Talk:Energy Transfer Partners

Confusion who owns whom?

The page claims that Energy Transfer Equity (ETP) owns Sunoco and Sunoco's page reflects that as well. But my understanding is that Sunoco is an owned subsidiary of ETE not ETP which is also a subsidiary of ETE. But it seems now that Sunoco is buying out ETP for 21 billion? But both are owned by ETE. It is all very confusing.

http://fortune.com/2016/11/22/sunoco-energy-transfer-partners/

CubanoLoco (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

flagged for numerous issues

The stub seems to be written by an employee of Energy Transfer Partners.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Why I undid recent version

Editors should try to remain neutral, even when they feel strongly about a subject. People come to pages like this to get basic information, and then the ideological arguments can take place in other forums, but knowing that the facts and information they get from Wikipedia strengthens their perspective. This article needs lots of improving otherwise though, which is what the opening tag says. For one thing it is misleading about how the company is structured, and it reads strongly of conflict of interest by its original authors. LaurentianShield (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I added a bit on the recent news that triggered that edit. It's an issue that has a lot of emotion surrounding it. I'll watchlist this also. Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Company versus pipeline

I removed about half of the information about the pipeline as it is already covered, much of it word-for-word, in the pipeline article. I added a hat note to the section leading to the main article but we need to keep WP:UNDUE in mind when adding information to the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

it is probably best not

to not speculate too much in the article about what it means that Rick Perry, an ETP board member has been named Sec. of Energy by Donald Trump, who is himself an investor in ETP. We should just wait for the fact, right? And those would be that whether this site needs environment protection will be made by another Trump appointee, Scott Pruitt, to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency who seems to feel that the environment does not need protecting. Ah what a tangled web we weave . . ... Carptrash (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. This article has been treated as a sounding board for those who disagree with the pipeline, despite there already being an article about the pipeline and protests associated with it. I am not sure that anything about Rick Perry being nominated as a cabinet member has anything to do with the company, nor does an investment in the company by a politician have anything encyclopedic for the article. In fact, most of the pipeline protest information should probably be removed but I am waiting for the situation to calm down so that it can be written NPOV without conjecture. At this point, I think anything related to Perry or Trump would be conjecture as well. Hell, Trump hasn't even been officially elected or taken office yet. Nor has Perry even gone through a confirmation hearing. At most, listing Perry as a board member would be appropriate but if confirmed for SOS that would be short lived as well. Maybe adding to Perry's page that he is a board member? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The previous version prior to the protests read like the company's PR department wrote it, so NPOV is relative. Montanabw^(talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Didn't read the pre-pipeline version until now. However, the editing after the protest pushes POV the in the opposite direction like an attack page. Using words like "embroiled" or adding references to sources such as Common Dreams or Indian Country Today are not necessarily neutral. It also reads like someone is pushing the agenda or the protesters as out of the entire protest page, they add information about being pepper sprayed and attacked by dogs, yet nothing relevant to the proceedings of the actual pipeline. I changed it to a more neutral version I did back in October last year. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Kind of off topic, but I see there was at least one duplicate reference that I combined into one. I thought there was a tool available to check for and combine these but cannot locate it. If anyone can steer me in the right direction I would appreciate it. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. If this is to be raised again in the future, please provide evidence of common usage in reliable sources. Dekimasuよ! 06:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Energy Transfer Partners → Energy Transfer LP – The name of the company has changed 192.196.163.158 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like it merged with Energy Transfer Equity and is now officially called Energy Transfer LP.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Please, you are asked nicely in several places to base RM nominations and discussion on the article title policy. This one is a complete waste of time, yours included. See also wp:official names which explains some of the more relevant clauses of the policy, but in brief, we don't necessarily or immediately change an organisation's article name just because the organisation is in the process of rebranding itself. I have set up a redirect. Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More NPOV pushing

Recent edits show that NPOV pushers are back. Just a note to the anonymous users editing over the last couple of days - the issue about the pipeline has been discussed in detail before. There is a pipeline page where you can put the information as this is a company page and contains more than enough information about the specific project. Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you want to edit, you need to be WP:NEUTRAL. Your edits were reverted per WP:BRD. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And once again. This edit contains information that is NOT in the source provided. Again, please see WP:BRD and WP:CONS.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Williams merger fell through

The History section does not reflect that the proposed merger with Williams was terminated and Energy Transfer had to pay damages to Williams. 2601:1C0:4C03:E40:AC0C:B88A:D5AD:F14D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)