Talk:BP/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Updates based on BP full year results

On Tuesday, BP announced its Quarter 4 and full year 2012 results, which provide new figures for a few of the details in the article's infobox. Not all of the financial information in the infobox is included in these results, however I intend to provide updates for the remaining figures when the company's 2012 Annual Report is released.

For the infobox a couple of financial figures can be updated with information from the 4th Quarter and full year results announced. I have provided new figures and citations below:

• Revenue: US$ 383.57 billion (2012)

• Total equity: US$ 119.62 billion (2012)

References

Would someone be able to make these updates?

I've also noticed that the Financial data section in the article has not been kept up to date, if others think that this should be retained and updated, I can look at filling in the information for the missing years. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made these updates and if you have some more updated financial data, please do post it here. --Drm310 (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for making these changes, Drm310. It would also be helpful to get your feedback on a suggested restructure of the "Environmental record" and "Accidents" sections, if you have time to take a look. You can read the discussion so far, here and see the proposed structure in draft form here. The discussion has come to a stop right now, so I would really appreciate your thoughts and see if we can come to a resolution. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Caspian Sea

I removed the paragraph about the Caspian incident added recently without any discussion. Reasons for this are:

• We already have a separate subsection about the incident under the heading '2008 Caspian Sea gas leak and blowout'. It is immediatly under the above mentioned paragraph.
• The issue why saying that BP covered up is incorrect has been discussed here at the talk page several times. Relevant discussion are [Talk:BP/Archive_2#Caspian_Sea_blowout here] and [here].

Beagel (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

To follow up what Beagel says above, after the incorrect details were removed some changes were made to the existing Caspian Sea section that have introduced some new wording. I would like to ask for other editors to review this wording and adjust it, as they feel necessary, since I believe it introduces POV into the section.

The section originally stated:

According to US Embassy cables, BP had been "exceptionally circumspect in disseminating information" and revealed that BP thought the cause for the blowout was a bad cement job.

It now reads:

According to US Embassy cables, BP had been "exceptionally circumspect in disseminating information" In January 2009, BP blamed a bad cement job as the cause for the incident. The Guardian noted a striking resemblance with the later oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Guardian note is completely new and essentially anachronistic, since there could be no comparison with Deepwater Horizon at the time. This wording also makes the comparison between the events without explaining why the two were thought by the Guardian to be similar events, and seems to imply that the Caspian Sea event had a greater impact than it actually did.

Secondly, the wording about the potential reason for the leak now does not seem neutral. To say "BP blamed" sounds as though an excuse was being made, rather than that BP had been looking into the cause and stated they believed it to be the cement. Please can other editors here look at these two changes in wording and adjust or remove them? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case "blamed" is not a weasel word and I see no problem with its use. Re your other issue, it seems plain enough to me. The comparison is being made at the time that the information becomes available. If you feel that it needs further explanation, I suppose a few more words could be added.Gandydancer (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I saw that you've made a few changes in the section, and I'd like to expand on my points from above. "Blamed" is a value-laden word and describes an action where one seeks to deflect criticism elsewhere, which implies a motivation on the part of BP that the source does not indicate. Meanwhile, I still feel that it's confusing or even misleading to say that a "striking resemblance" was noted between the two events when they were so different and had such different outcomes. As the section explains, the Caspian Sea incident was a leak at a gas well, the platform was evacuated and there was no loss of life or environmental damage, whereas Deepwater Horizon was an oil well, there was an explosion and a large oil spill that resulted. To include a line in the Caspian Sea section that implies the two are similar is very misleading. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the section has been changed and blamed is no longer used, nor is the Guardian note still in there, unless i'm missing something. Has this concern been fixed? Silverseren^C 05:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Silverseren, thank you for replying here. Yes, the problematic wording has been removed. I do think there is too much detail taken from the WikiLeaks-leaked U.S. cable, which I don't believe to be accurate, especially since it is contradicted by the news articles from the time showing that BP reported the event, but I'll have to look into this further to see if there are sources that refute the accuracy of the cable specifically. In the meantime, if you are able to, I have proposed an accurate version of the Prudhoe Bay section of this article that has had limited feedback so far. I have explained further the problems with the current section in the request below. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Subsections

I saw a request about BP at COIN.[1] This article and the proposed draft has way too many subsections. The trouble with creating a significant number of subsections is that is severs the information from context so as to give more importance to the subsection information than the collective of reliable source information would suggest. It also diminishes the importance to other issues given by the collective of reliable source information. It further creates a situation where Wikipedia editors do not have to make the hard choices of what to include in the article to present a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature such that the article grows in size almost without bounds. To me, the accidents are part of BPs history and should be intertwined at least with its history. There is no actual 2013 "record" specifying BPs environmental record so it does not make sense to have a main subsection dedicated to environmental record in the same way you might create a corporate affairs main subsection to describe BPs present corporate affairs. BPs environmental record is part of its history just like other information that takes place over time. BPs present environmental policies intertwined with criticisms of those policies could be its own subsection. In general, criticism should be intertwined with what actually is being criticized to provide context, which this articles seems to do. To move this article forward, I think you need to first come to an agreement on the subsections. Once you have a good article structure, you then can determine what of the existing text and other text should be included in those subsections and what should be put in a spinout article/summary style so that the article stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rather than relying on the above opinion, a good way to figure out what subsection to create is to look over all the articles in Category:FA-Class company articles and Category:GA-Class company articles and try to create a heading structure for the BP article that follows a survey those articles subsections as tailored to the BP topic itself. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking in Category:FA-Class company articles and Category:GA-Class company articles, it seems that there is no unified structure of sections. There is no FA-Class articles about oil companies and there is only one GA-Class oil company article (Gulf Oil). There is only on FA_Class articles about big multinational company (Microsoft). All these articles have different structure but the common issue is that there are only second and third level headings (sections and subsections) but no fourth level headings (subsections of subsections). My conclusion, supported by the opinion of Uzma Gamal above, is that it would be better do not fragment the body text too much and we should avoid going behind the third level headings. There is no 'Controversies' or 'Critics' sections for Gulf Oil. In the case of Microsoft there is a summary section called 'Criticism', which summarizes Criticism of Microsoft article (the latest seems to be in quite a bad shape). It has also a separate section called 'Corporate affairs' which has subsections such as 'Financial', 'Environment', 'Marketing', and 'Logo'. Maybe this could serve as an example but in this case it still needs some modifications. Beagel (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that we really have agree the structure of sections/subsections. Otherwise it would be very hard to achieve balanced article. Any suggestions based on the structure of Category:FA-Class company articles and Category:GA-Class company articles. I believe this article has potential to achieve GA and FA status and I hope this would be our common target. Probably we should ask a peer review ot invite editors mainly dealing with preparation of GA/FA articles. Beagel (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Environmental record overview

The Environmental record section currently begins with a handful of facts, from various dates, that do not give a full overview of the company's environmental record over its recent history. In particular, there is no comparison of BP's performance against that of other oil companies, which may be helpful to readers. I have written a new draft for this section, which I would like to propose here and ask for other editors to review. The draft aims to provide more information on BP's overall environmental record over the last few decades, including mention of major incidents, in order to provide an introduction to the Environmental record section as a whole.

While my draft adds much detail, there are two pieces of information I have removed: the 1991 EPA mention and the Multinational Monitor listing among the worst companies in 2001 and 2005. The exclusion of these is due to my reliance on third-party sources to identify what information is important to include about BP's record. I did not find secondary sources discussing either. It is possible such a source exists, but I was unable to find one for either.

The draft is in my user pages here: User:Arturo at BP/Environmental record

Please can editors review the draft and make any changes to it in my user pages. As I have suggested before, keeping all discussion of the draft here would be best so that it is easy for everyone to follow. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this draft just meant to replace the beginning part of the Environmental record section, as a sort of intro? Silverseren^C 20:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, here is a source for the 1991 EPA thing and here and here are sources for the Multinational Monitor thing. Silverseren^C 20:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver seren, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't insert this. I've noticed editors simply slotting in what Arturo writes, including large sections, which means that BP is writing the article about itself, without this being signalled to the reader in any way. The environmental record section could certainly use some improvement, but having BP write it is not a good way to proceed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that's fair. There is quite a lot of scrutiny and discussion and the editors who put the text in satisfy themselves it is an improvement. --BozMo talk 20:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence of that BozMo. Checking large sections like this (making sure the text reflects the tone and content of the sources, and that no key sources have been omitted) is a lot of work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't care whatsoever about who is writing the information. I only care that the information is neutral and shows all relevant sides. Caring about the person and not the information actually makes you biased. Silverseren^C 21:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You're within your rights not to care, but you're not the only reader we have. I think at least some readers would care that BP had written its own article, so in their interests it ought not to be happening. No other encyclopaedia or news organization would allow this; if a newspaper did offer BP a slot to respond to something, they would never hide from their readers that BP had written it by adding a journalist's name to BP's text. If you wouldn't support other publications doing this, please don't support Wikipedia doing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The moment we start caring about who is writing the information is the moment we stop becoming the encyclopedia anyone can edit, as we would then care about who actually is editing. The whole point of Wikipedia is that we care about the neutrality and reliability of the information and that is all. That is how we remain neutral. If there is something wrong with the information that is being presented, then feel free to point it out. Otherwise, there shouldn't be an issue with implementing it. Silverseren^C 21:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this is new WP method of dealing with corporate articles--have a paid editor write it up and ask a paid editor advocate to post it? Silverseren says, " If there is something wrong with the information that is being presented, then feel free to point it out...Otherwise, there shouldn't be an issue with implementing it". Isn't it supposed to be the other way around where we write the articles and the corporate interests and their advocates point the issues out to us, the non-paid Wikipedia workers? Aren't we the ones that are thought to be more likely to be unbiased than the paid editors? I am quite serious when I say that if this is where the 'pedia is at I'll just turn in my badge. Gandydancer (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A similar case gave rise to a legal decision in Germany that edits like this amount to covert advertising, because readers cannot be expected to search through talk pages to find the company's connection to the text. There was also an Advertising Standards Authority ruling in the UK involving Twitter, where tweets by footballers had been agreed with a sponsor without alerting readers to the relationship; the ASA said those tweets violated its code. I don't know to what extent, if at all, those decisions would apply here. But it certainly seems unethical for BP to be writing its own article on an independent website, without alerting the reader to its involvement, and unethical of Wikipedia to be allowing it. So the editors facilitating this are arguably doing neither BP nor Wikipedia any favours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT Slim Virgin, the reason the environmental section may look a little ragged is that working on this article has been one of the most hellish experiences imaginable. It took many months to even get a mention of the Gulf oil spill into the lead. I think the efforts to attempt to make the article less than a glowing report of how environmentally concerned BP was started on about page #3 and just dragged on and on. If you've ever worked on an article where you just almost get afraid to touch it because you know that almost endless uproar will begin, that is what this article has been like.

You mentioned editors just approving of Arturo's work and you may have been speaking of me in a critical fashion. I actually was pretty familiar with that section as I worked on it a long time ago and it was not hard to once again familiarize myself. I thought his summary was fair and if I didn't think that I would have said so.

As for the new section that he has written, Silverseren, who has done no work on this article as far as I know, should not be here giving a sermon about how the new section will replace what we've got unless we can find something wrong with it. Gandydancer (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I definitely wasn't referring to you. I've seen two editors insert material word-for-word for BP, not you. I haven't looked through all the archives; I should probably do that before commenting again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Look through the old stuff at your own risk! Editor Petrarchan did a lot of the work but, poor thing, I think s/he finally just had a nervous breakdown or something. I haven't seen her around for quite a while. Gandydancer (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Silverseren wrote on Arturo's talk page: I would suggest you just focus on answering my questions and ignore them. I'll also make sure to get some outside editors to review the sections before implementation so there isn't a problem. SilverserenC 07:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC). So you see, this is what we have come to. When I think how many hours I have put into this article it is heartbreaking to think that editors that have not put anything at all into it can come and push through anything they want. In just a few years we shall have the very best Wikipedia that money can buy. Gandydancer (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I think you misunderstand the purpose of WP. This article is not intended to be a forum on everything bad that we can dig up on the company, neither is it meant to be a promotional vehicle for the company, it is intended to be an encyclopedia article on the company as a whole.

There is no fundamental reason why someone with a declared COI should not contribute to the article. If any material added is overly promotional of BP, I can assure you that you will have my support, and no doubt that of many others, in removing it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, could you please provide concrete examples where the text suggested by Arturo here at the talk page and after review inserted by other editors violates NPOV? If there are that kind of things, lets discuss and fix them. All these proposals have been notified here at the talk page and been open for all editors to propose/make their changes before making changes in the article. Unfortunately the interest to contribute is not very high, so definitely all constructive contributions are more than welcome. Concerning Arturo's contributions, they are in line with our COI policy. This is not only my opinion but was also said by another editor at the COI notice board [2]. Of course, policies could be changed if there is a consensus for this but that needs more centralized venue for discussion than just this talk page. Beagel (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beagel, going through the draft, and making sure that the sources chosen are the sources uninvolved editors would have chosen, would be a great deal of work. Alarm bells go off when I see that it starts with: "In the 1990s and 2000s, BP has had a mixed environmental record ..." [3] A quick scan of the NYT archives shows (this is just a small sample):

• Matthew L. Wald, "BP Says It Will Address Safety and Legal Problems", The New York Times, July 27, 2006.
• Julia Werdigier, "Chief's Bonus Is Cut at BP; Safety Issues Cited as Factor", The New York Times, March 7, 2007.
• Jad Mouawad, "For BP, a History of Spills and Safety Lapses", The New York Times, May 8, 2010.
• Joe Nocera, "BP Ignored the Omens of Disaster", The New York Times, June 18, 2010.
• Sarah Lyall, "In BP’s Record, a History of Boldness and Costly Blunders", The New York Times, July 12, 2010.
• Ginia Bellafante, "Above It All: Tracing BP’s Imperious History", The New York Times, October 25, 2010.

Bellafante's article says: "As 'The Spill,' a documentary that is a joint presentation of “Frontline” and ProPublica, so compellingly details, the company’s history of flagrantly violating safety standards made lethal personal injuries and horrific accidents practically inevitable. ... 'The Spill' travels back, looking at BP’s bleak environmental and safety record ..."

Is a "mixed environmental record" the best way to describe this coverage? I think because of the work involved in making sure such a section reflects the content and tone of mainstream coverage, it shouldn't be written by the company itself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any complimentary coverage of the company anywhere? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

have ther been any similarly critical articles on other oil companies? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about other companies. I haven't found any complimentary coverage of their safety record so far. The PBS documentary can be watched here, and apparently recounts views of the company's environmental record and the reasons for it, so it might be a good source to use as a reflection of mainstream opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oil companies are involved in the polluting extraction and consumption of a depleting resource. They are all heavily criticized whatever they do. --BozMo talk 11:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read through all the comments above and would like to answer the questions raised about the draft.

1. This is intended as an introduction to the Environmental record section and would replace the collection of facts at the beginning of this section. As I mentioned above, right now the whole Environmental record section begins with a few facts that appear randomly selected and do not give an overview of the company's record over time.
2. I notice that the sources SlimVirgin mentions above mainly focus on BP's safety record, so I would like to clarify that the draft is only for the Environmental record and does not include BP's safety record, which seems to be covered elsewhere and has been part of a larger discussion on reorganizing the article.
3. To respond to whether sources mention that BP's record is mixed, the following sources support that statement:

• Bloomberg, 2008
• Time, 2006
• BBC, 2009
• The New York Times, 2002

Each of these sources mention BP's positive environmental efforts in the late 1990s and early 2000s, including being the first oil company to leave the Global Climate Coalition and its investment in renewable energy, which they contrast with criticism of the company. Also, the draft is intended to provide a chronological overview of the company's record over the last two decades, so the "mixed record" refers to the 1990s and 2000s, prior to the heavy criticism in the press following the Prudhoe Bay and Texas City incidents, and later the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As you'll see in the draft, it does include a detailed account of this criticism.

What I have tried to do here is to give an account of the overall record for the company, something that is missing in the article right now, since the Environmental record section is just a collection of individual incidents and criticisms. As ever, I am open to changes in wording and addition of sources, and invite other editors to review and make such changes they feel are necessary. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Old RfC closure

I have closed an old RfC; see Talk:BP/Archive_8#Request_for_comment. Or not--neither my close nor the discussion are very deep or exciting. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#BP_and_large_company_editing_in_general

Note that this should be about the issues raised here - not the behavior of any individual editor. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Balance issues

I'm at a disadvantage here as I know very little about BP. But I know how to construct a Wikipedia article, and what strikes me here is the imbalance that's apparent in the weight given to certain issues.

An article like this has to be presented summary-style, because the subject matter is too large for one page. So you have separate articles for each issue over a certain length, or for each issue of particular significance, and you summarize the key points on those pages (or the key points that should be on them) in summary-style sections on this page.

This has been done here only in certain areas. The history section is 25 paragraphs and 2276 words long, and should definitely be split off. There are a few subjects where it's important to keep the history in the main article, because sometimes understanding the history is needed to understand anything that follows it. But that's not the case here, so that section needs to be moved to its own article.

Compare the history section with the two-paragraph 336-word section on the Deepwater Horizon spill (which has been presented summary-style), the largest environmental disaster to have occurred in the United States. That short section is summarizing four articles. Compare it with the six-paragraph 309-word section about BP's environmental initiatives, the first section in the environmental record section. Or the section on corporate affairs, with the list of officers in the middle of the article (against the advice of the MoS), and the four paragraph 509-word section on stock.

It's clear from this glance that the balance of the article needs to be improved. As a start, I'd suggested moving the history, moving the list of corporate officers to the end, or removing it entirely (actually I see Beagel has just done the latter, so that's a good start), then providing a detailed summary of each summary-style sub-article. Doing just those few things should introduce more balance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a History of BP or History of British Petroleum article would be a fine addition to the wiki, and that the history section here could be trimmed back. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That does seem to be a reasonable suggestion, though a major company that has been around for a century should still have a large history section even if there is a more detailed sub-article, indeed there could be multiple sub-articles to cover such a company's history. I would say it would also be reasonable to split off an article about BP's environmental record and accidents. As for the notion that how much coverage is given to a century's worth of history can be reasonably compared to how much is given to a single incident, no matter how severe, I am not convinced. If anything we have too much detail on Deepwater Horizon, given that this is not the main article for that incident and it is covered in several articles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The history until 1954 could me trimmed easily as this period is covered by Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. For the period on 1954–1998 History of British Petroleum seems to be an option. I am not so sure about the recent history but it depends the overall amount of this article and balance between different sections. As of different incidents, most of them has their own articles. It is even more important to find consensus what the structure of this article (and particularly structure of the environment/accidents section should be. Right know this is fragmented between several subsections which are all alone standing stories and therefore oversized with details which are not the issue of this article. Beagel (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't split the history up, because it's only just over 2,000 words. It can be carried over to History of BP, and within that article there can be summary-style sections to other articles, if appropriate. That's how it's normally done, so that you have ever-increasing specialization, but not at the expense of the parent article, where the material should be summarized in full. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

One thing we should do is to look at all oil supermajors articles so that we can achieve some level of consistency. One thing we should not do is to try to make points by volume of text. If an editor thinks BP is 'the worst company in the world', the way to deal with that is to find a good quality independent reliable source which says that, then we can say that in the article. If there is no source saying that then we cannot say it here and we should not try to imply it by bulking out the bad points in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The danger with comparing this to other articles is that you might stumble on others that have the same problems. There aren't that many company FAs; perhaps there are GAs we can look at. I'll see if I can find some.

But it isn't a question of bulking anything out with good or bad. It's a question of being educated about the source material, then reflecting what it says. It involves a lot of background reading, which is time-consuming but there's no way round it. I take the point that some editors have made: this is an old company, please don't reflect only the last 10 years. That's a fair point. I've worked on a lot of contentious articles where I've had to take the "point of view of the universe," and not the point of view of the last five minutes. But what has happened here has gone too far in the other direction, so I think it does need to be pulled back into the middle zone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A company that has been in existence since 1901 and not been ah politically insignificant for much of that time period and you want to shorten the history section? this seems at best questionable.©Geni 05:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the fact that the history section covering the past three years is just as long as the section covering a decade or three decades or seven. That seems rather off. Recency definitely seems to be an issue in the article and this should be properly balanced. Silverseren^C 07:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerns About Accuracy of Information

An article alleges that some irresponsible editors are allowing BP to greenwash its own page. Who is in charge and what is being done to prevent this abstraction of the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T2bp (talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The material that has been suggested by a BP employee covers positive and negative material regarding the company's history. I would say it could use some tinkering and there was an attempt at discussion of the material. Unfortunately, that discussion has been sidelined in favor of some editors looking to cry foul over the BP employee's very involvement. Reality is that BP has been involved more than most other oil companies in advocating alternative energy and supporting climate change research, being a leader on these fronts in many respects. Some editors have been persistent in trying to minimize that positive aspect of BP, even though it has been a very prominent aspect of the company's history, activities, and public relations (remember the "Beyond Petroleum" ads?). For those of us interested in creating a neutral, quality encyclopedia article it does not matter who gets involved, so long as the final result is acceptable. Were the proposals seriously out of line I do not think they would be added to the article and nothing I have seen indicates these proposals are inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm having trouble squaring "product, not process" with WP:WIP, as "work-in-progress" seems to suggest that there is no "end product" per se. Perhaps you can clarify?

I'm more familiar with CoI issues within medicine, and if process didn't matter, you'd think that physicians as a whole would jump at the chance to incorporate drug company information into mainstream medicine. That isn't universally the case, though -- plenty of people, e.g. Ben Goldacre, point to the process, and the perversion of it, as the thing that produces bad outcomes, by changing the way we evaluate what constitutes a "good" or "bad" outcome. Interested in your take on this, as you seem to take a fairly pro-paid-editor position.

(maybe this belongs at the WT:COI page, if so feel free to copy my question and respond there.)-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 06:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

My point is just that, if the edit made to the article complies with the policy then there should be no cause for concern about who initiated the process.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question, who's in charge of allowing that abstraction of the truth "news" article to be written? Less reliable than Fox News, really. Maybe you should actually look into things yourself without listening to bloggers that have a grudge against Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 07:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The news article quoted shows exactly why we should not be basing our encyclopedia on news articles. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism by detail, juxtaposition, and innuendo

I understand the concern that has been expressed about allowing a BP representative to propose wording for the article but we should be more concerned about the way in which anti-BP editors are adding details to the article in an unencyclopedic manner to promote an anti-BP POV.

Here are some recent examples from the Prudhoe Bay oil spill section.

An editor added, 'The underground pipe leaked for five days before it was discovered', which I toned down to, '...led to a five day leak...'. My question is this. What is the purpose of giving this detail? There must be hundreds of detailed figures that could be given about this incident. From the original wording it was clearly meant to imply that BP had taken far too long to detect the leak. I have no idea whether that is true or not but, if it is, we should find a reliable source which actually says that and then add something like, 'BP was criticised for the excessive time taken to detect the leak' but if there is no quality (not a news article - see above) source which says that, we should say nothing.

In the same section we have, 'According to a Department of Justice report, maintenance devices called "pigs" had not been run through the oil transit lines since 1998, even though standard industry practice is to run such devices as often as monthly'. This statement was produced from a news agency report on the subject. The clear implication is that on the Prudhoe Bay pipeline, by normal industry standards, BP should have run pigs once a month but, in fact, had not run one for 8 years. Even the news report does not actually say that and the true situation regarding the appropriate frequency of pigging in those particular circumstances is not know. Oddly enough the best information on this could probably be had on this subject would be from our BP representative here.

We already have the important factual content, written in an encyclopedic manner as, 'The government's investigation into the spill disclosed that cost cutting measures had resulted in a lapse in monitoring and maintenance of the pipeline'. This is how a reputable encyclopedia would leave things. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct the matter of the guilty pleas

For some unknown reason the matter of the November guilty pleas by BP and the fines paid was completely misleading in the article. I have corrected it. If you have any questions, just check the sources. The NYTimes article (top of the 2nd page) is especially clear. If anybody is wondering about whether I have a conflict of interest, I've been mentioned in at least 2 recent articles on BP-Wikipedia, but am a completely independent editor. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Rangoon11 reverted the edit telling me to use the talk page (where is his discussion?) The version before my edit (Rangoon's version) is just flat out wrong. BP was not indicted in November - they pleaded guilty - 14 counts in total 11-felony manslaughter, 2 misdemeanors, 1 felony lying to Congress. All you have to do is read the sources. I won't edit-war on this but ask a neutral editor to read the sources and decide which is the correct version - mine clearly is. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with changing it to pleading guilty, but there's really no need for the level of detail you had in there, especially when the lede is meant to be a summary of the article. Silverseren^C 23:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the material in the lede was excessive as is most of the Deepwater Horizon material in the lede. On another note,I also find the mentioning of the various employees charged to be excessive, something that has apparently been there a while.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I just put in the facts and removed a clear falsehood, expanding a 4 line paragraph to 5 lines. There are no employees mentioned in that part of the lede. TDA has just reverted the falsehood back into the article. Since nobody disagrees on the facts, I'll put my version back in, and we can let a neutral editor decide if this version is acceptable. The other version is clearly unacceptable - it's not supported by the sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the century-old multinational corporation, not the Deepwater Horizon spill that has recently plagued said corporation. We have like four articles for that as I recall someone saying above. It is not consistent with WP:LEDE to have two paragraphs discussing that one incident in this article. Feel free to correct any errors with the existing content, but try to do it without giving a single incident undue weight in the lede of the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The original 4 lines, have now been replaced with 4 lines of the verifiable truth. There shouldn't be any question of weight - the largest criminal fine in US history, the 3rd larges SEC civil fine, pleading guilt to lying to Congress - pretty hard to get anything more weighty than that in 4 lines. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the SEC fine is sufficiently noteworthy for the lede, nor the charges regarding the employees, so I removed those details and merged that paragraph back into the previous one.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, see my section, 'Criticism by detail, juxtaposition, and innuendo' above. We clearly say, 'the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters' and ,'the largest criminal resolution in U.S. history'. These are the things that make the spill unique. What is the purpose of the extra detail in the lead? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about a primary source

Hi all,
I'm concerned about this content. It seems to depend on a FERC document - a primary source, couched in awkward bureaucratese. Worse, the document is full of words like "alleged" but the content in our article makes a flat statement without such caveats. I tried digging around to see if the investigation went anywhere, but couldn't find anything else (either on FERC's site or on third party sites) which referenced this FERC document - so it seems the investigation didn't go anywhere. Or maybe it's actually an artefact of the investigation immediately above, which is already wrapped up. Either way, I don't think it belongs in the article as-is. If there are secondary sources out there, bring them... bobrayner (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. the document seems to be a complaint, not a judgement. There is no way of telling if it is justified or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a separate investigation, ongoing and related 2008 activities. The first paragraph relates to activities that occurred in 2004. I've removed the primary source. petrarchan47tc 01:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Unproven accusations have no place here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your contention is that investigations should not be entered into Wikipedia until they are complete? Hogwash, Mr. Hogbin. petrarchan47tc 00:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked Arturo for info about this investigation but he has refused to answer. I wonder why? Gandydancer (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that after stating COI, one is not obligated to act contrary to that interest. In fact, they've pretty much stated that all their actions will be only to benefit said interest. Even BP as a company was never obligated to tell the truth during the spill, as legally they are bound to stockholders, and can't do or say anything that would hurt stockholders. petrarchan47tc 02:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Enough of the conspiracy theories and ABF. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you about your question. I hope you understand that, despite being a BP employee, I do not have intimate knowledge about all aspects of the business. In some cases I have to ask, and it takes time to get a response. I have not yet received a reply to the question you asked me, and I have not yet had the time to follow up. I will do that again this week, but I can't promise that I will have an update on any given schedule. The best thing probably is still to go with what is understood based on the existing sources,and then update it later when more information becomes available. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "conspiracy theories". My understanding of COI is that the editor is not obliged to do any editing (or talk page contribution) that would not favor his interest. I mention this because I didn't think Arturo, having declared his COI, deserved to be questioned about motives, his motives are clear. Maybe I have misunderstood the role of a BP employee on Wikipedia? And, the bit about a corporation's obligation to stockholders over truth-telling came from BP's Tony Hayward talking about US law (I saw this interview on the news). I fail to see how any of this could be called a conspiracy theory, and have no idea what "ABF" means. petrarchan47tc 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. Arturo has done nothing which is not in line with WP:COI and your allegations about his motives, corporate obligations etc is unacceptable and may be even considered as a harassment of a fellow editor. If you think that there is a violation of WP:COI, please go forward and file a complain at the relevant noticeboard; otherwise stop these allegations as non-constructive. Beagel (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how my statements are being seen as an accusation and turned into another opportunity for piling on. I am not going to explain my simple comments again - but I know that I have done nothing wrong by trying to better understand the dynamics of editing a page with a COI editor. This is the only time I have ever encountered this on Wikipedia and am trying to get a grasp on it. That is not a reason to slam me, but an invitation to correct me if I am in error. Lets drop the personal battles, yes? petrarchan47tc 23:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about suggesting that Petrarchan is acting in an unacceptable manner because s/he brings up possible concerns re our paid editor than I am about the possibility that Arturo may be harassed. It is not paranoia to look closely at the actions of a paid editor, it is common sense. If any editor can show me of one single instance of a paid editor bringing up an issue that will make their employer look worse rather than better, by all means please point it out to me. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't begrudge anyone looking closely at my suggestions, whether that's Petrarchan or anyone else. It's true enough to observe that my participation here is not meant to make BP "look worse". However, there are times where I've recommended changes that might count as what you're asking. My first suggestion on this page in fact pointed out that BP is not the biggest producer of oil and gas in the U.S. but the second-largest producer, among other corrections that lowered figures for production and proven reserves. The point I wish to underline is that my goal here is to help this page remain an accurate source of information, and that's what I'll continue to do. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Arturo, I don't believe that anyone would suggest that you want to present information here that is not accurate. The problem lies in the fact that some of us expect this article to reflect Wikipedia standards that insist that all articles be written with a neutral POV and you don't. As you well know, Petrarchan has done an excellent job of showing that BPs "green" efforts were blown way out of proportion in both the lead and the body of the article and that it took weeks of argument to even get a mention of the largest marine spill in history into the lead. You certainly did not speak out in favor of that information being included in the lead. Nor did you have any problem when the article contained this information on BPs green efforts, which were far from accurate and thanks to Petrarch are no longer in the article:

Renewable energy

Solar panel made by BP Solar

BP Solar is a leading producer of solar panels since its purchase of Lucas Energy Systems in 1980 and Solarex (as part of its acquisition of Amoco) in 2000. BP Solar had a 20% world market share in photovoltaic panels in 2004 when it had a capacity to produce 90 MW/year of panels. It has over 30 years' experience operating in over 160 countries with manufacturing facilities in the US, Spain, India and Australia, and has more than 2000 employees worldwide. BP has closed its US plants in Frederick, Maryland as part of a transition to manufacturing in China. This is due in part to China's upswing in solar use and the protectionist laws that require 85% of the materials to be produced in China.[77] Through a series of acquisitions in the solar power industry BP Solar became the third largest producer of solar panels in the world. It was recently announced that BP has obtained a contract for a pilot project to provide on-site solar power to Wal-Mart stores.[78]

Between 2005 and 2010, BP invested about $5 billion in its renewable energy business, mainly in biofuel and wind power projects. In 2011, BP plans to invest $1 billion in renewables, roughly the same amount it invested last year.[79]

As of 2011, BP is planning to construct a biofuel refinery in the Southeastern US and has also acquired Verenium’s cellulosic biofuels business for $98 million. In Brazil, BP holds a 50 percent stake in Tropical BioEnergia and plans to operate two ethanol refineries. In the US BP has more than 1,200 megawatts (MW) of wind-powered electricity capacity and in July 2010 it began construction of the 250 MW Cedar Creek II Wind Farm in Colorado.[79]

I have a great deal of admiration for Petrarchan who has put so much time into this article. And although we seem to be on the opposite side of the fence, I have no hard feelings for good editors such as Beagle because I realize that good WP articles are the result of editors coming together to hammer out an article that respects several points of view. That said, for you to suggest that you, a paid editor, is sincerely interested in accuracy here is an insult to my intelligence. When I had a question for you asking for information, it took 3 or 4 months for you to get back to me--so long that I could no longer remember what the question was about in the first place. But now when it is advantageous to you to get article changes that you believe will, from your POV, improve the article, timing becomes so important that you must go to Connelly's page and ask him if he's willing to do your edits. Disturbing. Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I missed this comment until now, but it's important to set the record straight. I believe the information on solar was updated and trimmed by Petrarchan before I introduced myself here and began offering suggestions, and I did later offer an updated version of the BP Alternative Energy section that minimized the mention of BP's past solar investment to a single sentence. As much as I have been able to do so, given that this is a large article and I'm not able to look at every section at once, I have endeavored to correct inaccuracies where I've found them. Here’s another example of when I offered an update to text about AE that clearly did not benefit BP. I've also tried to help when editors have had requests, such as providing a draft for the company's Stock and Stock history (that included arguably negative information about BP) when Petrarchan asked.

Regarding your request, this did take a while for me to look into as the picture was very unclear about the court cases and asking others within the business took some time. I had also received initial feedback that made it clear to me that the current text on that issue would probably only need minor modifications, making it less of a priority. However, I did reply once I had the full information and left you a message on your Talk page to let you know I had done so. To reiterate what I said above, although I can't look at everything at once, my intention is to help this page become a better information resource, and I believe my involvement here reflects that. Arturo at BP (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly not appropriate or acceptable for BP to be involved in the writing of this article. That is by definition bias. Arguments stating that it is the quality of the work rather than the source of the material are misleading and asinine at best. The source and its relationship with the subject matter determine bias and neutrality. That criteria is not incidental but absolutely significant.

This nonsense about how Arturo is being treated is also absurdest. There are legitimate concerns which have already placed a near permanent scar on the reputation of Wikipedia with the readers of its content at large.

I cannot trust what is written on this page and I would not recommend this as a source to anyone; Not even a child writing a report for grade school. talk 15:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WOW

I find [4] is pretty surprising. Anyone actually able to explain why a political group (like Greenpeace) is different to a campaign contribution? Does Shell do these too (I know Exxon is bound too)? --BozMo talk 14:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition to contributions to political campaigns

The recent addition to the above section does not mention this, When asked about its political spending, the energy giant said there is no conflict between its ban on political contributions and its donations to political groups. A BP spokesman said its policy bans contributions only to individual candidates in state and federal races, and does not apply to contributions to political advocacy groups registered with the Internal Revenue Service, political party organizations that give money to individual candidates, arms of political parties or larger political campaigns, which is also in the cited source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I see this is the same issue as mentioned above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The "in spite of this" is also POV wording in implying that the two things were linked. I guess we probably have to decide if this goes in as a controversy or we just neutrally explain the difference. I am waiting for other notable coverance but mainly because I am lazy. Nonetheless I am quite surprised by their behaviour. --BozMo talk 14:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Add it if you like. Note that "despite" isn't something I've introduced; that's what the reporter says. I'm reading through what I can find on the subject - it seems like the subsection could batter match the available articles on the subject. Here are a few links:

• Herszenhorn, David M. (2010-06-18). "A Tricky Balance for Oil-State Politicians". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2013-03-23. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• "Obama was top recipient of BP-related dollars in 2008". CNN. Retrieved 2013-03-23.

• "BP campaign contributions". The Washington Post. 2010-06-30. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2013-03-23.

• "Exxon, Chevron, BP Greased Obama's Campaign". Retrieved 2013-03-23.

• Leonnig, Carol D. (2010-06-29). "Despite BP corporate code, firm has made political contributions". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2013-03-23.

• "How corporate PACs deal with bad PR". NJ.com. Retrieved 2013-03-23.

Also, we might combine the subsection with the next one on lobbying. Of course this is all too US-centric, and should include the company's involvement with the governments of other nations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There is information here [5] Gandydancer (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the point behind these additions. Is BP the only company to lobby or make contributions to political organisations? Have they done something wrong? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is to summarize what reliable sources say about BP's contributions to political campaigns. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

And what do they say? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The links are just above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I clarified a few key points. Seems important that the lion's share of that money was spent on two ballot initiatives and, obviously, that their policy just applied to individual candidate contributions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well done, but this not how WP should work. One group of editors looks for everything bad that they can find about BP and puts it in WP, while another has to look through the sources to try to give a more neutral POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Who says it's bad? They were contributing to Obama. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That is my point. Your original addition made BP look bad because it told only part of a story. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sorry; I'll try to make it more clear. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"In spite of" versus "Despite"

Tom, I changed "In spite of" to "Despite" in the belief that "in spite of" is grammatically incorrect. After doing a little more research, apparently, I was wrong.[6][7] (The AP Style Guide and Chicago Manual of Style prefers “despite” to “in spite of” because it means the same thing and is shorter).[8] If you want to change it back to "In spite of", that's fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no real preference. I originally used "in spite of" to avoid repeating the source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Prudhoe Bay information deleted--please justify

New information which I have added to this Prudhoe Bay section was deleted:

The underground pipe leaked for five days before it was discovered. The government's investigation into the spill disclosed that cost cutting measures had resulted in a lapse in monitoring and maintenance of the pipeline. In particular, BP did not use pipeline inspection gauges (smart pigs), devices that clean and monitor oil pipelines for corrosion. According to a Justice Department sentencing memorandum, even though standard industry practice is to run "pigs" through a pipeline as often as monthly, due to cost-cutting BP had not run the devices through the oil transit lines since 1998.

I'd appreciate an explanation that is more informative than "coatrack" or "not a forum". Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW this seems an extraordinary level of detail for an article which is about BP; Prudoe bay has its own article. It is already way too detailed in this article, so inclusion looks wrong to me. --BozMo talk 18:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, you could start by reading what I wrote above just before you added your section.

How is this relevant to BP as a whole? All you seem to do is add more detail on negative aspects of the company. I am sure that you would be the first to complain if an equivalent amount of promotional detail were added. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant to BP as a whole because it was part of the cost-cutting measures introduced by CEO Browne, the ones that cause safety violations in many areas. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make a point of that nature then you need a source that specifically makes it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read the references that Gandydancer added, the ones from Reuters UK and the Guardian UK. I added another one from Fortune, published by CNN Money. It's hard for me to understand your objection to this text and these cites if you have not read them. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So this Oct 2006 cite from CNN money archives is just about sufficient to support the idea that as a topical current issue in 2006 this might have been sufficiently notable detail to be relevant to BP as a whole. But today does this merit including? I think you would have to have a very distorted idea of due weight to argue it does. --BozMo talk 19:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not "distorted" to look at BP's corporate practices at the time—the cost-cutting measures instituted by Browne. These practices were (and are) seen as having caused many accidents. Many industry observers have commented on the situation, which brings it up on our radar. The question of due weight is handily answered by how widely BP's cost-cutting measures have been analyzed in books, magazines and news pieces. Whether BP is now moving away from that sort of corporate culture does not change the historic fact and the historic fallout. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Critics about the cost-cutting measures should be included, no doubt about this. However, that does not mean creating a numerous over-detailed subsections (which are already described in the more specific articles). There is a clear problem with WP:OVERDUE. User: Uzma Gamal said just some sections above: "This article and the proposed draft has way too many subsections. The trouble with creating a significant number of subsections is that is severs the information from context so as to give more importance to the subsection information than the collective of reliable source information would suggest. It also diminishes the importance to other issues given by the collective of reliable source information. It further creates a situation where Wikipedia editors do not have to make the hard choices of what to include in the article to present a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature such that the article grows in size almost without bounds." He also recommended "to look over all the articles in Category:FA-Class company articles and Category:GA-Class company articles and try to create a heading structure for the BP article that follows a survey those articles subsections as tailored to the BP topic itself. Unfortunately, his recommendation remained largely unnoticed. Beagel (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that s/he responded to Arturo's request as did another editor that apparently supports paid editors. I also note that you asked her for an assist in restructuring this article and Arturo asked the other editor to assist with getting his rewrite entered in this article. Add to that Silverseren's assurance to Arturo that he can furnish the editors needed to post Arturo's latest rewrite... Gandydancer (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, you say "critics about the cost-cutting measures should be included", but your inaction last September does not support that position. Back then I added text about Browne's cost-cutting but this text was quickly removed by Belchfire (his only contribution to this article, ever), re-added by me then removed by The Devil's Advocate, then re-added by Xenophrenic and removed by Rangoon11. During this time, The Devil's Advocate started a talk page discussion about "BLP concerns regarding Browne material", but you did not take part. You were active at other threads on the talk page, but silent on this issue. The point is that you did not lift a finger to argue for "critics about the cost-cutting measures". If your current proposition were enacted, at least a paragraph would be included about Browne's cost-cutting measures, with mention of how these measures have been analyzed as causing multiple accidents, with a list of the main ones, including Prudhoe Bay—the same material you are objecting to here. There is no policy loophole to render this material not relevant. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I just looked at the text that you added. The first section appears to be completely devoid of references, or have I missed something? In the second section, the statement, 'These safety and maintenance problems lead to toxic spills', has no reference and the third section has nothing about Browne. If what you say is true, that Browne's cost cutting lead to increased toxic spills there should be a good quality independent reliable source which says so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, again and again you have insisted that other editors do your work for you rather than read what has already been offered. Please read the information that Binksternet supplied rather than ask him to do it all over again. The information is all there if you would only read it, especially considering that this is all old information that should be easy to recall. Gandydancer (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I followed the link to the diff that Binksternet provided above and commented on what I found. What have I missed? WP:Unsourced says, 'Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on the recent text rather than on the September 2012 text (which is worth its own discussion thread.) If you read the sources it will come clear that cost-cutting measures were blamed for the Prudhoe spill. Here's what I see:

• [9] "July was the first time a smart pig had been run through since 1992"
• [10] "cost cuts were to blame for the 200,000 gallon spill in March 2006"... "'There were extreme budget pressures at Prudhoe Bay,' said BP America CEO Bob Malone. 'We recognize that those budget pressures put our employees in a very difficult place.'" ..."The company's critics have blamed cost cuts imposed after BP bought two of its rivals and poor management oversight for the problems."..."Corrosion-monitoring efforts like smart-pigging were reduced or put on hold even as BP reaped more than $106 billion (54 billion pounds) in after-tax profits between 1999 and 2006, Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the subcommittee said."
• [11] "A US congressional committee has uncovered evidence of "draconian" cost cuts at BP in the run-up to the discovery of severe corrosion which shut down a key Alaskan pipeline last summer." Dingell said, "important actions related to health, safety and the environment were being delayed or cut altogether and this was related to tight budgets".
• [12] "a PR disaster that, in a single blow, undid the green reputation CEO John Browne had meticulously crafted for BP over the past decade." ..."Browne boasted that 'the drive to manage costs and to raise unit margins has now become a way of life.'" ..."On the west side of Prudhoe Bay, they were last cleaned and checked in 1998, while on the eastern side of the field, the last pig was run in 1991. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, by contrast, is pigged every 14 days." ..."In the wake of Texas City and Alaska, BP does seem to have finally gotten religion. Browne says personal safety, process safety, and environmental safety efforts at BP facilities around the world have been redoubled, and a huge effort has gone into adding additional engineers to address these areas."

These (and other) sources indicate a notable problem that has been identified by multiple expert observers. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which are less than five years old? --BozMo talk 11:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be important to offer sources less than five years old for an incident that happened more than six years ago? Gandydancer (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are we giving so much detail about an incident that happened more than six years ago? I would not object to a short sentence saying that cost cutting measures in force at the time were to blame but the level of detail is wp:undue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, once again, please read the sources that have been offered by Binksternet. Surely you can't be suggesting that our coverage of the largest spill to date in that area should not mention how many days it lasted and that the pipe had not been cleaned since 1998 when something like monthly cleaning is done on other transit pipes? All of the sources that I looked at mentioned this fact. It is central to the reason for the spill. The spill did not happen from some work of God such as an earthquake--it happened because BP was not doing proper maintenance and the reason mentioned for that was cost cutting. Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, it is a nonsensical notion that this article should not have details of events older than six years. There are whole sections on previous eras of BP. There are a bunch of 1990s sources in the article about the acquisition of Amoco—do you want to remove those? What about the acquisition of ARCO and Burmah Castrol in 2000? How about the 2001 renaming from British Petroleum to BP? There are sources from 2002 having Browne making statements to the press. If we acted on your notion we would greatly reduce the detail about the 2005 initiative in alternate energy, and the greatly reduce the information about acknowledging climate change. I know you don't want that. The many high-quality sources provide us with plenty of reason to treat the Prudhoe Bay spill as having due weight. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How about this then?

I have summarised the added text in a more encyclopedic style, omitting the irrelevant detail about the bacteria. The poor maintenance and cost cutting are still there and the five day leak duration has been added to the start of the section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a compromise I can live with. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I added one sentence. BTW, I was not the one that introduced what Martin calls unencyclopedic style (talk of pigs and bacteria), it was Arturo who introduced that information. Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The change in wording seems reasonable to me, if others feel that the information originally suggested was too detailed. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Er, I believe that they think that I wrote it since there have been no complaints till now. Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, if you were not the one who wrote that, it appeared that way from the diffs, but it does not really matter who added it. I removed it because it seemed to be unnecessary detail not because it was unencyclopedic language.

It is language like, 'The government's investigation into the spill disclosed that the pipeline had not been inspected for corrosion since 1998, a standard industry practice which is normally done as often as monthly', that is unencyclopedic. We already say there was a lapse in monitoring and maintenance. We do not need to say the same thing again in the style of an investigative journalist. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

We do need to say that a monthly maintenance procedure had not been done in eight years. Gandydancer (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what we do not need to say. This is not the kind of language used in an encyclopedia, 'there was a lapse in monitoring and maintenance', is what we say in an encyclopdia. We are not investigative journalists trying to point the finger at someone we are here to give the facts (good or bad) in a neutral way about a large oil company.

Your suggested comment is meaningless journalism. There may be cases where pipelines are inspected 'as often as monthly', I really do not know, and neither do you. None of us has any idea what inspection schedule might have been applied to this pipeline by another oil company or what inspection schedule would have been necessary to have avoided the leak. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That's right Martin, what the hell would the United States Department of Justice know anyway? If Wikipedia starts taking the finger pointing and meaningless journalism of the United States Department of Justice statements rather than that of Wikipedia editor Martin Hogbin our credibility will certainly be damaged and that's something we all need to be aware of. Martin, I'm really sick of you deleting everything that I add to the article with summaries such as too detailed, unencyclopedic, soap boxing, too journalistic, etc. You had no problem with this info:

BP's investigation of the leak suggested it may have been caused by sediment collecting in the bottom of the pipe, protecting corrosive bacteria from chemicals sent through the pipeline to fight these bacteria.[260] During the government's investigation into the spill, BP was criticized for cost cutting regarding monitoring and maintenance of the pipeline. In particular, BP did not use pipeline inspection gauges (smart pigs), devices that clean and monitor oil pipelines for corrosion

since March first when it was added for Arturo, but the minute that you thought that I wrote it, it suddenly became too detailed, unencyclopedic, soap boxing, too journalistic, etc., and you have removed it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I explained why I deleted the above; because it was too detailed. I do not care who wrote it.

Your latest addition was totally unencyclopedic in tone. I am not sure where the US DoJ comes into this discussion. If you can provide a reference from them that specifically says that BP inspected their pipeline less than once per year but should have inspected it once a month then there would be a case for adding your text (with a more encyclopedic tone) to the article. If not, you cannot say this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are too lazy to read the references that is your problem, not mine. Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you have now found the time to read the sources re the DOJ statement. Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Reuters statement is a mixture of direct quotes from the DoJ and their own words. As Beagel points out below it is not clear exactly what this statement means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement that "standard practice to do the procedure as often as monthly" is incorrect as it implies that the standard is a month. This is not true. First, sources talks about the process using pipeline inspection gauges ("pigs"). This is not the only method for inspection and maintenance. Second, the frequency of "pigging" depends of a lot of things including the type of the pipeline, its work regime, technical features and conditions, usage of alternative methods etc, so saying that one month is a standard is incorrect. Also, taking account that there is a separate article about this accident which should deal with that kind of details, this is too specific detail for the general article about BP. Beagel (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Beagel. I can only go by what the sources say as here:

Relentless cost-cutting by BP caused the company to avoid running maintenance devices in its Prudhoe Bay transit lines since 1998 -- even though BP was well aware that an increasing amount of sediment-heavy viscous oil was flowing through those lines, and even though standard industry practice is to run such cleaning "pigs" in pipeline as often as monthly, said a memorandum filed Monday by the Justice Department.

Perhaps it would be better to return to Arturo's wording re the bacteria and pigs. As to the option of just leaving all of this information out of the section, I am opposed to that. It must be kept in mind that this is the largest spill on the North Slope and our readers should know why it happened. After initial denials, it was only through investigation that it was discovered BP's failure to properly inspect the pipe that led to the leak. That the "pigging" had not been done in eight years is significant and I have no choice but to take the DOJ at their word. From what I've read there is plenty more damning evidence of willful negligence that the article doesn't even mention. See this update from 2010: [13]

Could you please provide exact source for this quote? I have read all these three references at the end of the sentence but I can't find the exact quote. Also, I would like say that my comment about incorrect information was related to the false impression that monthly "pigging" is a standard and not to the fact, that for this particular pipe "pigging" has not happened for 8 years. However, taking account that specific article for this incident is existing, this article should summarize and not be overloaded with details. Beagel (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, you still seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of an encyclopedia. It is not journalism, whistle blowing, or evangelism. The current wording, '...an eight year lapse in monitoring and maintenance of the pipeline ...', which may be yours, is at least encyclopedic in tone so I will leave it as it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin please stop giving me instructions about the purpose of an encyclopedia. I am a productive editor here since 2006 and I have grown very weary of your constant "not journalism, whistle blowing, or evangelism", etc. warnings. As for your "which may be yours" statement suggesting that I may have just made up the quote that I offered, I can only shake my head and wonder why I continue to put myself though what it takes to edit this encyclopedia.

Beagel here is the link.

[14] I do not agree that these few words overload the article with information. Please remember that you did not think that Arturo's much more involved information on bacteria and pigging was overloading the article with information. Gandydancer (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue not about these few words but it is a general concern that these subsections (Environment, Accidents) are too fragmented and overloaded with too much technical details which belongs to the specific articles and not here. I have said this several time and really do not see necessity to repeat this for every edit. As there seemed to be consensus between editor with different view points (that means you and Arturo) I was ready to accept this. However, as I find a factual mistake, I made my comment. Just for record: I actually think that information on bacteria and pigging is that kind of details which belong to the specific article and not here. Beagel (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The above should show evidence of one of the problems with allowing paid editors to rewrite entire sections of controversial material. Note how some of these editors were happy with this section while Arturo wrote it but suddenly became very critical and deleted sections when they thought I had written them. I'm pretty familiar with this section because I was the one that reviewed it before it was posted to the article, in fact the only one that had reviewed it. Arturo presented it on February 25 and I began my review. On March 1 I said that I had done quite a bit of reading but I was still asking Arturo questions. On that day, to my surprise, Silverseren, who has never worked on the article, added Arturo's rewrite to the article. That's problem #1: Only one talk page editor reviewing a controversial rewrite and an editor that has not been editing the article adding copy written by a paid editor with less than a week of time for review by other editors.

But another problem that I have not seen discussed by those that say "what's the problem? It is editor-reviewed before it goes into the article!" is the fact that some of the above editors who have consistently opposed my edits did not need to spend any time in review to get "their" version of Prudhome Bay information into the article because their version is Arturo's version. But me? I need to spend hours doing my homework to understand issues and actions. Add to this the fact that this is not the only article that I work on where I may be required to do similar homework, and it gets to be a bit much to expect from a volunteer editor that would like to have a little Wikipedia fun and the experience of feeling productive too, which you sure don't get from an article such as this one.

I'd like to make a comment about my observations regarding Arturo's suggestions. I have said elsewhere that while I am fully aware that Arturo is here to attempt to present BP in as good a light as possible, I have often thought to myself, "I'm glad we got a good one!", meaning as paid editors go, Arturo has been decent and fair to work with and I am grateful for that. Note that Arturo's rewrite did refer to BP cost-cutting resulting in accidents and injuries and deaths of employees--this subject (along with getting almost any negative information into the lead) have been the longest running battle issues here. But Arturo did not try to sneak it out of his rewrite and in fact possibly made it more noticeable. It was the article editors that have long-objected to that fact that once again argued it when they thought that I had added it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional information and corrections

I think that this and this provide a lot of details about this spill. However, I think that these details should be added to Prudhoe Bay oil spill and not here. These documents make clear that the frequency of "pigging" was by BP of these feeder lines was ultimately inadequate. However, it does not says anything about 1 month being a standard (e.g., Trans-Alaska pipeline is pigged as frequently as after 14 days). Therefore, I will remove the mentioning "even though standard industry practice is to run such devices as often as monthly" as incorrect. Second issue is that the Reuters' story and the article is mentioning DoJ report. It is correct that DoJ was acted on behalf of the United States on legal procedures; however, investigation (and reports) was conducted by the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Therefore I remove Department of Justice. Information at the DoJ website: http://www.justice.gov/enrd/5812.htm. Beagel (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You sure haven't convinced me, but I will give other editors a chance to agree/disagree with my opinion or accept yours. In the meantime I will not revert your edit, though I don't like it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

BP's drafts as unpublished primary sources

I know very little about BP and have no particular interest in it. My concern here is that it's a controversial company (fairly or unfairly) that is being allowed to rewrite the article about itself by proxy, without this being signalled to the reader.

In using BP's drafts, editors are using unpublished primary source material, and letting it set the tone entirely by slotting it into the article without quotation marks and without attributing it to BP. These drafts give us BP's views of itself, or BP's summary of the secondary sources BP has chosen to highlight. We wouldn't use these texts word for word (in fact, we hopefully wouldn't use them at all) if they were on BP's website. Yet for some reason some of you see them differently because BP has posted them here:

• User:Arturo at BP/Overview of operations (3 July 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/BP UK (25 July 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/US operations (24 August 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Stock history (18 September 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Alternative Energy (23 October 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Worldwide operations (5 November 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Canadian oil sands (19 November 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Allegations of greenwashing (7 December 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Prudhoe Bay (25 February 2013)
• User:Arturo at BP/Environmental record (7 March 2013)

The BP drafts can be mined for ideas, facts or sources. But they can't be used as sources themselves – inserted, in effect, as blockquotes, but without the markup and without attribution – because we can't allow an unpublished primary source, especially one that might reflect a minority view of BP, to determine the tone of the article. There might not be a single error in them, but there may be omission, and it's obvious that there's a careful choice of sources and words.

Wikipedia articles are meant to be a summary of the body of published literature – mostly high-quality secondary sources – that exists on a subject. We reflect the tone and content of that source material, and present issues in rough proportion to their appearance in that literature. We can use primary sources with caution (e.g. a company's own literature), but we don't let primary sources set the tone. So if the good secondary literature dwells on X, we dwell on X. If it is mostly negative about X, we are mostly negative about X. If it barely mentions X, we barely mention X. That's what "neutrality" means on Wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:NOR/WP:PSTS, and WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is a misinterpretation of WP:PRIMARY. Although prepared by an editor who has publicly declared his COI, these drafts are based on the secondary sources and all information is attributed with RS. Also, although prepared by COI editor, they reviewed and, if necessary, changed by other editors before moved to the article's page. They have been accessible for commenting/editing for all editors through this talk page and in the case of the posted drafts there has been no opposition although editors with different POVs had been active at this article at the same time. So this is not WP:PRIMARY. Also, it seems that there is repeatedly misinterpretation of NPOV in the context of tone. According to WP:IMPARTIAL, the only acceptable tone is impartial tone which should be used consistently. Yes, if the source reports positive things, we list them as positive things and if the source reports negative things, we reports them as negative things, taking account WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE, but its not up to editors to set the positive or negative tone. As the first comment in this section concerns interpretation of certain policies (WP:COI, WP:PSTS) I will notify relevant policy pages about this discussion to get input from editors dealing more closely with these policies. Beagel (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Notifications are here and here. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Village Pump notification was added here. Beagel (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the drafts use secondary sources. These are unpublished texts that BP has written about itself. It has chosen what to highlight, chosen the sources, and chosen the words. (I saw very few, if any, changes to drafts after input from others.) We can certainly include BP's views in this article, but we have to signal that with in-text attribution, and with quotation marks if we're using BP's exact words. And we have to take the material from a published primary source, such as BP's website, so that we can link to it and the reader can read it in situ for herself.

As for tone, yes, we use disinterested words, but we follow the direction of the secondary literature. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with SlimVirgin. I saw the notifications at COIN and RSN.

Regardless of if the material uses WP:RS for citations or not, I feel like the WP:COI and obvious, substantial risk of WP:CHERRY can certainly make them effectively WP:PRIMARY. If WP:CHERRY can turn WP:RS into WP:FRINGE (as happens frequently with e.g conspiracy theories) then it can turn WP:RS into WP:PRIMARY just as easily, and particularly when there is a financial incentive to do so. I think Beagel's clear pronouncement that they are not WP:PRIMARY is too hasty. I would be hesitant to use any of this material. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 19:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, from the readers' point of view, I suggest that Arturo at BP post these drafts on the BP website. We can then cite them as published primary sources, link to them, and quote them. We would then express this as something like: "BP regards its environmental record as mixed," or "BP writes that reports of its environmental record have been mixed," or "BP has highlighted the report from X." Doing it this way means BP's input will be retained, but it will be visible to the reader that it originates with BP.

Asking article subjects to post their perspective on a company or personal website (or via some other external source) so that we can cite them is quite normal, and means we're able to include their point of view, while making sure the reader can see where it comes from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Feel that posting entire drafts on wikipedia is at least partly in conflict with WP:NOTWEBHOST WP:NOTADVOCATE. Successful WP:MfD nominations have been made for less. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 19:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I also notice that there is no disclaimer at the top of Arturo at BP's pages stating that they are user pages. This means that WP:MIRRORs and search engines will present these pages as though they were part of wikipedia. I find this objectionable. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 19:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Tagged what I think is all of them with the 'user page' template. I still think the drafts should be moved to a BP website, and not on wikipedia at all. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 20:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

First, WP:NOTWEBHOST is misinterpretation. It was suggested here at the talk page to use for drafting a separate subpage (just like sandbox) as it became a little bit complicated to work with this drafts here at the talk page due to a large amount of edits. Second, also they were largely prepared by Arturo, all editors were invited to review, comment and edit and make changes. At the time of drafting there have been a number of active editors on this page with different POVs and there has been objections concerning the drafted text. Therefore, Arturo is not a sole author of these drafts and they are not actually user pages. I think that we may ask Arturo to delete these drafts which are already integrated to the article and would ask all editors to review and improve drafts which are still in work. Third, editor you integrates the text into the article takes also responsibility that it is in line with all policies (just as any other edit in Wikipedia). I can't talk on behalf of any other editor but concerning these drafts which I integrated (not all of them) I went them through word-by-word, sentence-by-sentence; changed and amended, if necessary, and no text is integrated which I can't support. Therefore I consider myself as a author ot these drafts integrated by me. Forth, paradoxically the main concern seems to be who made the first draft of the text, not what was written. This seems to be a fundamental controversy with the main principle of Wikipedia, which says that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Beagel (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, with respect, you're not looking at this from the readers' perspective, and from the perspective of WP policy. BP is rewriting the article about itself, using text that it posts here and not on its website, so that its involvement is hidden from the readers. This makes both Wikipedia and BP look bad. It looks sneaky. (I accept that this has happened inadvertently because people haven't thought it through.)

Wikipedia and BP need to be honest about BP's involvement. The best way, and the policy-compliant way, is to ask BP to post its articles on a website it controls, then we can link to them, quote them, and attribute the material to the company, as we do for any other source. Of all the sources the article uses, BP can't be singled out as one that is given the special privilege of direct access to the article, without quotation marks and without attribution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the "large amount of edits" thing comes from. Nearly all of the pages in question were created with a single addition, and no subsequent edits. Without substantial subsequent additions or additional outside vetting, this is akin to stovepiping of PR.

Your assertions that Wikipedia "can be edited by anyone" seem at best naive. We have policies to explicitly delineate who can edit what in certain cases.

I remain in agreement with SlimVirgin's suggestions. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should use a common sense. First, these are not articles but proposals for sections/paragraphs. Second, it was notified by Arturo that he has COI but that does not mean that he edits on behalf of BP. By my understanding these proposals are made by Arturo as a private person (although being COI editor) but not on behalf of BP. Suggestion to put proposals about possible changes of this article to the BP's corporate website is weird. I would see some (although not strong) logic in the case of hired PR representative but this seems not be the case. Third, as I said, the all these proposals are reviewed and changed by active editors before using them for the article. All these proposals where notified at the talk page and a number of editors with different POVs have edited the page and talk page at the time, so they are aware of these proposals. If not commented or changed (and you should look the text in the article, not just the drafts), that means they did not see problem. Hopefully there will be more experienced editors to go additionally through this article to ensure NPOV and other policies. Proposals implemented by myself are my edits and I bear responsibility for them. So they are definitely not BP's edits. Fourth, as I said above the main argument seems to be who made the proposal and not what was added to the article. This seems to be a fundamental controversy with the main principle of Wikipedia, which says that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. This is a fundamental right of Wikipedia which could be limited only exceptional cases based on the approved policy. Could you please provide a link to the policy which states that kind of restriction as proposed. Proposal that COI editor can't propose a text at the article's talk page seems contradict the recent COI policy. So, please provide exact link which says that COI editor can't make proposal at the talk page and that other editors can't use/implement that proposal. Beagel (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

On what basis are you making these assertionsthat this user is not being paid to propose language here? I think that the default assumption should be that they are, even if they say they are not. The language is quite carefully constructed. It is not unreasonable to think that even if this user is not being paid directly to make suggestions, that they are being vetted somehow.

You appear to be conflating the idea that "anyone can edit anything" with "anyone is allowed to edit some part of WP", and furthermore seem to disregard the possibility that edits may not stick around very long, or be nonconstructive or harmful. Asking for a specific example in the way you have, without asking for clarification, seems a bit confrontational. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Beagal, Arturo is a BP employee who is writing this as part of his employment. He has made that clear. So this material is BP's view of itself, or BP's interpretation of source material it has chosen to highlight. As such it is a text that needs to be posted on BP's website, so we can use it as we do any other source (if there's a consensus to use it at all). What you can't do is choose one involved source (BP), out of all the sources that are in the article, and decide to give that one source privileged access by turning its words and its view into Wikipedia's words and Wikipedia's view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

My bad then. However, even in case of "paid advocacy" the current COI guidelines says: "Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has argued that editors with a financial conflict of interest should never directly edit articles, but instead propose edits on article talk pages." You propose something else which contradicts with the recent COI guidelines. Could you please give a link to the policy or even better a quotation about forbidding posting by COI editors at the talk page and using these proposals by other editors after reviewing them? Beagel (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? I never said anything of the sort. If you'd care to point out what exactly I said that gave you this impression I would be happy to clarify. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 22:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You are basically out of touch with the entire rest of the community. Arturo is a Wikipedia editor. His edits are just as valuable as anyone else's and he is allowed to edit anything he wants. He is encouraged to use the talk page for subjects where he has a COI, but he is not required to and he does so in order for his edits to be properly looked over because he thinks that is the best option. He has been entirely transparent and open about everything. Furthermore, the fact that he has a COI is irrelevant, all that matters is the edits or the information to be added. Is it neutral? If yes, then it's fine. If not, then correct it so it is. That's how Wikipedia works. Silverseren^C 00:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Arturo

Hello everyone, I have been following this conversation and would like to respond briefly. As far as I have been aware, I have been following the guidelines regarding conflict of interest and I have purposefully refrained from making any edits to articles, instead presenting information here for editors to review. I have always invited editors to review my drafts, making it clear that they can edit them in any way necessary to ensure they meet with Wikipedia's standards. Beagel, BozMo and others have asked questions about BP proposed edits/changes and made changes to what we have proposed. I see that UseTheCommandLine has added "user page" templates to the drafts in my user pages. This is perfectly fine, and I can do so with any material in my user pages from now on.

I disagree strongly with SlimVirgin's view that BP is rewriting the article itself, or that there is anything "sneaky" about it. In fact, I'm using my real name and joining an open conversation with anyone who wishes to be involved. Volunteer editors are under no obligation to place my drafts wholesale into the article and often they have asked for me to make changes or made edits to the drafts themselves. In some cases, the drafts have simply not been added to the article, such as with the "Allegations of greenwashing" draft I proposed in December. In the case of "Stock history", editors here asked me for help with preparing this material to add to the article. My drafts have provided additional material and new (mainly secondary) sources that were not in the article already, particularly regarding the company's operations, about which there was little to no detail until last year.

When I first started talking with editors on this page, the BP article lacked the most basic information about the company’s operations and some sections were plain inaccurate. It has always been my intention to help this article become a better resource for accurate information about BP, whether "positive" or "negative", and we would like to be part of that discussion. I respect SlimVirgin's concerns, but I also would ask her to consider reading the article and pointing to specific concerns if there are any, rather than trying to argue that my participation in this discussion is not legitimate. Best, Arturo at BP (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arturo. Wikipedia's readers need to know that they are reading BP's words and looking at sources BP has chosen. The way we signal that is by using BP as a primary source with in-text attribution (BP writes, BP alleges, BP has highlighted), especially when we're copying BP's words, and we link to the place of publication.

If editors have given you the impression that it's okay for you to write extensive drafts and they will insert them word-for-word (or close to that), in my view you've been badly advised. You would not be allowed to do this for any other organization: write an article about BP and have it added to (say) the New York Times or the Encyclopedia Britannica under a staffer's byline so that the reader had no idea she was reading material authored by BP. Wikipedia is open for editing, yes, but we don't allow sources that kind of direct access (not even by proxy) for obvious ethical reasons. If we invite BP to do this, we would have to invite BP's critics too.

I'm therefore asking that you make your authorship completely open by posting your articles on the BP website, then directing us to which parts you feel would be helpful to improve this article. We can then use your text as a source, attributing it to BP (with or without your name as you choose). That way, the material can be added to the article, but the readers can see where it has come from. This is what article subjects are normally asked to do when they seek input or want to post a clarification of something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not aware of any plan or understanding that editors will insert Arturo's drafts word-for-word into the article. I did not even know that they existed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If the drafts are neutral, then I would have added them word for word. That is the point of them being neutral after all. However, I thought some changes needed to be made, so I proposed that. In turn, he would have made those changes and asked for another look and I (and hopefully others) would have looked over it again. Instead, he is now being attacked and Wikipedia policy is being warped by established users in order to suit their desires of attacking BP.

Arturo absolutely does not have to have his drafts posted to the BP website or something ridiculous like that. He is a Wikipedia editor, this is his userspace draft. He is proposing for it to be included into the article after other users look it over. It seems to me that SlimVirgin has completely and absolutely lost what Wikipedia policy is about and seems determined to consider Arturo as a second class editor. Silverseren^C 00:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand SlimVirgin's concerns but to replace the current text with Arturo's drafts would require a very strong and clear consensus here and I think that is very unlikely to happen. It is very unusual in WP for the collaborative work of many editors over a period of time to be completely replaced by the work of one person.

So long as Arturo's drafts remain in his userspace I see no real problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Except his drafts are clearly expanding on the already existing material in the article, fleshing it out or adding proper references where there are none or were bad references before. It is not replacing the work of other editors, but using that as a base to then make the article more complete. Silverseren^C 13:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Those edits are unnecessary, then. Undoing all of them should be considered. Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Once Artuo hits that "submit" button, even in his userspace, that text is no longer "his". Anyone is entitled to use it verbatim or modify it in any manner they see fit.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop the misinterpretation of policy and the attacks

This is a complete and utter misinterpretation of policy that is fundamentally destroying what WP:PRIMARY means. A userspace draft written by an editor is just that, a draft. They are submitted whole to articles all the time. There are plenty of userspace drafts that are moved to mainspace as a full article when there was no article before. They are not primary sources, they are Wikipedia articles. Arturo is the writer of these drafts and he is the editor that made the content. Inserting his drafts into the article is no different than intserting drafts any other Wikipedia editor has made. Silverseren^C 00:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

On his user page, he has verified that "subject matter experts" within the company do in fact have some control over the material he posts here. In my view that makes it substantially different from a typical userspace draft. I'm sure we will disagree on which specific policies this violates (WP:CHERRY is directly implied by the statement there), but I think the best way to handle it is to place this material, as SlimVirgin suggested, on a BP website, so that it is abundantly clear where the material originates. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 00:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, subject matter experts. Just like plenty of featured article writers have subject matter experts go over their article material in order to see if changes should be made. All users that actually want to make a good article do this. Arturo is the same as any other Wikipedia editor and what you are suggesting is to treat him as if he isn't and that is absolutely offensive. Silverseren^C 00:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it does not change what I have already said. If you wish to take issue with my views on paid editing, perhaps do so in another forum. Your views are clear, and I will not be changing mine simply because you call them offensive. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I am calling them offensive because you're denigrating another Wikipedia editor. Maybe you should actually focus on the content, rather than the editor. I have yet to see any of you actually review the content, other than SlimVirgin bringing up safety references that has to do with an entirely different section in the article. Silverseren^C 01:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Where, exactly, am I doing that? As noted above, perhaps it would be better to take this off of this particular talk page and into another forum. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Because you're treating him as a lesser editor. And his drafts as if they aren't even real article work, but instead some sort of product of his company. Which is both perplexing and ridiculous and you're acting as if no one makes userspace drafts, when everyone does. Silverseren^C 02:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Specific statements, please. How about you do this on my talk page, rather than here? -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 02:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Would an editor talk page, be it that of UseTheCommandLine, SlimVirgin, Silverseren, or any other person's talk page, really be the proper place for this discussion? Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For discussions about specific things I have said that are being interpreted as attacks, yes. I am attempting to corral discussion that is not directly and substantially related to the subject of the article into other fora. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 18:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original question, if an editor puts material compiled by outside experts on WP, they must of course document it in the ordinary manner. Nobody can justify material by saying. (Source: what our experts told us.) Any editor can make a comment on why they think something a reliable source, or why they thing is a reasonable interpretation, but such comments are not binding if others think differently. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever Arturo does or suggests comes from BP Corporate. He is not a lessor editor. He is a team of editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether he represents a team or not is beside the point. He is a BP employee working within the scope of his employment. Therefore, the most accurate way of referring to his contributions is as "BP's contributions." Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)