Talk:BP/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Mergers

Technical point, mergers are ALWAYS euphemisms for takeovers. There's no such thing as a company merger as such. Mintguy —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 26 February 2003 (UTC)

Stock

Its stock symbol is BP. User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 20:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Officially described as" what?

"BPAmoco was formed in December 1998 by what was officially described as the merger of British Petroleum and Amoco to avoid competition issues". What? What is the official description? That British Petroleum and Amoco has merged, or that it was "to avoid competition issues"? "To avoid competition issues" is such and incredibly stupid thing to say about the reason for a merger. That statement and "officially" should not be in the same sentence for any reason whatsoever. - Jerryseinfeld 19:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's confusing as written. I'll see if I can find a way to reword it. Essentially, BP bought Amoco, but for a variety of reasons it was officially described as "BP and Amoco merged" rather than "BP bought Amoco". I imagine competition issues had something to do with this, but I think there may have been more complex legal reasons relating to the way the stock swap and so on was arranged. But I'm not a lawyer, much less a lawyer specializing in the complexities of corporate restructurings. --Delirium 22:20, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

At the time there was a complex exchange of shares/cash for Amaco shares becoming BP shares. It would be an interesting piece to add to the article. Gnangarra 04:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

info about US pumps in intro?

It seems odd that an article about BP, a company that does massive business around the world, has an introduction that includes the signage of it's gas stations in the US. That seems like info that belongs somewhere in the article perhaps, but the intro is not the place. --jacobolus (t) 17:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree and I've moved it to Miscellaneous Thincat 15:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accident

In the introduction, the merger occurs in August '98, but later in the article, it says that it takes place in December '98 66.227.169.72 19:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any new development of what was the real cause behind this story? "On March 23, 2005, an explosion occured at a petroleum refinery in Texas City, Texas, that belonged to BP. It is the third largest refinery in the United States and one of the largest in the world, processing 433,000 barrels of crude oil per day and accounting for 3% of that nation's gasoline supply. Over 100 were injured, and 15 were confirmed dead, including employees of the Fluor Corporation as well as BP."

On 17 May BP released a report into the accident and posted it on its website. Here is the link: "http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=97&contentId=7006065"

JP Onstwedder (disclosure - I work for BP)

ARCO details

I've removed this as I don't think this is really encylopedic either in style or content. Possibly a rewritten para would be appropriate in ARCO.

"BP began marketing itself to customers in areas where BP no longer exists (i.e. ARCO Territory), this may be the precursor of a rebranding of ARCO, similar to Amoco. ARCO has begun to signal its relationship with BP including smaller versions of BPs logo on its signage. It has been speculated that Arco stations may soon be rebranded BP but retain their unique business practices. Arco stations are often attached to the convenience store ampm which was included in the acquisition by BP. Prior to its purchase of Arco, BP already had stations on the West Coast. These stations were run by Tosco but by the mid-1990's, these stations were rebranded as Union 76." Rd232 09:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BP EARNINGS

It states in the articles for ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell what their profits were, but here it says "by turnover". As an economic simpleton, what is "by turnover" supposed to mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Turnover simply means the TOTAL amount of money earned, before any deductions (e.g. tax, payroll etc etc). 88.111.8.75 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also known as Revenue. Revenue is a subjective measure and does not enjoy the smae solid accounting rules as Net Income or Cash Income. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.1.103.72 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

CURRENT EVENT TAG

The entire article is not acurrent event-only the section on Prudhoe bay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.163.161 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 7, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes.

2. Factually accurate?: Not very, in respect to citations.

3. Broad in coverage?: Very.

4. Neutral point of view?: Somewhat, but it did skirt around the Prudhoe Bay section.

5. Article stability? Very.

6. Images?: Excellent.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

My one problem is this. You have not enough references. Fix this, and nominate it again, then it will definitely pass. --Evan 10:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

whats the name really?

It should be possible to determine the name this company is registered under now (stock market, tax paying...) and therefore clarifing the matter of if "beyond" is just a slogan. The article is a bit unclear on that... --Echosmoke 01:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The name was formerly 'British Petroleum' but since the merger it is now known by the initials 'BP'. The 'Beyond' being a slogan. Maybe somebody can somehow integrate that into the current article. Gunis del 05:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit of History needed here

I just read about "Operation Ajax" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax and how the British government teamed up with the CIA to overthrow democratically elected Prime minister of Iran Mr. Mossadegh in 1953. Why did they do this ? To insure that BP (formerly Anglo-Iranian Oil Company or AIOC) would keep pumping Iranian Petrol against low counterparts. Given what's on the news these days, I think it's good to go back in time a bit. It helps to understand how we ended up with this mess.

West Papua

Could anyone confirm the NPOV and correctness of this section.

It really doesn't matter if anyone can confirm the NPOV or correctness. The section needs sources, not original research. It's clearly one-sided and needs cleanup. Also, please sign your posts using four ~. Thanks.Thedjb 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord Browne's resignation

In the "Texas City Refinery Disaster" bit it says "The disaster led to the premature resignation of Lord Browne, and will continue to affect the company for some time to come.".
I am not quite sure but I thought Lord Browne resigned because he had lied to the High Court about a gay relationship. [1] source
How should I change this in the main Article?
StonedBeer 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Environmental Record/Accusations of "Greenwashing" Section be deleted?

The first paragraph doesn't really say anything of note, save that a company trying to brand itself as environmentally friendly uses green in its logo. The second paragraph recounts the Alaska leak that was described earlier in the article. Delete? 63.107.135.125 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Can't log in, but that was me above. (Topher0128) 63.107.135.125 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the section can/should be improved, of course I think you should go ahead and do so, but given that BP has gone out of its way to present itself as a green company, and given that this has been an ongoing source of widely reported controversy, it seems notable and encyclopedic to me. This might be something to bring up with the Environmental Record Task Force. I agree the Alaska information should not be presented twice! Benzocane 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The section has been deleted because it is a copyright violation. You can't just copy and paste from a copyrrighted source and change an "is" to a "was" and pull out a few words as if the Guardian UK didn't already own the copyright to it. Please rewrite entirely in your own words, whoever wrote it, if you want it retained. I will have to get some administrative oversight now to remove it from the history also. The material is notable enough to have other sources, and to be written up without taking it from someone else's already own piece. KP Botany 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read the Guardian article cited and altered the text to distance it from its source (I don't actually see the copywrite conflict to which you are referring). In the cited article I don't see any significant overlap. Or are you refering to another article? Let me know if you feel it needs further work. Thanks. I've also added another source.Benzocane 18:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I will look again, however, since I pulled 4 different multiword (4 or more word) strings from your text in this article and successfully searched for them in the article you referenced, this is a copyvio. If you did it in high school and it would get you an F, it's not allowed on Wikipedia. English is a huge and robust language, a sentence or two on the topic, in well-worded English, rather than picking the same adjectives that the article uses would be plenty. Check for yourself how many multi word strings you now have in common with the source, if it's 1 or more the article still needs editing, and you should get a second source on this one, also. KP Botany 21:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What you're referring to as "my text" is a palimpsest of several editors; I have never added anything that violates copy policy, to my knowledge. I'm working in good faith to improve this and other entries, and the admonition about high school grading policy, the observation that "English is a huge language," etc., hardly seem necessary. I believe I have now identified the problematic string, which, as you say, should have been in quotation marks or paraphrased. Benzocane 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who did it, it was clearly excessively copied and pasted from its reference, and you said you "don't see any significant overlap," when there was quite a bit of significant overlap. So you appear to be defending what was obvious copying. So, I elaborated to make it clear that the edit could not stand as it was. Again, it could simply have been cleaned up without defending it.KP Botany 03:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't defend it; I simply said I didn't see the overlap initially. Then I saw it and I attempted to correct it. I appreciated your pointing it out.Benzocane 13:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And I appreciate your correcting it. I will look it over again when I get the moment, but I generally assume that most editors who say they corrected it, did so. Thanks. KP Botany 16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Environment record

A heinously biased point was being made about how bad BP's environmental issues are. You really can't use the emissions of the product BP sells to say that it has a bad environmental record. For better comparability you should only use BP's own emissions- it is one of the ten biggest companies in the world so I have no doubt at all that the emissions of the product it sells is about the same as that of Britian or Canada or whatever.

Where on earth is this sections evidence for "one of the ten worst companies"? All we get are a couple of web-based opinions. That's like someone linking to an article on alien abduction and then suggesting that it actually happened! Please remove it unless you can substantiate it beyond personal biased opinion. Twobells 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

History Bias

The history section, and especially BP#Activity in Iran 1909 - 1979, seems to be biased against western perspectives and Britain in particular. I belivee that statements like "So the British played on America's then paranoia about the Communist "threat" by producing bogus "evidence" that Mossadeq was scheming to bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence." are clearly not NPOV. Superm401 - Talk 05:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles should state the truth, and I think the section does just that. Are you challenging the veracity of the statements made? Mossadeq was brought down by the CIA/MI6 just as the artcle says. "Western perspectives" shouldn't get in the way of the truth! Peterlewis 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Using quote marks in a blatantly sarcastic manner like, quote: "evidence", is highly unprofessional and somewhat loaded. While I'm not disputing that BP was almost certainly a factor in causing the turmoil in Iran, there are better ways of expressing it than bad grammar and sarcasm. If anyone agrees, I'd like to at least try and fix some of the wording in this section, because not only is some of it bad English, but it is arguably not neutral, as Wikipedia is meant to be. Note that I do not intend to "fix" the content, as it is already correct. JavaJawaUK 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think some more references are needed to back such strong statements. All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer is one sources I know off-hand. Slanting 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this section now. As I state below, material in this section remains unsupported, particularly the claim of bogus evidence. If no sources are available I will remove it. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Deutsche BP AG

This article says nothing about the relationship to the above company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinyMark (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to Svenska BP AB either. In the Swedish article it says that BP got it name from that company -how is it with that? /Sv:Vivo

BP Name

All the company's like Arco are subsidiaries if you go to a Arco it says right there part of BP and also i have e-mailed BP and hope to get response soon because i believe its still British petroleum just better petroleum is just a advertisement slogan.Sparrowman980 06:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope - the company is "BP plc" which stands for nothing (well, the "plc" does!). "Beyond Petroleum" is a tagline which conveniently shares the initials of the company. Furthermore the letters 'B' and 'P' in the logo are written in the lower case "bp" but the company refers to itself as "BP", in the upper case, unless it is specifically referring to brand and logo useage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.74.114 (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Question - Then why does the beginning of the article imply otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.93.3 (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention how the BP company benefits the UK population. Surely, it's their oil; but it states that it is a private ownership and they just have a few gas/petrol stations in the UK and that's it. The UK has better oil than Canada and yet people there pay more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.114.141 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Numbers?

Shouldn't the Revenue / Net Income, etc. in the side bar read Millions, not Billions? It's simply incorrect to say they've have 20,000 BILLION Net Income... 141.164.72.157 (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

net income

Page shows BP posting a 20billion net loss. I think they should be in the black, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.65.25 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Content killing?

I made a minor correction while reading this article (identifying a now-defunt company as the current one which controls its assets, while keeping the reference to the defunct one but making the wikiword link through the current one), there was an edit conflict, and when I saved my changes, big chunks of the article were gone. I guess whoever I had the editconflict with had deleted a lot of the history section... Sure, it was a little long, but it was very complete and detailed. I hope whoever did that comes forward and at least explains it on the talk page. 65.113.71.3 (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrections needed about 1953 coup

Some points to keep in mind that are often neglected:

During Mossadegh's time in office, the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was the head of state and had been so since the abdication of his father in 1941. However, his position was largely ceremonial and he had no de facto executive power, though legally and constitutionally, he did. For him to exercise this power, however, would have been a breach of convention.
While the Shah did leave Iran during the coup, he did not abdicate his position nor was he "removed" from power by Mossadegh, which would have been constitutionally illegal, as the prime minister does not that level of executive power. Thus, claiming that he was "reinstated" by the British and Americans is both POV and factually inaccurate.
After the coup, Mossadegh was removed from power and was replaced by a pro-British prime minister, General Zahedi, and the Shah returned to Iran. Iran did not immediately become a dictatorship. It became an autocracy slowly and gradually over the years until the late 1960s and early 1970s when it effectively became a one-party state. IranianGuy (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ecological Fanatic "Framing"

I came here to read factual and encyclopedic information about a company and the article seems dominated by trumped up "controversies" pushed to the fore of the "frame" or definition of the company's presentation by people with an anti-corporate agenda...that's really not neutral and it's the sort of thing that ends up tarnishing Wikipedia's reputation. You should have to take a political neutrality/centrism test before ever being allowed to author anything on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.22.4 (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources: John Foster Dulles & Operation Ajax

The current 'History' section relies quite heavily on John Foster Dulles & Operation AJAX - Why Iran Really Hates Us from the blog America Under Siege, The North American Union by blogger 'Sashzilla'. As this blog provides no references and is apparently anonymous, it is not a reliable source. Furthermore, some of the statements in the article twist the source material, for example:

So the British played on America's then paranoia about the Communist threat by producing bogus evidence that Mossadeq was scheming to bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence.

This implies the British government faked evidence of a Communist threat while the given source describes this as a 'misconception' by the government of Britain. So the source is unreliable and also fails to support the given claims. If no further sources are given, I will delete the unsupported material in 'History' - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay that was reverted. I will not re-remove the material immediately. I do intend to remove the source however. A blog is not an appropriate source. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Green branding

Should some information from this article [2] be included? BP rebranded themselves as Beyond Petroleum but have since turned their back on some renewable energy fields. I think this deserves mention. Smartse (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

→

Citations Needed for Calls to Dismantle the Company

Any citations on calls to dismantle BP? If properly cited that should of course go into the article.

Rather than BP I suggest that Obama is 'dismantled' from office as it was him who okayed offshore drilling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh32n-kwnqM Twobells (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

75.71.192.54 (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And importantly as well if it does not violate WP:NPOV and also that those sources are reliable from third-party references. --JForget 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's quoting a source that has an opinion, but reporting that as a part of the story, then no, it's not a NPOV issue at all.

Activity in Sudan

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=290 states that oil exploration has led to horrific human rights violations. Sarcelles (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Calling 'round at #10

"This was the era of the Thatcher government's privatisation strategy. The British government sold its entire holding in BP in several tranches between 1979 and 1987." So when was BP invested in by HMG...? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

All the answers are on WP :-) - here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britoil#cite_note-4>

HMG didn't invest in BP. HMG owned the original organisation extracting North Sea oil (BNOC), which then became Britoil. BP was a separate company (then British Petroleum) which initially just bought shares in Britoil, and then bought the Golden Share from HMG in 1988, taking over what had been a state-run business. Aja2010 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Name?

Does their ugly ass logo have a name? I'm sure it does.70.88.213.74 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

when it was introduced the logo was said to be a stylised Chrysanthemum but I dont remember them they giving it a specific name Gnan garra 02:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Its called the Helios

"Official" explanation from BP is here. <http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9028307&contentId=7019193> Aja2010 (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Globalise

The section BP#recent is US centric, while I have no problems about coverage of incidents, or national rebranding as the result of aquisitions but the sale of a few retail sites in Colorado just isnt notable, even worse is speculation like In 2007, according to some private BP-branded gasoline center operators in the Metro Atlanta area, BP planned to leave the Southern market in the next few years. All corporate-owned BP stations, typically known as "BP Connect", will be sold to local jobbers.[32] . Maybe theres a possibility to consider the developement of regional articles for BP to allow for a regional focus where such issues are more significant. Gnan garra 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

One more BP Brand: ARAL

Hello, regarding the bp brand chapter,

here in Germany BP bought 2002 ARAL, and is since then the biggest operator of petrol stations in Germany with 2407 petrol stations (2010 numbers).

Might be important to include, people try to avoid BP now and since BP renamed all his petrol stations in "Aral" in Germany this should be included in the article :-)

not possible to do this on my own, article seems to be protected.

thx, Stefan --Xergon (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I just added it with a reference to Aral AG. --史慧开 (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for semi-protected edit

I'd like to do a minor non-pov, structural reoganization of the article, including:

Placing Environmental and Safety Record(6) as a meta-category under which section Indidents(4) would fall
Moving Political Contributions(7) under the Controversy(5) section

As currently organized, it's a bit discontinuous and not hierarchical. Feel free to make the changes yourself, too.Ocaasi (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that the current setup is perhaps unintuitive, but is including Political Contributions under Controversy just a bias against lobbying? (I know I AM biased against lobbying... :P) Though, if it is primarily notable because of the controversy which came from it, then perhaps it is an appropriate move. Additionally, Incidents may no longer be a necessary heading if subordinated to Record, however the Price Manipulation heading should then be moved to Controversy or some sort of Legal heading. - BalthCat (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we're on the same track. There's just an unnecessary duplication of categories that could be wrapped up together. I mentioned the Political Contributions issue under controversy, because that very short paragraph is currently focused about 70% on how the contributions have received criticism. I think it's reasonable to do one the following:

Move the Political Contributions section to Controversy
Integrate the Political Contributions info within the Recent Years company history
Split the difference and put half under Political Contributions and half in Recent Years (the controversial and non-controversial parts, respectively)

Again, I'd do it myself, but this account isn't cleared for a few more days, Ocaasi (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Churchill "bribe"

the article that this links to is in the Independent, which I have no idea how reliable it is, but the article is obviously set out to criticize Churchill. That and the fact that the author describes 5,000 lbs in 1923 money as "the equivalent of perhaps millions in today's money." seems suspicious. It took me less than a minute to calculate the value in today's currency (using 2 different indexes), and it was not millions. anyway, if this is an actual known fact, or just a rumor it should be in a better source. also, did they get the monopoly? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I second. The article references no documents to prove the bribe. Perhaps we can find a better reference? 76.126.17.14 (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.7.239.181, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Good day, I respectfully submitt you have two slightly different versions regarding the history/origin of BP. Source German wiki here is my not very eloquent translation of the german wiki text:

In 1904 (DPAG) German Petroleum Company was foundet. In 1906 the DPAG evolved into the (EPU) European Petroleum Company, which created (BP) British Petroleum in the same year to better market its products in England. With the outbreak of World War I, BP was confiscated by the british government and 1917 merged into APOC.

"Die Geschichte der Britisch Petroleum Company beginnt in Deutschland. 1904 wurde in Berlin die Deutsche Petroleum-Aktiengesellschaft (DPAG) gegründet, die 1906 in die Europäische Petroleum-Union (EPU) überging. Diese gründete 1906 für den Vertrieb ihrer Produkte in Großbritannien eine Tochtergesellschaft namens British Petroleum Company. Damit wurde die Abkürzung BP zum Markennamen für die Vermarktung der Ölprodukte des Unternehmens. Nach der Beschlagnahmung der in deutschem Eigentum befindlichen British Petroleum Company durch die britische Regierung bei Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkriegs wurde diese Firma 1917 in das Eigentum der Anglo-Persian Oil Company überführt." Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Ludwig C. Lenze 217.7.239.181 (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If the only available sources are German, that's fine, but it's harder for me to identify reliable sources in a language I don't speak. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Another "incident" to document: BP Amoco Cancer Cluster

[3] — goethean ॐ 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

- === 1980s-1990s: Brain cancer deaths=== - Six former BP (then AMOCO) chemical engineers at the firm’s Naperville, Illinois research campus developed a deadly form of brain cancer in the 1980s and 1990s. Researchers who conducted a three-year study of the cancer cluster determined that the cancer cases were workplace-related, but they could not identify the source of the workers' ailments. In June 2010, BP demolished “Building 503” where the workers had worked, because according to a company spokesperson, the building was “underused,” and “required upgrades the company deemed too expensive.” Heirs of one of the cancer victim workers won a $2.75 million suit against BP Amoco PLC in 2000. ^[1] - —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchingDragon (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done

Thank you for writing that up. — goethean ॐ 21:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

False claim in history section

{{editsemiprotected}} In the History section, the sentence "The new regime of Ayatollah Khomeini broke all prior oil contracts and signed new contracts with British Petroleum with 90% to BP and 10% to Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers" is without sources and should be removed. It appears to have been made up to make the Revolutionary government look bad. I cannot remove it myself because of article lock. Thank you. 141.213.171.53 (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done, but that statement is tagged with a {{fact}} template, which produces, ^{[citation needed]} —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In/definite article

"[...]analyzed videotape of the leak[...]" requires the use of a determiner, probably "a". -- 114.178.185.100 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.156.195.209, 10 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Where it says "BP is the UK's largest corporation" in the opening, it should say "BP is the United Kingdom's largest corporation". 'United Kingdom' should be spelled out and linked on the first occation i think.

86.156.195.209 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Good call. Spigot Map 22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Template Colors

I tried to match the colors of the BP logo but it looks a little off. Any help from someone more skilled in graphics would be appreciated.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Semi-Protected

Second paragraph last sentence - Citation required

"Efforts at containing the spill were at first futile but some progress has been made since the fitting of a cap to stem the leak."

Citation Link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37463005/

Citation contained in the linked article

The U.S. Coast Guard said Friday the containment cap placed atop the gusher a mile beneath the Gulf's surface was collecting some of the oil.

"Progress is being made, but we need to caution against overoptimism," said Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's point man for the crisis. Early in the day, he guessed that the cap was collecting 42,000 gallons a day — less than one-tenth of the amount leaking from the well. Since it was installed, it had collected about 76,000 gallons, BP said in a tweet Friday night. CmdrX3 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you for your contributions! {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.144.151.146, 16 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The article says: "In 1923, the company secretly gave £5,000 to future Prime Minister Winston Churchill to lobby the British government to allow them to monopolise Persian oil resources.[11]"

I initially assumed this had been established as a fact. However the source for this allegation posing as a fact is given as an article in an Irish newspaper by a little-known sensationalist journalist. The journalist himself offers no source or evidence whatsoever.

No reputable authority would rely on such a source without any supporting evidence and to give the impression that the citation gives authority to the claim is entirely misleading and dishonest. If Wikipedia is to be of any value it needs to be more than a collection of mutterings and gossip. 86.144.151.146 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Agreed, poorly sourced sensational statement. Spigot Map 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Logo vandalism

I appreciate that BP is in the news right now for the incident in the States, however vandalism of the logo doesn't help nor do much. I've reverted it back. Pmhtuk (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Dismal record

I think there should be some summary of BP's record overall. See this CBC clip, for a start: 30 employee deaths, price fixing propane, millions in fines, etc. A summary, if anyone can find one, could probably go at the top of the Incidents or Environmental and Safety Record sections. --Natural R_X 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

BP Category Work

I've found a number of BP-related articles that are not under the Category:BP that I'm adding. I'm also creating some new sub-categories based on existing breakdowns for other companes. All of my changes with the cats are meant to be strictly non-controversial but, if you see anything that doesn't look right, just let me know on my talk page and I'd be happy to pause until we reach a consensus.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense in Deepwater Horizon section

This edit seems to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.24.95 (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Shield

Have you seen this shield?

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP-skylten,_Stockholm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.28.214 (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV reorganization

I went ahead and restructured the sections, breaking the list of controversies into their natural categories (environmental, safety, political). The revision diffs aren't very helpful because of the massive text moves, but a quick look at the articles themselves, particularly the table of contents, will give you the jist of the edits. I think this will be a better skeleton for the article going forward.

Other than the heading/outline changes, the text is exactly the same (except for one grammatical tweak in the introduction). It still reads a bit like an anti-BP tirade, although, the company's record is largely to blame for that... 69.142.154.10 (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I have approved your edits, it looks much better. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fourth largest company in the world

By what measure? This seems like a cite-worthy fact, as well. 143.239.96.226 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC) BP doesn't "own" the well. It leases it from, and is undertaking exploration on behalf of, the US federal government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.170.214 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Badly Organized and Needs to be Changed

Including the most current events in the second paragraph is a bad idea. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper article. BP has a history, and other durable information that should be listed first.

As topical and important as the current environmental catastrophe may be, it is not the first thing that should be detailed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

While I think you're technically correct, and there's some policy to support it, the paragraph is neither excessive or speculative. It's well within the bounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. Consider as counter-argument the proportion of media which BP has received a) over it's history; b) since its 2007 management and PR turnaround; and c) since the spill. I'd guess that the company has received as much mainstream media attention in the last two months as it has in it's entire existence prior. Therefore, while it might be disproportionate on a years-weighted basis, it's just about right given a focus-weighted interpretation.

Policy aside, on the merits, this event has the potential to bankrupt the company in the extreme, and in the better scenarios to permanently impact its image and at least its medium term profitability. That's significant, and it's because of the spill.

So, I disagree with the suggestion that the paragraph needs changing (at least not yet). Feel free, of course, to make any edits you think would improve the article...Ocaasi (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

BP's contributions to the Obama campaign

In the political contributions section, BP's donations to the Obama election campaign should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.153.143 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind, there can be no mention of that, they need to be painted as a company that only gives money to Republicans, even though Obama is their single largest recipient of funds in the past 20 years: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris1123 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What you mean the 77 thousand he received from BP- which would amount to 1 100th of a percent of his campaign fundraising for Senate and President? Why do you feel that's notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.96.214.162 (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been debunked many times. From (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005240042): "all of that money came from BP employees, not BP the company. A spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics confirmed Monday that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees." The CRP spokesman also stated that "Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC. And corporations themselves are prohibited from donating directly to candidates from their corporate treasuries." " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.107.2 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The “Classic” Shield Logo

The illustration of the “Classic” logo is not, as stated, as designed by Raymond Lowey; it is a later re-design, and didn’t come into use until after his death. It was met with much derision when revealed to the public, as the much-hyped large amount of money spent on the so-called re-design appeared to have largely been spent on setting the text from normal, to italic… Jock123 (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The Loewy's "classic" logo is here, specifically this image, and the web site's terms of use are here although I think English Wikipedia would regard uploading it as being Fair Use. Thincat (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Corporate crime

is this article ready for "Category: Corporate crime" yet? --T1980 (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

no. TastyCakes (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

just stop the bad jokes.

Who's joking? I wholely agree to place BP in the corporate crimes category. This is a tragedy. Not a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.149.156 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

BP Purchase of AdWords

Would it be worthwhile to add mention regarding BP's recent purchase of key adwords on Google and Yahoo?

"The company has bought terms including ‘oil spill' on Google AdWords and Yahoo. The move will allow links to BP's oil response sites to appear first before any other websites' when terms relating to the oil crisis are typed into Google or Yahoo's search engines." (PR Week)

Alexsandyr (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not really notable - every company does this kind of thing nowadays on Google. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there could be notability there, it's been commented often enough and it's certainly not standard practice for an oil company to sponsor a link on 'oil spill'. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on the spill's main article. I knew I saw it somewhere, but couldn't find it on this article so assumed I was going mad! There's no reason for it to be mentioned here. raseaC^{talk to me} 01:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if it's standard practice for companies to do this, it isn't right. You must watch "Madmen" too often or something, James. They're pulling a black out, and it's obvious. Stop trying to side with these daft fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.149.156 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

controversy heavy

While I'm no friend of any oil company, this article is a bit overloaded on the incidents and environmental record details to the point that it would be biased. Incidents is a very large section, perhaps that and the environmental record part could form a new article and we can cut down the detail in the main article. It would still be heavily critical but would help to balance it slightly at least.- _J.Logan`^t: 22:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be a matter of what's noteworthy: 1 offshore well spewing oil for a couple months will generate more sources than 1,000 wells not spilling oil for a couple years.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No. We are NOT going to section off BP's mistakes into some seperate less easily found area. Their errors should be easily found. 67.8.149.156 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Flagg

Deepwater Disaster too dominant ?

Hello,

It seems to me that putting information about the Deepwater Horizon in the opening paragraph completely defeats the point of the article which is to discuss the company. This wouldn't be done for any other company that had a major disaster. We already have a section about the incident within the article and infact a whole other article for this incident, putting such a detailed bit in the opening paragraph is just not the way this article should be presented.

Would welcome views on this.

Thanks. StephenBHedges (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%. No way should one news story take up half the opening paragraph on a company this large. - RommiePlayer (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

See this previous discussion. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You two sound like PR drones. Don't defend these louts! 67.8.149.156 (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Flagg

I have reduced the Deepwater Horizon stuff in the introduction. Thincat (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Once this oil spill ends (hopefully soon!) it makes sense to regroup both with this article and the increasing number of Deepwater Horizon articles. In the mean time, it is realistic to assume that most readers coming to the BP article in Wikipedia are very interested in the spill.23:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality, Current Disaster and Current Events Templates: User 88.106.108.70 put a Neutrality template on the whole article over this very issue of how much oil spill should be here versus the Deepwater Horizon article. What is on or off topic is certainly a valid discussion but that not a neutrality issue so I'm removing the POV template. I reached out to the user at his/her talk page but it's an IP editor used for only that one edit. I wanted to add a current disaster template for just that section but there is no section function for it so I'll add a current event one instead. As always, I'm open to further ideas/improvements. If someone wants to add a section function for the current disaster template, that would be helpful.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I support removing the POV template. Aside from a minor discussion about how much oil spill info to include in the intro, the article hasn't received substantive POV critiques (at least not yet). I also added a direct top-link to the main oil spill article. Ocaasi (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Deepwater incident deserves a prominent place in the intro as BP is now fighting for its survival. The removal of the paragraph constitutes vandalism as Deepwater is having such an impact on BP's fate and it is no use trying to sideline this world news in a section 'Deep' below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarkinToad2010 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Goodfaith edits are never vandalism. There's reasonable disagreement about how much of the spill should be in the intro, since this event is both very significant but also only a fraction of the company's multi-decade history. Since this is an encyclopedia, it will inherently be biased towards the past, and like a moving average, will not catch up to the full impact of the spill until it is already well-established in both reality and in the media. Accusations that the article is somehow "burying" the incident, don't really hold water, given the hatnote link which goes directly to the main article about the spill. If you're particularly interested in the economic consequences for BP, I suggest you beef up the sections (or even start a new one), which focus on those issues. Just make sure that "speculation" is kept to a minimum and always backed up by reliable sources (i.e. NY times, Bloomberg, Economist...). Ocaasi (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

BP takeover from Libya

I don't think we can justify the new statement in the intro that BP risk being taken over from Libya - the story is just that the head of Libya's Sovereign Wealth Fund has said he would like to invest in it, but BP are refusing to comment and it's one of many similar stories. [4] If nobody can raise a more credible source to justify, let's modify that part of the new sentence, although I agree with the rest of that new part of the lede. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that all takeover speculations should removed from the lead so long there is no any official takeover bid. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Beagel (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that's right Beagel, the only point being that the press speculation on the subject has been intense and it is part of the Gulf disaster story that the share price of one of the world's largest corporations, regarded as a star-performer, has depressed to the point that takeover bids are discussed. I was trying to encapsulate mentioning that without overdoing it in my last edit. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was that this should be included in the relevant section rather than in the lead. I moved these details into relevant subsection and also changed the heading accordingly. Beagel (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Logo 'redesign'

I removed a para in the logo section about competitions run to 'redesign' the BP logo in light of the oil spill, it's non note-worthy and unencyclopedic. raseaC^{talk to me} 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

BP stands for...

BP stands for, or at least used to stand for, British Petroleum. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? This has nothing to do with politics, it just seems logical that there should be some explanation as to what the B and the P stand for (or at least once stood for). Can someone put this in somewhere? 98.221.124.80 (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

since 2001 bp dropped "british" from it's name, becoming bp plc, it should though be mentioned in the title paragraph that it is only 40% traded in London, with another 39% in new york, i also believe the second title paragraph has a certain amount of bias, it should be emphasised that there is likely to be no trace of the oil after less than two years in gulf conditions, and that other companies were working on the well, bp's only involvement was the possession of the well and putting the exploration contract out for tender —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnnsalis (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, then the article should explain: "BP originally stood for British Petroleum, but as of 2001, the official company name is BP." How's that? This has nothing to do with nationalism. If BP originally stood for "Big Penis," it should still be mentioned in the article as it's part of the company history. So, can someone add what BP originally stood for, British Petroleum, to the article? Why is not mentioned in the first place?? 98.221.124.80 (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the origin of the acronym is what brought me to this page (no joke). I heard someone offhand mention that it *used to* stand for British Petroleum, and I came here out of curiosity, trying to find out when and why that was changed. Omitting this is like leaving out any mention of "kentucky fried chicken" from the KFC article. 24.68.241.7 (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The right sidebar has a list of former names of BP. The name is also mentioned in the corporate history. I think BP once used the slogan "beyond petroleum" in TV ads some years back. Loves Macs (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not an acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.254.54 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not an employee of, or in any way connected with, the oil industry or BP in particular. However, it seems analagous to say in the opening paragraph "BP plc (formerly British Petroleum Co. Ltd). The company changed its name from "THE BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY P.L.C." to "BP AMOCO P.L.C." on 31 Dec 1998, and then again to "BP P.L.C." on 1 May 2001.[5] It has therefore not had the word "British" in its name for over 11 years. It appears that the words British Petroleum were introduced on 11 May (ie after the Deepwater Horizon explosion) /index.php?title=BP&oldid=361428701). There is a redirect from "British Petroleum" in any case. If we are to have the former names of companies included in Wikipedia (and I see no reason why not), surely this should be in a separate section? Not in the opening words and not after 10 years after the name change. Please can this be amended? 80.169.189.68 (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The official name of the company does not necessarily affect how the article will be written. I for one, never stopped viewing BP as a shortening of British Petroleum. It appears I'm not alone either. Right or wrong, if you search for "British Petroleum" in Google News, you will come across a number of English language articles, including Fox News, which refer to BP by the original name. This implies that the historic name is notable, and in regular use, and thus merits a place in the lead. I'm also not sure what strong motivation there would be to remove it. I can't think of anything except distancing BP from Britain as a whole, and that's not really something we should be worrying about. - BalthCat (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The company's name is BP plc (UK Companies House website) and has been since May 2001. It was previously BP Amoco plc. Yes, a former name was "British Petroleum", but this was last used in Dec 1998 (well over 11 years ago). I thought the point of an encycledia was to inform and educate; surely the whole point of Wikipedia is to disseminate FACTUALLY CORRECT information, not peddle old terminology just because some people don't know any better?? There is a redirect from "British Petroleum" in any case. I have no objection to all or all of the company's former names being included in the history section, but, given the passage of time, it seems irrelevant to include only one former name in the opening paragraph. 80.169.189.68 (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"BP" is British Petroleum

It will be useful to know their name when the call goes out to dismantle the company and sell its assets to help with restoration of the Gulf.

75.71.192.54 (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dream on.Twobells (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the main entry confirms that British Petroleum was the old name of the company - after the merger with Amoco it became BP Amoco and then just BP. Aja2010 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All three official names should of course remain described, because this is part of the company's history. Isn't this really obvious? The current company should be listed by its current name, though mention can be given to the fact that many current news articles use the full spelled out name as long as there are citations (to keep it from being weasel worded, which is of course fully possible). This would, additionally, represent the popular recognition of the full name without resorting to unciteable weasel words (I doubt if anyone's bothered with a study on what name people think of, especially as we're mostly busy thinking about other things regarding this company, but the point can be gotten across without having to make uncited claims). Note that the full name of this company is not only notable, but a lot more commonly recognised than others, including American Oil Company (Amoco), Texas Oil Company (Texaco), and (for a widely unrecognised and not-oil example) National Biscuit Company (Nabisco). 173.12.172.149 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Corporate Name timeline in the History section is confusing as it suggests that "British Petroleum Company" was the name only beginning in 1954, however the included advert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BP_Motor_Spirit,_1922.jpg (if the date is correct) suggests that this name existed well before the Fifties. What gives? Blbachman (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

BP broke the law and consequently will be destroyed for their violations against humanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.212.200 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this objective. See WP:NPOV if you have any questions. Bill Heller (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also talk pages are for discussions working though content disputes and for article improvements. Talk pages are not for voicing opinions on a matter, See WP:FORUM. Bidgee (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to mention the change of name in one of the last sentences of the opening paragraph, just to avoid confusion. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that the name should be mentioned as when people like Obama (yes, he's still a person) calls BP, "British Petroleum" it is highly misleading and does not demonstrate the largely Ango-American nature of the company. See many media reports such as [6] --92.41.73.180 (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been done. Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference to the change of name does not currently appear in the opening para; presumably it's been changed (yet again) in the last week. The company changed its name from "THE BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY P.L.C." to "BP AMOCO P.L.C." on 31 Dec 1998, and then again to "BP P.L.C." on 1 May 2001.[7] It has therefore not had the word "British" in its name for over 11 years. It appears that the words British Petroleum were introduced on 11 May (ie after the Deepwater Horizon explosion) /index.php?title=BP&oldid=361428701). There is a redirect from "British Petroleum" in any case. Please can this be amended? 80.169.189.68 (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe it would be useful to mention this in the History section, making a reference to the name of the company that was being used during the time when the events discussed happened. For example, if the paragraph is talking about events between 1954 and 1998 then it should refer to the company as British Petroleum. If the paragraph is talking about events between 1998 to 2000 then it should be referred to as BP Amoco. The point I'm trying to make is that the words British Petroleum appear only once in the entire article and are not representative of the amount of time the company carried that name. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Per Hamsterlopithecus, on 24 June the words "British Petroleum" appeared only once in the article. As of now, this old name (not used since 31 Dec 1998!) appears 14 times!! Interestingly, its official name (the name it's used since May 2001), "BP plc", appears only FOUR times. There seems to be a huge imbalance in what's supposed to be a dispassionate, accurate, encylopedic entry about a major corporation. Perhaps some "editors" are trying to wind up their British cousins, but this should have no place in Wikipedia for self-evident reasons.80.169.189.68 (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

BP or British Petroleum

It's clear that the company is now called BP. In it's history, it was British Petroleum. I think the sections which explicitly describe the history of the company should use the name which accurately identify the company as it operated at the time. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you meant now. Sure that makes sense, although even when it was officially called British Petroleum it was commonly abbreviated BP... TastyCakes (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

... and therefore, as it has not used the name "British Petroleum" for over a decade, that old name is only relevant to historical events. But this is not being reflected in this article.80.169.189.68 (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrib gas controversy

User Comhar added Corrib gas controversy in the 'See also' section. How exactly it is relevant for the BP article? I propose to remove this addition. Beagel (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. BP is not mentioned in the article. I'll remove it if it's not already gone. Ocaasi (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased

This article is very biased.I understand that BP has one some really bad stuff, especially recently, but there are no mentions of anything positive in this article. Even the Hitler article isn't this biased!people should learn to aim there hatred off an encyclopedic article. (24.22.195.180 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)) What do you expect, these are a bunch left wing lunatics, they will not allow for any objective info that makes them look good. I have had my factual and relevant edits removed twice now from the various oil spill articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris1123 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like a joke...quoting the opinions of Mother Jones or the Aboriginal something or other. So far no reference to Mr. Blackwell's worst dressed list though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.80.79 (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If anything, the article is overly positive towards BP. We don't need to play devil's advocate to this massive corporation. They have lobbyists for that, which you two have seemed to fallen under the spell of. There's a one line sentence on the oil spill, an event which is quickly becoming the worst environmental disaster this decade. Also, Kris1123, your use of "left wing lunatics" completely outs you as having any credibility or neutrality on this issue, so why don't you go edit Conservapedia instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.149.156 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole purpose of Wikipedia, as with any encyclopaedia, is to avoid bias. It doesn't matter whether an article is about Ghenghis Khan or Mother Teresa. 92.0.201.142 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening clause

The currently reads "BP plc is a British-based global energy company". This is not good English. The word "British" is an adjective, and you can't have an adjective followed by "-based" (if you don't believe me, try "French-based" rather than "France-based", or "American-based" rather than "America-based"). The company (BP plc) is based in the UK, not in some ficticious country called "British". Grammatically it would of course be acceptable to write "BP plc is a British global energy company", but this is simply NOT TRUE. Only 40% of shareholders are British (in fact the two largest shareholders per Amadeus are American, not British: JP Morgan Chase - 28% - and BlackRock - 6%). Please therefore may I have other editors' permission to change the opening words to "BP plc is a United Kingdom-based global energy company", as I tried to last night? Thanks.80.169.189.68 (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I was in two minds but now you've provided those examples I'm much clearer. IMO 'American-based', 'French-based' and, also, 'British-based' sound a lot better than 'America-based', 'France-based' or 'UK-based' so I think the current wording is fine. raseaC^{talk to me} 11:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed the opening sentence to make it more neutral. Beagel (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Beagel 80.169.189.68 (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It used to read 'global', what was the rationale for changing it back then? raseaC^{talk to me} 15:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It still reads 'a global energy company'. What exactly was changed back? Beagel (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It once mentioned British, then that was removed, then re-added and now has been removed again. I'm just wondering what the rationale was for readding it. I can't seem to find any relevant discussion. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed from lead: (my paraphrase) "40% of BP shareholders are from the UK, and 39% are from the United States.^[2] The United States has more individual investors–almost double the UK figure." A bit too technical for the intro. Duplicated in the History section under recent stock decline. Ocaasi (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Lolz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.139.238 (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon incident

I read elsewhere that BP didn't own or operate the rig or owned it but didn't operate it and it was the responsibility of transocean or BP just owned the well, yet the wikipedia article states that BP owned AND operated the well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.226.37 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The source on Note 49 confirms the rig was owned and operated by Transocean, and leased by BP Aja2010 (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The US Government is holding BP responsible for it, and it is not an 'incident' it's a disaster. Sean7phil (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Linguistically it is not really a disaster, because the incident was entirely due to human failings, rather than cosmic influences. A more accurate term would be a 'calamity'. Etymologically, disaster means "ill-starred," from the Latin roots "dis-", (here merely pejorative) + Latin "astro" ("star, planet," from L. astrum). Contrast that with the etymological roots of calamity: from L. calamitatem (nom. calamitas) "damage, loss, failure; misfortune, adversity,". Linguistically it is certainly an incident, so it would be correct to qualify it as a 'calamitous incident'. If you believe in astrology, you can stick with disaster, but are the stars really to blame? Further: you could not call it a tragedy, not unless the incident killed any kids. Tragedy originally meant goats song in Greek from tragos "goat" + oide "song.", most likely as a reference to the crying of female goats (Doe's) at the death of their offspring (kids).81.149.206.5 (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Pedantic.

Yes...it is interesting that Obama is holding BP responsible rather than the actual American operators. Here's something to consider: Imagine if you will, a pest controller comes to your house to do a job and while there he gases the neighbours to death but his incompetence was carried out while he was on your property, he then points the finger at you to the police and says "but I did it on his property, he owns the land so I am guiltless, here is the real culprit". Who is the guilty party under criminal law? Twobells (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

Logic Fail. A better analogy would be something more like this: A plumber (transocean) comes to your house to work on your (BP's) pipes, and in the course of doing his job, his assistant (Halliburton) messes up and breaks a water main. Now the water is gushing everywhere, so the plumber (transocean) runs out side to the curb where the water meter is to turn off the valve, only to find that the homeowner (BP) DIDNT INSTALL ONE. So, the water from the homeowners (BP) floods the neighbors house (the Gulf of Mexico), and the Plumber (transocean & halliburton) cannot shut it off because there isnt a way to get it done. Meanwhile, the plumber calls the fire department (the USA), and the fire department just says "too bad, YOU clean it up". <click>. 24.21.11.36 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's like they go to shut it off on the street only to find the shutoff valve, made by yet another party (Cameron International Corporation) doesn't work for (as yet) unknown reasons. TastyCakes (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's neither an incident nor a disaster. It's an oil spill.Ocaasi (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

BP leased the rig from Transocean. The rig was staffed mainly by Transocean employees working under a contract (with BP) to drill the well, and a BP employee (the company man) was ultimately in charge of the rig. TastyCakes (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

But not safety, that was the purview of TransOcean, the so-called 'company man' was a on-site corporate facilitator, he had absolutely no hands-on responsibility, again that was TransOcean Twobells (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Logic Fail. BP owns the WELL, and the well is what failed. The rig explosion was a result of the well 'kicking'. So, the rig was not at fault. Transocean was just doing its job the way it always has. Halliburton MAY have some liability, but that remains to be seen. The BOP failed, and BP had decided not to put on an acoustical/remote preventer on the well, which, at the end of the day, puts the responsibility back in to their lap. 24.21.11.36 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand - the acoustic/remote preventer is nothing but a switch, a redundancy to activate the BOP. Its absence didn't necessarily have anything to do with the BOP not working. On a wider note, it isn't clear exactly what caused the explosion, so it isn't clear who is liable. It is entirely possible that Transocean mistakes led to the disaster, or Halliburton or Cameron or BP mistakes. Please stop stirring the pot, article talk pages are not meant to be talk forums. TastyCakes (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There were many failures. BP owned the well and the well design, but contracted other parties to drill the well (transocean) and to case the well (halliburton). Aspects of both have since failed. No accoustic switch is required in US waters. No operator currently uses them in the gulf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mourndekai (talk • contribs) 09:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that Facebook group advertisement on the leak section really Wikiworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.222.190 (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

BP seems to dislike the word "Catastrophe" associated with the damage and effects of this during interviews and is quick to correct any news agency or reporter using this word specifically. Wikipedia itself defines the word as "A catastrophe is an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event." and merriam-webster defines Catastrope as "3 a : a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth". Does this not fit the definition? B4Ctom1 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

. . . since the "top kill" has FAILED (or will need several weeks to work well) in the May 29 update of my article, I suggest the SIMPLEST and FASTEST way to STOP the oil spill within TWO DAYS: . http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/070oilspillsolution.html . posted by gaetano marano May 30, 2010 . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.47.41 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with your solution is that the riser can't hold the pressure of the oil and gas flowing into it. It would rupture somewhere else along the line when you dropped the concrete block on it. The other problem is that it appears one of the leaks on the riser is very near the BOP, not lying on the ocean floor. TastyCakes (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this article slanted with a negative bias?

I know that BP sits at the center of one of arbuably the worst environmental disaster in history, but I wonder if the article has a negative POV. I notice that many of the incidents that are listed are pretty small. I ask the previous question inside of a concern forWP:POV. It makes me wonder however: this article reads to me as a bit of a feeding frenzie for BP critics. I would suspect that those critics are also people who want BP to make good on it's promise to pay people. As it now stands, the likelihood of BP being taken over or sold off in pieces is increasingly high. This is happening while BP is trying to raise cash to meets it's obligations and if the brake up of BP is hastened by all of negative publicity, will it put the payment of the obligations to the victims of the spill in jeopardy? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It's not exactly what we usually call bias here, since the facts themselves are not disputed. For that same reason, I don't think that this article has a noticeable impact on BP's ability to meet its obligations. If anything, it might as well have contributed to the change of CEO. So I don't think we need to worry about what's best for any particular company; that's that company's business. For all we know, under the new leadership, they might just want to address past mistakes openly; we just can't second guess their strategy.

Our objective here should be to create and maintain an informative and interesting article. If you would prefer this article to be the 30,000 feet view of the company as a whole, then I'd agree with you that we don't need a whole section on each incident. The bigger incidents, such as Deepwater Horizon oil spill, already have their own articles, so there's no need for us to keep 751 words about them here. (Including half the lede, as already discussed above!) We probably agree that this objective may not be the same as that of people who have never contributed to Wikipedia and come here only to advertise their cause.[8] I am not sure what would be the best way to deal with this in the long run. One possibility would be to create an article about BP's impact and incidents; but that would be a lot of work both for the creation and maintenance of the new article. Another would be to combine the minor issues in one section; this article had a "Other problems" section two years ago, and I'm not sure why that got dissolved. That section could contain just one line for each incident; readers who want to learn more can easily find that in the references. — Sebastian 22:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"I notice that many of the incidents that are listed are pretty small." Well, compared to the Deepwater Horizon spill, yes, they are. But they're still notable even if the bar has been raised on what's large. Maybe having a better overview summary in the beginning of the article or each section would provide what you're looking for?RevelationDirect (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the argument is that there is undue weight on certain topics, which at a glance I would agree with. TastyCakes (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dual date formats

Just noticed that in some parts of the article the date is listed like this: 20 April 2010 while in other parts it is listed like this: July 27, 2010 Which way is the preferred method here on Wikipedia, or are both acceptable? Killersquirel11 (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Our guideline WP:DATE allows ~~both~~ either. — Sebastian 22:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

actually WP:DATE allows either not both. Dates should be consistent but who is going to go through and standardise? --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that's what I meant. Thanks for the clarification. — Sebastian 23:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Stock decline

Currently, the article reads "After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill BP's stock fell by 52% in 50 days ...". This is not exactly correct. The stock market did not react until 6 days after the disaster, on April 26. How can this be reworded? BTW, it is interesting that it took so long for most investors to grasp the severity of the situation. In fact, stock holders were slower than politicians: It was not until June 9, when it was announced BP would come under U.S. congressional scrutiny, that the biggest volumes got traded - at a price almost at the bottom of the curve. — Sebastian 23:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Recentism

In my opinion, this lead of this article is now far too heavily biased towards information about the recent oil spill: Over half the lead section is about it. Such information should be kept to the deepwater horizon oil spill page. This article is supposed to be about BP, and the spill should only be notable in that context for the impact it has had on BP, and the lead should be more focused on BP as a business. We must remember that wikipedia should inform users about established facts, following the news as it is verified. Wikipedia should not try to be a source for the latest news as we have wikinews for that. Therefore, I feel that information such as the departure of BP's chief executive should be kept to the 21st century history section as at the moment the lead seems to be trying to report the latest news. --92.28.10.142 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything this dude has written above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.183.43 (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the recentism template, as well as the recentist content from the intro. The oil spill is still deserving of mention in the introduction, although not more than one paragraph. I added an <editor note>, so hopefully people won't keep updating the section. It's no big deal if they do, since it's the natural place for a new editor to put it, but we'll just have to keep moving it. I don't think it's anyone's serious intention to make this article a timeline of the oil spill and its aftermath. Ocaasi (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think the problem would be so easily sorted. --92.28.10.142 (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's how we do around here. Did you know '"wiki" means lightening fast and thoroughly without bias in Hawaiian? Or something like that. Ocaasi (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I cut down about half of that paragraph. Half of the opening section should not be about a single recent news event, as the above comments state. It still links to the article page concerning the explosion/oil spill, and the section about it remains later in this article. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's appropriate going forward. While the issue was truly front and center in the international media and especially in the UK and US, it made sense to give the WP:LEAD a wider interpretation. The edits you made are a good adjustment now that the scope of the disaster has been (somewhat) curtailed. In other words, there was a time when it looked like this might destroy the economies of several states and one of the largest companies in the world. Now that those consequences are hopefully unlikely, the lead can retreat back to the proportions in which the event will be seen in years hence. Ocaasi (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tourism

I am concerned about the sentence in the article stating that the April 2010 oil spill affected tourism. I say this because Florida tourism is actually up so far in 2010 vs. in 2009. I would therefore like to add the word "possibly," so the article would say the spill "possibly affected tourism."

I made that edit earlier today but had it reverted. I am concerned about the encyclopedic nature of an article when the claim is stronger than the evidence to support it. Clearly common sense would tell you that tourism was possibly affected, but there's not enough data to be definite, given that Florida tourism is up for the year. Of course, last year was a very bad year historically, due to the recession, but still.

I would like to put in the word "possibly" but don't want to get into an edit war. Hanxu9 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty uncontroversial that the oil spill hurt tourism. Many places were ghost-towns, at least as was reported in the news. I'm concerned that 'possibly' sounds like a bit of an understatement, though you just mean it technically. 'Possibly' has the ring of 'allegedly', in that it makes a claim seem dubious. What about 'likely', or a more nuanced configuration wherein you say that the drop is expected but has not been confirmed.? Ocaasi (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Describing environmental, safety and political record in lead.

Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should summarize the article. For better or worse, three very large sections of this article involve an incident-by-incident description of things BP has screwed up in the environment, in safety, or in politics. At the least the sections mention controversies or notable allegations about issues. I recommended we put the following sentence in the lead:

BP has a long record of environmental and safety incidents, as well as involvement in several political controversies.

It was reverted in good faith as not neutral. Problem is, either the sentence isn't neutral, or the whole article isn't neutral, because that sentence is a pretty benign summary of sections 5-7 of the article. Ocaasi (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My main concern with it is the use of "has a long record", I suggest that such a conclusion really needs a source because it is more than a statement of fact. How about:

BP has been involved in a number of environmental, safety and political controversies dating from the 1965 Sea Gem incident to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

That more neutrally covers the facts. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is VERY low quality and VERY slanted against BP. The amount of the article taken up by environmental, safety and political issues is far too large, and coverage of much of the rest of BP's activities is low quality and partial. The introduction should explain what BP is. It is a very large global company and one of the world's largest oil and gas companies. To refer to environmental and safety issues in the opening is to infer that these issues are so unusually prominent in terms of the sweep of BP's activities and long history as to be essential to understanding the nature of the company. This is not true, and clear recentism.

In two years' time I guarantee that no one will even be wasting their time debating whether such a reference should be in the opening. It should not be there now. In my view, even at the height of media coverage of the spill, it should never have been there. It was blatant recentism.

In the sweep of BP's entire history - which is long - its safety and environmental record globally is at least as good as that of its major competitors (which are Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Total). Even over the past five years its record globally is very similar.

BP has invested much more in renewable energy sources than most of its competitors over the past decade. It was also one of the first major oil companies to accept man-made global warming was real. These facts should also NOT go in the introduction, as to mention them there would, in the context of BP's overall sweep of activities and history, be distorting and misleading.Rangoon11 (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure I agree. The lead should briefly detail the content of the article. There events are pretty significant; agreed there was way too much lead coverage during the event. But a sentence mention of the article content is reasonable. Addressing the focus of the article is a separate matter. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree, Rangoon. Please read WP:Lead, since it is very clear about the introduction summarizing the content of the article. In fact, the lead is supposed to be able to stand up as a summary of the entire subject! Currently, the lead misses on a large part of the topic by not including these events. It's also a bit short on general history and current brand scope. All could be improved IMO. Ocaasi (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Tmorton, I like your version, and am going to put it in. Rangoon, I'm open to discussing whatever you would like about the article, but unless we change the major sections which describe controversies, the lead should be an accurate summary of them. Ocaasi (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, the fear that I have is that trying to do any major reworkings on the body of the article will be hugely time-consuming and fraught with arguments as others will challenge the deletion of any 'cited' information. My view is that all but the most significant entries in the environmental, safety and political sections (which is the majority of them) should be deleted, and the rest merged with the history section. Realistically I cannot see others allowing that to happen. The article as it stands is not encylopedic but how to make it so, I am not sure. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm partially in agreement with that,though a lot of the incidents are pretty significant. I recommend that we could bring balance in other ways. It may also be possible to remove section headers from a parts of the content and turn it into prose. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was also thinking that as I read through them. Many are only a few sentences long. The counterpoint is that these incidents had an event-like quality that made them sensational news-pieces, as has been recently demonstrated. That lends itself to the headers. But we could try it... I think it would be a good step toward making those sections more encyclopedic in other ways as well. Ocaasi (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight given to entry

There is no doubt reading the entry that far too much negative weight has been given to this article. I can only assume the article has been kidnapped by elements biased towards a certain ideology so I suggest it needs a substantial clean up.Twobells (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, the article as it stands is a disgrace, completely unencyclopedic, completely slanted against BP, and very low quality overall. The treatment of BP's actual business is a mess, and the bulk of the article is essentially a list of every controversy that BP has ever been involved in which has gained media coverage. Many company articles on Wikipedia suffer from too much emphasis on 'controversies' but this is one of the very worst, and for such a large company with a long history that is a real shame. Articles like this one really let Wikipedia down.

I fear that any attempt to try serious and large scale revision will be very painful though, as the deletion of references to any 'controversy' will be rejected by those who say that 'cited' information is being removed in an attempt at 'whitewashing'.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am starting today on the first section which displays undue negative weight (the various incidents are listed elsewhere under their own heading) as well as suggesting that the company was 'quasi colonial' singly referenced by a biased observer but it'll be a long long job to ream back the endless ideologically-biased entries.Twobells (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I support the move to improve this article's coverage and phrasing, but let's not whitewash things. This corporation has been part of several, major incidents which received extensive coverage in the media, involved fatal consequences and/or millions of dollars of damage. The article shouldn't read like a hitlist, but it should cover these incidents significantly. Ocaasi (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also two current problems with the recent edits. The lead now mentions nothing about any incidents, though they are a major part of the article (and the company's history), and the header sectioning has been botched so that political and safety are now subsets of environmental record. I don't want to just revert, but these are not improvements. Ocaasi (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same and agree with Ocaasi's analysis. There is some undue weight in the Safety Records and Political Records sections. For example, I don't think accidents that are not due to safety violations should be put into subsections of their own. In the Environmental record section bullet "Stock decline and takeover speculations" probably has a better place in the History section, which could be expanded. Sure, there is lot to improve but deleting or indenting sections is not a solution. Nageh (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now finished my edits to the headings and order of the sections so some of the issues described above should now be resolved. I feel that these edits conform the article with other company articles. Am very happy to discuss of course. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, these edits made sense. I'm fine with it. Nageh (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

^ Chicago Tribune, BP building gone but its medical mystery remains, June 3 2010, http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/bp-building-gone-but-its-medical-mystery-remains.html
^ http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9010453&contentId=7019612

[1] Chicago Tribune, BP building gone but its medical mystery remains, June 3 2010, http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/bp-building-gone-but-its-medical-mystery-remains.html

[2] ttp://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9010453&contentId=7019612

[1]

[2]