Jump to content

Talk:BP/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Corporate affairs

The Corporate affairs sections seems problematic. I don't think that the list of senior management should be included per WP:NOTDIR. Of course, the information about chairman and CEO (and maybe about some other top-ranking officials) should be included in the form of prose. Also the table about financial data seems problematic as it is not updated and it is not attributed with body text explaining this topic. Beagel (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The financial data table certainly needs updating, perhaps a bit of expansion too. In my view the list of board members should stay, it is significant information and not especially long. It is also info which appears in a large number of major company articles. I can imagine many readers would be interested in the names of board members. A prose section is a good idea though. We should probably also have some info on heads of the most significant divisions who are not members of the board e.g head of E&P. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
As of the pure list of the board members, what is the objective value of this? "Other stuff exists" is not the best argument to use in Wikipedia. I agree that prose should be preferred to the lists and financial data should be updated (if not, then removed). Beagel (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Information about board members is precisely the sort of information which I can imagine many readers would be interested in. I would ask it the other way, how would the article be improved by removal?Rangoon11 (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Torrey Canyon

One additional one might be the Torrey Canyon in which BP was certainly "involved". Clearly I remember Torrey Canyon oil over all my favorite beaches as a kid, and more importantly remember the detergent which hung around for years longer. However I was looking at this article and the one on Torrey Canyon, both of which claim BP as the vessel operator. As far as I can tell BP were charterer, not operator although I think the distinction (some might say loophole) was only tidied up legally after the incident when it was realised they were not legally liable (reputation was another issue). Can anyone find a reference for "operated"? --BozMo talk 08:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks BozMo, that's a very interesting read. I googled it and found this up-to-date article that compares it to the Gulf spill - also a good read. This comparison was really interesting:
Although the government got a kicking in the press, the attitude towards the implicated oil companies was strikingly mild compared with today's blame game. "If Wilson had been going on at the people responsible like Obama is, he would have been regarded as a bit eccentric or out of order," says Barker. In 1967, BP chartered the vessel but was widely exonerated. There was little hostility towards the ship's captain. "Today there would have been a lynch mob after him," observes Barker.
Also, I note that it seems that the editors that seem to be more critical of BP are Americans and those less are from the UK - I wonder if that is just by chance or perhaps not...? Gandydancer (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Your question US v UK is off topic so someone can collapse this in due course. There is an Atlantic effect in a number of articles (eg male circumcision which AFAICT is pretty much consensus viewed in the UK as unjustifiable child mutilation but is viewed very differently in the US where some parents still agreed to it). In this case offhand I only know the Geolocation of one other editor involved, WMC. I have never met him but his location is fairly memorable as the city I work in. There do appear to be two American editors defending trivia critical of BP in a very disproportionate way. Certainly the EU press has been less critical of BP and more critical of others (broadly, the US players) in Deepwater. But more significant negative stuff around BP in Russia is ignored here. For my tuppence worth I think BP in its heavy involvement in both Russian and the USA is taking a very risky game; these are not business environments in which Brits are familiar. BP is naive in takeovers and joint ventures and expected US politicians to play fair which is a bit like expecting Myra Hindley to be a good child minder. A lot of the mud throwing is also praising with faint damnation; we should not put in trivial junk and we should ensure our criticisms are spot on. We should also let facts speak for themselves. There are more serious facts but the current list with comments looks like a really incompetent hatchet job. --BozMo talk 19:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
As an example, where is the section on pollution in Siberia? According to Business Week each year for a decade, TNK-BP has had the biggest share of 300,000 metric tons to 500,000 tons of oil and products leaked into the Ob and Yenisei river basins, 1186 leaks last year alone and $2bn spent on clean up so far. [14] No, thats Siberia. Lets talk about 200 tons of leaks into Alaska bay and quote it in pounds so it sounds more. Both were inherited, one was nearly a thousand times the size of the other. The trivia has to go. --BozMo talk 19:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The response of the US media and a number of senior US politicans to Deepwater was deeply cynical, hysterical and protectionist, to the point that the British Prime Minister was forced to intervene and point out that this is not the kind of behaviour expected towards the most strategically important company of America's "closest ally". Compare it to the reaction of the British media and British politicans to Occidental Petroleum's Piper Alpha disaster in the UK which killed 167 people and knocked out 10 per cent of North Sea production. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
At least there are reliable sources declaring it as such. I do not think that BP's board can have understood they would get no fair hearing if they took over liabilities in terms of people and business practices and something went wrong. The US is a quite different business and political environment with a lot more political opportunism and a shabby legal system. There are loads of dodgy companies taking big risks for this years bonuses but you cannot venture there with deep pockets, recruit from the same pool and act the same way. The employees themselves will take risks and not care unless you invest heavily in culture. BP should never have bought stuff there in the first place. --BozMo talk 20:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Nonetheless of course, no one disputes Deepwater was a big spill and notable on the scale of BP. The oil is biodegradable will get eaten by bugs if left alone (unlike detergents) but it did affect a fair area for a while and was a big volume. I don't have a problem with Deepwater its the "someone in a BP garage picked their nose" stuff which undermines Wikipedia's credibility. --BozMo talk 20:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I remember Piper Alpha rather well. Whilst on conspiracy and the like, remember how the Greenpeace protestors painted out the Exxon logo on Brent Spar so that only the European Company, not the US one, got the rap? I never did work that out. --BozMo talk 20:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

QQ lede

"BP has been involved in several major environmental and safety incidents". Aside the one mentioned, which were considered the others making up "several".? --BozMo talk 08:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See above. In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
That is why I asked the question. As I imply below, I would question whether the Prudhoe Bay spill or the Texas City explosion are objectively speaking "Major" on the scale of BP's activities or count as world scale events. Prudhoe Bay was less than a thousand tonnes with a $20m fine. Not "major" in world scale terms at all. By contrast in Siberia TNK-BP have spilled many hundreds of times more and spent $2bn cleaning it up (with another $500m of provision) but the US goggles of the article does not even mention it. The Texas city explosion was also no Bhopal despite 15 dead. Again, not a major environmental incident. I am afraid even I have been involved in an incident with more than 15 dead and you won't find it on Wikipedia although it is elsewhere [15]. These things need to be in perspective --BozMo talk 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but what you seem to think of as a clever Perry Mason performance here, I see as as a rather poor attempt at grandstanding. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
If I knew who Perry Mason was...or what grandstanding you meant. To be serious, why doesn't one of those who seem to want to smear BP go and do it properly rather than focusing on US oddities? --BozMo talk 14:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What a crock of shit. We have whole articles on the death of one person, but you wish to delete or downplay a section about the death of 15 people because it is just the price of doing business, because it is not Bhopal? Dude, your bias is showing. What we look to are reliable sources, and there many, many high quality sources discussing the Prudhoe Bay spill and the Texas City explosion (and subsequent violations). Jeez... Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
We have also an article about the Texas City Refinery explosion as also we have an article about the Prudhoe Bay spill. Fact that reliable sources about both of them are exist does not eliminate the question asked by BozMo. Beagel (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
You seem, again, Binksternet, to be rather lacking the degree of objectivity needed to be involved here. As I say the undue weight placed on some small incidents distorts the article. Why not try to get the worldwide fatality figures from BPs operations and talk about that? Or pick up one some other major issues which are not in the USA. Other things can be in other articles if there are notable but not the main BP one. --BozMo talk 05:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not seen the excellent articles, popular books and school textbooks which tie together these three disasters, set their relative importance, and comment on BP's collective guilt in them? Let me inform you:

These all list the Prudhoe spill, the Texas City explosion, and the Macombo Deepwater Horizon disaster together as BP's significant, "major" accidents. Most of these sources give them as examples of a sequence of events that demonstrate continuing poor management (despite changes in CEO). Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you try to find a couple of serious credible source which supports your claim rather than expecting me to check through a list of dubious parochial ones. Book reviews are reporting opinion pieces designed to sell, not reporting credible objective judgements. I started with the last one on this list and it did not "list the Prudhoe spill, the Texas City explosion, and the Macombo Deepwater Horizon disaster together as BP's significant, "major" accidents". They were all accidents, were significant locally in the US and I do not disagree about continuing poor management. However the article is absurdly US-centric and ignores far more significant and important issues. --BozMo talk 08:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
These are all serious and credible sources which list the three accidents under discussion. Every one of them. If you do not wish to understand what respected publishing houses are printing about BP then it is hardly likely your opinion will be considered here. Talk about "parochial"... Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Trying to source reliable fact about BP from US business books aimed at the airport market is a bit like trying to source info on the Queen from Hello magazine or on GE from Noel Tichy but thats your preference. There is a valid point about management culture and approach to costs and risks of course. But more credible commentary would help. --BozMo talk 19:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Fool yourself if you must, but the books include high quality scholarly texts from Cengage Learning, Macmillan and Princeton. Credible sources are all I've listed... there are no unbelievable or unlikely ones. A good effort, though, on your part, to undermine this extensive list. Better luck next time. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
As it happens these days producing vaguely relevant lists of book reviews is a job which can be done with a robot. However, even in the dumbed down world of modern university that will get little credit towards making a coherent case (especially if you try to use the same list for different points?). So, I ask you a question. Which of these books (not book reviews) have you actually read? Could I have a cogent and relevant passage from a couple of the better ones? Not that it matters to the article of course since I agreed at the outset that BP was involved in several major incidents, I was just making the point that you were thinking about smallish US ones; and I have also not disputed that these three should be mentioned although too many column inches are given to Texas and Prudhoe. Funnily I would argue for more coverage of Deepwater (which in financial terms at least was a hundred to a thousand times bigger than the others) but no doubt you'll find a reason to disagree with that as well. --BozMo talk 20:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia

As the issue of Russia has raised recently, I would like to say that BP's operations in Russia are rather different from BP in some other countries, e.g. United States. According to the agreement to create TNK-BP, BP is not allowed to operate in Russia beside of TNK-BP. It is well illustrated by the wreckage of BP-Rosneft deal to develop Arctic Basin, which was legally blocked by co-owners of TNK-BP. BP has 50% stake in TNK-BP, but already for long time it does not control it. While in the beginning the management of TNK-BP was appointed by BP, this is not the case anymore since once TNK-BP CEO Bob Dudley was forced to escape from Russia after long-time harassment by Russian state structures and co-owners (AAR group). Therefore, I don't think that we could associate TNK-BP wrongdoings and incidents with BP. At the same time, Russian operations are deserved to be mentioned, e.g. the same story about loosing de facto control over TNK-BP, wrecked deal with Rosneft etc. Beagel (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No doubt the degree of control is significant. But the events are huge and the lede said "involved in". We seem to mention quite a lot of stuff about Shell in Nigeria where control issues also exist. BP sits on the board and takes huge dividends. And as I say a number of issues are far more important that the US stuff--BozMo talk 05:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not saying that TNK-BP should be not mentioned. But the BP's stake is a non-operating stake, so one could ask how much BP is responsible for TNK-BP activities. As for the Board, it has eleven members and only four of them are representing BP. Chairman of the board is representing AAR, not BP. However, as a starting point, the information about TNK-BP environmental record should be added to the TNK-BP article. At the moment, it has corporate disputes section but no information about environment is included. Beagel (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
TNK-BP should of course be mentioned in this article and we should probably have a Joint ventures section which has a paragraph on its structure, operations, formation, key events etc. However we should remember that TNK-BP is not a controlled subsidiary of BP, and that it has its own WP article where detailed information and full coverage should go.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Section on Shareholdings

Presumably third after operations and before corporate? I guess we should write it here first. --BozMo talk 14:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The biggest ones they exclude from their annual HSE reporting are SAPREF & TNK-BP. I wonder what proportion of their worldwide income comes from entities where they do not report HSE violations? --BozMo talk 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Note 45 in their annual report. Non controlled entities contribute $1.8bn profit. The main ones they list are (the number after name is percentage holding) %

Angola Angola LNG Supply Services 14 US LNG processing and transportation

Argentina Pan American Energya 60 US Exploration and production

Canada Sunrise Oil Sands 50 Canada Exploration and production

China Shanghai SECCO Petrochemical Company 50 China Petrochemicals

Germany Ruhr Oel 50 Germany Refining and petrochemicals

Trinidad & Tobago Atlantic 4 Holdings 38 US LNG manufacture Atlantic LNG 2/3 Company of Trinidad and Tobago 43 Trinidad & Tobago LNG manufacture

Taiwan China American Petrochemical Companya 61 Taiwan Petrochemicals

UK Vivergo Fuels 46 England & Wales Biofuels

US BP-Husky Refining 50 US Refining Watson Cogenerationa b 51 US Power generation a The entity is not controlled by BP as certain key business decisions require joint approval of both BP and the minority partner. It is therefore classified as a jointly controlled entity rather than a subsidiary. b As at 31 December 2011 the group’s interests in Watson Cogeneration have been classified as assets held for sale. See Note 4 for further information. Associates % Country of incorporation Principal activities

Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi Gas Liquefaction Company 10 United Arab Emirates Crude oil production Abu Dhabi Marine Areas 33 England & Wales Crude oil production Abu Dhabi Petroleum Company 24 England & Wales Crude oil production

Azerbaijan The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company 30 Cayman Islands Pipelines South Caucasus Pipeline Company 26 Cayman Islands Pipelines

Russia TNK-BP 50 British Virgin Islands Integrated oil operations

The omission of Sapref is not clear; did they sell it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BozMo (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 September (UTC)

BP still owns 50% stake in Sapref. Maybe it is was not mentioned because it does not own it directly by BP plc but through its wholly owned subsidiary BP South Africa (Pty) Ltd, and results of Sapref are already calculated in the results of BP South Africa. Beagel (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I support the creation of this section although I would prefer it be titled "Shareholdings and joint ventures" for accuracy. In terms of placing in the article, either just before or just after the Corporate affairs section would be logical, my preference is for the former. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Accidents and Environmental record

Could we combine these two sections as a single section on, say "HSE record". All the accidents listed had significant environmental consequences and it seems odd to double list the entries. I suggest we have HSE record in two parts "as an operator" and "as a shareholder/owner" which would allow us to list some of the major Siberian incidents etc. ? --BozMo talk 14:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No specific incidents for TNK BP should be dealt with in that article, it is not a subsidiary of BP and has its own management. I also disagree with combining Safety record and Environmental record. Clearly both of the current sections have major issues including WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM and being US-centric, but that should be addressed in other ways. There should be proper overviews of BP's record in those areas, in proper context, compared to industry averages and peers, and looking at BP's activities worldwide. They need to be separate sections though. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning environmental, safety record in the lede

How should BP's environmental and safety record be mentioned in the article's lede; what wording would best give due weight to the positive aspects (e.g. renewable energy initiatives) and the negative ones (e.g. Deepwater Horizons oil spill, result of investigations)? petrarchan47tc 01:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested wording

The paragraph that is the subject of this dispute currently reads:

I propose that we substitute it for the following:

The origninal paragraph just listed a pro and a con of their record and left the two ideas disjointed. I've tried to report the varying views in contrast to one another without crossing over into sythesis, attributing the opinions to avoid weasel words. The references are reliable sources and used appropriately for the facts they are citing in a way that provides due coverage to the conflicting opinions. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(Or, we could just separate and deal with the two disjointed ideas individually in the Intro, as they are dealt with separately in the article. Intro gives us an idea of what to expect from the article; no one will find an argument or anything combining green energy + accidents/environmental/safety record in the article.) petrarchan47tc 23:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47tc 00:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The prose itself was disjoined. The ideas are related under the field of corporate social responsibility. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, for example, is relevant to both the enviromental and safety records of BP. The Environmental record section actually does combine green energy initiatives, accidents, etc. under one heading. You can only put so much stuff in the lede before it fails to provide a concise overview of the topic. To help reduce it to a concise overview, there's ample justification to mention opposing views of BP corporate responsibility record contrasted against one another, as a prelue to further discussion under various subheading in the subsequent article. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, the prose is disjointed to begin with, that's been my complaint since day 1. Admittedly, I'm still confused by the idea of an 'argument' in the Lede. A point, counterpoint presentation is not something I am used to seeing on Wikipedia. Nothing in the article yet synthesizes the two issues, or mentions them together at all. Even under the Environmental Record section, the green mention seems disjointed. But you make sense: that section can be created, supporting your Intro suggestion.
Another way to look at what deserves mention in the Intro would be to (zoom out, get the big picture) look at the weight of these two issues within the article, as well as after a cursory internet search, seeing what comes up for "BP, green" and then "BP, safety", for example. The green bit is comparably minuscule in RS and in the article, from my observations. It may be better to begin from scratch rather than play off what may be a POV paragraph and try to make sense of it. Maybe it's best to stay away from arguments in the Lede? petrarchan47tc 02:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the proposal by 203.27.72.5 as neutral and balanced. The only thing is that maybe we should remove "and its supporters " as non of them is mentioned and therefore it may qualify as weasel wording. Otherwise, it looks good. Beagel (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The views are attributed through citations. As an example, I don't think it would be very enlightening to name Caroline Wagner specifically. Though on second though, labelling her as a supporter is not a good idea either. Better would be to change the wording to, "While BP has a stated commitment to...and published reports indicate that..." and leaving out the "supporter" bit altogether and letting the reader refer to the sources themselves. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense. Beagel (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neither. The proper weight to give BP's internal sources is very low. Weight should be much higher for government watchdog organizations, all of which dismiss BP's positive self-assessment. The paragraph cannot say "BP and its friends thinks it is fine, while its enemies disagrees." This construction is artificially equating the two points of view, though by Wikipedia's measure, the two POVs should be skewed toward the neutral third parties. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Please note that no internal BP sources are cited at all in my proposed wording. The references are all reliable 3rd party news coverage (e.g. news coverage of testimony to the UK parliament on BP's safety record) and one book on corporate social responsibility by an expert in that field. Given that coverage by reliable news sources regarding BP's safety record is a mix of both positive and negative, the paragraph must mention both in order to maintain WP:BALANCE. References to government watchdog organisations would be good too, but we have to be careful to report their findings without synthesis. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I still support Binksternet's point though. We need to have something based on neutral sources. Quite obviously BP will state that they are great and anti-oil environmental sources will state that they are bad. This tells us nothing about BP's real record. We need a neutral source that compares BP's safety and environmental record with that of other similar oil companies, otherwise we must say nothing at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Martin, could you please assist to find that kind of source(s) which is considered neutral and makes this comparison between oil majors? Beagel (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I can try but I am no expert on this subject. One comment I have is that sources comparing oil companies, (including those from the oil industry or environmental groups) published before the disaster are likely to be more reliable.Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:Reliable sources are never neutral and WP:Reliable sources may be non-neutral. 149.135.147.23 (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes I accept that point completely, especially when so much money is involved. Government sources, which are usually considered reliable, are likely to reflect national interests. However, my real point, and I think that of Binksternet is that it is wrong to use BP sources or generally anti-oil sources, we need to find good quality sources that say that BP's environmental or safety record is better or worse that other similar oil companies. I think I am essentially agreeing with Gandydancer and Rangoon11 below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that, as I've mentioned elsewhere, none of the sources cited are BP or anti-oil. They are all 3rd party news items bar one which is a book written by an academic in the field of corporate social responsibility. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that the problem is that there is no reason that the article needs to offer PROOF that "BP is the worst oil company ever!". Petrarchan's suggested lead does not say that--it says that the Gulf spill was the worst spill ever, which is well-sourced. IMO Rangoon has set up a sort of straw man here based on my words here on the talk page, but I've never suggested that the lead should say that their environmental record is worse than other major oil companies. Here is Petrarchan's suggestion again:
BP has received criticism for its political influence,[23][24][25] price manipulation,[26] and greenwashing.[27] In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history.[28][29][30] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor[31] and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.[32][33][34]. Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
That wording is wholly unacceptable to me because it is wholly negative, narrow, completely US-centric (2/3rds of BP is outside of the US), recentist (this is a company with an over 100 year history), and highly selective in its use of information regarding safety record (eg those refinery violations refer largely to one BP site, which constitutes a small part of BP America and a miniscule part of BP overall, it is also a site inherited from Amoco and now up for sale; all manner of other metrics could be picked out which show BP America to have a better than industry average safety record even over the past decade). There is simply no way that wording can be regarded as neutral. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
@ Rangoon Of course it's wholly negative, this is intended as a criticism. BP's version is just as important and readers can decide for themselves which version seems more reasonable. That's how WP works. We're generally not supposed to say [as much as] "Bp has a terrible environmental record, but it actually has a very good record." To be unbiased we need to present both versions of the "truth" and let people decide for themselves. We've covered your other arguments several times already. Gandydancer (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutrality_and_verifiability, particularly, "Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance". 149.135.147.22 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that is an essay, not a guideline. The precedent to ignore essays with regards to this page was set during the DRN in June. petrarchan47tc 04:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
A few points. 1. There is no such thing as "truth" here as these are all inherently subjective (and highly complex) issues. 2. Glad that you accept that that wording is wholly negative, where did you propose the balancing wording go? And why is it not in the draft if that is the proposed text. 3. We are talking about the lead here not the main text and at most we have four to five lines to deal with the whole of safety, environment, CSR etc. 4. It isn't just a case of needing to reflect "BP's version" but that of the reliable third party sources which also make clear these are not simplistic black and white issues. 5. I'm not sure what "We've covered your other arguments several times already." means, perhaps you could explain. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon, when a person writes "truth", rather than writing: truth, "inherently subjective" is exactly what they mean. As for only four or five lines to use in the lead, nowhere is it carved in stone that we need use only four or five lines. Actually, if the concept is so complex, as you continue to state (though I don't agree), it would actually be mandatory to use a little more space in the lead to present a full overview of BP's environmental/safety record. Gandydancer (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neither The reader will not be any more informed about what to expect from the article. I could imagine the second version as a paragraph within the article, though. petrarchan47tc 09:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose To go from calling the Deepwater Horizon oil spill the worst disaster in the U.S. or the largest spill ever to merely calling it "shameful" is not at all acceptable.The lead should not and need not get into a point, counter point argument. It is misleading to present BP as a corporation that has stated it's commitment to practicing corporate responsibility on one side and a few critics calling BP a fraud, horrible, shameful, etc. on the other. To use this sort of language suggests that the criticism of BP is merely the rants of a group of known critics such as Greenpeace, Nader, Monbiot, and a fourth person I assume most people have never heard of. And especially so directly following BP's fair-sounding, supposedly verifiable, wording: "commitment to practicing corporate responsibility[4], investments in renewable energy[5], and published reports indicating its safety and environmental records outperform the industry average". I much prefer Petrarchan's suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the text proposed by W203.27.72.5 - misleading and far too simplistic. Numerous authoritative third parties wholly unconnected to BP have commented on BP's strong record in the areas of alternative energy, climate change, relative openness about environmental reporting etc.

The safety record issue is hugely complex and multifaceted. Of course Deepwater was a major safety disaster, and there have been issues in the US over the past decade with refineries acquired from Amoco. High quality reliable third party sources can be found however which describe BP's historical safety record as good compared to both peers and industry averages, some parts of it exceptionally good, its record overall in the US over the past decade as good, and even aspects narrowly and directly connected to Deepwater - such as its safety record in Gulf of Mexico drilling - as good excepting Deepwater itself and way ahead of industry averages (I have provided some sources above in the other thread. This [16] I have found a good one on safety as it uses all manner of metrics and looks at both sides, no single source can possibly be definitive on these subjective issues however). Quotes are also deprectated in leads, particularly when used in this type of manner i.e. to make negative or positive value judgements on the topic. This discussion should not be seen as a "pick one of the above" process. Others should feel free to either propose changes to the two texts above, or to propose other wholly different texts for discussion.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


How about:
BP has received criticism for its political influence[17][18][19] and has recently been involved in a number of serious accidents including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest accidental marine oil spill worldwide. During this period, the company was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.[20][21][22]}}
This leaves intact the "criticism for political influence" which is well sourced (though some pertinent articles have yet to be added to the body, including those I've referenced), and has reached some level of consensus. The second part has reached full consensus, and is almost identical to the present version on the page (except it reads "several accidents"). The OSHA stats hint at why the investigations were initiated, though "during this period" could be better defined. The final sentence about investigative findings is also well sourced, but the sources have yet to be added to the article (I'm not keen on the grief I may receive for attempting it). It is the summation of the Oil Spill Commission's findings, and that of a 12 year study into BP's accidents and safety violations by EPA lawyer Jean Pascal. So the reader not only gets an idea of BP's record, but a "why" - the result of much investigation. The sources are: Newsweek, CNN, NYDailyNews, ProPublica, UK Telegraph and the New York Times. According to many RS, the US-centric nature of BP's accidents is directly related to the growth spurt by BP in the US during Lord Browne's reign, when he simultaneously expanded BP by buying up other companies, and cut costs, leaving the infrastructure and safety issues to take the brunt of the cost cutting, and this understanding should also be added to the article.
This could be followed by a 5th paragraph about BP being the first to acknowledge climate change, with "major" investments in green energy "as compared with..." , etc. petrarchan47tc 18:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In case anyone missed it, I've put together a list of RS comparing BP with fellow oil companies here. petrarchan47tc 19:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This is pretty similar to the text which GD copied above and my comments on that text largely apply here too - wholly negative and US-centric and recentist regarding safety. I strongly oppose mention of the OHSA fines in the lead as they largely apply to just one refinery and this is a single very narrow metric. Metrics could be provided which also suggest BP America has a good safety record over recent years.
The reasons for Deepwater itself are also far more complex than is suggested here with significant factors including contractor and equipment failures and a general failure of the wider industry to develop proper responses to deep water spills (Halliburton oversaw cementing for the well, Transocean owned and operator of the rig, the report stated "The root causes are systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur" etc). A very long Commission report simply cannot be summarised in one or two lines in a neutral fashion.
[23]Rangoon11 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not finding it difficult to summarize. One example: "BP bears ultimate responsibility for the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, a key government panel said Wednesday in a report that assigns more blame to the company than other investigations and could hurt its effort to fend off criminal charges and billions of dollars in penalties. The report concluded that BP violated federal regulations, ignored crucial warnings, was inattentive to safety and made bad decisions during the cementing of the well a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico". See also: New York Times BP Shortcuts Led to Gulf Oil Spill, Report Says" As for the OSHA quotation, there does need to be some understanding given that the amount of accidents and safety violations were enough to warrant investigations, which introduces the next sentence. Though this OSHA stat may not the best way to go. petrarchan47tc 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
(One note on my proposal, this wording was in the "long standing" Lede (scroll down) and is much more accurate, "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence." I would revise my proposal to use this wording instead.) petrarchan47tc 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose as an argumentative and wildly undue change (Greenpeace? A group run by Nader? Come on.) that would remove mention of the significant fact of BP's position on climate change, which counters the common claim about oil companies and climate change. I will say that material about BP's position on climate change should be replaced with some better-sourced and original material since it is just a close paraphrasing of a claim in a BP advertorial, but this fact is definitely worthy of mentioning in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
New proposal
  • BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence.[24][25][26] The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill was named the largest accidental offshore spill in history. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.[27][28][29] petrarchan47tc 20:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC) NOTE: the information in the links needs to be added to the article, and the links would then not appear in the Intro. petrarchan47tc
For comparison and links to sources, my original proposal:
The first sentence,BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. This could apply to almost any major oil company. You have no source that says this applies to BP any more than to any other oil company?
In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US. What about the rest of the world. What about other oil companies? Is there a source which says BP has had more serious incidents worldwide than other oil companies.
The third sentence,A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance. The cited sources do not constitute, 'A series of investigations' The sentence is far too general and vague. Where did BP take these risks? Just in the USA or worldwide? Only one (not very reliable) source suggests that BP was worse than any other oil company. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The standard for inclusion is not whether BP is better or worse than any other oil company, it's whether the incidents are notable and verifiable with reliable sources, and the presentation must maintain a neutral point of view. 149.135.147.22 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
There are other factors to consider also such as due weight and recentism. It is generally accepted that Deepwater have a name check mention in the lead though. And I think there is a reasonable consensus for also stating that Deepwater was "the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters". At the present the issues of debate primarily concern whether and how BP's overall safety record be presented in the lead, and whether and how BP's share of responsibility/factors responsible for Deepwater be presented. My view is that the latter should not be included in the lead, as an analysis there is undue and too complex to be done with any neutrality. It is sufficient to state that 1. BP was involved in Deepwater (or this could be stated "was partly responsible for") and 2. that it was "the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters".Rangoon11 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
So, from your comment above, you seem to be saying that you'd be satisfied with just stating something along the lines of:
And totally leave out any mention of BP's record of corporate responsibility both negative and positive in the lead. Do I understand you correctly? 149.135.147.67 (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I would find that much more acceptable. It is a purely factual report of a very notable event; anything about corporate responsibility must, by its very nature, be comparative. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the new proposal is excellent. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A statement of fact ("BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence") in the Lede, which sums up a good 30% of the article's contents, is perfectly justified by WP:Lede. It does not have to be "the most" or "the biggest bar none" to be included in the Lede. To preface with "Like all major oil companies, (BP has had some accidents while drilling)" is not needed in the Lede and is in fact, a "yeah but" (POV). This statement was included in the Lede for past year and a half, and has a good level of consensus.

The second sentence is again doing what the Lede is meant to do: give the reader an idea of what to expect from the article. In the last 10 years or so, BP grew rapidly from a sluggish company to a very large, lucrative one. They did that by buying up large companies, with America being a focus of growth (I believe) and for reported, well documented accidents and safety violations. I do have references that show the accidents were caused by their cutting costs while ignoring maintenance and skirting safety regulations (and have left them on this talk page). Ergo, we have a period of notable, well documented accidents by BP in the US recently. Reliable sources do support that the number of accidents and safety violations were far more numerous than other oil companies (I left a list of refs for this in the section above). I hear more oil is spilled in Russia each year than the Gulf spill, but if it isn't documented, it will be hard to include in Wikipedia. If BP was extremely or notably safe and wonderful in some way, in some other part of the world, please bring RS and it will be considered for inclusion. The investigations were: a 12 year study by EPA lawyer in charge of overseeing BP, and US governmental investigations spurred by the Gulf spill. I have no problem with a change to the wording. It would be better to specify "An EPA lawyer found", etc. Also, this information has yet to be added to the article, which is in need of updating in more than a few places. I can get to it soon.

If no one is suggesting some form of "BP is the worst oil company" be added to the Lede, we don't need support for it. petrarchan47tc 20:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

First two sentences (criticism and DW accident) of the new proposal are ok. Concerning the last (third) sentence about taking risks, I share concerns described by Martin Hogbin. Beagel (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
In addition to the Presidential Oil Spill Commission findings, and the EPA lawyer's, internal BP reports support the 3rd sentence. Here is a snippet:
"A series of internal investigations over the past decade warned senior BP managers that the oil company repeatedly disregarded safety and environmental rules and risked a serious accident if it did not change its ways.
"The confidential inquiries, which have not previously been made public, focused on a rash of problems at BP's Alaska oil-drilling operations. They described instances in which management flouted safety by neglecting aging equipment, pressured employees not to report problems and cut short or delayed inspections to reduce production costs.
"Similar themes about BP operations elsewhere were sounded in interviews with former employees, in lawsuits and little-noticed state inquiries, and in e-mails obtained by ProPublica. Taken together, these documents portray a company that systemically ignored its own safety policies across its North American operations -- from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico to California and Texas. Executives were not held accountable for the failures, and some were promoted despite them."
I am sorry that my work IRL is keeping me from this project right now, I will find time soon to properly add these findings to the article... petrarchan47tc 04:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like undue weight to me to add these 'findings' to the article. Have you mane an equal effort to find positive reports about BP? How you looked for negative comments about other oil companies? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been attempting to edit the lead since June and Petrarchan since May without any success what so ever, unless it would be considered a success that the lead now mentions the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest spill in history. Now Petrarchan has offered a suggestion that has dropped every one of his inclusions except, "A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance". And still it is being refused! This is not the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. One should always try to not feel angry with other editors but it can be difficult when one feels that some editors are just not playing fair. As far as I can tell, Petrarchan has, after putting untold hours into working on this article, tried everything that has been suggested to move forward to a more reasonable lead. Nothing has happened and at this point I doubt that anything will. In the meantime between now and when the lead is changed to actually reflect the article, I am going to accept Petrarchan's earlier suggestion as the best wording and one that includes the absolute minimum of what should be included. Since it seems that there will be no changes to the lead, I can be satisfied that at least I supported the best possible suggestion. That would be this version:
Here's my slightly more wikified version of that paragraph:

BP has received criticism for its political influence,[9][10][11] price manipulation,[12][13] and greenwashing.[14] In the last decade the company was involved in major accidents in the US including the Texas City Refinery explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest environmental disaster in US history.[15][16][17][18] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor[19] and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventive maintenance.[20][21][22]

The plain URL references need to be fleshed out with authors, titles, works, dates, publishers, accessdates, etc. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
What is the point of this discussion? It has consumed considerable time and involved a number of editors, but two or three on one side are simply ignoring the clear consensus displayed and constantly re-proposing the same rejected text in a slightly modified way? Consensus is not unanimity and we are never going to get unanimity here. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
This paragraph was removed by ‎William M. Connolley with the edit summary of "rv: dailybeast not RS. CNN is, but the story doesn't support the text. As per talk page: you need a few good refs, not loads of bad ones." This is a partial complaint, insufficient to delete the whole thing. First off, the Daily Beast article is reprinted from Newsweek; it was written by respected investigative reporter Michael Isikoff and Newsweek senior editor Michael Hirsch. Yes, the CNN article is insufficient and should be removed. Shall we continue with the rest of the sources? That way we can get down to the kernel and mount a proper paragraph that does not contain PR fluff such as an announcement about climate change. An announcement in the lead section? Surely we restrict the lead section to the most important points, and actions of BP—the results of those actions—will be what is important. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
My assumption was that since the first two sources were bad, the rest would be. I think its incumbent on you, when you're reverting back in contested text, to make sure they're good. Can you put forward a proposal with good refs? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I can. I will do so later today. Let's not see the goalposts repositioned afterward, making my effort for naught. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The issue is not just references, in fact that is a secondary issue. The key points in contention are regarding due weight, recentism and neutrality, as discussed at great length already. I could easily produce a draft which is impeccably sourced which gives a glowing impression of BP's safety and environmental record. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
To Rangoon11: I would note that "clear consensus" which you claim here is contradicted by the fact that the group of "I don't like it" BP-friendly editors have not come up with a compelling argument. It is logic and the weight of sources which should inform consensus, not a bloc of !voters who fail to convince. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Endless relevant arguments have been made as to why a text such as this is inappropriate. You simply ignore them however and then just re-propose the rejected text. And trying to force this text into the article today by edit warring is beyond the pale for me. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Unaware of further talk page discussion, I reverted William F. Connolly. However, even after reading the discussion it seems reasonable to me. Other than the CNN source, they seem to be OK. Furthermore, I certainly have to agree with Binsternet's statement, "Let's not see the goalposts repositioned afterward, making my effort for naught." Again and again on this talk page we have heard from Rangoon that any disagreement with her opinion is just a waste of time. We all value our time and don't like to see it wasted. Hopefully we can all look to WP policy which dictates that the lead give a summary of the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Well it would be normal on a key article big lede change to take a quick peek at the Talk to see what battles are currently underway. :) I would like to hear a little more from William about his difficulties with it, my take is that some of the material is pretty good but I'm not convinced it's all intro-worthy - however, as a general point, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Exxon and other big oil majors are all subject to major controversies concerning not just their environmental records but also political corruption and inolvement in human rights abuses. It may not be NPOV to not include reference to a summary of these in the intros of each article. I note that Royal Dutch Shell doesn't have anything on their serial activities in the murkier zones of forced wars, exploitation and enviro-damage, yet the web contains abundant reference to plentiful examples in all three cases: Shell: [54], BP [55] and Exxon: [56]. It's probably close to censoring to miss this material out in the intro sections. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to see more consistency in the structures of the articles about the misc Big Oil companies (but, I'm not about to do it myself, thats just a hope). As to the "goalposts" stuff: no. Having decent references is a sine qua non, but doesn't of itself make the text acceptable. B offered to propose a text with cleaned-up refs; that seems a reasonable thing to do, and I'll be happy to read it. I'm not at all convinced that the text about political influence can be sustained. The CNN article is irrelevant. Ref #3 [57] is no good either (c'mon, did those who reverted it back in actually read it?). Ref #1 as "daily beast" seems dubious; it might be less dubious as newsweek. However, its all about Deepwater and aftermath, and its just wildly unbalanced since what that showed was BP's lack of influence - after all, the US govt made it clear it was going to ignore the law in going after BP. So, you'll need much better William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It is discouraging that this version has been posted for some time now and you are just getting around to objecting to the references when Binsternet edited it into the article. Are you even reading or taking Petrarchan's suggestions seriously? Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It is discouraging that people are introducing text which contains clearly spurious references. I haven't bothered to check up exactly who originated it, but the CNN ref is - we are all agreed I think - entirely inappropriate. To me, this smacks of people having a conclusion they want to see, and casting about for stuff that looks vaguely like it supports that conclusion. That is a bad way to work. Anyway, B promised us a new cleaned-up version William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary of article body criticism, per WP:LEAD

The WP:LEAD guideline says to summarize all important points covered in the article. If we scan the BP#Environmental record and BP#Political record sections, we can easily support a paragraph in the lead section which says the following:

  • BP has been recently criticized for their environmental record based on toxic releases such as oil spills and the dumping of hazardous substances.
  • BP promotes their involvement in alternate fuel research, but with only 4% of their research budget invested in that direction the company has been accused of greenwashing.
  • BP was fined for safety, environmental and criminal violations such as the Texas City Refinery explosion in 2005, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006, ongoing safety violations and worker fatalities through 2010, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010—the largest accidental marine oil spill in history.
  • BP has given money to elect politicians, and they have lobbied for their political interests such as the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
  • BP pays 47 lobbyists in Washington, DC.
  • BP paid $303 million to end a 2004 charge of market manipulation to monopolize the propane gas market. Subsequent investigations were initiated for similar violations.

Per WP:LEAD, if I write a paragraph containing all that and put it into the lead section, I will not need to cite sources. All of the information is cited in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you think the current wording is? "BP has been involved in several major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters" is a summary. It is just not a long enough or negative enough one for your liking.
There are fundamental issues of neutrality, recentism and balance which need to be respected.
This is not standard factual content such as describing the location of the HQ or the date of foundation, but content which addresses areas of great subjectivity and nuance.
All of your highlighted issues are US-centric and recentist and highly selective. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I chose/selected the largest themes of the critical sections. What you see as "highly selective" is normal summarization. If BP has had a more controversial US presence than global presence, so be it. I'm not going to try and diminish what US observers call the worst or the top ten worst company for this or that metric.
You know, if you or other pro-BP editors were able to effectively write for the opponent there would be a satisfying conclusion to all this bickering. Instead, the disproportionate rah-rah tone you consistently defend has created a battleground atmosphere. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
If you could drop the "pro-BP" nonsense, that would be great, and would lead to a happier atmosphere on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
You are a multifaceted editor with objectivity. Some others are not. Binksternet (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Binksternet it is highly regrettable that you are now resorting to edit warring to try to force your preferred changes to the lead, despite your being well aware not just that there is an ongoing discussion here (and an open RfC), but that in a very long series of discussion there has been no consensus for the type of crude attack content which you are seeking to add.
What exactly are you hoping to achieve? The next time you attempt this I will request the article be locked from editing. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
"Regrettable" is in the eye of the beholder. I thought it was regrettable that a very widely observed and commented-upon phenomenon—the Browne era of cost-cutting and risky ventures resulting in a terrible safety and environmental record (which continued after Browne left)—was not being told to the reader. I wish to bring a sense of balance and completion to the article. Such a completion involves bringing in the investigative work of journalists from ABC, CBS, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and so on. It's your personal choice to call these fine sources "crude". Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The sources are OK, if all rather narrowly focused. It was their attempted use which was so crude.
I think that there is general agreement that both the Accidents and Environmental record sections require proper overviews of BP's record in those areas in the round. I propose that we focus efforts there rather than on the lead as at present people are trying to summarise something which doesn't actually exist in the article except in recentist laundry-list form.
In view of the contentious and highly complex nature of the issues the texts should in my firm view be developed on this page prior to being added in the article. I will start new Talk page sections shortly.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It is not recentism to describe a problem that began in 1995, continues through recent events, and has resulted in many millions of dollars of fines for huge toxic spills. I focused on the lead section because it did not meet the WP:LEAD guideline; it did not summarize the extensive criticism leveled at BP for more than a dozen years. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
You are clearly wanting to use this article to promote as fact your opinion that Browne took over as CEO, immediately ordered drastic cuts in safety expenditure, and that those drastic cuts directly caused the Texas City and Deepwater accidents. Apart from being factually incorrect, and not supported by evidence, you seem unable to grasp that this is an opinion. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
That fact is noted in countless articles, how it can be called an opinion is beyond me. I ran into it over and over. If it shows up in RS, then it can be added to the article. Full stop. petrarchan47tc 02:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"My opinion"? That's rich. I did not even know who John Browne was before a couple of days ago... I don't have any sort of ulterior motive or pre-existing opinion on the matter. I don't eat and sleep BP; I just read reliable sources. I found Browne's name repeatedly mentioned in reliable sources regarding BP's abominable safety and environmental record, the sources agreeing that Browne caused the downward slide in BP's practices beginning in 1995. The "factually incorrect" text I added is a summary of five national news articles from five publishers. I see a consensus on the supposed "opinion" about Browne taking BP down. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
So your knowledge of this topic is so completely lacking that you did not know who Browne was until a couple of days ago, yet have for a considerable period prior been participating in discussing complex issues regarding this article, and making extreme comments such as "BP is the most unhealthy oil company" (sic). You seem to have some fairly major competence issues, to go with your incivil, accusatory and edit warring tendencies. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm proud to say that I am a fresh viewpoint here, that I have been looking at the sources since June 21 but not before. I have looked at the sources and seen what they say; I don't have an entrenched position. I am about as neutral as it gets, here. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
You have been looking at sources since June 21 but only now discover who Browne is? You are making yourself look increasingly ludicrous. "I don't have an entrenched position" - yet you have made extreme comments on this page such as "BP is the most unhealthy oil company" and have tried to add all manner of crude attack content about Browne to the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to disagree about what my skills are. Prior to writing the Featured Article Port Chicago disaster I had never heard of the event. Prior to writing the Featured Article Henry Edwards (entomologist) I had never heard of the guy. Prior to writing the Featured Article Santa Maria de Ovila I had only casually wondered what all those carved stones were doing scattered in the weeds at Golden Gate Park. I'm a quick study; I am good at summarizing reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia is all about. On June 21 at DRN I looked at this BP dispute, checked out the sources under discussion and quickly zeroed in on the problem. I determined the larger problem was Rangoon11 and, to a lesser degree, other editors preventing negative but very prominently reported information from staying in the article. My first entry to this dispute was me identifying you as the main problem, so of course I can understand that you now oppose anything I bring here. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The following paragraph change appeared to be an improvement, but has been reverted, with a demand to discuss the changes here under this RfC. Present paragraph:

BP has been involved in several major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters.[15] In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change.[23]

Contested paragraph:

In 1997 BP became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change.[24]
Since the management and operational changes implemented in the mid-1990s, BP has been criticised for their environmental record based on toxic releases such as oil spills and the dumping of hazardous substances. BP promote their involvement in alternate fuel research, but with only 4% of their research budget invested in that direction the company has been accused of greenwashing. BP were fined for safety, environmental and criminal violations such as the Texas City Refinery explosion in 2005, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006, ongoing safety violations and worker fatalities through 2010, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010—the largest accidental marine oil spill in history. The company has given money to elect politicians, and they have lobbied for their political interests such as the release of the Lockerbie bomber; they have 47 lobbyists focused on the United States Congress.

The new paragraph summarizes criticical content from the body of the article while maintaining previous information. Are there specific objections to to this? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping into this discussion (haven't looked at it since the first time I commented), I think that's a reasonable paragraph. I would leave out the last sentence though - a lot of big companies spend on lobbying and it's not clear to me that BP's should be considered especially important. I would also replace "fined for safety, environmental and criminal violations" with "responsible for," which is established by the fact that they were fined, and that also avoids any potential contention over the word "criminal." Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The draft text is very similar to previous texts which have been proposed and rejected and raises many of the same objections, although in a few ways this text is actually even worse. It directly links management and operational changes in the mid-1990s with incidents a decade or more later like Texas City (2005), the Prudhoe Bay oil spill of 2006 and Deepwater Horizon (2010). This is an opinion, and a very narrow and highly debateable one. Each of those incidents had complex causing factors, each highly different.
The text is completely US-centric. Over 2/3rd of BPs operations are outside of the US, but the text almost exclusively addresses the US.
The text is recentist, focusing on a five year time frame for safety.
It is highly selective in terms of information given, giving only information which is perceived to be negative (even the mention of investment in renewables is merely done in a way in which to make an attack on BP). It is so selective and one sided as to be in essence attack-content.
It gives absolutely no context in terms of comparing BP's safety and environmental record to either peers or industry averages. Not even in the US, let alone worldwide.
"The company has given money to elect politicians, and they have lobbied for their political interests ...they have 47 lobbyists focused on the United States Congress" - so what? Again this is wholly US-centric. It is also something which applies to most major companies with activities in the US. It is a reflection of America's broken democracy.
Beyond those fundamental issues with the draft it is also badly written and has factual errors. For example it starts off "Since the management and operational changes implemented in the mid-1990s", without explaining what these are but written as if they have already been mentioned.
"but with only 4% of their research budget invested in that direction" is fundamentally wrong. I think that what is meant here is perhaps 4% of capital expenditure.
"dumping of hazardous substances" - presumably this refers to dumping, not by BP but by a BP contractor, in Alaska in 1993 to 1995. BP's involvement was in failing to report the dumping when it learned of the conduct. Coverage of this incident in the lead is again undue and selective, but also contextless and misleading.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon11's complaints are invalid. Many observers link past and present disasters to BP's corporate culture, a culture instituted by CEO John Browne and continued, probably unwillingly, by his replacements. See Talk:BP#BLP concerns regarding Browne material for an extensive list of sources connecting BP's culture of cost-cutting to the various disasters. The Amerocentricity quality of the criticism is perfectly apt: BP's American projects are its most infamous violators of safety and health codes. The negative cast given to BP's very small focus on renewables is perfectly appropriate; even John Browne says in his memoirs that the "Beyond Petroleum" greenwash turned out to be a load of hypocrisy. Many other observers also note that BP's minor focus on alternative energy was but a tiny flyspeck compared to its petroleum business, and that corporate PR to the contrary was a smokescreen. If the paragraph gave any comparison between BP and its competitors then BP would end up looking worse: there's the 760 "egregious, willful" violations of safety and health codes that OSHA found, compared to a total of 19 such violations by all of BP's competitors combined. The 4% number is taken from cited article text, so as a lead section paragraph the article is suitably represented by that number. (If the number is wrong or the context is wrong then change the article body text.) BP's choice of putting contractors in charge of its dirtiest jobs has been noticed by multiple reliable sources, so the Alaska dumping cannot be separated from BP's culture of cost-cutting coming before safety. I think the paragraph is good to go. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Your attitude is repeatedly showing an editor unwilling to listen, to discuss, to respond properly to points made by other editors and to reach proper consensus. This text is in no way "good to go". It is wholly unacceptable and is very close to text which has been opposed by multiple editors in very lengthy discussions on the lead. This text is even less balanced and more attack-style than those rejected drafts so is even less likely to be acceptable to those multiple editors.
This draft represents a highly selective (and inaccurate) use of information to form what amounts to nothing less than attack content. WP is not here to provide a soapbox platform for crude anti-BP campaigning. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
You say "opposed by multiple editors" but I see opposition, led by you, based on entrenched pro-BP positions rather than opposition based on any of Wikipedia's guidelines. What we have under discussion above is a fairly good representation of the WP:LEAD guideline, offering a summary of negative material that is found down in the article body. Could the text be tweaked slightly? Sure. Should the text be deleted in its entirety? Certainly not! I see opposition based on "I don't like it" which does not cut it at Wikipedia. Your continued refusal to include high quality and reliably sourced but negative news articles is astounding. From my first contact with this article two months ago I saw that it would be better for the article's development if you were not involved. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Binksternet's final comment. petrarchan47tc 07:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I agree with Rangoon11. "WP is not here to provide a soapbox platform for crude anti-BP campaigning." I have no strong feelings about BP. Based on only recently coming to the article, my impression is strongly that there are a couple of editors trying to unbalance the article towards criticism in a way which is completely inappropriate and outside WP guidelines. It looks like it may have been happening for a little while. Undue weight is being given all over the place to even minor negative comments with poor sources. This bias is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article about one of the world's largest multinationals. I suggest the two editors who appear to have strong personal feelings about BP stand back and wider participation is invited to try to balance the article. --BozMo talk 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "there are a couple of editors trying to unbalance the article towards criticism in a way which is completely inappropriate and outside WP guidelines" --BozMo
Could I ask you to substantiate that comment about editors? I've reviewed recent edits, and it appears to me that editors are trying to balance the article in accordance with WP guidelines by incorporating missing encyclopedic information, which directly contradicts your observation. I would like to know what specific comments or edits indicate to you a desire to "unbalance" the article; I seem to be missing it. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I am patiently awaiting the same from Bozmo. Coming in late could give one an incomplete view of the situation here. I suggest again, newcomers should consider reading this entire talk page as well as the prior 2 or 3 archives dating back to May 2012. petrarchan47tc 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wagner, Caroline (2008). The New Invisible College: Science for Development. Brookings Institution Press.
  2. ^ Dixon, Darius (7 August 2012). "Obama administration moving on seven renewable energy projects". Retrieved 27 August 2012.
  3. ^ Pearce, Jeannie (1 August 2012). "Is Chevron The Right Stock For Your Portfolio?". Seeking Alpha. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
  4. ^ Kemp, Danny (16 September 2010). "BP boss defends safety record to British MPs". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
  5. ^ Monbiot, George (13 June 2006). "Behind the spin, the oil giants are more dangerous than ever (column)". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
  6. ^ Veneziani, Vince (2 June 2010). "BP's Horrible Safety Record: It's Got 760 OSHA Fines, Exxon Has Just 1". Business Insider. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
  7. ^ Pearce, Fred (20 November 2008). "Greenwash: BP and the myth of a world 'Beyond Petroleum'". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
  8. ^ Lomax, Alyce (1 August 2012). "Now this is a worthwhile investment idea". Daily Finance. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
  9. ^ [1]
  10. ^ [2]
  11. ^ [3]
  12. ^ [4]
  13. ^ [5]
  14. ^ [6]
  15. ^ a b "Gulf Spill Is the Largest of Its Kind, Scientists Say". New York: New York Times. 2 August 2010. Retrieved 24 August 2012.
  16. ^ [7]
  17. ^ [8]
  18. ^ [9]
  19. ^ [10]
  20. ^ [11]
  21. ^ [12]
  22. ^ [13]
  23. ^ "BP tackles climate change threat with £200m boost for energy efficiency". London: The Telegraph. 25 October 2005. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
  24. ^ "BP tackles climate change threat with £200m boost for energy efficiency". London: The Telegraph. 25 October 2005. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BP/Archive_5&oldid=1136543129"