Wikipedia

Talk:BP/Archive 4

< Talk:BP
Latest comment: 11 years ago by BozMo in topic Article introduction: a fresh perspective needed?
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Removal of information concerning alternative energy investments and expectations about biofuels

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The last paragraph of the Environmental initiatives section was changed without discussion and proper explanation. The previous text was:

The changed paragraph reads:

That removed all information about the BP's announcement and its estimates about development of biofuels. The previous text was problematic, but the change is definitely not neutral. Moreover, the practice of making potentially controversial changes without discussion, something we have seen several cases during last days, is something we should avoid. Beagel (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that both the first and second versions were done in edits by Petrarchan47. The second formulation was sumbited with the edit summary, "rmvd redundant/added revenues". 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to alarm you. I added that whole paragraph yesterday, today noticing there is already an Alternative Energy section - which does indeed have BP's announcement, stated almost exactly as I had. So I removed all of it, but only later remembered to check whether the AE section had the bit about cellulose ethanol. Just now I added that part to the AE section. petrarchan47tc 09:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Env lede

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Contains:

In 1991 BP was cited as the most polluting company in the US based on EPA toxic release data. According to the Public Interest Research Group, between January 1997 and March 1998, BP was responsible for 104 oil spills.[133]

However "In 1991 BP was cited as the most polluting company in the US based on EPA toxic release data" doesn't appear to be cited, and 133 (http://savethearctic.com/arctic.asp?id2=3865&id3=arctic&) is a 404. Nor is it clear why picking out one year, 14 years ago, with no context, is a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say remove it. petrarchan47tc 20:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually I believe I have found sources for this: [1] [2] and [3] petrarchan47tc 23:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of Environmental record section

Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Removed sentence from Environmental record section

I removed the following from the Environmental record section:

The source it cited [4] in turn cites [5] which was published in 1992, so can't have reported on incidents in 1999 and 2000. Additionally, it doesn't contain the words "burning", "polluted", "$1.7" or "$10" and I can't find any similar incident that it might have been describing. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

For the Ohio refinery charges, I found this reference. petrarchan47tc 07:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That source is talking about a completely different incident that happened during the Obama administration, but you can go ahead and add something about it using that source. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Will do. petrarchan47tc 07:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This quotation about the burning of gasses charge turns up quite a bit, actually. Here is one ref. petrarchan47tc 23:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an opinion, not factual reporting. Also, being "a senior tourism professional and the former Chief Executive Officer of Serendib Leisure Management Ltd., now attached to the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce as Project Director of the Greening Hotels SWITCH ASIA project" does not qualify as an expert in this field, so this is even not an expert opinion." Beagel (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed reference

I also changed the reference for the sentence:

The original reference was to [6], which is not a reliable source per consensus on WP:RSN. Now it cites [7] published by the Stanford Graduate School of Business. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed the following sentence from the Environmental record section:

The source cited [8] actually says "This material is based upon work supported by...BP", not that BP sponsor the Scripps Institution itself. The source actually names only the Center for Earth Observation and Analysis (CEOA) and the Comer Foundation as financial sponsors. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Reworded paragraph

I reworded the following paragraph from the Accusations of greenwashing subsection:

It now reads:

This makes clear the attribution to Antonia Juhasz and the prose flows nicer. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed non-notable award

I removed the following from the Accusations of greenwashing subsection:

The awards [9] return no google news hits beyond their own website. The awards seem to be entirely non-notable. Being nominated for a nonnotable award does not merit inclusion. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed the following sentence from the subsection Accusations of greenwashing:

This is not supported by either source. One doesn't even mention that spill and the other doesn't point to a lack of press coverage; it actually notes how press coverage caused BP to have to come clean with its shareholders. The source that does mention the spill is an opinion column anyway, and while I've found a better source [10], there's no point in reporting on the spill alone here as it doesn't relate to this sections topic. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Reworded sentence

I reworded the following sentence from the Accusations of greenwashing subsection:

It now reads:

This prose flows better and avoids engaging in sythesis of the source. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of greenwashing section

I've removed the following paragraph from this section:

The first sentence is about a non-notable award that has no google news hits and can only be found referenced in primary sources and blogs, the second is just repeating what's already mentioned in this section, and the third is a repeat of a sentance I already removed from above. I reformatted the remaining text into one paragraph. Please note that this remaining text appears to be contradictory, as $1.5 billion is 7.5% of the 2008 budget of $20 billion, not 4%, and the claim that 4% was the peak was published in 2010. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this is notable, BP was criticized for "greenwashing" the 2012 Olympics. [11] and [12] petrarchan47tc 17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Coverage in multiple reliable sources looks pretty good to me. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding this source for later addition. petrarchan47tc 18:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill section

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe that this section is not very well structured and has too much information. I have deleted two sections, one re dolphins and whales, though perhaps a new brief mention that relates more to ecological effects in general could be included. I also deleted the info re apparent continued seepage which I think would be best left at the main article. I plan to do a little more restructuring. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please leave them at DWH spill talk page, as a to-do list, just in case the information needs to be added there. petrarchan47tc 01:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Political record"

Latest comment: 11 years ago39 comments6 people in discussion

The political record section is rather odd. I've removed the first two sections. The first one doesn't really have anything to do with politics that I can see - unless people are intending to suggest that the Russian court decision was politically motivated? That was entirely likely true, but would probably be OR. The second is "human rights, environmental and safety concerns" mostly, not really politics, unless you apply an unfeasibly wide defn of politics. Most of the section appears to be a quote from the Prez of A, and doesn't talk about BP at all William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

2008: Oil price manipulation

In May 2010, the Supreme Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation agreed in support of the country’s antimonopoly service’s decision to a 1.1 billion Ruble fine ($35.2 million) against TNK/BP, a 50/50 joint venture, for abusing anti-trust legislation and setting artificially high oil products prices in 2008, TNK and BP declined comment.[14]

Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline

BP has been criticised for its involvement with Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline due to human rights, environmental and safety concerns.[15] The project was also criticized for bypassing Armenia. Ilham Aliev, the president of Azerbaijan, which is in conflict with Armenia, was cited as saying, "if we succeed with this project, the Armenians will end in complete isolation, which would create an additional problem for their future, their already bleak future".[16]

Sorry, I was not aware that you had started a "talk" section and thought you were referring to old discussion from a few weeks ago. I will revert my article change for now. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, yes I see your point about this info not being "political". On the other hand, I do believe that it is important enough for mention in the article...somewhere--except for the section you mentioned about Armenia, which was added by an editor from Armenia. Someone caught it the first time but it was returned and not reverted that time. Gandydancer (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The editor from Armenia has again added the Armenian information with a summary stating that it was related to geopolitics. With that in mind, I read the source for the BTC pipeline and, reconsidering, it all seems pretty political to me. For example, a little info from the source:The project is governed by an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) between the governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, which was drafted by BP’s lawyers, and by individual Host Government Agreements (HGA) between each of the three countries and the BP-led consortium. Georgia’s new president, Mikheil Saakashvili, has described the Georgian agreement for BTC as “a horrible contract, really horrible”. These agreements have largely exempted BP and its partners from local laws – and allow BP to demand compensation from the governments should any law (including environmental, social or human rights law) make the pipeline less profitable. There is also concern that, rather than adding to the local economies in the areas surrounding the pipeline, BP will pressure the three nations to give them tax breaks. Gandydancer (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing it again. This can go into the Armenia article if the "editor from Armenia" wants it, but he should not be importing his national conflicts into this article. Some of the refs used (e.g. http://bradsherman.house.gov/2006/06/pr-060614a.html.shtml) don't even mention BP. Another ref (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/92c5e7f6-cd84-11d9-aa26-00000e2511c8.html#axzz24O6kB8zB0) which claims to support "BP has been criticised for its involvement with Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline due to bypassing and regional isolation of Armenia" does no such thing - there is no crit of BP in the article at all, as far as I can see. This article should not be a coatrack for axe-grinders or a laundry list of problems, nor should people be abusing refs in order to fake up support for their text William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not call me an "editor from Armenia". For such reasons I have a nickname so civil people may use it. OptimusView (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Please accept my apology OptimusView. I did not mean to be uncivil, never the less, it was thoughtless on my part. Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It’s all right.OptimusView (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Support removal, per William M. Connolley, inadequately sourced synth.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I did quite a bit of reading. I would prefer to include it in the article--it need not be seen as an attack on BP if presented properly. However, I will concede and add it to the "See also" section. Gandydancer (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The "Political record" section is essentially just (another) "controversies" section which has been filled up with context-less and crude attack content. Why don't you want to add mention of the pipeline to either the history or operations section?Rangoon11 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not a 'national conflict'. it is a regional political problem funded by BP. I'll use more correct wording but the subsection must remain as your discussion doesn't reach a consensus.
"BP is involved with the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline project which was criticized due to bypassing and regional isolation of Armenia, as well as for human rights and safety concerns. Ilham Aliev, the president of Azerbaijan, was cited as saying, "if we succeed with this project, the Armenians will end in complete isolation, which would create an additional problem for their future, their already bleak future".OptimusView (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Did you have a reference for that (it can't be added without one)? petrarchan47tc 05:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Off course. Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline; Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Pipeline; Background on the BTC Pipeline; The politics of pipelines; BTC pipeline the 'new Silk Road', By Vincent Boland in Baku; Sherman Joins Amendment to Block Funds For Railroad Route Bypassing Armenia - June 14, 2006; The Baku Ceyhan Pipeline: BP's Time Bomb. OptimusView (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
It does seem odd to me that it has not been mentioned in this article even though it has its own article. I think it needs discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Any other views? OptimusView (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree that BP's participation in BTC should be mentioned and the best location is the history section (2000 to 2010). However, presenting it as BP's project is oversimplifying the issue. BP is the operator of BTC but its share in the project is just 30%. The geopolitics behind of this project was Azerbaijani and Turkish national interests, US and Russia influence in the region etc which is more than just interest of one (although supemajor) company. Of course BP was also interested about BTC as all partners of ACG, looking for alternative routes for their production. This is described in the BTC article. Beagel (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The text I presented says BP is involved. Off course, it's not just BP's project, despite BP is the biggest shareholder. I'm afraid the current text will not fit in the "History" section, but if you want you may reedit it to be included in that section. OptimusView (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I added text about the pipeline into the history section.[13] Mentioning of concerns is based on the previous text (including same references); however, I removed Aliev's citation as this is not about BP. However, it is included in the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline article and I think it suites there well. Beagel (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's fine! OptimusView (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't fine I'm afraid. The only "comment" there is criticism. Whereas the first ref cited says stuff like "Ilham Aliyev, the Azeri president, said the pipeline would bring economic benefits to all participating countries." Why so one-sided? http://bradsherman.house.gov/2006/06/pr-060614a.html.shtml, one of the refs for the crit, isn't about the pipeline at all. Its about a railroad. The onyl ref to the pipeline is a glancing "The Export-Import bank is the federal government agency that helped finance the ill-conceived Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline to transport crude oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea." The third ref - The Export-Import bank is the federal government agency that helped finance the ill-conceived Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline to transport crude oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. - is the onlt one with any crit. But gnn doesn't look fair and balanced to me William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
William, we already discussed the matter during the last six days (you didnt join us even to left a 'sorry' for your incorrect expression). And so please read the links I added here on 24 August. I'm more than sure it is enough. About being one-sided: off course, if even the pipeline was much more criticized and dangerous, you will find some participant sides like Azerbaijan, Turkey and BP, who are happy, but sorry, they're involved parts. OptimusView (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. Secondly, please leave your nationalism out of the discussion. If you can't, then find something else to edit. Thirdly, no: you're not allowed to be one-sided. Fourthly, please read and respond to the criticism of the links I've provided William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The only nationalist here is you. The sources are provided here, just read them. OptimusView (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so; you're only here because you care about the Armenian angle, yes? You've re-added the same refs that I've pointed out, above, can't be used. So far you've failed to address the reasons why they can't be used. So I'll remove them again. You've added some new links. This one [14] appears to have no clear status - essentially, it is just some blokes opinion and fails WP:RS. I don't think [15] is an RS either; and so it goes on. What you need is *one* (or two :-) good-quality WP:RS's. Not lots of non-RS's. Quantity does not outweigh quality William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
If you believe the sources are not RSs ask for a third opinion. All are enough reliable. This is a consensused information so try to avoid of editwarring. OptimusView (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
BTW it is really strange for me to hear that The Corner House (organisation) is not a RS on environment. Any reasons? Do you know any reliable ones except of BP itselves? OptimusView (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
With regard to consensus, you raise a good point. I don't believe that you do have consensus for your additions. But if you do believe what you say, then I suggest you test it: stop reverting your change back in, and wait for someone else to do it for you. If you think your sources are RS then I suggest that you ask for an opinion on them. As for the editwarring: please try to avoid hypocrisy. As for TCH: why do you think they *are* an RS? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Propane price manipulation

The new subsection named "Propane price manipulation" was added to the Political record section. Reading this new subsection, I can't find anything political about this. Market abuse, yes, but probably belongs in some other section, not in the political record section. Beagel (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Scroll down and see that it was under the "political" section previously. What section would you see "market manipulation" falling under? petrarchan47tc 17:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I just discovered that this issue was discussed less than two month ago [16]. During this discussion, William M. Connolley provided a link that says: "An appeals court has upheld a lower court's dismissal of charges against four former BP propane traders, saying the 2004 transactions in question weren't against the law. [17] Therefore, it is confusing that this subsection was re-added without any discussion just little bit after the relevant discussion thread was archived. Unfortunately, this has happened also with some other topics before. However, taking account the fact that charges were dismissed (according to the link provided by William M. Connolley (dated 29 January 2011 which is later than accusations by other provided sources on this case), I am changing my position about including this in the article. Beagel (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It should be more clear now, having updated with the dismissal. Recent, reliable sources still mention this and don't seem to consider it a non-event. I changed the heading to "market manipulation". petrarchan47tc 23:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It's been updated with an article from 4.20.12 so that it tells the whole story (which is what people come to Wikipedia for). You might feel to add the quotation above (the findings of the lower court) to the section, feel free. petrarchan47tc 23:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The Reuters article from 20 April 2012 says: "During the Bush administration, the Justice Department charged several BP traders with conspiring in 2004 to manipulate and corner the propane market, but a federal judge a year later dismissed the indictment against the traders." Notwithstanding the deferred prosecution agreement, that means that no violation of law was proved.
As for TNK-BP, this is a separate company which is not integrated into BP's business. If you look what is going on around TNK-BP, you see that notwithstanding its 50% share, BP does not have any control over the company. 2008 was time of conflict between local oligarchs and BP, when Bob Dudley had to escape from Russia and this case should be seen in this context. Beagel (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, so it's a question of how to word the first case. As for TNK, I'll remove that part. petrarchan47tc 09:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This is how it reads now: In 2004 the US Justice Department charged several BP traders with conspiring to manipulate and corner the propane gas market. In 2005 a federal judge dismissed the indictment against the traders. BP was required to pay approximately $303 million as part of an agreement to defer prosecution.
Is there any part of this that's untrue, and does anything need to be added? petrarchan47tc 09:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
If charges were dismissed, why it should be added in the article in the first place? Also, the reference provided by William M. Connolley about the appeals court ruling in 2011 [18] is still ignored. This actually changes the perspective of the timeline of this case. Beagel (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This earlier charge seemed to stick: [19] Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Obviously Reuters considers it worth mentioning, we have no right to censor it for WP readers. In April 2012, they printed "During the Bush administration, the Justice Department charged several BP traders with conspiring in 2004 to manipulate and corner the propane market, but a federal judge a year later dismissed the indictment against the traders". Reuters is considered neutral and reliable. It is also recent. If you feel to add the link to the court ruling, it would make sense to me. petrarchan47tc 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Daily Beast as RS

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

According to a RS noticeboard discussion, the Daily Beast does indeed meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable source. Keep in mind too, the definition of RS: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."

You've misread the report you point to. It doesn't say that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to simply bring sources to the noticeboard if they present a big problem for editors here. petrarchan47tc 03:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So in future, if someone challenges something as an RS, the person wanting to re-add it should get it agreed *before* reverting it back in William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It should be discussed here first. The Daily Beast does appear to contain some articles that could be regarded as citeworthy, at least if they are by people considered to be authoritative, etc, but it's one of the many problem areas for Wiki-sourcing in that it also contains lots of low-level opinion stuff - the web is increasingly fragmenting what is considered "news" and "reliable news sites" and Wikipedia has to keep up. We should discuss each source as they get offered. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
So it looks like with Daily Beast, the articles' worthiness as RS as decided on a case by case basis. So something like this, where we have a copy of a document, with BP responding with "We're better now" instead of "This isn't ours" would be considered reliable. Does the fact that other media like Village Voice and Huffington Post refer to it improve RS? petrarchan47tc 01:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sponsorships

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Per standard for major companies I propose adding a Sponsorships section to this article. I propose that it be positioned after the Political record section.

Here is a proposed draft text.

"BP has been actively involved in arts sponsorship in the United Kingdom for a number of years.[20] In 1990 BP began sponsorships of the National Portrait Gallery and Tate Britain.[21] Later in the decade it began additional sponsorships of the British Museum, Natural History Museum, National Maritime Museum, National Theatre, Royal Opera House and Science Museum. Most of these sponsorships have continued unbroken to the present day.[22] In December 2011 BP announced that it was renewing its sponsorships of the British Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, the Royal Opera House and Tate Britain, pledging £10 million over the following five years.[23] BP's arts sponsorships have attracted the criticism of environmental campaigners.[24]

BP has been active in a number of major sports sponsorships. In July 2008 it was announced that BP would be a tier one official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics and Paralympic Games in London, and would also be responsible for providing fuelling facilities for vehicles used during the events.[25] Following the Deepwater Horizon accident Lord Coe, the chairman of the Games organisers, confirmed that BP would be remaining as a sponsor and supplier, stating that BP "clearly have a big issue to deal with and are dealing with it as a world class company. Ours is a very strong relationship and I am delighted they are with us."[26]

Through its Castrol brand BP has been a sponsor of the UEFA Euro 2008 and UEFA Euro 2012 tournaments.[27][28]"Rangoon11 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, although some company articles have a section called "Sponsorship", it is quite problematic as highly promotional. I think that information about notable sponsorships should be added but maybe in History section, not in the separate section. Beagel (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It is standard content appearing in thousands of high profile articles and is an area of the company's activities which has received quality third party coverage. How would you propose integrating it into the History section?Rangoon11 (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Dept. of Justice

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This new source shows the US Justice Department tracing the history of BP's environmental and health violations. It is a profoundly negative salvo:

  • "...gross negligence and willful misconduct"
  • "BP has an ESG [ Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance ] rating of 'D' due to serious concerns related to environmental and social impacts."
  • "...higher accounting and governance risk than 38% of comparable companies."
  • "The company has a long record of legal and ethical violations."
  • OSHA says BP "has a serious, systemic safety problem in their company"

This new source can help bolster article text about BP's history of willful safety violations. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I added this info to the spill article a few days ago and it really should be mentioned here as well. Here is the DoJ statement: [29] Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the controversy related sections into a new page

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

While editing the BP page, I found it difficult to navigate through useful information; such as operations, history, and other useful business info. The sheer passion shown in populating the controversies has led to a situation, where the sections related to the same is as big ( or getting bigger) as the company related information. I do understand the controversies should be outlined, and there is an equal number of people who find that info useful. To that note, could we split the controversies - say from British Petroleum#Environmental record till British Petroleum#Accusations of market manipulation - to a new page. We could leave a small mention in the main BP regarding the controversies - in a para. As a result, due weight-age could be given to populate the future history and evolution. A compromise in short. Your thoughts please. Jean Julius Vernal 20:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, in my understanding, Wikipedia articles are about a subject as well as the 'story' of the subject. In this case, the controversies constitute a good portion of notable 'stories' about BP. Some 'company (or special interest) articles' on Wikipedia look more like brochures (like US Army). But that is a gross misuse of this medium (and I realize that wasn't your aim). "Useful business info" is best found on the company's website; links to that are found at the bottom of the article. petrarchan47tc 02:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The controversies do not overwhelm the article, in my opinion. The article is not yet large enough to require splitting; it has about 50k characters of readable prose. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the opinion. Jean Julius Vernal 18:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - the laundry-list of recent accidents in the US is unbalancing the article and is well suited to a break out article. This article should have an overview section on BP's safety record in the round, putting it in historical context, in the context of its industry, and of peers, worldwide. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Do some internet searches to see what comes up regarding BP, and you will see that we have a challenge here. Most that comes up is very negative, specially right now, with BP stock down 30% since the Gulf spill and the US accusing BP of gross negligence in the Gulf - all this in the past week. There is not a lot of good news coming out about BP, so any editors who simply wish to update this article are going to look like "POV pushers". If in reliable sources, there is much controversy about a subject, its Wikipedia entry should rightly reflect that fact. petrarchan47tc 02:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The inclusion of controversy sections in the article does not make it harder to edit or navigate. It is well-known that any information that is split off from an article is much less read. In an article that is not at all too long, it may appear that to split off controversy is an attempt to conceal negative information from the general reader. Gandydancer (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly! Negative information must not be shoved into a criticism ghetto and forgotten. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • support in opposition to the conspiracy theory just above William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Anyone that's been around the Wikipedia block a few times knows very well that the moving of controversy to a different article is a common form of attempt to "fix" an article. In fact, it is almost a given that someone will come along and suggest a split. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Your logic is faulty. "bad things have happened in the past" does not imply "this is a bad thing" William M. Connolley (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP concerns regarding Browne material

Latest comment: 11 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

The material that Binkster and Xeno are trying to insert appears to be problematic from a BLP perspective as it gives undue emphasis to a single former executive who resigned from the company in 2007. I see a serious problem with inserting into the lede of the article the claim that Browne was responsible for BP's recent environmental disasters and there is also a problem with placing it prominently at the top of the section on the company's environmental record. The bio on Browne is thisaway. BP's article is not the place for hanging up claims about a single former executive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We also have an open discussion (and RfC) on the lead which editors are failing to respect by simultaneously trying to edit war preferred changes.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Browne instituted changes that affected BP. It is as simple as that. The applicable part of BLP is WP:WELLKNOWN... a company CEO is never immune to negative analysis, and that sort of analysis is exactly what the Guardian, Fortune, the New York Times, Front Lines, the Independent, etc., are all publishing. These voices are highly regarded and they speak in concert; that Browne caused BP to slide downward. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, this is not Browne's bio. Adding this material so prominently in the article is a serious BLP problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, this is about BP's safety record under its CEO and the corporate legacy he left behind. The too-easily misunderstood BLP guideline includes WP:WELLKNOWN. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty wading through the mixed messages here. Neither your tenative assertion that an edit "appears to be problematic from a BLP perspective", nor the stronger assertion of a "serious BLP problem" appear to be clearly substantiated (and yes, I've read Devil's talk page). It almost appears as if BLP policy is being cited merely for effect, and without justification. Unless you intend on clearly citing an actual BLP violation, can we please not keep frivolously interjecting references to the BLP policy willy-nilly into discussions? And yes, the bio on Browne is thisaway ...so? The BP article is here, and last I checked, Browne has something to do with BP, so expect to see content related to him here. With that silliness addressed, we can move on to legitimate concerns raised about weight and location.
If I correctly understand what you have written, you take issue with 1) Brown being unduly highlighted by locating him in the lead, 2) Brown's changes, and resultant safety & environment ramifications, are given undue prominence by their location at the top of a section. Without making a judgement on the merit of your two complaints, I can make two observations: First, the material you claimed was improperly located has been purged, rather than relocated. That doesn't appear to be constructive. Second, I note that additional material was also purged with that same edit, yet went completely unmentioned here or in the edit summary. Also unhelpful. Can we try again to edit with a goal of improvement? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1. There is a open thread, and an open RfC, on the lead above. And there have been very lengthy discussions on the lead prior, including at DR. If you have comments on the lead please make them there. 2. Please do not attempt to force changes to the lead through edit warring, particularly whilst an RfC is open on it. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Per #1 - I have made comments on the lead (and proposed additions to the lead) to that section, per your suggestion. Per #2 - I haven't, and wouldn't. Experienced editors know that one cannot "force changes" in Wikipedia, regardless. If you are referring to content that I added to the lead, I have removed it; sorry for any confusion, I haven't edited this article prior to today. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The material regarding Browne is actually well documented. Some snippets from a bit of research on BP's safety and accidents records:
The fact that these two accidents — thousands of miles apart, and involving very different parts of BP — took place within a year showed that something was systemically wrong with BP’s culture. Mr. Browne had built BP by taking over other oil companies, like Amoco in 1998, and then ruthlessly cutting costs, often firing the acquired company’s most experienced engineers. Taking shortcuts was ingrained in the company’s culture, and everyone in the oil business knew it. FROM NYT
Two decades ago, British Petroleum, a venerable and storied corporation, was running out of oil reserves. Along came a new CEO of vision and vast ambition, John Browne, who pulled off one of the greatest corporate turnarounds in history.
BP bought one company after another and then relentlessly fired employees and cut costs. It skipped safety procedures, pumped toxic chemicals back into the ground, and let equipment languish, even while Browne claimed a new era of environmentally sustainable business as his own. For a while the strategy worked, making BP one of the most profitable corporations in the world. Then it all began to unravel, in felony convictions for environmental crimes and in one deadly accident after another. Employees and regulators warned that BP’s problems, unfixed, were spinning out of control, that another disaster—bigger and deadlier—was inevitable. Nobody was listening. Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster by Abrahm Lustgarten
Some critics attribute these disasters to Lord Browne's drive to cut costs and expand BP. Lord Browne's successor, Tony Hayward, described it as "a management style that has made a virtue out of doing more for less. Independent UK
Browne is widely blamed for the drastic cuts of BP’s safety and maintenance program of its oil installations in the U.S. while he was BP’s CEO between 1998 and 2007. The consequence of those cuts were three major accidents in the U.S. Daily Beast petrarchan47tc 23:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Personally I could accept specfic mention of Browne in the context of something like "Some critics have attributed some of the accidents which affected BP America in the decade prior to 2007 to Lord Browne's drive to cut costs and expand BP whilst CEO.". I cannot accept that opinion being presented as a plain fact in WP's voice. I am also firmly of the view that such opinions must be explored in a proper overview of BP's safety record, for which I have started a thread above. I would be strongly opposed to specific mention of Browne in the lead as undue and out of place. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree about it being undue in the lede and would add that I feel it is also undue to lead with it in the environmental records section since the Deepwater Horizon spill came after his resignation, along with several other environmental hazards, and at least one issue regarding environmental hazards is mentioned that predates his promotion to CEO. The article also mentions a listing in 1991 that cites BP as having a poor environmental record so presumably there have been at least some other noteworthy incidents prior to Browne becoming CEO that could be mentioned so I think starting out that section about BP's environmental record with a mention of Browne is about as bad as putting it in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon11, "some" critics and "some" of the accidents is weak wording and wrong. I have not seen any third party observers who think Browne's cost-cutting was unconnected to safety failures and fines. Similarly, none of these observers separate "some" accidents from others—rather, they point to an overall corporate culture of deferred maintenance and "willful" violations that manifested in all of the accidents. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I have raised these concerns at the BLP noticeboard.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
...And I have responded there with a massive list of writers telling the world that Browne was responsible. Browne himself agrees in his autobiography. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Wrong venue for this complaint. The UNDUE noticeboard (let's say WP:NPOVN) is where this concern should be taken, and even then I don't think a problem would be discovered with neutrality or undue weight. There is certainly no BLP violation; the WP:WELLKNOWN section of BLP is what is applicable here. For crying out loud, the negative information about Browne echoes what Browne himself wrote in Beyond Business, his memoir! John Browne was CEO of BP and he instituted sweeping changes. These changes have been seen as negative by observers from more than a dozen major news outlets and authors. The Browne changes (severe cost-cutting, deferred maintenance, reliance on contractors for dirty jobs) have continued to have a negative safety effect at BP even after he left the company.
I cannot see any concerns related to BLP in telling the reader that Browne was responsible for taking BP into an era of cost-cutting and safety violations. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
At first glance an impressive looking list of sources. Upon closer inspection rather flaky though. For example the Harvard Business Review sounds high quality, but what we actually have is a blog entry. And it doesn't actually state what it is being used in support of (one thing that it does include which is interesting is that "For years, the sustainability community has praised BP as best-in-class.".Rangoon11 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The NPR source also does not support the claim made specifically about Browne ("BP management" does not equal "John Browne" in a $400 billion turnover multinational): [30].
Quotations from people like Brent Coon (lead lawyer who sued BP on behalf of the families of the workers who injured and killed at Texas City) also need to be taken with a few lorry loads of salt.
These are the sort of issues which arise when editors go searching for sources to support a pre-conceived view, rather than doing open-minded research with a view to produce neutral content.
I should add that the patchy nature of the sources above does not change my own view that mention of the opinions about Browne's responsibility is acceptable, but subject to the caveats which I have mentioned earlier. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The Harvard Business Review article is an op-ed piece written by Andrew Winston, an author who has previously written about BP in his book Green To Gold. Winston is an expert on the topic.
Anybody with reading comprehension skills can see that the NPR piece juxtaposes Browne's promise to improve BP's safety with the subsequent battle to "deflect blame down the chain of command". NPR's quote of Brent Coon raises his level as a source for reliable information about BP. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Coon is clearly an interested party so if quoted in this article it would have to be stated what his role was in the Texas City litigation. Readers can then make up their minds about the reliability of his comments.
The HBR article does not make the statement about Browne which you claim it does. You are inferring something extra from the text which is not stated in it. But since you have so much respect for Winston I assume you will be happy for his explicit statement that "For years, the sustainability community has praised BP as best-in-class." be included in this article?Rangoon11 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Coon is also raised up by Esquire editor Mark Warren who quotes him regarding Coon's strong opinions about BP's corporate culture and the post-Browne accidents that may be laid at Browne's feet. Coon is further raised by an interview by Tim Webb for The Guardian. Abrahm Lustgarten uses Coon as a reliable source in Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. Tom Bower uses Coon as a reliable source in Oil: Money, Politics, and Power in the 21st Century. Coon is cited straight up in more books: Chao, petróleo (in Spanish), Poisoned Legacy: The Human Cost of BP's Rise to Power, In Too Deep: BP and the Drilling Race That Took it Down, Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding, and Barbarians of Oil: How the World's Oil Addiction Threatens Global Prosperity.
Regard Winston's statement about early praise for BP's sustainability projects, you would not want to misrepresent Winston by quoting him out of context, right? Misrepresenting a source violates the pillar of NPOV. Winston's context is that BP was praised at one time but soon BP was seen to have "reduced its investment in renewable energy to a negligible percentage of sales and profits." Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Since you didn't answer the question (as usual) I will repeat it - I assume you would be happy for Winston's explicit statement that "For years, the sustainability community has praised BP as best-in-class." be included in this article? That BP's sustainability activities were viewed in this way for an extended period is clearly highly significant. Surely you wouldn't want to censor such an important statement from someone you regard as such an expert, and given in what you regard as such a high quality source?
That Coon is quoted does not mean he is neutral or is even being presented as such by sources. Coon is widely quoted in respect of BP because he played a key role in a high profile litigation involving BP. Coon is not, as regards BP, being quoted as a neutral expert on oil industry safety standards. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with any reliable source being quoted as long as it is the proper context is provided. It would be perfectly legitimate to point out that BP was once thought of as best-in-class in terms of green initiatives in the oil industry. Naturally, the context would have to be continued to say that BP has since fallen from that pedestal. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I thoroughly agree with that statement - bring the RS, no matter if it makes BP look good or bad. See? This is called NPOV.
For clarity, the whole subject of adding history regarding accidents and Lorde Brown's reign came about initially because my suggestion for the Lede was criticized by one editor for being all so recent, and all so US-centered. There is a good reason that the major accidents were recent and based in the US, and Lorde Brown's history is the explanation. The reason BP grew into such a large profitable company so fast, was due to Brown's acquisition a large US company like Amoco. So while folks may love how large BP is, they seem to want to run from any responsibility that came with buying Amoco, and distance BP from it when it doesn't suit the narrative. petrarchan47tc 22:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

US operations

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

In my previous request on this page I mentioned that I intend to provide additional new material regarding BP's operations and have now prepared a new subsection for other editors to review. The section expands on the information in the overview to provide more in-depth detail of the company's American activities to add to the Operations section.

The draft is in my user pages here: User:Arturo at BP/US operations

I hope editors will review the draft. If you have any changes, please make them in the draft but leave comments here so that others can follow the discussion.

The other request I would like to raise here is regarding the material I prepared on the company's UK operations that was added into the Operations section previously. My intention was for this to form a subsection of Operations after the overview, which would give an introduction to the overall organization and to brief introductions to the UK, US and rest of world activities. If there is agreement to do so, I'd like to see the Operations begin with the overview text that was added on July 5th, then the UK operations and US operations become subsections below this. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse the off-topic comment here, but if you get a chance, we could really use your help here, trying to write up the stock history section per guideline on company articles. Thanks petrarchan47tc 04:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My comments based on your draft:

  1. Although it is mentioned in the history section, maybe it is worth to mention that the US operation are largely inherited from AMOCO?
  2. Instead of "current" and "currently" it would be better to use more precise time, e.g. "in 2012", "as of 2012" etc.
  3. I understand that these oilfields are operated by BP but maybe it would be worth of mentioning if there are other stakes in fields operated by other companies (if any)?
  4. I understand that there is an agreement sell the Carson refinery. In this case I don't see the need to add information about this refinery in this article. Same will apply to the Texas City refinery when the sale will be agreed.
  5. As of "enough power for around 586,000 homes", it is true and usual practice by wind farm developers to advertise, of course; however, I personally find this promotional and better avoid (not only here but in all articles about wind farms).
  6. We have an article about Vercipia Biofuels, so maybe it would be practical to name and link it in this section?

Beagel (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Beagel, these are good suggestions so I have made the changes that you recommend in the draft in my user pages. I have a few notes for you, first with regard to the oil fields in which BP has a stake, I have listed the ones included on the BP website page for Gulf of Mexico although these include two fields that are up for sale. For now I have included these in the sentence noting the fields that are for sale, but once these are sold this information will need to be updated. For Carson City, I have taken out the line focusing on this refinery, but it should remain listed as one of the refineries BP operates for now.
You raise an interesting question about the biofuels company, since it is no longer called Vercipia. My thought was to keep the link but use the new name, providing the link to the BP website to support this, and I hope that sounds ok to you. Since it might cause confusion for people to follow the link labeled "Highlands" and have the page be named "Vercipia Biofuels", I'll make a request on that article's Talk page to have this updated.
Here is the link to the draft again: User:Arturo at BP/US operations
Would you be able to add this into the article if you feel it is appropriate? Also, as I mentioned before, if there is agreement, I'd like to see the Operations begin with the overview I prepared previously, then for the UK operations and US operations to form subsections below this.
Petrarchan, I am doing some research into the stock history and I hope to have something to offer soon. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
In my view the draft text is quite excellent and much needed. I would be happy to add it in to the article, unless Beagle wishes to do so?
I think that the Upstream and Downstream texts should be left in their current positions however. The way I envisage the Operations section being structured is 1. brief overview, 2. detailed description of operations by geography, 3. detailed description of operations by business segment/division. There is no "perfect" way of doing it though, and either way a subheading along the lines of "By geography" is in my view needed before the country info.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I aon't have any further questions or remarks about proposed text, so please feel free to add it. As we have now operations described by sectors and by countries, the question is how to avoid repetitions. Beagel (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your comments, and thank you Rangoon for adding in the US operations material. Having thought some more, I agree with Rangoon's suggestion for how to structure the section. My only concern is that facts from the overview text I originally supplied, but are not in this latest proposed text, not be lost. Information such as BP is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the US are now not included anywhere. Rangoon or Beagel, could you replace the section with the latest version of the draft in my userspace? I've added the missing facts to my draft, so that a straightforward replacement can be made and all the details are kept. I've also taken this opportunity to update a reference where the link was dead. If one of you is willing to make that edit, the draft is ready here: User:Arturo at BP/US operations Thanks again. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Now done. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As the US operations are significant part of BP operations, maybe we should start an article on BP Products North America, which will consist more detailed information about its operations. It would be similar to the case with other Europe located supermajor Royal Dutch Shell, which has a separate article for its American subsidiary Shell Oil Company. Beagel (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, we should not start such an article. BP and Amoco merged in 1998; there is no separation now. BP's operations are global as are their headaches. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
So we should not have more detailed articles about the major subsidiary companies? In this case, what about BP Canada? Merging into BP? Could you please elaborate your point of view little bit more? Beagel (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a question, what percentage of BP is BP Canada? A subsidiary make me think of a smallish division. BP America is one third of BP. If there is a "BP" separate from "BP America", where is it located and what percentage of BP's operations exist there? Thanks. petrarchan47tc 01:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Beagel, Shell is significantly different in that Shell USA operated substantially independently of its parent company for decades. On the other hand, once BP and Amoco merged there was nothing like this sort of independence. From that point forward, the BP CEO was often in North America acting prominently as the head of the company. Profits and risks were assumed by BP. Today, even BP corporate uses the name "BP" to describe its operations in the USA, not "BP America" or "BP Products North America" or "BP USA". To indicate USA-based BP operations they use the phrase "BP in the United States". The only time the designation "BP Products North America, Inc." is used is when there is a legal situation specific to national or regional courts, courts that have no sway over a multinational corporation. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

Binksternet is repeatedly attempting to force changes to this article through edit-warring of the most cynical and contemptuous kind.

Adding attack content on living person John Browne which has been reverted on multiple occasions by multiple editors, and which is the subject of two open discussions.

And adding a large amount of attack content to the lead, despite the lead having the subject of very lengthy discussions involving multiple editors, a long DR process, and despite there being an open RfC on the specific issue of the lead.

Binksternet cannot deny knowledge of any of these discussions, having actually participated in them.

I move that this article be locked from editing until Binksternet commits to not edit war futher in contempt of open discussions and proper process. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

At User talk:Rangoon11#Disruptive reversions at BP I have requested Rangoon11 to step back from the battleground attitude and allow high quality reliable sources to be used in developing the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Can I see a link to the above-mentioned "attack content on John Browne" please? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Do not change other editors talk page contributions as you did here: [31].
For the changes, I'm not sure why couldn't you look at the edit history of the article, where the content, and its repeated reversion by multiple editors, is clear. However here are some links [32], [33], [34].Rangoon11 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your change to this Talk page header, which you describe as a "contribution". Per WP:TALKNEW, Never address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. And per WP:TALKNEW, Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. And per WP:TPO, Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided.
I'd rather not escalate this discussion on the issue of Talk page section headers to the Administrator notice board, but I will certainly join you there if you feel we should. (I won't be addressing this matter further on this page.) Just say so, or revert to the grossly inappropriate header again - I'll get the signal, and I'll open the discussion for us at ANI for review. While we are there, we can maybe explore in more depth my observation on how such knee-jerk reverts of constructive edits are symptomatic of the larger collaboration issue here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that guideline. However it is also the case that editors are not allowed to change other editors' talk page contributions, certainly not to wholly change the meaning as your change did, and a talk page header is clearly a part of a talk page contribution. You should have asked me if I would change the heading. You certainly should not have edit warred to try to impose a change to another editors contribution. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a LOT of rules; one can't be expected to be aware of all of them - I'm glad I was able to help you with this one. If you do not wish to have your contributions edited, don't place them within Talk page headers, where they can (and in this case of clear policy violation, absolutely will) be modified. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why you are linking to that policy since stating that this editor has been edit warring in contempt of open talk page discussions and an open RfC which they are fully aware of, is not a personal attack within the definition of the policy but a plain statement of fact. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The personal attack was your header: "Binksternet attempting to force changes to article through edit warring". Regarding edit warring, you are responsible for knee-jerk wholesale reversions of everything I do including well-cited text I added, taken from high quality reliable sources. Any uninvolved admin will quickly see that my additions were reasonable but that your deletions were reactionary. Your strategy of sidelining all negative article text (no matter how reliable the source) into discussions which go nowhere is a battleground mentality which must be stopped. You have developed article ownership issues which must be released. I have begun a discussion on your talk page but you have not seen fit to accommodate my concerns in the slightest. If you continue to block article development this dispute is on its way up to higher authority. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Your attempts to push me off this article through personal attacks and disruption and threats so that you and a couple of others can have free reign to add in all of your desired crude attack content will not be successful.
Your sole interest in this article to date has been in adding in and puffing up attack content. And you have gone about it in a highly uncivil and disruptive manner which has also involved multiple attempts to force changes when you were fully aware 1. there was not consensus for, 2. there were multiple open talk page discussions and an open RfC about, and 3. your text about John Browne had been reverted by multiple editors. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Note that no "crude attack content" has been brought forward by Rangoon11 as an example. There is no such editing coming from me. I have written about negative assessments of BP that are widely reported in newspapers, magazines, industry journals and books. Furthermore I have never engaged in personal attacks on Rangoon11, who appears to repeat the same false things about me as a strategy for making untruths stick to the target. I have persistently maintained here that Rangoon11 is not helping this article move forward, so I "get" why she is so vociferously fighting me. What I will not stand for is constant repetition of falsehoods about me. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I would expect a person in your position could pull a specific sentence out to demonstrate the notional "attack content". It is revealing that you cannot. Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Your attempted additions speak for themselves, I have provided links although there was no real need for me to do so, there is no point picking out particular sentences as it is all crude attack content, just like everything you have attempted to add to the article to date. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Note that no "crude attack content" has been brought forward by Rangoon11 as an example. There is no such editing coming from me. I have written about negative assessments of BP that are widely reported in newspapers, magazines, industry journals and books. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon11, I have checked the three links you have provided. I'm not seeing anything that rises to the level of "attack content on John Browne" (which sounds very much like an allegation of BLP-violation). I see content additions in those links that can be considered unflattering or critical, but they appear to be accurate conveyances of reliably sourced encyclopedic information -- not "attack content on John Browne". I note significant overlap across all three of those links - sometimes identical paragraph additions; can you cite from those edits a single example representing what you feel is the most egregious "attack", so we can focus on that? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This thread is for discussing Binksternet's edit warring. We have a separate thread for discussing the specific BLP issue above.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this talk page is for discussing article improvement. If you wish to discuss an editor's edit warring, please raise that issue at the appropriate noticeboard. Or, if you wish to request "that this article be locked from editing", you should make that request at this location, as editors with the ability to implement your motion aren't likely to see it here. Hopefully this is helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Article introduction: a fresh perspective needed?

Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

Before I outline my suggestions for how to proceed with the introduction, I recognize that as a BP employee my past suggestions for wording of the introduction were (rightly or not) met with skepticism and I hope that my concerns here will be received in good faith and with an open mind.

The major issue as I see it is that antagonism over exact information to add has led to formation of two camps of editors: one that wants a very short summary, and one that wants to insert much detail. Arguably, either position is problematic. From my perspective it is particularly problematic to insert details that introduce bias and I would prefer to find a middle ground that summarizes just the most important information in an accurate and neutral manner.

Given that discussions here have not led to an outcome that either side is comfortable with, I'd like to suggest that outside views are needed from those who have not been involved in discussion so far and who can provide a dispassionate opinion. I propose that we close the current discussion and open a new request for comment, invite relevant WikiProjects and also experienced editors, such as admins or those who are familiar with dispute resolution to participate. If this seems reasonable, I would be happy to start this process. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please make sure your RfC has a clearly stated outcome rather than ideological generalities. One fairly successful strategy is to have editors choose between two versions. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I am happy to support Arturo's suggestion. However putting up two drafts to "pick" from is simplistic and has wholly failed as an approach in the current, still open, RfC. It is not an approach I support.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Didn't we already post a request for comment? Gandydancer (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes and it's still open. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
You know what's funny is that I am not in any one "camp"; instead, I am that "fresh" viewpoint you are looking for. I came upon this dispute at the Dispute resolution noticeboard on June 21 when I looked over the arguments, scanned the edit history, and concluded that an imbalance existed at the article, making it too whitewashed/promotional for BP and not enough critical. That's the fresh perspective. Because of the battleground atmosphere here, I was immediately seen as joining the polarized battle rather than suggesting a solution for it.
I think the only thing to be done for this article is to block participation by BP promoters and BP critics and let uninvolved people (such as myself) who have not previously studied the topic take a look at all the sources and rewrite it. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
If the criteria of "fresh" viewpoint and not involvement is only joining the dispute during DRN procedure or later, all editors here but petrarchan47 and Rangoon11 qualify for this. Beagel (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
More personal attacks. Please provide evidence for who here is "involved", which I take it to mean has a COI. And what a joke after your comments on this page, including that BP is "the most unhealthy oil company", which reflect someone with a far from neutral and balanced approach. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I have not attacked anyone, I have only stated my opinion on what this article needs to move forward.
Regarding BP being the unsafest and least healthy oil company, the US-based Occupational Safety and Health Administration determined BP to have committed more than an order of magnitude more "egregious, willful" safety and health violations than other oil companies (see ABC World News "BP's Dismal Safety Record"). ABC World News said BP was "breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws and committing outright fraud." That's strong language. It was clear to me after reading that and other critical pieces that BP was outstanding in the field of safety and health violations for workers, and that the health of people who live near toxic spills was the most threatened by BP. I am perfectly comfortable in summarizing investigative news articles by saying BP is the oil company which is the least healthy for workers and the world population. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Well that would be a strange approach. Because I've done considerable research (though nothing compared to the work that Petrarchan has done) I would be grouped into a camp of BP critics and be asked to step aside, is that correct? It is hard to believe that that is what you are proposing, but Petrarchan and I have been the only recent critics before you came along, so I don't know who else you could mean. Gandydancer (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It is what I am saying but I don't expect that to happen. What would be great is if the battleground atmosphere could be neutralized. We can take incremental steps in that direction rather than my radical suggestion. There's probably one single step which would help immensely. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't like being put in a position where I feel I need to defend my editing of this article. Like Binksternet, I came to this article and was concerned about the whitewashing in the lead. I took a look at the edit history and it was my impression that Rangoon was responsible for the extreme bias that I was finding. Right from the start she has called my suggestions personal attacks, edit warring, against some policy or another, and a waste of time. It's hardly fair to say that because I have stood my ground that I have helped to create a battleground atmosphere here and that the article would be better off if I would just back away. I find Rangoon responsible for the fact that this article still does not have a lead that reflects Wikipedia guidelines and I refuse to accept the suggestion that I should share responsibility for the deadlock here. Gandydancer (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Even when piously defending yourself and trying desperately to grab hold of some moral high ground you can't help but make even more personal attacks. It is those whose sole interest in this article is adding and puffing up negatives about BP who have and continue to poison this talk page. They are also the ones showing a complete contempt for open talk page discussions, RfCs and the views expressed by multiple editors.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I have come late to this section and find that I am being labeled a "BP critic", with which I take huge issue. While I agree that this same group of editors who attempted to discuss the Lede over the summer doesn't show promise of making headway, and could use more unbiased editors to join in, my edits have NOT been from a standpoint of criticizing BP. I am criticizing what I see as spin in the Lede as well as the article (mainly by what is omitted or the slight changes of wording, subtle though, compared to the last paragraph of the Lede). I have updated this article with information that goes both ways and that is well documented. Though the news about BP lately has been quite negative, and no one should be criticized for adding it. I am PRO Wikipedia, and my impetus for trying to fix the Lede comes not from some hatred for an oil company, but rather for a love of the encyclopedia and a distain for propaganda and misuse of this medium, which is run by and exists for the "little guy" - the people. There are inexplicable things going on at this page, where a simple addition with ample RS turns into what looks like a court case on the talk page. At some point, this nonsense may very well attract attention that BP may not appreciate. petrarchan47tc 23:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Very well said. I take back my "BP critic" label. Your final comment sounds like the Streisand effect is liable to come into play for BP if their promoters continue pushing such an obvious agenda. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You have no reason to apologize, you were not the one who named me nor did I feel as if you were referring to me. The idea that this activity could hurt BP comes from a read of the WP page on COI editing (though I am not accusing anyone at this time). This is something to consider: "COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment for the individuals and groups being promoted." and from the footnote, "Wikipedia is a very public forum, and news of what occurs here is frequently reported in the media. "Anything you say here and anything you do here can have real world consequences." I am NOT claiming anyone is being paid or COI editing - I have no way of knowing that, but I do feel this section from the COI page could still be relevant to our experience here. I also wonder if it's too much to ask at this point for editors who hold stock in BP sit out these discussions, as we have such a problem agreeing on NPOV as it is. Just a thought. petrarchan47tc 01:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyone editing here while holding stock in BP is of course under a conflict of interest. Such editors should stay on the talk page rather than make content changes to the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Not really, millions of people own BP shares directly and indirectly. And in the case of a company of this scale, and which is covered so heavily across the mainstream media as a whole, the likelihood of any editing behaviour on this article, even hundreds of edits, having any effect whatsoever on the share price is also essentially nil. There is therefore no reasonable expectation of deriving monetary benefit from editing here. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Quite. You might equally well ask all citizens of the US to step aside from editing the article in view of the involvement of their government in legal actions against BP. I do not currently hold BP shares by the way and agree Wikipedia has no chance of affecting the share price. --BozMo talk 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ BP eyes wind, biofuels in alternative energy - MarketWatch
  2. ^ Don't Laugh At BP's 'Green' Side - Forbes
  3. ^ "bp: Beyond Petroleum?". Uow.edu.au. Retrieved 5 Jun. 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)[dead link]
  4. ^ "Scripps Institution". Scrippsco2.ucsd.edu. Retrieved 5 Jun. 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  5. ^ BP turns out lights at solar business | Reuters
  6. ^ Interviewer: Amy Goodman, Guest: Antonia Juhasz (5 May 2010). "BP Funnels Millions into Lobbying to Influence Regulation and Re-Brand Image". Amy Goodman's Weekly Column. Democracy Now. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |serieslink= (help)
  7. ^ BP turns out lights at solar business | Reuters
  8. ^ a b Interviewer: Amy Goodman, Guest: Antonia Juhasz (5 May 2010). "BP Funnels Millions into Lobbying to Influence Regulation and Re-Brand Image". Amy Goodman's Weekly Column. Democracy Now. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |serieslink= (help)
  9. ^ Monbiot, George (13 June 2006). "Behind the spin, the oil giants are more dangerous than ever (column)". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 26 April 2010.
  10. ^ "BP beyond petroleum? Not just yet". The Scotsman. 26 October 2005. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
  11. ^ a b Carbon Scam: Noel Kempff Climate Action Project and the Push for Sub-national Forest Offsets Sub-prime carbon brought to you by AEP, BP, and Pacificorp, Greenpeace 10/2009 pages 4–5
  12. ^ "BP wins coveted 'Emerald Paintbrush' award for worst greenwash of 2008". Greenpeace.org.uk. 22 December 2008. Retrieved 1 May 2010.
  13. ^ "BP – nominated for green spin on the activities of the company". Climategreenwash.org. Retrieved 5 Jun. 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)[dead link]
  14. ^ Platts, Russian supreme court backs antitrust fines against TNK-BP, 26 May 2010, accessed 1 June 2010, Nadia Rodova, http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews.aspx?xmlpath=RSSFeed/HeadlineNews/Oil/8751289.xml
  15. ^ "The Baku Ceyhan Pipeline: BP's Time Bomb". Gnn.tv. Archived from the original on 2008-12-16. Retrieved 5 June 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  16. ^ Sherman Joins Amendment to Block Funds For Railroad Route Bypassing Armenia - June 14, 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BP/Archive_4&oldid=1083403833"