Talk:BP/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Update for DWH coverage

There has been quite a bit of news lately revolving around the settlement program. This article sums up what's been happening. petrarchan47tc 21:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, there are more appropriate articles for this information. By my understanding this does not belong here. And blog by Huffington Post is not the best source (or in this case even RS as this is not reporting facts but journalist's personal opinion) when more reliable sources exist covering this topic in more neutral way. Beagel (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This update belongs in this article, and probably others. It is easy to find a different source, so there really is no issue. petrarchan47tc 07:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Next steps

As the latest RfC resulted with 'no consensus', we have to decide how to move forward. One possible way is suggested at the closing admin talk page. This proposal has a merit. We have also results of RfC (2) listing things which should be covered. As it was said, this process needs uninvolved editor/mediator. Last year User:Was 203.27.72.5 made a similar work doing exactly the same thing but unfortunately they seems to be inactive now. Therefore I would propose to request User:Nathan Johnson if he will agree to take this task. Nathan is already familiar with the topic as a closing admin but he has not been involved in the editing. I think that also user:SlimVirgin would be a good candidate for this task. She has been involved but by my understanding all her actions have been related to the dispute resolution. Any comments and other suggestions? Beagel (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that Nathan would be a good choice since when several editors attempted to discuss the outcome, he ended the discussion with a statement saying that he couldn't take the "bitching" any longer and abruptly archived the page. Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I also don't think Nathan would be a good choice. Slim Virgin has kept up with the history of the article and the talk page and seems very diplomatic. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to SlimVirgin, I found it problematic that even though editors clearly wanted to include health and environmental information, her suggested section included two introductory sentences with only three informational sentences, and she refused to discuss her suggested text with me saying that brevity was required. While I agree that the health information requires only a couple of lines since serious long term health consequences remain mostly unknown, considering that this spill has been called the greatest environmental disaster since the dust bowl, surely it deserves more than one or two sentences.

Although DC has suggested that I have been tainted by past work here and am now dysfunctional, I see the time that I have edited here to be an asset. I remember only too well that when I came to this article in June 2010, when oil had been spilling for three months already, I found no mention of the spill in the lead. It took a month to get that information in, and many more to cover the spill properly. I am simply not willing to have made so many steps forward only to give in when it comes to including environmental information for this article.

To my way of thinking, the information need not give a blow by blow account of how miles of shore were oiled and how many turtles died, etc., but we do need to point out that while much remains unknown about the short and long term effects, studies are ongoing and there is plenty of current information to compose a medium sized section of information. I would have liked a section on Corexit as well, but if that's not going to happen, we need to include that too, which would add a little length to the section.

While DC finds this group dysfunctional, apparently because we did not find agreement between the three proposals, I look with pride to my fellow editors in that they refused to give in just to keep the peace when they believed that if we keep at it, we can come up with something better. Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Any proposal concerning uninvolved editor/mediator? Beagel (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that I addressed this under the next section below. I hadn't seen this discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I still think that we need some mediator, formal or informal, who's integrity is out of question, who is an expert on policies and guidelines and who is ready to take this task. Any proposal? Beagel (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect detail in introduction

An editor has recently added some information to the introduction which is incorrect: the detail that the company is "(also known by its former name, British Petroleum)". BP has not been known as British Petroleum since 1998, and it is only in error that the company is ever currently referred to by this name. Would editors take a look at this and consider removing it? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I think the word "former" covered it, but I have changed it per your request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In order to maintain equilibrium for all editors, there needs to be a discussion before any of User:Arturo at BP's requests are implemented. 10 minutes doesn't allow for much discussion. I know it is a simple request, not fraught with any complications, so I'm sure consensus for the change will be quite easy to achieve. Please revert until such discussion takes place```Buster Seven Talk 06:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Un Done. Awaiting discussion. As Arturo clearly requests "editors (plural) take a look at this and consider...." ```Buster Seven Talk 13:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping to short-circuit the dysfunctional pattern that has taken hold here. It was a trivial request, so I fulfilled it. There was nothing wrong with my edit and no need to revert it while the unecessary discussion takes place. I'll be somewhere else if you need me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I realize your intentions were correct in doing this. However, this is the first line of the article, arguably the most important one. It's not a black-and-white issue and needs to be discussed. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Arturo at BP has declared a professional connection to BP. He cannot edit the article directly. Implementing his requests, without any possible window for discussion, abandons that restriction. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. And by the way, briefly discussing something is not "paralysis" or a bad thing. This is a minor but important semantic issue that shouldn't be hard to resolve. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I still refer to it as British Petroleum the odd time. 'Formerly registered as' may cover any 'errors' such as the one I commonly make. I wouldn't doubt some still use Chargex and Mastercharge as well as Toronto Dominion instead of TD bank. WP:Common name may have expired for some but not all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I was quite surprised at the number of US government documents that we were using as refs that were still calling them British Petroleum in some of their releases during the spill. It did not suggest much competence on their part to me! Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Google isn't terribly helpful because "British Petroleum" searches turn up "BP," but I do see references to the old name, so I'm not sure that edit is inaccurate. However, "formerly named" or "formerly called" would be accurate too and deal with it. Coretheapple (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I also still think "British Petroleum" just like I think "Kentucky Fried Chicken for KFC. Specifying a date, 1998 (?), as Carbuncle did references when Corporate changed the name, not when the general worldwide public stopped referring to it as British Petroleum. This is not a major change request and I support Arturo's desire to clarify that the company is no longer British Petroleum. We just need to be clear that it still existed in the common man's lexicon beyond 1998. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We could go with "sometimes known by its former name British Petroleum". In another decade or two it may be far less common.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea. "sometimes" instead of "also" does make the subtle shift to "some people still call it British Petroleum". ```Buster Seven Talk 14:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Sometimes known by its former name British Petroleum" is much more accurate. BP's corporate branding policy does not control the general public. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's good wording. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Me too. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for joining this discussion. I do not agree with "sometimes known as" being used here, since it is an erroneous use of the old name rather than an alternative name that is occasionally used. The examples Canoe1967 mentions of Chargex and Mastercharge are good comparisons since these were former names that are no longer in official use, but sometimes are used by people to refer to Visa and MasterCard: in each case Wikipedia has a redirect from the old name to the article, where only the current name is used in the introduction. The same was true of "British Petroleum"; readers using that name to search on Wikipedia were directed to the BP page, where the introduction noted this was the company's former name but did not give this as an alternative name. By having "sometimes known as British Petroleum" in the first line of the introduction, I feel that this will create confusion for readers, who may assume that the company occasionally uses its old name. This is not the case. The introduction already mentioned that British Petroleum is the company's former name and this should be clear enough. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

However, a Google search indicates that it is sometimes referred to as British Petroleum in the media. That would be accurate, not confusing. This isn't like Amoco which is no longer referred to by its former name. Coretheapple (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The usual practise with company articles with former names is to say: Company X (former name: Company Y). I propose to use the same standard here. This will exclude the subjectivity who knows what. It is also shorter and more encyclopaedic wording. Beagel (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to go with "formerly known as...". In the early weeks following the spill it was frequently referred to as British Petroleum. However, as time went on and people became more familiar with "BP", one seldom (if ever?) saw that. Gandydancer (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Either Beagel's or Gandy's suggestions are fine with me. I'm just happy we discussed it. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about either version. The only reason I hesitate about "formerly" is that it is currently in use, according to Google, such as here[1]. This is a business newspaper, not a tabloid or minor website. Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not mean to suggest that Beagle's terminology is not fine for me, only that formerly or something to that effect be used. To Core, I'd say that a rare current example should not guide our decision. Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess it would depend on how rare it is. I was under the impression that it wasn't used at all, so I was surprised to find any references to the former name. If it is indeed rare, then the "formerly" usage is fine. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Core's 'rare' is not so uncommon:

• Economic Times of India, from 15 August 2013. No mention of BP.
• United Press International (UPI), from 13 August 2013. No mention of BP.
• Huffington Post from 12 August 2013. Both BP and British Petroleum are used. 20 × BP, 1 × British Petroleum.
• Salon.com from 5 August 2013 by Joan Walsh. No mention of BP.
• PBS Newshour, the Rundown from 5 August 2013.
• ESPN from 3 August 2013. No mention of BP.
• Forbes from 28 July 2013. No mention of BP.
• Boston Globe from 28 July 2013. One mention each, in this format: British Petroleum (BP).

So I think we are lifted out of rarity and firmly pushed into "sometimes". Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, not rare. Coretheapple (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh??? That sure looks pretty rare to me! Gandydancer (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should go back on the grill for a few minutes? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Coretheapple (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

OK boyz, count me in. I mentioned above how surprised I was to find gov't documents occasionally using British Petroleum rather than BP and just on a whim, I tried this: [2] Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea to look at gov't documents. I found similar instances in the Federal Register [term=%22british+petroleum%22] Coretheapple (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Gandy licks her chops as the waiter arrives with her horse meat steak tartare (I'm tellin' ya folks, you just gotta love this place!) and orders another round of drinks for the BP "Dysfunctional" Discussion Group members sitting at her table for their annual get-together dinner. Then she proposes a toast to the hundreds of Wikipedians who still believe that the Wikipedia consensus method is not perfect but that somehow and someway, everyday people are making it work to form the world's best online encyclopedia there ever was! Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A few examples:

• Navistar uses the "formerly" version that Beagel suggests,
• KFC just parenthesises Kentucky Fried Chicken,
• HP may not be a good example since they still use both Corporate names. Any others? ```Buster Seven Talk 23:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - From totally uninvolved ignorant user and original research. If you asked MOST people what is BP? You would get, "huh" or "idownnoe" or "bird poop?" If people did know it was an oil company they might say of yeah "british petroleum or something" if you were lucky. What does the new BP even mean or stand for now? I know, read the article, which I didn't. How many people even know they changed their name? Like .0001% of the population? I am sure even the well educated media, tongue in cheek, also screw this up. Just saying, see the forest from the trees here what ever wording is decided upon, good luck, you'll need it :), just one bird's rambling :) --Malerooster (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Instead of "known" I would switch to "referred by" or such. --Malerooster (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparnetly they don't want us to say the word "petroleum", just like KFC doesn't like us to remember the "fried" part. Oil is becoming less popular these days, I guess. petrarchan47tc 22:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

suggested action

As a courtesy to Arturo and our reader, lets move to resolving this issue. I support the objective, encyclopedic look used @ Navistar which uses the simple "formerly" version that Beagel suggests. (and, I believe, Gandy also supports)```Buster Seven Talk 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well there is no question that "formerly" is accurate. I hesitate because it seems to lack completeness, as (to my surprise) "British Petroleum" is still utilized. I believe Gandy changed her opinion, by the way, but she would have to address that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Not saying otherstuffexists but we still have Toronto-Dominion Bank as the main article. I think most call it TD Bank now. With the BP referrals to the older name it is probably used to specify which BP. BP trails is Baden Powell eg. In order to specify which they are referring to they need the full name. B petroleum and BP petroleum would be rather awkward ways to do it. As long as it remains an ambiguous two letters then many will still use the old name for clarity. In the sources mentioned above they probably use the full name once and the short form later after it is clarified. The other articles may be specific to material where BP can mean only the one thing. I don't know how this can be worded, "long, older form used to clarify"?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

But "sometimes clarified by its former name" is awkward phraseology, and it's a little presumptuous. We can't assume people say "British Petroleum" instead of "BP" for purposes of clarification. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It is 'specified' in one of the links above. Mentioned as BP in the headline, 'clarified' in the first sentence, and then carried on as BP. If an article were to just call a company BP then pizza eaters might think they were referring to Boston Pizza. I think it is probably used quite commonly just to clarify as the other sources do above. I agree my wording may seem awkward but a thesaurus can fix that to clarified, specified, etc. If the company had been renamed BP Resources or similar there wouldn't be a need for all the sources above to spell it out for readers. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Let's go with "sometimes known by its former name British Petroleum". Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way to go. Coretheapple (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with "sometimes known by its former name British Petroleum".--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with "sometimes known by its former name British Petroleum".```Buster Seven Talk 00:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with "sometimes known by its former name British Petroleum". Gandydancer (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• I would still go with "sometimes referred to by its former name" but no big deal. --Malerooster (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Referred may be a better choice but I don't care either way.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Canoe on both counts. petrarchan47tc 00:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Referred to" works for me. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Canoe I reverted you change to "referred" for now. We have had so much trouble with this article--let's let it go for a few more days and then change it if need be. Gandydancer (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. I just thought that others agreed that is was better than 'known as'. Referred to may be a better definition of how it is used. They 'refer' to it to specify which BP they are using in context.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Three days does not seem long enough... Beagle has not checked in and he may like to give an opinion. Thinking more about it, I'd go with "referred to" as well, and it may be better since I am basing my opinion on the gov't documents that "refer" to BP as British Petroleum. Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't mean to rush. I certainly do not wish to exclude editors with a differing opinion from collaborating toward consensus. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again, thank you all for discussing this and looking for a solution. In the discussions above, I see that at the crux of this issue is that BP has very occasionally been erroneously referred to as British Petroleum in reliable sources, including government documentation. I feel that including "sometimes known by its former name British Petroleum" or "sometimes referred to by its former name British Petroleum" in the introduction of this article misinforms readers and may lead to further incorrect use of the former company name.

Until last week, there was no wording about this in the introduction and I do not believe that anyone could argue that readers of this page were confused about what company or entity "BP" referred to. If some wording is really needed, would it suffice to simply state "formerly named British Petroleum"? That would clarify to readers that British Petroleum is the old name, while BP is the company's current correct name, at the same time establishing that BP is the same company they may have been calling British Petroleum. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• That sounds reasonable to me. If a few people are calling it British Petroleum, and they're wrong, why ratify it? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• I can shift support to this. "Formerly named..." implies the company changed its name. Its kind of understood that some people or outside agencies may still refer to it by its old name. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Arturo, the "erroneous" name of BP as "British Petroleum" is only a company viewpoint, not a public viewpoint. I showed high level reliable sources which described the company in the last month as "British Petroleum" without ever referring to the notionally correct name "BP". Thus the initiative by BP PR to wipe the record book of the old name is not really working. The suggested solution "sometimes referred to by its former name British Petroleum" is not misinforming the reader as you assert—you are proven wrong by the links I provided. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a case where the 1952 name "British Petroleum Company p.l.c." is mixed into the text of a BP datasheet from 2008, alongside the new name "BP". Apparently the corporation still uses the old name. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support "BP p.l.c. (former name: British Petroleum)" or "BP p.l.c., formerly named British Petroleum" as I already said in my previous comment. According to the official register (Company House) BP is the only name officially in use while BP Amoco and British Petroleum Company are former names. [3] So, this is certainly not only the company's viewpoint. I also think that the construction current name and previous name(s) is less confusing than "referred" or "known". As of "known" versus "referred", although I don't think that we should use of them, "referred" seems to be less subjective than "known" and therefore preferable. Beagel (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and don't see what difference it makes that the old usage still appears here and there. Squabbling over such things is unseemly. Editors concerned about this article's slant should focus on the important things, not oppose just because Arturo supports. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's a mistake to think that it is only because Arturo supports a certain version the editors here are "squabbling" about it. It must be kept in mind that when WP decided to accept paid editing, it was done with the idea that volunteer editors would vet the paid editor's suggestions--otherwise we could just paste a corporation's web site into the WP article. As has been already pointed out, this decision relates to the first line of the lead, and as has also been mentioned, BP spent millions of dollars to change their image from British Petroleum to BP. The place that I really get hung up is the fact that government documents continue to sometimes use the former name, not that some news sources do. Looking here, http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/search?q=BP+British+Petroleum&btnG=Search&btnG.x=25&btnG.y=6&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=iso-8859-1&oe=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&entqr=0&entqrm=0&ud=1&site=default_collection&ip=12.144.73.176%2C10.4.146.65%2C10.14.4.32&access=p&start=0 for example, the first four pages all use the name British Petroleum, and here is a sample use, "The highest stakes cases handled by the Civil Division are usually the most costly. The cases involve large pharmaceuticals and other industry giants, such as Merck, AIG shareholders, and British Petroleum, who are able to bring together top notch legal teams and spare no expense asserting their position in court." Perhaps Arturo can help me to understand why the gov't continues to use the former name. If not, I don't see how we can say "former" when British Petroleum is so frequently used in gov't documents. Gandydancer (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Figureofnine. What you see as squabbling I see as collaborating. Your claim that editors would oppose just because Arturo makes a request is completely erroneous and just adds fuel to the misconception about the intent of most of the editors here...pro-BP or pro-Reader. While this discussion may be longer than some would like, it is necessary. Arturo's request cannot be implemented without discussion. Plus, working through these smaller, seemingly irrelevant, edits creates a positive working environment that will be useful down the road. . ```Buster Seven Talk 17:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If the government use was deliberate and not mistaken, I could understand. It appears to be unintentional. Governments make much bigger mistakes than this all the time. I understand your point on paid editing and the need to discuss such editing requests. I think that this issue has definitely been discussed thoroughly. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Buster7, I'm fully in favor of vetting Arturo's edits. You may want to peruse my contributions to this article. You'll find that I have probably not agreed with Arturo on a single one of his suggestions. For example, I have favored a full and detailed explanation of environmental impact of the BP oil spill. However, I feel that on these sorts of things one should pick one's battles. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of your contributions to the development of this article and the discussions here. That's why I was surprised at your claim that some editors oppose only to block Arturo's request. The claim didn't fit you or the situation here. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I was being a bit too cynical. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I see no harm in a longer discussion that we could extend to a guideline. It is good to have a corp rep involved as well. Many longer name companies are shortening to 2-3 letter alphabet soup. Readers will still figure it out if we include the former name without referred to, known as, sometimes called, etc, in the lead sentence. We still have TD Bank, KFC, and BMO spelled in former names. Some we don't even state as former names. I lost count of how many names Toronto-Dominion Bank has in the lead. Can you spot Waldo without reading half the article? We should decide on a guideline for all of these articles. I think shorter leads may be the best. Legal name, formerly older name 1, and possibly 2. We may not even want to use 'formerly named' and just 'formerly'. I think our readers will still know they can call it anything they want. Many say McD's instead of McDonald's but we don't include common names in the lead. TD may even need an etymology section to remove 3/4 of the lead. I haven't got a clue what the legal name of KFC is looking at the article. Bank of Montreal is another 'Where's Waldo?'--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to Gandydancer: I can't speak for why the US Department of Justice occasionally continues to use the old name, but I would like to point out that some of the DOJ pages at the link you provided are older documents published in the 1990s or earlier, when it would have been correct to use the name British Petroleum. I think it should also be noted that not all of these pages are "government documents", but that many are court reports that would have been produced in individual courts, not by the DOJ. I don't think that using this search of DOJ pages is the appropriate way to resolve this. As Beagel pointed out above, BP has legally changed the company's name, so I think it would be appropriate to use the language "former name" in this article because it is accurate. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any dispute that "British Petroleum" is incorrect use, but it is still use. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been 7 days

It's been 7 days, should we make a final count? I will go ahead. Hopefully editors will be very clear so as to make counting easier.

• I believe that "sometimes referred to as British Petroleum" is the best terminology. I base my decision of the fact that there are four pages of DOJ announcements that use the name British Petroleum, with the latest one in 2012 re the Gulf oil spill. If BP wanted to clear this up they should have done so with the government agencies, not by telling Wikipedia editors to do it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• I support "BP p.l.c., formerly named British Petroleum". I think it's the cleanest and still allows for using British Petroleum by "the masses". ```Buster Seven Talk 21:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• I support "BP p.l.c., formerly named British Petroleum". Readers and sources can even call it TD Bank if they so please. It is short and concise as well as inferring that the former name is sometimes used for clarification.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support "BP p.l.c., sometimes referred to by its former name British Petroleum," BP objections notwithstanding. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support "BP p.l.c., sometimes referred to by its former name British Petroleum," seems like a great compromise. Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support "BP p.l.c., sometimes referred to by its former name British Petroleum". ```Buster Seven Talk 23:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support "BP p.l.c., sometimes referred to by its former name British Petroleum". Does someone want to make the edit? --Canoe1967 (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: As it seems that all here agree on the above wording and it has been put in place in the article, I wanted to note that I recognize that there is consensus and consider my request resolved. As I mentioned above, in my view this is not the ideal wording as it leaves open the potential for misunderstanding by readers and for continued incorrect use of British Petroleum. Also, it appears that other articles do not use the same kind of wording regarding former names. To prevent such discussions in the future it would be helpful for there to be a guideline in place for such circumstances, so that there is a standard way of noting a former name, still occasionally (if incorrectly) used by the general public or media, in an article's introduction. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether such a guideline is possible, because these things have to be determined on a case by case basis. Sometimes former names are widely used, sometimes not. I haven't heard anyone talk about "Esso" or "Atlantic Richfield" for years, and certainly "Humble Oil" has dropped out of usage for many years, but "British Petroleum" has remained in use to a surprising extent. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

31 Aug edit

The following sentence was removed from the Environmental Impact section. Oil spills are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems and research into the environmental impacts is ongoing. The reference provided was [4] by National Geographic. Removing this sentence is problematic and should be undone until collaboration for its removal is accomplished. The sentence sets up the basic premise of this section which is the impact of the DWH spill to humans and the ecosystem. And, it provides a very responsible reference which, if the sentence is removed, is excluded from the article and from the readers purview. I had hoped we agreed to discuss changes before we started to slim this section down. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, all attempts at discussion about how to reduce this section to the level agreed at the last two RfCs has come to nothing. I have made an edit to get some discussion going.

The removed sentence is undoubtedly correct but it applies to all releases of oil, natural, deliberate, and accidental. It is not specific to the DWH spill and certainly not to BP, which is what this article is intended to be about. You have to accept that if we are ever going to reach the consensus target for the DWH section some text is going to have to go, or be abbreviated. Better to keep the relevant, specific stuff than obvious generalities. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence and especially the National Geographic reference set the tone of the "Environmental impact" thread. Rather than omit, I suggest we specificate the sentence in this manner:Oil spills such as DeepWater Horizon are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems and research into the environmental impact is ongoing. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That idea is as much a non-starter as the word (specificate) that you used to describe it. To conform to the RfC we need to remove between 1/2 and 2/3 of the text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See Webster's 3rd International Dictionary, pg 2187. Spe-cif-i-cate, from the Late Latin specificatus, past participle of specificare. To specify or to give specificity to. Also, removing the text removes the reference which is specific to BP. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel this sort of statement is quite useless and need not be included. Summarize what damage has been caused or is believed to have been caused, rather than just throwing out some vague comments about how all oil spills cause damage.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Editor Martin;"....to conform to the RfC we need to remove between 1/2 and 2/3 of the text." I have a short memory. Can you point out where there was an agreement to remove up to 2/3 of the text. I know we agreed to chop a few branches but I don't think we agreed to kill the tree. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment: Here is Editor Nathan Johnson's interpretation of the 3 RfC's; There was no consensus found in this RfC. 17 users participated in this RfC. 7 expressed that none of the three options provided should be adopted. The remaining 10 were evenly split between SlimVirgin's and Martin Hogbin's versions. The substantial number expressing that none of the choices are suitable strikes me as a Wikipedia version of jury nullification suggesting that the consensuses in the previous two RfCs were not as strong as they appeared due to lack of voter turnout. How do we conform to 3 RfC's that were inconclusive? ```Buster Seven Talk 15:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The result of the first two RfCs was that we should have two to three paragraphs on the DWH spill. We currently have 8. You do the maths. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier and as Buster7 has further pointed out, the closing administrator on the third RfC, who closed the previous ones as well, concluded that the other two RfCs were not as strong as they appeared. He suggested reaching a consensus here on further action and that is the sensible and really only way to go. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As for the change being discussed here, it strikes me as insubstantive so I don't object to it, but further changes should be discussed beforehand as Nathan suggested. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Figureofnine said above, "I read through the discussion on the Nathan Johnson talk page, and I interpret his suggestion as meaning that the editors have to agree to a kind of informal protection. Nobody reverts or makes changes. Then the editors reach an agreement and an uninvolved editor implements those changes. This is a sensible suggestion." I agree with her/him and I consider it as a lack of faith in the consensus building efforts for one editor to go right ahead and without discussion remove the opening sentence. I am going to return the opening statement, and I hope that we can all find agreement before any further actions are taken by a single editor. Gandydancer (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree with Figureofnine...and with Gandydancer. As for the change being discussed here (Martin's 31 Aug edit), it strikes me as insubstantive so I don't object to it, but further changes should be discussed beforehand as Nathan suggested. The problems I had was that the change wasn't discussed and that the change removed an informative reference. Should we achieve concensus, I would have no further problem with Martin's 31 Aug change. The ref can be used elsewhere. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It would have been better if Martin Hogbin had not made that edit. It has been reversed, and that should be let alone pending discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Environmental section

I don't know if this will be helpful or not, but I am wondering if other editors would be interested in taking a look at the present environmental section and offering feedback on whether the information being presented is appropriate, if it should be cut back, expanded, etc.

Oil spills are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystemsand research into the environmental impacts is ongoing. Research in 2013 suggests that as much as one-third of the released oil remains and further research suggests that the oil on the bottom of the seafloor does not seem to be degrading. In mid-2013, waters near East Grand Terre, Louisiana were re-closed to commercial fishing when a 40,000 pound "tar mat" was found just off the coast.In 2013, tar balls were still being found on Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida coastlines. and more than 2.7 million pounds of "oiled material" was removed from the Louisiana coast. Oil in affected coastal areas has increased erosion due to the death of mangrove trees and marsh grass. Researchers say that the oil and dispersant mixture, including PAHs, permeated the food chain through zooplankton. In 2013 it was reported that dolphins and other marine life continued to die in record numbers with infant dolphins dying at six times the normal rate. This was seen as an indicator that something was "amiss" in the Gulf ecosystem. The killifish, a common bait fish at the base of the food chain, was found to have sustained cellular changes resulting in organ damage and delayed or failure to hatch. Researchers called the killifish the 'canary in the coal mine' for understanding long-term spill impacts. Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In the light of three former RfCs I don't believe that there will be any consensus if we will discuss large blocks of text without non-involved moderator. There is a discussion how to move forward. User:Nathan Johnson and user:SlimVirgin were proposed as potential mediators but unfortunately were opposed without providing any alternative candidates. I suggest to find a consensus about future steps there and to use this approach. Beagel (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't just anoint one editor as a kind of über-editor, to decide what is to be placed in the article or to "mediate" between warring parties. That's far too much power concentrated in one person. I read through the discussion on the Nathan Johnson talk page, and I interpret his suggestion as meaning that the editors have to agree to a kind of informal protection. Nobody reverts or makes changes. Then the editors reach an agreement and an uninvolved editor implements those changes. This is a sensible suggestion. I don't interpret this as a suggestion that one editor implement all these suggestions. If so, it is just too much to put on one person. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Beagle, although it may be said that we've had three failed RFCs, which may appear to suggest that this group is unable to come to any sort of decision, I believe that if you take a look at them it can be seen that they were all doomed from the start. Speaking only of the last ones in which the group had supposedly decided on two paragraphs (though I do not agree with that conclusion), we were then offered three suggestions: One was Buster's in which E/H was not even mentioned because he never intended his submission as a suggestion for the entire spill section, one was Martin's which had three paragraphs with one sentence that mentioned E and H, and the third was Slim's which had two paragraphs with two sentences on E and three on H. In other words, Slim's version was the only one that actually was appropriate if the dictates of the previous decision were followed. I agree with Figureofnine--it is not going to work to have one editor write up something and have the rest of us vote on it. I think that the group can come together on something that most of us agree with. Gandydancer (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the first two RfCs failed. They had clear results and these results are still valid. It is true that there was no consensus to prefer any of three proposed versions. I think that it was mistake to write competing versions instead of agreeing sentence by sentence. However, for the same reasons why the third RfC failed, it is hard to believe that we will achieve any consensus just proposing large blocks of text. Beagel (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. I don't mean to propose this--I merely meant it as a starting point for discussion. If you have a better idea, that would be fine as well. Gandydancer (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Johnson's closing statement in the final RfC, concluding "no consensus," said as follows: "The substantial number expressing that none of the choices are suitable strikes me as a Wikipedia version of jury nullification suggesting that the consensuses in the previous two RfCs were not as strong as they appeared due to lack of voter turnout." That's a reasonable conclusion, and is the kind of thing that happens frequently in Wikipedia talk pages, as consensuses shift, and small numbers of editors interpret policy. By the end of the third RfC, it was plain that large numbers of editors were not comfortable with the direction that the RfCs was taking this article. Nathan Johnson, very sensibly, suggested that to correct the situation that the editors on this page reach a consensus and then have an uninvolved editor implement those changes. I think that this is a good idea, as it returns the decision making back to the editors in the page, requiring them to compromise. Then, having compromised, an uninvolved editor will implement. The uninvolved editor can be solicited in any number of ways. It does not have to be an administrator, but the editor does have to fairly execute the page consensus. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Gandydancer. I misunderstood your proposal and I am sorry for this. However, to keep the discussion more focused I think that maybe even sentence-by-sentence discussion approach is needed. Beagel (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess you already know my view on the original question. Most of the section should be deleted. I have left this page because it has become a BP attack site and despite two (or more) RfCs in which the consensus was to remove excessive material, nothing has been done. Allowing pages to become soapboxes for pressure groups to attack organisations is one of the most destructive forces to the authority of WP. If editors who are interested in writing an encyclopedia rather than a series of forums and soapboxes do nothing the whole concept will, in my opinion, fail. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Beagle, yes I agree. Won't it be fun! ;-) Gandydancer (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The editors of this article are being castigated all over the place, hither and yon. I don't agree with any of it. I'm sure we can work together and create a classic corporate article. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

OK then Buster, let's see a little action here! As Beagle and Figureofnine are saying, it's time we get started. Gandydancer (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Just make sure you take Microsoft as your model. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't drive this bus. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to work with anyone who wants to write an encyclopedia rather than produce a piece of investigative journalism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an unnecessarily antagonistic thing to say. If you can't or won't assume good faith on the part of other parties, in terms of their intent, and take the attitude that you want to produce a neutral encyclopedia and they don't, you will just contribute to the poor editing atmosphere here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As stated before, Microsoft would be a poor model since Microsoft has never been involved in an incident resulting in 11 deaths and billions of dollars of clean-up costs and fines. Other than being BIG there is really no comparison. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The operative model for this article needs to be BP, not Microsoft, Toys R Us or Goodwill Industries. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be bad if 11 people were killed writing software but oil is a dirty and dangerous business. I have also suggested that we base this article on the other supermajor oil companies, with a similar amount of text and detail in criticism unless, of course, you can provide a reliable authoritative and independent source giving data which shows that BP is worse overall than equivalent companies in safety or care for the environment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sept 6----I thought I would share this [5] which just came across my desk. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be sufficient if we agree to develop the article in the way that at the end of the day it will pass peer review without any major issue and will correspond to all good article criteria and featured article criteria. Beagel (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I also think we should request peer review first. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Gandydancer (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that you can ask for a peer review on any article to assess its current state. I was suggesting that we do that with this one to get an idea what would be needed to get it up to GA standard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, but surely this is not the time to ask for a peer review of the article--for now we will have enough trouble just getting an agreement on an environmental inclusion. Gandydancer (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

An article needs to be stable before a peer review is warranted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not going to happen here without outside help. Several editors are vehemently opposed to the article's current state. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's drop the talk about attaining GA status for now. Of course, our editing should abide by the guidelines, which should presumably lead to GA status naturally. We could instead focus on the guidelines, as we have been doing. petrarchan47tc 02:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Beginning...

I would suggest an opening sentence of "On 1 June, 2010, President Obama spoke to the nation naming the oil spill "the greatest environmental disaster of its kind in our history" and saying "untold damage is being done to the environment -- damage that could last for decades." [6] Gandydancer (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing in our guidelines tells us to add quotations from the US President to articles. We can say those facts for which he would be considered a reliable source, but we probably already do that.

We could therefore say, 'The DWH spill was the greatest environmental disaster of its kind in US history', and cite the President's speech as a source, but no more than that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As we already have the more specific,'...the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry', adding the above words is superfluous. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I also support following the WP guidelines as proposed by Beagel below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ive read the speech. I can understand why BP Corporate would not want to lead the environmental section with it. Our guidelines do not place any restriction on when to use quotations from the Potus. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this addition for the following reasons:

1. This sentence does not add any factual information as there is already the more specific,'...the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry' (which should stay by my opinion). It is also fluffy. Although this article is not FA candidate yet, following FA criteria is essential and Tony1 work-book How to satisfy Criterion 1a is a useful tool to understand how to trim the text.
2. As this sentence does not add factual information but emotional background, it does not correspond to WP:NPOV, more precisely WP:IMPARTIAL. WP:QUOTE says: Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.
3. Editing guideline says that a fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own and editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section. This sentence does not correspond to the summary style.
4. BP is a global company head-quartered in the UK. Therefore, it should be avoided to become too US-centric. Inclusion of the quotation by Potus bears that risk.
5. The RfC (1) resulted in consensus to include a summary-style subsection on the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and that the current version was too detailed and should be trimmed. Therefore, adding new text compared to the existing text should be rather exceptional and well justified.

@Buster7. I think you did not mean what you wrote. Your comments reads in this context here as an allegation that editors disagreeing with inclusion of Potus quotation are representing BP. I hope this was not a purpose of your comment. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, Beagel. I mention BP Corporate. Not a hint of mention of fellow editors. I mean what I wrote. You might want to read it a few times to get what I wrote rather what you think I wrote. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I said in my comment "in this context" and the context is that you added your comment immediate after the Martin's comment opposing inclusion. In this context, it is a clear allegation, although, as I said, unintentional. Beagel (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am short on time, but I will answer all of your points. For now I just want to post this question from the last Survey and point out that there is no question that it was doomed from the start because it was totally FUBAR.

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

(comment copied from above) 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)

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)

In the first place, how can you possibly offer an option to delete ALL of the spill info when every other single WP article includes notable corporation fiascos. Even still, some editors did vote for that option. Then it goes on to say that editors of this article disagree about how much information the DWH spill article should contain as compared to how much should be in "the incident" which apparently means this article. No where is the question asked about how much information should be included and small wonder that both Petrarchan and I voted:

Support including BP's gulf spill in this article. petrarchan47tc 17:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes to the question, "Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?" (my vote)

That is not to say that we can't cut back--we will see as we discuss what's important and what's not. Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

For now, Gandydancer (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Beagle said the sentence I proposed does not add any factual information as there is already the more specific,"...the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry". Yes it does add factual information and it includes the core reasoning of my belief that there should be a prominent environmental section in the BP corporation article. This sentence names the oil spill as "the greatest environmental disaster of its kind in our history", and since we are discussing the environmental section it is more specific than "the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry." It is not fluff, and I can't see where you get that from. The second part of the sentence, "untold damage is being done to the environment -- damage that could last for decades" is about as unemotional, neutral, and dispassionate as you can get. This is a scientific fact and the second most important thing we need to say--we don't know how much oil is left, we don't know where it all is, we don't know if it has done DNA damage, we don't know if it has affected the food chain, we don't know how the massive amount of Corexit used underwater may have added to the known dangers, etc. To go on, Re #3, this is not new material and it is a summary. Re #4, others have posted. Gandydancer (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Support either in the opening or elsewhere in the section. It's extraordinary for a president to make a comment such as this, and a serious NPOV issue if not included. Coretheapple (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We have diametrically different understanding about WP:NPOV as by my understanding its inclusion is not in line with WP:NPOV. This article is not Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its focus is not the oil spill but the company. WP:SS, which is official guideline, applies here. This different understanding about Wikipedia's core policies proves that we need an uninvolved mediator who is experienced on implementation of Wikipedia policies and who is able to value all relevant policies. It is pity that this idea was not supported. Beagel (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The only valid question is whether it should be in the first line or not. I can't conceive of any even remotely valid argument that it shouldn't be in the article at all, and certainly not the tired one that this is an article on BP and not on the oil spill. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The argument is based on the Wikipedia editing guideline. I think we agreed just one thread above to follow the guidelines. Beagel (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken only you and Martin agreed. The rest of us didn't comment. Not to say that we don't agree....just to say that we didn't comment. We are all good faith editors so its understood that, in general, we agree to the guidelines. How each of us interpret those guidelines is another story. Lets keep moving forward, with the guidelines providing direction but not acting as a straight jacket. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right. The applicable guideline is called "summary style" not "strangulation style." Coretheapple (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Support for inclusion, but lean toward not using the quotation as the opening line. petrarchan47tc 03:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My heels are not at all dug in with my suggestion. It seems good to me, but it was also a way to get started. I hope that others will come up with something as well. Gandydancer (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I won't be able to contribute much, but can weigh in once in a while. Thank you for your diligence. petrarchan47tc 08:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

New suggestions on sub page

This talk page has been quiet for some time and I'd like to remind editors and inform anyone new watching this page about the sub page for Corrections and resources. I have just added a few new suggested updates to that page and there are also some older suggestions, which I am unsure whether editors have seen. These represent a few things that I noticed in the article recently, along with a couple of corrections related to recent edits, including duplication of a quote from John Browne in the "Environmental record" section. If anyone is able to review these, I would appreciate it. As always, these are suggestions and I understand if editors prefer not to make any specific change. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Susan Shaw accuses BP and USG of knowingly endangering people

From Al Jazeera, "BP's widespread human health crisis"

Since the spill began in April 2010, Al Jazeera has interviewed hundreds of coastal residents, fishermen, and oil cleanup workers whose medical records document toxic chemical exposure that they blame on BP's oil and the toxic chemical dispersants the oil giant used on the spill.

The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention lists the toxic components commonly found in chemicals in crude oil, and several of these chemicals have been found in the blood of people living in the impact zone of BP's disaster.

Several toxicologists agree, and now one accuses both BP and the US Environmental Protection Agency of knowingly placing people in harms way since they both had prior knowledge of the harmful effects of the oil and dispersants.

"BP told the public that Corexit was 'as harmless as Dawn dishwashing liquid'," Dr Susan Shaw, of the State University of New York, told Al Jazeera. "But BP and the EPA clearly knew about the toxicity of the Corexit dispersants long before this spill." ...BP's Material Safety Data Sheets for Corexit warned that the dispersant posed high and immediate human health hazards. petrarchan47tc 01:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly don't see why this material can't be added to the article forthwith. Coretheapple (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Doing it now. petrarchan47tc 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I would have preferred that this info go into the spill and health articles but receive more discussion before going into this article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

From my point of view, I have been studying the health and Corexit issue closely, and the information added recently from the 60 minutes doc, which links to a short article as well, and the claims from the main toxicologists working on this spill, are very good additions for this article as they summarize years of research into two sentences on the page. We do not have a responsibility to work on all related articles, and certainly anyone can take my research from my talk page and expand it on the appropriate pages. This information should have been added a year ago, and in fact we had some consensus for a special section here on Corexit. So these few sentences are perhaps shocking to anyone who hasn't paid extremely close attention to what the scientists are saying in the gulf, but in my view this is the very least that this article should contain. Corexit use simply couldn't be a bigger deal. That is a fact. To have these two bits from 60 Minutes (the only tv to cover this situation) and Susan Shaw - the main independent researcher besides Riki Ott - is imperative. In the US, since we get none of this information, it might seem to readers that this is fringe stuff scraped from the bottom of some treehugger's file, when in fact, it's actually really big news. In New Zealand and Australia, where during a recent spill they used Corexit, they hold up the BP/Gulf situation as an example of why they need to ban the dispersant. The Australian 60 Minutes piece is very straightforward, and you will see the big difference between US media coverage and non. You will also see that what we have added to this page should make BP feel very lucky, because it could be, and truly should be, much more graphic. Toxic is toxic. The effects will be unfolding, and this encyclopedia will be a repository for that information. petrarchan47tc 20:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Arturo: Coretheapple and Petrarchan, this is exactly the type of information that my concerns noted above relate to: this is not material from a reliable medical source, but instead is from a news outlet. As we're all aware, journalists are not experts on health and medical matters so this type of information can become misreported. While I know it cannot be used as a source here, I want to mention that on the BP's State of the Gulf website, we published a critical response to the Al Jazeera report, which makes the point that the only study cited did not meet accepted professional standards for human health research, and that the toxicologists quoted may not have been neutral due to their links with ongoing legal matters.

As I have mentioned above, getting an opinion on this section from an editor with experience working on human health and medical articles will be useful here to establish what is appropriate sourcing for this type of information. Along with Gandydancer, I will move forward with seeking that opinion immediately. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Any response to Al Jazeera from BP is certainly usable in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

And I've added it. It's unreasonable to request that only "scientific studies" be presented on this subject, irrespective of the fact that "journalists are not experts on health and medical matters." That's like asking that articles on political subjects only contain material from political scientists in peer-reviewed academic journals, because "journalists are not experts on politics." First of all, some journalists are indeed experts on these subjects. Secondly, our sourcing rules do not require that the writers of articles be "experts" on subject matter to the satisfaction of the subjects of those articles. Our readers have a right to a full airing of the material published in reliable sources concerning the Gulf oil spill, and self-imposing such a hurdle at the request of the company is simply not either reasonable or tolerable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You might think it "unreasonable" to exclude newspaper articles as sources about medicine-related claims, but that appears to be what the relevant guideline says. If you think that newspaper articles should be accepted as sources for claims about what chemicals hurt humans, then you may take it up at WT:MEDRS—but I do not think you will be even remotely successful in getting the guideline changed to permit it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that BP does not find the study acceptable, stating it "fell well beneath the generally accepted professional standards of human health research and scholarship." It was peer reviewed and published in well-established, prestigious journals. See this info from here: [7]

The American Journal of Medicine, known as the “Green Journal,” is one of the oldest and most prestigious general internal medicine journals published in the United States. It has an Impact Factor of 4.768, which ranks it 13 out of 151 General and Internal Medicine titles according to the 2012 Journal Citation Reports® published by Thomson Reuters.

AJM, the official journal of The Association of Professors of Medicine, a group comprised of chairs of departments of internal medicine at 125-plus U.S. medical schools, publishes peer-reviewed, original scientific studies that have direct clinical significance. Gandydancer (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Since seeing the BP response at their website, I now agree that be information is appropriate for the article. What about the 60 MINUTES info, should we still keep that? Gandydancer (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that. What does the 60 Minutes broadcast say? We should run it with any response. I'm glad that BP has gone on the web with its own version of events, for that way we have an easy way to get responses to allegations made in articles if the articles themselves don't have them. I'm surprised Arturo wasn't aware that such websites are perfectly acceptable as sources in such situations. I guess the only thing that is a bit marginal and questionable is that the source made an allegation concerning a third party, but my sense is that in context it's probably OK. I'm referring to self-published sources making claims against third parties. Coretheapple (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, WP:SELFPUB has a strict prohibition against using self-published sources making claims about third parties. Since this is policy, not a guideline, I think that I have no choice but to remove. Coretheapple (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed the response from BP, while it makes sense to add their response, I'm afraid it's misplaced. The study in the AJ article is being rebutted, however it was not mentioned in my addition. The text I added was a statement from Susan Shaw.

"BP told the public that Corexit was 'as harmless as Dawn dishwashing liquid'," Dr Susan Shaw, of the State University of New York, told Al Jazeera. "But BP and the EPA clearly knew about the toxicity of the Corexit dispersants long before this spill."

Shaw, a toxicologist in the university's School of Public Health, has been studying the health effects of chemical exposure for 30 years. She is also the president and founder of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, and explained that BP's Material Safety Data Sheets for Corexit warned that the dispersant posed high and immediate human health hazards.

"Five of the Corexit ingredients are linked to cancer, 33 are associated with skin irritation from rashes to burns, 33 are linked to eye irritation, 11 are or are suspected of being potential respiratory toxins or irritants, and 10 are suspected kidney toxins," she added. "BP's own testing found that workers were exposed to a possible human carcinogen from the dispersant."

---

So BPs statement would need some mention of the study to make sense. Pending that, the above is what would need to be addressed to make sense. petrarchan47tc 19:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps you can tweak what we have so that it all hangs together? Coretheapple (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If BP's statement about the study in AJ is to remain, the study itself needs to be mentioned for the paragraph to make sense. petrarchan47tc 17:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Coretheapple: Thank you for adding in BP's response to the Al Jazeera report and also for making the edit to remove the quotes regarding the toxicologist. I agree that including that information was problematic as it did make it appear that the individual referred to was Susan Shaw, although the BP response was not focused on her but another toxicologist that Al Jazeera quoted in their story.

My understanding that the BP website could not be used here is based on feedback I have received on this page before, advising against using BP's sources for information in general and also pushing back against my suggestions that opposing views be added to counter some of the points currently included in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill section. If editors are willing to add in BP's responses and some opposing views to material included here, I would be happy to provide some relevant links again.

Also, I should mention that the 60 Minutes report is already included in the article, in the "Health effects" section, so it is wrong to suggest that this has been kept out of the article due to sourcing rules or any other reason. In regards to a response from BP, we did officially respond to the report but that has not been published on the website. I will see if it is possible to do so.

To respond to your arguments below, currently editors are freely adding material as they see fit; as I do not edit the article I am not preventing anything being added, and so far as I can see there has been no one else stopping editors from adding any material they wish. My query above is simply that since Wikipedia does have specific guidelines on sources for information on human health, should these apply here? If editors review the section and agree that the current sources are fine, then I will understand. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to go back and look at the discussions, as there have been many, but there is nothing to prevent use of BP-sourced material as long as it follow WP:SELFPUB. In a situation like we have here, which is that Al Jazeera made certain charges and BP's response is not included in the article, it seems like something of a slam-dunk that we can use what BP runs on its website specifically in response to the article. I think that perhaps what editors might have been responding to was overreliance on material originating from the company, which is not appropriate for a company so large and well-covered in the media. But when it comes to individual charges, I can't see the harm of including BP's response if it is on the company website. I think we have an obligation. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually I thought Petrarchan was referring to the U.S. 60 Minutes, but perhaps she can clarify what's needed re that source. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the US media doesn't report on Corexit or the situation in the gulf. Only Al Jazeera, and in this case, Australian 60 Minutes. petrarchan47tc 17:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and Newsweek has reported on the Corexit/BP situation. I've added a blurb. petrarchan47tc 18:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am having a conversation with WhatamIdoing on her talk page re the health info and she has said that "MEDRS is generally taken to apply if you are making any kind of statement about human health". I have asked her to take a look at the Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article and hopefully that will help us to better understand exactly what is appropriate to use and what is not. Perhaps we need to ask her about using the BP site as well, to be certain that it's OK. Gandydancer (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

New RfC

I am going to start a new RfC on this article. It has become a forum for 'Anything bad we can think of about BP'. This strikes at the heart of WP and defeats its very purpose of being an neutral, and authoritative encyclopedia.

The last RfC has been completely ignored so I an going to try to get community input from as wide a readership as possible, and a definitive close which is then implemented immediately. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, what has damaged Wikipedia has been the sorry state of this article not too long ago, as reflected in the articles cited at the very top of this talk page. The public has a right to a BP article that is not influenced by BP as much as this one has been, and is. We have not correction about inaccuracies but nitpicking about the quality of sources. The constant struggle is to make this article a reflection of reality, and the problem is that, not the way you frame it. For instance, I just learned that there was a 60 Minutes segment about this company. Only in the BP article would one be surprised to learn that. Everywhere else, such a source would be already in the article. But here, apparently there has been some tortured definition of the RS rules that has kept it out. It's bizarre, and it's disgraceful. It has to end. There's the problem right there. Coretheapple (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. Anywhere else this Corexit information would be well covered, and actually deserves it's own article. What's really telling is that when this article does get an update that is uncomfortable for the company, we get another RfC within hours claiming multiple, unnamed (besides Martin) editors find the few measly additions made in the past 6 months to constitute a "forum". So dramatic. petrarchan47tc 20:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned above but wanted to note here in case editors do not see it: the 60 Minutes Australia report is already included in the article, in the "Health effects" section. Its inclusion has not been prevented for any reason. I cannot speak to the reasons that Martin has decided to open an RfC but I do feel that at the least, some more discussion of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill section is required, given that the section still has a flag for undue weight and previous discussions were archived without reaching a conclusion on how to address this. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there has been no consensus that the Deepwater section needs a flag. And FWIW, it's time to take the main flag from the top of the article as well. petrarchan47tc 17:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur. General claims of "this article is not neutral" are not grounds for tagging the entire article as POV. I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag, since the consensus seems to be that it doesn't belong. If anyone wants to re-add it, they need something more specific than "This article is not neutral" or "This article is anti-BP", etc. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The tags have no specific connection to this RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)