Talk:BP/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Two sections about Deepwater Horizon

Why we need two sections about Deepwater Horizon while the second one explicitly repeats the information already added in the first one (11 deaths, the largest accidental offshore oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry)? Beagel (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we do not need two sections. One is supposedly about environmental damage, the other about safety. Both are the same incident. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So let us delete one then. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that one section refers to the Deepwater Horizon Explosion, which is related to the oil disaster, but is treated a separate incident; the other deals with the resulting 'spill'. petrarchan47tc 22:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In theory yes; however, in practice there is no that kind of distinction as the section under Environmental record talks also about killed workers, charges etc which is actually about the accident. At the same time, it would be better to provide in one place to avoid confusion. This is issue also with some other subsections under the Environmental record section that they are talking about accidents and says almost nothing about the environmental impact. Beagel (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. The environmental section needs a lot of work. Keeping the Gulf spill one single section sounds good, but your chosen subject matter is too narrow by excluding mention of environmental/health issues as well as other non-legal, non-financial impacts. petrarchan47tc 05:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this is an ongoing discussion, because I have puzzled about it myself. Deepwater Horizon is not the only topic with duplicative sections -- the Caspian sea and Texas City incidents in the late 2000s are also both discussed in the "Environmental record" and "Accidents" (safety) sections. Because these issues have often overlapped in historical cases, separating these artificially might be too much trouble. After some thought, here's what I'd suggest:

• Environmental and safety record
  • Environmental record
    • Environmental initiatives
    • Allegations of greenwashing
  • Safety record
  • Incidents
    • Sea Gem
    • Texas City refinery
    • Prudhoe Bay
    • Deepwater Horizon
    • Other incidents

Under this structure, environmental and safety topics can be addressed in general separately, and if any sub-topics need to be addressed, they can be sub-headings under one or the other, like "Environmental initiatives" may be. Then for incidents that may involve both subjects, these events can be discussed in dedicated sub-sections. For these sub-sections, I suggest that we limit dedicated headings to those subjects with their own standalone articles (as above) and then the rest be grouped under "Other incidents" -- I'm very interested to hear what others think of this arrangement. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal makes sense. I moved Caspian incident from the environmental section into the Incidents section as it says nothing about environmental impact. I removed also duplication of the text. Beagel (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I hate to throw a wrench into this discussion, but after looking at the recent criminal charges, there may be a need to treat the DWH explosion in a separate section after all. Otherwise, we will have to expect a pretty large, and far less readable, Gulf spill section in order to include the manslaughter charges and the (now delayed) court case related to the explosion and UNrelated to the spill. Having worked on the spill article, I know that this is a complex and ever-expanding story - which should be no surprise given its scale. It is arguably one of the most pivotal events in BP's history, and warrants an appropriate, clearly-presented section unfettered by telling the story of the explosion (a separate event altogether). petrarchan47tc 21:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, with the addition of a Litigation subsection to the spill/explosion section, the clarity issue would be resolved. petrarchan47tc 08:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed RfC

There clearly is a dispute between two groups of editors her over the content of the following three sections, 'Environmental record', 'Accidents', 'Political record'.

I believe that these sections are used a soapbox to push anti-BP views rather then stating opinions on the company by good quality independent reliable sources. How should we word the RfC? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What should be the overriding concern of all editors here is to tell the reader all the main points that high quality sources say about BP, including the negative points in balance with the weight of sources. Similarly, positive points should not be overemphasized.

Your RfC idea starts with a notional behavior problem, that one group of editors is pushing its POV. That cannot be the subject of an RfC on an article talk page.

The kernel of the question is "what to do with the redundancy in the 'Environmental record', 'Accidents' and 'Political record' sections?" Simple: reduce the redundancy. No RfC needed. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, I do not disagree with you, the article should contain all the main points that high quality sources say about BP, negative and positive. The problem is that that is not what it currently does. It contains a large number of, almost entirely negative, news articles relating to BP, clearly intended to push a negative view of BP. I have no problem in saying negative things about BP but these must be supported by good quality independent reliable secondary sources. At the moment, points are being made, about BP's safety record for example, by sheer volume of text. If BP has a poor safety record compared with other oil companies then all we need is a good quality independent reliable secondary sources that says that and I would be happy add it to the article.

My proposed RfC would be on article content. There is no problem with that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment about "if BP has a poor safety record" makes me think you were not looking into any of the news items and book sources that have been brought to the article and this talk page for the last six months. Your comment about "contains a large number of almost entirely negative news articles" makes me wonder at your inability to see that this large number is the balance we seek per NPOV, that is, the negative news articles combined with the negative books, combined with the positive material. You keep trying to resist the mass of negative articles which appear in the mainstream news media, but why? They are reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As the discussion about the content of RfC has not started but sank in the usual non-constructive dispute, I made the brave move and filed the request. Beagel (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well done Beagel, I think this is the only way that we are going to get an encyclopedic article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, I have not looked through all news items relating to BP anywhere in the world. I have no idea whether negative news items outnumber positive ones and neither should I. As a reader of WP I am not expected to try to balance news items in an article with news items (which may or may not exist) elsewhere; that is not how an encyclopedia works. If there is a preponderance of bad news about BP, showing that they have acting in a bad way over a significant period of time, then this should be reflected in independent reliable secondary sources writing about the company. If these sources exist then find them and add what they say to the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to answer you but I am unsure what you are trying to say. You make obvious statements about using "independent reliable secondary sources" as if those sources are somehow different than the exact ones I have used in edits such as this where I brought together some of the work of Petrarchan47 and Gandydancer, plus some material I found myself, all of it from mainstream news sources and books, and all of which easily meet our WP:SECONDARY source guideline. In other words, you have recommended to me that I do exactly what I have been doing.

• Lundborg, Zinta (15 February 2011). "How BP's Browne Created Culture of Risk, Incompetence". Bloomberg.
• Vaughan, Bernard (29 February 2012). "Browne's BP cost-cutting led to Gulf spill, book says". Reuters.
• Lustgarten, Abrahm (2012). Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 214. ISBN 0393083160.
• Reed, Stanley; Fitzgerald, Alison (2011). In Too Deep: BP and the Drilling Race That Took it Down. Bloomberg. Vol. 137. John Wiley & Sons. p. 98. ISBN 0470950900.
• Brent, Coon (28 June 2010). "The Inside Story of BP's Negligence on Oil Safety". Esquire. Hearst Communications.
• Bower, Tom (1 July 2010). "July Fourth Outrage: British Gov't Elevates Disgraced BP Boss". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
• Elkind, Peter; Whitford, David; Burke, Doris (24 January 2011). "BP: 'An accident waiting to happen'". CNN Money. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
• Lustgarten, Abrahm; Knutson, Ryan (June 7, 2010). "Reports at BP over years find history of problems". The Washington Post.
• Korosec, Kirsten (May 7, 2010). "BP's History of Oil Spills and Accidents: Same Strategy, Different Day". CBS News.
• Thomas, Pierre (May 27, 2010). "BP's Dismal Safety Record". ABC News.

It's pretty hard to misinterpret obvious investigative reporter conclusions about BP's safety record when "dismal", "incompetence" and "history of problems" come up as often as they do. Binksternet (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What I am referring to are sources which show that BP had, for example, a worse safety record in general that other oil companies.

After any major catastrophe, like the DH spill, there is always going to be a rush of investigative journalism and book writing showing that the event was inevitable and was due to some specific failing of those involved. What we do not generally see is the same degree if investigation into the practices of similar organisations, who maybe have just been lucky so far.

It may be that BP's general level of safety was far below that of other similar companies, on the other hand on may be their safety procedures were, in general better than those of other oil companies. There is no way to tell without proper evidence from a source that has investigated the issue properly. Counting up disasters which happen to have been added to company articles is not the way that these matters should be determined.

I have not looked at all your sources but, perhaps you can tell me, do any of them from a knowledgeable oil company overview perspective say that BP behaves less well than other oil companies? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I will not debate you until you have read the sources. I will simply continue to point out the fact that you have not researched the topic and are therefore unable to contribute here beyond simple corrections to spelling, grammar, and wiki markup. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

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.

---

There is an ongoing discussion how the 'Environmental record', 'Accidents', and 'Political record' of this article, taking account the existing main articles of subsections of these sections, should be cleaned-up and/or developed to ensure their compliance with different Wikipedia policies, inter alia WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP. The discussion is concentrated on, but not limited with the Deepwater Horizon accident. Relevant previous discussions are in the sections above. Beagel (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So what's the question? Binksternet (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I apology if the question was not understandable for some editors. The question is: How the 'Environmental record', 'Accidents', and 'Political record' sections of this article, taking account the existing main articles of subsections of these sections, should be cleaned-up and/or developed to ensure their compliance with different Wikipedia policies, inter alia WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP? Beagel (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

How about, 'Are the above WP policies being properly applied to this article?' Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As is common with RfCs I have started two sections below. The second is for new RfC respondents and the first is for editors here to state there own opinions on the subject. This should help make the subject of the dispute clearer. I suggest that comments in the first section should be restricted to giving an explanation to newcomers of why you think your opinion is correct rather than repeating the arguments that we have had here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

Comment from Martin Hogbin

I have classified myself as an involved editor but I actually came to this page in response to this RfC. I have no connection whatever with BP or the oil industry or with any environmental group.

I believe that the article is being used as a WP:Soapbox to push anti BP views by good faith editors who have based the disputed sections of the article on post Deepwater Horizon spill news sources rather than reliable independent sources that compare the overall safety and environmental records of BP with those of other large oil companies.

The lead, in particular, contains too much detail on one incident which is not properly put into context.

My aim is not to whitewash or censor the article to but to present information in an encyclopedic manner supported by the best quality sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you have still not read the ABC News source: "BP's Dismal Safety Record", May 27, 2010. It discusses how BP had many years of very poor safety recorded prior to the Deepwater Horizon disaster; very poor in relation to other petroleum companies. It says, "OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 'egregious, willful' safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation." That means egregious and willful safety violations by BP were 40 times larger than the same type of OSHA violations from four others combined. Then there's the Washington Post source, "Reports at BP over years find history of problems", June 8, 2010. This team of investigative reporters found years worth of problems at BP in Alaska, California, Texas, and the Gulf of Mexico. It says the company established a culture of ignoring safety in preference for profit, "a fundamental culture of mistrust" between BP workers and aggressive managers who were falsifying safety inspections and otherwise endangering operations to save costs. In Carson, California, a BP plant kept regulators out from 1999 to 2002, telling them that they were 99% in compliance with safety standards, but when inspectors obtained a search warrant to gain access, they found the site was only 20% in compliance. BP subsequently promoted the site manager to a VP position in the UK! That's apparently the reward at BP for obstructionism in the pursuit of profit. Look at the articles I have linked above, Martin. They are from top-flight news agencies such as Reuters and Bloomberg, and big-city newspapers. Read them. It will help your understanding of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see now. BP has 40 times more safety violations in refineries in Texas and Ohio than other oil companies so they are 40 times worse at safety so that is why the Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred so the more bad stuff about BP we put in the article the better.

The might be true for all I know but, if it is, there must be a source somewhere saying just that. If you can find that source we can say that in the article. Otherwise we need to stick to the facts rather than using your statistical analysis of oil safety. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Martin, you say that the lead contains too much info not put into context. How can you say that that a settlement that is unprecedented, regarding both the amount of money and the fact that BP has been criminally charged in the deaths of the workers and that individuals working for BP have been charged with manslaughter as well, is not appropriate for the lead? Gandydancer (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to respond in this section any more. The purpose of an RfC is to get input from new editors not to go over old arguments. I am happy to discuss anything elsewhere on this page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from BozMo

I also recently came here after a comment from another editor. I don't have any particular interest in BP except that a decade ago I was a senior manager for one of their (unfriendly) competitors. The article is unbalanced and has lots of signs of soapboxing: particularly the inclusion of minor environmental incidents and omission of more serious ones, symptomatic of a shotgun approach of sticking in anything negative that people stumble across. Most of all though I find the level of aggression and incivility from a small number of editors rather remarkable for Wikipedia, particularly in accusing people who disagree with their perspective as having some sort of "whitewashing" agenda. This is combined with a high volume of "not quite accurately represented" material synthesised aggressively in a way which challenges any remotely indifferent editor to find the time to go through it all and check it. Who on earth wants to whitewash BP? I do not have a strong view on particular content items but in my view there are several editors who should be given a lifetime ban from this article as a way forward. --BozMo talk 21:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My first experience at this page was in May 2012, when I stumbled across the Intro, which I have detailed here. This was the only mention of anything controversial in the 4 paragraph Intro:

"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period."

Now, if you don't have a problem with this version of the Intro and its coverage of BP & this article, then we likely agree on very little. My attempts to correct this and bring some balance (see link) resulted in my being told to "go get a blog", followed by three months of circular arguments and even meme's created through a misrepresentation of the facts (see edit history) to create a false narrative, which is still being spread.

As for this RfC, people seem to be misreading it - it is not about the article as a whole or about editors, but about three particular sections. As a work in progress, it makes complete sense that editors would have to do some research and some rewriting to this page, as with all of Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 01:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors

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.

Incorrect information in lead

I realize there is a lengthy discussion about this article ongoing, however I'm concerned that the article's introduction continues to include information that is incorrect and misleading. While this wording was discussed at length above, I believe the point was missed that the current wording is inaccurate. If it is possible to refocus some discussion on this topic, I would like to ask for this to be corrected:

In November 2012, the U.S. Attorney General announced that BP and three of its employees were indicted on criminal charges including manslaughter and obstruction of Congress. In addition BP agreed to pay a $4 billion fine, the largest criminal resolution in the history of the United States.

In the first place, there is no mention of Deepwater Horizon in the two sentences, so it is not clear what the charges relate to. More importantly, the second sentence is confusing, and should be written more clearly. Right now, the wording (specifically "In addition") suggests that the $4 billion settlement relates to something other than the charges mentioned in the first sentence. In actuality, per sources including the DOJ press release and the New York Times article cited, BP signed a guilty plea agreement, as part of which it agreed to pay the $4 billion in fines, as a resolution to the criminal charges brought against the company. Also, the charges against BP employees are separate from those brought against the company. The way the first sentence is written makes it seem that the employees were facing the same charges as the company. This is not correct. Additionally, since this article focuses on BP the company, it seems undue to mention the charges against individuals in the lead. I would like to see these two sentences rewritten to correctly reflect the sources, reduce redundancy, and summarize the events with a focus on the company itself. Here is my suggested wording:

In November 2012, BP reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, admitting culpability for criminal charges relating to the oil spill including manslaughter and obstruction of Congress, as part of which it agreed to pay a $4 billion fine, the largest penalty of its kind in U.S. history.

I hope that editors here will consider the rewritten version that I suggest or otherwise make changes needed to correct the information in the introduction. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with all of your reasons but never-the-less, I have no problem with the change in wording that you would like. Gandydancer (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a source confirming that such a payment for criminal charges including manslaughter is unique in the oil industry? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Martin. I'm not certain I understand quite what you are asking. Would you be able to clarify? The fine was the largest for any corporation with regard to criminal charges, not simply within the oil industry, and not based on the manslaughter charges specifically. There are nuances, however those are probably best dealt with in the DWH section itself, if not the separate article. Are you comfortable with the wording I have proposed? I will be away from my computer later today, but I can help try to answer questions later. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"'This is unprecedented, both with regard to the amounts of money, the fact that a company has been criminally charged and that individuals have been charged as well,' Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said at a news conference in New Orleans to announce the settlement." Martin, once again, please try to do your own reading - it is not up to other editors to do it for you. I don't think that it's any more fun than most of us here, but it is our responsibility if we are to make educated edits to this article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian's wording is much clearer, no legalese and full of information. I would prefer wording closer to theirs (highlighted below) than the wording in proposed change. As for mentioning individuals in the Lede, I don't have strong feelings about it, but this article has not made a distinction between BP and its employees. There is a huge list of employees in the middle of it. I could imagine a separate article dealing with 'the people of BP' but as of now, this article is all we have.

From the first source listed in the article:

(BP) admitted guilt on 14 criminal charges and agreed to pay an historic $4.5bn (£2.8bn) penalty in connection with the fatal explosion of its rig and the catastrophic oil spill.

The payments include $4bn for criminal charges and $525m to security regulators. BP will plead guilty to 11 felony counts of misconduct or neglect in relation to the deaths of 11 men aboard the Deepwater Horizon when the rig blew up and sank in April 2010 (is there in fact the need for a separate section regarding the explosion and subsequent news?), as well as misdemeanour counts under the clean water and migratory bird acts. The company will plead guilty to lying to Congress.

"This marks the single largest criminal fine – $1.25bn – and the single largest total criminal resolution – $4bn – in the history of the United States," the attorney general, Eric Holder (said)

That's better wording, well-sourced, communicating more clearly the serious scope and historic penalty. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Now to suggest a synthesized presentation, care to take a stab? petrarchan47tc 22:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It is all very well shouting about sources but is is still not clear exactly what the situation is. This source, '"'This is unprecedented, both with regard to the amounts of money, the fact that a company has been criminally charged and that individuals have been charged as well,' Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said at a news conference in New Orleans to announce the settlement." seems to suggest that this is the first time in US history that a company has been criminally charged. If this is indeed the case, and we have a source unambiguously showing this, then I would support a sentence in the lead on the subject.

On the basis of the second source, which is mainly about the size of fines, I would not support inclusion of the subject in the lead.

With regard the admonition to me to read the sources, it should not be necessary for me, or our readers, to read through a list of sources and try to piece together the complete picture. If we want to say, or even imply, something we need to find a source which says that, not 'suggest a synthesized presentation' as proposed above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Martin, your response cannot be taken seriously as you have not familiarized yourself with the topic. For you, it "is still not clear exactly what the situation is", but for others the situation is plain as day. The largest criminal fine in the world is exactly the sort of thing we must put in the lead section. Let's not venture into obstructionism, getting in the way of reader knowledge. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. I asked whether this is the first time in US history that a company has been criminally charged with manslaughter. Is that true or not and where is the definitive answer to be found. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any RS verifying that this is "the largest criminal fine in the world"? Because the criminal fines are $1.256 billion which is according to the New York Times "one of the largest levied by the United States against a corporation."[1] $2.394 billion is to be paid to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for remediation efforts, $350 million to the National Academy of Sciences, and $525 million to settle civil charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Fines under the Clean Water Act are not clear yet. Beagel (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Pfizer broke all previous records in 2009. In September 2009, Pfizer pleaded guilty to the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug Bextra for uses unapproved by the FDA, and agreed to a $2.3 billion settlement, the largest health care fraud settlement at that time.[7] Pfizer also paid the U.S. government $1.3 billion in criminal fines related to the "off-label" marketing of Bextra, the largest penalty ever rendered for any crime.[8] Called a repeat offender, this was Pfizer's fourth such settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in the previous ten years.[9][10] BTW, I assume that Binksternet meant in the U.S., though in the world would probably be technically correct. Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the largest fine in the US is worthy of mention in the article but not in the lead. If BP is the first company in US history to be criminally charged with manslaughter, that would be worthy of mention in the lead. Is that the case or not? Can we stop the personal attacks and try to get the facts clear. Only then can we decide what to say and where. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines nor by common sense, that something must be 'biggest ever' or 'first ever' to be entered into the Lede. However we are referring to the biggest ever oil spill of this type and its related legal remifications, so... petrarchan47tc 18:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

To help clarify this discussion a little: the $4 billion total is the largest criminal resolution in U.S. history, which includes $1.25 billion that is the single largest criminal fine in the U.S. The New York Times article breaks the Department of Justice settlement down into the specific fines and penalties, while the Guardian article confuses the issue by bringing together both the DOJ resolution and the separate settlement to the SEC relating to civil charges, not criminal. (In the previous discussion and here, participating editors have expressed that the focus should be on the criminal resolution, in which case it isn't correct to include the SEC penalty for civil charges.) Meanwhile, the DOJ press release states:

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 largest criminal resolution in United States history.

I am comfortable with the lead section identifying this fine as the largest of its type, which is why I suggested it. Also, no sources mention whether BP was the first company to be charged with manslaughter, so it seems like this is likely not the case. Ultimately, the information in the lead should not simply be based on what one source says, but an accurate representation reflecting the consensus of multiple sources, and I think my wording is appropriate to do that, keeping it succinct for the purposes of a lead section but acknowledging the unique nature of the settlement. I hope this can be a fair compromise. Thoughts? Arturo at BP (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that, because of your interpretation of consensus here that "it isn't correct to include the SEC penalty for civil charges". I think it is "correct" to include all of the more than $4bn that BP will be paying. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet, why not just report the total as media is doing? I mentioned legalese in my initial response because your version is not clear - I learned so much from the Guardian version, and I read it after I read yours - I could barely believe you were talking about the same event. If I were writing this on behalf of BP, I would prefer your version. But I am concerned with getting information clearly to the public. There is no reason Wikipedia should pussyfoot around any more than the mainstream media does, especially when clarity is at stake. Legalese is good for the courtroom and for obfuscation - neither serve us here. I believe we can present it succinctly but keep it informative and clearly worded. Are editors finding any discrepancies in the facts presented by Guardian? Is it a good summation of the story? petrarchan47tc 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

To quote Martin Hogbin, "If we want to say, or even imply, something we need to find a source which says that, not 'suggest a synthesized presentation' " petrarchan47tc 20:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The big difference between media and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is not media but encyclopedia. That means correct data should be included notwithstanding how they are simplified by media. I agree that all charges should be included (in the relevant sections) but it should be made clear what are criminal fines, what are other criminal charges, and what are the civil charges. Just some hours ago there was a statement at this talk page that this is "the largest criminal fine in the world". Just few hours later thank to the information provided by Gandydancer it was clarified that due to the settlement by Pfizer this is even not the biggest criminal fine in the history of the United States (but one of the biggest, of course, and the biggest settlement of criminal charges). Therefore, all these charges and fines should be listed at the relevant section while in the lead it should be more general (e.g. saying that this is the biggest criminal settlement in the history of the United States or one of the biggest criminal fines if you prefer the term "criminal fine"). Beagel (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, every source I was reading quoted a 4.5 Billion dollar fine. But the proposed entry here says 4 Billion. This can cause a disconnect in the reader, as it did me, so if we are going to differentiate the charges in a way not being done in media (arguably Wikipedia's lifeblood), we should be very explicit about the distinction so as not to cause confusion. petrarchan47tc 01:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll copy the DoJ's statement (1st para) here for easy reference:

BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP) has agreed to plead guilty to felony manslaughter, environmental crimes and obstruction of Congress and pay a record $4 billion in criminal fines and penalties for its conduct leading to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 people and caused the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history, Attorney General Eric Holder announced today. The 14-count information, filed today in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana, charges BP with 11 counts of felony manslaughter, one count of felony obstruction of Congress, and violations of the Clean Water and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts. In the next 2 paragraphs it again uses the 4 billion amount.

BTW, this blatant deceit needs to be in this article as well:

As part of its plea agreement, BP admitted that, through Mr. Rainey, it withheld documents and provided false and misleading information in response to the House of Representatives’ request for information on how quickly oil was flowing. While Mr. Rainey was publicly repeating BP’s stated estimate of 5,000 barrels of oil a day, the company’s engineering teams were using sophisticated methods that generated significantly higher estimates. As an editor that worked on this article and daily read and edited the flow rates, to know that BP was aware all along pretty much exactly how much was really spewing out and lying through their teeth about it is quite shocking. And I don't think that anyone should try to tell me that lying to congress about the biggest environmental disaster in the history of the U.S. is not important enough for this article.Gandydancer (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I meant secondary sources. Take Bloomberg: "BP on Nov. 15 reached a settlement with the Justice Department, agreeing to pay $4.5 billion to end all criminal charges and resolve securities claims relating to the Gulf explosion." And CBS news: "BP agreed to pay $4.5 billion and pled guilty to 11 counts of felony manslaughter, felony obstruction of Congress and other criminal charges in the Deepwater Horizon explosion back in 2010." petrarchan47tc 06:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I agree that yes, the engineering deceit should be in the article, at least in the article body. It would be helpful to the reader to understand the high level of deceit, with 60,000 barrels a day being concealed, said to be 5,000 instead. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If some media sources are not doing distinction between criminal fines and criminal penalties or criminal and civil fines does not mean that Wikipedia should not make this distinction. There is the DOJ's statement as also secondary source by The New York Times [2] which makes things clear:

• the criminal fines: $1.256 billion to the DOJ
• the criminal penalties: $2.394 billion to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and $350 million to the National Academy of Sciences
• the civil fines: $525 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Fines under the Clean Water Act are not clear yet.

It is better to keep criminal charges and civil charges separated because right now the total amount of civil fines and penalties are not clear but the figure will be significant when fines under the Clean Water Act will be agreed.

Also fact that formally plead guilty BP Exploration and Production Inc. is worth for mentioning. Beagel (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is consensus to include all penalties and fines so far, perhaps the following wording for the intro would be more appropriate:

In November 2012, BP reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, admitting culpability for criminal charges relating to the oil spill including manslaughter and obstruction of Congress. As of December 2012, BP has agreed to pay $4.5 billion in fines related to the spill.

Does this seem reasonable to all? Arturo at BP (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No that does not seem reasonable. Perhaps we need to go back to Binsternet's information that he posted if we are to satisfy all and get the wording exactly correct.

BP admitted guilt on 14 criminal charges and agreed to pay an historic $4.5bn (£2.8bn) penalty in connection with the fatal explosion of its rig and the catastrophic oil spill.

The payments include $4bn for criminal charges and $525m to security regulators. BP will plead guilty to 11 felony counts of misconduct or neglect in relation to the deaths of 11 men aboard the Deepwater Horizon when the rig blew up and sank in April 2010 (is there in fact the need for a separate section regarding the explosion and subsequent news?), as well as misdemeanour counts under the clean water and migratory bird acts. The company will plead guilty to lying to Congress.

This marks the single largest criminal fine – $1.25bn – and the single largest total criminal resolution – $4bn – in the history of the United States Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Once more, this is not the largest criminal fine as the largest criminal fine is still $1.3 billion fine paid by Pfizer in 2009. However, it is the largest settlement of criminal charges. Also, why we should rounding the figures if exact figures exists. Criminal fine is not $1.25 but $1.256 billion (1.25 is even not correct rounding). Also, 4 billion + 525 million is not 4.5 billion. It is ok for mainstream media to oversimply the thing but for encyclopedia we should use correct figures. This is one more reason why copy-pasting information from media sources without a critical analysis is not a good idea. I also think that summarizing criminal and civil charges is not a good idea at the moment as the amount of total civil fines and penalties is not clear yet and the total figure will be much more bigger than 4.5 billion. Beagel (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with Arturo's proposal? It states the facts clearly. My only question would be whether we need this in the lead at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer, the issue that I am sure you understand and that other editors will insist upon is that wording for the lead needs to be a concise summary consistent with WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT, consistent with the introductions of all other Wikipedia articles, which is what I was aiming for with the above suggestion. For now I'll wait for others to weigh in with their thoughts. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Arturo, I think this idea that we have to compare the BP Intro to all other Wikipedia Intro's is something we hear a lot at this talk page, but it's a misunderstanding - it would mean that we can assume other Wiki articles are conforming perfectly to WP:Lede. Instead, our focus should be on the guidelines themselves. There is incredible variation between Wiki articles and they are constantly changing; the guidelines aren't. As for the latest proposal, the highlighted text above (from Guardian) is still much more clear and vastly more informative, in my opinion. I have absolutely no expectations that you will be happy with anything I propose simply due to your POV as a BP employee (and of course, this is NOT personal, just realistic). I know in the past when discussing a contentious or critical section, you seemed to always duck out and let the non-COI editors deal with things. I am wondering what is different now, and please excuse my lack of understanding - this is the first article I've worked on where a COI editor took part in negotiations. petrarchan47tc 21:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that we should not follow the WP guidelines on the lead. I do not understand your reason for this. The guidelines are quite clear; the lead should be a summary of the article as a whole, not a place where we say things that we think ought to be said. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am not the only editor who agreed to this information being included in the Lede. petrarchan47tc 22:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Let us start with the text in the body of the article

This has already been suggested before but arguing directly about what should go in the lead is is not the right way to do things. The wp:lead should be a summary of the article as a whole not a place for people to make points.

Let us decide what should go in the body of the article. Any suggestions? In the meantime the section should be removed from the lead as it is not a summary of what is in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

New charges: BP oil spill judge approves $7.8B partial settlement of claims

To add to the investigations: $7.8B partial settlement of claims, and another source for this and other recent charges, from NY Newsday petrarchan47tc 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not to start with the Deepwater Horizon litigation article? Beagel (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Best to enter this wherever it is applicable: this article, the oil spill article, and any others. It is probably not too time-consuming to do, if the wording and sources were the same/similar. petrarchan47tc 22:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

New structure for Environmental record and Accidents/safety record

In an earlier discussion on this page, the subject of how the sections for "Environmental record" and "Accidents" should be structured arose, and I think this is a worthwhile topic to return to. Currently, discussion of Deepwater Horizon is included under both sections, leading to confusion over what information on this topic should appear under which heading. Meanwhile, the 2005 Texas City refinery explosion is included under "Accidents" and the 2010 chemical leak at the refinery appears under "Environmental record", although they arguably each fit under both headings.

Separating out the environmental and safety impacts, which often overlapped in these cases, would be a tricky proposition. As I mentioned above, after much thought about the issue, I believe that a new structure would resolve this problem:

• Environmental and safety record
  • Environmental record
    • Environmental initiatives
    • Allegations of greenwashing
  • Safety record
  • Incidents
    • Sea Gem
    • Texas City refinery
    • Prudhoe Bay
    • Deepwater Horizon
    • Other incidents

Within this structure there can be a general overview for the company's environmental record and its safety record, with subsections to discuss topics such as environmental initiatives. All the incidents currently listed separately under "Environmental record" and "Accidents" would then be listed under the "Incidents" subsection and could include details regarding both the environmental and safety impact. For these subsections, I suggest that dedicated headings be reserved for incidents that have their own standalone Wikipedia articles, as I have included in the structure above, while others can be detailed under "Other incidents".

In the last discussion Beagel and Petrarchan offered some initial feedback. Petrarchan suggested another subsection within "Deepwater Horizon" focusing on litigation, which may make sense, although I didn't list it above. I'm interested to hear what others think about this concept for restructuring these parts of the article. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

At first glance it's a very good start, but no way can one call something like the Gulf oil spill an 'incident'. Skinning your knee on the way to school is an incident. The largest marine oil spill in history is something more than that. Calling it simply "Deepwater Horizon" is interesting, no one really knows the Gulf oil spill as DH except those in the industry. As a BP employee, there is an inherent bias that is perfectly understandable and acceptable, but biased work can't go into the article as-is. petrarchan47tc 01:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan, the names of the sections are just suggestions and others may propose alternative headings. As a section title, "Incidents" is a neutral descriptor and one used by NOAA to describe the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (as well as other events, such as Hurricane Sandy). Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Arturo. I'm not in favor of using NOAA's language, though, as they are neither unbiased nor reliable. They helped cover up damage to wildlife from the spill and 'controlled burns', as well as other blunders. Plus, they are in the business, as with all government agencies, not of truth-telling but of crowd-control, keeping everyone calm. petrarchan47tc 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with petrarchant; the term "incidents" is problematic on multiple levels. See my comment below replying to Hogbin's comment.Harel (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The structure looks fine. Looking the major events under the proposed 'Incidents' maybe we could use 'accidents' instead of 'incidents' in the section heading (except the last subsection 'Other incidents'). It would be still correct and neutral. Beagel (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Beagle. Also I would use the term "oil spill" with regard to the "Deepwater Horizon" section for clarity. petrarchan47tc 20:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Both of these suggestions sound fine to me: I agree with Beagel that "Incidents" can change to "Accidents" and am open to changing "Other incidents" too (though I think "incidents" allows for a greater range of events than just accidents). Likewise, changing "Deepwater Horizon" to "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" seems reasonable. Beagel or Petrarchan, would one of you be willing to start the effort of rearranging the existing sections? I'm happy to help how I can. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Arturo, we've got a big mess over at the oil spill page that I need to attend to. petrarchan47tc 18:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, hopefully Beagel or another editor here will be able to work on the structure change. Also, it may take me a little time to get caught up on the discussion at Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but I would be happy to help there. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's about a split that is disputed. I'm not sure if Wikipedia requires NPOV editors for RfC, but here is the discussion. petrarchan47tc 19:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am just so angry right now that I'm not sure that I can stand any more "help" with that article right now.  :-) It's going to take me a few days to get back on track with the recent undiscussed decisions over there. I am not a professional WP editor and there are other things going on in my life right now. grrrrr. Gandydancer (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. petrarchan47tc 19:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks p. It should be understood that none of us should be measured in the same way that we are measured in our "paying job" portion of our life. We can not possibly be expected to keep abreast of article changes day-by-day. It also just irritates me to no end to read, "oh, the editor that made those drastic changes with nary a talk page note was OK because it needed to be done and s/he stepped in." I have spent hundreds of hours on that article and it really does piss me off that a fly-by editor "fixes" the article with the split. But that only pisses me off a little, what really pisses me off is that anyone would support that editor. When I have time I hope to make a few more rational edits rather than just ranting as I'm doing here. Again, grrr. Gandydancer (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I am in favour of using 'incidents' because it is neutral, it makes no presuppositions and it is used by a national monitoring authority, probably for the reasons that I have given. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, either "Incidents" or "Accidents" is fine with me, whichever is the most appropriate term by Wikipedia's standards. Are you willing to be bold and start putting this new structure into place? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think 'incidents' is a better and broader term which would include deliberate actions and things like sabotage. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The term "incidents" is problematic on multiple levels. First, it's broad, true, but it is so extremely broad that it basically translates into, "events". We don't want something like an "events" section, this is much more specific than "events" (to which "incidents" in this context is virtually synonymous). Second, the term is also a euphemism. I'm sure there are some environmental advocates who would favor "disasters". I see the term "incidents" as much a loaded (in this case as an extremely under-states euphemism) as the term "disasters" or "catastrophes" (of course it's ok to quote people refering to a "catastrophe" as they characterize it or a BP spokesperson calling it an 'incident' in a quotation)

Thirdly, the term should be 'neutral' in one sense but should not be 'neutral' in another sense. It should be neutral in the sense of an unbiased wikipedia article, yes. But an event which is not neutral should not be called by a word which is neutral. The events in question were not neutral. It's like calling an illness a "health event" or "health incident". We would never call an illness a "health incident" - an illness is not a neutral event. This is all independent of blame (meaning, maybe the company was to blame, maybe the company is innocent, maybe Transocean is to blame, etc, etc) that is a separate issue I am not addressing. But the event itself is not neutral. An illness is not a "health incident" and an oil leak, or spill (beyond one so miniscule as to be vanishingly small in its effects, and even those might not be legitimate exceptions) is not an "incident" either, for analogous reasons. Same with explosion, etc, not just leaks and spills. What instead? If a section is about BP's record as it were, I think "accidents" might work as a subsection. If a section is about BP analyzed as a "corporate citizen" where positive sections include charitable giving etc, then a sub-section might be "Damaged caused to the environment" I think both such sub-section names might work - in the respective, different contexts given. Perhaps others can suggest other names. But not 'health incident' analogs, please... Harel (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The text should make clear all the information that is available to us about the incident, including sourced information telling us whether the incident was intentional, accidental, sabotage, or other. To give a more specific description in the heading section (for example 'Accidents') would presuppose that WP had determined that every item under that heading did, in fact, conform the description given (that is to say, was an accident); this could be misleading.

There is no reason that we should not have more descriptive sub-headings for individual incidents when reliable sources tell us the facts ('The xxx accident', 'The YYY release', the 'ZZZ explosion' for example). Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several different dimensions here. I certainly agree that we should be clear whether something is an accident or negligence (though the two do have overlap) or sabotage, etc. So I lean to agree with the suggestion to avoid using the word "Accidents" as the only term in the main header (though we could use "Accidents, negligent behavior, and sabotage" or similar heading)

Independent of this, however, there is the dimension of not sanitizing these things as 'incidents' any more than we would call illnesses 'health incidents' - we use the word illness (hence my earlier caution that the term should be 'neutral' in one sense but should not be 'neutral' in another sense. It should be neutral in the sense of an unbiased wikipedia article, yes. But an event which is not neutral should not be called by a word which is neutral. The events in question were not neutral. It's like calling an illness a "health event")

Whether negligence, sabotage, accident or otherwise, we are talking about events which are not neutral but with negative impact, after all. So we would not use the one-word heading, "Events" to describe them, after all. And "Incidents" in this situation is just synonimous to "events". Here's another medical analogy. As in the wikipedia entries, we mostly use the term "adverse effects (of drugs)" where the sanitizing and inaccurate phrase "side effects" was previously used, to be more accurate. The latter term is still used but only when referring to things whose outcome truly could be positive as much as it could be negative, while the more fitting term, "adverse effects" is used more accurately to refer to examples like, increased risk of heart attack or higher blood pressure, from taking the drug X. Oil spills, explosions, leaks, etc, are not "positive or negative" but negative events, we're not talking about BP donating money to charity etc which could be in another section of course, but rather we're focusin on adverse events, untoward events, mishaps, something along those lines

Perhaps there is a better word or words not quite on the tip of my tongue, but these negative events of spill, leak, explosion, sabotage, are negative, so it seems clear to me that whatever ultimate choice we use, their heading should not be a completely neutral term like "Events" (or its close cousin, "Incidents"). I'm ok with "Adverse Incidents" but maybe something more elegant can be found. Harel (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Harel and Martin, both of your comments make good points and, if it would help, I do think that we need the overall heading to be general enough to cover all of the events in the article, while subheadings for each accident or incident can then be descriptive in order to be clear about what occurred. A thought that has just occurred to me: as a compromise, would "Accidents and other incidents" be suitable? If this doesn't work, I suggest that we open a Request for Comment to find consensus for a heading. Arturo at BP (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think what you are suggesting Arturo is reasonable (that must mean I'm either a 'moderate' or a 'sellout,' ha. Seriously, I do appreciate your being open about your BP connections and your open attitude. My only concern earlier was about a BP employee not creating an almost A to Z draft for the article about themselves). Back to my main point, it is merely this - the events listed will not include positives. I mean there may be a 1 in 1000 event where a cute little baby dolphin is accidentally saved from a mean old shark by the drilling rig coming in between or something, but seriously, this listing as I understand it will not contain "happy/positive" items but more like spills, accidents, explosions, even sabotage, etc. So heading should not look super "neutral" any more than a section on illnesses in 1800 France or today should be called "health events".

It seems that Arturo is suggesting that Accidents (even though there are also rogue emplyees or sabotage etc other possibilities) is the most broad subcategory - not all the items, but many of them will be accidents, so "Accidents and other incidents" makes good sense in that light.. Thanks for your suggestion Arturo. (And even BP is enlightened enough to not want an arms race with its competitors to the point of who can use the weakest terms for negative events - companies look better when they own up to things; along with more recent examples, one remembers also what happened to Intel in the 1990s with the pentium chip flaw? the initial line, "There's not a problem, really, folks" was a PR disaster for them) Harel (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing 'sanitising' about the word 'incident' as a main heading; it is just a more general term. In the sub-headings we can use more specific and descriptive terms, like 'spill', 'explosion', or 'accident'; there we can be guided by sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Gosh Martin, I tend to agree--but then I tended to agree with Harel and Petrarchan as well! I so seldom have a completely neutral position that I'm not sure what it is supposed to feel like, and I worry that I actually may just be shallow!! Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope that I can persuade others on this. I really cannot see how 'accident' is less sanitising than 'incident', 'accident' implies a lack of culpability. Pretty well all the terms used in the oil industry are understatements by most standards, 'spill' for example could refer to a beaker of oil knocked off a bench. By using 'incident' we cover everything and allow ourselves the freedom to use the term used by sources for individual cases. In fact, I would suggest that we used the terms used by relevant WP article for consistency and because they have, no doubt, been well discussed already. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Good job Martin--I agree. :-) Actually if one were to look through the archived pages one would find an argument on using the word "spill" with some posters stating something like "Spill! that means more like 'I spilled a cup of coffee' than thousands of gallons of oil gushing out from the ocean floor!", etc. It could be said that in one sense this "accident" created a new word common to our ears in the same way that we all became familiar with the term "boom", though that familiarity was short-lived. Anyway, yes I'm in agreement with Martin, "incident" would be the preferable term. Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to see consensus emerging here regarding the heading. There have been good arguments for all terms above, and most of the suggestions put forward sound good. But as Gandydancer and Martin Hogbin have both said, "Incidents" seems to cover all the events best. Once agreed, it would be great if an editor could start implementing this. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for similar articles using "incidents" and have yet to find one. ExxonMobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, DuPont and Monsanto all have sections labeled "controversies". Exxon and ConocoPhillips have an "environmental record" section. Shell oil company has "legal issues" - a section which covers their controversies and which takes up most of the article, but no mention of it in the Intro. I think we can come up with a better term than 'incidents'. petrarchan47tc 21:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on my understanding, and according to WP:CRITS, it's better to avoid simply calling something "Controversies" or "Criticisms", because it can become a "POV fork". For this article, we already have topical section names for similar issues, but we need a catch-all heading for a sub-section collecting notable safety and environmental incidents and accidents. Three suggestions have been given above: "Incidents", "Accidents" and "Accidents and other incidents". Consensus seems to have been moving toward "Incidents" in the last few days, though this one point seems to be holding up the rest, which has consensus. Could you live with "Incidents" for now, and think about proposing an alternative later? Arturo at BP (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hogbin, regarding " I really cannot see how 'accident' is less sanitising than 'incident', 'accident' implies a lack of culpability" there are two issues not to confuse. Yes, there is the issue of culpability, on which you focus, and that is one place to avoid an inacurate false "neutrality" but it is not the only one, and it was not the one I was bringing up. The other false neutrality to not confuse with the first one, is independent of culpability (independnet of who is at fault or whether there is any person at fault) and that other false neutrality is about the nature of the event (regardless of fault or nonfault) Is the event positive or negative? Happy or sad? Please notice that one can ask this question without any reference to blame (or credit) for the good (or bad) event. I hope this is clearer. So, it is a false neutrality to name a list of negative events as "neutral" I will ask one more time: would you call a list of illnesses something like "Health events" in the title? No one would call a list of illnesses "Health Events" The word "Event" is neutral, so in theory it would include positive and negative. Is our list going to include positive events, things that Got Better? If so, then they are "events". But I have not heard anyone suggesting that. It will be a list of negative events, so why call it "events"? Or "indedents" ("incidents" means exactly the same as "events" in this context) Now I can see an argument that an inaccurate term or misleading term (in the sense of false neutrality) has been the default.

If people want to go with that, after understanding the false neutrality represented by calling a list of bad events, as merely "events" then that's one thing. But please don't confuse the issue I'm raising with a different false neutrality, which is about blame

As for "accidents" if you don't like it, we can avoid that too. After all, if you think I'm being too easy on the term accidents, that is independent of the criticism of the false neutrality of the word "events" or "incidents" (same thing basically). In my humble opinion, it's not necessarily the case that "Accident" rules out blame. One can say after all, "the accident was due to the negligence of [person or company]" Or "the accident was due to a leaking valve which, in turn, resulted from the deliberate order to stop all internal audits" etc. But if you feel strongly that it is not good enough, if enough agree, we can avoid that term too. But please let me just feel that I am heard about the very different type of false neutrality I was raising. It was not about blame but a false neutrality about the nature of the events. Will our list include happy improved positive events? Other than freak very rare ones? Is that the nature of the list? It's a list of "untoward" events, isn't it? Again there are examples where tradition/history take over. For example the term "climate change" (which was promoted by Reagan admins types, not IPCC, contrary to common impressions) is misleading since it does not refer to any "change" in common usage it's about something much more specific than, and not to include, things that are slow and natural. Similarly maybe "incidents" has become the default for "untoward incidents" or "untoward events" which is waht it really is, "negative events" in other words. If everyone is sure that the history and precedent is so strong that it can't be avoided, fine. But I'm just asking that this decision be made without misunderstanding or confusing two very different kinds of false neutralities. I'm about to take a break soon from this page, so have at it. Let this paragraph clear the record of which type of false neutrality - not the one about blame or lack of blame - I'd tried to raise. Best wishes. Harel (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Have just read comments by . petrarchan47tc. So clearly it is not the case there there is such a large historical habit of saying "incidents" that we defer to it despite its false neutrality. Now I actually agree with Arturo that saying "Controversies" have some problems. That doesn't mean we have to say "Events" or same thing, "Incidents" though, right? I often ask WWAMT? What Would a Martian Think? Someone visiting the Earth? In the abstarct these are "releases of chemical substances into the (wider) environment" in the most dry factual sense, whether leak or spill or explosion (which causes oil or gas release) etc. But that's too long for a title. How about looking back at the title of this section of the Talk page? "Environmental Record" and "Accidents/Safety Record" are listed. Or some combination of those two or three concepts? Wouldn't that cover the main concerns? raised above? I think "Environmental Record" is pretty reasonable.Harel (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think other articles have defaulted to 'controversies', and without a company editor on the talk page, no one had a problem with it. But I agree with Hamel, "Environmental record" seems the seems idea so far. petrarchan47tc 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Harel and Petrarchan, I think that in the course of the discussion about the "Incidents" heading, we've lost track of the overall suggestion for the structure. My suggestion was to have "Incidents" (or similar) as a subheading of an overall "Environmental and safety record" section. So, the sections on Deepwater Horizon etc. would still be under the overall "Environmental and safety record" heading, but grouped together under a subheading of "Incidents". Here's what I proposed again:

• Environmental and safety record
  • Environmental record
    • Environmental initiatives
    • Allegations of greenwashing
  • Safety record
  • Incidents
    • Sea Gem
    • Texas City refinery
    • Prudhoe Bay
    • Deepwater Horizon
    • Other incidents

As I mentioned above, the aim of this structure was to prevent confusion about whether an incident should appear under "Safety record", "Environmental record" or end up with duplication by including information on one incident under both. Would it perhaps help to call the section "Environmental and safety incidents"? Arturo at BP (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought Harel made a pretty good, and exhaustive, argument against using the word 'incidents' to refer to non-neutral events. petrarchan47tc 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What word would you prefer? Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I do wish I had a good option. I still cannot find another Wikipedia article that uses "incidents", or any word similar in its neutrality, used as this type of section heading. ExxonMobile has "environmental record" and "criticism" sections, Monsanto has "legal actions" and separate sections for "false advertising", etc., DuPont has "controversies", Shell has "legal issues". IMO, at the very least, "incidents" could be changed to "accidents". petrarchan47tc 14:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As the discussion is stalled over the usage incidents/accidents/something else and the proposed structure is using too many levels (subsections of subsections) I propose to change the structure a little bit for and to remove one level of subsections. The new proposed structure is following:

• Environmental and safety record
  • Environmental initiatives
  • Allegations of greenwashing
  • Safety record
  • Sea Gem accident
  • Texas City refinery explosion
  • Prudhoe Bay oil spill
  • Deepwater Horizon oil spill
  • Other major incidents

As a result, we are avoiding a dispute if the heading should say incident or accident. I also specified titles of the accidents as was proposed above. In the case of other incidents I propose to add the word 'major'. The reason is that as the term 'incident' is very wide and covers also very minor events. Beagel (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, this sounds like a good idea to me. My only suggested change to your structure is that I think it would be helpful to have an "Environmental record" subheading, similar to that for "Safety record". This would provide a section for a summary of BP's overall record on environmental issues. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "Major incidents" in my mind, is that for native English speakers, 'incident' means not major, or not a big deal. We use the word "incidentally" to denote a less important yet associated subject. Anything that is a big, major deal should not have the word 'incident' to describe it. petrarchan47tc 23:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That's true. I've thought long and hard about this and I've decided that there is no perfect word. For instance, one would never say, "The Three Mile Island Incident". On the other hand, the word "accident" carries the suggestion that is was an "act of God", or nature, or some such happening that was beyond the possibility to prevent. However if one were to look at most industrial "accidents" in almost every case of industry explosions, fires, ship wrecks, and on and on, one finds that they were accidents waiting to happen and entirely due to poor management practices, putting profit before concern of human well-being, etc. I even remember when my kids were little smirking, "it was an accident!!!" when they "accidently" hurt their sib (I never let them get away with that either :)). It would be the same as driving while drunk and killing a child and then saying, "But it was an accident! I checked the thesaurus and could not find any better term than these two. Six of one and a half dozen of the other... Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that "accident" is far from perfect, I find it far preferable to describe for the reader what the section contains. The reader can certainly decide whether they feel these events were "whoopsies" - but for us to categorize them as 'no big deal' incidents is POV in my understanding of the word. Looking over other similar Wikipedia pages, it looks like no one has really found the perfect word, but the majority have settled with "controversies". When I think of controversies, I imagine two sides battling it out. BP is NOT claiming that any of these events weren't unfortunate, so I don't see how we could call them controversies. There ARE controversies involving BP for sure, but these 'accidents' don't fall into that category. It's true "accident" can be defined as "An Act of God", but it is also defined as "unexpected, undesirable event; often physically injurious" which perfectly describes the events in question. petrarchan47tc 01:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that you did not understand what I proposed. I try to explain in more detailed way:

• According to my proposal there will be no separate heading for incidents/accidents/something else, but things like Deepwater Horizon, Prudhoe Bay, etc will be separate subsection under the section heading "Environmental and safety record". This is exactly to avoid discussion we had about the perfect word which is not needed in this case.
• In Arturo's proposal was after all these major events listed also subsection named "Other incidents". This is not a heading for Deepwater Horizon, Texas City refinery etc, but last subsection after these above mentioned subsections. By my understanding it should include events which are worthy to be mentioned but not notable enough to have their own separate subsections. There was no discussion about this heading before.
• I added a word 'major' to this subsection's title as otherwise there my be impression that this subsection covers all incidents which is impossible taking account the broad definition of the word incident.
• At the same time, we need a broader scope for this subsection to ensure that different things fit into it. E.g. hypothetical example: There is a serious violation of safety procedures but fortunately nothing happened. It is significant to be added in this article but not significant enough to have its own subsection. It can't be called accident as nothing happened as a result of this violation but this is definitely qualifies as incident. That kind of incident should be added into the subsection called "Other major incidents" but this is not for the Deepwater Horizon and other similar things.

I propose to prepare the draft for the "Environmental and safety record" and when we have draft maybe it would be easier to find a consensus. As the section will be quite a long, I propose to create a temporary subpage (Talk:BP/Draft) for this. Beagel (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Beagel's proposal to work on a draft in a sub page seems like a good one to me, so I have started the draft version of the "Environmental and safety record" section here. I have placed all of the current text from "Environmental record" and "Accidents" into the draft and organized them into the structure suggested by Beagel above, but with one difference. I found that it helped organize the information if "Environmental initiatives" and "Accusations of greenwashing" are made subsections of "Environmental record". Additionally, within "Other major incidents" I've included subsections for each of the incidents, using their current headings in the BP article. Although this means that there is another level of section heading, the headings help to break up the text and organize the information, so I think they are needed here. If others feel this does not work as well, they can feel free to adjust.

In the draft page, the two sections on Deepwater Horizon are under one heading titled "2010 Deepwater Horizon well explosion and oil spill" and I have made an attempt at removing duplicated information, although I have kept all the citations. For now, I've simply left "Safety record" as an empty subsection.

Now this draft is started, other editors can review and make adjustments before moving it into the article. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Mention of refinery explosion and record OSHA fine added to lead

I have included the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion which caused the death of 15 workers and resulted in a record-setting OSHA fine in the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course a highly notable incident such as this should be in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This Telegraph article from today regarding the hostages taken from the BP refinery in Algeria mentions: BP's safety procedures have been under intense scrutiny after a series of accidents including the Texas City refinery explosion in 2005, which killed 15 people, and the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, which killed 11 workers. BP was criticised for safety failings by investigations into both accidents.

It makes sense that the Texas City 'incident' would be mentioned in the 4th para of the Lede. petrarchan47tc 17:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me - but I'll say something in fairness to BP (although I realize coordinating this will possibly be a challenge) which is the same standards should be on wikipedia articles of their competitors. We don't want one company to pressure such things out of the lede, a second company to have a short mention in the lede, and a third to have an extended mention (here "short" and "extended" are to be understood not in absolute terms, but, naturally, are terms in proportion to how many actual incidents, how many casualties etc; obviously I'm not suggesting the records of all companies are the same) Alas I can't volunteer to coordinate, but throwing out this suggestion. Will take some work but (especially if discussion is preserved) will save time and energy later saving "both" or all sides some of the potential debates about equal-handedness.. Thanks for brining this up. Harel (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed all Wikipedia articles should be NPOV and follow the same guidelines for Ledes. I don't necessarily see articles in terms of groups. But regarding oil companies, ExxonMobile, for example, does not appear to be interested in making their Wikipedia article look good. So relatively little activity takes place over there. When criticisms are fairly added to the article, it doesn't cause the kind of shakeup that happens here. This article attracted a lot of attention due to how the third paragraph of the Lede read in June 2012, and to the repercussions that followed attempts at a remedy. petrarchan47tc 05:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying about the editors here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be far better if you concentrated on content rather that your perception of other editors. We should aim to have consistency between similar companies on WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly I can't speak for Petrarchan, but it does not appear to me that he is doing anything more than attempting to keep this article factual and unbiased. In view of my experiences with both this and the BP spill article, and the other corporate articles that I have worked on, I share his concerns. Gandydancer (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I was giving a factual account of my experience at this page since June 2012, and all that I have said can be corroborated by looking through talk history here and the edit history of BP and ExxonMobile pages. petrarchan47tc 21:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also I was referring to the fact that ExxonMobile does not have an employee helping to write their page. It's just a fact. Nothing to freak out over. petrarchan47tc 22:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead

The lead is not intended to be a noticeboard on which we post anything we think should be brought to the attention of the public, it is intended to be a summary of the article as a whole.

Although I do not challenge the addition of the Texas City incident to the lead, the basis on which we add anything to the lead should be that it forms an important part of the article, not that an individual thinks it should be there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Martin. Gandydancer (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The guideline at WP:LEAD recommends exactly that. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We are definitely missing a coherent summary of controversies in the lede. I think the two examples we have in the lede are fair examples of the more prominent controversies. For reference: from WP:LEDEThe lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (The news-journalism jargon term lede is sometimes used, but Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic ledes serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads)....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. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources petrarchan47tc 22:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that what is there needs to be more coherent or are you suggesting that we should add more? At present we have 1 paragraph out of 4 on controversies, the same as Exxon. Chevron, Shell, Total, and Conoco all have no mention at all of controversies in the lead although they all have sections on the subject in the body of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sure there are many, many articles in Wikipedia which aren't adhering to WP:LEDE. If editors here feel like remedying the articles Martin mentioned, great - but it doesn't need to be a subject of this talk page - we have enough on our plates as it is. petrarchan47tc 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, you have not answered my question, Are you saying that what is currently in the lead needs to be more coherent or are you suggesting that we should add more? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We are definitely missing a coherent summary of controversies in the lede (one needs to be added). I think the two examples we have in the lede are fair examples of the more prominent controversies (so they should stay). petrarchan47tc 23:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You are not making clear what you mean. We have a paragraph which summarises the subject. A summary is not a repetition of everything in the article but a reduced version of it, which is exactly what we have. I cannot see any way it can be made more coherent. Using other similar articles as a yardstick the current volume of text is slightly excessive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to continue using other articles as a guide-stick, you should have zero problem with calling the controversies section "Controversies", because practically all of them do. The fact that they say nothing about controversies in their Intro's is of no concern to us, only the Wiki guidelines matter (I wish this was obvious). Here is an example of a sentence (from the Intro in May 2012) which could go before the mention of Texas and the Gulf, BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety [incidents] and received criticism for its political influence. Others might want to expand that. I would feel comfortable with this and the two sentences we have presently in the 'controversy' paragraph of the lede. petrarchan47tc 23:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Updates following Texas City refinery sale

BP announced today that the sale of its Texas City refinery to Marathon is complete. I have looked through the article and there are a few places where updates are needed to reflect the sale.

1. In the "History" section it states that the Texas City Refinery was sold to Marathon in October: the agreement to sell was reached in October but only completed today. I suggest the following wording (editors can copy the markup from this message):

An agreement to sell the company's Texas City refinery to Marathon Petroleum was reached in October 2012 and the sale was completed on February 1, 2013.

References

2. In the "United States" section of "Operations", mention of the Texas City refinery had already been removed, except in the following sentence in the paragraph on petrochemical plants:

Its plant in Texas City, located on the same site as the Texas City Refinery, produces chemicals including propylene and styrene, which are used in the manufacture of products including windows, carpet and paint.

Since the section does not otherwise discuss the refinery, it may be confusing to mention it here. The Texas City petrochemical plant is still owned by BP.

3. The "2005 Texas City Refinery explosion" includes several mentions of the refinery as being currently owned by BP. The following language needs updating (or removing) to reflect that BP no longer owns the refinery:

...one of its largest refineries...

...the Texas plant, which is up for sale.

The other mentions of the refinery in the article appear to be fine in terms of representing the company's historical ownership of the plant. If other editors agree to the changes I propose above, could someone update the three sections of the article I have highlighted? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Updated per above suggestions. Beagel (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Beagel. Later this week I may have more updates once the company's Quarter 4 financial results are announced. I'll post another request here then. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)