User:Martin Hogbin/BPRfC

The page contains the rationale for my raising of an RfC on the BP page. I have given my argument here so that it can be presented clearly and in one piece. I have numbered the sections so that counter arguments can be put, either on the BP talk page or on this talk page. Comments on this page will be removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Details of my argument

1 The purpose of WP

WP is intended to be an encyclopedia. According to WP "An encyclopedia is a type of reference work – a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge". It is not intended to right great wrongs, or be a soapbox for either promoting or criticising a person or an organisation, or battleground for fighting these two out. Neither should it contain everything we can find out about a subject.

The BP article shows all the signs of being a battleground between those who wish to propagate criticism of BP and those who want to promote a balanced view.

2 Criticism

Where the subject of an article has received criticism it is right and proper that that should be mentioned in the article but this must always be given due weight. It is not the purpose of WP to convince the public the public how bad some companies are.

If a particular organisations has acted in a significantly worse way than similar organisations then, provided that we have an appropriately knowledgeable and authoritative source, we can say that in the article. That fact should stand its own right. We should not, however, try to hammer home the fact by increasing the volume of negative text or by using unencyclopedic language. Media reports are not authoritative in this respect, neither are court rulings or comments by judges. The purpose of courts is to deal with specific cases not to compare one company with another; they do not have the means to do this.

3 Consistency

A good model for any article is other articles of a similar nature that have reached featured article status.

There needs to be a balance between positive, neutral and negative information on a subject u. In the case of BP a crude measure (word count as of 9 December 2013) of negative content show a massive disparity between BP, other large oil companies, and other very large corporations.

Article	Total content	Negative content	Percent negative
BP	12402	7268	57
Chevron	8223	2583	31
Exxon	7842	2938	37
Total	1956	586	30
Shell	4619	1240	27
Conoco	1018	221	22
Microsoft *	5486	211	4
Walmart	8632	98	1
General Electric	4842	548	11
General Motors	7229	267	4
Nazi Party	8521	266	3
Pol Pot	7175	722	12
Stalin	16171	3448	21
Charles Manson	12607	3930	31

* Featured article

4 Anti-business

There is much discussion about undue influence by businesses in WP, particularly paid editing and advocacy. These are considered a risk to the independence, neutrality, and authority of WP. I have never seen an article that that has been harmed by business influence but I have seen several articles where various activist and environmental groups of editors editors have lost sight of the principal purpose of WP and turned it into an anti-business soapbox. The BP article is a good example of this.

5 Anti-oil

The oil and gas industry seems to be a particular target for anti-business sentiment. Oil is a dirty and dangerous business but in our present state it is necessary for the survival of civilization. Whatever your opinion on the rights and wrongs of fossil fuel consumption, the fact is that without oil and gas modern society would descend into pre-industrial chaos. These facts need to be taken into account when giving due weight to environmental damage and other harm caused by the oil and gas industry.

As can be seen from the table, oil industry articles, and in particular BP, contain a far greater percentage of critical content than other big businesses. It is not just the number of words of criticism that is the issue but the unencyclopedic and emotive wording used.

6 Language used

The comparisons below shows how excessive detail and emotive wording are used in the BP article. Compare this to the more encyclopedic language used in other large company articles.

Example 1

Microsoft

Microsoft has been criticized (along with Yahoo, AOL, Google and others) for its involvement in censorship in the People's Republic of China.

BP

In 2013 it was reported that dolphins and other marine life continued to die in record numbers with infant dolphins dying at six times the normal rate.

Example 2

Microsoft

Microsoft is also accused of locking vendors into their products, and not following and complying with existing standards in its software.

BP

According to a Columbia university study investigating the health effects among children living less than 10 miles from the coast, more than a third of the parents report physical or mental health symptoms among their children.[399] Australia's "60 Minutes" reported that people living along the gulf coast were becoming sick from the mixture of Corexit and oil.[400] Susan Shaw of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Strategic Sciences Working Group, stated in an Al Jazeera article, "BP told the public that Corexit was 'as harmless as Dawn dishwashing liquid' ... But BP and the EPA clearly knew about the toxicity of the Corexit dispersants long before this spill." According to Shaw, BP's own safety sheet on Corexit reported that there were "high and immediate human health hazards".[401] Cleanup workers were not provided safety equipment by the company, and the safety manuals were "rarely if ever" followed, or distributed to workers, according to a Newsweek report. The safety manuals read: "Avoid breathing vapor" and "Wear suitable protective clothing."[402][403]

Example 3

General Motors

In a recent and ongoing scandal, the General Motors plant in Colombia reportedly fired roughly 200 workers after they were injured on the assembly line, and in August 2012 negotiations refused to cover even the workers' medical costs or pension benefits.

BP

ProPublica found that "Taken together, these documents portray a company that systemically ignored its own safety policies across its North American operations -- from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico to California and Texas. Executives were not held accountable for the failures, and some were promoted despite them

Example 4

General Electric

GE has a history of some of its activities giving rise to large-scale air and water pollution. Based on year 2000 data,[67] researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute listed the corporation as the fourth-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with more than 4.4 million pounds per year (2,000 tons) of toxic chemicals released into the air.[68

BP

In September 1999, one of BP's US subsidiaries, BP Exploration Alaska (BPXA), pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from its illegally dumping of hazardous wastes on the Alaska North Slope, paying fines and penalties totaling $22 million. BP paid the maximum $500,000 in criminal fines, $6.5 million in civil penalties, and established a $15 million environmental management system at all of BP facilities in the US and Gulf of Mexico that are engaged in oil exploration, drilling or production. The charges stemmed from the 1993 to 1995 dumping of hazardous wastes on Endicott Island, Alaska by BP's contractor Doyon Drilling. The firm illegally discharged waste oil, paint thinner and other toxic and hazardous substances by injecting them down the outer rim, or annuli, of the oil wells. BPXA failed to report the illegal injections when it learned of the conduct, in violation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

7 They deserve it

Whether they do or not this is not the purpose of WP.

If any difference in approach is justified this must be supported by a reliable and authoritative source which relates to a comparison of factual evidence between different companies. Opinions by journalists, environmental activists, or even court judges, who will be looking at one company only, are not sufficient.