Talk:BP/Archive 12

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Culture of editing on this page

Latest comment: 11 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

Hi

I want to talk to you all. The culture of editing on this page is all messed up. A set of behaviors has evolved here, that is making this a very unwikipedia-like place. These behaviors are used mostly to prevent the addition of content that is negative. The behaviors are in evidence above, for anybody to see. They include:

quick deletes of NPOV and sourced information without very clear grounding in policy (e.g. WP:BLP)
constant demands made on people who have ideas for content that is negative (especially demands that similar content be added to other articles - which is really crazy)
authoritative and sometimes condescending tone used to dismiss content (hard to prove and harder yet to avoid sometimes, I know)
lack of AGF

For example, vigorous discussion is underway in the Talk section above as I write this, but Rangoon just deleted the subject content, and the edit note says " non-standard section and an apparent coat rack for attack content)" That is wrong on three levels. There is no "standard sectioning" in wikipedia policy. And WP:AGF is a fundamental wikipedia principle. And the deletion of sourced, NPOV content that is just being developed, is without justification in policy. (Sorry to single you out, Rangoon - you just happened to make an illustrative behavior while I was writing this)

But this kind of action, and rationale, is OK in the culture of editing this page. It should not be.

Articles grow when editors add content and other editors work together to improve it. I have worked on lots of controversial articles (I am the largest contributor to the Monsanto page and cleaned out a ton of POV, and badly sourced content attacking the company) but this is the first page on which I have experienced this kind of culture. It is a bad culture. It needs to go. I hope we can change this... if not I have to explore what kind of interventions are available to get us all some help or therapy whatever. But this has got to change. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, I appreciate highly how you contributed for finding very good solution in the case of incidents/accidents discussion. I also appreciate your work to mediate some other discussions here. Therefore, I am surprised about these comments. Based on yours some other comments I am assuming that the comment 'especially demands that similar content be added to other articles - which is really crazy' refers to my post at the 'Prudhoe Bay' section. I am really confused why expectation that information about the Prudhoe Bay oil spill should be added to the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article is 'really crazy'? It is natural to expect that detailed information should be added into the most relevant article which is in this case is the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and not BP. If you refer to the question about ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, well, that was question, not demand, which was based on my misinterpretation of the Bloomberg's news as I said in my next comment just immediately after that you are referring for. I fully agree with you that WP:AGF is a fundamental wikipedia principle and I expect that all editors will agree with this and will follow this. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for talking! Your comment is one that I had in mind, yes. And you are right, you asked it, you did not "demand it" - I apologize for my exaggeration. Since you name that interaction, let me explain what troubled me about it and why I wrote "demand". The dynamic that got set up on this page (especially with the quick deletes happening) was that one had to come to Talk to get blessing for content before adding it (or else one would just slapped with a quick delete and all that work would be wasted). In this case, Core suggested content, and your reaction was (a) negative for this article, and (b) suggesting that content be developed in another article and then summarized here (and then added to even other articles! which you did take back.. but which you still actually wrote!) and (c) although you say "we could", I have not seen you actually step up and help make the new content happen, and you did not in this instance. In a situation where somebody will not move without a "yes", suggestions effectively become demands. And somewhat (ouch) condescending seeming ones, for a third party to read. And where the ones only asking questions don't actually step up and edit, the page ends up frozen. See what I mean? That is what I meant. Part of why I pushed hard in the section above, is that the "quick delete" thing is the mechanism at the core of the problem. Thank you again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

But please let me be clear, it was "one" of the comments I had in mind, beagel, not just yours. There is a really crazy power dynamic playing out on this page, via these behaviors. I am not saying anybody is bad and I don't think anybody is bad... I think the culture is bad on this page and the behaviors transmit it.Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog said, "The culture of editing on this page is all messed up. A set of behaviors has evolved here, that is making this a very unwikipedia-like place. These behaviors are used mostly to prevent the addition of content that is negative." That is correct. When I came here on June 11, 2012 I made my first talk page note with a complaint that the article had a lengthy discussion of BP's green efforts in the lead and only one line of mention of environmental problems that didn't even mention the Gulf spill:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents.

Although Binsternet, Ptrarchan and I argued almost continually for environmental coverage in the lead, three months later, on August 11 we had only got as far as:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

It took another month to get the mention in the lead that it was the largest maritime spill in history. So yes, I'd certainly agree that there has been a steadfast attempt to keep anything negative out of this article. Gandydancer (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, there is a maze of noticeboards and bureaucratic procedures to resolve article issues. Did you ever attempt to use them? You know the old saying about a tree falling in the forest, and whether it makes a sound if no one can hear it. I'm not blaming you if you didn't, as the ones I've seen are the pits. Coretheapple (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core. I'm sure you are aware of how time-consuming and emotionally draining The Maze (as you so accurately call it) is. The tree falling was your fellow editors call for help. The fact that no help appeared is an example of why volunteer vetting of Corporate input just will not work. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course we did. Nothing ever came of it. We did our best, though neither Ptrar nor I had any experience in that sort of thing. What noticeboard and/or bureaucratic procedure do you think we should have used? Gandydancer (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no criticism intended. On the contrary, I wanted to know if the bureaucratic procedures are as useless as I suspected, and if the editors monitoring them were as clueless as they appear to be, and my suspicions are confirmed. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

[ed con] Buster, I once asked NW (my favorite! :-)) for help, telling him I was at my wit's end. My angle was that per policy the lead is supposed to reflect the article. He did make one lead edit while the edit wars were going on but one can't expect an editor as busy as NW to do the needed research to offer much help. Gandydancer (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add two issues which are or have been problematic:

labelling editor pro-BP and anti-BP editors. I think this is incorrect and that kind of labelling only creates a battleground atmosphere. I am sure that all current editors believe that they are trying to make the article NPOV. The problem is that everybody has a different POV what the NPOV is for this article. Labelling other editors does not help to find a common ground.
Commenting editors instead of their edits. Again, this is against of Wikipedia core principles and does not contribute to creation of a constructive and cooperative atmosphere.

Beagel (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried in my comments above to discuss behaviors rather than people, as I agree that ad hominem comments are not appropriate. It is a bit tricky, though. As I reviewed the Talk page above, there appear to be editors whose edits fairly consistently resist the addition of negative information about BP and editors whose edits fairly consistently are about adding such information. That is pretty easy to see... but I agree that moving from those behaviors to outright labels raises new issues.Jytdog (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Beagel said: "labelling editor pro-BP and anti-BP editors. I think this is incorrect and that kind of labelling only creates a battleground atmosphere."

Beagel, you and I both know very well that this situation has existed at least since I began editing this article in June 2012. I could name names, but you know who we are. While either side certainly sees their own position as pro-TRUTH, the sides do exist. I live in the US where it has become very obvious what happens when two factions are locked in dispute: Nothing happens. I believe that Jtydog is correct when s/he says that talk page debate has broken down for this article. Admitting this fact does not result in a battleground atmosphere but rather results in a possibility to move forward. It was not acceptable that it took a month to get the word "Deepwater Horizon" into the article lead and three more months to get mention that it was the largest maritime oil spill. After all these months I am sure glad to see a few more interested editors on board to help with the editing of this article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth... my intention is starting this section, was to throw a flag up and try to point toward a new way forward. I was very afraid that it would lead to a rehashing to the past, which I think is not productive. My hope is to free this up so things can move -- to ask people to not be so quick to delete and not just criticize, but instead to work together to build new content. Everybody is free to do as they want, of course, so if you all want to dig into the past nobody can stop you.... clearly feelings are bruised. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I give up... Gandydancer (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't! You have lots of great ideas to contribute. Your work is valuable. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, please don't!. Stay the course. It will get better. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, please remember that AGF cuts both ways. I have no connection whatever with BP or the oil industry but on several occasions I have accused of being a paid editor or an oil industry stooge.

I have no objection to anything bad about BP being added to this page, provided that we have proper, independent, reliable sources for what we say or imply. The more contentions the subject, the more important it is got get the sourcing right. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin thanks for talking. I carefully framed my remarks above in terms of behavior and culture - I don't think anybody is evil and I do assume AGF - no need for disclaimers. I do know what it is like to be accused of being a stooge from my work on Monsanto and the genetic modification articles and I wouldn't accuse anybody of that. Something just got broken here. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I was not accusing you but others have not assumed good faith regarding my motives, which are to keep WP factual and not see it used as a medium for promoting personal opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Martin, feelings are bruised. There was a nasty culture here before -- let's move forward.Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The culture here still seems to be one of BP bashing, based on US media reports; just look at the to-do list below. As I have always said, I am happy to see anything about BP go in here, good or bad, so long as it is properly sourced and in accordance with WP policies.

After the DWH explosion and spill BP has, not unexpectedly considering the harm that was done, taken a basing from the US media. Some of what the media say may well be justified and warrant inclusion here, I do not know, but only if we can find proper independent reliable sources to support it. The media reports do not themselves constitute reliable sources for sweeping statements of opinion about the company as a whole. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin.. you are focusing on the content; I am focusing on the process.Jytdog (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Clair oilfield

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Although Clair oilfield is an important development by BP on the UK Continental Shelf, I don't think that we should included details about the project here. The ownership information of the Clair field is something which is important for the Clair oilfield article but it is a minor detail for this article here. Also information when the development was approved and when which stage was announced. I propose to cut this paragraph as following:

As of 2012, the company announced that it was focusing its investment in the UK North Sea into four development projects including the Clair, Devenick, Schiehallion and Loyal, and Kinnoull oilfields.^[1]^[2] BP is the operator of the Clair oilfield, which has been appraised as the largest hydrocarbon resource in the UK.^[3]

I think this would be a sufficient information about the Clair field for this article. The size of this article is too long and we should try to cut-off all non-core details which could be added in the specific articles. Beagel (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and done.Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi beagel. Wikipedia guidelines on length are here WP:LENGTH, and recommend a "page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." I just the ran the script from here, and here is the output:

File size: 664 kB Prose size (including all HTML code): 114 kB References (including all HTML code): 29 kB Wiki text: 173 kB Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9843 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 2012 B

Yikes! It appears that we need to do some splitting. And yes, the detail I just added should go into the Clair field article. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Conversion to SI units

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why the convert templates converting barrels to cubic meters (SI units) were removed? the edit summary says: rm - OTT for lead. What that means? WP:OTT stands for Wikiproject Ottawa, so there should be some other meaning. Beagel (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Over the top. In my view these are useful in the main body of the article but a bit too much for the lead. They will go over the head of 99.9% of readers and break the flow of the text.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Split needed.. how to do it??

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

What do you all think? We really should cut this down to about a third of its current size... Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts on this. Overall, I think the article should mostly describe BP's contemporary business. I don't think there is room for much more than that. It would be preferable not to lose any of the content that people have worked on, so ideally we create subarticles and leave wikilinks or 'stub' sections behind; my philosophy on splits is that the "stub" section left behind should be a copy/paste of the lede from the subarticle, with citations added... and then that stub is fiercely defended from people who want to add to it or else you end up with bloat and overlapping content; new content is added instead to the subarticle - only if that article's lede changes, should the stub change...

The first chunk of the history section could be dramatically shortened or even "stubbed", since there in a major article on that.
Potentially/alternatively, the entire history section could be moved into a new article called "BP history" and we take that whole narrative out of here and start with the Operations section
BP Operations by location could potentially be taken out completely and become its own article; BP in America could be a whole article off that one... and the main content of Industrial Accidents could go out of this article and into that one.
I am tempted to suggest that Industrial Accidents and Environmental record could be split off into its own article, but I think that comes too close to being a POV fork and does not fly...

Initial thoughts, anyway... Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My initial response is supportive. Never having been involved in such a major undertaking to restructure an important article, I may be a bit naive. As long as the reader is provided with easy links and "see also's", etc. and as long as it moves the editors of this article to a more congenial and collaborative place, I'm all for it. Dale Carnegie's first Rule , "Don't criticize", comes to mind. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to reorganise the article that I suggest that we take the opportunity to look at the articles on the other supermajor oil companies so that we can achieve a degree of consistency. I appreciate that there is no absolute requirement for consistency between articles on different companies in the same sector but any strong inconsistencies in the way that things are organised suggests that a NPOV is not being taken somewhere. I see no disadvantage in a consistent approach to articles on the supermajors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Cutting down the article size to a third would be overshooting, but as content is being added some split definitely becomes necessary. Don't simply cut away entire sections into their own articles, instead, keeping some stub or summary text is always to be preferred for maintaining comprehensiveness. I agree that both the History and Operations by location sections are good candidates for shortening. Nageh (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is at present not excessively long, and nor are the History or Operations sections within it. The article suffers from inbalance due to an excessive focus on industrial accidents in one country (the United States) over 1/10th of the company's history (the past decade). Yes both the history of BP and the operations of BP are notable topics for articles (although the latter is best dealt with by creating articles for operations in specific countries, such the United States, United Kingdom and Egypt, rather than creating an Operations of BP article) but the current content in this article is not so long that it currently requires cutting back.

And no the article is not just about BP in 2013 but BP as an overall topic, including its history. History sections are core content for company articles in WP. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon, thanks for weighing in! When I wrote that the article is about 3x longer than it should be, that is based on the criteria provided by the article size guideline: WP:LENGTH. Text from the guideline and data showing the article size are in the section above -- heck I will just copy it below with some bolding added for your reading ease. But what is your basis in policy/guideline for saying it is not too long? Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

quote:Hi beagel. Wikipedia guidelines on length are here WP:LENGTH, and recommend a "page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." I just the ran the script from here, and here is the output:
File size: 664 kB Prose size (including all HTML code): 114 kB References (including all HTML code): 29 kB Wiki text: 173 kB Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9843 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 2012 B
Yikes! It appears that we need to do some splitting. And yes, the detail I just added should go into the Clair field article. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)unquote

You are getting your numbers wrong. The readable prose size (the viewable text in the main sections, as per WP:LENGTH) was 60 kB (9843 words), which was not so far off from 30 kB to 50 kB (6,000 to 10,000 words). Concerning cutting down the History section, in retrospective I agree that it should be left as is. Btw, Jytdog, could you respond to my other comments at Talk:BP#New_PR_section? Thanks. Nageh (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right! Just ran the script again, and we are now down to this: Prose size (text only): 56 kB (9238 words) "readable prose size". My mistake, thank you for catching it. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Structure of supermajors

This is not exactly the right (although related) place, so please feel free to move it if you will find more proper place. I wanted to make this comment already some days ago but as a very intensive discussion went on, I decided to wait. However, as Martin already mentioned structure of supermajors, I start the discussion here. I have studied a most of supermajors articles and have come to conclusion that probably the best (but, of course, not perfect) structure has the BP article, probably due to intensive edits, discussions and even disputes which have been during the last year. Structure of all other supermajors seems worse. Week ago I reviewed Chevron Corporation and I have to say that BP is in better shape that Chevron. Therefore I think that we have to find the best structure here and after that to imply the same structure for all articles about successors of Seven Sisters (BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron Corporation, ExxonMobil), New Seven Sisters (China National Petroleum Corporation, Gazprom, National Iranian Oil Company, Petrobras, PDVSA, Petronas, Saudi Aramco), other supermajors (Total S.A., ConocoPhillips) and some other major oil companies (inter alia Anadarko, Eni, Statoil, Rosneft). Of course, the structure can't be always identical but alt least the main sections should be the same. Probably the best place to discuss it could be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies with the notification at all relevant article's talk page and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Any comments? Beagel (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well...I think we might have a problem with the editors at those other articles responding with open arms to "The BP Editors" marching into town...ready, willing and able to change everything up. Not saying its not a great idea and it makes it easier for us to focus on OUR task ahead (TASK:To be the best collegiate congenial "create a great article" example we can be!). Just sayin...let us respect the work of those other editors and agree NOW that we will, if those type of changes Beagel and Jytdog are talking about happen,, be respectful and co-operative and understanding. With that in mid, I suggest we wait abit with going to those other projects. Lets get OUR ducks in a row, work together, and then we can "sell" what we have created. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that before going "public" we have to have a good example to deliver. And when we have something to deliver we have to invite other active editors on these articles to discuss this at the "neutral field". Unfortunately, there is not so much active discussions at these articles as show this unfortunate story with edit requests at the Chevron's talk page which stayed without any response for one and half year. This article has had the most active discussion among "supemajors" and notwithstanding the reasons for this, lets use this as an opportunity. But yes, lets concentrate now to improving this article. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Video

Latest comment: 11 years ago61 comments13 people in discussion

An editor has reverted my addition of 2 external videos twice and told me to come to the talk page - though he has not mentioned anything here. I think this is the second set of edits I've made on the page and the second time something similar has happened. The first time I corrected an incorrect "fact" and the edit eventually stayed in the article.

I have no question that the videos will stay as well. The Frontline video, which is now back in the Environmental record section, starts out with about 20 minutes on BP's environmental record and environmental strategy, and then goes on to show how the Deepwater Horizon oil spill fits in this pattern. The Stanford video takes more of an engineering approach and examines deep water drilling in the Gulf with the Deepwater spill as the centerpiece. Both clearly related to BP's environmental record, both made by responsible organizations. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the videos build up to the topic of the Deepwater Horizon disaster by describing the background of BP engineering and the unsafe practices. Would you characterize the videos as being primarily about the Deepwater Horizon disaster, or would they be more about BP as a corporation? Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The two videos have very different starting points, but I'm tempted to say right between your two choices - the firm's environmental record. The Frontline video starts with the environmental record and the firm's strategy, and the Deepwater spill appears to emerge inevitably. On the Stanford video, I haven't gotten through all 80 minutes yet (it's tough going), but I'd say the major single point is the near impossibility of conducting fully safe drilling in the Gulf - a big part of BP's strategy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Would maintain a neutral position by also having a BP video about their safety procedures? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems just a tad frivolous to me. It reminds me of this article. Or perhaps this one. But maybe I'm misinterpreting; I would welcome alternative explanations -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 09:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the videos are relevant, this comment was purely in response to Martin Hogbin's comment. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The videos are highly relevant and should be included. The article currently is unbalanced in that it provides insufficient material on that catastrophe. Coretheapple (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That's because it has its own article. Going into too much detail here would be a weight issue. The Frontline video seems fine, but the second video seems far too out of place and focused on Deepwater to be proper here. It would probably work better in the Deepwater article itself. Silver seren^C 20:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Then why not restore at least the Frontline video? Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a number of issues with the addition of the box as proposed: 1. The Stanford video is not about BP per se but Deepwater and Gulf of Mexico drilling in general 2. Why place the video links in a melodramatic box with a picture of the Deepwater explosion above (and a picture which is duplicated elsewhere in the article? 3. Why place the video link at the top of the Environmental record section rather than alongside the text for Deepwater? I would agree with a link to the PBS video being included alongside the section on Deepwater. The box, the picture, the Stanford video and the box location are all out of place though.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even look at how it was being placed in the article. Did someone seriously do that? Silver seren^C 04:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Should video(s) like all other external links go to the 'External links' section rather than into the body text? Beagel (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That means in case if there is consensus for inclusion. Beagel (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Which there is not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Links should not go in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of the video. There is no consensus as yet. Do editors want to include or exclude the use of the video in the body of the article in any way? I support exclude at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've put the video back with a different photo

The use of the external media template is explicitly covered in WP:EL and should be placed in the same way any other media is placed, i.e. in the relevant section - here it's about the environmental record, so it goes there.
The photo was not a duplicate of the other one on the oil spill, but in any case I've replaced it with a different one.Have you noticed that there are 3 photos of office buildings (plus one inside an office building), 3 photos of service stations, and now 2 of the oil spill. This spill cost the company 1/3 of its value so far so there shouldn't be any question of weight - the spill is much more important than office buildings. In general some folks have serious problems with "weight" if they think the company's environmental record deserves less space.
I think the Stanford video gives a very serious look at the causes of the spill - and much of BP's environmental record- and gives some balance to Frontline. I've looked for BP videos on the subject, but they strike me as being clearly inferior. Somebody would likely accuse me of making them look bad by the direct comparison, but if anybody has another video that they think belongs, please include it.
There's no consensus here for removing the videos, and no credible reason given for removing them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

All content is a matter of consensus. I support the removal of the video as not having a consensus to include.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As has been stated above by more than one editor, links do not go in the body of the article. There is not consensus to ignore this policy or guideline as yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WPEL "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. ".--Amadscientist (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one defines consensus in a situation like this. The pros and cons seem evenly split. However, I notice that there is some sentiment among one of the "cons" to including one video. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The same way we define all consensus: what everyone can live with. If I was the only holdout on this. I would simply concede a rough consensus and live with it. We are no where near that yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring all other aspects of this, because I haven't yet had the time to go through it, {{External media}} is listed as a specific exemption to the requirement that external links cannot be in the body of the article [1]. The question that must be asked is whether or not inclusion meets the criteria outlined at Template:External media#When to use. Ryan Vesey 14:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is excellent input. However, we must not forget that regardless of the footnote and template, it is still content which requires a consensus. But the actual question I think that is indeed important is, can this be uploaded to Wikipedia as a video file. If this is true, I wonder how much objection there wold be to include it. That may be worth attempting.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just watched the Stanford video

I have just watched the 1 hour 20 minute video all the way through. It provides a technical view of how the DWH explosion occurred. I would recommend any one interested in that subject to watch it. On thing, however, is abundantly clear; the video is not about BP. It is about the DWH explosion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend the addition of a link to the video in the appropriate place in the Deepwater Horizon explosion article but it is not about BP and has no place here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's about BP. The Deep Water Horizon explosion is a seminal event in the history of the company. It's a long and dull academic video, and I can't fathom why it is so controversial as an addition to the article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you watched it? It simply is not about BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the issue on how much it is about BP, you state yourself that it is a "long and dull academic video". What benefit do you claim readers get from including the video in the article? Ryan Vesey 18:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If they're interested in how the explosion took place, that video tells the story ad nauseum. I think it's a useful video, as it explains how an accident took place which became the defining moment in the recent history of the company. Apart from being dull and academic, I don't see the objection. Sorry, I may be dim on this subject, but I'm not seeing it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"long and dull" is in the eye of the beholder. I see no credible reason to prevent our reader from being made aware of and then, possibly, beholding the video. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If they're interested in how the explosion took place, they probably will look this information at the Deepwater Horizon explosion article. At least, this is what an average reader is expected to do. Beagel (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will put the link there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A reader with a greater technical background would no doubt find that video most edifying. I don't see the harm of adding it, really. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

But is it not about BP. If you disagree, please tell me what this video tells us about BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the connection between the Deepwater Horizon disaster and BP is self-evident. Can you please explain to me how they are not related? Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is a connection, but the video is clearly not about BP, it is specifically about the DWH explosion. This article is about BP and the video tells us nothing about BP. We already have a link to the article on the explosion, where I have added a link to the video. We should not include all that article here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I hear you, but I think that there is enough of a connection that it would be useful to readers who want to get into the weeds of the explosion. It's not my cup of tea, but I think it is beneficial to have it out there for people to examine if they wish. Are you concerned about the accuracy of the presentation? Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No I am not concerned about the accuracy of the presentation, that is why I added it in its proper place; the Deepwater Horizon explosion article. Anyone who wishes can look at it. In fact I think they should. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I think that article and placement is the best way to handle this. Thanks. What are other editor's thoughts on this?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with having the video focused on DWH in the DWH article. I disagree with Martin that it is not "about BP" -- of course it is about BP, in the sense that BP owned the well, hired the contractors, etc etc -- DWH is BP's doing. But it is piling on information in a section that is meant to be a stub, for the longer article on DWH. The video belongs there.Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

frontline video

The conversation on the frontline video fell off. I just watched it. I disagree strongly with smallbone's characterization of it, as being about BP's environmental record. You gotta have some serious filters to describe it that way. Rather, it is about BP's safety record -- what caused this series of accidents? It explains what happened at BP after its meteoric rise through M&A. The documentary makes the point clearly that a) BP failed to create an operational organization that could run effectively the huge company it so quickly became (in the words of Tony Hayward at Stanford: "a company that was too top down, too directive, and not good at listening... we failed to recognize that we were an operating company, we had too many people that did not understand what it took to run operations" ); and that b) in order to keep its stock price high, it kept profits high by consistently underinvesting its capital in maintenance of the infrastructure it acquired and in the projects it was building. It shows the pattern. Hayward tried to fix it - he allocated $14B to infrastructure and established a safety group, but the stock market didn't like it and so the cost-cutting started again. (BBC voice over "BP has announced a bid to cut costs, increase revenues, and improve BP's lagging performance") The industrial accidents were avoidable and BP failed to avoid them because it lacked the management to see them coming, the safety policies that could have prevented them (hayward again: "this is about a fundamental lack of leadership and management in the field of safety") and it failed to invest its capital in equipment maintenance/repair/replacement . It shows very clearly the context in which this series of industrial accidents happened. Some of which had big environmental consequences, some of which did not (the explosion at the Texas refinery, the Thunder horse near capsize that caused Lord John his job) It belongs in the article. I think it fits best in the industrial accidents section. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog, my sound is not working and I haven't been able to watch the film, so your summary was just perfect for me!Gandydancer (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the main reporter in the Frontline video is investigative reporter Abrahm Lustgarten, who is named in Rangoon's draft for the Safety section above... as is lustgarten's book, "Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster", published in 2012. Based on the description Rangoon provides, this video and that book probably have very similar content and make similar arguments. Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Frontline video is an assassination, entirely unsuitable for inclusion or linking from an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Although you or I might feel that the video is selective, simplistic and one sided, it does nonetheless focus on BP and represents a widely held view of BP's safety record, thanks to the selective, simplistic and grotesquely dumbed down mainstream media of the United States. It would be good if we could find another video to balance it. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, as I noted, this is probably the same matter as the book you cited - since you cited it, can you please tell us how it differs from the video? Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

We could potentially balance the Frontline video with a BP promotional video if we can find one but this is not how WP should work. WP requires us to present a neutral POV rather than two extremes. We should be looking for a quality independent reliable source that gives an authoritative assessment of BP's comparative safety record. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin. I have done a lot of work on controversial articles -- I have been editing the Monsanto article and the suite of genetic engineering articles for a while now, to try to create NPOV, well sourced articles. In the course of that I had to get rid of a lot of POV and untrue content and replace it with NPOV, true content, and I replaced POV sources with reliable ones, and have tried to ensure that the community that thinks Monsanto and GM are evil doesn't add back the POV and badly sourced content that was in there before. It has been hard work to find really good sources and keep the article neutral and work with editors who are passionate about the issues. So I get where you are coming from, somewhat. But I think you are being too hardcore. Like Monsanto, BP has done bad stuff but they are not evil. If you look at the Monsanto article, the bad stuff is there, clear and bright, along with the good stuff - stated in a NPOV way and well sourced. You have to let the bad stuff be here too. The Frontline show (and I assume the book that goes with it but am waiting for Rangoon to weigh in) do tell a negative story. There is a negative story to be told - in my summary above I took some care to give some quotes from Tony Hayward who frankly acknowledged those problems and tried to tackle them. PBS in general is the most widely respected source of news across the political spectrum in the US (http://ivn.us/2013/02/07/independents-reflect-trust-in-television-news-media-trends/) (look at most trusted and least trusted and subtract the results... PBS ends up way better than anybody else). Frontline is a reliable source -- you cannot just dismiss this report as a hatchet job. I agree there is more to the story (there always is) and I have been looking for a reliable secondary source on BP's efforts to run their company well and safely and profitably. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, the idea of creating "balance" by including a BP promotional video is not OK. We don't do "balance" at Wikipedia. We study reliable secondary sources and create NPOV content based on them, that describes the world as it is, the best that we can. A BP promotional video is not a reliable source and cannot be used to generate content. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Point taken on the difference between safety record and environmental record, but of course there is a great deal of overlap. I've looked a great deal through other videos trying to explain BPs safety/environmental disasters and the frontline one is head-and-shoulders above the rest. Stanford was pretty good too in its own way. BP has 170 some videos, some with very tempting titles, but the ones I've looked at just don't make the grade: "promotional videos" is overstating their value. In any case, I've put the Frontline video in the accidents section (Texas City, witch is covered and just above the DWH section) - without Stanford this time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Re the questions to me above - I don't recall proposing having a link to a BP video, although I can't see that it would be a bad thing depending on the quality of the video, and I haven't read the book being discussed all the way through, just parts of it. I don't necessarily agree with the premise of the book just because I used it as a source, and I have been quite clear that the draft I posted above was not being proposed for direct copying into the article but was simply to get the ball rolling on a safety record overview. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, above you opened a new section called "Safety record" and proposed text. The last paragraph of that text states - in the text, not in the footnotes, the following: "Links were drawn between incidents such as Deepwater Horizon, Prudhoe Bay and Texas City, with BP's safety culture being widely criticised as being complacent and compared unfavourably with peer ExxonMobil.[36] In "Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster", published in 2012, investigative reporter Abrahm Lustgarten made a number of claims that BP's safety culure and performance was damaged during the period in which John Browne was Chief Executive due to a management approach which emphasised controlling costs over safety.[37]" As I wrote above, the main reporter in the Frontline video is that same guy - Abrahm Lustgarten - and based on your brief description it appears that the Frontline video is making the exact same points. Since you cited the book I assume you read it, so I asked you -- does it indeed make the same points? Is the book also "selective, simplistic and grotesquely dumbed down"? If so why did you so prominently feature it? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for your considered response. I have no connection to and no special love for BP but like you, I am trying to defend various articles against editors who see WP as a medium for promoting their gripes against organisations.

The suggestion of balancing the Frontline video with a BP one was mine and was not intended to be taken seriously. It was a response to Rangoon's comments, which I also suspect were not entirely serious.

I cannot see any way in which we can take an investigative journalism report as a reliable source on BP's comparative safety record within the oil industry, as Buster7 seems to think below. The producers are simply not in a position to access or process the necessary information and it clearly was not their intention to produce a balanced and neutral report on BP. It is a sensationalist news article intended to draw a large audience.

Of course, the report does tell us how some people and news media in the US see BP and I would object much less if it were presented that way.

The Stanford video starts by saying that the Deepwater Horizon project was a commercially complex project (it likened this aspect to the Apollo programs). At the moment, not unexpectedly, everybody is blaming everybody else. BP were the operators with ultimate control of the project and therefore the buck must stop with them but as yet there is no clear indication from the courts as to who was actually to blame for the accident. I find it odd though that there is none of the hysteria we see on this page on the Halliburton or Transocean pages. They are actually examples that this page might follow a bit more. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Frontline video is a concise clear presentation. It achieves reliability at every level. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I have not been able to watch the video but wouldn't it be better placed with the Gulf explosion section rather than the Texas section? Though I'd guess that it covers BP's long history of cost-cutting leading to accidents in general and that is the reason that you placed it at the top? Gandydancer (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, if you want to know what actually happened in the DWH explosion, explained in detail by a professor from a prestigious US university then watch the Stanford report. Some may find it rather dull but that is because it sticks to the facts rather than trying to inflame passions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Location

The external videobox together with the following image makes the section layout look ugly. Why the video is not put in the 'External links' section like other external links? Beagel (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Did it look less ugly with the other image? I don't understand... That said, I don't mind it going to external links. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not about the image but the videobox template and an image put after each other makes the section look ugly. Maybe this is due to the resolution of my computer, don't knew. This was the same with the previous image. Beagel (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

New PR section

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I just edited the new PR section, to make it more a whole PR story for BP since 2000; it would be interesting to extend it back before that but I have no more time. Interested in feedback. (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As the version 02:27, 3 April 2013 (UCT) by Jytdog there seems to be some overlapping of this section and the 'Company name' subsection. I think it would be better if the issue of the name, logo and slogans are discussed in one place. However, I don't have any concrete proposals at the moment. Beagel (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Where would you like it? As far as I am concerned please feel free to consolidate.Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for removing the tag! I hope others agree. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have already consolidated this information. Maybe all PR section should be a subsection of the 'Corporate affairs' section? Beagel (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I went ahead and did it this morning, sorry about that. I would be fine with making the whole section a subsection of corporate affairs, sure.Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No-no, this was not critics. This merger was fully in line with what I proposed, so thank you for doing this. Beagel (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nageh went through and made some changes, comments, and tagging. First - it would be great if folks pitched in and worked together to improve the page, rather than just being critical. I went through and addressed the tagging, so that is done. Nageh deleted a bit of an "essay" that I included from a book by the former CEO of Shell. I wanted to kick this PR section off by stating the (rather obvious) point that oil companies have a tough job with PR in general, to set the stage for BP's "green" campaign and its success. I thought the essay was great, and it also made it very clear that the problem was not BP's alone -- a LOT of the comments in Talk above asked that content be contextualized in terms of the industry as a whole, and this bit from Shell did that well, I thought, and also made some interesting points about why. So there it is. If anybody else wants to restore the text that Nageh deleted that is fine by me -- shortening it is also fine by me. Leaving it deleted is fine by me - but I have provided my rationale for including it. Also, Nageh deleted (with un-necessary superlatives - it is unclear how a single sentence could be "massively" undue) the sentence conveying the fact that BP's sponsoring of the Olympics gave its image a bump, on the grounds that it is not notable. I included that b/c it was part of BP's efforts to raise its image following the blow it took, and it worked. If it stays deleted, I can live with that. But I thought it was useful information. Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize it would be great if I actually added to the page, still it was meant as constructive criticism (and my time is limited). As concerns providing context, that is certainly desirable but not in the form of an essay. Furthermore, this page is on BP and not on general PR struggles of oil companies. As concerns your mention of BP's successful(?) sponsoring of the Olympics, that seems like cherry-picking. Surely, they have invested massively in all sorts of PR and some if it certainly was successful. If it is noteworthy to report on their PR success a more general statement seems desirable. Having said that, keep up your efforts in improving this page. Nageh (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I understand your reasoning - especially about the length - it was just such great writing and explained so well the concrete experience of consumers with oil companies.. but i too was uncomfortable with its length and did shorten it some after I took it from the source. About contextualization - since you took out the first sentence about oil companies including BP having a PR problem from the get-go, the contextualization is not needed, which is why I am fine with letting your deletion stand. But as I wrote above, I thought it was useful to state that to establish the baseline from which BP's PR efforts have to work. Let's see what the rest of the gang says. Wrt to the Olympics, if you look at the source I had provided you will see that perception of BP's brand improved following the sponsorship, and it improved more so than that of any other sponsoring company but Visa. That is why I used the word "successful". In the world of PR, that is remark-able. I wouldn't call it cherry-picking....Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fourth level headings

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Also I understand the rationale for breaking out the other countries section, I don't think that this is the good decision. As a result, the text is too fragmented and split info very small fourth level subsections. This is something which is discourage for GA and FA level articles, and I definitely believe that one day this article will achieve the FA status. I propose to merge these small subsections back into the single 'Other countries' subsection, and even more, also to merge the downstream subsection into single subsection. Beagel (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the ambition to shoot for FA/GA! For me, tough call what to do with this. I found the former text hard to slog through; it was laundry list-y, and I couldn't figure out how it was ordered as it jumped all over the planet and also jumped around in business unit. Maybe we can hold on this pending the split conversation below, and then figure out what to do with it? And each of the country topics could use expansion, as Rangoon has mentioned more than once. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the latest edits dividing 'other countries' section again into small and fragmented forth level subsections do not seem good. Too small subsections, too fragmented. The previous division (one subsection for the UK, one subsection for the US, one subsection for the rest of the world — all about 1/3 of BP's operations) was more balanced and integrated. Yes, of course, we may expand all these small subsections but adding additional details will create undue weight. The current structure is more suitable for the BP operations by country article, so I have nothing against if that kind of article will be created. However, I think that in this article here, we should remove the forth level headings in this subsection and also merge some paragraphs, if necessary. Beagel (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the headings aid structure and will encourage content development, and ultimately the creation of articles for subjects such as BP America, BP United Kingdom, BP Egypt, BP Australia and BP China. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It is fine with me if you would like to create BP Egypt or BP China. Ss I said, the best way to do this is by creating BP operations by country and expanding country-based sections there. However, having one or two-sentence subsections as we have right now here does not aid the structure; vice versa, it fragments the article and therefore should be avoided. Certainly there may be additional details about operations worth to be added here but not so much that to expand these subsections to proper subsections. Not all details suits in this article due to undue weight. Beagel (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The level of detail currently in this article about topics such as BP Angola, BP Australia, BP China, BP Egypt and BP Germany is grossly thin. I am against the creation of a BP operations by country article at this point because 1. I don't think the level of detail in this article about operations is excessive, 2. many of the national operations are notable for individual articles, and that is the most "natural" solution, and 3. we risk having three levels of articles addressing BP operations if we adopt that approach (BP operations being dealt with in this article (as they must be, since they are core part of the topic), in a BP operations article, and then in articles on national operations. In fact four levels as topics such as BP Air and BP Shipping are notable and suitable for articles too). Rangoon11 (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not insisting to create BP operations by country, I just proposed this as one possible way forward. As I also said, I have nothing against if country-focused articles are created (I have suggested some of them myself). Detailed description of BP's operations in some countries may be notable in that countries context; however, this does not mean that this should be notable in this article context. I think that a good overview of the BP's operations is already included. There may be need for adding some details somewhere, for sure, but it will be undue to start to create country-focused stubs here. If necessary, please go forward and create relevant stub articles.

The purpose of creating subsections is increasing readability. Unfortunately the current fourth level subsections does not increase readability but, vice versa, in addition to fragmenting the text, it even makers the information incorrect in some cases. The subsection called 'Africa' has four sentences in two paragraphs. It may be even enough for a subsection (if we talking about 'operations by continent' but in the 'operations by country' approach this is not enough. The subsection about Asia includes three sentences, including one sentence about operations in Norway (sic!). Not enough for a separate subsection. Subsection about Australia is only one sentence. Again, not enough. Subsection about Canada is five sentences, but it includes also information about Indonesia (sic!). Europe——two sentences. Near east—three sentences, including two sentences about Azerbaijan (sic!) which usually not classified as a near east country (at least not in modern times). Russia—one sentence. South America—two sentences about Brazil and one sentence about Trinidad and Tobago (sic!). All in all, it seems quite messy and non-encyclopaedic. Therefore I propose to restore the last stable version before making these subsections. Beagel (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beagel. This is a hard call. As I mentioned, I originally set up the subsectioning because a) the content was jumbled and didn't tell the story clearly or coherently and b) because the content was so brief on each country, that it really was a laundry list - it was not a narrative text in any useful sense. So I think that the thing you are bringing up - that the text on each region is so short - is the crux of the problem. If we had more content on each region, it wouldn't matter so much how it was formatted. I favor leaving the subsections for now, to promote content creation. I also think it helps the reader find information - if what you want is info on egypt, for example, it is really easy to find that now, or if you don't care about south america, you can easily skip that. Once content on each region gets fleshed out more, we can revisit how to format it here, and how to split it off. I also think the way to lump the content for splitting will be more clear once there is more content. It doesn't make sense to me to work that out now, but you and Rangoon are of course free to keep working it over! Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Reconstruction Project

Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

@ Beagel and Rangoon. Can you slow down a bit with the removal of stuff. It is difficult to keep up. Let me be direct. The "stuff" you are removing...Is any of "it" the "stuff" that User:Arturo has added, or requested to be added, over the past year? I don't have time to check. Does anyone know? Also, for instance; as to the references that were just deleted today pertaining to the DeepWater incident. I'm sure the refs that existed in the article were achieved with much discussion and consensus. Were any of the "consensus" refs deleted today?. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Buster, for what it is worth I have been watching and everything looks very reasonable. There was indeed ref overkill on that sentence in DWH, and the remaining ones are not impeachable - a government report and the NY times. You may have noticed that the actual content of the industrial accident sections had not been edited down... I believe that is out of care not to offend those who really wanted this information in there. Which is lovely. And it would be reasonable for parties who advocated for that content to step up and do some condensing too, as these sections contribute to the article's bloat. For example, I think there is fat in DWH section... the 2nd paragraph in particular could go altogether, and the 3rd and 4th paragraphs could be condensed into one, with the quotes all taken out. There is plenty of room for detail in the article on spill... Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I am curious, why do you care if the text that is being edited/condensed is from Arturo? Just curious.Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Arturo made drafts of the UK and US operations. They were implemented with some changes. The information in the Downstream section is old one. As for DWH references, no, Arturo has not proposed anything for that section if I remember correctly. As we recently merged two subsections about the DWH, it resulted that the fact of explosion and spill had after merger seven references as former different subsections used different references for the same facts. As these facts (explosion, burning, sinking, casualties) are not disputed, seven references was too much and I cut it to two using references which were used in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article as the parent article for that subsection. There have been a lot of discussions about the coverage of DWH in this article, but it was about the other staff. Beagel (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Jdog. Thanks for asking. My concern was basically the same as what you express...now that we have agreed to re-vamp the article, care needs to be taken so as not to offend or act contrary to previous discussions or consensus. I wasn't here so I don't know what was agreed to at that previous time. From my reading of the talk history, there was some polarization of editors. I wanted assurances that we were not keeping all of Arturo offerings but discarding Gandydancer, Coretheapple and Petrachan47s offerings. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster, I do find reason for concern about the present Gulf spill section. Using the reasoning that the article needs to be shortened it has been shortened to less copy than either Prudhoe Bay or the Texas explosion sections. Considering that it was much larger in scope than either one, can we expect the other two to soon be condensed as well? I see also that two photos have been removed that would suggest violence or ugliness, leaving only a rather dopey picture of women holding a "What the Flock BP?" sign. It is concerning that there is no longer any mention of the lack of safety concerns on the rig that led to the explosion and loss of lives. Gone is the wording "to make the spill appear less catastrophic than it was” and only "it misled investors about the flow rate of oil from the well" remains. Removed also without remark: “The explosion of the rig was a disaster that resulted from BP's culture of privileging profit over prudence” as stated by the US Attorney General. If it's OK to remove this practice that one finds again and again in previous accidents, can I expect to see it erased from BP's other accidents as well? This change of direction may well be what the editors now want for this article, but I'd just like to point out how much this particular section has changed from just a few days ago, and changed mostly by one editor and without discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gandy. You speak to what I suspected. Shortening the article is one thing, but Sanitizing it, in the process, is another. I think the photos should be replaced...along with the other aspects that Gandy talks about. Length of the article is not important. Imparting to the reader the full range of BP Corporation and its place in the World (good and bad) is important. Like I said before, it is hard to keep up with the speed of the changes. I wont have an opportunity to do my own checking until mid-Monday. Who knoiws how clean and polished the article will be by then. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I shortened the DWH section. I disagree very strongly that I sanitized it. First, that assumes bad faith, which I don't appreciate. Secondly, I added detail that wasn't there before (for instance, 4 years of safety monitoring of its safety practice and ethics, and the fact that david rainey was a VP, not just any schmo). I also fixed a mistake which said that BP actually paid $42B by November. And I added a sentence that made it clear that the temporary ban on new contracts is still in place. Third, the other sections are being edited for concision, and as I noted above, nobody touched these sections, until I edited them, which you could take as a sign that people are trying to give you space. That all said, I did take out the reference to the results of BP's investigation and the response to it by TO and Halliburton. If you look there is a huge article on investigations Deepwater Horizon investigation that references something like 30 reports and another big section on the same matter in the DWH spill article -- Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Investigations; I don't see how it makes sense to single out this one report, and I don't know how many times it makes sense for Wikipedia to re-iterate the same information. After a lot of consideration, I took out the quotes. There is no other section in this article that has quotes, and it seemed to me that while these quotes added color, they did not add more information. The paragraph about consequences makes it clear that BP as a corporation was held dramatically liable for what happened, as were some of its employees, and that further consequences are coming. There is no doubt, reading the current text, that BP did a bad thing. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Question for you, Gandy. Are you familiar with this organization? Nansen Institute? I was looking for sources that discuss BP globally, from the perspective of environmental issues, safety, and ethics, and found a source by them that I want to use (http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/FNI-R0602.pdf). They seem like honest brokers. The report surprised me in finding that BP makes a good faith effort to act ethically - better than most actually. Not perfect, of course, but actually trying. I would appreciate it if you would check it out. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Answer to you and a question as well. Ten years ago Atle Christer Christiansen asked the question, "Can BP deliver?" What do you think, did they deliver or not? Gandydancer (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I copied your signature from below and copied it above, to keep authorship of contents in this chain clear. I hope you don't mind. To respond... the article is not really so much about "beyond petroleum" (in other words, about whether BP has changed into an alt energy company) but as the intro says, how well BP is doing with respect to the broader ideas of "corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate citizenship." If your question however is focused on that - on whether they have really moved "beyond petroleum", the answer is of course no. Many business people (not just environmentalists) criticized BP for that marketing campaign, because BP never intended to make a transition away from oil anytime in the near future. Clearly they did increase investment and activity in alt energy, and clearly they have been struggling with how to make a reasonable business out of that; they have abandoned solar and are selling off their wind operations, which I think is sensible - neither is in their skill set nor fits their existing infrastructure and I am guessing they made a business decision that the markets for those two forms of alt energy are not big enough to justify the investments in infrastructure and talent they would need to really excel there. They are staying very much in the biofuels business, and that business fits very well with their chemical production and liquid fuel transport businesses. But again, they are not moving away from oil at all. With respect to delivering on their stated agenda to be a better corporate citizen, the record is of course mixed. There are the spectacular industrial accidents in the US (which I believe were caused by a pretty dramatic underinvestment in (a) renewing the old infrastructure they bought from Amoco, and (b) maintaining it and (c) developing and maintaining sound safety policy and management. The resulting IAs made them lousy corporate citizens, and they have been and are being punished for that. Outside of that, it seems to me that they are walking the talk as well as any multinational oil company can. I am still learning about this but I am pretty impressed. I don't know how often you read companies' annual reports, but BP's are pretty different from most that I have read. For each segment of their business, they actually lead the detailed discussion of each with a discussion of CSR issues, and they have actually developed metrics that they report to track their performance on these issues (not sure if you understand what that means, for company to develop metrics and report them... but that is a big deal). If you haven't looked at their annual report it might be worth your time to skim it, to see what I mean. And they do seem to be ahead of the curve with respect to their peers on issues like human rights and climate change. I found another article from Nansen Institute that actually compares the biggest 4 oil companies on CSR, written by a different set of authors there. http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/FNI-R0704.pdf They come out looking pretty good. All that said, they are a big oil company. To the extent that anybody thinks that is just an evil business... and nobody can play in it without being evil... well there is nothing that one can say about that, other than to acknowledge that point of view ... Is that the sort of answer you were looking for? Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you have taken my question as a soapbox opportunity, but never mind--let's just move forward. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. You asked me a very broad question ("What do you think, did they deliver or not?") that called for me to render my opinion (which I thought was strange) and I tried to answer it, because I wanted to be responsive to you. I was really trying to answer your question, in good faith. I don't view the world as black and white. Your response seems very unfair to me. Unhappy. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I did read some of the article and of course one must always try to figure out exactly who the author of an article is, and I did find that he heads this group: [2] As for the Nansen Inst.--not familiar to me--were they to you? After reading their page I'll admit that they do seem to be a peaceful sort of group. Of course one must always keep in mind that Henry Kissinger won a Nobel Peace Prize to keep things in perspective. Gandydancer (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I had not heard of Nansen institute before. After I found that report, I backed out of it to their main page and read a bunch of stuff. They seem to be pretty centrist in a "euro" sense, which is much more left wing than what centrist means in the US - things like protecting the environment, sustainability, transparency, and a demand for strong ethics are really baked in. I intend to use both of these to generate some content, so if you object to either it would be great to hear that. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the other reports as well but found nothing more recent than ten years old. Of course, you will use what you want, but I would not use an article by a man who makes his living as the head of Point Carbon which "now has more than 55,000 clients, including the world’s major energy companies" and that used Exxon (I don't know anything about the French corporation) as a comparison to announce that BP was shown to be superior. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

BP Biofuels

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Recently the new section named 'BP Biofuels' was added. I have some doubts about this addition. While some of this information could be used as addition to the existing 'Alternative energy' section, it does not fit as a separate section. First, biofuels are part of alternative energy and therefore, if added, it should be a part of the alternative energy article. Second, some of this information is already included in the 'Alternative energy' section. Third, it includes details which are too specific for this article (patents etc). Fourth, if some part of this addition are well-sourced, some other parts are going without any references. I propose to summarize this into the *alternative ebergy' article and based on the added information create a new stub named BP Biofuels. As an alternative, rename BP Biofuels Highlands BP Biofuels and expand that article by this addition here. Beagel (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As a rule I assume good faith. However, I question the recent additions, etc by DillantheVillan, XXavyer and Martin. DtV and Xx are at best novice editors with VERY low edit counts. To come to an article such as this and make voluminous inclusions/deductions without a single word at the talk page is....questionable. And then, for Martin to undo, again without proper discussion, is questionable. This in no way doubts the verifiability of the inclusions; it just doesnt sit well within the framework of working together. I won't undo Martins undo, but I would like to. Talk binds us. Independent action seperates us.....again.```Buster Seven Talk 18:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The information is quite odd, isn't it? I would have tended to delete it as well and discuss it here. But I'll most likely trust Beagel's judgement here. Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it was copied from another source, probably an essay, hence why it reads like a standalone piece. It simply doesn't fit in the article. We could do with a couple more sentences on BP biofuels activities in the Alternative Energy section but I struggle to see how they could be sourced from this rather curious text.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There was some good material in it so I incorporated that material into the article. I was having a hard time finding a home for the material and realized that the existing Alt Energy section was not well ordered, so I tightened its organization by putting wind/solar (which are gone or on their way out) in one paragraph, and biofuels (which are staying) in another; and I organized the biofuels paragraph by region. (are they doing any biofuel work in asia??) I don't care what happens to the rest of the inserted/deleted material -- to me it was essay-like or kind of random (e.g. the patent discussion) Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I further trimemd the text as two last paragraphs were clearly too promotional based largely on the BP's website / press releases. I combined the substance of these paragraphs into the biofuels paragraph. I also changed the order of biofules and solar/wind paragraphs as by my understanding it is more important what the company does than what it did/planned but cancelled. Beagel (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Stock history

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have two comments/questions about this subsection:

Why we need a separate 'Stock history' subsection under the 'Stock' subsection if this subsection accounts more than 80% of the 'Stock' subsection and this is the only subsection here. I propose to remove the unneeded subsection heading 'Stock history' and to have the single 'Stock' subsection.
Some information in the 'Stock history' subsection belongs actually to the 'History' section. At least information about the governmental decision to privatize a stock in BP is more important regarding the company's history than just the stock history. I propose to move most of the first paragraph in the 'Stock history' subsection into the 'History' section.

Beagel (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As there was no respond for a week, I made these changes. Beagel (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Production volume for 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Forbes has published the 2012 working interest production volumes calculations by Wood Mackenzie, reflecting oil plus the energy equivalent in natural gas. According to this, in 2012 BP was the sixth largest oil and gas company in the world by 4.1 million barrels per day.[3] I think this is important information to be added; however, it does not correspond to the information currently in the article. Maybe Arturo can help to clarify this? Beagel (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea where they got that number. The production number in the article now is correct and it does reflect our net production of liquids (which includes oil) plus the energy equivalent of natural gas if you include TNK-BP Production which, I believe, Rangoon11 added in. It's what we have in our Annual Report. Arturo at BP (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Lisburne Field spill

Latest comment: 11 years ago50 comments6 people in discussion

Just over two weeks ago, this article was published on ZDNet. It noted some specific issues with the Prudhoe Bay 2006-2007 section of the article as rewritten by User:Arturo at BP. It isn't clear to me from reading the discussions here or looking at the current version of this article if any of those issues were examined. Perhaps there was nothing that needed to be changed. As an example, it was noted that there is no mention in this article of a leak of "50,000 gallons of an oil and water mix onto the tundra about half a mile from Prudhoe Bay. Warnings, including sensors that showed drops in temperature and even alarms, began going off but BP operators failed to investigate or troubleshoot the cause of the alarms for months". The source for that seems to be this 2011 timeline from the Alaska Dispatch. I can find no mention of the Lisburne Field spill anywhere on Wikipedia. Can someone point me to where it is, or explain why it has not been included here? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The zdnet article is mentioned in the BP article. We know about it. Your facts seem to be wrong - Arturo did not rewrite the article. He has suggested content here on Talk, which editors here reviewed and worked over; some of the resulting content went into the article. Arturo never directly added content to the article. There are very extensive discussions of all this on this page and in the archives -- it is not reasonable that you should ask others to do your research for you. However I did a search in the "search archives" box above, which produced this: Talk:BP/Archive_11#Prudhoe_Bay - you will that the 2009 spill is mentioned there. Two editors wanted to add more detail about it to the article and it never got added (discussion on this page has been pretty brutal in the past). The content you suggest seems like very reasonable (to me) to include in this article and the main prudhoe bay article, if you want to stick around and advocate for that. For what it is worth, I suggest you argue for its inclusion on its own merits and leave the COI discussion out of it (or start yet another separate thread on the COI thing if you really want to talk about that) -- if you mix them, the discussion of the content you want to see added will be derailed and your goal will be less likely to be met.Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I made no mention of COI (conflict of interest) by Arturo or anyone else. My question was about whether specific issues mentioned in the ZDNet article had been addressed. Your response seems unnecessarily hostile and flatly wrong. Arturo wrote the section in question, as I stated. Silver seren replaced the existing section with Arturo's rewritten section. The only comment on the talk page which mentions the Lisburne Field spill was added after that section had been replaced and after the ZDNet article had come out. It is from Arturo, who states " I believe this information should most probably not be added to the article". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, the best thing would be for you to first review the Prudhoe Bay section of the latest archive--that will give you a good background, which I think is important. The short answer is no, it has not been added. In fact, when it comes to negative information I'd say the article is in worse shape than it was a few weeks ago since the Gulf spill section has been cut by about 2/3. Gandydancer (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC) BTW, be sure to note the dates as you read it because it is spread over some time. Gandydancer (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I read through that section before posting my question here. It was not enlightening. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry :=) I read it too and I think I can clear something up. The well leaks that Arturo and I were talking about, if I remember correctly, were leaks in the insulation fluid in the wells, not in transposting pipes. I believe that about 50 were found to be leaking, out of 500 wells in the bay. I agreed with him that it need not be in the article. People think that every little incident is reported but they are not--hundreds of small spills happen all the time that are not considered newsworthy. It is the further information that Arturo did not share with us that is so concerning because he should have been aware of it since I had asked him a question about the follow-up. Can I answer any other questions? Gandydancer (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Carbuncle, I am sorry my response seemed hostile. You did write, (quoting you) "specific issues with the Prudhoe Bay 2006-2007 section of the article as rewritten by User:Arturo at BP." (emphasis added). That communicated to me that you thought that Arturo actually edited ("rewritten") the actual article. I am glad you know he did not. I am also glad that you reviewed all the Talk. But given that you lead with the zdnet story and arturo (which is all about COI), and given that Lisburne Field is indeed not mentioned in the article, and given that you ask why it is not mentioned (when it has not been discussed much in Talk at all, so it is obvious that nobody brought it up) ... I hope you see that it was reasonable for me to assume that you didn't review the history of the page and the extensive Talk that has gone on, and that you just really just wanted to complain about the COI thing without spending time to catch up or without intending to stick around and actually work. Which others have done, and which is tiresome to me. If your concern is simply that you think the Lisburne Field spill should be mentioned in this article, that is great. As for "other issues mentioned in the zdnet article"...it is great for "violet blue" to stand back and throw bombs; it is much harder to actually come work on the page and get things done, as editors here will tell you. This is a very contested page. As I wrote above, it is much more simple just to bring the issues/content that you want to address rather than all this baggage. Especially because, as you say, the baggage is not your point. So please do let us know if there is other content that you want to see. Thanks. btw I just added content on this spill here: Prudhoe_Bay_oil_spill#Consequences_and_subsequent_spills Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, I've reviewed the talk page archives at least as far back as Arturo's involvement. Contrary to what you suggest, there seems to be very little conflict here (given that BP is such a large and controversial company). There is virtually no discussion of Arturo's edits before they are copied into the article. I have no idea why you that it makes any difference whether Arturo placed his rewrites into the article himself or if someone else did it - he wrote those sections. You sound very defensive. I'm not looking to place blame here. I'm simply asking if anyone (possibly one of the frequent editors of this article) has acted on the specific deficiencies that were pointed out two weeks ago. Apparently the answer is no. Is that correct? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(Nor have the deficiencies I pointed out regarding the Canadian oil sands - aka Tar sands - section been addressed, FWIW) petrarchan47 t c 22:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carbuncle. The answer is indeed no as far as I can tell. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Further response added later. If 1) you don't see conflict, and 2) if you believe that there is not discussion/editing of Arturo's comments before they are inserted, and if you believe that everything he proposed was inserted and still stands, you didn't spend much time reading the archives - you just swallowed Violet Blue's line. Pick something important to Violet Blue - like the environment. See here Talk:BP/Archive_9#Environmental_record_overview. 1) conflict? please note gandydancer's comment in particular ("Slim Virgin, the reason the environmental section may look a little ragged is that working on this article has been one of the most hellish experiences imaginable.") 2) see the fierce discussion there! 3) the proposed text as a lead paragraph for the "environmental record" section is not present in the article. Finally, I gotta say that this sentence really set me off: "I'm simply asking if anyone (possibly one of the frequent editors of this article) has acted on the specific deficiencies that were pointed out two weeks ago." This is not a "simple" question - it contains worlds. Volunteer editors at wikipedia do not have bosses (not Violet Blue, not other critics, and not you); the criticisms are just that - criticisms made by individuals - not objective "deficiences" that we are somehow obligated to cull into a list and carefully check off. (but if you want to do that, please do so) I really feel like you have judged that bad, dark things happened here - that you have accepted that as a fact, without spending a lot of time fact finding, and that judgementalness (for lack of a better word) is indeed making me defensive. More importantly, you seem unaware that editing on this page is hard. There are strong passions and starkly different visions, good faith visions, I would say, of what this page should contain. And in my eyes, each "side" is pretty disgusted with the other side, doesn't believe the other side acts in good faith, and also feels pretty hurt and frustrated that its vision - and hard and long efforts to realize that vision - is not acknowledged by the other side. And they have been at this for a long, long time. so there are scars, too. for violet blue - and you - to stand back and judge, without actually working here and seeing what it is like, without really carefully reading the archives, pretty much sucks to me. Just think about it. If everybody actually editing here agreed that the "deficiencies" were problems, don't you think they would indeed have been "acted on" already? As I have said, if you want to identify specific content that you, carbuncle, want to see changed or added, please tell us, as you did with Lisburne Field - which I acted on and will do more with; better yet roll up your sleeves and edit and prepare for WP:BRD. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (note - characterizations of "sides" by me is broad brush and crude and are very much my perception- i don't claim they are objectively true. And in any case there are individuals working here, not "sides", and individuals are just that - individuals - and applying labels to individuals fails. Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC))

[edit conflict--I have not yet read Jytdog's edit] DC, I do note that you seemed unconvinced with my reply re the Prudhoe Bay updates and choose to ignore me. Never the less, I will continue to attempt conversation. You said that the archives conversations were not enlightening which makes me wonder how closely you read them. Regarding the Lisburne Field spill, please read the discussion again as you seem to misunderstand what is written. I don't see how you could have missed that the real problem with the article was/is not failure to mention that spill but the failure to mention the 2006 spill followup by the DOJ where they said, "BPXA paid a $25 million civil penalty, the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill, and agreed to take measures to significantly improve inspection and maintenance of its pipeline infrastructure on the North Slope to reduce the threat of additional oil spills."

You also seemed confused about the talk page history of this article, saying to Jytdog, "Contrary to what you suggest, there seems to be very little conflict here (given that BP is such a large and controversial company)." Please see my comment from around mid-March:

Slim Virgin, the reason the environmental section may look a little ragged is that working on this article has been one of the most hellish experiences imaginable. It took many months to even get a mention of the Gulf oil spill into the lead. I think the efforts to attempt to make the article less than a glowing report of how environmentally concerned BP was started on about page #3 and just dragged on and on. If you've ever worked on an article where you just almost get afraid to touch it because you know that almost endless uproar will begin, that is what this article has been like.

I believe that the other editors that have worked this article would also say that it has been filled with conflict and difficulty because just as strongly as I believe that environmental issues need to be appropriately covered other editors have strong opinions on what is appropriate as well.

Since you seemed to have no problem telling Jytdog that he was sounding hostile and defensive, I'll mention that you seem, to me, to sound quite arrogant. After a life time of work experience I learned that the boss always says "you sound defensive" when their employees attempt to defend themselves. I learned and I never said it to any of the people that I worked with. IMO it is a play for power and irritating and frustrating to the person on the receiving end. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant minds think alike...is that how it goes? :-) I agree with Jytdog and have to chuckle at how closely our feelings/thinking matches. Gandydancer (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

amazing sync! :) even down to quoting the same passage - that is SO crazy. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear why this discussion seems to be about me and not about the article, but let me clarify my statement about conflict. I had expected much more debate and conflict on the talk pages (compared to what I saw, and compared to articles on much less contentious companies). Having said that, and speaking as an outside observer, if it took months before there was any mention of the Gulf spill in the lead, there is something wrong here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We responded to what you actually wrote. You came and asked a question about what we editors have been doing when you knew full well what we have been doing. You made this about us by the way you framed your question - we responded to that. I will say this again -- if there is specific content that you want to change, please talk about the specific content. It would be most welcome and would indeed focus the discussion on the content. This is what I have been trying to tell you from my very first response to you. By now, I suggest you start a new section, afresh, if you have actual content you want to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec).This is not directed at any specific editor---It is a general comment and observation. Let's all take a breathe, stay calm, and not talk nose to nose. Let us not return to the polarization that once existed here. Lets keep moving forward and not get irratated with each other. Clear consise communicating on ANY talk page is very difficult. Lets not alienate each other. We need to pull together not pull each other apart. Manners are the lubricant between faceless editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect Buster, it is sometimes good to speak "plainly" rather than let anger seethe. To tell me to not speak out is not helpful. I was feeling much more hostile to DC than I was willing to say in my post and was thankful that Jytdog added some of my further feelings regarding my experiences with this article and the big ZDNet blowup. I think that Jytdog did the right thing as well when he got some things off his chest. I'm really quite sick to death of having a whole busload of editors come here and complain or at least seem to be critical, with not one, other than you, to stay to help. Gandydancer (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

..

I hear what you guys are saying, but I also think that it's important that experienced editors that had not been involved in the article, like Delicious Carbunkle, be encouraged to contribute, both to the talk page and to the article itself. There is a dire need for more of that. DC is has been on Wikipedia forever, and I would really like him to get involved and for his perspective to help shape the article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

@Carbunkle. With all due respect, you seem to have no problem with a paid editors suggestions being placed directly into the article without any vetting or discussion. Some of the editors, myself included, have an essential problem with what might be referred to as editing by proxy. And that in no way means to bismirch the proxy. Right now there is a vibrant discussion revolving around various editing requests that Arturo made a few days ago. Only half of them have made it into the article. A new reference was needed for one. The other half are being discussed. I think this is the way Jimbo intentended for the COI process to shake out. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster, I may be missing something but my understanding was that DC was not in favor of paid editor stuff going into articles. Coretheapple (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a discussion of paid editing here won't help improve the article and the issue is much larger than any single article or editor. Regardless of how I feel about paid editing or editing with a declared conflict of interest, I do not believe that the edits proposed by Arturo were given a thorough vetting. I believe that all of those sections should be reexamined in light of the issues pointed out in the ZDNet article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Then vet them already! Re-examine away! And if you find actual content you wish to change or discuss or add, please be bold and edit it, or bring it to Talk to discuss it. As I said in my first comment, it is more likely that the conversation will be productive if you base your discussion of any such content on the merits or faults of the content itself, not on its source. If you do discuss its source, you should be prepared for the discussion to get completely derailed and go nowhere. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I started this discussion to ask a very reasonable question - have any of the specific issues pointed out in the ZDNet article been addessed? I used what I thought was the clearest and most obvious example, that of the Lisburne Field spill. The reason this discussion has not been about that one specific issue has been because you have derailed it, Jytdog. Not me. It appears that someone has already done some of the vetting for us and we can simply look at the specific issues noted and see if they need to be addressed. If it helps, I will start new sections to discuss each of them. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Great - if that is what you want to do, please do it already. If anybody wants to join you in that, that is great too. I am sorry that you cannot see that while your post was entirely reasonable to you (of course it was!), it was pretty ugly to me and Gandydancer. I hope things go better when you actually go to work. I really do - this discussion is not fun. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't find anything ugly about it at all. I think you're a bit oversensitive when the elephant in the room, which is BP's participation in this talk page and the editing of this article, is raised. It is going to be, again and again, here and outside Wikipedia, so get used to it. Coretheapple (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point - sorry I didn't make it more clear. If anybody wants to come here and do work, and review the content in the article that originated with suggestions from arturo here in Talk, that is wonderful. I would have no objection to that. What I objected to, was the whole frame, especially as it emerged in the to and fro -- the judgementalness that we who are here working voluntarily are somehow accountable to him and to zdnet. All the baggage laid down from on high. It is obvious if you carefully review Talk what was vetted and how - so the question was either lazy (asking us that we take our time to do his work for him) or it was fake (which it turned to be, as he had indeed reviewed Talk). I've said many times that coming here and working is totally welcome. If he would have just said, "There is no content about Lisburne Field anywhere in Wikipedia and I think it is important. Can somebody add that here?" Or even better: "There is no content about Lisburne Field anywhere in Wikipedia. Here is proposed content for this article with sourcing: xxxxxxxxx" or even better, just be bold and add the content he wanted to the article. Or on the broader issue of content he thinks may be "tainted" - "Here is a passage from the current article: xxxx. I would like to change it to read: yyyyyyy." Would have had no problem with any of that -- anything focused on the actual content of the article. See what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I do, but I think that your response was unecessarily hostile, considering where this particular editor seems to be "coming from," which is concern (that I share) raised by that ZDnet article, which is what prompted my interest in this article as well. You also need to understand that this article involves a complicated subject and that it takes quite some time to get one's arms around it. Suffice to say that the more I learn about BP and the closer I look at this article the more concerned I become about how this article has been shaped. Coretheapple (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have complained about paid editors for years. They should not be writing their own articles. And even if they do not directly put their wording into the articles, all they need is a group of corporate advocates to travel around and do it for them, as happened here. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Coretheapple (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Core. I seem to have mis-read. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You know the volume of these posts, cumulatively, is such that it's easy to misinterpret. Coretheapple (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

DC has asked if the "specific deficiencies" brought out in the ZDNet article of March 27 have been addressed. He has specifically asked about the Lisburne Field spill of Nov 2009 that spilled 13,500 gallons that was mentioned in the Alaska news timeline published in Nov 2011 and used as a ref for the ZDNet article. What ZDNet does not seem to understand (and perhaps some editors here as well) is that this article is about BP, not every "little" oil spill that they are responsible for. This spill would have only been significant if they had lost their case, but they did not. For comparison, have a look at this chart that shows just one month of spills around the world. [4]. DC, does this address your question re the Lisburne field question? To move forward perhaps you can make a list of the other concerns that you believe need to be addressed. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Gandydancer -- Thanks for providing the reason why you never added content about Lisburne Field -and your judgement that such content doesn't belong in this article (I agree, btw). I would answer CD's question directly this way -- If you search the archives (which you could do yourself), you will see that adding content about Lisburne Field has never been the direct subject of discussion in Talk, and that it was brought up once in the context of a discussion about the 2006 spill. So there is no answer to your question with respect to the public discussion of the editing community - it was just never brought up. If you think such content should be added, please say so and why, or add it, and let's see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree Jytdog. I've gone through the ZDNet article and I really can't answer to DC's request if he will not be more specific than to ask if we've answered her "specific deficiencies" because for the most part her "deficiencies" aren't. She sees problems where there aren't any and misses the big problem, the civil suit that resulted in the $25 million fine. Actually I thought her article was just a "gotcha" piece but we are lucky that it didn't catch on any further than Huff Post and a New Orleans local paper. People just love to feel superior and talk about how bad Wikipedia is. Of course it never occurred to them to edit when it's so much easier to just bitch. Weirdly, it seems to be totally missed that I was the one to bring up the Prudhoe bay section difficulties (on March 25--two days before her article came out), she was not the one to point them out. She picked up on it from reading my posts. I do believe that all in all Wikipedia does do a pretty good job of policing itself, though it sometimes seems to take about a million pages of frustration. Speaking of how bad it is (just kidding--I love Wikipedia), the Prudhoe Bay article really is just awful. I was going to try and work on it and gave up because it needs to be completely revamped. I know you are good at that. Perhaps when CD is done with his questions we can work on it? Gandydancer (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I hear you, across the board. People love their drama. I'll have a look at Prudhoe today. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. We have both repeatedly offered to help DC but he seems to be determined to conduct his own research. I think that we should wait for that and then we can perhaps benefit from what he comes up with. Perhaps he can find more than the civil suit that I mentioned that should be in the article. New help is certainly appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

In any other article I would simply add a sentence about the Lisburne Field spill to the Prudhoe Bay section, but I think I know what the result here would be. I could point out that a much smaller methanol/oil/water spill was already included in that section written by Arturo, but I'm sure that someone would argue with that, at great and pointless length. Frankly, I don't have the time to deal with the obstacles that are being put up here, so I will leave you to yourselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Bye, I guess. btw at 20:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC) (my 2nd response to you) I wrote: "btw I just added content on this spill here: Prudhoe_Bay_oil_spill#Consequences_and_subsequent_spills " That content has not been reverted or further edited. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict]He said in parting "Good work, shills. Good luck, everyone else.". Is he calling Jtydog and I shills? A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing he has a close relationship with the person or organization. Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good addition--I don't think that there is any question but that it belongs there. But what about here? Are 321 barrels enough to report here on the BP article page? It seems to me that if we drop the bar down to 321 barrels for BP's article we would need to do the same for the other petrol corporations as well. Is that doable? Reasonable? Gandydancer (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

again we had a sync in response to that parting shot. :) geez louise. Anyway, about whether to include Lisburne in this article. In the edit I made to Prudhoe, I gave it its proper connection to the 2006 spill- namely, the gov't tried to use it to revoke the probation over the 2006 spill. As to whether to include it here, as per the section I introduced this morning, editors are really divided over the weight thing, and to be honest I am up in the air over it too. I think for now, let's leave it out. Let's finish working on the Prudhoe Spill article and then come up with a good summary of it, to include here... we can see then if the Lisburne Field spill fits. Is that OK? btw I am ignorant about oil in Alaska, so I actually backed way out and looked at (and ended up learning more about, and editing) the Alaska North Slope article, then the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska article, and now the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field article. Once I am grounded in the context I will start working on the Prudhoe spill article... I have been looking for a good map of the Prudhoe field to add to the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field article.. I am still not oriented as to what is physically there so it is hard for me to think sensibly about the spill per se. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

when i say "map of the prudhoe field" i mean the details within it. And also, one that is usable on wikipedia. The govt of Alaska leases it, and state government documents are not copyright-free... just had an idea, I will ask Arturo for one! yay. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, nobody could be dumber than I am about oil. I only got hooked in here because I had worked on the spill article and months later I happened to look at this article and wondered why it wasn't even mentioned in the lead. As for the Prudhoe Bay section, it (at that time) was really confusing and I tried to edit it to make more sense, so I did have a history with it when Arturo did his rewrite. My big mistake was to look at only what he had in his rewrite, but it does bring out a big problem with paid editing. Everybody should learn from my mistake--though of course I never thought that I'd be the only one to review his work! But for the most part I don't really enjoy my learning about BP/oil--I just do it because I have to. So due to lack of real interest, I really don't retain it very well. My background is science and I love to learn new science-related stuff and I retain it very well too. Well, blah, blah, blah. Yes, I like your ideas--sounds like a plan to me! You may have noted that I posted some gov't sites at the article. There are more at the DOJ--I know because I had them at one time but seem to have lost my link to them. Gandydancer (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here?

This section is dramatically larger than any of the sections reviewing the drafts written by a BP employee. I asked a simple question. The answer appears to be equally simple - no, those issues have not been addressed. I'm not bothered by the suggestions that I should do it rather than ask about it, but obviously I wanted to know where things stood before getting involved in a topic with which I have little experience. I'm not sure what the problem is here, but if this level of unproductive discussion unrelated to the specific issues is the norm here, something needs to be done. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this discussion in any meaningful way because I feel that there is a far more important issue that hasn't even been mentioned: the Clean Water Act trial, which can saddle BP with another $20 billion in liability. See below. I think Violet Blue should be commended for her article. It was fair and even-handed, and it's unfortunate that she has been vilified as she has by Wales and others. However, she did not mention that the trial wasn't in the article, and that's a major omission from both her assessment as well as this article of course. Coretheapple (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In the words of my father: "Fish....or chop bait". Also, the most recent Arturo requests ARE being handled. And in a way that is different than how they were handled in the past. I can't speak for the past (prior to 2 weeks ago). The past is the past. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is important for the independent editors of this article to independently update this article, and to focus on what is important. Far more important than anything that BP, through its rep here, has requested be updated is the fact that there was an $8 billion share buyback last month that surprised analysts and failed to elevate the share price. This is far more significant than anything that BP has requested be updated. We need to focus on what is important, and apportion our limited time and energies accordingly. This is not to say that BP's requests should be ignored, but simply that they need to be prioritized. Updating the number of gas stations and other numbers, for instance, is not as important as the share buyback or the fact that BP faces $20 billion in penalties in its ongoing trial. Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

@Coretheapple. What each of us do to this article is important. Are my efforts to wisely integrate Arturo's requests getting in your way? You say they should be prioritized. Well, they are prioritized. I am taking care of them, with due dilegence, while you confront buy-back and a $20 billion (or more) fine. This nit-picking and un-mannerly concern with how I spend my time on this article is a presumption. I think a working relationship with Arturo is very important to the future of this article and this talk page. I don't have the time or the desire to involve myself in every new turn of events that the next thread will bring. My continuing effort is to bring and maintain an editorial balance to these pages. I think wisely questioning, investigating, discussing and then, if agreed upon, integrating corporate suggestions into the article serves a very important service for this article and for future paid advocacy editing at Wikipedia. If we can create a positive example of how editors work out the problem of paid editing, Wikipedia gains. I might even say that my attempt to work with a paid-to-edit editor is more important, for all of Wikipedia, than your "BP article" push regarding the ongoing trial. But, I won't even think of attempting to stop you or criticize you. But that's just me. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I just responded myself to a request by the BP rep here and requested the BP provide a reliable source for what I think is an important factoid. He has yet to do so, but I guess that's because it's the weekend. In general, I think that far too much energy is devoted to responding to requests from the BP Corporate PR Department to update routine data that is not accurate but, at worst, stale, when we're not even telling readers that BP is in effect on trial for its life. Coretheapple (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

One other problem I see is that we all have been, myself included, lulled into thinking that the presence of a BP Corporate Rep in residence here is a kind of guarantee that if there is a major issue with noncontroversial text then it would be pointed out. That is not so. The list of institutional investors is problematic, for example. Coretheapple (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, right on the nose, Core.

^ Cite error: The named reference Zacks2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Michael Kavanagh (27 March 2012). "BP to sell $400m N Sea assets to Perenco". Financial Times. Retrieved 10 July 2012.
^ Cite error: The named reference Bawden2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Zacks2011-1] Cite error: The named reference Zacks2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Kavanagh2012-2] Michael Kavanagh (27 March 2012). "BP to sell $400m N Sea assets to Perenco". Financial Times. Retrieved 10 July 2012.

[Bawden2011-3] Cite error: The named reference Bawden2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]