Talk:BP/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Duplicated information in this article

Following the large number of edits to this article in recent weeks, some material seems to have become duplicated within sections or between different sections, as editors have worked to update or add new information. I have noticed a few pieces of information in particular that are repeated and would like to suggest removing this duplicated information. Below, the repeated information I have found is shown in bold:

Investments in green technologies

• Information about criticism of BP for "greenwashing" is now included under two sections: "Alternative energy" and "Branding and public relations" and, under each, the same detail is repeated:

In the "Alternative energy" section:

The relatively small size of BP's alternative energy operations has led to allegations of greenwashing by Greenpeace, Mother Jones and oil and energy analyst Antonia Juhasz, among others. Juhasz notes BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget prior to cutbacks. BP's 2008 budget included $20 billion in fossil fuel investment and $1.5 billion in all alternative forms of energy.

In the "Branding and public relations" section:

According to Democracy Now, BP's marketing campaign amounted to greenwashing given BP's 2008 budget which included $20 billion in fossil fuel investment and $1.5 billion in all alternative forms of energy. Oil and energy analyst Antonia Juhasz notes BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget prior to cutbacks, including the discontinuation of BP Solar and the closure of its alternative energy headquarters in London. According to Juhasz, "four percent...hardly qualifies the company to be Beyond Petroleum", citing BP's "aggressive modes of production, whether it’s the tar sands [or] offshore".

This is not duplication. It is relevant to both sections. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Figureofnine, however my concerns remain, and it's not just this particular detail that is duplicative, but in fact the AE and Branding sections overlap more generally. I would like to hear what other editors think, and I may come back to this at a later time. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As was pointed out below, it is not appropriate for BP to meddle in the editorial process to attempt to influence the writing of this article in a manner that slants the POV of the article. Removing the text in question would remove necessary material, occasioned by the fact that BP utilizes its Alternative Energy program very heavily in its branding. That has come under criticism by virtue of the fact that its Alternative Energy program is tiny in proportion to the size of the company. This constant meddling, this micromanaging, aimed at influencing the editorial direction of the article, goes well beyond what is appropriate for a company of this size with regard to its Wikipedia article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

@Arturo at BP: In longer articles it is customary to repeat relevant facts. That is happening here. The boldface belongs in both sections. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As the critics is not about alternative energy per se, but about using thesed investments to create the company image (slogan Beyond Petroleum etc), this information belongs to the Branding section and not to the AE section. Beagel (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it is organic to both sections, which is precisely why BP wants it downplayed. You can't discuss alternative energy without making a mention of the greenwashing criticism, nor can you discuss branding without discussing the "green" imagery. They are both intertwined. Coretheapple (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sale of BP's wind farms

• Also within the "Alternative energy" section there is repetition of the claim that BP's sale of wind farms was part of its divestment program to raise funds following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I would also like to point out that this information is inaccurate because BP had already sold or committed to sell $38 billion in assets by the time the wind farms were offered for sale. The $38 billion divestment target was met in December 2012, while the wind farms were put up for sale in April 2013. See the this Bloomberg article from February, which states "BP reached its $38 billion divestment target a year early." (The target for the divestment had been the end of 2013.) Here is the current section:

The sale of BP's wind farms was also part of the program to raise $38 billion from assets sales meant to cover costs relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill BP said that the sale of their wind unit was "not an exit from alternative energy", citing its continued ethanol production and biofuel research. The sale of the wind business was motivated in part by the company's need to sell assets to help finance the costs of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

OSHA violations

• In the "Industrial accidents" section the information about BP's fines from OSHA related to the Texas City Refinery explosion are included twice. Once almost immediately following the section heading and again under the "2006—2010: Refinery fatalities, safety violations, and leaks" subsection:

In the "Industrial accidents" section

BP has one of the worst safety records of any major oil company that operates in the United States. Between 2007 and 2010, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas accounted for 97 percent of "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). BP had 760 "egregious, willful" violations during that period, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo two and Exxon had one.

In the "2006—2010: Refinery fatalities, safety violations, and leaks" subsection:

Facing scrutiny after the Texas City Refinery explosion, two BP-owned refineries in Texas City, and Toledo, were responsible for 97% (829 of 851) of wilful safety violations by oil refiners between June 2007 and February 2010, as determined by inspections by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Jordan Barab, deputy assistant secretary of labour at OSHA, said "The only thing you can conclude is that BP has a serious, systemic safety problem in their company."

References

 Done Thanks Gandydancer for addressing this duplication (see these edits).

Can editors take a look at removing this duplicated information? This is no rush on this, please take your time. As Buster Seven has suggested before, please mark the sections above as "done" if you make an edit. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to thank me because actually I had found the duplication when I was doing some work on those sections--it was not your suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have marked one of these requests as done, but I wanted to remind editors that there are two other requests here when you have time. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is one remaining piece of duplication that has not been commented on. I would appreciate a review of the duplication in the information about the sale of BP's wind farms, when editors have time. Also, I am interested in others' opinions regarding the duplicated detail described above under the heading Investments in green technologies. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the material in question, but Arturo I feel it isn't appropriate for you to be continually trying to shape the content of this article. If there are errors of fact or omission by all means point them out, but trying to influence how the article is written, or how BP's opponents are described, isn't appropriate. The duplication may be deliberate and needed for some reason; or it may be accidental and something that ought to be fixed (I don't know; as I say I haven't looked), but either way I can't see how it affects BP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if you look above you'll see that one of my requests does relate to information that is incorrect, specifically the details about the sale of BP's wind farms. The information about the sale includes two sentences both of which suggest that the sale was part of BP's $38 billion divestment target related to Deepwater Horizon, however this is not the case. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The text about the wind farms is sourced to two independent, reliable sources, the Christian Science Monitor and The Independent. If BP has a quarrel with the news coverage, it needs to take up the matter with the news media sources in question. There is no correction appended to either of those articles. They may be incorrect or they may have their reasons for saying what they say. I agree that it is not appropriate for BP to meddle in how critics of the company are described, nitpick and micromanage on supposed "duplication" of text that BP doesn't like, and otherwise try to shape the editorial content of this article in a manner that is wholly inappropriate. BP editors are not errand boys for corporate public relations departments, so it would really be wonderful if the constant "I have checked this off and other stuff needs to be attended to" bit would terminate forthwith. If there are inaccuracies, real inaccuracies, they should be brought to the attention of editors. Anything else, not. Coretheapple (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that Arturo had thanked me for working on "my own article". Perhaps it's hard for someone that edits this article for pay to realize that some of us edit for reasons of social responsibility--but some of us do. While this is Arturo's only article, it is one of several that I "watch over". As such, there is certainly no need for a corporate editor to thank me for working on one of "my" articles. I had no idea that my edit was on Arturo's list and in all truth, it is quite irritating to have a corporate rep give me a thank you. Gandydancer (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes and there is one other point that occurred to me this evening after I made my last response. I usually avoid referring to the corporate rep by his name. This is not intended to be a snub or disrespect or anything, but is a reflection of the fact that this editor is a representative of BP in this article, and is not here in a personal capacity. The difference between that editor and any of the rest of us is that we are here as individuals, and if we go it ends our presence here. However, BP is clearly here permanently. When this particular corporate rep leaves he will be replaced by someone else. Likewise, as has been discussed, there are no doubt multiple eyeballs at BP watching this article. That is an important distinction that needs to be kept in mind in dealing with this particular and, yes, irritating presence here. Coretheapple (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I am glad Arturo is here, and that he has given us a personal name rather than presenting just a bland corporate façade. As best I can tell (from a cursory perspective), Arturo has been quite respectful and constructive, and I hope BP gives him a raise and keeps him around. We shouldn't consider all BP corporate presence here as an irritant. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

At one point in excess of 40% of the article originated from drafts that BP produced. The situation, when exposed, was a major black eye for Wikipedia. Sorry if I not every editor enjoys either that indignity or all that has gone with it. Coretheapple (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It was explained several times at this talk as also in other venues where the BP COI issue was discussed that the 40% claim is incorrect. Could we stop repeating this nonsense, please? Beagel (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I may have been incorrect. I think the number was 44% but I'll have to check. Coretheapple (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The methodology how this figure was calculated was incorrect. Beagel (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's where that number originated.[1] What would you suggest to be an appropriate number? 30%? 20%? To the extent that BP is involved as a defendant in litigation concerning the very matters that were the subjects of these drafts, I think the number needs to be zero. Coretheapple (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

@Arturo at BP: On the wind farms, you're asking editors to accept not only that the Bloomberg article in February was correct in saying that the divestment goal was met, but that two other sources were incorrect when they say that the wind farms were sold as part of the divestment. However, the Bloomberg article did not explicitly contradict what the other publications said. It is perfectly possible that the sale of the wind farms was concluded well in the past, and was part of the divestment program, and was announced after the divestment goals were met. For editors to disregard what is stated in two reliable sources, on the basis of one editor's say-so, would be to highly inappropriate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple and Figureofnine, BP only announced the wind farms were up for sale in April 2013. The sources are clear that the sale had not been completed and that BP was announcing the assets were up for sale, not that they had been sold. So, the wind farms cannot have been part of the divestment target. Platts also reported that BP had reached its divestment target of $38 billion, in this March article they state "BP has already met its $38 billion divestment target to help pay for damages from the spill a year earlier than expected." Also, in the BP Annual Report Summary Review, p8, you will see that BP CEO Bob Dudley states: "By the end of 2012 we had announced asset sales of $38 billion, essentially reaching our target a year early. Since the divestment programme began, we have sold around half our upstream installations and pipelines, and one-third of our wells – while retaining roughly 90% of our proved reserves base and production."

On Coretheapple's point, also made previously, that BP should take up the inaccuracy with the media outlets and get the stories changed, I do understand that this would be the ideal situation. However, hundreds of websites ran stories just on the wind farm sale announcement alone, so reviewing each and asking for corrections on every single inaccuracy, especially on the divestment target matter which was not even the key news reported is not practical. Where an inaccuracy is easily confirmed by comparing against other available sources, should this not be corrected in the article? As I have explained above, BP confirmed that the divestment target of $38 billion was met at the end of 2012. The announcement was made in April 2013 that the wind farms were up for sale (not yet sold), so the wind farm sale is not part of the divestment to meet the $38 billion target. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article actually separates the $38 billion in asset sales from the sale of the wind farms. It says: "BP Plc (BP/), attempting to recover from an oil spill that may cost it $42 billion, said it will sell shares in wind assets worth as much as $3.1 billion in the U.S. in another step to focus on its main oil and gas business." It then says "Chief Executive Officer Bob Dudley has sold $38 billion in oil fields, pipelines and refineries to concentrate BP on its most profitable assets after the 2010 spill in the Gulf of Mexico." As you can see, this source does not really support the position that the wind farms were to be sold to meet the divestment target. I don't see the problem with altering the article to make it in line with the Bloomberg article. As for a correction, I think that such a step would make difficulties such as this less trying for you. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Next Step: Mediation?

What is the next step regarding the content dispute for the amount of negative information in this article about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill? There obviously is no consensus. (Can anyone provide evidence that there is a consensus?) I think that no one is proposing that the negative information be deleted from the properly linked article. Since we have already gone through the RFC process as part of dispute resolution, and it has accomplished nothing, the only remaining step that I am aware of for a content dispute is mediation. Should a formal Request for Mediation be posted? Also, are the editors here willing to be involved in mediation? Another alternative would be to stub the article and rewrite it, but that is extreme, because there is a great deal of useful information in this article. Is mediation a reasonable solution, or is there some other answer, or should the article be stubbed and started over? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Stubbing doesnt appear to be a valid option, it requires that no past version of the article be useable or fixable. Whilst the 2 RfCs are ongoing, let's put this idea of evaluating the situation on hold, and reassess once they are closed. Robert, what is your reasoning for mediation and the idea of stubbing? Is this about the Gulf spill section, or about the article in general? If you wouldn't mind clarifying your complaints/observations that led you to these suggestions, it would be appreciated. petrarchan47tc 08:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sufficiently acquainted with mediation to have an opinion on it. Stubbing is for basket cases. It might have been an alternative when the article was 40% BP content, but today would only please "attack page" POV extremists and BP itself, not readers. Coretheapple (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In mentioning stubbing the article, I made the mistake of being sarcastic, when no one knows that you are being sarcastic on the Internet. I agree that is not really an option. We are no closer than we were to consensus. I suggest formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note and reply to Petrarchan's questions so we can understand your position. Gandydancer (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Paging User: Robert McClenon (I think this will let him know). petrarchan47tc 01:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think mediation is the answer. Mediation is intended to settle disputes where there is a genuine willingness to reach agreement. I cannot see that working here.

This, in my opinion, is a dispute about the fundamental purpose of WP. In my opinion existing and long standing WP policies are being ignored in favour of news and media based approach to creating a soapbox to show how bad BP are. This is an issue at the heart of WP; either we are writing an encyclopedia or we are not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a dispute as to the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. It is a dispute as to what is a neutral point of view. Presenting this dispute for formal mediation will be time-consuming, as will the mediation itself. Do we agree that we want mediation, or do we want to continue to do POV pushing? I am willing to submit the formal RfM, but only if I think that the other editors are agreeable to mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we were hoping you would respond to the question I posed above: Robert, what is your reasoning for mediation? Is this about the Gulf spill section, or about the article in general? If you wouldn't mind clarifying your complaints/observations that led you to these suggestions, it would be appreciated. petrarchan47tc 03:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Paging User: Robert McClenon petrarchan47tc 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See below. The oil spill. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Since there are pending RfCs, it may be premature.[2] Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I would support a mediation request after the current RfC is closed (preferably by an admin). I think there is a deep divide in opinons among experienced, serious contributors to this article as to how much critical/environmental-related stuff that is appropriate to include in a company article, and I think there are some principal questions here, that I for one, would like to see handled in the most comprehensible way possible at Wikipedia. It may give a precedent for similar cases. I don't know much about this mediation procedure either (neither beeen involved in any), and from a brief look at the mediation page, it appears that most requests are turned down. But we could try. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's involved in mediation, but the idea is worth exploring, as you say, once the RfCs are wound down as indeed there is clearly no consensus emerging. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I think a fair impartial mediation, supervised by a veteran administrator, is a great idea. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion about mediation previously. I was ready to participate but I did not have motivation to file mediation request myself after I got impression that some editors will accept any version but their own POV. Also nobody else went forward to file the request. Also previous DR attempt was discouraging. In general, I fully agree with Buster's comment that mediation is a great idea but it will work only if all participants are interested to find a compromise and accept the outcome of the mediation. Beagel (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

RfM is usually the next step in attempting to seek consensus if an RfC does not achieve consensus, or if the consensus of the RfC is disputed. The problem with RfM is that it's determination is non-binding, which may still lead to disputed content with those with strong opinions. And arbitration, is the final step, and if individuals do not agree to enter into a binding arbitration, the process falls apart with usually stronger willed people who don't step away from the horse winning the day of the content dispute.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Mediation Question

My suggestion was mediation about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, not about the article in general. At some point the RfC will be closed. If, as I assume, the RfC is closed with the conclusion that there is no consensus, then mediation is the last step in a content dispute. I was not suggesting mediation about anything else, only as a way to resolve a content dispute that was not previously resolved by other steps in dispute resolution. Have I answered the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Robert, thank you. Still, I want more clarity. For instance, would you consider an update like this excessive or appropriate? If you find it to be appropriate, please consider helping to build this article (by adding this update) as well as criticizing it.petrarchan47tc 03:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert. I have just finished re-reading the above avaiable text pertaining to your RfC and it sure seemed to me that editors were responding about the article ALONG with the varied degrees of DWH spill inclusion. I support your efforts to achieve editor collaboration. Whether or not the various RfC's and surveys have or will achieve our mutual goal is up-in-the-air. But dispute resolution should help in reducing editor polarization. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mediation is not intended to resolve disputes of this kind, which is about the fundamental purpose of WP. It is intended for cases where both parties wish to work together to resolve the dispute. I do not think that will happen here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is compelled to participate. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I see, you want mediation with only one side present. That could work, at least for the side that participates. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your implication that parties will not work together as collaborators is not fair and a bit saddening. Until you can see that it is possible that we CAN work together, you will never work toward agreement. It is not a foregone conclusion that the two sides are adversaries. A fundamental Pillar is assume good faith. Don't lose your faith just because we disagree. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The further implication that I want to start a mediation process with only one side isn't very fair either, but it does reflect the kind of combativeness that has been characterizing this page for months and months, as well as other pages related to BP, in which edits not favorable to BP have been reverted en masse. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not up to me. As I understand it, mediation without essential parties is sometimes rejected by whoever is in charge there. Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, sometimes, maybe, it isn't necessary that editors agree. Understanding why different editors feel differently than other editors gives us insight. into them and ourselves. Often, a new-found mutual respect has potential to be born in the process, as well as genuine empathy. Those are the seeds of persuasion and compromise. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• From President Obama's 11/15/12 News Conference regarding the Fiscal Cliff::: "....fair-minded people CAN come to agreement. Compromise is hard...not everyone gets what they want." ```Buster Seven Talk 01:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Martin Hogbin about the oil spill, that a long description of the oil spill is inappropriate in this article and should instead be in the "child" article. I don't know why he thinks that mediation is not possible, and I don't think that this is a dispute about the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. I think that everyone agrees that the purpose is to build a high-quality on-line encyclopedia. The issue is one of what is a neutral point of view, and not of whether Wikipedia should reflect a neutral point of view. The RFC on the scope of the oil spill coverage in this article will be closed, and if the conclusion is that there is no consensus, then mediation is the next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are to participate in the mediation, I have to request that you answer people's direct questions, and don't ignore them as you have done twice to me. It's disrespectful. And yes, I'm willing to take part in a mediation. petrarchan47tc 07:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert, whatever NPOV is taken to mean it is being applied differently in this article from others, but it is not just NPOV it is lack of encyclopedic writing style and excessive detail. For some reason, this article is being treated completely differently from nearly all others. I cannot see how the mediators will deal with this, it is not their job to rule on WP policy, just to try to get parties to reach agreement. BY all means give mediation a try, I am perfectly willing to participate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I know some editors have a problem with excessive detail. But this is the first time I've heard mention of a problem with a lack of encyclopedic writing style. Examples please. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

~sigh~ Alright, here's the thing guys; the RfC was doomed to failure from word go simply as a result of how it was approached; the question it put forth was one which allowed each side (and indeed each individual editor) to state their position in the broadest possible terms and because of the vagueness of the question, each side (understandably) came away with the impression that their response was pretty reasonable. That type of question may be good for counting heads between the factions that grow out of these sorts of disputes, but absolutely lousy at establishing a more refined discussion about the particulars of the content and where it is consistent (or inconsistent) with policy. The result was (predictably) a long-winded thread in which everyone weighed in and yet nothing of significance was decided. And consequently, even if the RfC hadn't been as split as it was (say 90% of the editors involved had come out in favour of an inclusionist or reductionist approach), it still would have accomplished nothing since the editors in the minority could have continued to make changes and reasonably claim that their actions were consistent with the outcome of the RfC; that is, those inclined to retain content could claim "The majority of editors clearly said that a reasonable amount of material should be present", whereas those wishing to remove content could say "The majority of editors said that only a reasonable amount of material should stay." And both perspectives would be completely correct as a result of how badly the RfC was bungled and how little effort has been put in to address the actual finer points.

And now this tedious, unproductive debate has spawned an entirely new discussion on whether to request mediation, when neither side has put in any effort to do more than establish the vaguest ideological arguments. Let's be clear about a few things. One, RfM is dubiously appropriate to this context to begin with. Two, it is very likely to fall into the same pitfalls with the same cyclical arguments that dominated the last discussion. Three, it is inappropriate to waste the time of admins on commenting upon vague assertions when said admins are only going to look at the broad strokes being painted by both sides and be left with nothing to say but "Yes, a reasonable amount of content on this discussion does seem...reasonable. Now which exact points should be included and which shouldn't?" And at that point, given how I've seen this discussion evolve above, I can only surmise there will be a weighty silence. Because what I see here is a whole lot of editors more than willing to provide an opinion (and a very impassioned one at that from a number of voices) and a dearth of editors actually willing to do the hard work necessary to establish a lasting consensus on the matter. This is the very definition of useless (or indeed counterproductive) wikilawyering. The next step is not mediation. Any interested parties are welcome to try it, but I can almost guarantee the responding admin is likely to echo my sentiments here. What is truly needed here is some actual editing. Editors who feel strongly on this matter and also feel that they are well-versed in the subject matter -- and with this degree of polarization, I would hope there is some crossover between those two groups -- should do some actual editing, ideally in the form sandbox drafts, with justification for why specific passages should be included or omitted, and then the involved editors can discuss each point on its merits rather than embracing vague stances on principle. Or everyone can just continue to spin their wheels seeking a judgement from the majority or from a superior authority, neither of which is going to lead to a stable resolution to this issue if it is approached in the way it has been thus far. Snow (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

BP Statistical Review of World Energy

The article misses the annual statistical review of world energy which has been published by BP since 1951. This is one of the most cited annual energy reviews and as such it is worth of mentioning in this article. Any suggestion where in the article it should be placed? Also, is there any suggestion for a good third-party source saying what the review is (there are plenty of the mainstream media sources saying what the review says)? Beagel (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestion where the information about the Statistical Review of World Energy should be placed? Beagel (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Statistical Review of World Energy is mentioned in the Operations section. Beagel (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

The problem on this page is a lack of trust, which I believe preceded BP's arrival but was exacerbated by it. The only way forward is to focus on restoring enough trust so that people can work together civilly. Some things that might help:

• Arturo, it's not ideal that you're asking editors to change the direction of the article, or their description of BP's critics, and repeating requests when they're not done (perhaps they're not done because people don't want to do them). If you stick to requesting the correction of errors of fact and (important) omission, that would make for a happier editing environment. Perhaps you could create a section on talk entitled "Errors," and mark anything that's urgent; we can stop the bot from archiving it, so you wouldn't have to keep repeating requests. I created one recently for Christian Scientists to list mistakes there; see here to give you an idea. Or you could create a subpage, Talk:BP/Errors.

• It would also help if editors were to look through the article to make sure that it relies on the highest-quality sources available for the specific issue. There's a danger of turning the article into a list of every good and bad thing BP has ever done. Instead, a decision should be made about which news or academic sources are the most trustworthy and comprehensive, then just stick to what they've reported, per WP:UNDUE, rather than trying to cram everything in. The article is currently 11,456 words, so it could use some trimming. Sticking to a disinterested/encyclopaedic tone is important too, rather than anything that smacks of news-style.

• Avoid personal criticism as far as possible. If you make a comment like that, consider striking or removing it later (striking if someone has already replied).

• Page archiving: when things get hot, archive often, so that disputes don't linger.

• More RfCs: these can be very effective. If 30 days seems too long, we can announce in advance that they're closing after 14 days. Pick an issue that people are fighting over, ask a good question that respondents can make sense of, then stick to the closing consensus. And just clunk through the issues that way. If anyone wants help setting up an RfC, I'd be happy to do that.

I know this is all easier said than done, but I hope it might help anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think you make some good points here about how trust and civility have broken down on this discussion page, and I think that your suggestions are helpful for finding a way forward. In particular, I like your idea of creating a subpage for noting errors and perhaps also for listing helpful (independent) sources. If I was to create that subpage, do you have a recommendation for how this should be linked on this page so that editors know that it is there and when to look for new items?

To respond to your mention of my repeating requests, recently I began noting what requests had still to be done after I saw that Buster Seven had been asking other editors what had been done and what remained from my requests. I was not at all intending to badger editors but to make it clearer that some parts had been responded to and other parts remained unaddressed. Typically, the requests that I mention again are ones where there has been no response, and I try not to press editors if they have said they don't want to make the change. As far as I recall, I have not created a new section to repeat requests lost due to archiving but I do agree that a subpage would mean that this would not be necessary.

Although I would offer corrections (such as the duplications and erroneous detail about the wind farm sale) in that subpage, where appropriate I intend to continue to respond in discussions on this page. For example, I did not comment in any of the RfCs for the page (which specifically are about the direction of the article), but I did reply to Beagel to offer sources for a piece of information. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if you create an errors subpage, we can add an archive box to the top of this talk page, which would list archives by number and topic. So one of the links would be Talk:BP/Errors (or whatever you called it). And/or we can pin it at the top of this talk page by creating a section explaining that it exists; if we don't sign the section the bot won't archive it. I added an archive box and "corrections page" section here (scroll down) so you can see what it would look like (I then reverted myself).

That would prevent this talk page from having the flavour of a "to do" list, which might improve relationships. It might also make it easier for you to keep the list updated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you've made some good suggestions. One other problem, which seems to go back a long way, has been the wholesale reversion of edits made to the article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it's necessary – there are times when all or most of an edit is problematic – but editors occasionally get into the habit of reverting everything if there's even one thing they disagree with, which should be avoided. Is this something that used to happen, or is it continuing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a revert war prior to the recent spate of RfCs, I'd say about a month ago. Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have created a sub page here: Talk:BP/Corrections and resources for any future corrections that I have to offer, or suggestions for new information for the article. For now I have simply included a few recent news articles on the announced end of the clean up in three states following the DWH spill. Since discussion is ongoing on this page regarding the duplications in the article, I will leave this request open here rather than moving it to the sub page so that there is no confusion for editors who have responded. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I've added the page to the archive box and to a pinned section at the top of the talk page. You might also consider asking editors to add {{not done}}, along with a brief explanation, if they decide that the edit wouldn't be appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link in the archive box and the pinned section. I will add the suggestion about marking items "not done" to the sub page. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC (2) on Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill section

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.

---

Following a recent RfC, there is consensus to include a summary-style section on the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. There is also consensus that the current section is too detailed and should be trimmed, per SUMMARY and UNDUE.

The questions for this RfC are: (1) should the section summarize the environmental and health consequences of the spill, as well as the financial and legal consequences for the company; or should it only summarize the financial and legal consequences for the company? If respondents have other suggestions, please elaborate. And (2) roughly how long should the section be?

Note: because this debate has been protracted, the RfC will close after 14 days. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Cover Both - Roughly 1 paragraph - Dedicate 2-3 to both the health/environmental thing and 2-3 lines to financial/legal consequences. NickCT (talk)
• Summarize of lead, in the lead of the article Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the following half of paragraph and whole paragraph extensively summarizes that subject of this article's role in the spill:

  Numerous investigations explored the causes of the explosion and record-setting spill. Notably, the U.S. government's September 2011 report pointed to defective cement on the well, faulting mostly BP, but also well operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.[17][18] Earlier in 2011, a White House commission likewise blamed BP and its partners for a series of cost-cutting decisions and an insufficient safety system, but also concluded that the spill resulted from "systemic" root causes and "absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur".[19]

  In November 2012, BP and the United States Department of Justice settled federal criminal charges with BP pleading guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP also agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments[20][21][22] but further legal proceedings not expected to conclude until 2014 are ongoing to determine payouts and fines under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment.[23][24] As of February 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments to a trust fund had cost the company $42.2 billion.[25]

  Given that this is what has been seen as the most important parts of the subject of this article's role in the event, then perhaps we should take these parts of that article's lead and summarize it further to paragraph of no more than six standard length sentences.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both should be covered. As to length, the two paragraphs from the DWH oil spill article are concise and informative. Rather than summarize (which, to me, implies "whittling" out} some of the important information, I suggest a Wikipedia editor do a re-write...same information, said differently. Nothing removed just relocated. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both. I agree with Buster7 above. I think that the significance of the gulf oil spill is such that it requires a thorough exploration in this article. Remember that everywhere but in this article it is referred to as the BP oil spill. Coretheapple (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both with the addition of Corexit coverage. I wholeheartedly agree with Buster's suggestion. I disagree with an arbitrarily pre-scribed number of paragraphs until we're clear about the true impact of this event on the company. petrarchan47tc 02:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Cover only aspects directly about the company per WP:UNDUE as there are detailed articles about all aspects of DWH (just see the template in the relevant section to find out all these articles). As for size - roughly one paragraph per NickCT (in addition to the existing paragraph in the 'Stock' subsection of the 'Corporate affairs' section, so it would be already two paragraphs together). WP:SS should be applied to avoid WP:POVFORK, WP:RECENT should be also avoided. Beagel (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification of my position: as there are several opinions that the suitable size is two paragraphs, I will support this as said by FurrySings if this is the consensus. As for the content, I support the proposal by Buster Seven described in the 'Version #2 Of DWH lead' subsection. There may be some copyediting but it seems o be a good basis. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Cover only aspects directly about the company. The rest is described in several linked articles. Summarising the lead of the main article on the subject, as suggested above, seems like a reasonable idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Cover the environmental and health consequences of the spill, as well as the financial and legal consequences for the company. The length should be whatever is required. Corexit should be included, as a Google News search indicates that it is a part of the overall story and interconnected with BP. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both should be covered, but greater weight should be given to the financial and legal consequences. The environmental and health consequences were why there were financial and legal consequences. As far as length, I think three good-sized paragraphs should be the maximum length, with two being preferred.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both with length to be determined in the usual manner for WP, but 2 paragraphs or so seems appropriate. The consequences of the spill, both economic and ecologic, are notable for BP based on coverage of this event in reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both as per Buster and Petrarchan. Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both, but major re-balancing is needed. Right now "impacts" and "prosecutions" constitute about 3/4 of the coverage of the spill. Major info about the spill and capping is missing. It should be rebalanced to put impacts and prosecutions (together) down to about 1/3 of the spill coverage. North8000 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both Coverage should be about 3 to 6 lines, in one medium sized paragraph or two short paragraphs. FurrySings (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both aspects should be covered (environmental/health and financial/legal). As for length, I would say four shortish, tightly written paragraphs, possibly within two sub-sections, but almost certainly no more than that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Both and two paragraphs should be fine.--Fox1942 (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment The amount of coverage should roughly reflect the amount of impact the Gulf spill has had on the company. This might take some investigation, but my first thought is that it caused an initial 40% drop in BP stock, which has only recovered about 10% since then (so, BP is 30% smaller than before the spill due to sell-offs meant to cover spill costs). How do we justify only a few paragraphs to cover something that has had such a large impact on the company?

Another point to consider is that the Corexit story and BP's role in it has yet to be added to the article. From the previous RfC, it was widely accepted that any part of the Gulf spill story that directly relates to BP should be covered in depth in this article. A quick summary: Corexit was chosen by BP to, according to officials, keep the oil from hitting shores; according to independents like Hugh Kaufman, it was to hide the amount of oil spilled and reduce related fines. Corexit was used in unprecedented amounts and untested ways (off-label use, like underwater and near shore). Recent studies are concluding that it is the Corexit that is causing mutations and death in the Gulf, lack of insects on barrier islands, PAHs in the sands and in the air, and human health problems due to BP's hiding the safety manuals and threatening workers' jobs if they wore respirators. The company lied about the safety of Corexit, according to an investigation by Newsweek and GAP. They knew it would hurt their clean up crews. It is a cover-up, and an enormous part of BP's story and particularly the Gulf section of this article. See here here and here for more. petrarchan47tc 22:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be added text on Corexit, which is only mentioned in passing in the current version. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Yahoo Finance!, the adjusted closing price of the BP share was on 19 April 2010, day before explosion, $52.46. On 18 June 2013, the closing price was $43.29 or 82.5% of the price of 19 April 2010. This is 17.5%, not 30% less as stated above. The impact of DWH is already described in this article in the 'Stock' subsection, which is under the 'Corporate affairs' section and not under the DWH section.

The Corexit issues are described in the Corexit, Deepwater Horizon oil spill response, Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Deepwater Horizon oil spill articles, and it is also mentioned in the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill articles. It is too specific to be covered here and it is already has a broad coverage elsewhere. Beagel (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The consensus from the previous RfC was that anything directly attributed to BP regarding the Gulf spill should be covered in this article. The corexit story with regard to BP's specific involvement is not covered in depth at any other article on wiki. Even if it were covered in depth, that would not be a reason to exclude it here given the directives from the community.

"Dudley has tried to revive BP after the slump following the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill by selling $38 billion in assets and shutting down production in many areas to ensure safety, causing output to decline 7 percent last year. The share price is still about a third lower than before the spill." - Bloomberg March 7, 2013 So, more like 33% than 30%, my bad. My point is not to add this information, but to use it in determining a proper amount of coverage for this event. Clearly anyone who argues "one or two paragraphs should cover it" is missing something. petrarchan47tc 18:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The closing price on 18 June 2013 was 82.5% of the adjusted closing price of 19 April 2010, the eve of the DWH explosion. Share prices were provided here, so this is just the simple mathematics. Talking as of today that the share price is 30% or 33% less, is incorrect and does not correspond to the actual share price which is publicly available. The conclusion that the Corexit issue should be covered in this article per the previous RfC, is syrprising interpretation of the discussion and results of that RfC. Beagel (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wether it is 17.5% or 37.5%, I think Petra's point is accurate if not in its specifics. The DWH oil spill had a drastic effect, and is still having a drastic effect, on the BP Corporations financial health. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree what Buster Seven's assessment. To me, it is abundantly obvious. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion that takes environmental information from the first, second and third sections of the spill section and reduces it to one screen of information:

Environmental impacts continue, and research is ongoing. [391] According to the United States Department of Justice, oil spills are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems and can cause long-term effects years later even if the oil remains in the environment for a relatively short period of time.[362] In 2012 local fishermen reported that crab, shrimp, and oyster fishing operations had not yet recovered from the oil spill and many feared that the Gulf seafood industry will never recover. [383] In 2013, researchers found that as much as one-third of the oil remains on the bottom of the seafloor and that the spilled oil could have long-term effects on both human and marine life .[392] Three years after the oil spill tar balls are still found on the Mississippi coast, an oil sheen has been evident along coastal marshland[393] and erosion has increased due to the death of mangrove trees and marsh grass.[394][395]

In 2012 it was reported that Gulf residents and cleanup workers continue to suffer serious health problems related to the spill[396] and in 2013 studies found that many Gulf residents reported mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. These studies also showed that the bodies of former spill cleanup workers carry biomarkers of many chemicals contained in the oil.[397] A study that investigated the health effects among children in Louisiana and Florida living less than 10 miles from the coast found that more than a third of the parents reported physical or mental health symptoms among their children. [397]

This information gives a very minimal version to bring the environmental effects up to date. I just don't see how this could be cut back even further and I'm sure that some think I have cut it too much. We should never forget that this article is about the corporation that is responsible for the largest man-made disaster in the US. I have not added a Corexit section, which I feel is needed as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Version #2 Of DWH lead

The U.S. government's Sept 2011 report was one of many investigations exploring the explosion and subsequent record-setting oil spill. The report pointed to defective cement used to construct the well, faulting mostly BP, but also rig operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton. [17][18]. A White House commission had earlier found fault with BP and its partners for a series of cost-cutting decisions and an inadequate safety system. The report stated that "the spill resulted from systemic root causes and absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur." [19]

In Nov 2012, BP pled guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the EPA announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments.[20][21][22] Legal proceedings continue to determine additional fines and payouts under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment.[23][24] As of Feb 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments have cost the company $42.2 Billion. [25]

• ```Buster Seven Talk 20:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not too bad in my opinion. The italic emphasis, which was not in the original, should go, but it is a good start. I would use the exact wording from the DHS lead at the start, the shortened version is less clear.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done ```Buster Seven Talk

I agree that this is a good starting point. There is one mistake needing correction: Transocean was the rig operator, not the well operator. Beagel (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done ```Buster Seven Talk 05:52, 30 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.

(Cynical comment) I expect the proper length of a paragraph to be the next topic of dispute. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Surmising why editors withdraw

It is beyond the ability of one editor to assume why a host of other editors "withdraw" from this articles construction site. To surmise only one reason (edit-warring, for instance) is contrary to reasonable facts. Editors temporarily withdraw for hundreds of reasons, none of them having to do with the article at all. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I can only give my reasons, to avoid edit warring and to await the result of the RfC. Let us see what others say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There are many stated reasons why editors "withdraw". They include both the desire to avoid being involved in edit wars, and the incivility common by some of the participants in edit wars. There is also a lot of idle speculation going on about the reasons why editors "withdraw" with respect to the current controversy over the badly handled rollout of Visual Editor. (On the one hand, a more user-friendly editor for non-technical editors is much needed. On the other hand, the rollout of a version of the Visual Editor that is itself user-unfriendly because it is so buggy was poorly handled.) Other reasons for "withdrawing" are unrelated to Wikipedia, such as work or family demands. Waiting for the result of an RFC is an honorable reason to withdraw temporarily from editing an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I am talking about editors withdrawing from editing THIS article. I don't know what the Visual Editor has to do with it. ..maybe Editor Robert is referring to editors withdrawing from Wikipedia as a whole. but here, implying that there are only two reasons (not wanting to edit war or waiting for an RfC to conclude) is less than honorable. Editor Martins says, "I can only give my reasons..." and yet he implies that others have only the same two reasons (only two). Also, to imply I am playing some game is not honorable. If I want to play games, I will do so with some of my 13 grandchildren. Editor Martin clearly thinks I am in the opposing camp...and that is the continuing problem at this article. The only camp I belong to is The Reader Camp. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

With regard to Visual Editor, the comment had been made that one of the reasons for its introduction was to promote editor retention. The comment was in particular that it was needed to promote retention of female editors. That comment was then (in my view, rightly) attacked as sexist, implying that female editors don't have the skills to learn Wiki markup. The comment was also made, with which I partly agree, that a reason for the inability to retain female editors is a culture of, first, incivility in general, and, second, patronizing attitudes by some (not all) editors to other editors who are known to be female. I was indeed talking about withdrawing from Wikipedia in general. My own thought is that the Visual Editor will make the retention of editors more difficult, not less, until its bugs are fixed. That is not directly relevant to BP. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That is aside from the point of withdrawal of editors from editing this article. There was a considerable amount of incivility in the editing of this article also, until the RFCs were posted, which did result in considerable improvement. I did not imply that anyone was playing any sort of a game. Maybe someone else did. I would encourage any editor who is a grandparent to play as many games as possible with his or her grandchildren, but right now mine are away. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think improvement re:civility was occurring prior to the RfC's. From my vantage point, the polarizing comments had lessened and a spirit of collaboration was building. I'm sure we all hope it will continue. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Very confused

Please bear with me, I have been away. Am I to understand from the above RfC that the entire DWH ordeal is to be summed up in two paragraphs? petrarchan47tc 09:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

On a closer read, I see people talking about Buster's proposal as 'a good starting point', which makes me wonder why then is Martin suddenly implementing the proposed draft? Especially since I have just spend a few hours finally working to update this section as I have promised to do for months. petrarchan47tc 09:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus to reduce the DWH section to something like Buster's proposal. Of course this can be edited in-situ, as is the norm for WP. There certainly is no consensus for the current version, which is why I changed it. We have had two RfCs and reached a near consensus. Let us implement that, pending improvements. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted Martin's changes to the article which added Buster's suggestions which have had almost no discussion and ignored the discussion about health and environmental inclusions. Gandydancer (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We have just had two RfCs. It is quite clear from them that there is no consensus for the current version, indeed there never has been. It is quite clear from them that there is no consensus for the current version, indeed there never has been. I withdrew from editing this page because I did not want to be drawn into edit war with users who wanted to add volumes of anti-BP material to this page. I think several other editors also withdrew for the same reasons.

We have now been through the appropriate dispute resolution process, where everyone has had their opportunity to voice an opinion, and we have reached some sort of consensus. There may be details to be worked out but it is quite clear to me that the current section is not what most editors want to see. We should respect the RfCs and change it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

1. - It was never my intention to replace 17,000 hard-fought editor created bytes with the my two meager suggestions.
2. - Only two editors supported my suggestion. In the face of Editor Martins wholesale change of July 4, I don't even support my suggestions.
3. - The statement that there was no consensus for the pre-July 4th changes version is inaccurate. With so much input and broad-based editor involvement over the past months, consensus for the previous long version was constantly ebbing and flowing. Contrary to Editor Martins comment, the DWH section had achieved a modicum of stability and broad-based editor support (also called consensus).
4. - I doubt that any editor (other than Editor Martin) that took part in the RfC's could have imagined that the ascertion of the RfC's was to replace 17000 plus pieces of reader info with two brief paragraphs. That was not my intention in rewriting the DWH article lead.
5. - As stated somewhere, my suggestion was a beginning. The end is far (perhaps) but at least it is in sight. This attempt to "jam" my suggestion into the article instead of collaborating was not what the RfC was about.
6. - My reason for doing a rewrite was to show that we editors could come together and collaborate. I did not suspect that my suggestion would be used as a hatchet to chop the DWH section into just a torso without any appendages. (Sorry for the graphic analogy)```Buster Seven Talk 13:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal was a good starting point, but obviously can't be considered a substitute for the entire section as it does not deal with environmental and health effects, which specifically are to be included. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Like Buster, my suggestions were only that--a couple of suggestions. I didn't comment on Buster's suggestions and I did not expect comments on mine either. I only put my ideas down as a way to show what the bare-bones facts might look like. I assumed that Buster did the same. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Buster, you rather give the game away with your comment, '17,000 hard-fought editor created bytes'. The massive expansion of the section was pushed through without consensus. There was only stability because I and other refrained from edit warring while the RfC was in progress.

We had a second RfC and you proposed something for the section, based on a logical concept supported by the first RfC, that we should have a summary of the lead section of the DWH article. There clearly is a consensus for that concept so that is what we should do. You had plenty of time to change your own proposal if you did not like it or if you thought it was incomplete; you did not do that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The current situation is a good example of the situation around this article when some editors would not accept anything else than their own POV. We have spent months with different RfCs (more than year if to start with the beginning of non-constructive editing and the first DR, result of which were also not accepted by some certain editors) to build some kind of consensus while the current version of that section was inserted without any consensus just by edit warring. However, the consensus after the recent RfC was clear. There may be additions to the draft proposed by Buster7 but they could be implemented editing when the text is added to the article. It is clear that there is no consensus about the current text. Beagel (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The two RfCs have shown no consensus for the current version, and therefore a two-paragraph version that summarizes the environmental/health and legal/financial will have to be written. The version added by Martin doesn't do that. It should be aimed at the general reader who knows nothing about the spill, starting with (a) what the Deep Water Horizon was and how BP was connected; (b) what happened; (c) the environmental and health consequences known so far; (d) the legal and financial consequences for BP. It's a lot to pack into two paragraphs, but it can be done – and less is more for the casual reader anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with two paragraphs and there being no consensus for the current version but neither is there a consensus to include everything listed above. A very good suggestion, for which there was support, was to base the section on the lead of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. That is currently four paragraphs. If we can reduce it to two we may have a solution. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that per WP:Summary style and the RfC results, all four points quoted by SV need to be in the article. This does not require four paragraphs, however. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why it can't be the four-paragraph lede of the linked article? That might be less controversial (although anything will be controversial) than trying to edit it down to two paragraphs? (Robert M)

The Texas City explosion, and the Prudhoe Bay spill each have 5 paragraphs. But the consensus is that the Gulf spill is less than half as important, or at least deserves less than half the coverage. This system is broken, folks. Is it possibly a dumb idea to 'vote' on these issues when newcomers with no knowledge of the issue have equal say to folks who have put time, effort and research into an article? petrarchan47tc 19:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Importance is not really measured in paragraphs. There's a whole article on the spill. As far as the "dumb" idea about the RFC, you might want to re-read WP:OWN. Make your case, but don't attack volunteers who have no major stake in the topic - sometimes that outside perspective is needed when things heat up. -- Scray (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please reread my comment and know that i am referring to the RfC process being dumb, not the editors. I would never say that, and I do appreciate that people want to help - I am pointing out that the RfC process has in the past year or so become a voting process with no regard whatsoever to intricacies I pointed out. I think that's dumb, and the result of the RfCs prove it, imo. Now, to make the faulty outcome seem balanced and sensible, the response is to cut other similar sections (but no one's cutting, say, BP's stance on global warming, their environmental initiatives section, or anything that puts the company in a good light - so these moves seem POV to me). The nod to my possible ownership issues is an interesting theory, but not one supporting by my editing history. I do know a bit about this subject simply because I've put in hours and hours of work on this and related pages. That's what Wiki editors are supposed to do. At this page that fact has become a liability for me, and i've received my fair share of labels and hassle for it. This is the antithesis of encyclopedic, and is probably related to the urgency with which BP tries to spiff up their image, even here on Wiki. As another editor mentioned, the heavy talk page vs anemic editing activity here makes this a very undesirable place to put in any real effort. petrarchan47tc 00:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Below is my suggestion, based very strongly on the lead of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

(Comment to Petrarchan) It seems to me that (unless someone argues that DWH is less important to BP than these other events) the RfC indirectly supports summarizing these sections as well to restore balance of coverage relative to the DWH section. But this comes down to how long a paragraph is (cf. my "cynical comment" above); when I write content I tend to favor paragraphs on the longer side myself, but that's for editorial consensus to determine. The TCR section could arguably be reorganized into two longer paragraphs without removing any content; for Prudhoe Bay it's a stretch but could be done without removing too much. I stuck together a few of the paragraphs in the article as demonstration; feel free to revert. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't intend to get involved in this, by the way (one reason why I didn't !vote, but I would have said "both" and added a comment including basically what I've already said). I prefer to work on articles with a higher article/talk page edit ratio. :-) - and please don't interpret my comments as indicating support for any specific changes. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are useful and more than welcome! Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I try my best. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being here. Know that I do appreciate all input. I was simply making an observation about process, not people. petrarchan47tc 00:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that as first thing we should agree which draft (Buster's, Martin's or SlimVirgin's) we will take as a basis for further drafting of the text. As all of them are not final texts but rather starting points, I personally have no problem with any choice. However, I think we should have this agreement as soon as possible to be able to move forward. I am concerned with some developments contradicting the spirit of the latest RfC results, e.g. 12-paragraphs proposal about Corexit in addition to the spill section, which will slow down the implementation of the RfC results. Beagel (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think my draft fully complies with both RfCs and that it is time to replace the current version. What I have called my version is just a summary of the lead of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. It therefore already represents a consensus of editors on this subject. I am going to replace the current version for which we know there is no consensus with my version, which is based on the consensus of the two RfCs and the consensus of other independent editors who produced the DHOS article. It is hard to se what more of a consensus we need. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that some of the refs need fixing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Martin, please revert yourself. Your version has no consensus, it's not clear, you've removed the images and template, and none of the references work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Bytes" rather than paragraphs?

It seems like it would work better if we spoke in terms of Bytes instead of using the very flexible unit of measurement called "paragraphs". petrarchan47tc 03:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Martin's suggestion

The April 20, 2010 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico on the Macondo Prospect was followed by a sea-floor oil gusher which flowed for 87 days. The incident claimed 11 lives, and the total discharge was estimated at 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m³).. It was largest accidental marine oil spill in history. The well was declared sealed on 19 September 2010. A massive response ensued to protect the marine and coastal environment from the spreading oil utilizing skimmer ships, floating booms, controlled burns and 1.84 million US gallons (7,000 m³) of Corexit oil dispersant. Due to the spill, and adverse effects from the response and cleanup activities, extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats, fishing and tourism industries, and human health problems have continued through 2013.

Numerous investigations explored the causes of the explosion, notably, the U.S. government's September 2011 report pointed to defective cement on the well, faulting mostly BP, but also rig operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.

In November 2012, BP and the United States Department of Justice settled federal criminal charges with BP pleading guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP also agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to $4.525 billion in fines and other payments but further legal proceedings not are expected to conclude until 2014 . As of February 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments to a trust fund had cost the company $42.2 billion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Another draft suggestion

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill began on 20 April 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon, a drilling rig owned by Transocean and leased by BP to drill an exploratory well, exploded off the coast of Louisiana in the United States, killing 11 workers. Between then and 15 July, around 4.9 million barrels (210 million gallons) of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, the largest spill in US history. The plume of oil was reported at one point to be 2 km wide and 200 m high. Around 180 miles of shoreline were "heavily to moderately oiled," according to a US government report, and scientists reported that "[i]mmense amounts of toxic reservoir fluids and gases" had escaped into the gulf. There were further safety concerns about the nine million litres of oil dispersants, Corexit 9527 and 9500, BP used during the cleanup, around a third of it added at depth; it was the largest known application of such dispersants to date.

The environmental impact may not be known for decades. Around 7,000 dead animals were collected, including birds, sea turtles and 700 dolphins; scientists say only a small percentage of carcasses wash ashore and that the number of dead animals is significantly higher. The human health cost will likewise take years to evaluate: a variety of complaints have been reported, including respiratory, eye, nose and throat problems, skin irritation and vomiting episodes. The Deepwater Horizon Study Group, an international team of 64 experts, attributed the spill to BP's safety culture; the group said safety had been compromised by "a cascade of deeply flawed failure and signal analysis, decision-making, communication, and organizational–managerial processes." In November 2012, BP pleaded guilty in the US to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress about the size of the spill. The company agreed to pay $4 billion in fines and other penalties; it estimated that settlements and other expenses would cost it $42 billion in total.

Notes

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

In my opinion that version contains too much emotive and unencyclopedic content such as, 'Around 7,000 dead animals were collected, including birds, sea turtles and 700 dolphins', and, 'including respiratory, eye, nose and throat problems, skin irritation and vomiting episodes'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Initial comments: as a Wiki reader, I would rather know an exact number rather than to read "significantly" (since it is available). The death toll is thought to be 50 times higher (1 & 2) than the number of animals found. I also would appreciate being told that the dolphins were by far the worst hit, and why that is important to the overall picture: Doug Inkley, senior scientist for the National Wildlife Federation and lead author of the report, said in a press release. “Dolphins are still dying in high numbers in the areas affected by oil. These ongoing deaths — particularly in an apex predator like the dolphin — are a strong indication that there is something amiss with the Gulf ecosystem. Another missing piece, in my opinion, is that oil is still being found in large amounts and prompting LA fishing closures in July 2013. BP just wrapped up their beach cleaning on all states but LA last month. I hope the reader will be informed that the oil continued washing ashore for 3 years. Also, as is mentioned in the DWH spill Lede, the well site is still leaking. As for the entire Corexit story, that should probably be dealt with in the "environmental record" section. (Martin, this is not emotional, it's the whole reason an oil spill is a big, costly deal. These are simple, unemotional oil spill facts. Your reaction to these facts might suggest you consider taking a break from this page, imo.) petrarchan47tc 23:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I share your curiosity (and also find the details both important and abhorrent), but I would expect to find details in an article about the event (where they can be found). To avoid undue weight, an article about BP should not overdo coverage of environmental impact - just summary style with a link to details. That was the strong consensus of the RFC. -- Scray (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, but the additions of specific information would not make the paragraph any longer, only more informative. Why would anyone interested in information rather read "significantly" (like twice as much??? Three times??) here and have to go to the extremely lengthy DWH article to find out "significantly" meant 50 times? Also, to read xxxx dolphins died tells the reader close to nothing in terms of context. There is no reason to even say it, imo. And there is no reason not to improve Slim's draft with specifics if it doesn't lengthen the article. We don't whitewash encyclopedia articles because some find it emotional (this isn't directed at you, just general comments, Scray). petrarchan47tc 00:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Context about dolphin deaths would add more summarizing information and cut down on text. In other words, a long sentence with a bunch of numbers, sans context, is less of a summary than getting to the core - why are those deaths important; what does it mean to the subject: environmental effects? The reason I'm pounding hard on this is because I learned of this information just last night whilst editing the article. And though bare numbers really mean nothing to me as a reader, to hear the scientists explain that the dolphins deaths are an indicator for the overall healh of the gulf (subject of this section) added information I appreciate - it gives me context. I can't imagine even a casual reader preferring meaning-free words, even though our attempt is summary. We could just say "A very bad spill happened. Go here for more...(link to DWH)". petrarchan47tc 02:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree - if we can accomplish accuracy and precision while maintaining succinctness, that's ideal. It can be tricky to provide specifics without additional context, but it looks like SV is making real progress. -- Scray (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone expected this to be a process... But yes, now that there are newcomers and more eyeballs in general, I do expect a very good outcome. And Slim's help, as well as everyone's, is wonderful. petrarchan47tc 02:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the number of dead dolphins, I agree with Scray, that details should be in an article about the event (where they can be found) to avoid undue weight and that an article about BP should not overdo coverage of environmental impact - just summary style with a link to details. As for spilled oil, the draft is not correct. The amount of gushed (but not spilled) oil was 4.9 million barrels with plus or minus 10% uncertainty. However, 810,000 barrels was was collected or burned and about 4.1 million entered into Gulf. To avoid confusion I propose to use for the amount of oil the wording from the current version of the article. Beagel (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, would you mind copying my draft into another subsection, then editing it with the changes you're suggesting (plus sources for any additions not already in the refs provided)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that for avoiding confusion it would be better do not copy the full draft (we already have several) but limit it to concrete issues. I created a new sub-section named 'Amount of oil', where I made a proposal how to change the sentence about the amount of oil. I think that other issues should be addressed separately under their own subsections. Beagel (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There are several new edits since I first began to work on this so it does not take them into consideration. A few comments follow:

• The injured survivors should be mentioned rather than only the number of dead
• This sentence ...and scientists reported that "[i]mmense amounts of toxic reservoir fluids and gases" had escaped into the gulf.[5] seems redundant when the amount of "fluids" has already been reported. Perhaps it could say, "and unknown amounts of hydrocarbon volatile components and gases were dispersed into the atmosphere."
• It was not only the largest spill in US history, it was the largest spill in the history of the offshore oil and gas industry.

It is referred to as the US's number one largest environmental disaster, not simply the worst oil spill. petrarchan47tc 21:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• To mention only the plumes gives a false impression. Scientists have also found massive tar beds that do not appear to be degrading.
• Perhaps I somehow missed it but I did not see the mention of 7000 animals at the source that is given.
• To say "700 dolphins" is, I think, misleading. Even though the copy does go on to say "scientists say only a small percentage of carcasses wash ashore and that the number of dead animals is significantly higher.", who knows what "significat" might mean? A person might think "oh no...could there be as many as 7000?, when actually according to the source that number "could represent a true death toll of up to 175,000 of the animals." I'll post this much for now but I still have more comments. Gandydancer (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is a statement and a source to back my suggestion that to only mention the plumes is misleading: "a large percent of the crude remains unaccounted for. New research suggests that as much as one-third of the oil released is still in the Gulf and is mixed with deep ocean sediments..." Here: [3] Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For the scientific or medical claims, it would help if we could reference the studies directly, rather than news reports. Some kinds of studies will be acceptable for our use, but others not, so we should refer to them directly so we can read and summarize them if appropriate. It does help to see the news reports, so that we know these are studies people are talking about, but relying on the news articles alone could be misleading. Also, bear in mind that we only have two paragraphs, so we can't add details unless they're key issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Err...I am posting what I do consider to be key issues. Coming from you, to suggest otherwise is a very good way to cause editors to feel that their comments are not well-thought out and to limit feedback. I'm not going to work on this proposal any further. Gandydancer (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Medical claims

For the human medical issues in the draft ("a variety of complaints have been reported, including respiratory, eye, nose and throat problems, skin irritation and vomiting episodes"), I used The Nation. Ideally we should use MEDRS-compliant sources: review articles, official reports, academic reports or similar. Can anyone outline here what the highest-quality sources are on the medical issues? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill for betetr sources but it seems to use mainly news reports, most of them from the summer of 2010. Unfortunately there was no MEDRS-compliant sources in that article. Beagel (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some red flags for me in the news articles, including increased miscarriages and reports of autism. That's why I focused on respiratory and skin problems and the vomiting episodes, but I felt uneasy relying on a news source then cherrypicking from it. There must be an official or academic report somewhere listing whatever medical anomalies have been reported, given that those are part of the legal issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Two review articles here [4] [5] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Amount of oil

I propose to change the sentence about oil amount to make it more precise. The current sentence is:

Between then and 15 July, around 4.9 million barrels (210 million gallons) of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, the largest spill in US history.

The proposed text, based on the current text in the article is:

Before the well was capped 87 days later on 15 July 2010, an estimated 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m³) of oil was leaked with plus or minus 10% uncertainty, causing the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history. 810,000 barrels (34 million US gal; 129,000 m³) of oil was collected or burned while 4.1 million barrels (170 million US gal; 650,000 m³) entered the Gulf of Mexico waters.

Any proposal how to shorten this is welcome. Beagel (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this. Which is your source for "4.1 million barrels (170 million US gal; 650,000 m3) entered the Gulf of Mexico waters"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

According to this Reuters' story: "If BP is found "grossly negligent" - a key question for the trial - its fine under the U.S. Clean Water Act could be as high as $17.5 billion based on a total of 4.1 million barrels spilled and a maximum fine of $4,300 a barrel." There are also other sources. Beagel (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me the best source you have for this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Natural Resource Damage Assessment April 2012 Status Update for the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill page 5 says: "While the official oil budget estimate is that 4.9 million barrels of oil were released from the well, approximately 820,000 barrels were siphoned directly from the wellhead into a holding tank on the surface, resulting in approximately 4.1 million barrels being released into the environment." In addition, this story by Forbes says: "The government has estimated that the total came to 4.9 million barrels. ... When taking into account the 800,000 barrels that BP managed to capture just as it gushed out, the government figures 4.1 million barrels actually escaped into the Gulf of Mexico." This figures are disputed by BP (their calculations give 3.3 million and 2.46 million accordingly) but I think we should use the government not BP figures. Also the Reuters (the link I provided above) says that "4.1 million barrels spilled". The figure 4.1 million also match the calculation 4.9 million leaked from the well minus 0.81 million collected or burned. This calculation is provided by news story by Bloomberg. Houston Chronicle says that "The government once estimated the spill was 4.9 million barrels, but agreed this year to lower that to 4.1 million barrels". Beagel (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)