Talk:BP/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about BP. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Mediation

Latest comment: 11 years ago44 comments9 people in discussion

This dispute is going for long time without any significant progress. Over the time there have been several compromise proposals which did not receive clear support. There has DRN process which ended without results. There is open RfC which at the moment seems to end without results. There was attempt by 203.27.72.5 to draft the compromise which ended without results. Maybe it would be time to request a formal mediation? Beagel (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. What method seems best to you? petrarchan47 t c 22:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Beagel (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's probably inevitable that we will need to do this at some point, but I would like to hear from all editors involved. petrarchan47 t c 00:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be up for that. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we wait for all to reply? How long do we wait? petrarchan47 t c 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've got no objections but I will note that I spent a fair amount of time on a DR process, only to find that just a couple of weeks later exactly the same issues were brought up again here, and text for the lead was being proposed which had failed to gain a consensus in that process. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Per guidelines, mediation is voluntary and all involved parties should agree with it. By my understanding, also Gandydancer and WMC may be classified as involved parties. Maybe also BozMo and Martin Hogbin are interested to take a part? Beagel (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I, too, would be interested in participating in the mediation. While I only have a couple edits to this article on a single day, and didn't have much of an interest to begin with, I must admit that my interest in this matter has since been piqued by the acerbic responses of certain editors. So count me in; I've just now put this page on my watchlist. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to be involved. Gandydancer (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly is the dispute you wish to take to mediation? My general feeling is that the article is low quality, US centric and suffers from undue weight. Are there people who disagree with this position? My previous experience with mediation is not positive but this talk page suffers from a lot of incivility and perhaps the camp counsellors there might help with that? --BozMo talk 08:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, looking through the last few thousand edits there are quite a few additions and reversions. Most of the material seems to originate from Binksternet, with several editors reverting it and several others reverting it back. Some frustration has arisen on both sides. There has also been some incivility but I won't mention names because I think they were pretty uncivil to me which makes me involved. So is the mediation roughly about these set of changes and proposed changes? --BozMo talk 08:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the last big piece of reverted content [1]. Binksternet had added "By rotating managers in such a way that they did not have to deal with the aftermath of cost-cutting decisions, a state of "organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels" was seen within BP by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board". This has the appearance of synthesis. As far as I can see, the NY Times article referenced did not state that the organizational and safety deficiencies came from the rotation of managers. Neither did the report cited by NY Times and containing the quote [2]. I have just been through it, the relevant bit is p142ff and very interesting but although it lists all sorts of things, rotation of managers does not seem to be there at all, and certainly not in the "most notably" lists (the actual word rotation only appears once in discussion of shift patterns not management). The report draws a number of parallels ("striking similarities") with BP's 2000 Grangemouth explosion and concludes that the organizational issues were systemic throughout the BP corporation (the context makes it clear they mean BP) based on the parallels. It cites the HSE report into Grangemouth's conclusions that safety is always organizational. Now the conclusion about "organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels" is sufficiently important and relevant for inclusion, and has references but where has the interpretative context about rotation come from? Not from the cited sources. So from a different book? Perhaps this was an isolated oversight and a different reference was meant. However, if this is the pattern then we do not need mediation but need a RFC on the manner in which Binksternet uses references. --BozMo talk 11:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The material I added that BozMo is discussin has been reverted in every case. None of it is synthesis; all of it is summary of sources. The sources all combine to support each sentence I added. BozMo focuses on one of the sources but a thorough read of each one that I used will confirm the collective facts. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I leave other people to judge whether Wikipedia is served by an approach where no specific fact can be tied to any specific reference, but the checking editor is expected by the contributor to read through a large number of references liberally attached to different facts in order to check any one of them. I also note that your wording implied an official body gave a view when the view was not given by that body. I have seen RFC's on misuse of sources for better, assuming this sample representative (on which I am unsure). --BozMo talk 18:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

+1. BTW, I've no objection to mediation, but like BozMo I fear that the thing-to-be-mediated is somewhat unclear William M. Connolley (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Bozmo, please read over this talk page and the last two archived ones - the dispute on this page goes back to May. petrarchan47 t c 18:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

BozMo, clearly you missed the part in the New York Times article where the reporter interviews economist Dr. Tom Kirchmaier, the reporter's summary being "Browne tried to run BP like a financial company, rotating managers into new jobs with tough profit targets and then moving them before they had to deal with the consequences. The troubled Texas City refinery, for example, had five managers in six years." Kirchmaier is highly respected; he is a lecturer at the University of Manchester as well as a Fellow in the Financial Markets Group, London School of Economics. Without a rebuttal, his observation provides a fact that Wikipedia can quote in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Binskternet, If that is your only basis for the content you have mixed up different quotes about different things and produced a false synthesis. It is problematic that you cannot see the error. Tom Kirchmaier was not quoted as attributing the state of "organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels" seen within BP by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to the rotation of managers. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board attributes it to a long list of other things which does not include rotation of managers. But you present the link as fact, claiming references, a link which actually no source you gave supports. This is synthesis. It does not meet our policies. You may well feel "it is all mud and so all sticks together". No doubt everything in the chaos links in some sense. But the judgement you cite is an important and specific one (it is about all levels of the company and notable enough for consideration here) whereas a snippet of alleged mismanagement not amongst the comprehensive list of identifed causes is not. People who manage companies in the future will need to make decisions about rotating managers and the consequences of it and we want them to be able to review Wikipedia articles relying on which things matter. --BozMo talk 07:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I proposed mediation as a last resort to deal with issues discussed during this DRN and this RfC. If there is consensus, the scope of mediation may be expanded. My hope is that at the end of the day we are able to stop POV pushing at this page notwithstanding what the exact POV is. Beagel (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please go ahead and file the mediation. Editors have a week to decide whether they would like to participate. All who have been involved in any substantial way here should be invited to join. They are under no obligation to continue if they wish to duck out. Is Beagle happy to file the mediation or would some other editor like to do so? petrarchan47 t c 17:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be correct to wait the formal closure of RfC (although it is already clear that it will end without a result). But if anybody would like to file the mediation request before that, please go forward. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. There is no reason the RfC should still be open. I'd like to hear from others on that. If all agree, let's close it. petrarchan47 t c 00:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty then, looks like all the issues preventing us from going ahead with mediation have been resolved. What are we waiting for now? petrarchan47 t c 20:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a formal outline of what specific issues we hope to resolve through mediation? I see references to unresolved issues raised in the previous DRN and RfC, as well as references to more recent specific content disputes. It would help move things along if we could nail down the wording of our mediation goal(s) here. Something we can all agree on. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My issue is with the Intro. The fourth paragraph has a "ya, but" type argument that is wholly contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV goal, and the controversies BP has been involved in are not covered in the Intro. For an example of what I expect from a Wikipedia page that is not under the control of spin doctors, see Jimmy Savile, who has a bit of controversy. In the three paragraph Intro, one third is dedicated to the controversies. It seems appropriate and is pretty much what I expect to see visiting this article. It is clear from the Intro alone that pro-BP or Big Oil editors have had their way here. There is no other explanation, in my opinion, as this Intro is clearly not written according to Wikipedia guidelines. petrarchan47 t c 05:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing pro-BP or Big Oil about this article. I think you are missing the point, Wikipedia is intended to be and encyclopedia not a pro vs anti oil forum. We should be giving general encyclopedic information about a company not hosting a battle of all the good things they do vs all the bad things that they do.

If reliable and independent sources say that an individual company behaves especially badly compared with other comparable companies the the article on that company should include that information but we do need a reliable and independent source that clearly says that. For most large companies that will probably be negative publicity and someone who has written a book saying how bad they are. These are not reliable sources on the status of those companies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue is with bias in the Intro specifically. Moving well-sourced information from the Intro to the body, like this, is an example of the editing behaviour with which I have a problem. petrarchan47 t c 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Beagel (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP guidelines, Do not hint at startling facts without describing them.. Gandydancer (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

One way forward might be to try to ensure that there is consistency between the articles on the world's major oil companies. Let us try to agree in advance what constitutes a reliable source and encyclopedic information relating to these companies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Beagle, have you filed for mediation yet? petrarchan47 t c 19:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see mediation started as well. I doubt that this is much fun for any of us and I'd like to be done with it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, I see no reason to broaden this discussion to now see a need to survey all of the world's major oil company articles and then set up some sort of special sourcing guidelines. Wikipedia already has written sourcing guidelines meant to cover our articles and no special guide is needed for this one. Your suggestion could be seen as just one more attempt to stretch this discussion out to eternity when it should have been decided some time ago using WP existing instructions on what every article should include in the lead, namely:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.
In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them.
Editors are encouraged to improve leads rather than simply tag them.

Our one sentence about BP's environmental history followed by a sentence which congratulates them as the first company to admit the need to take steps to against climate change does not respect WP lead guidelines. Rather, considering that many people only read the lead, it can be seen as an attempt to obscure the substantial evidence of BP putting profit before safety and environmental concerns as documented in the body of the article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and file, Beagle. It's time. petrarchan47 t c 04:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Everybody is free to file. I proposed mediation as one potential way forward but I never said that I will file it. After comments like this I have serious doubts if the consensus would be reached, so it seems unlikely that I will do this. Beagel (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood your intent to file. Our comments regarding edits seen as POV are upsetting sometimes, but they aren't intended to be. If you plan to follow me to other articles and continue to tag my edits, please do more to fix them next time. We have to work together regardless of personal feelings. petrarchan47 t c 20:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, you removed "As a consequence, in November 2012, the US government temporarily banned BP from bidding any new federal contracts" from the Intro. I called that move a POV edit. Since then, the statement has been added back to the Intro and expanded, so apparently I was not the only editor who found your move problematic. petrarchan47 t c 20:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for a record, I do not follow you anywhere. If you look for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill history, you see that I have edited this article starting from 22 April 2010, have made altogether 413 edits to this article (by the way, a large part of them being fixing things such as replacing dead links, formatting references) and that article is permanently in my watchlist since then. Therefore, your accusation on wikihounding is incorrect and I ask you to remove it. That is true that I did not fix your edit that time but tagged it. That is for two reasons. First, I am little bit tired to fix edits by people who have been asked to follow some basic things but who just ignore this. Second, as some editors seems to have ownership feelings about that article, I preferred to avoid any potential edit conflict. However, copyright issues are very sensitive and that kind of things are not tolerated in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate being corrected and helped when needed. I cannot honestly say that I believe it was a coincidence that, regardless of how long you've been editing the page, you showed up minutes after my edit and tagged it right after our confrontation here when you hadn't made an edit to the page since June 8, and never before have you tagged a section to my knowledge, though I am certain the tag in question would be valid on many sections of the article. I asked you in the edit summary to help with suggestions rather than to re-tag, but you ignored the request. I've also asked you to help with suggestions for citations, and have yet to receive it. At times certain editing behaviour can seem like harassment rather than help, to be honest. If you are feeling so frustrated that you can't offer helpful edits, it may be time to take a break from wikipedia. petrarchan47 t c 23:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

~~So one more personal attack then.~~ Beagel (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have explained why this accusation is incorrect and I am more than happy if the incident will be fully reviewed by non-involved party. Beagel (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There was no personal attack, let alone "one more". Quit acting hurt, man. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Making baseless accusations is a personal attack (not taking about the rule to comment edits instead of editors). Beagel (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Energy

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I have been inactive on this page for a while but I have been working on a new version of the BP Alternative Energy operations section, which is now ready for other editors to review. The draft keeps the focus on the top level operations of the Alternative Energy business, since specifics about operations are included in appropriate geographic sections. In particular, details that are duplicated in the Operations by location subsection, such as specifics of the company's US wind power farms and its Brazilian ethanol operations have been removed. The draft material also minimizes information about solar power operations as this is not an ongoing area of operations, although I have included mention of BP Solar's closure in 2011.

The draft is in my user pages here: User:Arturo at BP/Alternative Energy

If you have any changes, please make these in the draft. As we have done before, let's keep the discussion here on the talk page so it is easy for everyone to follow. Thanks Arturo at BP (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've checked it and am happy for it to go in as is as it is a big improvement on the current text. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Text amended according to the draft. Beagel (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the section into the article, Beagel. I have another draft for the Operations section ready for review, if you can also help with that, please reply below to the new request I will be adding to this page. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing out of date detail from US Operations

I wanted to follow up on this request to address a change that needs to be made to the United States operations section to remove now inaccurate information about part of BP's alternative energy operations in the US.

BP just announced that they have canceled their plans to open the ethanol plant in Florida, so the following sentence should be removed from the article:

In addition, BP is growing dedicated energy grass feedstock on a 20,000-acre farm through its subsidiary Highlands in Highlands County, Florida, where the company is planning to locate its first commercial plant to produce cellulosic ethanol from perennial grasses.

This announcement does not impact the BP Alternative Energy draft I proposed above. As I said, I've kept the focus of this draft on top level operations because details of specific initiatives are included in the appropriate geographic section.

Is there an editor who can help me remove the old information from the United States operations section? Also I would appreciate any feedback on the Alternative Energy draft I posted to my user pages. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, now updated. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon, thank you for making the change to US Operations and reviewing the Alternative Energy draft. I also reached out to Beagel and to Petrarchan last week, and I'll go back to remind Beagel (Petrarchan explained that he is not active at the moment for health reasons) and see if they would be able to add the new draft. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide operations

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

In a continued effort to update and expand the Operations information in this article I have prepared a new draft for other editors to review. I have written this draft to replace the Other countries section, with an expanded description of BP's major operations outside of the US and UK.

A few notes of explanation, in this draft I have updated information on TNK-BP following BP's announcement in October that they will sell their stake in the company. I have expanded the information about refineries and operations in other countries, keeping the focus on major operations. The heading I've given to this section is "Worldwide operations", but I leave it to others to decide if "Other countries" is preferred.

I have added the draft to my user pages here: User:Arturo at BP/Worldwide operations.

Again, please make changes to the draft in my user space, but let's keep the discussion here on the talk page so everyone involved can easily follow the whole discussion. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Taking account the fact that we have separate sections for the UK and the US, it feels that "Other countries" is more precise than "Worldwide operations".
It also seems that we should to keep the "country information together" and not to split the country information by the type of activities between different paragraphs (e.g. information about Brazil). Otherwise, it does not deserve this separate paragraph at all and could be added in the "Operations by activity" section.
Information about Azerbaijan (and Georgia and Turkey in this context) is missing information about the major pipelines, such as BTC, SCP, and Baku–Supsa. Information about the Shafag-Asiman development is worth for mentioning.
Talking about Russia, I don't think that we should to add TNK-BP here as very soon this information will be out-of-date. It is added in the "History" section and suits there. However, the stake in Rosneft as a result of this deal should be mentioned.
For Trinidad and Tobago, information about Atlantic LNG should be added.
Information about the Norwegian operations is missing. It is true that most of the North Sea activities are covered by the UK subsection both BP is operating also in the Norwegian zone.
Nigeria operations are missing. Also information about the stake in Pan American Energy in Argentina should be added.

Beagel (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Beagel, I have been able to look through your notes in detail now and I have made some adjustments to the draft based on your feedback. Before I outline the changes I have made, you have mentioned several pieces of information that are not included in the draft. Due to the scope of BP's operations, there will always be more that can be added, although I have tried to focus on details that are not mentioned under other sections and focus on current production rather than exploration. Additionally, I have not included details of BP's subsidiaries. If others think that this information is needed, I would not be opposed to its addition.

The changes I have made to the draft are as follows:

Renamed the draft to "Other countries".
Grouped all the Brazil information together.
Cut the information regarding Russia down to the stake in Rosneft, removing detail about its share in TNK-BP.

As I said above, there is a lot of information available about BP's operations and while I have focused on what I felt is most crucial to include, others may wish to add more at a later date. The draft I've proposed is definitely not intended as a comprehensive and final description of BP's operations, but a more developed version of what is included at present. On that basis, do you think it is suitable for inclusion in the article, and then more can be added to it there? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Updated. Beagel (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the draft into the article, Beagel, and also for adding in details of the recently announced Nova Scotia blocks. For now, that's all the requests that I have for the Operations section but I have begun looking at other sections of the article. I will be placing a new request below regarding the Canadian oil sands section; if you are able to help, please reply there. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Citations

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could we use for citing proper citation templates, such as {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}}, {{Cite journal}}, {{cite press release}} etc., please? The current practice by some editors adding a bare url and converting it by bot tool is not the best one as it uses simplified, not proper citation style, still may have mistakes or missed information, and therefore still needs attention by other editors. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Canadian oil sands

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

As the Operations section is now substantially up-to-date, I have begun looking at other areas of the article that are in need of updates or expansion. As the existing Canadian oil sands section is very short, does not provide an adequate explanation of BP's operations there and the opposition to it, and includes a quote that I believe creates a problem with WP:NPOV, I have prepared a new draft for editors to review.

This draft addresses and provides more details about the controversy surrounding oil sands operations. I have also included some information about positive aspects of the particular extraction method used by BP. This section does not include the specifics about BP's investments and partnerships in the Canadian oil fields as that information is included in the Other countries section. I have kept the focus here on the environmental aspects of oil sands drilling.

The draft is in my user space here: User:Arturo at BP/Canadian oil sands. Please make edits to the draft there as needed. As before, I'd like to keep the discussion centralized here on the talk page. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment: the Katherine Ainger Guardian reference for Oil Sands being higher-carbon might contain errors. It provides an unsourced claim that extraction from oil sands produce four times the CO2. Other (more importantly, _sourced_) claims put the CO2 increase at just 22% or 12% and are mentioned here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/canada-tar-sands-battle-europe_n_1505658.html. Since this actually sources the claims with authors and dates it's probably better reference material. The 22% source in particular was produced for the EU and is publically available here https://circabc.europa.eu/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/db806977-6418-44db-a464-20267139b34d/Brandt_Oil_Sands_GHGs_Final.pdf, though the HuffPost link would remain valuable as an accessable source for the general reader. I suspect the Canadian govt. flyer you have in the ref list on your userpage is based on the 12% report, since both are from Alberta 2011, but I cannot confirm this.

Ah - the quadrupling comes from measuring the change in emissions during extraction, wheras the smaller figures are if you consider the total emissions for the oil including extraction, refining, transport and burning as fuel. Since production is only a small part of the total emissions produced by a given quantity of oil and the latter stages don't really change, the overall increase in emissions is much smaller. Since the actual environmental impact comes from the total emissions, not just those due to extraction, the 22% figure is still more useful when assessing relative impact of different oil sources. 82.2.54.98 (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think that we should provide detailed descriptions of the BP's oil sands operations in this article. The topic is listed under the Environmental record sections as there are concerns related to the oil sands extraction. However, these concerns are not BP specific but applies to the oil sands extractions in general and they are already explained in Wikipedia (e.g. Oil sands#Greenhouse gas emissions, also in a number of climate change and CO2 emissions articles). Therefore, these concerns should be mentioned but it is not the place to argue about the emissions from oil sands versus emissions from conventional petroleum. The current two sentences should be rewritten, of course, as an example of soapboxing. I also do not think that we should provide technical etc details about the BP oil sands projects here as this is more general article and these projects are already mentioned in several subsections. If these projects are enough significant, a separate article may be considered. Beagel (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Many articles is WP are now turning into soapboxes or battlegrounds between supporters and opponents of the subject. It is not just articles on large companies in contentious areas in which this is happening, I have seen it on articles on schools, fraternities, people, and smaller companies. What happens is that either someone with a grouse against the article subject or who believes that the subject is responsible for some great wrong, thinks it is the duty of WP to expose them, or a supporter of the subject tries to make the article into a promotional vehicle. What then happens is that the other side tries to balance this with news items showing the opposite side of the subject and the article becomes a battleground. There is the misapprehension amongst some that just because we can find a reliable source that says something about the subject, we should put it in the article. That was never the way that WP was intended to work; we are writing an encyclopedia and should make sure that the article is encyclopedic in character, not a list of all the good and/or bad things we can find about the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you for your comments. Regarding the emissions figures, I would be happy to replace the Ainger source and change the wording from the existing section to remove the confusing "four times as much CO2" statement. However, if I understand Beagel and Martin Hogbin's comments, I believe they are suggesting that the comparison should not be included in the section at all. Is that correct?

With regard to Beagel and Martin Hogbin's comments that the draft is now too detailed, my concern is that the existing section provides very little information at all, such that the quote from the Cree Nation is out of context. Do either of you have any thoughts on what should remain in the section? Perhaps a much shortened version of my draft would be appropriate, intending to replace the current two lines. Here is my suggestion:

In Canada, BP is involved in the use of in-situ drilling technologies such as Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage to extract oil from the country's oil sand reserves.^[1]^[2]^[3] Members of the Cree Nation have criticized BP's involvement in the Canadian oil sands for the impacts that oil extraction is said to have on the local environment.^[4] However, proponents of in situ drilling state that using recycled groundwater makes it the more environmentally friendly option compared to oil sands mining.^[5]^[6]

Is this more appropriate? If not, can you give more detail on how you would approach this section. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I would personally not object to that wording. You probably know better than I do how significant the subject is to BP as a company. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is definitely more neutral than the current text, so I have no objections to replace the current version with this one. Beagel (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, Martin and Beagel. As you both agree that the wording above is better than the existing section, would one of you be willing to add this into the article? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Beagel (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the new version into the article, Beagel. Also, thanks Martin and 82.2.54.98 for your help here. I do have some further requests for the Environmental record section, beginning with the Mist mountain subsection, and I hope you will be able to help with this, too. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Mist Mountain project subsection

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

As I mentioned above, I would like to make a request regarding the Mist mountain project subsection. The current section discusses opposition to this project, with links to what seem to be primary sources. One of these mentions BP only in passing, and the other is a dead link. Additionally, the Mist mountain project, while once a BP asset, was sold in 2010. This article from Fox Business confirms the sale. Since the site is no longer held by BP and, in fact, was never in operation while under BP's ownership, it seems to me that it does not merit inclusion here. I wish to request that it simply be removed, though I am interested in hearing other editors' views as well. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I support this removal. --BozMo talk 20:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Support per arguments by Arturo as also per WP:SOAP. Beagel (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, BozMo and Beagel. As you both are in agreement and no one has voiced an objection, would either of you be willing to remove it? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment Your arguments as to why this section should be removed has a strong taste of whitewashing. There are a number of secondary sources which attest to environmental organizations in the US and Canada having called for the UN to investigate (e.g., [3]). The UN did so in fact, and recommended a ban on mining ([4]). The principal government awarded tenure to BP Canada for the mining project over protests nonetheless, and constructions for an exploratory well started in early June 2010.([5]) While BP indeed seems to have agreed on a deal to sell the site ([6]), I want to point out that the link that you provided is not any sort of confirmation for a sale but only an intent. Anyway... while I do agree that the section seems misfit under "Environmental records" in the article, and inclusion in the article would probably violate WP:DUE, the question is, do we have a more appropriate article for that? Nageh (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In general we seem to list environmental and similar under current ownership for whatever reason. There are a number of items listed for BP which they had acquired. I guess anyone who buys takes the repute. --BozMo talk 18:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The owner takes responsibility for everything that happens/happened under their watch. Any benefit or controversy during the period of ownership remains historically relevant after a change in ownership. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry what happened? Nor sure what you are referring to; existence as a controversy belongs to the owner.--BozMo talk 22:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

BozMo, thank you for making this edit. Nageh, thanks for asking about that. I agree that the information about Mist Mountain may work better in another article, although I am not sure which. Regarding sources for the sale, while reporting of agreements is common, it is much less common for there to be reports confirming the sale is complete. You can see that there was plenty of coverage about the sale at the time, and details of the Mist Mountain project are featured on the Apache Corporation website. As you may recall, the original language in the article inaccurately portrayed BP as the current owner. I'm happy to answer any other questions if I can help, and I also plan to make some additional suggestions for the Environmental record soon. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that maybe we should start an article about the Mist Mountain Coalbed Methane Project. It is a little bit confusing insisting that the information being kept here at the Environmental section while there is no word about this project at the page of Apache Corporation who is the current developer of this project nor there is a proposal to add this information there. If mentioning here, it probably belongs to the History section. Beagel (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Since BP ultimately decided not to proceed with the project and sold its interest inclusion in the Environmental record section seems rather odd. A sentence in the History section would be more appropriate in my view.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Odd POV wording?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"The new regime of Ayatollah Khomeini confiscated all of the company's assets in Iran without compensation, bringing to an end its 70-year presence in Iran" this is a rather unencyclopaedic way to refer to the Islamic Republic/ liberation/ revolution. BP is often part blamed (along with US interests) for the overthrow of the dictator (the Shah), whose abuses they were complicit in? And was it a confiscation or a nationalisation? Plus I thought BP were paid compensation fairly soon afterwards in the mid 1980s, when Iran rejoined the good guys on the world stage? ($120m or so 1985 or 1986). All in all rather unfair on the Iranians as worded. --BozMo talk 22:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This wording may be biased and as there is no reference, it can't be verified. I support finding RS about confiscation/nationalisation and rewording accordingly per source. Beagel (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of greenwashing section

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Continuing with improvements to the Environmental record section, I have prepared a new draft for the Accusations of greenwashing section. It's not my favorite section of the article to be certain, but at least it should be better written. The section as it's currently written focuses on claims by Antonia Juhasz and Greenpeace without providing the full context to allegations against BP. The draft provides a broader view of the claims that BP has been "greenwashing". I've also suggested a somewhat more formal title for the section "Allegations of greenwashing" rather than "Accusations of greenwashing". While the draft is longer than the current section, I have removed one detail: the percentage for BP's investment in green technologies compared to its overall exploratory budget. I believe this figure is confusing and redundant compared to figures provided by Greenpeace for investment in renewable technologies vs. fossil fuels that are already included. They measure the same thing a bit differently, and the one I left illustrates the point better.

The draft is in my user space here: User:Arturo at BP/Allegations of greenwashing. I hope that editors here will review it and make any changes needed in the draft. As I have mentioned before, let's keep our discussion here so that it is easy to follow. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a section from an earlier talk page which includes a few more links to add to this section (related to the 2012 Olympics). One comment I have is that I am uncomfortable with the "However..." added to the bottom of the section. The fact that BP has invested more in alternative energy than any other oil company should be flushed out in its own section. Another comment I have is regarding BP's investments in alternative energy. Why are we depending upon Greenpeace for stats that are 4 years old when we can and should provide recent data?

Also one of the most criticized moves is not mentioned yet: tar sands

"BP, the British oil giant that pledged to move "Beyond Petroleum" by finding cleaner ways to produce fossil fuels, is being accused of abandoning its "green sheen" by investing nearly 1.5bn to extract oil from the Canadian wilderness using methods which environmentalists say are part of the "biggest global warming crime" in history....Producing crude oil from the tar sands a heavy mixture of bitumen, water, sand and clay found beneath more than 54,000 square miles of prime forest in northern Alberta an area the size of England and Wales combined generates up to four times more carbon dioxide..."It takes about 29kg of CO2 to produce a barrel of oil conventionally. That figure can be as much 125kg for tar sands oil. It also has the potential to kill off or damage the vast forest wilderness, greater than the size of England and Wales, which forms part of the world's biggest carbon sinks. For BP to be involved in this trade not only flies in the face of their rhetoric but in the era of climate change it should not be being developed at all. You cannot call yourself 'Beyond Petroleum' and involve yourself in tar sands extraction." The Independent petrarchan47 t c 00:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I think the text at User:Arturo at BP/Allegations of greenwashing, particularly the closing statements "However, these critics stated that, compared with other oil companies, BP had invested the most in alternative energy and had been rated as more "green" by independent polls voted on by the media and activists" is not really representative at least in the sense that the sources seemed to be representing this as an example of successful marketing spin rather than acknowledging it as a achievement. I think we need some more work on that before it goes into the article. --BozMo talk 12:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for commenting on my draft. Petrarchan, thanks for the link to the previous discussion. I looked at the sources that you provided and based on those it seems environmental activists chose the Olympics to spotlight a few companies for criticism. I'm not sure there's enough there to warrant much of an addition to the section, although I'm open to hearing your suggestion.

Regarding the tar sands, I'm not sure if you had seen the earlier discussion about this on the Talk page here where I and a few others discussed what should be in the Canadian oil sands section. The consensus there was that the section should be kept brief. I had originally provided a longer, more comprehensive draft for the section but others felt that such expansion was too much for this article and potentially creating a battleground by listing all criticisms and all responses.

On the point about providing more recent data to compare BP's investment in AE and fossil fuels, such data is reasonable to include if it is from a source where it was cited as part of a discussion on greenwashing. While up-to-date investment figures can be sourced from BP's financial reports and from articles about its AE business, to provide them here in support of (or to dispute) the accusations from critics would seem like original research. The point of the "Accusations of greenwashing" section is not to prove one side or the other on the issue but to summarize all that has been said about it.

BozMo, I included that last sentence since while it's fair to include details from criticism such as investment in fossil fuels compared to AE, it’s also worth noting other comparisons mentioned by critics such as where we rank compared to other companies. If you think the wording needs some work, I am happy to find a compromise and am open to your suggestions. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The addition of Olympics accusations was agreed upon while the admin was here following our AN/I. The addition of tar sands is a no-brainer and like matters of finance, most certainly should appear in multiple sections of the article, wherever relevant. For independent editors who wish to help, these references might be useful:

BP proves Beyond Petroleum was greenwashing, joins “biggest global warming crime ever seen”

Greenwash: BP and the myth of a world 'Beyond Petroleum' petrarchan47 t c 00:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago79 comments8 people in discussion

Edits to lead section

I find this edit wrong and edit summary inaccurate [7]. The main text says nothing about a bloke called "Eric Holder junior" etc and this is another clear example of dumping content into the lede rather than trying to get the main body right and then construct a lede to reflect it. No wonder the lede is difficult to sort out. --BozMo talk 09:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the problem. I will rewrite my edit to take care the wording that you find problematic. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Make sure, though, that this very important information stays in the lead section. Here is what is being discussed:

In November 2012, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced that BP and three of its employees were indicted on criminal charges including manslaughter and obstruction of Congress and a $4.5 billion fine for BP's role in the oil spill disaster. The $4.5 billion in penalties and fines is the largest criminal resolution in the history of the United States.

I think it is enough to say that BP and three employees have been fined $4.5B on criminal charges related to the Deepwater Horizon spill, and that this is the largest such penalty/fine ever levied in the US. Holder does not need to be named in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually four persons are charged, not three. One person was charged already before this settlement. Beagel (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Kurt Mix was charged already in April this year. However, adding this information in the lead is WP:UNDUE. This is not even the article about the oil spill but about the company. Beagel (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problem with removing his name. Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

BozMo, I agree with your assessment of the recent addition to the introduction. I'd also like to point out that in the last few days, the last paragraph of the lead section has changed significantly, without discussion: Petrarchan moved the detail about BP recognizing climate change to the History section, then this addition (problematic, as I will explain below) about the Deepwater Horizon settlement was made.

Since Deepwater Horizon was already mentioned in the lead, an expansion of what was there might be appropriate, but I believe the current level of detail is too much. Also, there are several details in this addition which are misleading or just incorrect:

The settlement was reached as an agreement between BP and the Department of Justice (as supported by both the articles cited), not a fine that was imposed without any involvement by BP. The language in the DWH section on this is much more clear than in the lead.
The settlement with the DOJ is for $4bn, not $4.5bn (this amount needs to be corrected in the DWH section too). The $4.5bn figure is the total amount including both the DOJ settlement and the settlement of $525m to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Per this release from the DOJ, the $4bn is the largest criminal resolution.
BP agreed to plead guilty to the charges against the company, the $4bn settlement is to resolve those charges, while the charges against the three employees are separate.

I think we should look to WP:LEAD for guidance on what to include here and I don't think that the wording right now meets with the guideline regarding "relative emphasis". That the settlement is the largest criminal penalty in the U.S. makes it fair to include in the introduction, but three sentences is extreme in comparison with the overall length of the lead. What do others think? Arturo at BP (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Arturo, I agree with the three points that you mention. They were skipped for brevity but I have no problem with more specific wording. Do you have a suggestion for better wording? Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Arturo, your summary of the recent changes to the lead is incorrect - it did not begin with my edit but rather with these two which preceded mine: 1 and 2 petrarchan47 t c 00:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, thanks for your reply. My points were really to illustrate that the current wording is not completely accurate and I believe a shorter version would be better. My suggestion is an extension to the mention of Deepwater Horizon that was already in the lead:

BP has been involved in several major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters,^[7] for which BP faced criminal charges that the company agreed to resolve with a $4 billion settlement to the U.S. Department of Justice, the largest penalty of its kind in U.S. history.^[8]^[9]^[10]

This retains the important detail that the settlement is the largest in U.S. history, while keeping the length of the addition in proportion with the overall length of the lead. Does this seem like a reasonable replacement wording to other editors? Also, the DWH section should say $4 billion and not $4.5 billion. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems good for me. Could you please provide a source confirming that settlement is $4 Billion? Beagel (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This release by DOJ.Arturo at BP (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. As DOJ itself says it is 4 billion instead of 4.5 billion, we should replace the figure. However, it is interesting why some media sources reported 4.5 billion? Beagel (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you read further down in the release, they mention a $500+ million settlement with the SEC which is a separate matter. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Beagel (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gandydancer for correcting the figure for the settlement in the lead, however there are still some issues with the wording about the charges and settlement:

The DOJ press release which I have cited a couple times in this section of the Talk page says: “BP has signed a guilty plea agreement with the government, also filed today, admitting to its criminal conduct. As part of its guilty plea, BP has agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, to pay $4 billion in criminal fines and penalties...” The second sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lead does not reflect this.
Also, saying that "In addition, BP agreed to pay a $4 billion fine" suggests that BP still faces charges and had separately agreed to this penalty, which is not true: BP agreeing to the penalty was part of resolving the criminal charges brought against the company.
It is confusing to place the company's charges together with those faced by the three employees, which are separate matters and still to be resolved. (Also, as mentioned by Beagel above, there are in fact a total of four employees who face charges.)

My suggestion for the wording would be to keep it to a simple statement about the charges relating to BP only. Here is my suggestion again:

BP has been involved in several major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters,^[7] for which BP faced criminal charges that the company agreed to resolve with a $4 billion settlement to the U.S. Department of Justice, the largest penalty of its kind in U.S. history.^[8]^[9]^[11]

Beagel said previously that he'd be in favor of this wording and I'd be interested to hear what others think, too. Also, I mentioned above but don't believe anyone responded: I'd like to point out that the lead section has lost the detail about BP being the first oil company to address climate change. It was deemed significant enough to remain in the lead previously, but was removed without discussion. What are other editors thoughts on re-adding this detail? Arturo at BP (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The DOJ cite is worded in a way that is unusual compared to the wording in other sources. The tone of news sources is harsher, emphasizing the criminal charges rather than the agreeable nature of BP and the "settlement". For instance, the Los Angeles Times said: :

"BP said Thursday that it will pay $4.5 billion in a settlement with the U.S. government over the massive 2010 oil spill and will plead guilty to felony counts related to the deaths of 11 workers and lying to Congress.
The figure includes nearly $1.3 billion in criminal fines — the largest such penalty ever — along with payments to several government entities."[8]

I don't think your suggested wording reflects the proper tone, one of BP getting the biggest criminal fine. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the tone is the major issue with these edits in this article. The only tone acceptable for Wikipedia is a neutral tone, all other tones are not encyclopaedic. We should use facts not any specific tone. Beagel (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The wording Arturo suggests is too bland and agreeable, not sharp enough. The tone should absolutely be neutral, not pandering to BP. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, presenting facts is "too bland and agreeable"? And that DOJ uses tone "pandering to BP"? Beagel (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what Binksternet said. The DOJ has been very clear in their statements, and to water their observations down is an attempt to bias this article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the bit about BP being the first to acknowledge an anthropogenic cause to climate change, the announcement was overbalanced by BP's continuing petroleum exploration and extraction. It was largely PR fluff—not accompanied by an abandonment of petro sources of power. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I see the lead has changed again, but for the record, the point I'd like to reinforce is that the previous wording did not correctly summarize the circumstances.

Regarding how to specifically word an alternative, I don't follow Binksternet's argument about the tone. As Beagel points out, Wikipedia requires a neutral tone. I understand the need to include that it was a criminal fine: my wording states that it was criminal charges against BP that were resolved. Is it really necessary to use the word "criminal" twice here?

I have no interest in watering down any part of the DOJ's statement. My goal is not to be bland, but straightforward. I believe we need to make sure that we present the facts correctly and neutrally, and the previous wording did not do that. I am pleased to see others have joined in the discussion and expressed an interest in resolving this. Arturo at BP (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you be simultaneously an admitted POV editor (as a BP employee) and speak on matters of NPOV? I don't see it. petrarchan47 t c 22:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy. I spent a little time today looking back to the article as it was when Arturo first signed on. I encourage others to do the same. It should be seen as an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and yet it did not seem to concern Arturo in the least. His only concern was to improve the image of BP. Frankly, such comments as, "My goal is not to be bland, but straightforward" by a BP employee are laughable. I followed through with some edits that Arturo asked for and yet when I went to him for information, he ignored me. It seems to me that this BP employee is only interested in presenting his employer in as favorable a light as possible. If that is not true, Arturo please go right ahead and say so. It irritates me that you pretend that you are not biased. Gandydancer (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be more in keeping with Wiki standards if Arturo were to make sure he has declared his COI on every talk page. People are free to take his suggestions, or not, and he is free to voice them (if my understanding of COI is correct). petrarchan47 t c 00:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Arturo has handled the COI issue accordingly to all the rules on this issue. His declaration for this article is here, his username corresponds to WP:ORGNAME making clear the affiliation with BP, and he has not edited this article himself but has posted all proposals on the talk page. It is not acceptable to comment editor instead of his/her edits. Beagel (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This text comes from COI guidelines: "COIs who wish to edit responsibly are ... encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question". It appears each new talk page on which a COI editor is active should have a declaration of their COI. An example would be when 301 was helping out following the AN/I, at that time a point was made to (re)declare COI on the talk page. Sometimes, as you know from the section re copyvio, it is challenging if not impossible to speak about edits without mentioning editors. petrarchan47 t c 08:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you read all the comments after Arturo's comment, you see that the discussion was concentrated on the editor and not on his edits. As of the request to declare COI interests, it was somehow confusing as Arturo has already done this. [9] Beagel (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Deepwater Horizon section

A quick note to Beagle who has twice deleted my edits--I thought I was being quite careful to avoid plagiary and only used my own words. I do remember that I could not find a substitute for the word "cherry picked" and went ahead and used it. I would appreciate it if you would point out the problems that you see and I will correct them. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This information what you "add" was all already added in this section. However, you removed all background information, all formattings of this text and replaced it with news-story-type unformatted and non-encyclopaedic text. Moreover, you used quite misleading edit summaries. If you would like to summarize this section I fully support this but all the section needs to be trimmed. Beagel (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You have deleted my edit three times. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say, "This information what you "add" was all already added in this section." You go on to say, "However, you removed all background information, all formattings of this text...", though in your edit I note that you left it all out as well. As for, "all formattings of this text and replaced it with news-story-type unformatted and non-encyclopaedic text", that is, of course debatable. And finally, please take a look at your own edit summary, "summarized theis section as more specific articles exist. retored wikyformats; copyedited to avoid copyrights violation by copy-paste edit". Beagle, if you are attempting to create a war-like situation here, you are doing a great job of it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The text you replaced by copy-pasted text included all this information already except the name of Attorney General, of course. There was information about the settlement, there was information about charges etc. As of background information, i restored it twice and on the time agreed with your idea to more summarize it. However, instead of selective removal, I removed all which may be find in the specific ARTICLES and left only the most relevant things to this specific subsection of this article. As for my summary—I apology for typos but the meaning is clear. Formattings were restored. I also believe that it takes two to create war-like situation. Beagel (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Beagle, since when do we criticize editors and delete their edits for copy/pastes of previous Wikipedia copy, which is what I did? You deleted my edits three times and I restored them twice--I will leave it to other editors to decide if my edits were beneficial for the article. Gandydancer (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:COPYPASTE, WP:COPYVIO, WP:PARAPHRASE and other relevant guidelines and policies. I would also like to repeat once more my humble request to respect fellow editors and to follow the existing citing style in this article by using citing templates instead of adding bare links and filling them with a bot. Beagel (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have repeatedly denied using copypaste but you continue to accuse me of copyvio without being specific. Please show where I have violated guidelines in the copy that you have deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

E.g. You added the quote “The explosion of the rig was a disaster that resulted from BP’s culture of privileging profit over prudence. We hope that BP's acknowledgment of its misconduct...brings some measure of justice to the family members of the people who died on board the rig.” It is ok in some cases to use direct quotes and even preferred to text in some cases, e.g. citing opinions of certain persons which otherwise may be controversially interpreted etc. However, in the case of this article, the quote was unnecessary, did not supply any additional information, was news-like and un-encyclopaedic and used to express POV (the quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject; irrelevant quotations should be removed). Concerning copyvio, it was the clear copyright violation as it was copy-pasted without attributed with a necessary reference. It was added immediately before the reference supporting the sentence before that quote, and the reference did not include this quote. This is strictly against WP policies on copyrights. It is also recommended to add exact quote to the reference (and again, this is better to do by using a special citation template). Beagel (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: It is somehow confusing to see all these efforts to include all these tiny details such as the name of Attorney General in the general article about BP which should summarize hundred years of activities, while no attempts are made to add anything to Deepwater Horizon litigation which seems to be the exact article for more detailed description. Beagel (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You must think I'm really gullible. Gandydancer (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To have more constructive discussion, I will list by points what is wrong with edits in this section compared with the version of 9 December.

The background information about the drilling rig was removed without proper explanation. It was a part of block edit and the edit summary said: "add/delete information to improve article". However, it is not clear how this improves article. In general, I agree that this section should be trimmed as more specific articles such as Deepwater Horizon explosion, Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Deepwater Horizon litigation etc are exist. However, it is improper to remove just one paragraph which gives information about the rig and other involved parties (is that the reason for removal?) and not trimming other paragraphs. If this section will not be properly summarized, this paragraph should be re-added.
This section is overloaded details such as the name of Attorney General, his statements etc, which does not belong to this article. This company has more than 100-years history and that kind of details are representing clear WP:UNDUE. It is even more interesting that no editor adding these details here had made effort to update the Deepwater Horizon litigation with these details.
Quoting Attorney General. When there are certain cases when quotations are preferred, this is not the case as that quotation does not provide any additional information and it is used to create are overall tone against BP, therefore fails WP:NPOV.
Copyright issues. The quotation was put between the information that the settlement has not resolved the fines under the Clean Water Act, and the reference supporting that information. At the same time, this source does not include that quote which automatically means that the quotation is unsourced and as such, violates copyright policies. This is formal issue but following copyright policies is one of the key issues when editing in Wikipedia. Even more, if two first additions of this quote are most-likely unintentional copyright violations, the latest addition on 11 December was made when that issues was described at the talk page and therefore qualifies as intentional copyright violation.
Notwithstanding the issue that the correct figures were discussed at the talk page (see above in the subsection about the lead), the latest edit inserted again the figure 4.5 billion, which is incorrect.

Beagel (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is not the History of British Petroleum article. Complaining about the undue weight of modern details is a losing battle—the article is about the modern entity called BP. Elsewhere you have argued in favor of shedding or reducing parts of this article which discuss BP's historically poor-performing business units that have since been sold off; clearly your concern about BP's history is not about retention of accurate historic information. The complaint about the weight of the company's 100-year history is dredged up only when it suits your wish for a white-washed article. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any argument or just another personal attack? What about addressing other presented concerns? Beagel (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This one was a clear personal attack by Binksternet. He should apologise promptly and strikethrough or be reported to ANI. The one further up the page does not seem to be a personal attack. The distinction is clear: this one makes categorical and insulting comments about your intentions and concerns. The one further up the page queries whether your actions amount to harrassment. --BozMo talk 09:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

To call this a personal attack that needs to be reported is, frankly, laughable. Gandydancer (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I will do my best to adress Beagel's concerns, though I am pressed for time and may not express myself as well as I would wish.

If you feel the background that I edited out is important, please feel free to return it. IMO, it was information that could easily be found at the spill article and was not essential for this article.
To address problem #3 (and #4), again, if you think that the name of the attorney general is not important, please feel free to edit it out. As for including info at the Litigation article, please feel free to go ahead and include this info. I felt that it is well covered in the settlement section.
Re this number, I am sure that we can come to an agreement. I am sorry to be so brief, but this is all I have time for right now. Like some Wikipedians, this is not my job but something I do in my spare time, which at times can be very short. Gandydancer (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually re-added this background information twice but both cases I was reverted. I agree that this information may be find in more specific articles but so it could be information about the Attorney General and what he said. This was my last edit to trim equally all details which may be addressed in other articles, e.g. Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Deepwater Horizon litigation, but it was reverted again without proper explanation. Concerning the Deepwater Horizon litigation article, it is still confusing that people who are so eager to include all this here are so reluctant to add it to the article where it actually belongs. Beagel (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about where this information belongs but certainly the general tendency to put stuff in a lede or put stuff in the highest level article without including it in the main text or sub-articles is unhelpful to the development of Wikipedia and does look rather like soap-boxing. The order should definitely start with the most specific article, get agreement there and work upwards. --BozMo talk 09:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, however you fail to mention that even you entered an edit in which the info that I had deleted seemed appropriate to you to delete as well. And again, please feel free to enter this info to any article where you see it as appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Restored to 6 December versions pending discussion

I have restored the lead and the Deepwater Horizon section to their stable 6 December versions pending discussion.

The DH spill was a very significant event in the history of BP with extensive consequences and I think there is a case for increased coverage in this article. This must, however, be done in an encyclopedic style based on the most reliable of sources. There is also a natural hierarchy of detail which should be adhered to; the greatest detail should be in the DHS article itself,with less detail in the section of this article and the least detail in the lead.

Can I suggest that we discuss what should be added here before any further changes re made. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I support the bottom up approach you advocate as a matter of principle (but agree with you that we will end up with increased coverage all the way up). --BozMo talk 11:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Gandydancer will discuss the matter here.

Gandydancer, what is your objection to starting with the Deepwater Horizon spill article? A summary of that could be then put into the relevant section here, with a shorter summary in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. The version that you currently have in the article: The 20 April 2010 explosion on BP's offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in the deaths of 11 people,[267][287][269] and injured 16 others; another 99 people survived without serious physical injury. It caused the Deepwater Horizon to burn and sink, and started the largest accidental offshore oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.[267][288][271] certainly is not appropriate and should be reverted to a more appropriate one. Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It not just your opinion on what is appropriate that counts. You have to work with others. Putting old news items into the lead is not appropriate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why stop with telling the reader that 99 people survived? Why not declare that 6.9 billion survived? Sheesh. None of our sources emphasizes the living; they say how many died or were seriously injured. There should be no attempt at positive spin. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Gandydancer but my complaint is very simple: The BP#2005 Texas City Refinery explosion section gets five paragraphs and about 2000 characters of readable prose because it is important. The BP#2006–2010: Refinery fatalities and safety violations section gets three paragraphs and about 1500 characters of readable prose because it is important. The vastly more important BP#2010 Deepwater Horizon well explosion section was reduced by some editors here to one paragraph and about 350 characters. Why is that? I have to conclude that some here are not thinking clearly about objectivity and context. The Deepwater Horizon section should be just as large, if not larger, than the section on any other major disaster. Very simple solution: increase the coverage of that section. My version brings it up to two paragraphs of about 2000 characters—on par with the 2006–2010 refinery fatalities section. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that consistency between disasters within this article would be good but that could also be achieved by reducing the other disaster sections. We also need consistency between BP and other oil companies and consistency between oil companies and other companies in general.

The article needs to prevent a balanced view of BP as a whole not just list all its bad things, that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not our place as editors to try and find a balance of "good things" and "bad things". We report what is reported. As an ever-changing source, we can be more up-to-date than previous printed encyclopedias. I bring my experience from other articles to this one, and I find that your suggestions for this article lack an unbiased perspective. Gandydancer (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

BP as a whole includes some incredibly bad things. The literature is filled with such things, strongly skewed against an artificial balance between good and bad. Per WP:NPOV, we do not try and artificially balance an article when the topic is not balanced.

I think Martin Hogbin's suggestion of reducing the size of the major disaster sections is a throwaway defense of his poorly thought-out reduction of the Deepwater Horizon section. These sections were carefully written by a group of editors (all of us) who labored over much of the wording and coverage, adding and trimming to present the kernel of the matter to the reader. The sections summarize very briefly the major disasters that BP has been involved with, and of course they offer a "Main" article link for more information. To throw out that hard work of dedicated editors would not be an improvement. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What Martin did was restoring the version of December 6, which was quite stable before a series of controversial edits by some editors started. So the version, which was " carefully written by a group of editors (all of us) who labored over much of the wording and coverage, adding and trimming to present the kernel of the matter to the reader", was temporarily restored to find consensus about the further edits at the talk page. Reverting it back to clearly controversial version without proper discussion is not the way to write a NPOV and encyclopaedic article. Even more, this version is violating copyrights which was mentioned several times above and which was intentionally ignored by two editors making these reversions. I propose to restore the December 6 version and to discuss point by point and, if necessary, sentence by sentence which should be included in this section and what should be included in the parent articles about this accident. Beagel (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Beagle please specify which two editors are purposely ignoring your warnings, with examples. petrarchan47 t c 03:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Detailed explanation how the current wording violates copyrights was posted at the talk page at 06:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC). After that, two editors have restored the version which includes copyvio. As both editors have commented that posting (but not the point concerning copyvio), it is logical to expect that if people are commenting something they have read it. If they have read it but restoring copyvio notwithstanding this, it seems intentional copyvio. Who these editors you could see from the article's history. Beagel (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The copyright accusation is groundless, which is why I have not commented on it, or even taken it into consideration when making my edits to the article. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It was described several times why this certain quote is copyvio (because of missing reference as the quate was place before the existing reference which does not includes this quote)). Therefore, it is not enough to say that "accusation is groundless" but if you believe that there is no copyright violation, please explain why the assumption of copyright violation was incorrect. Beagel (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the description of previous versions as "stable", when the Talk page evidence here shows otherwise -- it was clearly controversial. There has been active dispute over the same sections of content for many weeks, despite certain editors managing to maintain their preferred version intact, and that is anything but "stable". Why don't you move the discussion forward, Beagle, and follow your own suggestion (a good one, I might add), and suggest a single point or sentence to work on right now? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I too like the suggestion from Beagle, would s/he like to present a starting place? petrarchan47 t c 01:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that in current circumstances before prposing ony wording we should agree what should be included in this sections (and for clarification, by this section I mean one single subsection about the Deepwater Horizon accident instead of two subsections as of today):

Fact of explosion and sinking;
Amount of spilled oil; fact that it is the largest accidental marine oil spill;
All charges, fines, penalties etc paid by BP (not only per settlement with DOJ but all fines);
Amount of money paid for the settlement of litigation.

All other details should be provided in Deepwater Horizon explosion, Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Deepwater Horizon litigation, Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster etc articles. Beagel (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Wikipedia has an article about the oil spill and a separate one for the explosion. Why should we be tasked with presenting them both together here? It wouldn't be as readable, in my opinion. Also, there is no reason that this article should only mention legal ramifications from the spill, that makes no sense. Other points to mention in this section: health impacts to environment, humans and animals, as well as impacts on those living along the Gulf, for example: fishing communities. petrarchan47 t c 02:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the stable version of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill subsection?

2 September 2010, last edited by Rangoon11, four paragraphs and about 3100 characters of readable prose.
21 September 2010, last edited by Thryduulf, four paragraphs and about 3100 characters of readable prose.
21 September 2010, last edited by Thryduulf, four paragraphs and about 3100 characters of readable prose.
25 May 2012, last edited by Petrarchan47, four paragraphs and about 3100 characters of readable prose.
1 June 2012, last edited by Rangoon11, four paragraphs and about 3100 characters of readable prose.
1 July 2012, last edited by Petrarchan47, eight paragraphs and about 4200 characters of readable prose.
1 July 2012, last edited by Beagel, eight paragraphs and about 3700 characters of readable prose.
7 July 2012, last edited by Beagel, eight paragraphs and about 3600 characters of readable prose.
8 July 2012, last edited by Petrarchan47, eight paragraphs and 3678 characters of readable prose.
15 August 2012, last edited by Rangoon11, eight paragraphs and 3678 characters of readable prose.
24 August 2012, last edited by William M. Connolley, eight paragraphs and about 3700 characters of readable prose
26 August 2012, last edited by Beagel, eight paragraphs and about 4000 characters of readable prose
28 August 2012, last edited by Gandydancer, five paragraphs and about 2800 characters of readable prose
7 September 2012, last edited by Beagel, five paragraphs and about 2800 characters of readable prose
18 September 2012, last edited by BozMo, five paragraphs and about 2800 characters of readable prose
3 November 2012, last edited by Beagel, five paragraphs and about 3100 characters of readable prose
16 November 2012, last edited by Watti Renew, six paragraphs and about 3300 characters of readable prose
16 November 2012, last edited by Beagel, five paragraphs and about 2500 characters of readable prose
17 November 2012, last edited by Beagel, four paragraphs and about 1700 characters of readable prose
10 December 2012, last edited by Gandydancer, two paragraphs and about 1900 characters of readable prose
10 December 2012, last edited by Beagel, one paragraph and about 900 characters of readable prose

This section was generally stable for about 18 months, with four paragraphs and about 3100 characters. Gandydancer reduced the section in early September and in early December for reasons of redundancy; the information was better hosted at the main articles. Beagel has several times performed the greatest reduction of this section, down past the point of concision and into the depths of obscuration. I propose that the section be restored to a size of about 3000 characters, much like it was for the longest period. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits by early December caused edit warring, so that is definitely not the stable version. Thereforer, please restore the last version before that and lets discuss. Beagel (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Your extreme reductions and then insistence upon same caused the edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I have slightly different understanding what happened. However, right now the question is what was the latest stable version and commenting other editors instead of commenting the topic is not appropriate. Beagel (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with removing current info regarding the settlement is that then it must be removed from the lead as well. Which means, judging from what has been going on here for many months, it never will get in the lead. Furthermore, it would not be encyclopedic to keep information such as charges of manslaughter and conducting business in a way so grossly negligent that BP received the largest fine in US history out of the article, even while we discuss. Would there be any objection if I were to cut the att. gen's name from the article and shorten the quote to the first sentence only? (Remove, "We hope that BP's acknowledgment of its misconduct...brings some measure of justice to the family members of the people who died on board the rig.”) Gandydancer (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and do that. Gandydancer (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel as if genuine effort and time spent by diligent, volunteer Wikipedia editors has been wasted and abused by what amounts to a game here. My months long effort to add more than one measly sentence to the Lede regarding the controversial aspects of this company resulted in added bulk to the non-controversial sections and massive trimming (in this case, by 1/4th) of the less positive sections. If the complaint was "intro doesn't summarize the article - needs more coverage of controversies", one response could be to cut the controversial sections and grow the neutral bits. That is what happened. Still the true story of this company is not given to the reader. Now we are reinventing the wheel on a section that wasn't even part of the dispute, while the Lede remains pretty much the way BP wrote it. This could go in indefinitely. Meanwhile, lots of news regarding the Gulf disaster goes unreported here. For instance, ABC news reports today that the Macondo site is still leaking, and that for the second time since it was capped, BP has an ROV investigating the source of the persistent oil sheens. Also, BP insisted on using Corexit even after the EPA said 'no, find a less toxic dispersant'. BP used Corexit undersea which had never been done before, and used the largest amount ever recorded, while US agencies said "We'll have to keep an eye on the environmental impacts, we have no idea the results of this". Just this week we find out that Corexit made the crude oil 52 times more toxic than if it had been left alone. Further, the excuse was that dispersant would save the beaches and wetlands. We also found out this week that Corexit caused the oil to sink even deeper into the sand and possibly the water reservoirs. But no one here is updating the article and readers are not getting good, updated, unbiased information while we have people trying to cut this section down to one paragraph - while the disaster is still unfolding. petrarchan47 t c 03:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You complaint seems to be that other editors have disagreed with you as to what and how much should be included inthis article. That is how WP works. Just because you (and others) think you have done a good job does mean that it cannot be challenged or changed.

It seems to me that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of WP here. We are writing an encyclopedia not producing a news programme. We cannot and should not be putting every piece of news about the subject in the article, especially when it seems that only bad news is added.

If some editors want to make the point that BP is a bad company or has the worst safety record of any oil company then they need to find a good reliable independent secondary source which makes this point. Bombarding the article with bad news is not the way to improve it. The lead especially should be a summary of the article as a whole and not, generally, contain news items or recent quotations. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to continually repeat yourself, Martin. petrarchan47 t c 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to collapse my comments above if it is distracting from the goals of this section. petrarchan47 t c 01:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that I do need to repeat myself because some editors are continuing to use this article as a soapbox, including edit warring to maintain their preferred version.

If some here are not going to comply with the fundamental purpose of WP, which is to write an encyclopedia rather than to be a medium for the promotion of personal opinions, then we need some form of formal dispute resolution. The only way forward is an RfC on the tone and content of this article which, to me, is completely unacceptable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So, file one. petrarchan47 t c 00:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

^ "BP and Oil Sands: Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). bp.com. BP. 2012. Retrieved 22 October 2012.
^ "FACTBOX-Money flows again in Canada's oil sands industry". Reuters. 20 January 2010. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
^ Cite error: The named reference BPCanadianOilSands was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Terry Macalister (23 August 2009). "Cree aboriginal group to join London climate camp protest over tar sands". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
^ Andrew Topf (September–October 2010). "Insitu: Oil Sands Mining Goes Underground" (PDF). Mining Magazine. Retrieved 5 October 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
^ Elana Schor (16 August 2011). "Reclaimed Dump Sparks Oil Sands Sustainability Debate". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
^ ^a ^b "Gulf Spill Is the Largest of Its Kind, Scientists Say". The New York Times. New York. 2 August 2010. Retrieved 24 August 2012.
^ ^a ^b Goldenberg, Suzanne; Rushe, Dominic (15 November 2012). "BP to pay $4.5bn penalty over Deepwater Horizon disaster". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference autogenerated1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-holder-bp-oil-spill-settlement-20121115%2c0%2c335475.story
^ Muskal, Michael; White, Ronald D. "BP fined, charged in oil spill that showed 'profit over prudence'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 11 December 2012.

[BPOilSandsFAQ2012-1] "BP and Oil Sands: Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). bp.com. BP. 2012. Retrieved 22 October 2012.

[ReutersJan2010-2] "FACTBOX-Money flows again in Canada's oil sands industry". Reuters. 20 January 2010. Retrieved 25 September 2012.

[BPCanadianOilSands-3] Cite error: The named reference BPCanadianOilSands was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Macalister2009-4] Terry Macalister (23 August 2009). "Cree aboriginal group to join London climate camp protest over tar sands". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 September 2012.

[Topf2010-5] Andrew Topf (September–October 2010). "Insitu: Oil Sands Mining Goes Underground" (PDF). Mining Magazine. Retrieved 5 October 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

[Schor2011-6] Elana Schor (16 August 2011). "Reclaimed Dump Sparks Oil Sands Sustainability Debate". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 October 2012.

[AccidentalRelease-7] "Gulf Spill Is the Largest of Its Kind, Scientists Say". The New York Times. New York. 2 August 2010. Retrieved 24 August 2012.

[guardian151112-8] Goldenberg, Suzanne; Rushe, Dominic (15 November 2012). "BP to pay $4.5bn penalty over Deepwater Horizon disaster". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 November 2012.

[autogenerated1-9] Cite error: The named reference autogenerated1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[10] ttp://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-holder-bp-oil-spill-settlement-20121115%2c0%2c335475.story

[BP_fined,_profit_over_prudence-11] Muskal, Michael; White, Ronald D. "BP fined, charged in oil spill that showed 'profit over prudence'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 11 December 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]