article, and it has too much focus on the last ten years. BP has a long and eventful history, and most of those events have been positive. There are many reliable sources which aren't represented here because they're more than 20 years old. So they are unavailable for a Google search. For every BP drilling rig that had an oil spill, there are dozens that have uneventfully operated year after year, with no spills and no incidents. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you're saying that you agree with my attempted revision, which included 4 sections about the Deepwater Horizon disaster: summarizing the effects, actions against BP, and damage to BP. Let me know if I interpreted you wrong. Shii (tock) 06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • When the negative content is more than half the content of the article, then you can quite clearly say that it is unbalanced, especially for an article on a company that has 100 years of history and the controversies focus on just the past two decades. SilverserenC 07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
No, what it means is that the reliable sources focus on the negative aspects of the company. If the article were to be blindly weighted entirely with regard to sourcing that dwells on the negative aspects of this company, it would be probably 90% negative. Coretheapple (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Too long and unbalanced And appropriate amount of content for all the controversies should be about 1/4th of the length of the article. Deepwater should obviously make up a larger chunk of any controversies section, with the other incidents being much smaller and, for that matter, not all of them needs to be mentioned in this article. The attempts to cram as much detail and as many incidents as possible into this article is what has unbalanced it. SilverserenC 07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It truly depends on the amount of controversy BP has been involved in. There is a good reason most of its negative events have occurred recently. If you know their history, you see it correlates directly with their growth during Browne's reign from a sluggish company to an oil giant, and the cost-cutting that funded it. But it is a mistake to categorize their accidents and environmental disasters as "controversies". They are facts, neutral, like history. They happen to be negative, but that does not make them controversies (meaning "dispute"). petrarchan47tc 08:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems completely artificial and arbitrary (and in any event, not at all supported by any policy) to set the standard at 1/4 of the total content. That the need for a controversy section is going to vary wildly between different articles is fairly obvious. In the case of BP, this spill led to monumental changes for the company not only in terms of market share and standing in global industry but also in internal structure. The company has been sued by multiple states, the federal government and numerous other parties in connection with the event, and much of this litigation is ongoing. It was additionally found criminally liable for manslaughter and lying to congress. It paid the largest set of fines in U.S. history and moving forward will likely be involved in the largest set of civil settlements in U.S. history and possibly that of industrial accidents globally. Careers of prominent persons within the company were damaged or destroyed and some employees face criminal charges. These are all examples of information that is at least as appropriate (and almost certainly more appropriate) in this article than in the article for the spill, and it's just a fraction of such information. It's pretty clear how this issue went to RfC; nobody seems willing to compromise or, most crucially, actually do the hard work of going through the content bit by bit and establishing (or proving superflous) individual points. Too many here have an all-or-nothing disposition to this issue and it's creating needless deadlock. How about we see some competing edits for the content and start some consensus building from there? All this polarization will accomplish is help assure this debate will be resurrected ad nauseum. Snow (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
A logical next step, thank you Snow. petrarchan47tc
  • Comment - Saying "look at the sources" is meaningless in terms of working out what proportion of the article should deal with controversies in the US over the past decade. Which sources? In which country? Over what period? And also bear in mind that online sources are skewed massively towards the last few years. It is clear that no sources in any country mention conversies in the US over the past decade since they had not yet happened. So sources covering 90% of the history of the company don't mention these things at all. Looking at sources over the past 10 years begs the primary question of in which country? Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a world view not a US view. The media in the US focused on events such as Texas City, Prudhoe Bay and Deepwater massively more than did the media in China or Russia, respectively the largest countries in the world by population and land mass. And even within the US media one will see far more space having been devoted to these events in more sensationalist outlets such as CNN than in the financial media.
No single source will ever tell us how much content should be given to things like Texas City and Prudhoe Bay. We are left with Wikipedia policies and common sense. In my view both of those tell me that the article currently devotes far, far too much space to controversies in the United States over the past ten years. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11 Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
A few points. First of all, the spill was certainly global news and dominated media concerning the company in most countries with robust international media for a significant period (searches of non-english sources will readily confirm this). Second, not all events are equal in terms of relevance to an understanding of the company's history and current state; there may be over a century's worth of documentation of the company, but no other single event has been treated by anywhere near as many sources, nor has any single event had such a profound influence on the company in a long, long time. And no, the prevalence with which valid sources discuss particular subjects cannot be entirely dismissed. I don't see anyone making the argument that there should be a 1:1 correspondence between the two (in other words, that the percentage of the page devoted to the spill should represent the rough percentage that it consumes amongst overall sources), but neither is this focus irrelevant, if for no other reason than that it in part reflects (and influences) the subjects which will be of interest to our readers. And lastly, there is no way you can possibly prove the statement that "within the US media one will see far more space having been devoted to these events in more sensationalist outlets such as CNN than in the financial media" with an degree of empirical validity; in fact, I suspect this is patently false and the reverse of the case as the financial media has had many different angles to approach on the financial catastrophe that the spill and its aftermath represent. And this will continue to be the case as many of these issues will be quite live and ongoing for quite some time. Snow (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The spill was covered globally, although far less outside the US than inside, and in much of the world, far, far less. We are also confusing coverage of the spill with coverage of BP. The spill was an event in and of itself and much coverage of it did not refer to BP at all or referred to it only in passing.
In articles which were written purely about BP during the period of the spill, the spill was obviously an important topic. However that period represents a fraction of BP's overall history.
Making comments about the future impact of Deepwater is purely speculative but BP was one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world pre Deepwater, and there is no reason to doubt that it wont be in five years time too, whatever the result of current trials (which are themselves highly uncertain).2.97.215.241 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11 Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey on including Deepwater Horizon Spill content

The question posed in this RfC was whether content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill should be included in this article. The question, as written, is ill-formed and responses of support and oppose were not helpful without explanation. Many of those commenting did so based on their personal preferences, and failed to cite any policy or guidelines in their comments. The overarching guideline relevant to this discussion, cited by several users, is WP:SUMMARY. The question of how much WP:WEIGHT should be given was also brought up. The simple answer to the question of the RfC is yes, information on the spill should be included. The real question should have been how much information should be included. There is a consensus that the information presented in this article follow WP:SUMMARY, even if some of those arguing such did not cite the guideline. Further, there is consensus that the present version is too detailed and should be trimmed, in line with WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE. There was very little discussion of how much detail the section should contain, and thus I can offer no more than a simple no consensus on that issue. Speaking as a potential reader, the WP:SUMMARY page gives the example of Yosemite National Park#History and History of the Yosemite area (both featured articles), that I think would be good examples to try to replicate. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?

(comment copied from above) There is disagreement among editors of the BP article as to how much content should be in that article about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill as opposed to in the the article about the incident. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there clearly should be a brief summary of the spill in the article but the current content (as at the date of this comment) is grossly excessive, especially bearing in mind that we have several articles on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment You have already raised this exact issue in an RfC above. Does reintroducing it in another format less than 24 hours later really seem appropriate to you? It's not going to change the positions of the involved editors, it's only going to further complicate a discussion with already entrenched positions. For the record, I find it to be an absolute SNOW issue to suggest that we not include any information on the spill here; that's clearly not going to happen. And the emerging consensus from the discussions above, including your own RfC, seems to indicate that a majority of editors, if not a huge one, find the current level of detail to be roughly appropriate. You can take as many bites at this apple as you like, but this approach is unlikely to win any additional editors over to your point of view. Snow (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Snow, it is simply not true that there is a consensus for the current content. Many of those opposed to the current content have remained silent because of the recent flurry of negative additions to the article. 09:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)~
Fair enough, but regardless of how many people favour a reductionist vs. an inclusive strategy, the choice being presented in this survey is not a realistic one nor one likely to lead to a stable resolution to this issue. There are certainly plenty of details concerning the effects the spill had upon the company itself which are equally or more germane to the present article than other related pages; see some of the most recent posts in the previous thread (the RfC) for some of the more obvious example). As I've noted above, these all-or-nothing perspectives on both sides are only making the situation more intractable and this thread in particular, simply from the way it frames the debate, is only going to make things worse by drawing lines on principle. And I can fairly well guarantee that this debate is going to recycle endlessly until some effort at consensus building is made. What is needed here is a detailed, nuts and bolts discussion of the various sections, ideally with proposed drafts, not threads that inquire as to the basic positions of editors in the most general possible terms, which will only serve to divide the involved editors more strictly into two competing camps. We're meant to working together towards consensus here and surely there is room for compromise if we just slow down and take this one point at a time. Snow (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Snow, to avoid disrupting the survey I have responded in a 'Discussion' section below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I have moved this survey into the RfC, as it covers the same subject, but if people want to revert back to the previous confusing format, go ahead. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose content not directly related to BP - Yes, DH needs to be covered; but details about DH that are not directly related to BP should be removed. This article should limit itself to material directly related to BP (e.g. cause, timeline, culpability, impact, etc). Details about health & env impact do not help readers of this article. --Noleander (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about when you say "not directly related to BP"? Oil that was ejected into the Gulf of Mexico from flying saucers? Seriously, you do realize, I hope, that BP is not disputing its liability for the oil spill, and that it has admitted to criminal conduct. These are well-settled issues. Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose What does the specific information about the spill itself have to do with BP? We have it in a separate article (several articles, actually) for a reason. SilverserenC 07:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I can answer your question. It has "everything" to do with BP. BP itself admits this. Why don't you? Regardless of the liability of other parties, BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal liability. This was one of the biggest environmental disasters in history. It dominates to an extreme degree all of the reliable sourcing for this article. To claim that this is somehow remote from BP, that it was just a bystander and that the real bad guys are getting off scot free in this article, is nonsense., Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
*Oppose - This article is, in its present condition, a crude (pardon the pun), unbalanced attack piece. It is supposed to be an article on a 100 year old multinational oil company with operations in 80 countries. Instead half the article is currently devoted to "contoversies" in just one country over a period of just 10 years. Grotesquely US-centric, recentist, unbalanced and little more than an attack piece. This sort of article makes Wikipedia look amateurish and undeserving of its high placing in Google results. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11 Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[Restored by Martin Hogbin (talk)]
Coretheapple, you cannot go around striking out everything that you disagree with because you think it is a sock. This is not one of the IP addresses mentioned in the SPI. For anything else you should get a neutral admin to take a look. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes 2.97.215.241 is specifically mentioned in the SPI, confirmed by checkuser as a sock.Administrator finding: "Looks clear that these are all Rangoon11." This is Rangoon double-voting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rangoon11/Archive#13_May_2013 Please do not remove the strikeout from a sockpuppet double-voting in this RfC.Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it possible that some of the editors arguing to keep this content in are doing so precisely because it so dramatically reversed the fortunes of a company of such history and scale? After-all, whatever else you feel about the spill's relevance to the company (and thus the necessity for inclusion of details here), it seems a pretty reasonable, if somewhat impressionistic, statement that this is the most significant single event for the company in decades. It has wrecked the company's profitability and reputation and the overall effect on how it does business cannot really be overstated. In any event -- and this point has been raised above but it bears repeating here -- it is really not appropriate to accuse editors of constructing an attack page when they have done nothing more than present what the sources are saying on the subject matter not only in terms of accurately portraying said content but also reflecting the overall trends in what those sources discuss; discussion of BP in both popular and professional media has been dominated by the spill more so than any other issue since it occurred. In any event, accusing another editor of malicious editing should not be done lightly, and not at all without some significant evidence of ill-intent and doing so flippantly runs contrary to our pillar civility guidelines. Please see WP:AFG if you are unfamiliar. Snow (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Deepwater is an important event in the history of BP, but very far from the most important and no more so than, for example, the merger with Amoco, the acquisition of ARCO, the creation of TNK BP, the move into Alaska, discoveries in the North Sea, privatisation, the sale of TNK BP and acquisition of a substantial stake in Rosneft, the OPEC oil shock etc. BP is still fundamentally the same company as pre Deepwater, there have been some asset sales and restructuring of the portfolio but many are likely to have happened anyway. The most fundamental and long term changes created by Deepwater are actually in terms of internal safety processes rather than financials. BP will still be one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world in five years time, with a spread of global operations across the oil and gas industry. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11 Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
IP, you sound a lot like User:Rangoon11 who supposedly retired last week. petrarchan47tc 17:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - A fair and balanced reporting of the facts. Blame for these facts outweighing 90 years of history should not be laid at the door step of collaborators that see these facts as important to the reader. To not include DWH would be un-balanced toward the extreme. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Buster, no one is suggesting that we do not mention DWH at all and to portray the arguments of others that way is misleading. It is the excessive volume and detail that is being objected to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, the question this survey explicitly asks is "Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?" And only one of the six people who has responded in the negative to that questions has bothered to qualify their position by saying "include a reasonable amount, but with restraint." All of the other five, yourself included, have simply stated your reason for opposing this content without bothering to mention any exceptions. So I think it's a little unfair for you to call him out for being misleading when he was simply responding to the explicit wording of the question that forms the basis of this poll and to an opposition argument that has been left unqualified and ambiguous (in this thread anyway). Snow (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Snow. In support of myself, I responded to the simplest strictest interpretation of the question. Support = some mention (no demarcation in the RfC question as to "how much"). Oppose = No mention (no demarcation in the RfC question as to how little). I answered the question the way it was stated. You say no one is suggesting that DWH should not be mentioned. That is your supposition. I don't share the same interpretation. A re-read of some of the opposes causes me to think that that is exactly what is being proposed...or a VERY minimal comment about Deep Water (at the same level of importance as how many gas pumps there are in the Continental USA. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If there is any question regarding responses here, editors should be called back to clarify their meaning. To me it's very clear that Robert, Silver Seren and Shii want zero mention of the Gulf spill in this article. While we welcome new editors, it is interesting to note that two of these editors have never stepped foot here before, and that it is possible some canvassing went on with regard to Silver Seren. petrarchan47tc 17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments in RfC above, wich I hereby replicate: I think that the case is clear for a need for substantial detail on the Gulf oil spill in the article on the epicenter of the spill, which is BP. It is enough for us to know that BP is paying billions of dollars in claims related to all the elements of the Gulf oil spill, in settlement of criminal charges to which it pleaded guilty. If you examine the press coverage on the anniversary of the disaster, it overwhelmingly focused on BP, over and above any other corporate player. It is not for us to parse the evidence and decide what is related to BP and what is not. That is in effect being "more Catholic than the Pope" as BP has already accepted culpability for the entirety of the Gulf oil spill, with all of its economic, health and ecological effects. So let's stop the nonsense. An article on BP without a good discussion of the Gulf oil spill is nothing less than a whitewash article that would stand in violation of WP:NPOV and would have no place in Wikipedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support including BP's gulf spill in this article. petrarchan47tc 17:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes to the question, "Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?" Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion of more than a brief summary, since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has its own article. Link that article here, and briefly summarize its content here if that content is directly related to BP. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of a brief summary, oppose inclusion of copy-paste from the main article, information not directly about BP and creating this section as a separate article with subsections and information about the spill in general. Beagel (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose current version. Eight paragraphs is way too much. Two good-sized paragraphs at best to sum up the main issues with a link to the primary article should be sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Too much At 200K, the article is too bloated and should be generally pruned back. The Deepwater Horizon material can be pruned especially heavily because there's a separate article about that. Warden (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support including a substantial discussion of the DWH oil spill,its consequences, and the various legal repercussions. It's not every day that one stumbles upon a company with such a positively enormous legal footprint as this one. BP has pleaded guilty to criminal charges in connection with one of the worst environmental disasters in history, and in the reliable sources that has overshadowed every other aspect of this company. When I began editing this article some weeks ago, it was a shambles, with editors scrambling to satisfy the wishes of a polite but aggressive BP employee, to the point that 44% of the article was actually written by BP itself. Some editors and their chums and the folks at CREWE seem to want the status quo ante, but that would do a serious disservice to Wikipedia readers, who already have been shortchanged by an article that was so pathetic that it actually misstated the number of BP operating divisions, so as to grossly overemphasize the importance of its tiny but hyped alternative energy division. One can't blame BP alone, through its rep here, for the terrible state of this article in past months. It was also the product of some simply terrible misjudgments on the part of many Wikipedia editors. NPOV does not mean that the information entering an article be neutral, but that the subject be treated in accordance with how it is treated in the reliable sources. Editors here are trying so hard to sanitize this article that they've forgotten that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support including a substantial discussion of the DWH oil spill. It would probably be too much here on the spill if we covered everything in similar proportion to what the news media has covered over the last 10 years - that is about 75% on the spill - but a very substantial coverage should be included. Putting a daughter article in, e.g. the on the spill, does not mean that material in the parent article needs to be deleted. If that were the case, I'd suggest an article, perhaps History of BP before 1980, and then get rid of most of that material which very, very few people care about now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose content not directly related to BP Particularly the two sub-sections "Environmental impact" and "health issues" have too many details that are not relevant for an article on BP. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there is already a primary article regarding the DWH oil spill and its impact. There should only be a very brief summary paragraph in this article which is about the company itself. The summary paragraph should be as brief as possible, neutrally worded, and very well cited. If a reader wants to read about the oil spill they should be directed to the article which has the oil spill as its primary source. As noted by others, this article needs to be checked for neutrality and ensure that it isn't an attack page regarding its subject. Criticism should be included, but it should not be given undue weight either.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Here per RFC - IMO have the first paragraph (On 20 April 2010 --seafood industry will never recover. [364]) & put the rest on Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Again IMO all articles should also be merged in to one. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support thorough coverage of the disaster here in this article, especially with regard to corporate action and inaction, legal ramifications, and how the disaster affected the corporation. Some overlapping coverage is to be expected between various articles which describe the disaster. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article does not contain too much negative material and maintains a NPOV in fact it's highly flattering given the nature of the business. The section on the Deepwater Horizon is not too extensive and is nominal considering the evolution of news reporting and it's above average impact on people and the environment. No it does not deserve it's own section and should be remanded to a subsection of industrial accidents. Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 22:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion about the oil spill and its consequences, but what is there right now is about the maximum needed. No need for more. There is definitely NOT "too much negative information." NPOV would be violated without such content. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. It should definitely be included, and the previous version was too short. But I would reduce what's currently there, especially the environmental and health subsections. This could be done by tightening the writing, rather than removing anything of substance. For example, sentences such as "Environmental impacts continue, and research is ongoing," lack content, and quite a bit of the section is written that way. I would reduce it to the key issues, per WP:SUMMARY, particularly the issues that affect BP directly. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I think that you should go ahead and try some of what you suggest here. This discussion has been very difficult for me, perhaps because I have put so many hours into this and the other related articles I may have lost my perspective. At first I was against including an environmental/health section at all, but doing some work on the article I gradually came to believe that inclusion would be the way to go. But I think that some fresh eyes looking at the information would be a good thing. I am still open to whatever the group decides, including removal of the two sections with just a few sentences left. But I would like to see what you'd do with it. What do others think? Gandydancer (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
All I could offer would be a copy edit; I don't know enough to rewrite it. But for the benefit of the closing editor, although I support a reduction, I also support more than just a paragraph or two. I'm thinking perhaps four tightly written paragraphs would be appropriate, given how central this is to BP; two subsections – (1) what happened, and health/environmental effects, and (2) the legal proceedings. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose excessive content. I think that while it's important to mention it, we don't need a section that details the environmental impact of oil, or its negative health effects. I feel like that's two steps removed from BP and doesn't belong in the article (though it certainly belongs in the main deepwater horizon article). I feel like a brief, one paragraph summary of the events along with a link to the main article is the way to go. Pvvni (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose repeated content. A complete WP:SUMMARY should be provided in BP#Environmental record or BP#Safety and health violations. ~KvnG 13:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
user:SlimVirgin contacted me and asked for elaboration of my position. I would propose a {{main}} link to Deepwater Horizon explosion be added to the BP#Safety and health violations section and a {{main}} link to Deepwater Horizon oil spill be added to the BP#Environmental record section. Each of these subsections would follow WP:SUMMARY guidelines. The simplest and least controversial way to satisfy the guidelines is to use a copy of the lead of the respective {{main}} article as the summary in the subsection. Then the BP#Deepwater Horizon well explosion and oil spill section can be merged into Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Deepwater Horizon explosion and deleted from this article. ~KvnG 23:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support detailed discussion of the spill, especially (but not necessarily exclusively) regarding the consequences for BP in terms of financial costs, legal sanctions, public image, internal restructuring, and so forth. I'm clarifying my position here with a firm vote at the request of another editor, but I would like to reiterate that I feel this discussion will not alleviate this deadlock until people begin to look at individual statements and discuss them on their own merits; we have a lot of votes here, but the tally is close and even if that weren't the case and this RfC ended conclusively, individuals would still go on parsing the meaning of the outcome due to how vaguely described the polling question is (with said ambiguity shaping the tone of all of the discussion has followed in such a way that we're basically spinning our wheels). As such, I renew my call for involved editors to start submitting specific proposed edits and working towards a consensus. There are certainly enough involved individuals who felt strongly enough to bring this debate to such a scale, but now conflict fatigue seems to have set in and no one (who is familiar enough with the subject matter and sources) seems to want to grind through that process at present, but I still feel it's our best (if not our only) way forward. Snow (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support discussion of the spill but with a substantial reduction in the length of the section from its present length. At least in the United States, BP is synonymous with Deepwater Horizon. Culture associates the two, so, even if you think the association is misguided, it still worthy of significant discussion within the article. That said, we don't need to detail specifics like the article presently does. In addition, I find that there is no tonal or POV problem with the section, only a length problem; there is no dispute that it was an environmental catastrophe. Marechal Ney (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the discussion of the spill. In my mind it is essential.--Fox1942 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Snow, I agree that this debate is likely to recycle endlessly unless we do something to stop it but I do not think discussing each sentence individually will help while there is a fundamental difference of opinion between editors over the purpose of the article.

Some users seem to think that we should add everything we can find in the news or media about the subject, often in pursuance of some ulterior motive such as showing how bad the company have been.

I have no opinion, or serious knowledge, of how good or bad BP are but I do know that exposing bad things that an organisation has done is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We need to settle this question before we can go any further. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I feel that approach is putting the cart before the horse; people are simply not going to back down at this point. And in any event, following such an over-arching principle is just going to make editors inflexible and both discussion here and the article itself will continue to suffer as a result. In my experience the best thing you can do in a case like this is stop wasting time trying to establish universal principles that are almost always going to cause things to grind to a halt in practice and begin examining the actual particulars. Not only is this the only guaranteed way to sidestep entrenched positions and hyperbole, but once the process gets started and people see that they might not be so far apart after-all, the process becomes self-sustaining. It becomes as if someone opened up a hole into something under immense pressure and it just starts to flow ceaselessly and is incredibly difficult to stop. And what could be bad about that, eh? ;) Snow (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment on the question about including separate sections for health, environmental, and economic damage. I don't feel that it is appropriate for this article about BP to include these sections. I believe that the editors that have argued for including these sections have presented their arguments very well, but it could also be argued that including such a brief summary (as must be) in one sense tends to minimize the issues. But mainly, the information just seems out of place in this article, to me... Gandydancer (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. I have improved these sections and now feel they are appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
We still have yet to add the Corexit information discussed directly below. petrarchan47tc 18:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment on how much eco/health damage to mention in this article: If you do a Google search for BP, in the middle of the first page you will see the Newsweek investigation, "What BP doesn't want you to know about the (DWH oil spill)". The investigation as well as the GAP Report made a big splash, and the revelations have not been disputed. They involve BP alone. BP told the makers of Corexit to keep their safety manuals, and Nalco was left with a roomful of them, which warned that handlers of this product must wear protective gear. BP would not allow their cleanup workers, who sprayed and worked near the dispersant, to wear respirators. Many of them are now very sick, along with coastal residents. Corexit and eco/health damage go hand-in-hand. You can't talk about one without the other. Rachael Maddow covered the Newsweek investigation last week, and said when she interviewed folks in the South during the spill, their one concern was unanimous: potential eco/health damage from Corexit. At that time we were told that no one knew whether Corexit was toxic. But it turns out BP did know, according to the investigation and the GAP Report. And because of the novel, untested use of this amount of a toxic solvent, which was again 100% BP's decision, you can't talk about this oil spill, on this page, without mentioning Corexit. And you can't mention Corexit without talking about its impact and the controversy around its use, which is not even mentioned here (they told the EPA "no" when asked to stop using the product. When mandated to cut use by 75%, use was cut by 9% instead). The story of Corexit use during the DWH spill belongs in this article (and is already covered in the BP oil spill article). At the January 2013 gathering of researchers to discuss the Gulf, the number one concern of all was health effects of the spill, which further justifies more than a mention here. As for how many sections are warranted, that can be worked out amongst editors once they've seen the sources. (As for writing drafts, which was recently suggested here, I am offering up all of my research over the past year at this page, but am unwilling to put any more work into creating content (later edit: unless there is a reasonable chance my efforts won't be entirely wasted). I have put more wasted time into this page and the related oil spill page that I'd like to admit.) petrarchan47tc 03:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I do believe, and have argued in the past, that when a corporation does something the best/worst, the first/last, etc., it deserves a mention in their article. BP was the first to use such massive amounts of dispersant and it was the first to use it underwater rather than just sprayed on the water's surface. With that in mind, perhaps it is reasonable to have a small article section: Use of Corexit? Gandydancer (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed this article 2 nights ago - have you see this? EPA Officials Weigh Sanctions Against BP’s U.S. Operations - ProPublica - Officials said they are putting the talks on hold until they learn more about the British company's responsibility for the plume of oil that is spreading across the Gulf. Corexit is the reason for the oil plume. petrarchan47tc 17:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Gandydancer's edit of 25-5-2013[9] has it about right. The incident already takes up a significant portion of the page. I would oppose more, if anything it can be trimmed back further, and information moved to the subpage on the incident. LK (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've examined Deepwater Horizon oil spill with the relevant sections of this article. Clearly, this article and that one need to be "synchronized," as one would do with music on an IPad, so that one does not fall behind another. With that caveat, I recommend that care be taken to ensure that this article provide a full description of the oil spill, with special emphasis on the impact on BP. Thus the "main" litigation sections need to be here, and summarized in the oil spill article. The environmental effects need to be summarized here, with the main discussion being in the oil spill article. But trims should not be made just for the sake of trimming. Summary style does not necessitate brevity. The NPOV issues raised by some commentators fall flat, because the weight of the reliable sources clearly puts the oil spill at the very top of the issues garnering coverage. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The survey question above is whether or not to mention the 2010 spill. Many answers begin with "Oppose" but don't oppose entirely. The question has confused a few people, and the answers are misleading. Personally, I wonder why we have a survey AND an RfC, but as long as we do, we should make the results more clear. It's possible we need to ask folks to come back and clarify. petrarchan47tc 02:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No possible consensus can be derived from the above. 2 RfC's AND a survey....Running together (side by side STS) created the Gordian Knot above. As pointed out, one of the RfC's (If read correctly) called for strick elimination of any inclusion of DWH. But that is not how various supporting and opposing editors read it. Sorry to say but the results of these RfC's is trash and achieved only confusion rather than a cleared path to resolution. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It's part of the continuing struggle to make this article read like it was ripped off the BP website. Coretheapple (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain where you read this or what volunteer editor expressed this opinion? Shii (tock) 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it was very poorly set up. One may gather from my post that I don't agree that the article needs to address BPs involvement in environmental or health issues but that is not at all the case. I don't believe that they should be addressed under separate headings rather than be included in the explosion/leak section. Also, as I continue to review current events, more and more I do believe that we need to add a Corexit section to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I like your suggestions. petrarchan47tc 23:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the conclusion that "these RfC's is trash". Consensus is not counting votes, it is finding the solution which is the most acceptable for different POVs. Notwithstanding if the votes says 'support' or 'oppose', most of them have also explanations what editors exactly mean. Most of participants have supported something in between not mentioning all and the current version. This seems to be a consensus for the staring point for further discussions and it is more consensus than so called "consensus" for large copy-pasted edits on 29-30 April or reverting the good faith work of user:Shii. Fact that there is no majority support for the certain POV, is not a reason to call the RfC 'thrash'. Beagel (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. If there is one thing this RfC showed it is that there was no consensus to revert my edits. So, I make them again. I strongly advise anyone who wishes to revert them to demonstrate why they think this RfC showed a different consensus. Shii (tock) 22:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Shii, this RfC is 30 days long. The consensus won't be determined by you alone, nor will it be decided before the discussion has closed. petrarchan47tc 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:NOCONSENSUS "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." petrarchan47tc 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a very important point. As the policy just cited pointed out, it would be different if this was a living person. Yes, I realize that some editors here treat BP as if it was a living person, but it is not. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the applicable language in the policy is the following: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The exception being contentious matter added to BLPs, in which lack of consensus means removal. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
In first place there was no consensus for 27-29 April mass additions. They were disputed starting from day one, so f no consensus exists, the version of this section as of 27 April should be restored. Beagel (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
That's beside the point. The "noconsensus" rule applies to additions, which remain if there is no consensus except for BLPs. The additions were the subject of this RfC, very clearly. What you're suggesting is contrary to WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is policy. Coretheapple (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it is exactly the point as that the latest RfCs were trigged by the no-consensus copy-paste edits in that dates. Also, conclusion that there is no consensus is biased as majority of editors have said that this section should be something in between of no mentioning at all and the extensive current version. I am sorry to say this but the above arguing to preserve the preferred version of certain editors seems to contradict underlying principles of Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I take back my comment about the RfC's being "trash". What I meant to say was they are a confusing mess. And User Shii's challenge...almost daring someone to edit the article...is out of line. A consensus existed prior to Shii's bold alteration. The fact that it was in place for quite some time at this article implies the editors were in at least temporary agreement. To boldly step in, make drastic changes and then dare someone to change it back is outside policy. Out of fear of retaliation (and an unwillingness to waste anymore of my time) I will not revert. But I think a revert is in order. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I should disagree again that "a consensus existed prior to Shii's bold alteration." There has never been consensus about block edits made on 27-29 April. There was edit warring, there was a discussion at the talk page etc. Saying that "the fact that it was in place for quite some time at this article implies the editors were in at least temporary agreement." is misreading the situation. Beagel (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
There hasn't been consensus on the gulf spill section for many months, and you know this. petrarchan47tc 06:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. So, talking about the consensus of 27-29 April edits is not correct. Beagel (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I reverted it yesterday in this edit. petrarchan47tc 00:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
His wholesale, en masse reversions were also contrary to WP:REVERTING. They were not, however, contrary to the general behavior that has hurt this article and driven away editors over quite a period of here time. Coretheapple (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
As Petachan points out in his edit summary, an RfC lasts 30 days. At that time i suggest an impartial administrator should be called in to make heads or tails out of it. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I received the same advice here. petrarchan47tc 01:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

BBC article

Editors should be aware of this article on the BBC website today, "BP to seek Cameron's help as oil spill costs escalate." It explains BP's fears about "fictitious and inflated" claims from the DWH oil spill, and that it is concerned that its financial picture may be eroded and is seeking help from the British government. I think that this article underlines the importance of the DWH spill to BP and hence to this article. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

BP Fears Takeover Bid as Oil Spill Compensation Costs Escalate - this definitely highlights the importance of the spill to BP as a whole. petrarchan47tc 18:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
If BP is taking the position that some of the claims may be inflated, and I have to say that I can't recall reading this anywhere, then I think in fairness that it should be reflected in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Which is completely irrelevant to this article. Yes, they are concerned about people lying about the spill and inflating what actually happened. SilverserenC 21:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's relevant, if they are taking that position, and if those allegedly inflated claims are hurting them in a material fashion and helping to make them a takeover target. What possible justification can there be to omit this material? Your position seems utterly bizarre. Coretheapple (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Did you read those two articles or are you just reacting in knee-jerk fashion? According to this article, which is from BBC's business editor, BP has asked for assistance from the prime minister. If this isn't "relevant" to BP and to this article than nothing is. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Note for closing editor

The RfC was open for 30 days and has been closed by the bot. I'm about to ask on WP:AN/RFC for a formal close, and I'm listing the responses here to make things easier (I hope) for the closing editor. Robert, as you initiated the RfC, if you object to this, feel free to revert me. I'm adding it because I think the discussion might be unclear to an uninvolved editor, and it doesn't help that the result is close.

The RfC question was: "Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?"

By my count 28 editors responded. The issues are (1) should information about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article summary-style; (2) if yes, should all aspects of the spill be summarized (including the environmental and health consequences), or only aspects of direct relevance to BP (e.g. the financial and legal consequences for the company); and (3) what length would be appropriate? This is the current section about the spill.

  • Oppose inclusion (2):
  • Robert McClenon, Silverseren
  • Oppose, but unclear (1):
  • Shii (Shii didn't qualify his oppose in the survey, but he edited the section to look like this on 9 May (diff), and left this comment on 11 May, so he may want to see it reduced rather than removed).
  • Comments prefaced with oppose, "too much," or "oppose content not directly related to BP," but supportive of minimal or much-reduced inclusion (11):
  • Martin Hogbin ("a brief summary ... the current content ... is grossly excessive"), Noleander ("details about DH that are not directly related to BP should be removed"), GoodeOldeboy (a brief summary "if that content is directly related to BP"), Beagel ("support inclusion of a brief summary, oppose inclusion of copy-paste from the main article ..."), The Devil's Advocate ("two good-sized paragraphs at best"), Colonel Warden (prune back heavily), Iselilja ("Particularly the two sub-sections 'Environmental impact' and 'health issues' have too many details that are not relevant for an article on BP"), RightCowLeftCoast ("a very brief summary paragraph ... which is about the company itself"), Davey2010 (first paragraph only), Pvvni ("brief, one paragraph summary"), KvnG ("Oppose repeated content. A complete WP:SUMMARY should be provided in #Environmental record or #Safety and health violations.")
  • Comments prefaced with support, or in Geremy.Hebert's case with "comment," and supportive of thorough coverage (10):
  • Buster Seven, Figureofnine, petrarchan47, Coretheapple, Smallbones, Binksternet, Geremy.Hebert ("The section on the Deepwater Horizon is not too extensive ... [but it] should be remanded to a subsection of industrial accidents"), Brangifer ("what is there right now is about the maximum needed"), Snow Rise, Fox1942
  • Comments prefaced with support, or in Lawrence's case with "comment," but supportive of reduced length (3):
  • Lawrencehkoo (in the discussion section: "I think Gandydancer's edit of 25-5-2013[10] has it about right. The incident already takes up a significant portion of the page. I would oppose more, if anything it can be trimmed back further, and information moved to the subpage on the incident."), SlimVirgin ("four tightly written paragraphs," including health, environmental and legal issues), Marechal Ney ("with a substantial reduction in the length of the section ... there is no tonal or POV problem with the section, only a length problem")
  • Yes to the RfC question, with no comment in the survey about content or length (1):
  • Gandydancer (GD expanded her views in the discussion section, [11][12][13] and I believe is the author of part of the section)

SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is already 10 days when this RfC was closed for new comments but still no official closure by non-involved admin. Any idea what to do next? Beagel (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to find uninvolved people to close RfCs, because it can be quite time-consuming. I've asked Nathan, who closed the template RfC last month, whether he'd be interested in closing this one too. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ a b On Scene Coordinator Report on Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (PDF) (Report). 2011. Retrieved 22 February 2013. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ a b Kunzelman, Michael (11 January 2013). "BP Seeks Gulf Oil Spill Size Ruling From Judge". The Huffington Post. The Associated Press. Retrieved 20 January 2013.
  3. ^ a b Hays, Kristen; Reddall, Braden (22 February 2013). "U.S. Gulf Coast oil spillers about to face day in court". Reuters. Retrieved 7 June 2013.
  4. ^ a b Weber, Harry R. (27 April 2013). "BP seeks to spread blame as first phase of spill trial ends". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 7 June 2013.
  5. ^ "US to give BP evidence on size of Gulf oil spill". Chicago Tribune. Reuters. 11 April 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
  6. ^ Biello, David (25 April 2011). "One Year After BP Oil Spill, At Least 1.1 Million Barrels Still Missing". Scientific American. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
  7. ^ "US to give BP evidence on size of Gulf oil spill". Chicago Tribune. Reuters. 11 April 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
  8. ^ Biello, David (25 April 2011). "One Year After BP Oil Spill, At Least 1.1 Million Barrels Still Missing". Scientific American. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
  9. ^ "PFC Energy 50". PFC Energy. 2013. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
  10. ^ "Top 10 Oil & Gas Companies: Number 6 - BP". Oil and Gas iQ. 2013. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BP/Archive_18&oldid=1151018826"