Talk:BP

Gulf spill section

Speaking about the Gulf spill section, on April 5 Jytdog said he planned to "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." and on April 6 he did complete these edits. On that date I objected with only one editor in agreement, however that editor made no move to restore a more balanced version. So, consensus remains in agreement with the new version, is that correct? Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a lengthy reply to you, to which you did not reply.... we achieve consensus by talking and reasoning. I gave reasons for my changes. Why don't you respond? This is not "my way or the highway" - we should be able to reason our way to a consensus. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get I'm saying "my way or the highway"? I stated that I was not satisfied with the changes but I did not revert you, and now I am asking other editors for input on the section. If the other editors are satisfied then it should be left as is. If not it should be adjusted. What is wrong with that? Gandydancer (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with that. You are free to do as you please. But we are apparently the two most interested parties. I don't understand why you wouldn't continue the conversation to reach consensus with anybody who is talking. No obligation of course. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What would you all think of updating and expanding a bit the environmental impact mention in this section? Presently, the article has "there was damage" and leaves it at that. I don't see why the reader isn't allotted a bit more detail. In my view, the amount of information given about the effect on the environment should exceed the court-related information. The only reason BP is in court over this is because it was so harmful to the environment. If they'd spilled a non-toxic substance, they probably wouldn't be in court in the first place. So it's baffling to me that we act as if the environmental damage deserves barely a mention. At the anniversaries of this accident (right now we are approaching the third year anniversary), good summaries of these effects appear in the media - always they mention "we won't truly know the environmental effects of this for years" - but we do know some results. The latest:

"Three years after BP oil spill, USF research finds massive die-off"

"Dolphin Deaths in the Gulf Three Years After the Oil Spill"

Commentary on above NWF piece

"Three years later, oil effects still unfolding"

(related) :

"Take It With a Grain of (Sea) Salt: Gulf Microbe Study Was Funded by BP"

Perhaps the related oil spill article can be updated while we're at it. petrarchan47tc 05:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think some compressed, very summarizing statements on environmental consequences would make sense. Right now we have compressed, summarizing paragraphs on the event and on legal consequences, both very relevant to BP as a company. We have "main" links to the 2 "main events" - the explosion and the spill. We have "see also" links to several of the subarticles from the spill (just added one for environmental consequences) The subarticle on the environmental consequences should be the most up-to-date and detailed; the section in the article on the spill should summarize that (for instance, via a copy of the lead of that article), and as I mentioned, a very compressed summary of that section could go here. One of the big problems with wikipedia is the way that content isn't kept harmonized -- people often just want to load content into the topmost article in the chain, which leads to bloat in that head article and what is worse, a poor (uneven, duplicative, and often contradictory and because of all that, time-wasting) presentation of information for anybody who actually cares and wants to learn about what happened. (fixing this elsewhere is what got me active as an editor) I would support an addition of information done that way - there should be no source here is that is not in the detailed article. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The legal ramifications and the environmental ones should be given due weight in this article - we just have to figure out what due weight means in this case. It is certainly unbalanced now and represents a major disconnect - the highest fines of all time are being levied because of the amount of damage done. I should have been more clear: I am asking for help updating all 3 relevant articles with this new information. I would need help to add anything to the main oil spill article (long story, see the talk page there to understand the problem). Also, the split-off article dealing with environmental damage needs tremendous help. It was cut off from the main article without any agreement on the talk page, and the summary was created and added by one person without any input from the group (and continues to be trimmed in a way not in keeping with Wiki guidelines). The split-off page gets about 20 views per day and is quite a mess. When I try to make an update to these two articles, it is followed by the removal of other content. I have reason to believe my work as an editor is more harmful than good on these BP oil spill articles due to personal games being played, therefore I am asking for other editors to please help with this. As for, "but we do have links to related articles" - we also have links to related "litigation" article but yet have a giant paragraph here representing about 2/3rds of the coverage of BP & the world's largest accidental marine oil spill. There was never consensus to cut the Gulf spill section down to two paragraphs, that I'm aware of. I think it would be good to question "due weight" once again with regard to this section and BP's article as a whole. petrarchan47tc 22:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, I can understand how difficult it is to find yourself in a position where it appears that signing your name to an edit is a kiss of death for it--see for instance my recent attempts to edit the Purdhoe section that were instantly deleted along with Arturo's as well because it was thought that it was all my work. When it was thought that it was Arturo's work there was no objection. So, it is a problem. As for the way the splits were done, it was indeed about the nuttiest thing I've ever seen. First someone that had never worked on the article dropped in out of the blue and did a bunch but left no summaries and then the editor from Hell popped in and then I asked for help from a stranger and got a lot more than I had asked for... *gandy crosses her eyes* I wonder--where would be a good place to start? Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, thank you so much for your response. I have two thoughts. BP has a "Wikipedia editing team" or some such thing (as per the HuffPo article). It is clear to me that because taking them on, so to speak, is so challenging and stressful given their limitless resources and fantastic support system here at Wiki that, as you earlier suggested, the only answer is to 'combat' it with an equal force. As you said, that would very literally mean that a COI editor from the 'other side' should be here doing the same thing Arturo does. We would also need a team like CREWE. When I first heard you suggest the Greenpeace rep (was that your example?), I thought it sounded ludicrous. Now I see it is exactly as ludicrous as having BP PR write this article. I watch the indies here bite each others' ankles every time one turns around. And it strikes me this is a function of our working for free, and for very little reward. This is why an organized team somewhat like CREWE, even if more loosely organized and with few members, is actually a good idea. If Wiki editors are now seriously being asked to do what we are doing at this page, we need to take a moment and reflect on what that really means. We are up against a PR department of one of the most powerful, wealthy companies in the world. And they are not about to stop caring A LOT about what this page says. They have loyal editors here who seem much more organized and less emotional than those of us interesting in removing spin. If that doesn't change, nothing will change with regard to the POV in the article. Another idea also is to keep this talk page very content-focused and the moment feelings are hurt, personal talk pages could be used instead of this one to deal with it. But I also agree that we must not silence ourselves or each other regarding the bullshit that has gone on at this page for about a year now. We've really only just begun uncovering the story.

The way to move forward in my opinion, is to keep talking about all of this: problems with the BP page, the oil spill page and its insane editing history, etc. Lastly, as either Core or Carbuncle said, the indies do need to just start being bold and making edits. The assumed suggestion is that with a lot of eyeballs now on these pages, edits sticking to guidelines should have enough support to remain in one form or another (ie, our efforts won't be thoroughly wasted). petrarchan47tc 23:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it surely was not Carbuncle that boldly edited--Jytdog told him to be bold and edit and instead he sulked off calling us shills. Re paid editors, I agree that we need something in place for corporations when they believe that their article is not accurate, but the scenario that you put on you talk page with an paid environmental editor rewriting entire articles as company editors are doing really does give a person something to think about. I wonder if anyone of the Higher Ups have given any serious thought to the idea of having watch dogs or watch dog groups for any article with a paid editor? Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

From my read, it seems the really High Ups prefer to assume all is going well with Paid Editors on talk pages. No investigation into the truth of that has been made, and it appears that will remain the case. petrarchan47tc 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I think it's important to expose this article to as many eyes as possible within Wikipedia, and to utilize adjudication boards/procedures as much as possible, such as the RfC that I just commenced when editors repeatedly removed text from the Clean Air Trial section, and demoted it to subsection. If nothing else, doing so will get more editors involved. The paid editor issue is not the only one troublesome in this article; the rest seems to be concerted whitewashing, which may or may not have a COI element. Your general point on paid editing is an important one. We have a paid editor to point out when the article tilts in one direction, but no countervailing force when the article points in another direction. The article cries out for expert attention from persons versed in environmental issues and this company's track record. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right. To give you some background, in the past, our RfCs have not attracted much attention. The last one filed by Martin Hogbin attracted literally no one. But perhaps you know some secrets? And I really do agree that a counter-force should be called in here. Of course, with the attitude towards environmentalists, I can't imagine anyone accepting that delicious offer, unless they were paid like Arturo. Non-profits probably don't have extra help and resources lying around to spend time in the recesses of Wikipedia. What would be the payoff for them? petrarchan47tc 20:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Updating

Leading to the third anniversary, lots of good summary articles will emerge. I'll leave them here:

On dolphins, shrimp, etc.. petrarchan47tc 04:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On seafood petrarchan47tc 06:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On use of Corexit - Newsweek

On use of Corexit - GAP report petrarchan47tc 03:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Corexit, human health, coverup

Louisianna update petrarchan47tc

[BP oil spill continues to affect Louisiana coast Louisiana update 2] petrarchan47tc 04:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Three years after BP oil spill, USF research finds massive die-off"

"Dolphin Deaths in the Gulf Three Years After the Oil Spill"

Commentary on above NWF piece

"Three years later, oil effects still unfolding"

Atlantic: Three Years After the BP Spill, Tar Balls and Oil Sheen Blight Gulf Coast

Empty nets in Louisiana three years after the massive BP oil spill petrarchan47tc

(related) :

"Take It With a Grain of (Sea) Salt: Gulf Microbe Study Was Funded by BP" petrarchan47tc 06:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Gulf Coast still waiting for funds after spill petrarchan47tc 03:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

US witness claims BP gas explosion cover-up petrarchan47tc 03:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Clean Water Act Trial: How much detail?

Should the "Clean Water Act trial" section of BP be a section or subsection, and should it contain the following paragraph (subject to alteration of the amount of potential fines to $17 billion, as suggested by the BP corporate editor) :

The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible. A finding of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, which could amount to $20 billion, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims that weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs in 2012.

References for paragraph

Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue was discussed previously in Talk:BP#Oil_spill_trial.

Comment by RfC initiator

The above text has been repeatedly removed. The subsection in question is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#Clean_Water_Act_trial The edits that gave rise to this RfC are [1] and [2], removing the above text and demoting this from section to subsection.

I believe that the text should be reinstated. I believe its relevancy, neutrality and significance is self-evident and indisputable. The trial in question, which commenced in February and will run through 2014, is clearly deserving of a separate section, given the potential enormous exposure that BP has and the fact that this trial will be ongoing, generating headlines, through next year. The text in question states that the Justice Department is seeking maximum penalties that could run into the billions.

The trial, which has received extensive coverage in the media, deals with BP's actions in the Gulf Oil Spill for which BP has already pleaded guilty, and faces fine of up to $20 billion. The presence of other articles is immaterial. This is a very serious trial, and it behooves us to mention it to readers, and state what is at stake. Failure to do so would be a serious NPOV violation, as is the fact that the legal jeopardy that BP faces is not mentioned in the article thanks to the recent edits, and I have so tagged the article.

On the "$20 billion" figure, the BP Corporate editor monitoring the article on the talk page here has indicated that other sourcing states that the actual figure of BP's exposure from this trial is really $17 billion, not $ 20 billion. If that can be verified, the figure can be adjusted, but first we need to deal with whether we are going to deal with this in the article at all. Right now we are in the extraordinary position of an article on BP not stating that the U.S. Justice Department is seeking maximal penalties in the billions concerning an issue in which BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

• I have been involved in the article in the past but I have not yet taken part in discussion or editing of the trial section. I think the paragraph is generally good, after expanding the contraction, and after telling the reader that one estimate is $20B while BP's estimate is $17B. This is an astoundingly large amount of money, unique in global corporate history let alone BP's 100-year history. It must be in the main article because of its great significance. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by uninvolved editor The amounts involved are material, considering BP has a market cap of 130 billion dollars, and should therefore be mentioned. TFD (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that there is any argument against mentioning the figures involved. The RfC is about whether the court case deserves it own top-level section and the wording of the text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On re-reading the text that I removed I see that the figures are pure speculation. There would be no objection to adding some figures when we actually have some. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification regarding figures Coretheapple mentioned above that I had offered a clarification previously about the maximum penalty under the Clean Water Act and I'd like to explain this again for those who may not have seen. Following a judge's ruling in February, oil recovered by BP will not be included in calculations of any penalty that the company faces, which reduced the potential maximum penalty from $21 billion to approximately $17.6 billion. This estimate is explained in the Reuters source I linked before, and also the Environment News Service article provided by Petrarchan below. Recent articles about the trial including coverage by The Huffington Post, The New York Times, Bloomberg and Reuters as well as many more refer to a maximum penalty of around $17.5 or $17.6 billion, clearly showing this is the widely accepted estimate of the potential maximum penalty amount currently. These links should provide the verification of the lower estimate. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would have no objection to a short sentence saying something like, 'BP is expected to have to pay from $XXX to $YYY in further penalties, dependent on the outcome of court cases'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Per the new references, I made the change to $17.6 ealy this A.M. I think that concludes all of Arturo's requests from the 10th. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor This is the biggest accidental oil spill in the history of the oil industry, and an important event for the company to the extent that it even threatens its survival (not to mention the long-term prospects for the area's fishing industry and the health of the ocean). As it is now, it certainly does not violate WP:WEIGHT, as long as the editors remember WP:NOTNEWS, which can be a fine line to walk in an article of this nature. I'm actually surprised the coverage is not three times its present size. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

• Comment by involved editor. This article is about BP as more than 100-years old company. It already has a separate subsection about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Taking account that this article should cover all aspects about BP and its history, as also the fact that there are more specific articles about the the oil spill (namely: Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its series, for the court proceedings there is a separate article Deepwater Horizon litigation), having two sections about this event in this article gives undue weight to this event compared with the other aspects related to the company. As the trial is going on at the moment, the above-mentioned paragraph is speculative. It is justified to be added in the Deepwater Horizon litigation article but not here. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by involved editor As per Beagel above. I removed the content shown because, even based on the sources cited it is clearly biased against BP. Compare, for example the article text, "The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible", with the title of the supporting reference, "BP vows to 'vigorously defend' itself at US oil spill trial".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)
• Stating the Obvious. I'm pretty sure you meant to write "Clean Water Act", is that correct? Why would the Clean Water Act trial (aka, "phase two" of the BP Gulf spill trial) be handled separately from the other litigation revolving around this spill? Right now, the explosion, spill and related court cases are covered together in one small section. I would suggest splitting the Gulf spill litigation into its own section, and the upcoming Clean Water Act trial could be handled within that. BP did recover some of the spilled oil, and the court agreed that amount would be deducted from their CWA fines. This is why the figure dropped. Source petrarchan47tc 19:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the error. Yes, that's not a bad idea. (the separate section on the environmental litigation, that is) Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by involved editorDoes not deserve its own section or subsection. I edited this down to something similar to the current statement, and removed the section divider, shortly after Core originally posted this. Reason it does not deserve its own section or subsection: This article is about BP as a whole; there is already a section on Industrial Accidents and within that, a subsection on DWH. DWH as a topic has 2 main articles (explosion and spill) and each of those has spawned several sub-sub articles. One of them is on litigation. These main DWH articles and the subarticles, including litigation, are linked as "see main" in the BP DWH section. Detail on this trial should go in litigation article. A summary of that should go into the 2 main DWH articles. And very compressed and highlevel content should be in the BP article, as brief sentences in the DWH section. Not blow-by-blow, which would quickly blow up to overwhelm the BP article. About the specific content. The content itself is overly florid and detailed for its desired location in the BP article - already getting into the blow-by-blow. I would edit as follows (just the facts, ma'am): (strikeouts are deleted text, italics are added text) "The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible.[2] A a finding of gross negligence, which would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, which could amount to $20 billion, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims that weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs in 2012. [3][4] [5]" Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As ugly as it may be, we need to reflect on what this trial means in light of BP's history and the history of this type of fine in general. BP has a 100 year history. If we find one singular event that effects the company as much as the Gulf spill has, that should be reflected in the coverage given by this article. As it is, Wikipedia is saying that the Gulf spill and related court cases are barely a side-note, indeed as influential as their "environmental initiatives" if judged by article space allotted. In fact, BP's stock since the spill has fallen by 1/3rd. Did any other event in this company's history have such an effect? The fines in this case are outstanding in terms of being the 'first ever of this size'. That fact alone warrants a reconsideration of the weight given by Wikipedia (ie, we, the editors). To argue that we are making too big a deal out of this, or because it's covered in other spin-off articles (the litigation article received 36 hits today) there is little need to mention it here, makes no sense to me unless NPOV isn't the true goal. petrarchan47tc 20:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question - Most important events in BP's history! Destruction of its colonialist business model in the ME and Africa. Divestment by British gov't. The Torrey Canyon spill (at that time, the biggest spill ever - gets a single sentence.). Pioneering role in Prudhoe Bay field (not mentioned) and in North Sea. Remaking under Browne via M&A. Involvement in Caspian projects which are of enormous geopolitical significance vis a vis Russia and Europe. Maybe pioneering role in deepwater Gulf of Mexico and off coast of Brazil. String of Big 3 disasters in the US over past 10 years are important for BP itself due to the loss of trust in the country where the "new BP" has made its biggest investments and concomitant increasing size of penalties. Even if DWH were the only one, it would have been significant. This is very US/Euro focused - I am still learning about BP in Africa, far east, and S America. How would you answer the question? Jytdog (talk)

Sorry, what question exactly? Since this conversation is similar enough to a past one with Rangoon11, instead of repeating myself, here is my comment about US centered, recent content. petrarchan47tc 20:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't take questions as rhetorical, and you asked only one: "Did any other event in this company's history have such an effect?" ie. What are the most important events in BP's history? (if we are trying to judge weight...)Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to focus on bite-size pieces? It seems we do have enough information about the impact of the Gulf spill to see that its coverage in the article is massively imbalanced, for the reasons I described in my response to your 'failed experiment". After the media coverage of the problems at this page, there was a suggestion that each section written by BP should be analyzed for spin or missing content. Why don't we, as a group, decide a plan of action and focus on one thing at a time. As for a list of "worse things ever" for BP, this might prove helpful. petrarchan47tc 22:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a wholesale reappraisal of the POV of this article is urgently needed. Hopefully this RfC will be the catalyst for such a reappraisal, and also will get more eyes on this article. I also think that your idea of breaking out a section on the litigation has merit. However it is structured, the information contained in the paragraph that is the subject of this RfC is either going to be in the article or not. That's the issue before us. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree too. This page needs to revert to being an encyclopedia article about a company rather than an attack site. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• 'Re-comment by involved editor - last night I actually added to this section, although I do not believe that the subsection should exist and there is already too much information on the litigation here. I did that because the material added recently by editors who want this information here, was of embarrassingly poor quality. Information was spread across two sections (the DWH section and this subsection) and the content expressed no understanding of the flow of the litigation nor how the DOJ's Aug 31 filing fit into it - it was just a tactical step, not a dramatic change in strategy - and not the Dramatically Important Action that the content made it out to be. This is what litigation is like. The parties have goals (for BP, come through this with as few penalties as possible; for the plaintiffs, come out of this with the maximum penalties they can win) and there are endless tactics deployed and postures taken to achieve those goals. The article detailing the litigation (Deepwater Horizon litigation) is even worse - people "cared" enough to post a lot of fragments based on news reports, but not enough to fit them into a coherent narrative. My hope is that the text currently here gets moved as a whole into the litigation article and a brief, summary statement as per my post above is stated here, in the DWH section - not in a subsection. Again, blow by blow descriptions of tactical filings (and reactions to them) and daily trial reports should NOT be here. I don't understand how editors can be so passionate about driving this content into this article and including it in WIkipedia, but have not put in the time to understand even these issues enough to write about them accurately. I don't get it. Jytdog (talk)

I was also wondering how it came to be that there was no mention of BP's guilty plea to criminal charges connected to its 1999 North Shore oil spill. That kind of inexplicable omission troubles me, and there may be a good deal more, which is why I am not enthused with the kind of wholesale slashing that you advocate. This article has gone through the whitewash mill already, it doesn't need to go through it again. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Less detail here?

I wonder if the following paragraph could be cut back some?:

On August 13, 2012 BP filed papers with the court urging it to approve an estimated $7.8 billion settlement reached with 125,000 individuals and businesses in the consolidated suit, asserting that its actions "did not constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct."[370] In response to the BP filing and in order to ensure that BP could not use its filing and any possible acceptance of the settlement to escape a judgement of gross negligence,[370] on August 31 2012 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed papers describing the spill as an example of "gross negligence and willful misconduct".[371][21] BP rejected the charges saying "BP believes it was not grossly negligent and looks forward to presenting evidence on this issue at trial in January."[370] A ruling of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in Clean Water Act penalties, which would cause the penalties to reach approximately $17.6 billion, and would increase damages in the other suits as well.[372][373][374] Gandydancer (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed somewhat. All this should go into the Litigation article with only a brief summary left behind. This is directly related to the topic above, not sure why you made a new section. The last sentence is all that is needed out of what you pulled out here. Core insisted on the 2nd and 3rd sentences. The 2nd sentence makes no sense without the first, which I added along with the prefacing phrase to the 2nd sentence. . Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It can be reduced in size without it being a "brief summary," especially since some editors have been striving to make that "brief summary" so uninformative that it fails to contain a reference to the billions of dollars ($17 billion at last count) that is being sought by the Justice Department. This RfC was brought about because of the whitewashing of that very section, removing the reference to the billions sought in damages by the Justice Department. That's why we're here. Let's be clear on that. What we're seeing at work here is the same kind of overly aggressive slashing that resulted in the section on the punishment for the 1999 oil spill not mentioning BP's guilty plea. JYTdog, you sought aggressively to remove any mention of the billions in exposure from this section and now you remove efforts to take out extraneous detail[3]. I just can't figure out what you're doing here. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I just implemented what I wrote above, and Gandy's suggestion too. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and in the course of that you removed any mention of the fact that the Justice Department was claiming gross negligence and willful misconduct, while you included the docket number. I've fixed that. Why did you include the docket number, which is unencyclopedic and trivial, while not including a reference to the gross negligence/misconduct claim even though it is nowhere else referenced in that section? Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Jytdog Please read my post again because actually I didn't make any suggestions. I was looking for input. Again and again one finds the ol' Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive, eliminate the negative here and I want to avoid that. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's right. All you did was say that it could be "cut back some," and most certainly did not suggest that it be trimmed so as to exclude any mention of the Justice Department's contention that BP committed gross negligence. Without that sentence on what the DOJ is seeking, the sentence that follows (about quadruple damages) makes no sense. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, sorry I took it as a suggestion. I agreed with your "wondering." And i am NOT downplaying the negative. I did remove blow by blow which is too much detail for this article. I left the biggest thing, which is that BP is at risk for a finding of gross negligence - which it always was - and what the consequences of that finding would be. Core, it figures that you don't find the docket number important. If you want to do any actual research on this - you know, so you can actually know the details of what you are writing about - the docket number is essential for finding information. And as I wrote above, BP was ALWAYS at risk for a finding of gross negligence -- DOJ only filed those papers in response to BP's attempt to establish a judge-approved record that it was not. As stated in the reliable source that Core provided. All of that is entirely normal in litigation, where everybody maneuvers to maximize the chances of getting what they want, in a settlement or in court. Which I explained above already. Frustrating. You don't understand these things, in the big picture (i.e. how litigation goes) nor in the details of this specific litigation, yet you are so demanding that your expression of them be accepted as correct. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Very simple question: Why did you omit that the DOJ accused BP of gross negligence and willful misconduct, and that it was seeking the maximum penalties? Don't give me the "big picture." Give me an answer. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Third time. Will just copy/paste this time. "And as I wrote above, BP was ALWAYS at risk for a finding of gross negligence -- DOJ only filed those papers in response to BP's attempt to establish a judge-approved record that it was not. As stated in the reliable source that Core provided. All of that is entirely normal in litigation, where everybody maneuvers to maximize the chances of getting what they want, in a settlement or in court." The reueters article (originally cited via Guardian's publication of it, which is now dead) is the source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/gulf-oil-spill-2010-bp-gross-negligence_n_1856209.html Here is what it says: The new comments do not represent a change in U.S. officials' legal stance, said David Uhlmann, a University of Michigan professor and former environmental crimes prosecutor. "The Justice Department has consistently maintained that BP and Transocean were grossly negligent and engaged in willful misconduct in the events leading up to the Gulf oil spill," Uhlmann said in an email to Reuters. The department's latest filing "contains sharper rhetoric and a more indignant tone than the government has used in the past," he said. But the filing does exhibit exasperation on the part of government lawyers. They wrote that they decided to elaborate on BP's alleged gross negligence because they believed BP was trying to escape full responsibility. The Justice Department said they feared that, "if the United States were to remain silent, BP later may urge that its arguments had assumed the status of agreed facts." End of quote. BP has an obligation to its shareholders to make its liability as small as possible and that is what they are doing. The DOJ has a responsibility to get the max for the people, which is what they have always been doing. This is just legal maneuvering, blow by blow stuff. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that your position is that because all that stuff was in the source materials it didn't have to be mentioned in the Wiki article. That's what I thought, but I just wanted to be sure.

"Legal maneuvering, blow by blow stuff"? That's your opinion. We just have to reflect what's in the reliable sources and not what any particular Wiki editor thinks. I know, you're the expert, and the rest of us (particularly me) are morons, but that's how it has to be. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Core my understanding is that you based the "going for the max" content on the August DOJ filing. Is that accurate? Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not accurate. Nowhere did I insert anything about "going for the max." The sentence on "stiffest fines possible" is from an article from Feb 2013 at the commencement of the oil spill trial. It's easy to find the source for that sentence; just look at the footnote. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I see, so my understanding was wrong. Thanks for pointing me to the obvious thing I should have looked at. my bad. I can admit when I am wrong. And oh please pardon me for using a brief slang phrase to describe going for the "stiffest fines possible". The source is covering the immediately pre-trial posturing tactics that go on in every litigation. It is still an absurd detail to include. of course DOJ is going for the max. of course BP will try to minimize its liability. It is blow by blow stuff. Not important. It doesn't tell the reader anything that is not painfully obvious. Now if in reality the DOJ said "oh, we intend to treat BP with kid gloves in this trial" and BP said "Oh, in this trial we want to pay as much as possible to atone for the terrible thing we did" this would be Significant. But in the real world, if they saw eye to eye enough, there would have been a settlement already. You can leave this, it is not worth fighting about with you.Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be pretrial posturing if this was a traffic accident lawsuit. But this is more like the civil trial that followed the OJ Simpson prosecution, except that Simpson was acquitted while BP was convicted. BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from the very same acts that are the subject of the criminal trial. So no, I don't think that we should whitewash this particular aspect of the proceedings. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Already said I am not arguing with you on keeping this or not. And I am not whitewashing. It is not fair. Discussions about weight are honest differences of judgement. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about "weight." We're talking about necessary information being omitted from the article on specious grounds. Coretheapple (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

whether the detail is ncecessay is exactly about weight. Reasonable, good faith people can differ on weight. Please stop violating the AGF policy. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in your motives for your particular actions and I have no idea what they are. However, your removal of significant detail for reasons that make little sense, combined with your insults and your denigration of other editors as "environmentalists" and "ignorant," has not made it easy. Coretheapple (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not a bad thing to be an environmentalist. Not at all. And it is not bad to be ignorant, either. I am ignorant about a lot of things. These things only become issues if people who are environmentalists, or business people, are too singly focused and won't compromise and start POV-pushing on those issues. And ignorance is only a problem if judgments based on it are pushed too hard and there is no willingness to learn and change. And I do insist that the only thing that 'whitewash' means is POV-pushing, bad faith editing. I told you before that i completely agree that bad things need to be in the article and I pushed for the end to "quick delete" so there would be room to add it (remember?). But good faith disputes are possible over the level of detail. I'm repeating myself. Should stop. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. I don't want to repeat myself either. I just wanted to convey to you the message that while you may have a self-image as being a neutral arbiter, you tend at times to project a level of condescension that undercuts that image, and can tend to raise concerns among other editors as to whether you are contributing in good faith. Please take this as a friendly remark, nothing more. Just to be clear, I'm not at all offended by any of your remarks, including the one that I was moved to delete from my user talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Texas City information improvements requested

Recently there have been a few edits to this article regarding the Texas City refinery, including the addition of a new paragraph on a recently filed lawsuit. This information was added in the "Air pollution violations" section, although BP was not charged with any violation for the incident in question. The addition repeats the allegations in the lawsuit, which without context creates the impression that BP was in violation of air pollution laws. As media reporting at the time explained, the gas that was released was odorous but was not dangerous (see this StateImpact report and this ABC News article). No charges of air pollution were brought against BP. As it is written, the information in the article is misleading to readers and places undue weight on this incident, particularly since the lawsuit has only just been filed.

Can other editors look at this addition and consider removing or amending it? If some of this information should remain, would it be better placed in the "Refinery fatalities, safety violations, and leaks" section?

Texas City Refinery

Request collapsed here - explained more below

On the same topic, I have been looking at the information under the "2005 Texas City Refinery Explosion" and would like to request an update to be added to here. Specifically, following the Clean Air Act sentence, I suggest adding this sentence or some language that includes this detail:

In March 2012, the probation was lifted when the U.S. Justice Department stated that the company had addressed the most serious of the safety issues related to the accident and otherwise satisfied the terms of its agreement.

I have collapsed this request here so that I can explain it further in a new request below. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"...fatalities, safety violations, and leaks

I would also like to request a change to the wording in the "2006–2010: Refinery fatalities, safety violations, and leaks" section to provide some more detail and clarify information regarding the lawsuits. The additional detail needed is described below:

Current:

In June 2012, over 50,000 Texas City residents joined a class-action suit against BP, alleging they got sick in 2010 from the 41-day emissions release from the refinery. Texas has also sued BP over the release of emissions. BP says the release harmed no one.

Clarification:

More detail recommended re Texas suing BP: In August 2010, the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit seeking civil penalties against BP Products North America in relation to the leak. As of June 2012 should replace “In June 2010” in sentence describing class-action suit and same source currently in article can be used.

References

References

your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light.It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light. I would like to ask that you please follow WP:AGF in regard to your interactions with me.===Safety and Health violations=== As a separate point, the new "Safety and health violations" seems out of place in the "Environmental record" section and is very detailed. Perhaps editors could also look at this. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

To facilitate editor awareness, please mark the changes you make with the done tag. It really helps to inform all editors as to the status (open or done) of Arturo's requests. [ 00:21, 19 April 2013‎ Buster7]

Can you please point out any factual inaccuracies in the section, along with references to support your contention that the statements are inaccurate? There is ongoing litigation going on and it concerns me that we make the extensive changes that you describe, without clear inaccuracies, based on the views of one party to the litigation. In fairness I think that someone should contact the plaintiffs to this litigation to see if they share the BP rep's views of this section, and to ascertain if there are, in addition to any errors pointed out by the BP rep, any other material matters that were omitted and need to be mentioned. I think that we should obtain such input prior to considering any of these changes. Whether or not such input is obtainable, unless there are clear inaccuracies, not just alleged "misimpressions" and the opinion of BP that it is undue weight, I don't think that we should act on this request concerning ongoing litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the BP rep took several weeks, (or was it months?) to get back to editors on the Prudhom Bay spill information, I just can't see a reason for any rush here. I am still trying to untangle that mess and expect no assist from BP. If corporate editors are going to be allowed to offer their requests, they should be responsible to offer answers to requests of their corporation as well. And those requests should be answered in a timely manner. Gandydancer (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@Core. The point you make about the views of only one side of the litigation is valid. I would hope no changes occur until we can come to agreement as to what to do. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that we need to bend over backwards to be even-handed, which means not altering the "spin" of an article on litigation at the request of one side or another. If there any factual inaccuracies it is one thing; inaccuracies should be corrected immediately. But one side or another not liking the slant of a section, not feeling it is getting proper weight as the BP rep says here, is another matter entirely. An independent editor created this section and I believe it was edited by other independent editors thereafter. The text should not now be shaped by one party to the litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I moved this text from its own section to a subsection - but I agree this doesn't make perfect sense. Should it be its own section? I also agree it could be trimmed, but this is before having read it carefully. It just looks more meaty than what we usually add. I noticed also that the Gulf spill section (except the coverage of court cases) is dwarfed by both this and the Prudhoe Bay spill. I wonder if this is well-balanced coverage given what we find in RS. Imbalance happens naturally after an active editing period. We could take a moment to do a 'big picture' review of the article, imo, and expand/update the first section of the Gulf spill. petrarchan47tc 04:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The section is no longer under "Environmental record", thanks for pointing out my mistake. petrarchan47tc 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that it is back in its own section, it's certainly not too meaty. I shouldn't have commented before reading the section. petrarchan47tc 03:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I was the one that wrote the Safety and health section. I did not feel that it fit under the Environmental section and put it under a third heading but another editor moved it to the environmental section. I have nothing against shortening it but since it does not have its own article it tends to be a little longer. I'll copy it here to see what other editors think about the depth of coverage:

Safety and health violations

Citing conditions similar to those that resulted in the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion, on April 25, 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined BP more than $2.4 million for unsafe operations at the company's Oregon, Ohio refinery. An OSHA inspection resulted in 32 per-instance willful citations including locating people in vulnerable buildings among the processing units, failing to correct de-pressurization deficiencies and deficiencies with gas monitors, and failing to prevent the use of non-approved electrical equipment in locations in which hazardous concentrations of flammable gases or vapors may exist. BP was further fined for neglecting to develop shutdown procedures and designate responsibilities and to establish a system to promptly address and resolve recommendations made after an incident when a large feed pump failed three years prior to 2006. Penalties were also issued for five serious violations, including failure to develop operating procedures for a unit that removes sulfur compound; failure to ensure that operating procedures reflect current operating practice in the Isocracker Unit; failure to resolve process hazard analysis recommendations; failure to resolve process safety management compliance audit items in a timely manner; and failure to periodically inspect pressure piping systems. Here's the OSHA report: [4] Gandydancer (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To respond to Coretheapple's comment above asking to clarify what the inaccuracy is: the information about the Texas City lawsuit is placed under the heading "Air pollution violations", but this does not relate to an air pollution violation. As I explained above, BP was not charged with any violation for the incident in question, so placing it under this heading is incorrect. There are no sources that state that BP was charged with an air pollution violation for this incident.

As to the points raised regarding information about the lawsuit representing "only one side": the information currently does only provide the views of one side, since it details only the claims of those bringing the lawsuit against BP.

The other changes I've presented above are small changes to bring information up to date (adding the sentence about the probation being lifted) and adding clarity (the new sentence about the lawsuit brought by the Texas Attorney general, to replace the sentence saying "Texas has also sued BP").

I would also like to respond to Gandydancer's comment above: editors are welcome to respond or ignore my requests as they wish. I do my best to reply to any questions that editors here have for me. Regarding Prudhoe Bay, I replied to you explaining it would take me some time to look into the details (as I am not an expert on all areas of BP and the people who are have more important priorities) and provided a full response within one week of your questions. As you did not reply again, I assumed this provided the information you needed. It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light. I would like to ask that you please follow WP:AGF in regard to your interactions with me. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the above post. First of all, re the last point, I do not believe that BP's rep here, acting in the scope of his employment, should be citing WP:AGF in addressing editor comments. This is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I think that as a general proposition that that policy is not applicable to editing by PR personnel acting within the scope of their employment. But that is a discussion for another time and place.

Secondly, the section reports what is stated in the suit. It is highly material - very serious allegations that "BP’s oil refinery released highly toxic chemicals for 15 consecutive days in November 2011 and inflicted permanent environmental and health damages upon the local community. BP allegedly knew about the potential harm these chemicals could do, but 'failed to take proper action to stop or control the release,' the lawsuit states."[5] If that is not air pollution, I don't know what is.

It is true that these sources do not contain BP's point of view or response. However, that was by BP's choice, According to the footnoted Houston Chronicle article, "'We will review this matter and address it through the court system,' BP spokesman Scott Dean said in an email."[6] That is BP's choice. If it's changed, if there has been a statement responding to the suit, I'd like to know about it and if BP's rep can site one, on the BP website or elsewhere, it should be added. We should not go beyond that without obtaining input from the opposing party. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Arturo. Yes, looking back I see that you replied after 8 days to my Prudhoe Bay question. I had lumped my previous experience when it actually did take several months for you to respond and came up with a sarcastic response. I should know better by now--never use sarcastic remarks on Wikipedia because you will live to regret it. However, yes, one's "reputation" is important to most editors. Mine is important to me. You say, "It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light. I would like to ask that you please follow WP:AGF in regard to your interactions with me." I'd really appreciate it if you'd point out the other inaccurate observations I have made so that I may either defend my position or apologize. It may be appropriate on this page if it would clear something up, but if not you can reply on my talk page. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

According to The Courthouse News Service: "in 2011, BP agreed to pay $50 million in fines for emissions from the facility, and that the fine was the largest for Texas Clean Air Act violations at a single facility." So while the "incident in question" may not have received penalties from Texas, there was a history of penalties for emissions from this plant that is the subject of the lawsuit. Therefore I do not think that a change in the header is appropriate. If one reads the Courthouse News Service article, from a secondary source noted for its objective reporting of lawsuits, one can read more about the background of this situation. If BP has not taken a position on this lawsuit that's its privilege, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with a BP rep, at a time when BP is silent on the lawsuit, attempting to influence what appears in Wikipedia on this subject, especially since no inaccuracies have been brought to the attention of editors. We are under no rush here, and again i am not in favor of responding to requests to add "context" from one side of this litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, unless I missed something, none of the sources about the lawsuit say that the complaint the suit focuses on was an "air pollution violation" and there is no source to say that BP was charged with air pollution violations in this case. Keeping information about this lawsuit under a heading of "Air pollution violations" appears to be incorrect, but obviously that is for editors to decide. The fine that you added to this section is already covered in the "2005 Texas City Refinery explosion" section, and relates to that event (see this source), not to the case that is the focus of this new lawsuit. The lawsuit may mention other incidents involving the Texas City refinery, but as the Houston Chronicle and Associated Press articles explain, the specific event at the center of the lawsuit is a leak in 2011.

Gandydancer, I would be happy to discuss on my discussion page or yours, if you think that's more appropriate. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, your page is fine. BTW, we were in an edit conflict when I make my post below. Gandydancer (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Further thoughts from Gandydancer. Arturo, I think that perhaps you do not appreciate some of the dynamics of what has recently transpired. You are complaining that I have not used WP:AGF while I am saying that that is exactly what got me into trouble here in the first place. I had specifically asked you about the follow up re pipe replacement after the 2006 Prudhoe spill and you replied only that the pipeline had been replaced. And I looked no further. I said, "Great rewrite!" or some such. Only later did I find that there was much more to that story...

Do you really believe that the editors here should accept in good faith that you were not aware that as a matter of fact BP had not resolved the actions that it had been directed to and was fined a further $25 million civil penalty, the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill? But after this was all published outside of WP, rather than complaints regarding your work here, I saw nothing but high praise for your outstanding performance, including from Jimbo. As for the lowly editors that work here for free, like me, complaints such as, "asleep at the wheel" and such. So all in all, it should not be surprising that I have become a little disgruntled from time to time...and be a little sarcastic... Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are obligated to fact-check BP's drafts and respond to talk page comments, the work of a professional PR team. Content is being checked and responded to by unpaid editors in their free time. With that in mind, please quadruple-check everything coming from your department to ensure no wild goose chases. petrarchan47tc 23:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Arturo, the article indicates that the $50 million fine was for violations for the Texas Clean Air Act. Here is another article on that.[7] What you're talking about was the $50 million criminal fine for the federal clean air act. I know, there are so many fines and penalties imposed on your company that it's easy to be confused. Coretheapple (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be sure this is clear: You said The fine that you added to this section is already covered in the "2005 Texas City Refinery explosion" section. That does not appear to be true. The coverage indicates otherwise; i.e., that it was not already mentioned in the article, and that the $50 million fine mentioned in the section was paid out to the federal govt. The settlement of Texas clean air act charges was not mentioned. I've put it in the air pollution section. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, you are right, I had read the line in the "Texas City Refinery" section quickly and missed that this related to the federal Clean Air Act, whereas the information you added related to the Texas Clean Air Act. I apologize for the mistake. Thank you for clarifying and to Petrarchan for moving the information relating to the recent lawsuit to the Texas City Refinery section. When editors have time, it would be great if they could revisit the other recommendations made in my post which I believe will improve the article. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not. We should not adopt any wording recommended by BP's rep here, and certainly not the wording suggested above.

The first suggestion recommends the following wording: "In March 2012, the probation was lifted when the U.S. Justice Department stated that the company had addressed the most serious of the safety issues related to the accident and otherwise satisfied the terms of its agreement."

This wording is problematic for two reasons:

1. It was drafted by BP's public relations department, and our readers should not be reading text that is drafted by BP's public relations department, regardless of any other factors.

2. The suggested text does not completely reflect the source text, which is an article by Abraham Lustgarten in ProPublica entitled, "Feds Let BP Off Probation Despite Pending Safety Violations." Lustgarten's article states, inte alia, " As the probation expired, confusion remained about exactly what improvements BP had made at its refineries. According to the 2010 agreement with OSHA, BP pledged to address the risk of catastrophic chemical releases and to install new protective equipment and instrument systems across the sprawling refinery’s 28 units. It was not clear how much progress the company had made, however, and BP spokesman Daren Beaudo characterized the OSHA issues as Unresolved." This provides nuance that is required for this article, and needs to be reflected.

I'm not going to be able to work on this article for most of the next week. I suggest that editors, when they have time, independently decide, without BP's input, whether further text is needed for that section of the article. Given that litigation is ongoing, it concerns me that a situation that is complicated - so complicated that BP's own rep here is understandably confused over the various penalties imposed - and that we need to be wary of allowing any party to litigation to influence the wording of a section that pertains to the litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we find a speed other than high gear to edit this article. BP is 100 years old. It's not going anywhere. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the above 4 requests (by thread) are still open. Please...NO rush to complete conversations, I just want to be sure that they get marked as  Done if that is the case. I think monitoring Arturo's requests in this manner (creating individual threads to seperate and manage discussions and marking as done) is a good idea and may be something to consider within the ongoing Paid Editor Conversation elsewhere. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is one very long thread with alot of important discussion. I hate to lose it (and the capacity to edit it) to the archives. Going back to the 18th, and moving forward, have we concluded the discussion and have we come to a decision on implementing all or any part of Arturo's request? If segmented decisions and inclusions were made, please mark them as  Done. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Updates - from independent editors

In the spirit of NPOV, the non-BP sanctioned updates should be given equal weight, consideration and respect. Buster suggests using the "done" symbol when Arturo's suggestions are completed. Please do the same for these. A list can be maintained here for the purposes of organization (  Done ), but we might use the individual talk page sections to discuss: petrarchan47tc 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Gulf spill environmental section update/expansion needed

AE missing context Done see this change petrarchan47tc 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, not done. All my work was undone by Beagle. petrarchan47tc 19:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please stop making personal remarks. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Florida becomes fourth state to sue

Why haven't we added the four states suing over the Gulf spill yet? It seems pretty simple. I've tended to two of Arturo's requests while this list just sits here. petrarchan47tc 00:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Added content needed, new revelations re Gulf Spill

BP claims fraud

Response one by one:

• Gulf spill environmental section update/expansion needed. The main articles for this are Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Taking account WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARY, this article does not include all details but it should just be a summary.
• AE missing context. This was actually already answered in the relevant section. Notwithstanding the fact that some media sources describing the selling of wind assets as "its final exit from Alternative Energy and is fully focussed on oil and gas now", this is an opinion, not fact and therefore, it can't be stated as fact per WP:RS. The news story saying: However, BP noted that their departure from wind doesn’t mean the company is completely out of the alternative energy business. BP still produces ethanol in Brazil and the United Kingdom, and is also conducting biofuel research in the United States. “This is not an exit from alternative energy,” wrote Hartwig, was provided in the original thread.
• 4th State sues BP. Again, the main articles for this are Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Deepwater Horizon litigation.
• Damning update. The main article for this is Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
• Director of BP's Claim Fund Convicted of Fraud. The link is dead. However, the FBI press release is available. It is relevant to the Deepwater Horizon litigation but not here.

Beagel (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious. petrarchan47tc 20:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• 4th State sues BP. All five Coastal states have now sued BP. How is that not relevant to this article? ```Buster Seven Talk 21:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Director of BP's Claim Fund Convicted of Fraud. It IS relevant here. He was an employee of BP, acting as a agent of BP, His actions reflect on BP not on the Deepwater Horizon accident. Did BP set up the fund or did Deepwater? Moving it to Deepwater will likely obfuscate the reader rather than enlighten them. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide a working link? I find a story with a similar title (FBI press release a linked above and several news repeating what the FBI's press release said). Did you mean that story? If yes, it is not relevant here. But as you saying that your story is about a BP employee, it can't probably be that story. There is a separate case of BP asking for an injunction against the fund's administrator Patrick Juneau, but in this case: 1) there is no conviction; and 2) Junea is not an employee but a court-appointed administrator. Again, how this is relevant in this article here? (It may belong to Deewater Horizon litigation if the court supports BP's claim. Beagel (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm traveling---no notes or high beam access.I'll find a solid link tomorrow and advise. Here is the FBI link----[8] ```Buster Seven Talk 06:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Jean Mari Lindor is NOT an employee of BP. See [9] When I first became aware of the story I heard that Lindor was a disbarred lawyer and had worked for BP. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Requesting edit to "History"

I have a request relating to some information in the "History" section that is incorrect. The "2000 to 2010" section within "History" includes the following wording, which needs to be amended:

In 2001, the company formally renamed itself as BP plc and adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum," which remains in use today. It states that BP was never meant to be an abbreviation of its tagline.

There are two issues with this information:

• "Beyond Petroleum" is not still in use today. In this article from Mother Jones it states the company was no longer using the slogan in 2009, and our commercials in recent years do not feature this tagline. See these BP commercials on YouTube: December 2011, April 2012 and August 2012.
• Also the sentence "It states that BP was never meant to be an abbreviation of its tagline" has no source and is confusing. It is not just a claim of the company that BP is not an abbreviation of "beyond petroleum", it is a simple fact. The company name was changed to BP plc. in 2001, per this release from the time, meanwhile the tagline was used in commercials in the 2000s but was never the company's name. This article from Time magazine explains the name change and tagline well.

Please can editors review this request, remove the incorrect statement about "beyond petroleum" being in use today and adjust the other wording as needed? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at this now. Just past this section, are two claims without any citation. I'll leave them here until sources are found.

"Most Amoco stations in the United States were converted to BP's brand and corporate identity. In many states BP continued to sell Amoco branded petrol even in service stations with the BP identity. Amoco was rated the best petroleum brand by consumers for 16 consecutive years and also enjoyed one of the three highest brand loyalty reputations for petrol in the US, comparable only to Chevron and Shell. In May 2008, when the Amoco name was mostly phased out in favour of "BP Gasoline with Invigorate", promoting BP's new additive, the highest grade of BP petrol available in the United States was still called Amoco Ultimate."

"ААR contributed its holdings in TNK International, ONAKO, SIDANCO, RUSIA Petroleum (which held licenses for the Kovykta field and the Verkhnechonsk field), and the Rospan field in West Siberia (the New Urengoy and East Urengoy deposits). BP contributed its holding in SIDANCO, RUSIA Petroleum, and its BP Moscow retail network."

I've removed the incorrect parts, but have not added the story of the name change per Arturo's Mother Jones and TIME articles. Should we cover this in a small section devoted to the story of the name changes? Right now we have a small mention in the history section, followed immediately by something of questionable relevance about the Tate gallery. petrarchan47tc 21:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Arturo, there is already a very small section on the name change, and it is being covered in the history section as well. Seems silly to talk about the name change in two different places. petrarchan47tc 22:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the details from the "History" section, Petrarchan. It seems fine to me to just discuss the name change in one place in the article, too. Thanks again. Arturo at BP (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so that's part of the to-do list, the name-change section. Remind us if we forget. petrarchan47tc 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by editing

Rangoon restored Arturo's requested removal, repeatedly, and although banned, is now sending another editor to make these changes. This section was also added:

In many states BP continued to sell Amoco branded petrol even in service stations with the BP identity as it had a good reputation with consumers. In May 2008, when the Amoco name was mostly phased out, the highest grade of BP petrol available in the United States was still called Amoco Ultimate.

If this belongs in the article, we should find a source before adding it again. petrarchan47tc 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I assure you I'm not sent here. I am pretty sure I have disagreed with Rangoon many a time, and I am not a fan of BP in the least. Nonetheless, I think that this section is true (I remember because my brother briefly worked for $7 an hour at a BP around the time of the rename - not the sort of experience that would lead to a conflict of interest). Being aware that my limited restoration of this section may have appeared like a contract job, I took special effort to remove the seeming pro-BP bias of Rangoon's edit. I don't think that the removed sentence in any way serves to further BP's interest and I applaud P47's effort at impartiality in not only reviewing his own reversal but then also bringing it here. Nonetheless I bridle at the notion that I'm "sent" here and would appreciate an apology before going any further with this discussion - note that all of the pro-BP portions of R12s edits were not restored in my edit. The two sentences concerned do not form a new section, simply a restoration of the useful information contained within the original edit with all the puffery removed. Still needs a source, sure, not sure what the "undue weight" bit means or if it refers to something I didn't add back in.

As a sidenote and as an indication of my own personal biases, I ride my bicycle to work daily unless weather conditions or a strong desire to read forces me to utilize public transport. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess what concerns me about that addition, Mr. C, is that it had two problematic tags on it, "citation needed" and "undue." The "per Rangoon" edit summary didn't help much. So I can understand why the edit raised red flags, it being unsourced and might be of undue weight. Coretheapple (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "per Rangoon" meant, but I took it to mean that you were doing a favor for her while she is away. So, my apologies. It might be a good idea to bring your ideas and sources to the talk page, first. petrarchan47tc 06:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No sources in the pipeline, I was just trying to restore which of Rangoon's edits seemed useful. I could endeavour to find more sources, I suppose, but this is not an area of interest of mine. I hadn't realized just how much was at stake in this page (as I hadn't realized the depth of BP involvement).  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It appears to be an unusual situation to have the subject of the article so intimately involved in the editorial process. I was surprised to learn that Wikipedia rules allow it, and especially seem to sanction intimate involvement of a corporation in proposing text and sources on subject matter in which it is involved in litigation. I just addressed the anomaly of that situation in an essay taking form on an administrator's subpage[10]. It's somewhat like a controversial company, while enmeshed in litigation, having a delegate at the daily editorial meetings of the Environment or Business desks of the New York Times. But it's allowed, at least under present rules, so we have to cope with it. Unfortunately, one byproduct is that it has not improved the climate on the page, and generally is a negative aspect that is highly burdensome, both in terms of time and otherwise, to the editors here. Coretheapple (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, just to explain, Ragoon has, in the past, been specifically solicited by the BP rep to act as a proxy. Alarm bells go off when she appears or when she is mentioned. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened to Churchill?

Why was the consultancy of Churchill removed? Why was the edit summary "more history" used. Its misleading and doesnt mention the major fact that one piece of boring history replaced a piece of interesting history. Why not actually add the new info without deleting? I don't understand the value of the replacement over what was replaced (re:Churchill). Please can editors review this recent edit and request removal of the boring statement and readjust to the "reader interesting" statement about Winston Churhill. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What information was removed? If you look at the end of the second paragraph, the sentence "In 1923, Burmah employed future Prime Minister Winston Churchill as a paid consultant to lobby the British government to allow APOC have exclusive rights to Persian oil resources, which were subsequently granted." is still there without any changes. Could you please actually read the text before making accusations? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, could you please specify which information you refer as "boring statement"? Information that APOC built the first ever refinery in the UK and Australia or that the name of British Petroleum Company was originally used by the subsidiary of the Germancompany? Why this is "boring"? Beagel (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe information should be discussed on the talk page before being removed. This has not been happening. petrarchan47tc 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Information about Churchill was not removed or changed. The accusation of removing this was falseincorrect (by my understanding made by a mistake not intentionally). Beagel (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

My statement was more general, in the case of the Iranian Coup for instance, the bits to be removed should be brought here for discussion first. Otherwise, unless someone takes time out to sort through all edits to the page, we have no idea what's being deleted. petrarchan47tc 22:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to this diff..[11]. When I saw it, late at night, I mistakenly thought it was removed. I see now that it was just moved..so its position in the article changed. My accusation was not false. It was mistaken. BIG difference. The claim that it was false is Spin. Although you soften it right away with "by my understanding" you still spin my mistake into a falsehood. That ploy was not necessary if we are to collaborate. The fact that I made an embarassing mistake was obvious. The fact that you see it as a falsehood, like a venial sin, to be pointed out to everyone, is also obvious. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I believe this was a mistake. However, this mistake resulted with an accusation in this thread which is incorrect. The original comment was not struckthrough or there is no apology for the baseless accusation, which one may expect if that kind of mistake is made. Beagel (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You have your strike-through, now would you agree to stop removing content from the page before bringing it to talk, please beagle? petrarchan47tc 22:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed the Iran Coup information, it was reverted (with removing also some other added text) and although I still think that these details does not belong here, I have made no further changes to that part. All other information I have removed (repetitions and some trivia) have been not challenged or have been copyediting, not removal. Your remark is even more strange as there has been a removal of large part of information by other editor, but you have had no objections. So, taking account comments like this, this, this, or [12], also the long going practise to make baseless accusations against editors who have different POV, I have to kindly ask you to stop. Beagel (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What other content and editor are you referring to, please? And this: the long going practise to make baseless accusations against editors who have different POV is itself a baseless accusation, and I need to ask you to refrain from doing that in the future. petrarchan47tc 05:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So-called 'Environmental initiatives'

I'm concerned by the "environmental initiatives" section for several reasons. First it's not about "environmental initiatives" for the most part, but is a mismash of things dealing largely deals with positions BP has taken on environmental issues, and with BP's efforts on alternative energy thrown in. The latter is not an environmental initiative but a question of business (or pr) strategy. Thus the very title is POV and promotional. The section had previously begun with an item of trivia - BP being among the initial sponsors of a climate change institute in England in 1971 - which I have removed. The source was a passing reference in a book, indicating that BP was just one of a list of sponsors, with the amount not mentioned and BP just mentioned in passing. In general, considering the trivial and insubstantive content, the length of this section is disproportionately long and is violative of NPOV. Coretheapple (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed these problems by moving the alternative energy aspects to the alternative energy section. That rectified a duplicate mention of BP giving money to create a biofuels institute, which was already in the alternative energy section, but which I guess some editors found so thrilling that they wanted it mentioned twice. That left us with BP's position on global warming, so I renamed the section and place it in the section above, where it belongs. If anyone knows of BP engaging in any actual environmental initiatives apart from giving speeches on global warming and getting involved in alternative energy, we can re-create this section if they are of the same significance as the other items of BP's environmental record in that section. Coretheapple (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative energy section

The section on alternative energy is grossly disproportionate. When you go to BP's annual report, you find that the resources devoted to alternative energy are so small that they are not broken out separately in the summary listings of BP's employee count. "Upstream" and "downstream" (industry jargon that we may want to translate for our readers) are by far of greater significance. This is an oil company ladies and gentleman. Its alternative energy operations are as much p.r. as they are anything else, and I have news for everyone: this article is not an extension of the BP public relations department. I have tagged for undue emphasis, which it screamingly needs. It needs to be cut signficantly. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC) According to a figure cited in the article, BP alternative energy employs 5,000 people, out of nearly 86,000 employees! I question whether its efforts deserve a section at all, much less the lavish space devoted to it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've cut back on the size of the section and removed the "undue" tag. However, I do so with misgivings, given the tiny size of this unit, so small that its revenues are not broken out. It is still given co-equal treatment with gas and oil, and that's just wrong. This is still a work in progress; I think that the approach of this article to alternative energy needs to be rethought. Listing it as co-equal, and giving less attention to its vast oil holding than to its piddling, fast-evaporating operations, which mainly seem to be p.r. efforts, strikes me as ridiculous. Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It is very strange to see that naming company subsidiaries is tagged as undue. If the subsidiaries would not be mentioned in the parent company article, where should they? Beagel (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

To call them "subsidiaries" is an overstatement. They are tiny ventures of negligible consequence to the company, and belong to a unit of the company that is so small that its financial results are not broken out by the company. Whenever efforts are made to add discussion of environmental horrors to this article, the argument is always made that those details are not warranted because of the immense size and grandiose history of this company. Here we have a unit of the company that is tiny by any measure, and mentioning it in the same section as discussion of its immense oil and gas operations is quintessential undue. Be assured that even with those tiny subsidiaries removed, this section is problematic and gives the reader, by its size, a false impression of the company. It is the primary neutrality issue in the article at the moment. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

(Well, I would say an equally major neutrality issue is the BP oil spill section. Just take a gander at these sources, and then look at the minuscule mention of (non-financial) impacts from the spill, the overall size of this section compared with others in the article, and consider the size of this oil spill in terms of impact to BP, whose stock is down 1/3rd since the 2010 explosion.) petrarchan47tc 23:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and a central "to do" list might be helpful in helping us all focus our attention on areas needing help the most. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I examined the sources you cite, and compared to the main article, and you're 100% correct. "Summary style" is one thing, "short shrift" is another. BP caused the biggest oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. There need to be subsections on the health, environmental and economic impact. That section is a disgrace, as is this article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that the more we fill this article with meaningless unimportant "fluff" the less room there is available to fill it with Important, (but not necessarily the most favorable) "stuff". So..When the choice is between fluff and stuff, I choose.....stuff. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying what is stuff or what is fluff depends in some cases of the editor/reader POV. One may call the fact that the company built first ever refinery in the UK and Australia, or the company name of its subsidiaries dealing with ethanol production "fluff". However, other readers may find this information useful; particularly if this information is not repeated elsewhere in Wikipedia. One may have a POV that all information about the DWH oil spill should be added in this article notwithstanding the fact that more specific articles exist. Others would prefer to go to the DWH article if they need information about that. Beagel (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors need to use their common sense and examine the available data. The tiny size of the Alternative Energy unit, one-seventeenth of the BP workforce before the wind units are shed, is indicative of clear overemphasis of that aspect of the company in this article. Whether its purpose is p.r. or not is not our judgment to make, but its tiny size, so small that its results are not broken out, speaks for itself. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

More detailed information about ethanol and buthanol subsidiaries was removed with the edit summary: culling out duplicative material and text sourced to press releases; if these are important enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia they will be in reliable secondary sources. However, this information is not duplicated, reported by agencies such as Reuters and Bloomberg which qualifies as third party RS. These RS were specifically added based on the request at the edit summary of the first time removal. Beagel (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliably reported or not, you're padding this section with trivia. The names of units that, compared to a company of this size, aren't worth the powder to blow them away. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not trivia as information about subsidiaries a part of the parent company's article–particularly if not provided in other articles in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that listing major subsidiaries in this article is appropriate, minor, fly-speck ones no. I haven't removed their names as they are sourced to secondary sources, however, I think that it's unnecessary detail considering the immense history of this company and its far-flung operations, and the extremely small size of these ventures. This is the kind of minute detail that gives this article a "BP wrote this" feel to it, which needs to be avoided. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying what is stuff or what is fluff depends in some cases of the editor/reader POV. But not in this case. The point that I make is that I feel there is an effort to fill the article with "Fluffy Filler type trivia" in order to elongate the article past the point of accepteble length and thereby not having any room for unfavorable (to BP) information. "Sorry Buster. The article is too long. There is just no room for your edits about the pollution of Lake Michigan." ```Buster Seven Talk 06:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Biofules

After current edits this section includes the sentence: Once the sale is consummated, BP's renewable energy business will be limited to biofuels research and ethanol refining in Brazil. This is cited by two references–Bloomberg and The Independent. While the sentence actually comes from Bloomberg, the Independent actually says nothing about Brazil. At the same time this reporting by Bloomberg is incorrect as references above show that BP has biofuel activities also in the UK and US. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's because the sale hasn't been consummated. It was just announced a couple of weeks ago. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the source, the Independent said BP would be left with "a handful of biofuels businesses and low-key research projects." I'll be happy to add that characterization. Coretheapple (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

BP has announced a sale of its biofuel activities in the UK and US? When? Beagel (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Bloomberg's opinion

The last sentence of the current text of that section says: Bloomberg called the retreat from wind and solar "(BP's) retreat to fossil fuels.". It is sourced by three references: Bloomberg, The Independent and Farmington Daily Times. First, The Independent and Farmington Daily Times says anything about Bloomberg saying this. Second, this is (incorrect) opinion as biofuels are not fossil fuels. Beagel (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Retreat to fossil fuels. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the sourcing issue, and reconsidered that sentence. That "retreat" language was used only in the headline of a brief article, so I've removed it. If someone wants to restore it I certainly wouldn't mind, but my present feeling is that the snap judgment of some wire service headline writer probably doesn't make the cut. It's a bit too glib. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This solves that particular issue. Beagel (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that the headline needs to be included, but the Bloomberg piece is representative not of a snap judgment, but of RS in general. See here and here and here ~ these could all be entitled "BP's retreat to fossil fuels". petrarchan47tc 22:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, definitely, and if you want to revert that language I certainly won't object at all. I just am bending over backwards to be fair to BP, as always! Coretheapple (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to include that specific text as long as the context remains. petrarchan47tc 03:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I could not understand how Bloomberg could have said that. Personally I thought the headline was inaccurate. BP had never retreated "from" oil and gas in the first place, judging from the picayune resources it devoted to alt energy, which were so slim that they resulted in widespread charges of greeenwashing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

True, I think it was a play on words in response to BP's unrelenting greenwashing. petrarchan47tc 20:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a "main business segment"

There is a serious error in this article that I've just corrected. It said that there are "three main business segments": upstream, downstream and alternative energy. That is sourced to the 2011 annual report and the BP website. But the website, while listing alt energy alongside the two others, does not refer to it as a main business segment. The 2012 annual report at p. 15[13] says specifically that there are "two main business segments." This is a major friggin' error, made all the more glaring by the fact that an employee of BP is monitoring this talk page, supposedly for the purpose of correcting errors. Yet here we have a glaring error, a ridiculous error in fact considering how tiny alternative energy is and how few people it employs. I have broken out Alternative Energy as a separate section, removing it from the Main Business Segments section as it is not a main business segment of the company, and is indeed too small to be broken out separately and has 1/17th of the company's employees. What made this error particularly unfortunate is that it exaggerated the role of alternative energy at BP, further slanting this article's POV in a serious and significant way. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Coretheapple, I would like to clarify that the wording that I originally proposed last year did not describe BP Alternative Energy as a main business segment, instead it said that "BP has three areas of operation: Upstream, Downstream, and BP Alternative Energy". This made it clear that alternative energy is not part of the company's Upstream or Downstream activities. The source I used linked to a page on the BP website that you can see here, which breaks the BP group organization into Upstream, Downstream and BP Alternative Energy. At some later point this wording was edited to describe BP Alternative Energy as a "main business segment" and I did not notice this change. Often there are many edits in a single day on this article, so it can be nearly impossible to keep track of each individual phrasing. I am aware of a number of factual inaccuracies in the article, but I am trying not to overwhelm volunteer editors with too many requests at once and will continue to make recommendations in stages as I have been. I would also like to remind editors that I have many other responsibilities at BP than my work on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, everyone here is doing the best job they can to keep the article updated. I would appreciate it if you could be less quick to criticize other editors in this manner. Arturo at BP (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I said as follows: "This is a major friggin' error, made all the more glaring by the fact that an employee of BP is monitoring this talk page, supposedly for the purpose of correcting errors." It is a major frigging error, and it is made all the more glaring by the fact that an employee is monitoring this page for the purpose of correcting errors. If you know of any other factual errors, you should by all means disclose them. I think that it would have done our readers a great service to know that we were misstating the number of main business segments in this company, and specifically treating Alternative Energy as a main business segment when it is actually tiny in size, so as to prompt accusations of greenwashing as you know. Your wording quoted above is in my opinion not constructive, and apparently contributed to the overweighting of text on Alternative Energy. This exemplifies why I am not comfortable with a BP public relations employee suggesting text for insertion in the article by editors.

This also exemplifies why we should be careful about using the BP website as a source. Apparently BP has been pushing hard at Alternative Energy in its corporate communications efforts, including its website via the page you mention. It gives a grossly misleading impression of the significance of Alternative Energy to BP, and it should not have been adopted by editors without further checking, as apparently was the case. No, I don't blame the corporate editor for making this specific suggestion, as that was his job, but I do blame the editors who adopted it without further checking. Coretheapple (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I went back through the article history and found that the erroneous "three main business segments" language was inserted by User: Rangoon11 in this edit on July 5, 2012, nearly ten months ago.

I think this shows how important it is for editors not to adopt the corporate BP editor's (or any corporate editor's) suggested changes and textual additions, no matter how seemingly innocuous, routine or apparently well intentioned, unless they are for clear factual errors, the erroneousness of which can be independently verified. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Arturo said, " I would also like to remind editors that I have many other responsibilities at BP than my work on Wikipedia." It is very hard for me to continue to be told by the BP rep that he has not had time for the article and thus we need to consider that and avoid being overly harsh with our comments. Arturo, almost two weeks ago you said that I have been making comments about you that are not factual. In other words, either purposely or accidentally making stuff up. We agreed that you would discuss this accusation on your talk page and I am still waiting. I think that you should have been able to find the time by now. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We all have many other responsibilities, but only the BP corporate editor is editing this page within the scope of his job duties. It is simply inexcusable that a serious error, one that perpetuates the "Green BP" corporate p.r. thrust, was permitted to mislead readers for the last ten months. Independent editors, editing this as a hobby, cannot be expected to immediately read an article and see errors. However, I think that there is a reasonable expectation that a corporate employee, one tasked to monitor this article, would not be at that disadvantage. In addition to the unease that I feel by this error and its pendency for the past ten months, under the eyes of the BP employee monitoring this page very closely, I am deeply disturbed by that employee tsk-tsking about editors who insert non-corporate content into this article not behaving the way he wants them to behave. That kind of comment needs to end, and end now. It just is not acceptable, and frankly I find it to be offensive. Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, it isn't Arturo, it is BP's PR team. TEAM. petrarchan47tc 19:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As in a legal document, the singular can be construed as plural where appropriate in dealing with this particular phenomenon. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple of replies here: first to Gandydancer, I just saw your comment here and I think this may have been due to a misunderstanding between us both: I was expecting you to leave a message for me, while you were expecting me to write to you.

Coretheapple, on the issue of whether BP's Alternative Energy business was a "main business segment", it certainly is a separate area of operation to the company's upstream and downstream, which is what the wording I proposed stated. Your arguments that the change in wording by Rangoon overstated the importance of Alternative Energy are largely focused on recent events, particularly the announcements regarding BP's wind business. Until recently this business area was involved in a great deal of activity worth including in this article and that highlighted its importance, not to mention that the company has spent $7.6 billion on this area since 2005, more than $4 billion of it in the U.S. It is relevant to also compare BP's Alternative Energy business with other alternative energy companies to show how notable and large this business is in relative terms: BP Biofuels was ranked 12 in BioFuel Digest's list of hottest biofuel companies and BP was ranked 6th for market share and 5th overall for new wind energy installation in the US last year, higher than many companies that specifically focus on wind energy. So, until very recently BP was quite an active player in alternative energy.

Also, to address the issues you raised suggesting that it was my requests that led to "overweighting of text" on Alternative Energy: when I first started looking at this article, there was already a lot of language about Alternative Energy and the material I later presented suggested adding specific details under the relevant locations in "Operations", providing just a top-level view in the Alternative Energy section (see my request in October 2012 and the draft I proposed). As you can see, comparing my draft with the current section, there's much more detail in the article now, all of which was added by volunteer editors as they felt necessary and did not relate to my requests. With the recent events impacting Alternative Energy operations, editors have revisited the details in the article and that makes sense.

On a more general point, I first introduced myself here in May 2012, so it is incorrect to say that it has been "years". The primary reason I started taking an interest in the article in the first place was due to there being very little information about BP's operations and of that, some of it was inaccurate. Updating this information has largely remained my focus in the last year. Also, I would like to clarify that at no point have I said that it is my job to monitor this article for every incorrect detail: as part of my role I have been offering corrections here where I see they're needed as well as providing details and sources to include. Editors here have made an assumption that working on Wikipedia is my full-time role and that it is in my job description to monitor for every and all discrepancy, but this not the case. This is why I have noted that I have other duties, since this misunderstanding seems to persist. Another point that has persisted despite my pointing out that it was an error by one reporter, is that there is a "Wikipedia Team": I am the only BP employee, although I do fact check with other BP employees which might require research if they don’t already know. Finally, I have no expectation that volunteer editors should reply to my requests and I am grateful to anyone who is willing to review my suggestions. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Suffice to say that the sincerity of BP's alternative energy program is disputed widely by the critics, and it is not our job to reflect one side or another, but rather to reflect what is stated in reliable secondary sources. However, the fact that is that alternative energy is not one of the three main business segments, and a falsehood to the contrary was stated in the article for ten months without a peep from BP, which appears to monitor the page closely and has made voluminous suggestions in furtherance of the corporate narrative at a time when it is in the midst of serious civil litigation. This was a major and conspicuous error. I do not believe that any BP official reading this article could not have been cognizant that it was in error, and that it contradicted the clear statement in its annual report that there are "two main business segments." This error gave our readers an unfairly exaggerated view of alternative energy as a BP priority, and might have been seriously problematic had the Wiki article been cited by the court as I believe has happened in the past (with other articles). We must be vigilant to prevent inaccuracies, as it appears that inaccuracies/omissions favorable to BP are not going to be noticed unless the independent editors on this page do so. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, it seems likely that you will not accept my explanation but I would like to say that the wording is something I would have corrected if I had noticed, as I have in the past made requests for changes not favorable to BP. For instance, I provided an update to AE information in the article asking for the Highlands project to be removed as it had been discontinued. The phrasing about AE was just two or three inaccurate words buried within the Operations section, so if I missed this, and so did others, it seems hard to believe that this can have had a huge impact on how BP is perceived. I actually just noticed that there are some sentences claiming the wind sale is tied to our $38 billion divestment target, but that target has already been reached so that fact is incorrect, although I will doublecheck to make sure. There are a number of other incorrect facts, and I will provide outreach on that in the next week. I’m sure there are even some I haven’t noticed. I do appreciate that you value my contribution to the article so much that you are holding me to a higher standard than any other editor. Arturo at BP (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The presence of a corporate official in the editing of an article on that company, acting within the scope of employment and participating actively in the editorial process, creates a presumption that the article is indeed being read carefully and that no factual error, major or minor, has been overlooked. In this case, the error was blatant and significant, and favorable to the company's position.

The ostensible purpose of the corporate presence is to correct errors, and the corporate editor's interest is solely in articles about the company that employs him. In this instance, this was a statement in the article that there were three "main business segments," in quotes, a fundamental and not trivial fact about the company that exaggerated the importance of BP's Alternative Energy division. This was a basic fact about the company, and it was contradicted by the plain language of the annual report. I could not disagree with you more strongly that this did not have a significant impact on how BP is perceived. I can see that same error picked up in hundreds of school and college reports in the ten months during which it was in the article, as Wikipedia is lamentably used by students as basic source material. I find this error to be extremely disturbing, but to be frank I do not expect BP to share that opinion.

There are numerous, one might say enormous advantages for a company to have a representative at Wikipedia monitoring the article(s) about them. But one drawback, from the company's point of view, is that when there are errors in the article that favor the company, it's only natural that independent, nonaffiliated editors will question why those errors were not brought to the attention of Wikipedia, especially when the corporate rep is prone to lengthy and frequent talk page posts, and obviously is monitoring the article very closely. In this instance, the serious error was in the article for ten months. It's just common sense to presume that this error was noticed by the company but was allowed to remain because it favored the company's position. One does not leave one's common sense at the door when one edits Wikipedia. Yes, a casual reader would not realize that this error was an error, which is why it was such a problem. But a corporate rep, assigned by his employers to monitor an article, is not a volunteer editor who just edits Wikipedia out of casual interest and is not versed in the company's operational structure. Coretheapple (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Core, I wish I'd found it sooner, but I do believe you are making too much of the issue, and it's been fixed now. This article is thousands of words long, and I am quite sure that is not the only factual problem to be found here. It's my plan to continue to watch the development of the page and continue to offer suggestions as I'm able. And I will continue to do so even when the change is not "favorable" to BP. However, in the Deepwater Horizon section, which we've been discussing below, the section includes a great deal of detail that is unfairly slanted against BP, and I think this also does a disservice to readers. If you are unwilling to help me bring some balance to this section, because you dislike my employer or because you believe my oversight to have been malicious, that's too bad and I will ask other editors to weigh in. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

But I don't believe that it is inbalanced. I've requested previously that you substantiate your contention that the section is, in your words, "unfairly slanted against BP." You have not done so, and I think this is the second or third time I've asked. You obviously don't have to respond to that or any other query, but not substantiating an accusation of that kind tends to detract from its credibility.

As I've pointed out previously on more than one occasion, what is in that section was summarized from other articles in Wikipedia that are monitored closely by BP, and were not dropped from the sky here for the first time. They fairly summarize what is stated in secondary sources.

I further noted that some of the material that you wish to add is from a source, a Prof. Hazen, who have been paid by BP for their research work in the past and whose work appears to be financed by the company. That does not make them unusable, but such connections need to be taken into consideration. Moreover, I believe that a good deal of the sourcing that you have requested be reflected in the article could not possibly address any "balance" issue as they appear to address issues not dealt with in the section at this time. Obviously we can use such sourcing, but I fail to see how itnroducing new subject matter would address an inbalance issue, especially when claims are made that are controversial, such as the ones made by Hazen, and their disputed character would need to be noted.

Requesting such details, and expressing concern about a blatant error favorable to BP for the past ten months, is not an "expression of dislike" for BP, and I don't think it's constructive or helpful to take that position or to make disparaging comments about volunteer editors who are not paid, who do not have a conflict of interest, who do not draw their paycheck from one party or another, and who are taking time from their busy lives to improve this article. Further I think that the civil litigation in which BP is currently enmeshed concerning the Gulf oil spill makes it especially important for editors to exercise care, and not to accept at face value the views of one party to the litigation concerning additions to the article on matters related to the litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

For example, note this comment[14] that I made yesterday concerning your request to introduce sources. You didn't respond. When an editor doesn't engage in dialogue, and just adamantly insists, without providing evidence, that there is inbalance and that he will "ask other editors for help" if he doesn't get satisfaction, it does not persuade one that there is a genuine problem as opposed to simply not liking what's there. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A few of the sources provided and points I have made were not addressed in your responses. Others were. I'll reply, but I want to be thorough in doing so. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. There's no rush, no deadline. I shouldn't have implied otherwise. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@Arturo--you say that you thought I'd leave a message for you on your page. I don't know what you thought I might have to say as I have no idea why you would say that I have made remarks about you that were not correct/proper that made you look bad...I forget your wording. I thought that I have been fair and honest in my comments and I'd appreciate it if you'd point out my comments to me because many others read this page as well and I'd like to keep my "reputation" clean, and/or apologize if need be. Gandydancer (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Arturo? What does "....that's too bad and I will ask other editors to weigh in." mean. "I will ask....." sounds rermarkably like the Head of a Department asking his underlings to weigh in, to support him. to speak up. I don' think Ive ever seen canvassing handled in that way. So....will they weigh in because they want to or because you asked them to? That, to me, is the peculiarity that we have here. Now that you have instructed them, whomever "them" is (i guess we'll find out), to weigh in does CoretheApple stand a chance. What is your objective. Are you rallying the troops? Im not comfortable with any of this, even my own response. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue would easy to fix by just removing the word "main". No need to create a drama. Beagel (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, I have added specific notes in the section below to clarify how I think the section is imbalanced and made suggestions as to what information should be added or where editors may want to look more closely at the information included.

Gandydancer, as requested I have placed a note to you on my Talk page. Please reply there if you would like to discuss further.

Buster Seven, I meant only that I would leave a note on this page (or perhaps relevant WikiProject pages) asking other editors here for their input if Coretheapple preferred not to respond to my requests. If you read more into this and were concerned about canvassing, hopefully a quick look at my contributions would help calm those fears. I understand the rules about that, however at the moment I have not reached out to even one editor off the page about this. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Norway

BP caused an oil leak Norway that garnered this response from the Norwegian oil and gas safety authority. Seems to underline the references we've been seeing with regard BP's safety record. petrarchan47tc 19:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Coretheapple (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Guardian article: Norway on BP safety record petrarchan47tc 01:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of edits of past two days

I have reverted the radical changes made to this article of the past two days. These edits would greatly chang the article, moving it considerably further in the direction of being a crude attack piece. Virtually none of them have been discussed here, and they involved the bulk deletion of large amounts of cited and long standing text, as well as the addition of large amounts of attack content.

They were also ham fisted and crude, as is hardly surprising. For example, moving "positive" aspects of BP's environmental record to the Corporate affairs section. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of "ham-fisted and crude," your WP:OWN tactics, inter alia, restored the error that incorrectly stated that there are three main business segments, when there are two. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you think that you can cynically bypass this talk page and impose radical changes to this article - changes which you know do not enjoy consensus and are highly controversial - by making large numbers of edits over a short period of time then you are sadly mistaken.

And BTW personally I would support some reduction in the text on "Alternative Energy", perhaps even as much as a halving of the current section in terms of words (and I didn't support the recent addition of large amounts of text on biofuels). I think that actually that is a change which will have consensus, if not the manner in which you have attempted to make the cuts. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon11 also restored a bit that BP had requested be removed. It was: "and adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum," which remains in use today. It states that BP was never meant to be an abbreviation of its tagline." The BP PR team explained this is inaccurate: in this entry. petrarchan47tc 20:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The change in context made by the recent changes to AE section is the fist topic on this talk page. Rangoon, read the talk page before doing drive-by edits, please. You are wasting the time of editors working for free to bring balance to this article. It will NOT be tolerated. petrarchan47tc 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

He also made the article inaccurate by restoring the miscount of main business segments, proving he either didn't read the talk page or didn't give a hoot. Nor did he respond when it was pointed out above. Not an indication of a good-faith, non-tendentious edit. Coretheapple (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And edit warring over it.[15] He apparently wants the article to inaccurately state that the alternative energy segment is a main business segment, and for it to not contain accurate information about this company in general. Why is that? Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Until you respect WP policies, this talk page, and your fellow editors I am struggling to see any point in wasting my time communicating with you. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you respect WP policies enough to obey them? Such as by, for instance, not making something wrong? Not reverting reliably sourced text aimed at making an article complete and unbiased? Your use of the word "cynical" in your edit summary is ironic. You still haven't addressed how you made the "business segments" aspect incorrect, even though it has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This again just demonstrates your pure cynicism. You are well aware that out of the vast number of changes made to the article over the past two days, there are some which I may agree with, and which may enjoy wider consensus. However when vast changes are attempted to be made to an article over a short period of time through a deeply cynical flurry edits and tag teaming, making changes which are highly controversial and run against very extensive discussions on this talk page, then reversion is the only appropriate response. It is impractical to pick through massive changes to find a tiny number of acceptable ones.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Tag teaming? Please explain this accusation with examples. The 'flurry of edits' was not done by a team as far as I am aware. If we do have a team, please put me in contact with them asap, thanks. petrarchan47tc 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you had actually been following the talk page, you would have known that there was a serious error in the Alternative Energy segment of the article, incorrectly putting it on a par with "Upstream" and "Downstream," even though BP's own annual report states explicitly that it is not a "main business segment." Indeed, the annual report uses the specific phrase "two main business segments" when the article said "three main business segments." You repeatedly restored inaccurate information, and repeatedly did so even after it was pointed out to you at least twice. Cynical indeed. Apart from name-calling and claiming that there was "no consensus," which is not a valid reason for your wholesale reverts, see WP:DRNC, you haven't produced a single valid, non-argumentative reason for your actions. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You clearly show your bad faith since, rather than simply reintroduce that specific edit, you attempt to force all of your changes of the past two days, which you know absolutely do not have consensus, through edit warring.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

She clearly did a drive-by edit, defending it with the exact same language and tactics used against me when I tried to undue the spin in the lead about Green Energy which was placed there by Rangoon, but which she lied about in a DrN. I have asked time and again for an explanation, but have not received one. SlimVirgin discusses this section and edit here. Personally, I remain unwilling to trust someone caught lying in a DrN until they have convinced me they have reversed their ways. I do not see any reversal. petrarchan47tc 21:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, wholesale reverting is inappropriate when there are just a few issues at stake. Please consider reverting yourself, then restoring whatever issues you felt were better expressed in earlier versions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The changes which are attempting to be imposed through edit warring radically change the article. I have said I am happy to discuss a substantial reduction of the text of the Alternative Energy section - although this needs to be done in a more intelligent and considerered manner. It makes a complete farce of the hours which numerous editors have spent discussing this article on this talk page if one or two editors will then attempt to force large scale changes through edit warring. Why have talk pages or WP policies at all if that kind of behaviour is going to happen?Rangoon11 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Every word you wrote could be written about your contributions here. You have repeatedly edit warred, radically changed the article, ignored discussion, and made a farce of process. Why don't you discuss points rather than revert? Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon has reverted at least three times today

This behaviour cannot be tolerated. She has not read the talk page, as evidenced by three examples above, and is making changes and accusations out of thin air. Is there a response in Wiki guidelines regarding this editing? petrarchan47tc 21:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

the edit summary is funny given what I have just revealed: complete contempt for very extensive talk page discussions, tag teaming, cynicism of the highest order petrarchan47tc 21:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article contain the Deepwater Horizon oil spill series navigation template?

Should the article include the {{Deepwater Horizon oil spill series}} navigation template (see below right), as in this version? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Include. The spill was a serious environmental disaster that had a significant financial and legal impact on BP. Several readers are likely to come here to find out about the spill, rather than about the company, and the navigation template will help them find their way to the relevant articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Include at top of page. There should be no question the template belongs here. As it is, the template exists on all related pages but this one, even though BP is listed first in the series. petrarchan47tc 21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose 1. We already have a navbox for Deepwater (shown below) and this is wholly duplicative, and also less comprehensive. 2. The said nav box is already included in this article. 3. This article is not part of a "series" of articles on a narrow topic, Deepwater is rather a small part of BP as a topic, and BP existed long before Deepwater. Side bar navigation devices are used for closely defined series of articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Rangoon11. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Include BP is included in the box as part of the series for a reason: even if totally whitewashed and turned into a reflection of the agenda of the BP p.r. department, the BP article is an intrinsic part of the Deepwater Horizon series. It contains information not available elsewhere on the impact of the disaster on the company, even if all other information reflecting negatively on the company is blotted out. Thus it would be difficult to conceive of a BP article that does not belong in that box. The box is there for a reason, and its placement at the top of the article is designed specifically to guide readers toward articles of interest. Coretheapple (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Include BP will forever be connected to the Deepwater disaster. Various people, from Presidents to paupers, have called DWH "the worst environmental catastrophe in history." You can.t hide from over 200 million gallons of oil spilling into the gulf. Millions of people (see:readers) were affected. Why would we even think of hiding a connection (BP to DWH) that every knowledgeable adult on the planet makes. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Include I had to take some time to think about this. My decision rests on the fact that the Gulf spill has been called the second greatest environmental disaster in American history and the oil company BP is largely responsible. So with that thinking it should be obvious that it belongs in the series. Gandydancer (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Include As the editor that created the template I can at least attest to the reason it was created and some small background about its use so far. The Deepwater Horizon article had already been split several times. The article had consensus to split a number of sections even further and reduce them in the main article to smaller summaries. One concern raised was that, with all the splits, the bulk of the information was now in separated articles and links may not be as obvious to some readers. I proposed using a template to organize all the articles under the scope of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into one "series" template as is done on a number of FA articles. The opinion of some is that using a template in this manner is not appropriate, but as I said I based this on an FA articles use of a similar box. See Mitt Romney. The navigation boxes are currently hidden and the casual reader may not ever click the two un-collapse buttons required to see it. The template is about a specific event and the related subjects. That event is the oil spill itself and all those related articles and provides "at a glance" information the reader can see quickly, where the reader may be expecting such information. I believe that readers are looking for this information and believe the "series" template to have encyclopedic value. I should note that I did not add the template here originally, when the template was created, because I figured a bold addition such as that would surely be reverted. After the Arturo controversy I went ahead and made the bold edit to add the template and it was indeed reverted. Any addition such as this on an article like this one requires a consensus. I am glad we are having the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am struggling to see the relevance of the Mitt Romney article. Having both a nav box and a side bar for exactly the same topic is a mess and sets a bad precedent for this project, particularly as those in favour primarily want it there purely to provide greater emphasis on Deepwater in this article rather than for any policy reason or to serve genuine navigational needs.

The nav box is also far more comprehenive and is the appropriate form of navigation feature. The possibility also exists to make the navbox more visible.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite the opposite of a mess. It's a finding aid. Look at Mitt Romney. Totally on-point. If anyone has a problem with the Romney template or this one, they can nominate it for deletion. The fact is that there is a gulf oil spill template, it relates to an immense and complex controversy, and every assistance we can render to our readers in navigating the articles is helpful. You know, Wikipedia is not exactly user friendly, and readers need all the help they can get. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Romney article is one of the 4 million or so WP articles. So what. It's not even a particularly good article, despite being FA, and it certainly didn't achieve FA because of a side bar. Having a nav box and a side bar for exactly the same topic is messy, duplicative and confusing.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

State of Palestine is another with top and bottom navboxes. So were the articles on the Second World War that I skimmed. If I was a betting man, I'd wager you a nice sum of money that just they are commonly found in large and complex subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And why do you keep saying "confusing"? That's like saying that having more than one dictionary on your desk is confusing. It makes no sense to say that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

particularly as those in favour primarily want it there purely to provide greater emphasis on Deepwater in this article rather than for any policy reason or to serve genuine navigational needs. Not so. Serving the readers needs is a primary concern of most quality editors. Also, most editors here can navigate articles like a Gran Prix racer. But thats not so for our readers. Giving our reader as much assistance as we can is logical. If its not a principle, it should be. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - 1) This is a pretty clear example of recentism. BP as a whole is a much more important and notable topic than the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Placing the template so prominently is clearly undue. It looks like some kind of scarlet letter. 2) This is obviously an other stuff exists argument, but can any shows me where the "Exxon Valdez template" is at the top of ExxonMobil? 3) One minor caveat here; I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to putting the template under the appropriate subsection (i.e. BP#Deepwater_Horizon_well_explosion_and_oil_spill). NickCT (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons given by Rangoon11 and NickCT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment A direct comparison between the Valdez spill and BP's gulf spill cannot be made for 3 reasons. 1) the Gulf spill lasted 87 days and was the equivalent of a Valdez-sized spill every three days during that period. 2) The massive devastation caused (during the clean-up) by the Valdez spill is actually the fault of BP, not Exxon]. 3) The Deepwater disaster caused a 30% drop in BP's value, which remains the case to this day. Exxon is the number one company in the world right now, at this point the company is obviously unscathed by the spill. If a company is all about stock value, and an event impacts that stock by 1/3, that event is pretty damn important to the story of the company as a whole. Were the trials long-past, and the stock value closer to pre-spill levels, I would agree the navbox could go under the DWH spill section rather than the Lede. petrarchan47tc 19:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@petrarchan47 - Not really. The two spills are quite comparable. True the BP spill involved about ten times as much oil, but oil dumped in the middle of the gulf is significantly less meaningful than oil dumped off the coast of Alaska. In total the economic impact of Valdez was probably over half of the impact Deepwater created. In terms of the company's stock value, give it 30 years and I'm pretty sure BP will be sitting as pretty as ExxonMobile is. ;-) NickCT (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but just as we want to avoid recentism, we have to be cognizant of reality, which is that the Deepwater Horizon spill continues to reverberate after three years, which is precisely why readers seek out articles on this topic and why this template is warranted as a reader guide. It was an exceptional event. The fact that it was recent just makes it more important, really. We don't have "Eruption of Mt. Vesuvius" templates. Coretheapple (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@ NickCT -- Except that "oil dumped in the middle of the gulf is significantly less meaningful than oil dumped off the coast of Alaska" is untrue. The Deepwater was an oil gusher, not spilled oil, but emanating from the seafloor where it was immediately mixed with an industrial strength solvent called "Corexit", which made the toxicity of the oil 52 times greater, and made the toxic compounds airborne and more permeable to humans, fish (chemicals that can emulsify crude oil can do a number on cell walls and anything made of lipids) and the environment. That dispersed oil, as well as tar balls and tar mats, continue to wash up, and cause massive health and ecological problems on the coasts of four US states. The air in oiled marshes is killing off the insects in Louisiana. We also don't yet know the amount of oil "spilled", as whistleblowers with video evidence, are alleging a coverup of the true amount. petrarchan47tc 05:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@Coretheapple - I largely agree with what you're saying. But at the same time, I'm sure Valdez was "reverberating" about as much a Deepwater is three after the event.

@petrarchan47 - Mate, if you think me dumping 100 barrels of oil in the middle the Atlantic is going to be as environmentally harmful as me going to your local protected nature reserve and dumping it there, you've got to check your perspecitive on reality. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@NickCT -- Reality: "The spill fouled 1,100 miles of beaches and marsh along the Gulf coast" source -- "from the Louisiana barrier islands west of the Mississippi River to the white sands of the Florida Panhandle. A still-unknown portion settled on the floor of the Gulf and the inlets along its coast. Tar balls are still turning up on the beaches, and a 2012 hurricane blew seemingly fresh oil ashore in Louisiana. Well owner BP, which is responsible for the cleanup, says it's still (April 2013) monitoring 165 miles of shore" source "I have seen some of the smaller islands, that birds nest on, literally disappear in the past three years. The oil killed the marsh grass and the mangrove roots leaving the islands with nothing to hold them together and now some are completely gone. As far as the amount of tar balls washing up on beaches — it varies from day to day. BP’s claims that the Gulf Coast is back to normal are simply not true." source petrarchan47tc 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Include - if this template doesn't belong in the BP article, then the template shouldn't exist at all (not an invitation to argue for the deletion of the template).  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that there is a more expansion template (which is already included in the article) of the subject that is the oilspill, one can say that the inclusion of the less expansive template is unnecessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• One or the other - not both Wikipedia does not need multiple inter-article links. If the only choics is up or down on the pretty template oppose inclusion if that is the choice offered. Personally, a link to other articles is good, multiple links is not so good. Collect (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The guideline that applies then is WP:OVERLINK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, "overlink" applies to those pesky internal links that assume the reader doesn't know simple words. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this clause of OVERLINK/REPEATLINK:

A term should be linked, generally, at most once in an article's lead, perhaps once again in the main article body, and perhaps once at first occurrence in each infobox, table, caption, and footnote.

Using the logic of REPEATLINK and extending it to templates, there is already a template which is far more expansive regarding the subject of the oil spill, as such the more expansive template should be used over the less expansive navigation box. That is my opinion, which others can differ from. This is an RfC after all, which is designed to get multiple opinions to see what the greater consensus is (especially from editors who were not previously engaged in editing an article).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Include -- a useful feature for readers, and in my mind that's a sufficient reason to include it. Funny how some editors want to make it more complicated than that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rangoon11, NickCT and RightCowLeftCoast although arguments presented by Amdasscientist are valid. I would find the inclusion of this template justified and being reader-friendly if the DWH section in this article would be just a "normal" mentioning of this event which is usually expected if more specific articles exist. Instead of this, we have undue weight section which could without problem serve as a separate article. Links to all relevant articles are already provided in that section. In these conditions including this template does not have any added value for readers but rather serves to point to BP. As for argument that if not included here the template should not exist at all, I disagree with this logic. The template is useful for the DWH articles, particularly after several splits of the main article (which is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and not BP). This was already explained by Amadscientist. At the same time the question is if the BP should be included in this template or not. All articles included in this template, except BP, deals with the DWH or with the different aspects of the spill as a main topic of the articles. The only exclusion id BP in which case the DWH or any of its aspects is not the major topic of the article. This article also does not cover any aspects of the spill which is not already included in or which does not belong the more specific article. Beagel (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article is not part of a series on DWH, it concerns a topic which existed long before DWH. It looks like it is being shoe horned in here simply to give more prominence to DWH in this article.2.101.1.7 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Move to Deepwater Horizon section. It's certainly appropriate for content contained in this article, but it is general practice to place navigation templates at the head of the associated content. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose (or move to DH section) - This is a tough call, but BP is a huge company, and it seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE to emphasize this one incident with a prominent sidebar at the top of the article. There are at least 3 better approaches: (1) use a footer navbox; (2) move the sidebar into the DH section; or (3) create a new DH category and put the article in that category. Bottom line: a colorful, large sidebar near the top offends both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. --Noleander (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Include. A helpful graphic. Does no harm, and I don't see any NPOV issue because of the prominence of the oil spill in BP's history. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Include the template. Much better idea than including the attack material in this article, subject of a separate survey below. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Latest edit war

As far as I can see the current set of reverts are over an extensive list of edits by Coretheapple. Some of these edits look like improvements and others not. However I think we probably need to break them up and look at them bit by bit rather than revert in and out a whole list. --BozMo talk 08:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The article was such a mess I don't really know where to begin. With its depiction of alternative energy as one of "three main business segment" (with commensurate attention, co-equal placement in the article, and POV wording) when Alternative Energy has one-seventeenth of the company's employees, had been widely criticized as greenwashing (not mentioned in the Alternative Energy segment) and the 2012 Annual Report specifically stated that there were "two main business segments," and Alternative Energy wasn't one of them? See [16] Note that the erroneous language has been in this article for the past ten months[17], and was based upon wording that was suggested by a BP employee who monitors this article. Coretheapple (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a lavish list of the top institutional investors, only one with more than 5% holdings, down to the second decimal place - which is not standard for articles about large companies. Yet the segment on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest oil spill in history, was treated as just another "industrial accident." Major regulatory proceedings, some involving criminal proceedings, were likewise given short shrift and were misleadingly referred to in the section header as "accusations." Basically the article selectively abused the concept of "summary style" to give short shrift to aspects of the company that were unflattering, and, as indicated by the overemphasis, wording and co-equal placement of alternative energy - which actually got a multiple of more space, with names of tiny ventures included, than its immense oil drilling operations! - in significant part read as if it had been drafted by the subject of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement w/ Coretheapple's assessment. Volunteer editors are just not capable of doing the legwork necessary to prevent this article from becoming a copy of the BP Annual Report to Stockholders. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We might be capable of the legwork to create and maintain an NPOV article, were we not drawn into unending talk page arguments and edit wars, confronted with BP's Wikipedia Engagement Team. It would really be nice if Wikipedia itself would step in and help: with a change to the guidelines. Wiki should provide an intermediary to help BP and Wikipedia meet their stated goals: content correction and an NPOV article respectively. petrarchan47tc 19:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What's happened in recent years, apparently, is that the editing dynamic became one in which a principal objective has become: How can we help BP make this article more to its liking? How can we satisfy their objections? How can we make them happy? When BP posts sources, we say, "Where can we add those sources," and not "Do we need to add those sources" or "are there other sources that BP hasn't mentioned, that don't advance its narrative?" In other words, BP asks editors to jump, and they sometimes tend to reply, "How high?" BP has a "take charge" attitude, notwithstanding its absence from actual article editing, that is forcefully but politely found on this talk page. This dynamic needs to change, whether or not Wikipedia engages in structural changes to deal with this situation. Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a perfect assessment. petrarchan47tc 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Deepwater Horizon section

In the recent expansion of the Deepwater Horizon section, a lot of information has been added that provides only a negative view of the company, even where sources exist that show a more balanced view. In particular, it is concerning that studies are discussed in this article that have only provided initial findings or whose findings are contradicted by other research available. I have cited a few sources below, but there are quite a few more that I am more than willing to share.

Environmental impact

For the "Environmental impact" subsection, there is no mention of the increase in bacteria which broke down oil in the Gulf:

• "An explosion in oil-munching bacteria made fast work of BP oil spill, scientist says" The Times-Picayune, 8 April 2013
• "Study: Oil-Eating Bacteria Mitigated Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill" US News, 8 April 2013
• "Gulf of Mexico cleans itself naturally from Deepwater Horizon blowout" Ottawa Citizen, 8 April 2013

And recent research contradicts the research cited in the article that one-third of the oil remains in the Gulf:

• "UT experts: BP oil spill gone from deep ocean, but remains in marshes", Knox News, 28 April 2013

Regarding the impact of oil and dispersant on the food chain, samples of fish and crustaceans have been tested by the NOAA and FDA, and by state agencies:

• "Three Years After Gulf Oil Spill, Continued Testing Shows Gulf Seafood Safe to Eat Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 19 April 2013. Quote: "All findings were well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s levels of concern; 96 percent had no detectable levels of PAH or DOSS."
• "Consumers Can Be Confident in the Safety of Gulf Seafood FDA, March 2011. Quote: "In October, the agencies announced the results: every sample tested was far below the safety threshold established by FDA, and over 99 percent of the thousands of samples tested showed no detectable residue."

Independent context

(Added by Petrarchan47)

• Take It With a Grain of (Sea) Salt: Gulf Microbe Study Was Funded by BP:

“ Earlier this week, major news outlets ran with headlines about how a new microbe has been found eating up BP’s oil, and how microbes have degraded the hydrocarbons so efficiently that the vast plumes of oil in the Gulf are now undetectable. No joke. A bit skeptical of all the oil-is-mostly-gone claims [7], the day that microbe study was released we chose instead to focus on the Gulf’s thousands of dead fish. Lucky for us. MIT’s Science Tracker, in a post published yesterday, noted that the microbe study was conducted by U.C. Berkeley scientists through a grant with the Energy Biosciences Institute, and that the Energy Biosciences Institute is funded by none other than BP, through a $500 million, 10-year grant. (To the researchers' credit, they also mentioned the funding in their press releas — you just had to read about three-quarters of the way through.") ”

• Three Years After the Gulf Spill, Oil Is Still Washing Up in Louisiana

• 3 Years After Deepwater Horizon, Report Shows Devastating Impact of Dispersant Used in "Cleanup" related report Newsweek - these articles point out that BP lied about the safety of Corexit. This has not been added to the article.

“ What’s more, the combination of Corexit and crude oil also caused terrible damage to gulf wildlife and ecosystems, including an unprecedented number of seafood mutations; declines of up to 80 percent in seafood catch; and massive die-offs of the microscopic life-forms at the base of the marine food chain. ”

• A Deadly Paradox: Scientists Discover the Agent Used in Gulf Spill Cleanup Is Destroying Marine Life

• Dead dolphins and shrimp with no eyes found after BP clean-up

• Comment: The linked ProPublica blog source regarding the microbe study was published in 2010 and refers to research from U.C. Berkeley, whereas the links I provided above are from this month and report on more recent research by researchers at the University of Tennessee. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they both involve Terry Hazen, who has made presentations frequently along the same lines in the past, when he was at Berkeley, and whose work has been very generously funded by BP. He made the same point in 2010, and I found the following in a U of C Berkeley press release entitled "Study shows deepwater oil plume in Gulf degraded by microbes":

"Hazen, who has studied numerous oil-spill sites in the past, is the leader of the Ecology Department and Center for Environmental Biotechnology at Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division. He conducted this research under an existing grant he holds with the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) to study microbial enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. EBI is a partnership led by the University of California (UC) Berkeley and including Berkeley Lab and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP."[18] (boldface added)

So while I'm not entirely clear on his present funding, his (at least) past relationship with BP is clear and has received quite a bit of publicity. This does not disqualify his research from Wikipedia by any means, but his BP ties would have to be disclosed. This indicates why it behooves us to be careful, to not rush, to not accept sourcing suggestions and claims of "imbalance" from anyone (especially a party to litigation) at face value, to obtain countervailing expert opinions if at all possible, and to deal with these sources with care, if at all. Coretheapple (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to thank Petrarchan for her excellent work in providing an independent perspective that is greatly needed, and without which I do believe this article and Wikipedia readers would be dealt a severe disservice. As the above indicates, we need to examine all sources with appropriate skepticism and not make any changes/additions to the article based on the complaints of one party to litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Core. If you want to read about the Gulf oil spill, you have to look at the 2012 version of the article (before the ecology section was split away on Christmas Eve without any consensus, followed by cutting the article almost in half) - today Hazen is not mentioned in the main oil spill article (it is in the "oil spill response" which got 14 views today), but here is what I had recorded before the great pre-trial scrubbing: petrarchan47tc 06:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

“ Oil eating microbes In August (2010), a study of bacterial activity in the Gulf led by Terry Hazen of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, found a previously unknown bacterial species and reported in the journal Science that it was able to break down the oil without depleting oxygen levels. [247] Hazen’s interpretation had its skeptics. John Kessler, a chemical oceanographer at Texas A&M University says “what Hazen was measuring was a component of the entire hydrocarbon matrix,” which is a complex mix of literally thousands of different molecules. Although the few molecules described in the new paper in Science may well have degraded within weeks, Kessler says, “there are others that have much longer half-lives – on the order of years, sometimes even decades.”[248] He noted that the missing oil has been found in the form of large oil plumes, one the size of Manhattan, which do not appear to be biodegrading very fast.

By mid-September, research showed these microbes mainly digested natural gas spewing from the wellhead – propane, ethane, and butane – rather than oil, according to a subsequent study published in the journal Science.[250] David L. Valentine, a professor of microbial geochemistry at UC Santa Barbara, said that the oil-gobbling properties of the microbes had been grossly overstated.[251] Methane was the most abudant hydrocarbon released during the spill. It has been suggested that vigorous deepwater bacterial bloom respired nearly all the released methane within 4 months, leaving behind a residual microbial community containing methanotrophic bacteria.[252]

”

Thanks very much. Clearly this article and the Deepwater Horizon article have been subjected to grotesquely skewed editing over these past months, and need to be fleshed out to make them even marginally useful to readers. BP's involvement in the article serves primarily to highlight how inadequate this article is, how much it needs to be improved, and why BP's involvement in the editorial process of Wikipedia is problematic and represents a significant challenge for editors on this page. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Remaining oil

• One-third of the oil may be mixed with seafloor sediments

• 'Dirty Blizzard' in Gulf of Mexico May Account for Missing Deepwater Horizon Oil

“ At the 2013 "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference", oceanographer David Hollander presented data that showed as much as one-third of the oil released during the spill may still be in the gulf. Researchers described a phenomenon called "dirty blizzard": oil caused deep ocean sediments to clumped together, falling to the ocean floor at ten times the normal rate in an "underwater rain of oily particles". The result could have long-term effects on both humans and marine life. Commercially-fished species feed on sediment creatures, meaning oil could remain in the food chain for generations. CBS ”

• Dirty Blizzard troubles scientists studying Gulf oil spill

“ Soon after the BP gusher was plugged last summer, the oil seemed to vanish as if entirely eaten by bacteria, evaporated by hot sun and sea breezes or swept to far reaches of the Gulf of Mexico. But a two-day scientific gathering at the University of Central Florida last week unveiled several findings that crude oil still troubles the Gulf to a surprising extent. "Just because you can't see it or touch it doesn't mean it isn't there," said Benjamin Flower, University of South Florida oceanographer. In the wake of the three-month, 5 billion-barrel blowout, Flower and a team of USF and Eckerd College scientists retrieved dozens of samples from the Gulf's bottom. What they found over several months was that the seafloor, from south of Panama City to south of Alabama, had become coated in many places with a dark muck. ”

petrarchan47tc 23:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Many more references are listed here

• Comment: The information about the oil on the seafloor and the "dirty blizzard" are currently included in the "Environmental impact" section, so the inclusion of these sources is redundant here. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Food Safety

• FDA Allowed Unsafe Seafood Onto Market After BP Oil Spill Disaster

• Study: Gulf Seafood Unsafe for Pregnant Women and Children? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279457/

• Scientist Questions Safety of Gulf Seafood:

“ [Subra] is concerned about cancer-causing chemicals called Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, or PAH's. And after the oil spill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised the allowable amounts of those chemicals in the seafood they test. And FDA established these levels specifically for the spill and in some cases they are ten times higher than the levels that were already on the books," said Subra. ”

• FDA's standards for Gulf seafood may be lower than those in past oil spills

• Study: Gulf Seafood Unsafe for Pregnant Women and Children?

• Review of following 2 studies

“ A study by two of the most tenacious non-government scientists reveals that FDA Gulf seafood "safe levels" allowed 100 to 10,000 times more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in seafood than what is safe. The overarching issue the report addresses is the failure of the FDA's risk assessment to protect those most vulnerable to the effects of these chemicals, such as young children, pregnant women and high-consumption seafood eaters. ”

• Seafood Contamination after the BP Gulf Oil Spill and Risks to Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment

• FDA Risk Assessment of Seafood Contamination after the BP Oil Spill: Rotkin-Ellman and Solomon Respond petrarchan47tc 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Related to Coretheapple's point below about being careful in using scientific studies, it's important to note as best I can tell that the sources above all relate to one study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, critiquing the FDA's risk assessment of seafood. (I didn't see a second study mentioned in third source linked, perhaps there's some confusion in that the NRDC study was carried out by two scientists per the quote Petrarchan highlighted.) Per the Time article linked above, the results of this study contradict both the FDA and other agencies' findings:

Quote: "The FDA said most of the seafood it sampled after the spill had no detectable trace of oil. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals calculated that every day for five years the average person could eat 1,575 jumbo shrimp or 130 oysters without health concerns."

The current details in the article only tell one side of the story, but as I have shown above, there are sources that justify giving a more rounded perspective on this issue, assuming editors think this level of detail deserves to be in the article at all. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying that you want a "rounded perspective" and that the current article tells only "one side of the story," but at this point the detail is so bare bones that it barely even touches on he Gulf situation at all. There is not one word about food safety. In what way is that unbalanced on the subject of food safety? The article says that the oil and dispersant entered into the food chain. Are you saying that it didn't? When you make an accusation of bias in the article, and then propose a raft of sources, I think that it would give your statements considerably more credibility if you presented some evidence of imbalance and did not just make conclusory allegations. Doing so is not constructive. Coretheapple (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Economic impact

The section on "Economic impact" relies on anecdotal evidence about the impact on catch size, which goes against official reporting about the Gulf seafood industry. See:

• "U.S. seafood landings reach 14-year high in 2011", NOAA, 19 September 2012. Quote: "Catches throughout the Gulf of Mexico rebounded in 2011 to the highest volume since 1999, following a curtailed 2010 season due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill."

Additionally, there is no note of the recovery in the tourism economy. See for example:

• "Two years after BP oil spill, tourists back in Gulf Coast" Reuters, 27 May 2012.

While this section mentions $42 billion in charges to BP, it fails to give much detail including the compensation provided by BP to support economic recovery, which totals $10.7 billion paid as of March 31, 2013. Additionally, the section does not mention the efforts by BP to clean up the spill, including the $14 billion spent on cleanup operations (see the Congressional Research Service report from January 2013). If there is to be such a high level of detail on the Deepwater Horizon spill, BP's response should be noted. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if we had someone monitoring this page from the environmental movement, who could correct errors that favor BP? Or sources that don't further the BP narrative? Or can point out gaps and omissions in the article, the absence of which tilts the POV of this article on behalf of BP? We can be reasonably certain that any adverse fact that is unflattering to BP will be countered on this page, and that those efforts will be treated with the utmost deference by editors here. But we have no countervailing force and that is a continual issue that has already had a deleterious effect on the article, tilting it far in favor of BP and allowing a serious error to go uncorrected, tilting the POV of the "Alternative Energy" area, for a period of ten months.

As far as the above suggestions are concerned, I recommend that we keep the principle of "no deadline" in mind, and evaluate them in conjunction with other source material that has also not been used, such as the recent Newsweek article, "What BP Doesn’t Want You to Know About the 2010 Gulf Spill". Keep in mind, too, that virtually all of the additions to the Gulf Oil section was taken from other Wiki articles, which are a wealth of material that can be used for this article if that is necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Wouldn't it be nice if we had someone monitoring this page from the environmental movement" - yes! It's a heck of a lot to ask of us! petrarchan47tc 21:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be an excellent idea if these representatives of environmental movements will be the subject of the same rules as other COI editors, inter alia declaring COI at the user page as also here at the talk page, including the Connected contributor template, restricting editing to the talk page, and their requests/proposals are considered in depth as requests/proposals of any other COI editor. Beagel (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Another useful source: Corexit: Deadly Dispersant in Oil Spill Cleanup, Government Accountability Project, April 2013. It may not be a bad idea if editors not paid by the company would list other sources that they are aware of, which can then be used in this article and the other articles on this subject. Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, I have started this thread for the purpose of discussing points that I think should be included in the article, and if you'd like to discuss other sources or other topics, please edit the article as you may or begin a different thread. If you're willing to help address the issues I have raised, that would be excellent. If you're not interested, that's fine too. I am willing to work with anyone who is willing to help me address the omissions I've raised here. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not about addressing your issues. This is about improving the article, which may or may not involve addressing your issues or making you happy with the article. Also I certainly hope you are not suggesting that this thread is only to discuss what you want it to discuss. That's not how talk pages work, and people who commence discussions do not dictate how they are to be conducted. Coretheapple (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, I agree that making me happy is not the goal of this article or this discussion. However, I have pointed out some specific problems with the Deepwater Horizon section, and I believe these points deserve a fair hearing. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but the editors need to make a determination if there are problems with what is there now. Please be mindful of the fact that the additions to that section were directly taken from material existing elsewhere on Wikipedia, inluding the highly trafficked Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill article. You're acting as if they plopped down from the heavens. They have been in Wikipedia for years. I assume that BP, given its close monitoring of Wikipedia, is cognizant of those other articles. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors also need to be mindful of the fact that BP is a defendant in litigation concerning its role in the Gulf oil spill. As I have previously indicated, I do not think that it is right for one party to this litigation, the defendant, to be quite so active and influential in an article that relates directly to the issues of the litigation, with so many billions at stake. This goes well beyond a party to a suit complaining about content. We're talking about intimate involvement here, as a participant, a degree of access to the Wikipedia editorial process that the other parties to the suit do not have, either through choice, ethical qualms, or ignorance. I think that we owe it to the reader to be mindful of this and vigilant to be sure that the sourcing is determined for the purpose of making the article better, not pleasing or assuaging the feelings of one party to the litigation or the other. Coretheapple (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There was mention of BP's compensation in the August 2012 version, I put it there. I wonder how it was removed. petrarchan47tc 23:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Tourism

The tourism should be noted along with mention of BP's efforts to promote it:

“ "Tourism doesn't happen on its own, it takes marketing dollars, particularly if you're battling an image crisis like the oil spill," New Orleans convention and visitor bureau spokeswoman Kelly Schultz said.

A chunk of the $15 million BP initially sent to Louisiana in June 2010 funded emergency advertising to quell misperceptions that New Orleans was laden with oil, and Schultz says it worked. Hotel tax collections in the third quarter of 2010 jumped 33 percent from year-earlier figures Since then, BP has sent more than $150 million to Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi to aid tourism, and will shell out close to $30 million more by the end of 2013. Another $82 million was committed for seafood marketing and testing, BP spokesman Craig Savage said.

”

petrarchan47tc 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

These are great sources. Thanks very much. (I was referring to Petrarchan's list of sources under "independent context." By the way, I was going through one of the articles quoted by the BP editor and I found something that is worth underlining. It's found in this article[19], and it says as follows, concerning scientific studies published concerning the environmental impact of the Gulf oil spill: "As with similar research results released in peer-reviewed scientific magazines or at other scientific meetings, the results of the two researchers represent only small slices of the wide body of research being conducted into the effects of the oil spill. Much of that research is being done to support the ongoing lawsuits by the federal government against BP and other parties believed responsible for the spill, and many of the results of that research are still being withheld from the public until the legal battle is over." (boldface added to original)

Those are important points, I think that it's important, in using scientific studies quoted in the media, that we make an effort to actually get hold of the studies in question and ascertain their funding, which is ordinarily disclosed within the body of the study. Also, as indicated in that article, we want to use with caution scientific studies that are outside the scientific consensus or represent a minority point of view. I have access to scientific studies, and can obtain them as required. If a study was financed by either the petroleum industry or critics thereof, or parties to lawsuits, we need to be cognizant of that and say so. There may be studies that summarize the existing literature, and if so we can obtain them or I can if it is behind a paywall. If there is a particular search logic that I should use, please let me know. P.S. I wasn't addressing those comments to you, P., as I know you're already aware of this, but making a general observation, really more for my own benefit as anyone else's. Coretheapple (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I do wish a knowledgeable environmentalist was available to answer your question about search terms. I'm not sure at the moment. Another point, though, about available studies is discussed here: BP’s Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative issued 19 grants for about $20 million last year. Only two were for environmental toxicology projects.petrarchan47tc 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A related comment: I remember reading that BP had bought out quite a few university science departments to do their own research, but put a three year gag order on the researchers supposedly with the intent to have them on their own payroll rather than that of their opposition in the upcoming lawsuit. Gandydancer (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well-documented, that. I think it is covered in the recent slew of 3rd-year anniversary articles, I'll dig it up at some point (I've got about 30 new articles filed away). petrarchan47tc 19:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is context yet to be added: BP buys up Gulf scientists for legal defense, roiling academic community. Also related, from Scientific American ""Free and open access to scientific information concerning oil spills is not a given," noted the authors of a Congressional Research Service report (pdf) on the oil spill's ecosystem impacts last October. For example, dead dolphins that washed ashore earlier this spring have been seized by the U.S. government. "NOAA and other federal agencies came into every lab with a dolphin in the fridge and confiscated it," says Casi Callaway, baykeeper for Mobile Bay in Alabama. "All data, all studies, all work on dolphins was sequestered." petrarchan47tc 20:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"The contract makes it clear that BP is seeking to add scientists to the legal team that will fight the Natural Resources Damage Assessment lawsuit that the federal government will bring as a result of the Gulf oil spill." That's the lawsuit that is underway now. This underlines the necessity to be cautious in scrutinizing sources, and to ascertain their funding. We don't want to be manipulated by anybody's p.r. campaign. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, it sounds like we are in agreement that the recovery in tourism should be mentioned in the "Economic impact" section. Would you like to propose a sentence to add to this section? Arturo at BP (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Reuters article in Huffington Post indicates a mixed picture, and more than one sentence may be warranted. Also, obviously, it is not necessary for Petrarchan or any uninvolved editor to "propose" anything. It just can be added to the article directly, along with material from other sources that might be utilized. Coretheapple (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again, Core. I must admit, the to-do list was weighing on me a bit. petrarchan47tc 19:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but I won't be able to get around to it for awhile. petrarchan47tc 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Civil litigation underway

I just wanted to remind editors, in dealing with sourcing issues and in particular the sourcing requested by BP itself at the top of this section, that BP is a defendant in litigation concerning its role in the Gulf oil spill in which billions of dollars is at stake. The issue of damages, if any, will be determined by test jury trials. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#Civil_proceedings Given the sensitivity of this matter, we need to be extremely cautious in dealing with efforts to influence the content and POV of the Deepwater Horizon section by parties to this litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Specific issues to address

Elsewhere on this Talk page, Coretheapple has asked that I explain the errors or omissions in the Deepwater Horizon section that have led to it presenting just one side, so here are the main issues I see:

• The section does not discuss BP's cleanup efforts except in passing in "Economic impact", and nothing at all is said about the $14 billion spent on cleanup operations.

• There is no mention in the section that BP has funded independent research on the impacts of the spill in the Gulf. As Petrarchan mentions above, BP has committed $500 million to funding independent scientific study through the Gulf of Mexico Research Institute. To be clear: BP has no influence on the studies funded through the Institute, as the GoMRI website explains. Also, I've seen that arguments have been made about taking into account whether studies were funded by BP, I think that this is an over complication given that BP has no input into or control over the findings of that research.

• Although the "Environmental impact" section notes that research is ongoing, it then devotes most of the second paragraph to research findings relating to one specific hypothesis. There is no mention that other studies have found contradictory data, for example the UT study I linked above. Also, federally funded studies have found that bacteria was able to consume spilled oil, including a 2012 study published by the National Academy of Science, reported on by the Wall Street Journal, CBC News and a study also in 2012, funded by a number of organizations including the National Science Foundation, NOAA and Gulf of Mexico Research Institute reported in Live Science.
• The "dirty blizzard" described in the "Environmental impact" is also contradicted by findings of scientists forming the Operational Science Advisory Team (comprised of scientists from governmental agencies as well as BP) found that no oil or sediments exceeding the benchmark for aquatic life that were consistent with MC252 oil either offshore or in the deepwater Gulf. See the OSAT-1 final report.

• The "Environmental impact" section repeats information about tar balls continuing to wash up. This is mentioned as happening 2 years after the spill in the second sentence of the second paragraph, then in the final sentence of that paragraph it is mentioned as occurring 3 years after the spill.

• In the "Economic impact" section anecdotal information is included, particularly the sentence "One Mississippi shrimper who was interviewed said he used to get 8,000 pounds of shrimp in four days, but this year he got only 800 pounds a week." However, data from the NOAA in 2012 indicating a recovery in catch size to the highest volume since 1999 is not included. Given that other factors such as flooding or changes in water temperature can affect fishing in one particular location (see this article from The Times-Picayune), so it is important to consider the whole industry rather than highlighting individual examples such as the quoted shrimp fisherman. Additionally, it is problematic to rely on anecdotes like this as there are plenty of those offering a different perspective including this Houma Today article and this WLOX 13 article both on the rebound in charter fishing, raising the question of why the negative shrimp fisherman quote should be included but not a quote from a charter fisherman whose business has improved.

• Also in the "Economic impact" section, I think the second sentence is a nod to BP's efforts toward Gulf restoration but it is poorly worded and unclear.

• Additionally, as discussed above where Petrarchan indicated they may make an addition: the recovery across much of the tourism industry and BP's efforts to assist with that are also not currently included.

• I bring up the "Health impacts" section last as I feel that this is potentially a question of weight and judgement that may be best for volunteer editors to review carefully and consider, but: the list of health effects is based on self-reporting, rather than findings of a study and there is no official data given here to support this information. (There's also a small typo at the beginning of this section "csurvey".)

• Another point worth considering regarding the "Health effects" section is that the EPA monitored air quality following the spill and the CDC reviewed their results, both finding that air quality was generally normal for the Gulf coastline and that the low levels of pollutants in the air were not expected to cause long-term harm. See the details on the EPA website, which states "The levels of some of the pollutants that have been reported to date may cause temporary eye, nose, or throat irritation, nausea, or headaches, but are not thought to be high enough to cause long-term harm."

• Finally, I mentioned the findings from the FDA and other agencies regarding seafood, this is relevant to include regarding potential health effects that seafood testing showed that 96 - 99% had no detectable oil or dispersant residue.

This hopefully demonstrates why this section is one-sided at the moment and provides a basis for editors to look at making updates as they feel are needed. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Dirty Blizzard findings from 2013 cannot be refuted by a government report from 2010, Arturo. petrarchan47tc

Newer findings:

"In April 2012, Louisiana State University’s Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences was finding lesions and grotesque deformities in sea life—including millions of shrimp with no eyes and crabs without eyes or claws—possibly linked to oil and dispersants.

■ Toxins at 3000 times the acceptable level in gulf seafood

■ Dead dolphins in record numbers, killed by weakened immune systems and brucella bacteria

■ Blue crab populations wiped out

■ Oyster beds not reproducing

■ 60% of coral on platforms killed

■ Toxicity to rotifers, base of food chain, is 52 times higher with Corexit"

And from Scientific American Remember the BP Oil Spill? Malformed Fish Do-A new study shows that sediments fouled with oil from the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico caused problems for fish embryos.

With recent, independent findings in mind, the section seems out-of-date and whitewashed in favor of BP. Indeed, a real disservice to readers. petrarchan47tc 00:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Petrar, it may be helpful to link to the science and not press releases.

• Chase, D. A., Edwards, D. S., Qin, G., Wages, M. R., Willming, M. M., Anderson, T. A., et al. (2013). Bioaccumulation of petroleum hydrocarbons in fiddler crabs (Uca minax) exposed to weathered MC-252 crude oil alone and in mixture with an oil dispersant. Science of The Total Environment, 444, 121–127.
• Goodbody-Gringley, G., Wetzel, D. L., Gillon, D., Pulster, E., Miller, A., Ritchie, K. B., et al. (2013). Toxicity of Deepwater Horizon Source Oil and the Chemical Dispersant, Corexit® 9500, to Coral Larvae. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e45574.
• Rico-Martínez, R., Snell, T. W., & Shearer, T. L. (2013). Synergistic toxicity of Macondo crude oil and dispersant Corexit 9500A® to the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera). Environmental Pollution, 173, 5–10.

Et cetera. Many good papers all saying that the dispersant will have long-term negative effects. On the other hand, these papers affirm that the oil itself has been largely cleaned up. I appreciate Arturo's editing here and if we supply him with good references maybe he can respond with equally good sources of his own. Shii (tock) 13:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, it is important to note that the CBS News report about the 2013 findings and the Science Daily report you link here are very clear that this is an initial presentation of evidence to support a hypothesis. (Also, I did not say "refuted", I said "contradicted", I was pointing out that other research has had different findings on this matter.) Notice that the Science Daily report (which is taken from an FSU press release) says the dirty blizzard "may account" for missing oil, not that it does. The Take Part story (which seems to be an activist source) says deformities are "possibly linked" to oil and dispersants, not that they are. Additionally, editors may be interested to read this scientific paper pointing out methodology issues with the research that found toxicity to be 52 times higher with Corexit. Lastly, I am not sure what you mean by "out-of-date and whitewashed" when it was written within the past few weeks by Coretheapple, whose views on this article you seem to share.

It doesn't matter who added the part, it comes from the BP oil spill article, which has been whitewashed and is very out of date. Unlike "CREWE", independent Wikipedia editors don't team up and agree mindlessly with each other, we are here to build an informative encyclopedia. The "activist source" is no less qualified than the BP website or the US Government for discussion about article content. BP's active presence on this page is calling for an "activist" presence, and I am looking into that presently. petrarchan47tc 20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Shii, thanks for joining this discussion and I take your point about sources: I have mainly focused on news items but if you feel it would be helpful, I can certainly link to scientific reports in future. Also, I am not arguing for the removal of information derived from credible sources on long-term impacts from the oil and dispersants, but am rather making the point that information on the DWH oil spill currently included in this section is distorted and one-sided. As I have detailed above, the section currently provides only one view. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

From 2010, The federal government — which has had to repeatedly revise its estimate about how much oil has gushed into the gulf from the Deepwater Horizon disaster — announced Wednesday that "the vast majority" of the oil appears to be gone.

Most of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil that spewed out of the collapsed well has "either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed," according to a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Interior Department.

Independent scientists scoffed at the report's findings. Several pointed out that the report estimates that a quarter of the oil is still floating in the gulf or contaminating beaches and marshes, while another quarter was dispersed, either with chemicals or naturally. In other words, half of it, or about 2.5 million barrels, is still unrecovered.'

Primary sources can be found, but we don't rely on them exclusively, as everyone here knows (per WP:RS). The government is not necessarily a reliable source at this point, with regard to Gulf spill science. According to independent scientists, government agencies like NOAA and the EPA have been (per EPA's Hugh Kaufman) "sockpuppets for BP" in the post-spill response. I've brought evidence of this to this talk page in the past. Therefore, we need to consider what independent scientists are saying, whether it's printed in Tampa Bay Times or any other RS. (We use BP press releases in this article all the time.) The government has displayed a clear POV with regard to the spill, that context needs to be considered when looking at the science, imo. petrarchan47tc 19:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, other editors may have a better understanding of the policy on sourcing than me, but it seems counterintuitive to say that governmental agencies' official reports are not reliable, even if they might be primary sources. On your points raised above, I have no idea what you mean regarding CREWE. I know of the group through a post to my user Talk page, but I am not a member. Also, I feel I should point out that I have had no involvement at the main DWH oil spill article to date, and so as far as I am aware any discussion of content in that article was by independent volunteer editors. Finally, I noted that one of the articles you linked was an activist source so that editors were aware of its POV, not to suggest it is not a valid source for use in the article. Arturo at BP (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Current version of the article

The current version of this article does not have consensus, and has been imposed by edit warring and in complete contempt of extremely extensive talk page discussions relating to this article, as well as a DR process. Multiple editors have spent a very long time discussing this article, over months, only for a small group of editors - who have been engaging in extensive discussions on this article amongst themselves away from this page - to seek to impose their favoured approach.

The current version of this article is unstable. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually rather disturbed by some of the earlier talk page discussions that I've seen in the archives, such as one instance in which editors were threatened with topic bans by an editor who indicated previous career ties to the petroleum industry. Earlier versions of this article don't thrill me either. But there's no use in dredging up ancient history; let's move forward and concentrate on content and making this an informative article. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality again

I've stayed out of this article for a while because I don't want to deal with the anti-BP POV-pushers, but I just decided to check out the article again and saw that it had gotten worse by an enormous margin. When I haven't even scrolled down half the length of the article yet and the entire rest is about controversies, you know you have a neutrality issue. Isn't it about time that you guys split off a Controversies article all on its own? Silverseren^C 08:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A controversies article would serve BP very nicely, taking most of the negative text out of this article and therefore ghetto-izing it. At 71,000 characters of readable prose, the article is large but not too large. I don't think it needs to be split, and even if I did I would split out the history of British Petroleum into its own article. Neutrality problems should be dealt with here. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not supporting the split specifically just pointing out that the article has completely lost its encyclopedic purpose. Have a look at Microsoft. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the content is relevant, meaning that it would be appropriate to put it in a separate Controversies article or the content isn't relevant, which means it should be removed altogether. Silverseren^C 17:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Question: If you have a Controversies article, how much controversy would be left here? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft and Jesus articles are mentioned by different editors as model examples, so they will give some understanding what is meant by the split proposal. I think that the practice of the Category:FA-Class articles should be followed, although the controversies section here would be probably little bit (but not significantly) longer than for the average of FA-class articles. Beagel (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at those articles and see what you mean. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Split. In its current form the different controversies sections have undue weight and as such, violate WP:NPOV. We should look how the controversies are addressed at the FA-class articles as the ultimate goal of the all articles is to be FA-class articles to serve our readers in the best way. Beagel (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• No. Definitely not appropriate to split off controversies. Not even a close question. The two articles cited as examples (Microsoft and Jesus Christ) are not comparable to this one. I see no major emphasis issue here that would require such radical action. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• NoI do not think a split is the right way to go. Most of the so-called controversy should be removed completely. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Update (rescued from archives set at 10 days)

Damning update

• Hertsgaard, Mark (April 22, 2013). "What BP Doesn't Want You to Know About the 2010 Gulf Spill". Newsweek. The Daily Beast. Retrieved April 20, 2013. 'It's as safe as Dawn dishwashing liquid.' That's what Jamie Griffin says the BP man told her about the smelly, rainbow-streaked gunk coating the floor of the "floating hotel" where Griffin was feeding hundreds of cleanup workers during the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

The article is dated Apr 22, 2013 4:45 AM EDT. —Pawyilee (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Few updates about the effects of this oil/Corexit spill are not damning. I've also added this article above for editors wishing to help update the related section. petrarchan47tc 03:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pawyilee and Petrarchan. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, Beagle has informed us this is not relevant to BP but belongs in the oil spill consequences article (read by no more than 20 people a day). petrarchan47tc 20:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't followed what any editor does or doesn't do here, but if there is conduct that is delineated by WP:OWN I hope that you aren't discouraged from taking necessary steps to add quality sources here. The source in question is totally relevant to the BP main article. Not at rhapsodic length, but I'm sure that was not your intent in the first place. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to a comment made here. petrarchan47tc 00:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This comment alone has shown your WP:POV on the matter, saying that it shouldn't be in the other article because it is only read by 20 people a day. The number of people that read an article is irrelevant. You're not trying to "expose" BP and get people to read about it.

These sections are already far too large in the article and should not be expanded anymore. If anything, they should be split off and shrunk, because there is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT going on in this article. Silverseren^C 02:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that it is just a matter of WP:WEIGHT, there is a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of WP here. I post under my real name and I have no connection whatsoever with BP or the oil industry. If you look at my editing history you will see that I have defended several more minor articles against people who think the purpose of WP is to be a forum for exposing the bad things that organisations may have been involved with. We know how articles about large multinational organisations should be written because we have the example of Microsoft, an article that has be judged to meet the highest standards of WP yet, for some reason, editors here do not follow that example.

I understand that the DWH disaster caused immense damage and hardship to many people and organisations and, of course, it deserves mention here but that is not a reason to turn this into an attack site. I am also rather puzzled as to why the hysteria is directed solely at BP rather than Halliburton or Transocean. There are several pending court cases at which the blame may be finally apportioned but until those cases are complete it is not that clear where most of the blame lies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words...hysteria. Is that how you view your fellow editors...as hysterical? The reasons (we don't follow the lead of MicroSoft) have been stated, repeatedly. It is not the fault of your fellow editors that BP has so many challenging issues to deal with. It doesnt seem right to mention some and ignore the rest because in some editors mind the article is too long. I don't carry a Manual with me. Is there a "drop dead" length to WP articles? ```Buster Seven Talk 00:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe my choice of words was a little over enthusiastic but I find it hard to think of another word to adequately describe what has happened to this article.

I have never seen any valid reason why we do not follow the lead of the FA Microsoft. Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the environmental and safety record of BP is far worse than that of any major oil company yet you have never produced a single source which says this. Editors here seem to have trawled though press and news reports on BP and put everything negative that they can find into the article. You could do that for any company, including Microsoft, but we should not, because that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.

I have still seen no explanation of why all this negative editing is directed at BP rather than Halliburton or Transocean.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Copying without proper attributions

On 28 April, a lot of information from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article was copied here without proper attributions and therefore violating WP:COPYWITHIN. Although the text in Wikipedia is licensed under liberal CC-BY-SA and GFDL, it is still licensed and needs attributions even for copying from one article to another. The best way to resolve this is if the author of these edits will add the properly filled {{Copied}} template to the original article's talk page and this article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon cleanup

The Deepwater Horizon section of this article fails to keep BP the main subject. It was imported wholesale from the article Deepwater Horizon oil spill last week, shortly after Violet Blue violated WP:SOFIXIT by complaining about the editing process of this article on a tech news site. BP, of course, has some responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon accident. But the article should focus on those parts of the accident which pertain to BP:

1. BP's safety procedures at the rig, and what failures have been determined by independent sources.
2. The legal responsibility assigned to BP by involved governments.
3. BP's role in the cleanup.
4. Brief (sentence-long) summaries of damages. The Mississippi shimper must be removed.

Everything else belongs in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. People who want to know the impact on individual creatures, even cute ones like dolphins, should be reading that article, not the BP article. The BP article is meant to summarize information about BP for people who want to know about BP. I will rewrite this section shortly. Shii (tock) 03:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Shii's intention. WP already has an entire article on the DH debacle, and readers can go that that article for details. This BP article should only have material about DH that is directly relevant to BP. For example, appropriate material includes: what was BP's role in causing DH incident? How was BP culpable? Legal proceedings? Recovery efforts? Impact to BP profits? etc. The sections on Environmental Impact & Health Effects could be removed entirely. --Noleander (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just removed the environmental and health sections as suggested, along with extraneous information like judge names and case numbers. If anyone thinks this is an attempt to "whitewash" the article, they should see what the section looks like now. It is at least readable now. Unfortunately it does not yet summarize BP's negligence nor post-spill cleanup efforts but that information should not be hard to integrate. Shii (tock) 04:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What source is being used to support this statement: (caused) incalculable amounts of chemical poisoning? I ask because I've never seen that claim in any article but this one, and I read a lot about this subject so I am not sure how I have missed that. Specifics about the chemical poisoning as well as BP itself, is the topic of this article. Chemical poisoning is indeed being calculated, apparently folks have missed this.

The court cases and financial hit to BP are not the only gulf spill details relevant to this article. Why in the first place are they in trouble for spilling oil? Because of its toxicity to the environment, and the damage it leaves behind. But in the case of this spill, the oil is 52 times more toxic than normal, because of the use of Corexit - the most ever used by a long shot, and the only time it was ever used under water. It made this spill unique in its destructiveness (not only to BPs stock value...). It seems ridiculous to overlook this while financial costs take center stage at this article. Realize that the court cases and financial effects of the spill also have their own pages. If editors interest is truly NPOV and to "keep BP the center of the article", i imagine gratitude will be the response to being shown the Newsweek piece. petrarchan47tc 06:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is good to see some editors here who want to turn this back into an encyclopedia article. I have repeated two points which need to be addressed in sections below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Petrar, I don't disagree with anything you say. But the effects of Deepwater Horizon are large and trying to summarize the whole Newsweek article here would be a disservice to our readers. We would (1) fail to accurately describe all the effects, (2) create potential for constant further nitpicking over what specific details of a very obviously bad situation should be included, and (3) make the section messier and take the focus away from BP's role. Readers who are interested in the subject should be directed to the five preexisting articles about Deepwater Horizon. I do invite you to correct any errors in my descriptions. Shii (tock) 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Shii, of course "all the effects" will not be described here or in any article; every edit we place in WP involves selection of the main points. It's not called opening the articles we write to nitpicking or creating messy articles--it's just what we do. Gandydancer (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I strongly disagree with such a drastic cut to the Gulf oil spill section, as it throws the entire section out of kilter. After an all-too-brief description of the enormous effects of the oil spill, we then get a justifiably substantial description of the civil and criminal proceedings that followed. But as a result of the cuts, these are now stripped of context. I'm going to restore the previous language and structure, and if anything is inappropriate it can be changed if justified. However, it is hard to conceive of any major aspect of the Gulf oil spill that is not related directly to BP. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is not the main article for the DWH as there is a series of articles about the spill and its different aspects. It should be included here, of course, but it should to cover the aspects relevant to BP, not the whole oil spill. There are all links and also templates, so if anybody has interest about the different aspects of the spill, it all is just one click away. It is also logical to assume that people looking for information about the spill, will use the search of 'Deepwater Horizon' or something similar and not necessarily BP. In its current form that subsection here violates WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT and potentially WP:POVFORK. Therefore I will restore the version by user:Shii. Beagel (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Figureofnine, you are in a minority of one as things currently stand. Shii (tock) 14:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, I would suggest that the entire Gulf oil spill is relevant to BP. I find it shocking that an effort is being made here to downplay the oil spill on this page. This truly is a whitewash. Shii, I wasn't counting votes here but I think the rule is that neutrality and completeness of articles is a matter of policy and not of whoever happens to be present on the talk page at any one time. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, as there are more relevant articles for DWH. Copying all this information here while more relevant articles exist violates different policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT as also creates a risk for potential WP:POVFORK. One may call following these policies "whitewashing" but one may call this also a step towards re-creation of neutrality. It really depends of POV. Concerning your comment to Shii, there had been several attempts to find consensus concerning of the structure and scope of different sections of this article, unfortunately there have been no willingness by some editors to agree with any consensus other than their POV. Beagel (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of the term "whitewash" for the removal of content from this article that is contained in another article to which this article links is harsh and could be seen as violating the rules about civility. It would be a whitewash if the information was deleted from article on the spill. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is plain and simply a whitewash of this article. But not to worry. I see that this article is a basket case and hopeless, not worth my time. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Beagle reverted back to the contested version saying "per talk". I do not see any consensus here, so please don't revert until there is one. petrarchan47tc 18:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Concensus for any change was never discussed By known-to-be-concerned editors over the last day or so. You cant say :"per talk". That implies agreement. A new editor, with complete disregard for the efforts of previous editors, walks in the door, moves the furniture around and throws half of it in the trash. And, to compound it, some editors support the action...while the rest of the "room-mates" are at work at their RL jobs. Amazing!. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Per talk page meant that I explained my reason at the talk page. There is no consensus, that true. There was also no consensus for the previous version forced by edit warring by some editors. The version of User:Shii was made in good faith and it was explained at the talk page. It was definitely a step toward more neutral version. There was no consensus for reverting it. Beagel (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a step that should have been discussed BEFORE it was taken not just a statement made that "I'm gonna disregard any history here and just make a drastic changhe tgo a highly contentious article"!!!. I don't have the time or desire to check, but has Shii edited this article to any extent before now? The concensus for reverting it is understood. Petra intuitivelly knew she had the support of editors that were not present. I Assue Good Faith....while at the same time assuming that this wasa back-door attempt to get the changes that you want. It wont work. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Buster, are you familiar with WP:BEBOLD? I'm going to be bold enough right now to revert to my version again, since I don't see any coherent arguments against it here. How about at least waiting through the RFC before you decide I haven't been arguing long enough to be allowed to make changes. Shii (tock) 22:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of editors making coherent arguments, including the one I just made in the new RfC. But your reversion provides what is not even a slightly coherent argument, which is that there is a copyright issue because it was copied from other articles on Wikipedia! That's nonsense. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipeady is a subject of copyright policy and therefore should be properly attributed. This is not nonsense. Please see WP:COPYWITHIN. Beagel (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The template at the talk page applies only to the 13 April edit copying one sentence. All edits on 28-29 April copying text without proper attributions are not covered by this template.Beagel (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do we not follow the example of the only FA on a large multinational company, Microsoft?

Despite assertions to the contrary, I see no reason, based on WP policy, why this article should not follow the lead of what has been judged to be one of the best written articles in WP on a large multinational. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Compared to this article Microsoft looks like a corporate promotional brochure.

Maybe yoiu missed this reason back in April. Here it is again: Not so. If Microsoft had produced a product that killed 11 of their employees during the "before market" stage, I'm sure the editors at the article would have created a "criticism" section. Or lets say a warehouse full of Microsoft products all of a sudden self-combusted and emitted a dark ominous cloud of smoke and carcinogens over a 20 mile area...for almost four months... I think the Microsoft editors would mention it. . Can you see the difference? Can you understand how, other that being large corporations, there is no simalarity between Microsft and BP? None. And being an FA is not the be-all and end-all of an article. Providing info is. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

BP is an oil company. Oil is a dirty and dangerous but necessary business. If you drive or use oil or gas for heating or use oil based products then you depend on the oil industry. We therefore need to compare the safety and environmental record of BP with other oil companies. If you can find a reliable source that shows that BP as a company has a generally and significantly worse record that that of other supermajors then there might be a case for extended content on negative aspects of the company. No one has so far produced such a source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why has the BP article been selected for excessive unencyclopedic content?

Two other companies were, to some degree, responsible for the DWH disaster Transocean and Haliburton. Until the legal cases between BP and these companies are settled we have no reliable way of knowing where the blame lies. The Transocean and Haliburton articles remain unscathed and give us and idea how this article should look. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Target page name - Petrarchan, is this an error or is it supposed to mean something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on Scope of DW Spill?

Is there or is there not consensus as to whether to provide the details of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in this article? It is my opinion that it does not need to be copied in full into this article, but some editors think that is appropriate. Is there or is there not consensus? If not, is a article content Request for Comments in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am confused by your question. Please explain your contention that some editors want the DWH article "copied full" into this one, with diffs, thanks. There has never been disagreement about providing details of the spill, until yesterday, as evidenced by the section above, which involves editors who have never stepped foot on this page heretofore. petrarchan47tc 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to the level of detail on the DWH spill on this page. Many (old and new) believe the current level is excessive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The above statement that "there has never been disagreement about providing details of the spill, until yesterday," is absolutely incorrect. The scope and undue weight of that section has been a subject of the long time dispute. A number of editors have expressed concerns that the article is overloaded with details which does not belong here. The version you reverted back was inserted on 28 April and as there was edit warring about that version, it is clear that there was and is no consensus for it. Beagel (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no consensus as to the level of detail on the DWH spill on this page. Many (old and new) editors believe the current level (prior to todays edit war0 to be balanced and impartial.```Buster Seven Talk 19:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that Buster's preferred "level" did not exist before April 30. Shii (tock) 22:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The original question: Is there or is there not consensus as to whether to provide the details of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in this article? , Beagle, asks whether we have argued not over how much detail, but about adding any details. That's how I read these words. I have yet to hear anyone argue against adding details of the spill, rather what I have observed is that feathers are ruffled when we mention any details regarding health or environmental impacts. By your revert today, it appears you and Shii would support three large paragraphs about court cases and financial impacts from the spill, while stating that the health and environmental impact is "incalculable" (avoiding citing RS that does indeed calculate these impacts, and without for supportive RS for that summation). Meanwhile, we have an ongoing conversation here to hash out this section by looking at the science. I don't see science being used to back up your preferred version, and that concerns me. petrarchan47tc 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is very subjective reporting. There has been constantly posts that the size of DWH (as also also some other safety and environmental issues) has undue weight in this article, so there is no consensus. RS does not mean that any information which is reported by some RS automatically belongs to the article but there are also other policies. Also, I don't say that the version by Shii is perfect but it is clear improvement compared to the version inserted in 29–30 April without consensus and by edit warring. Beagel (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC About BP Article

There is disagreement among editors of the BP article as to how much content should be in that article about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill as opposed to in the the article about the incident. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Per below, respondents to this RFC should look at the following questions:

1. The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill section of this article already has sentence-long summaries for health, environmental, and economic damage, respectively. Should these be expanded into full sections?
2. Does this article in general contain too much negative information and fail in our quest to provide a neutral point of view?

Shii (tock) 22:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

*I don't get it. This is a statement of fact. Where is the Question? ```Buster Seven Talk 19:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement of fact is that there is disagreement. The implied question is what the consensus is, whether to keep the level of detail about the spill that you and I consider to be excessive in this article, or to reduce the amount of detail here with the link to the spill article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just to begin this, which is fitting since I came here originally because of an RfC, I think that the case is clear for a need for substantial detail on the Gulf oil spill in the article on the epicenter of the spill, which is BP. It is enough for us to know that BP is paying billions of dollars in claims related to all the elements of the Gulf oil spill, in settlement of criminal charges to which it pleaded guilty. If you examine the press coverage on the anniversary of the disaster, it overwhelmingly focused on BP, over and above any other corporate player. It is not for us to parse the evidence and decide what is related to BP and what is not. That is in effect being "more Catholic than the Pope" as BP has already accepted culpability for the entirety of the Gulf oil spill, with all of its economic, health and ecological effects. So let's stop the nonsense. An article on BP without a good discussion of the Gulf oil spill is nothing less than a whitewash article that would stand in violation of WP:NPOV and would have no place in Wikipedia.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree for the most part. That the topic of neutrality would become a matter of debate on this particular article is probably inevitable. Luckily we have another major policy principle to guide us in refining just what constitutes NPOV - go with the sources. While a company of BP's extensive history and influence is going to have no shortage of reliable sources exploring many of its facets, it's pretty clear that contemporary sources, including not just those from popular media but also scholarship of various kinds and business/legal press, are overwhelmingly, if hardly exclusively, concerned with the spill. Likewise, I think that the majority of our readers would likely consider this germane information for the article. Mind you, I don't know that a section for each of a dozen categories of consequences for the spill is necessary, but a one-sentence reference to all the ecological effects is clearly not cutting it either (those are the two extremes that have framed what I've seen of the debate above). There are plenty of places where content can be linked to the other relevant articles to keep things trim, but in general I favor an approach that is permissive of significant detail from the spill, especially in-so-far as the consequences of the spill for BP are concerned; that is certainly relevant information for this article. Snow (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to see a much wider RfC on this article concerning its encyclopedic nature. It has turned into an attack site. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this RFC can't be used for that purpose. I think that it would be confusing to have two RFCs attached to the same article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, at the moment there are three open RfC at this article, so maybe you are interested to look other two. Beagel (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I see two open RFCs. I see mine, on whether to include content on the Deepwater Horizon spill, and SlimVirgin's on whether to include the Deepwater Horizon spill template. Maybe the oldest one has been removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The third one is in the second thread by the title: RfC: Clean Water Act Trial: How much detail? Beagel (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't see it because, first, it is at the top of this talk page (and so will be archived by Miszabot next week), and, second, it isn't listed as a business and economics RFC and so isn't on that page, being listed as a law RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting that this has become an attack page simply as a result of editors having included information that reflects the commentary of reliable, high-profile sources is hyperbolic, contrary to an important principle of Wikipedia editing, and just all-around counter-productive. Not to mention counter-intuitive; our job her is to represent an understanding of the topic at hand (including, or indeed especially, contentious topics) through the lens of appropriate sources, not our own personal views on the nature (or even the importance) of said topics. The particular issues of this RfC require a somewhat subtler parsing of those guidelines, yes, but we can easily proceed with the discussion about how much of the relevant information should be located here without implications of malicious editing when the information in question is immaculately sourced and well within the guidelines of appropriate content. Snow (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Very well said. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and expressed with admirable restraint. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

...our job her is to represent an understanding of the topic at hand... I am fully agree with this. However, there seems to be a problem with understanding what the topic is. The topic is not the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (which is a topic of the separate article), topic of this article here is BP.Beagel (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Snow Rise, Figure of Nine and the good ole Wiki guidelines - our articles should reflect the sources. How much should be included in this article regarding the Gulf spill, particularly with respect to environmental damage (is this the RfC question, it still isn't clear?). Do the math: it is the largest environmental disaster ever in the US, it is the largest oil spill of its type in the history of the petrol industry, BP used the largest ever amount of Corexit to sink the oil, without knowing the damage it would cause (and it turns out the solvent made the spilled crude 52 times more toxic than if they'd let it rise to be skimmed). More math: this spill caused BP to drop from #1 to #4 largest oil company. The spill caused a 30% drop in their stock value, which remains the case to this day, and alone justifies a good-sized section in this article. The damage to BP as a company, the damage to the gulf ecosystem, it's people and BP's cleanup workers (due to BP flat-out lying about Corexit toxicity - see here and here to catch up on this) requires an appropriately sized, well-rounded section. A major disconnect exists between editors at this page. Some like to refer to any negative details (excluding financial or legal matters) about the worst accidental oil spill in history as "attack content". Those same editors think three paragraphs about court cases and two sentences about ecological and human health damage sum up this spill perfectly. petrarchan47tc 18:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am happy that guidelines were mentioned. There are also other guidelines such as WP:POVFORK and there are policies such as WP:NPOV, part of which is WP:UNDUE. The main subject of this article is not DWH oil spill, this is the company named BP. The DWH or its different aspects is the main subject for a series of articles, inter alia Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Deepwater Horizon explosion, Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Economic effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Deepwater Horizon litigation. Therefore, this article should include a summary of the BP's role in this (including its role in the accident and response) and the impact to the company, but not copy-paste the above-mentioned articles. In addition, although BP is the major actor in this accident, it is not the only one and it is not the only company under the ongoing trial. Therefore one can't say that BP and the spill is the same. Summarizing my points, this article should include the summary about BP's role and the impact to the company, taking account all relevant policies and guidelines, but it should not include other aspects of the spill which are covered in specific articles. Beagel (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy too, because there is such blatant ignorance of site policies on this talk page. In fact, that is what attracted me to this article in the first place. There is an RfC on something that is just utterly obvious: yes, BP obviously warrants a reader-friendly guide to other articles on the Gulf oil spill. Then, as I read further, I found a kind of delusion taking place on the page in which a cadre of editors were trying to argue that black is white, that BP is only remotely involved in the Gulf oil spill. So now we have this great drama caused by that delusion. Yes, this article obviously requires some summary paragraphs on the Gulf oil spill. Nothing immense, but enough to be informative. No, POVFORK has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. UNDUE does because it would be undue emphasis to under-emphasize the Gulf oil spill by cheaping out a couple of sentences on the severe consequences of the spill. The problem is not with the content but with editors who want to be more Catholic than the Pope, and want to exonerate BP for the Gulf oil spill when BP itself has admitted culpability, and has pleaded guilty in a court of law. It's a kind of surrealistic atmosphere here, like nothing I've seen ever before. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"As I read further, I found a kind of delusion taking place on the page in which a cadre of editors were trying to argue that black is white, that BP is only remotely involved in the Gulf oil spill." Who are you talking about specifically? I can't find that comment anywhere on this page. Shii (tock) 06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia - where some argue black is white, and where tar inexplicably becomes "oil" (regardless of what the community says). petrarchan47tc 00:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This comment has nothing to do with the current RfC, so I kindly request to remove it. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Include sections on disasters, and disagree that there is "too much negative information". I cannot support the position that this article about BP is guilty of having "too much negative information". How much is too much? If it takes a lot of negative text to convey the right amount of information, then so be it. There should never be an externally defined determination of how much information should be positive, and how much should be negative in an article. What we do is cite reliable sources in global media, and we summarize for the reader what is said about BP. The disasters have been clearly BP's, with guilt admitted and payments made or in progress, so we write about them in some detail, especially with regard to BP's actions, inaction, and reaction. Make this article be about the corporate culture, the corporate response, the corporate culpability, and yes, about the corporation's good works, too, in proper proportion. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  I think you're saying that you agree with my attempted revision, which included 4 sections about the Deepwater Horizon disaster: summarizing the effects, actions against BP, and damage to BP. Let me know if I interpreted you wrong. Shii (tock) 06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• When the negative content is more than half the content of the article, then you can quite clearly say that it is unbalanced, especially for an article on a company that has 100 years of history and the controversies focus on just the past two decades. Silverseren^C 07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Too long and unbalanced And appropriate amount of content for all the controversies should be about 1/4th of the length of the article. Deepwater should obviously make up a larger chunk of any controversies section, with the other incidents being much smaller and, for that matter, not all of them needs to be mentioned in this article. The attempts to cram as much detail and as many incidents as possible into this article is what has unbalanced it. Silverseren^C 07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It truly depends on the amount of controversy BP has been involved in. There is a good reason most of its negative events have occurred recently. If you know their history, you see it correlates directly with their growth during Browne's reign from a sluggish company to an oil giant, and the cost-cutting that funded it. But it is a mistake to categorize their accidents and environmental disasters as "controversies". They are facts, neutral, like history. They happen to be negative, but that does not make them controversies (meaning "dispute"). petrarchan47tc 08:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems completely artificial and arbitrary (and in any event, not at all supported by any policy) to set the standard at 1/4 of the total content. That the need for a controversy section is going to vary wildly between different articles is fairly obvious. In the case of BP, this spill led to monumental changes for the company not only in terms of market share and standing in global industry but also in internal structure. The company has been sued by multiple states, the federal government and numerous other parties in connection with the event, and much of this litigation is ongoing. It was additionally found criminally liable for manslaughter and lying to congress. It paid the largest set of fines in U.S. history and moving forward will likely be involved in the largest set of civil settlements in U.S. history and possibly that of industrial accidents globally. Careers of prominent persons within the company were damaged or destroyed and some employees face criminal charges. These are all examples of information that is at least as appropriate (and almost certainly more appropriate) in this article than in the article for the spill, and it's just a fraction of such information. It's pretty clear how this issue went to RfC; nobody seems willing to compromise or, most crucially, actually do the hard work of going through the content bit by bit and establishing (or proving superflous) individual points. Too many here have an all-or-nothing disposition to this issue and it's creating needless deadlock. How about we see some competing edits for the content and start some consensus building from there? All this polarization will accomplish is help assure this debate will be resurrected ad nauseum. Snow (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A logical next step, thank you Snow. petrarchan47tc

Correcting some errors

There are a number of small factual errors in this article that I have noticed. As Buster Seven has done before, I will place these under separate headings to make it clearer and so that editors can mark each as done, as needed:

History: 1979 to 2000

• Not an error, per se, but under "History", in the section "1979 to 2000", there is no mention that Robert Horton was the CEO of BP America before he was appointed to replace Sir Peter Walters as BP chairman. See the following source: The New York Times.

• Again, not exactly an error, but current article has very little about BP's history in Russia before the 2000's. Here's an article discussing BP's first office in Moscow in 1990, which could be noted in this portion of "History". See this Moscow Times article.

BP America headquarters

• Under "Operations", it is indicated that BP America is headquartered in Warrenville, IL. Although the Bloomberg source used does say this, it is incorrect. BP America is headquartered in Houston, TX. See the following sources:
  • BP website
  • Houston Business Journal
  • Houston Business Journal

BP Explorations headquarters

• In the first paragraph of "Operations", it indicates that BP Exploration headquarters are located in Houston, TX. However, this is incorrect: BP's North American headquarters are located in Houston, but BP has no specific Exploration headquarters. See the list of important business addresses on the BP website.

I propose the we just will remove the second part of that sentence "...and its exploration headquarters are located in Houston, United States." as also the second reference after this sentence by Petroleum Economist. [20] Beagel (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon

• Under "Deepwater Horizon", the estimate of barrels of oil spilled should probably be reduced to 4.1 million given the explanation in these sources:
  • Reuters
  • Pensacola News Journal
  • Houston Chronicle

Can editors please review these and update the article as needed? There is no rush to address these issues, please take your time. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The main spill article says that the total estimated volume of leaked oil approximated 4.9 million barrels (210,000,000 US gal; 780,000 m3) with plus or minus 10% uncertainty, [21] of which over 810,000 barrels (34 million US gal; 129,000 m3) was collected or burned before it could enter the Gulf waters.[22] To avoid confusion between different sources talking about 4.9 million barrels and 4.1 million barrels, it should be explained what is the difference. Beagel (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey on Including Deepwater Horizon Spill Content

Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?

• Oppose inclusion in this article. Not necessary in this article if article on spill is linked, complicates maintenance, and responsibility for spill among three companies is still being resolved. Leaving content in separate article is a proper use of forking. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose excessive content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment You have already raised this exact issue in an RfC above. Does reintroducing it in another format less than 24 hours later really seem appropriate to you? It's not going to change the positions of the involved editors, it's only going to further complicate a discussion with already entrenched positions. For the record, I find it to be an absolute SNOW issue to suggest that we not include any information on the spill here; that's clearly not going to happen. And the emerging consensus from the discussions above, including your own RfC, seems to indicate that a majority of editors, if not a huge one, find the current level of detail to be roughly appropriate. You can take as many bites at this apple as you like, but this approach is unlikely to win any additional editors over to your point of view. Snow (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Snow, it is simply not true that there is a consensus for the current content. Many of those opposed to the current content have remained silent because of the recent flurry of negative additions to the article. 09:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)~

• Comment - This is not the same as the other RfC's. The first one has to do with the trial coverage, and the second is about a template. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose content not directly related to BP - Yes, DH needs to be covered; but details about DH that are not directly related to BP should be removed. This article should limit itself to material directly related to BP (e.g. cause, timeline, culpability, impact, etc). Details about health & env impact do not help readers of this article. --Noleander (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose What does the specific information about the spill itself have to do with BP? We have it in a separate article (several articles, actually) for a reason. Silverseren^C 07:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Yeah, this duplicates the RFC somewhat but it's good to make the consensus clear. Shii (tock) 08:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article is a crude, unbalanced attack piece. It is supposed to be an article on a 100 year old multinational oil company with operations in 80 countries. Instead half the article is currently devoted to "contoversies" in just one country over a period of just 10 years. Grotesquelt US-centric, recentist, unbalanced and little more than an attack piece. This sort of article makes Wikipedia look amateurish and undeserving of its high placing in Google results. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaming the system

Reverting this article three times in 25 hours to include controversial non-consensus content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill while an RFC is in progress on its inclusion is gaming the system on the 3-revert rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)