BP was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 7, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. London B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Energy B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Energy portal news

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Prudhoe Bay 2006–2007 section of the article as it's currently written does not accurately cover the main oil spill that occurred at Prudhoe Bay. Right now, it confuses minor leaks with the major oil spill in March 2006 and does not properly summarize the all of the details of the spill. I have written a new draft for this section, which now better explains that the main oil spill was the one in March 2006 and summarizes the events around this, including criticism of BP, the company's response to the spill and the legal ramifications. I have aimed for this to be a summary of the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article, with the focus on the major spill.

As well as clarifying the information currently in the article and adding the details on the March 2006 spill, I have removed one detail: the May 2007 leak in a separation plant. The source in the article for this does not actually mention the leak, but this USA Today article explains it was actually a leak from a water pipeline and did not have any environmental or safety impact.

The draft is in my user pages here: User:Arturo at BP/Prudhoe Bay

Please review and make any changes to the draft in my user pages, however, it would be best to keep discussion of the draft here so that it is easier to follow. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Arturo and thanks for the notice to review your rewrite. Could you please help me understand the situation a little better. Is the trans-Alaska pipeline owned jointly by several oil companies, or how does that work? Did the spill happen on a 'smaller"(?) BP-owned pipeline that delivers oil from BP wells to the main line? Also, I see that BP had the spill in 2006 and said they'd be replacing all of their pipeline, then I see that in 2008 they had 16 miles replaced. What is the total amount of miles that needs to be replaced and have they made any more progress? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandydancer, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System is owned by Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, a consortium of oil companies including BP. The March 2006 spill in Prudhoe Bay was from a BP-owned pipeline that carries oil from BP's oilfield at Prudhoe Bay to the consortium-owned Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Does that help? Regarding the pipeline replacement, I am checking with others at BP to be certain, but I believe that the company planned to replace 26km of pipeline (as explained in this Calgary Herald article I used in the draft) and completed the replacement of this 26km by the end of 2008. I will let you know once I've heard back and if this point is confusing in the draft as it stands, I can update it. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I think I worked on this section at one time--I remember learning about "pigs"--but I had since forgotten. It is coming back to me now.

I think your new summary looks great! One thing, I see that our copy re the leaking antifreeze solution from some of the wells is not correct, however you did not even mention the leaking wells. Do you think it should be included? Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard back from my colleague on our Alaska team, who confirms that the Calgary Herald article is correct: the company planned to replace 26km or 16mi of pipeline and completed it in 2008. I've updated the draft to reflect this. Regarding the well leaks, per the Guardian source in the article now, and this Associated Press article I found, the wells were leaking an insulating agent and were shut down to investigate. Similar to the water pipeline leak I mentioned above, there was not any safety or environmental impact, so I decided not to include it here. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've done quite a bit of reading and am now much more knowledgeable. I think you're right about not including the well leaks here. I note that the main article could perhaps use a little work--do you think you should include it there? Gandydancer (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For now, i've implemented Arturo's draft since there doesn't seem to be any issues with it. Discussion on moving the well leaks info should continue though. Silverseren^C 04:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Silverseren for adding the draft. Also, thanks for your review of the section, Gandydancer. To answer your question about the well leaks, I am honestly not sure if they should be included in the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article. While they were reported in the media alongside discussion of the March 2006 oil spill, they are not really directly related to it except for being in the same oilfield. I'm open to hearing other views, though. So far, I have limited my involvement on Wikipedia to this article, in part because Wikipedia is just one of many things I focus on in my role at BP, so working on one article is more manageable. However, I do intend to start looking at some other BP-related articles in due course, possibly including the Prudhoe Bay article. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arturo. The Prudhoe Bay leak section has raised some new issues. As you know, I asked for an update (see above) and you responded that the rusted-out line had been replaced by 2008. I recently have come across more recent information that states that although the lines may have been replaced, BP did not fully comply with the agreement reached. According to a DOJ document last updated October 2012, "When BP XA did not fully comply with the terms of the corrective action, EES filed a complaint in March 2009 alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Pipeline Safety Act." Please see this information and the other information supplied as well. [2].

According to this 2010 Alaskan news article [3], "Corroded pipelines have since been replaced, but three years later the consequences of the spills linger, spreading from northern Alaska to the halls of justice hundreds of miles away in Anchorage." You said that you had heard back from your colleague on your Alaska team and I assume that s/he must have been aware of these updates. Did s/he not share them with you? If that is the case, it certainly is cause for concern and suggests, perhaps, a serious problem with suggestions that paid editors can properly represent the corporation that they are working for. Gandydancer (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gandydancer, I was not aware of this and will inquire about the 2009 complaint and 2011 consent decree from the link you provided. Nonetheless, I think you can agree the details in the article now are far more accurate than the original language in the Prudhoe Bay section, which had confused information about the events in 2006 and did not mention anything about the consequences of the March 2006 spill. Meanwhile, I am always willing to discuss and help clarify to the best of my ability. I appreciate your kind words in various discussions, and hope that you will not jump to the worst conclusions on matters like this. Thank you. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not go so far as to say that it is far more accurate and in light of the new information that I came across it is far from accurate.

Yes, you did mention that BP had replaced the pipeline, however it sounds like the other directives were ignored, both by BP and your rewrite:

From the Alaska Dispatch, May 17,2010: In fall 2007, BP pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act and was hit with a $20 million fine and agreed to be placed on three years probation, with an option for early release if it demonstrated significant progress making improvements to its problem pipes and oversight programs. More than a year and half later, in March 2009, the feds went a step further and the Justice Department, acting on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, sued BP for a string of violations in connection with the spills. [4]

And from the DOJ: When BP XA did not fully comply with the terms of the corrective action, EES filed a complaint in March 2009 alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Pipeline Safety Act. In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska entered a consent decree between the United States and BPXA resolving the government’s claims. Under the consent decree, BPXA paid a $25 million civil penalty, the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill...

According to the Alaska Dispatch, "If every allegation in the complaint sticks at trial, BP could easily be liable for more than $30 million in fines: $22 million for the spills if a judge finds the company was "grossly negligent," at least $750,000 for numerous violations of the Clean Air and Water Acts, and as much as $7 million more for a slow response to federally-ordered pipeline fixes." Considering that the DOJ did fine them 25 million, it sounds like most of the charges pretty much stuck. Five million more than the 2007 fine and the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill.

Arturo, you say, "I hope that you will not jump to the worst conclusions on matters like this". If I trust that you were not aware of this information I have to wonder how you can present a rewrite that was so poorly researched. It makes you look bad and it makes me look bad as well, since I approved of your rewrite. On the other hand, if the information was supplied to you and you assumed, like I, that it was complete, you are being deceived by BP and will have to deal with that. Considering that you said, "I have heard back from my colleague on our Alaska team, who confirms that the Calgary Herald article is correct: the company planned to replace 26km or 16mi of pipeline and completed it in 2008.", you'd think that he should have mentioned something like, "but oh, BTW, even though we replaced the pipe, the DOJ did find that we were not complying with their other directives and they ended up fining us $25 million more...". If he didn't share that with you, they are deceiving you. Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated above, this is not something I was aware of but it seems that other editors were equally unaware (this information is not included in the main Prudhoe Bay oil spill article, for instance, which I looked to summarize with the draft I presented). The details in the section now are accurate, but it is possible additional information may need to be added, although I am still in the process of verifying. I will reply again when I have more information which should be in the next week. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [5]. 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)[reply]

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 ..." [6] 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• [7] "July was the first time a smart pig had been run through since 1992"
• [8] "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."
• [9] "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".
• [10] "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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [11]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

[12] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The problem: informing editors, but not readers

• Arturo at BP introduced himself on his user page at 16:05, 11 May 2012: "In the interest of full transparency, I chose 'Arturo at BP' as my username so that my affiliation with BP is abundantly clear to all parties I may interact with on Wikipedia." (His user page had 8 watchers as of 19 March 2013.)
• He introduced himself on the BP talk page at 16:16, 11 May 2012, saying he would "start with small, focused suggestions ..." (BP's talk page had 238 watchers as of 19 March 2013.)
• He posted on Rangoon11's talk page, 16:23, 11 May 2012, asking Rangoon to help make changes that Arturo would suggest.
• The article had 722,248 hits from July 2012 to February 2013 inclusive, the period during which BP's text was added to the article. The small number of editors with the BP talk page on their watchlists knew (assuming they looked) that BP was supplying text for the article. But the readers were not informed that they were reading BP's words, as they would have been if BP had been used as a source like any other. Instead, BP transformed itself from a source into an editor. This is arguably similar to a publisher creating an Amazon account to write draft reviews of one of the publisher's own books; the publisher tells Amazon it has created the account, but neither Amazon nor the publisher tell the readers of the reviews that the publisher has written them.

Adding BP's drafts to the article

• User:Arturo at BP/Overview of operations

• 563 words, posted by Arturo 3 July 2012; added to the article on 5 July by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/BP UK

• 385 words, posted by Arturo 25 July 2012; added to the article on 15 August by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/US operations

• 984 words, posted by Arturo 24 August 2012; added to the article on 30 August by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Stock history

• 509 words, posted by Arturo 18 September 2012; added to the article on 20 September by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Alternative Energy

• 202 words, posted by Arturo 23 October 2012; added to the article on 3 November by Beagel; talk page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Worldwide operations

• 690 words, posted by Arturo 5 November 2012; added to the article on 17 November by Beagel; talk page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Canadian oil sands

• 301 words, posted by Arturo 19 November 2012; added to the article on 28 November by Beagel; talk page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Allegations of greenwashing

• 179 words, posted by Arturo 7 December 2012; added to the article ?; talk page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Prudhoe Bay

• 421 words, posted by Arturo 25 February 2013; added to the article on 1 March by Silver seren; talk-page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Environmental record

• 462 words, posted by Arturo 7 March 2013; not added to the article because of objections; talk-page discussion. Silver seren advised Arturo on 17 March to "ignore them," referring to the editors objecting, and to focus only on Silver seren's questions.

Overall, at least 4,055 words written by BP were added to the article between 5 July 2012 and 1 March 2013. The article is 9,215 words long as of 19 March, so assuming BP's text is still in it, around 44 percent of the article has been written by BP.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have to say that I was not aware that this was going on (I do have other things to do) and probably would have resisted it had I known what was happening. I do not think there is any need to panic but I do think that we need to be very wary of adding any more material from a source with a COI.

Maybe there is a case for reviewing the added material to ensure that it is not too promotional. I did this for the Madonna article a while a go and managed to tone the article down abit without offending anyone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, you took part in the discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is inherently wrong for us to use material generated by a BP employee, but I think it is vitally important that we thoroughly review such material with a critical eye before any of it is allowed into the article. I'm especially skeptical of BP's ability to write about their environmental record in a truly NPOV fashion. BP's environmental record is abysmal pretty much any way you slice it. Arturo's framing of their record as merely "mixed" in his userspace draft reveals the logical intersection of COI and NPOV – minimize the negative, accentuate the positive. I would much rather see Arturo suggest individual edits to this section rather than a complete rewrite. That way each change can be discussed in detail and evaluated for NPOV implications. Kaldari (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I would be open to editors reviewing the material added to the article to ensure that it is neutral.

Also, to clarify, the Allegations of greenwashing draft was not added to the article and the Canadian oil sands draft was also not added in the form it appears in my user space. Per discussion at the time with Beagel and Martin Hogbin, this was reduced to a summary which they both approved. The majority of drafted material that was added to the article — sometimes after edits by other editors — focuses on the company's operations and provides a factual overview of the company's activities that could hardly be considered controversial. Edits have been made by other editors to this material since it was added to the article, so please bear this in mind when reviewing. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like much of the work you've done for this article is helpful and uncontroversial. I don't think we need to be COI-absolutists when it comes to presenting uncontroversial facts. If it improves the article, that's what ultimately matters. I'm sure you can appreciate the delicacy of dealing with the more controversial areas, however. Subjects like "environmental record" consist to a large degree of synthesized opinions and evaluations (some of them competing or contradictory), thus it would be largely inappropriate for BP to author such a section (and I think most people would agree with this). Requesting individual factual corrections to this section would be fine, however. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry if I am missing something, but is this not exactly, to the word, what we recommend that entities and article subjects do instead of editing the articles themselves? That other editors find the proposals reasonable and acceptable means that the article subject is "getting" Wikipedia, not that it is abusing it. This page has 238 watchers, 143 of whom are active users. Risker (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can this editor be so out of touch? At one of the other articles with a paid editor, that editor was ready to, as s/he had been doing for some time with no comments from anyone, insert his extremely biased version of a lawsuit into an article while the ongoing suit was still in the courts. There seems to be some sort of idea that what with so many editors on an article's watch list, certainly nothing like this could go unnoticed. And yet, only two editors have made any comments on that attempt to bias that article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have not noticed, Gandydancer, but this project is intended to present a neutral point of view, not one that focuses on bullying article subjects that one doesn't like. He has absolutely been doing things exactly the way he is supposed to be doing it. What happens on other articles is no excuse for the abuse being heaped on this one. There have been plenty of experienced eyes on this article, and lots of other editors actually editing the article. It seems to me that this is a classic example of "this article doesn't say what I'd say if I was writing an article", and then blaming that on the fact that someone from the company has been carefully and forthrightly following our rules about his participation.

Wikipedia has a well-deserved reputation for poorly sourced, badly written, slanted articles about corporations, focusing on any complaints (documented or not) about them, while skipping over key information that is also readily available. Better to start cleaning up these atrocities (I can think of dozens of them without even trying) so that corporations don't need to have to come onwiki to work with our editors to fix them. Risker (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about and why the nasty note? I certainly have not "abused" Arturo. I have stated "regarding Arturo I want to say that I certainly do like him and I've never felt that he has attempted anything sneaky or dishonest. Furthermore, all things considered, I have felt that his edit suggestions have been, as far as I could tell, accurate and fair". Furthermore, I have also stated that he has done nothing wrong and is only doing his job and I have yet to see any editor say otherwise. Your statement "It seems to me that this is a classic example of "this article doesn't say what I'd say if I was writing an article", and then blaming that on the fact that someone from the company has been carefully and forthrightly following our rules about his participation." is absurd. Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better described as an attempt to unbias the article. So long as some editors treat this article as a soapbox in which every piece of sourced bad news about the subject has a rightful place, there is going to be opposition from a variety of sources. A WP article is not the place to try to put right great wrongs or expose bad things and if editors continue to treat it that way there is likely to be continued conflict here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec; reply to Kaldari) The problem is that we're not in a position to judge those drafts. Determining neutrality requires being familiar with the body of source material that exists on each of the issues. Ensuring the best sources were used, that there was no cherry-picking, no omission of fact, no key sources left out, no subtle rephrasing of the material, would involve a tremendous amount of work. That BP would write this is by definition controversial, especially because – and this is the key issue – our readers didn't know they were reading BP's words. And when it comes to the environmental issues, it's even more controversial given that the company faced criminal charges.

When Microsoft paid someone to change its article, Jimbo suggested it publish its views elsewhere so that we could cite them (see "Microsoft Violates Wikipedia's Sacred Rule"). I think that would be a good way forward here; BP could publish its perspective on its website and we could link to it. If there are simple factual errors, Arturo can list them here, so that editors can fix them. But we can't have any more of BP's words being added to the article unless they're in quotations marks and attributed to the company. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kaldari. In light of the recent discussion, your proposed process for the more sensitive sections of the article makes a lot of sense. In place of the draft I originally proposed, in the next couple of days I will offer some helpful comments and source material addressing the current issues with the introduction of the Environmental record section. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If an individual is prepared to take responsibility for them, all editors are equal and should be judged on the basis of the edits. If a BP staff member can make good neutral edits to this article, they should be encouraged to--placing them first on the talk page for review is all that might be necessary, and this is mainly necessary because of the abuse of the editing privilege by various editors in the past, and because of the difficult in detecting COI in little-watched articles. . Personally, I think once they've shown a degree of capability, they might as well make the edits on the article itself. BRD still applies.

I see no reason why BP would be less neutral than an environmental activist on an article such as this one. An avowed editor from BP has not only their reputation, but the company;s reputation at stake, and is not likely to do anything outrageously partisan., especially considering the general lack of sympathy here. A person with an undeclared environmentalist POV has no particular reputation at stake, is likely to be extremely partisan and may think, often rightly, that they will get away with it, considering the general sympathy of many people here to such POVs. There's something special about financial COI: it's predictable and usually obvious, and can be dealt with. The danger is the partisans, and its as much the partisans of causes I agree with as those I do not.

Certainly on the sort of topics I work on, the problem is generally the crudest sort of corporate advertising, especially the very incompetent stuff likely to come from non profit organizations such as universities, and this is easily dealt with, no matter where they put it. As for the articles likely to affected by partisans, including this one, I do not edit there except in a technical sort of way, because dealing with them is too frustrating. (This is all the more so when I too am personally an advocate for the cause, because then the COI editing really embarrasses me. When I disapprove of the cause, I tend to think, what else can be expected of them.) DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slim objects that so much of the content added has been developed by an employee of a major corporation, but it appears to me that Arturo has complied fully with our guidelines, even though they are just guidelines. Editors here reviewed the content, made changes, and then implemented the revised version of Arturo's suggestion. I see nothing wrong with that. Amazingly, in spite of Arturo's heavy involvement, my impression is that the article is more negative than positive as other editors have tendentiously tried to vilify the corporation. This is not really surprising given how BP has been publicly vilified for its failure to minimize the environmental impact of its petrochemical operations. Personally, I would prefer if the "BP = Bad Petroleum" types and the COI types were not writing this article, but that is just the way it tends to work in these situations. Instead of crowing about how some parts of this article have been developed by someone who may be biased towards the company, how about we discuss how to strike a balanced approach between the two camps?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On another part of the issue, I am not prepared to do formal approval of an article, or comprehensive fact-checking of an article edit. All I will do is look at general fairness, try to spot obvious errors and inconsistencies, and check any references or statements that seem particular unlikely. Otherwise, I might as well write the article itself, and if that's what I want to do, I do it. I'm not going to put my own reputation on the line certifying something I didn't write in a subject where I am not an expert. It's like AfC--I check that it meets the basic requirements and that it has a good chance of not being challenged at AfD--I do not do anything like a GA review. If something looks so bad that it needs to be rewritten and if it interests me and I know enough, I may possibly rewrite it. What I will do on a talk page is give advice, if I think I'm qualified. I am not here to judge, and none of us are. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the latest draft, User:Arturo at BP/Environmental record, I know it would take me days of solid work to check this. The first sentence is a red flag; it's unsourced and doesn't seem to be the way most sources describe BP's record. And things like: "it continued to draw criticism from groups including Greenpeace for its focus on increasing oil production." Was it really only criticized for this by "groups" (implying activist groups)? There are problems like this throughout the draft. A person would have to do so much reading to check this that it would be faster to write it from scratch. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That first sentence is actually completely accurate. BP's reputation in the 90's was rather positive, it was a company seen as ahead of the curve and that actually worked toward proper environmental policies. Then the incidents happened in the 2000's and their reputation became more negative because of them. So, one decade is positive, another is negative. I think that's exactly what we call mixed. You seem to be focusing just on recent events and not on BP's history as a whole. Silverseren^C 23:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that you would find it difficult to check four paragraphs of material for issues? The current environmental record section is a complete mess and some of the material is duplicated in the "accidents" section, with far too much detail on individual incidents in both sections. While there may be some neutrality issues with Arturo's proposal, I daresay it is a step in the right direction and would not be difficult to review.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Devil's Advocate that there is at least as great a threat to the quality, neutrality, and integrity of this article from anti-BP editors than from those with a connection to BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to make a fair judgement of a summary of a corporation's environmental record is to look at a summary written by their rep and to look at a summary written by one of their "green" critics along side of it. It is not just a simple matter of checking four paragraphs for "issues". Information can be presented in a manner that accents the positive and minimizes the negative, to say nothing of just leaving some things out completely. Here is another summary of BP's environmental record for comparison :[13] BTW, regarding Arturo I want to say that I certainly do like him and I've never felt that he has attempted anything sneaky or dishonest. Furthermore, all things considered, I have felt that his edit suggestions have been, as far as I could tell, accurate and fair. It's only when Arturo rewrote this more controversial section that I have become very concerned. And then when editors that have never worked on the article began to arrive to place it in the article for him I began to wonder why I have spent so many hours and endless pages of talk when a paid editor and his crew can come and insert anything they want into the article. When I saw that Silverseren had even posted a few links so that that his posse could do a quick BP for Dummies read to bring their level of understanding of what they were about to vote on up to snuff--well who wouldn't wonder if some editors had not taken the "anybody can edit" slogan too far. Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the wrong approach for an encyclopedia. We are meant to be giving a general neutral view of the BP not staging a battle between BP supporters and BP critics. Let us not try here to balance out extreme views but to report only what the highest quality neutral sources say about BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"his posse"

What the hell? And are you talking about the source links I gave above on criticism of BP that I thought should be included? Silverseren^C 01:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After two days discussion there is no example provided that any policy has been violated and any edits based on these drafts (which actually may differ from drafts linked above) has been harmful. I think that discussions about theoretical harm which may be caused by following the current COI guidelines belongs to Wikipedia_talk:Conflict of interest#BP and large company editing in general and not here. However, I would like to ask everybody to go through/review the BP article as a whole (and not just some parts and not drafts instead of the article itself) to find any problem there may be. The article have been in the center of extensive editing almost a year and I have a feeling that editors who have been active on this page (including me) may not always "see the forest for the trees". Therefore, any new pair of eyes and fresh look would be useful for improving a quality of this article. Beagel (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reply to Gandy's point above about liking Arturo, because this kind of thing is a big problem on Wikipedia. Arturo has been extremely polite – he wouldn't be very good in PR if he weren't polite – but we shouldn't do what a person asks because we like him, or not do it because we dislike him (Gandy, I know that wasn't your point). And people who disagree with someone who is being polite shouldn't be made to feel bad about it. I do wonder whether some of these drafts got passed because some editors didn't want to be a nuisance.

Ben Goldacre has been highly critical of GlaxoSmithKline, but the current CEO, Andrew Witty, seems to be a good person. Goldacre wrote this:

[P]eople I trust tell me ... that Andrew Witty ... is a lovely and honest man. He wants to do the right thing, they say. He bangs his fist on the table and talks of integrity. And I am entirely prepared to believe that this is true.

But it's also completely irrelevant: because this is the serious global business of health, affecting every single one of us. We cannot allow the behaviour of the pharmaceutical industry to swing on a pendulum ... with our chances of getting proper data forever at the whim of whether the person at the top is nice.^[1]

Similarly, whether Arturo has been nice is not the issue, and whether he has followed our rules isn't the issue either. To paraphrase Goldacre, this is the serious business of producing an article that our readers can trust. If the current rules allow BP to rewrite the article, then the current rules suck. It's not a question of fault or who is or isn't polite. It's just a silly situation that we have to try to fix. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to actually read the old discussions before you make such a condescending statement: "I do wonder whether some of these drafts got passed because some editors didn't want to be a nuisance." I can assure you that neither Petrarchan, Binksternet nor I have been bamboozled because we thought that Arturo was "nice" and the suggestion is, frankly, infuriating. My perception of Arturo has been that he is fair and honest but I've never had any stars in my eyes to where I'd think that his first duty is to Wikipedia and not to BP. Please read the the discussion at the top of this page where this topic is discussed. Gandydancer (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the actual accusation isn't it? Not that Arturo has done anything wrong but the editors who added the contributions are. It is baseless, without any merit and just a horrible way to treat your fellow Wikipedians. This entire situation is dragging more editors through the mud than just Arturo and it is incredibly disrespectful to the entire Wikipedia community.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If my name is being dragged through the mud I am not aware of it but I certainly have done nothing to be ashamed of. Nor has Arturo. He has been doing exactly what he is being paid to do and has not, as far as I know, done anything to break the present guidelines for paid editors. If some editors really believe that paid editors are more interested in a fair and balanced article than an article that makes their corporation look good, that's neither Arturo's fault nor mine. However I am critical of the fact that it is apparently perfectly acceptable for a paid editor to post at WP:COIN with a question about what to do if their suggestions are being ignored when it results in not only an answer, but the arrival of an editor to post their rewrites as well. And I have made no secret of the fact that I am highly critical of fellow-editor Silverseren's willingness to furnish bodies to push paid editor versions into the article and I don't believe that my position is disrespectful of Wikipedia or the community. The only good thing that I can think of to say of Silverserne's actions is that he was so brazen as to be entirely honest and sincere when he told Arturo, "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." He has done more to hurt the case for paid editors than any number of critics could have done. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question should not be who is writing the article, but how it is being written. If the additions are in compliance with all our rules in part and in whole then we have no real issue. Should the material being added be failing then we can and should fix it. I do not believe the spirit of the COI guideline is that you cannot have an article contain substantial contributions from the article subject, or that you can't have an article that is entirely the work of the article subject. Certainly it would be unlikely that a person close to the subject would be able to contribute completely neutral material, but that is just as true for those who have their own personal feelings about the subject and I doubt you are lacking in your opinions regarding BP. That is why we have other people check the material, to sort out what issues may exist. With all the time you have devoted to "sounding the alarm" about Arturo, I am sure you could have at least done a decent review of his most recent suggestion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a silly situation that we have to try to fix. Actually, what is the situation? It was asked several times, what is exactly wrong with this article? There was no other answer than it is to much work to get know which is wrong. But how to you know that anything is wrong at all? I can understand that you don't trust Arturo as a COI editor. It is understandable because everybody should be cautious about COI editors. But notwithstanding the fact that drafts were proposed by Arturo, the actual text (which may be somehow differ from the drafts at Arturo's page) was added by other editor who don't have a COI issue (at least, I hope so). So, you did not trust these editors too? Based on what? This is a disrespect against these editors. Being one of these editors you used drafts proposed by Arturo I have a right to knew what I was made wrong. Being accused I at least want to know what is my fault. Beagel (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...whether he has followed our rules isn't the issue either. I hope you did not mean what you wrote. What about the rule of law? Beagel (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On March 21, 2013 at 12:44 PM EDT, Natasha Lennard of The Salon wrote an article about "BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia editors accuse the oil giant of editing 44 percent of page about itself."^[2]

References

Seriously? No, this is not relevant to BP's history. This is seriously the most insignificant thing anyone could find about BP. Silverseren^C 17:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly trivial and recentist.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This information is now appropriately incorporated at Conflict_of_interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#2013. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, why is the reference about User:Arturo at BP rewriting Wikipedia on the list? It doesn't make sense. Epicgenius (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even after all this, there has yet to be a single person to point out a single thing wrong with the drafts Arturo made. Silverseren^C 18:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a case of bad journalism and Wikipedia:IDONTLIKETHEM, especially since Arturo has never edited article space.Smallman12q (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If people don't like WP policies then they should go to the correct forum and try and change them. Arturo's behaviour here has been strictly in line with current policy, as the founder of Wikipedia has said himself. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That the rules allowed this shows there is something wrong with the rules. I can't imagine anyone outside Wikipedia arguing that it's okay for BP to write the article on itself, then have those edits inserted by others as though they were written by someone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted multiple times, it doesn't matter who writes the information. All that matters is that the information is neutral. And there has been no evidence given that Arturo's material isn't neutral. Really, we should all be applauding BP for following Wikipedia's rules properly and actually managing to present a neutral description of their history that properly shows the negative information as much as the positive. Silverseren^C 21:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't have any great issue with the specific rules and policies which Arturo followed here. However I can understand that others may disagree with them. This is not the right forum to discuss them and seek to change them however. And even if they were to be changed it would not in any way be just to retrospectively attack those who followed them in good faith before they were changed. As well as contributing some excellent quality work and helping to make this article a significantly better resource, Arturo has shown honesty, integrity and a complete respect for current WP policies. Those qualities are sadly rare. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia mantra of "focus on content, not the contributor" is wildly at odds with the real world, where the professions are increasingly coming to grips with COI and the way it pollutes processes, which in turn leads to bad outcomes. You would not say, if you were sent to jail, "focus on the judgment, not the judge," if you later found out the judge was someone you had bankrupted a few years earlier.

The truth is that evaluating those 4,000 words, and making sure nothing has been left out, nothing has been carefully worded, and that the sources chosen are the most obvious sources to have used, is a huge job. And if you're going to spend time doing enough research to judge it properly, it would make more sense just to write the material yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a perfect article, certainly not on a topic as big and complex as this one. The text which Arturo drafted and was then added in to the article represented a major improvement. This was so clear and indisputable that even the very anti-BP editors active on this talk page and watching the article did not challenge the additions - and this is a heavily watched article where changes are not easily made. They didn't make the article perfect, but they did make it a lot better. I can't think of many editors who would have had the ability, knowledge, time and inclination to develop the Operations section of this article in the manner that was possible with Arturo's imput. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true; Arturo was having his edits checked by BP's subject-matter experts. It's certainly true that no other Wikipedian had that access, or had the time that Arturo had. Following that line of reasoning, the New York Times should just hand over space to BP to write its stories about the company, because BP has access to the insider knowledge. The Times could invite a group of volunteer readers with no specialist knowledge to review BP's drafts, and if they're okay in the opinion of those volunteers, add them to the Times using the name of one of its journalists, so that no one knows BP was the author. There's no need for anyone to know BP was involved, so long as the volunteers say those articles are accurate, right? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we have to let the readers know about companies making suggestions and not about anti-company activists that actually edit the articles directly? Silverseren^C 22:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin, BP did not ghostwrite the article in the manner you're suggesting. The additions were neutrally-words and reliably sourced to third parties, (except where BP is a better source for certain company facts). Anyone can examine who wrote the article by viewing the history, talk page and relevant editors. The main concern around COI is that edits are done covertly and in a way to detract from the quality of the article. Arturo clearly identified his COI as is evident by his username, "Arturo at BP" and on his userpage. He did not directly edit the article, rather made suggestions that were reviewed and accepted. Rather than ad hominem attacks, you should point out any perceived deficiencies that arose from the incorporation of Arturo's suggestions so they may be addressed and corrected.Smallman12q (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of critical eyes on the work of Arturo. I find this kind of abuse of a good editor very sad. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

@SlimVirgin: You're normally a pretty level headed editor. What happened? I suggest that you take a step back to reflect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only on Wikipedia could people argue with a straight face that there is anything improper about SV's comments above—the rules say that it is ok for a major company to devote massive resources towards presenting their point of view on Wikipedia, so long as unqualified and under-resourced anonymous volunteers think it's ok. Welcome to the future. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I think that you've lost your perspective. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how can you guys crow about "unqualified and under-resourced anonymous volunteers" contributing here without your heads exploding?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a simple statement of the facts. Of course there are many editors who are expert in the areas in which they edit, and many more with a good understanding of their topic, but that is extremely unlikely to be the case here. When managing a major public relations problem, a company would be glad to spend literally millions of dollars to guide an article towards a favorable state (I'm sure that millions are not needed here, but that money would be available). What editors should do about this situation is of course tricky, but a good approach would be to acknowledge that SV's comments are very sensible, then argue that BP's material is nevertheless acceptable for whatever reasons. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that there is nothing sensible about raising complaints regarding content that don't actually indicate any problems with the content. Certainly if Slim had just ignored this and not spammed this argument all over the place it wouldn't have been noticed by the media, presuming Slim didn't just follow with her implicit threat to raise it with the media. If the content is acceptable there is no reason for someone interested in having quality encyclopedic content to stir up a ruckus and bring the project into disrepute. Seems to me that some editors are allowing their personal feelings about BP and the environment to get in the way of what should be our core mission of providing quality encyclopedic content to as wide an audience as possible.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that none of us have the background or resources to determine whether there is a problem with the material presented by the company. I have been ignoring this topic for some time, but have just now quickly reviewed a couple of pages and can see that just as SV has reason to be concerned by a company devoting unlimited resources to managing its public relations, so those arguing against SV have reason to be concerned by some of the melodramatic and unhelpful actions opposing BP's material (for example, adding excessive detail or "controversy in Wikipedia" in this article). There is no good procedure to handle a case like this, and while some will never understand the obvious, it should be quite possible for most to agree with SV's comments and at the same time argue that the BP material is ok. To provide balance, I should note that some of those supporting BP's material have also been over-the-top melodramatic in some places. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really believe that we cannot determine if there is a problem with the material. You just need someone with a good head on his or her shoulders to review the material and sourcing. Certainly, I understand where Slim is coming from, but she has only really focused on the "mixed" description of BP's environmental record by focusing on media mentions. Reality is that "mixed" is a pretty good way to describe the record of a company that has been a pioneer in terms of environmental advocacy in the corporate world and alternative energy research that also has been responsible for numerous severe ecological disasters, including the worst oil spill in history.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnuniq, that there is need for caution but but panic. It is easy enough to spot and change material that is over promotional. As always, any editor is free to challenge material that they might be considered whitewashing of bad things, and we seem to have plenty willing to do this. We also have the option of asking Arturo to provide more independent sourcing for anything that we might consider to be based too much on unpublished documents. If he is unable or unwilling to do this we should consider removing the unsupported material.

Overall, out aim should be to fight ignorance with knowledge, that is the primary purpose of WP, and having access to someone on the inside may help us do this so long as we remain cautious and critical. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, yes, having access to people willing to point us to interesting published material is good. But these people are sources. The problem here is that the source was allowed to write the article, and have that text rely on the published sources he chose to highlight. No news organization would ever allow this, and although our mission is somewhat different, there are very good reasons that journalists keep their sources at arm's length. Those reasons apply to us too, particularly given the limited amount of volunteer time available to check anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern but there is no need to panic or take any form of drastic action. Arturo did not write the article he proposed additions that were added by others, who have reviewed the material and taken responsibility for what was added. Nevertheless, I can see the possible dangers of a subtle bias being transmitted to the article and we must be on our guard against this.

Now what about the other side of the coin? Do you see my point? There seem to be some editors who only add negative material about BP to the article. Unlike Arturo, they do not have to declare any conflict of interest, they edit the article directly, edit war, use unencyclopedic language and argue their points strongly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should be based on unpublished material. Aside, has Arturo confirmed his identity and position with BP through OTRS or someone? Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong there, it was just an impression that I got from the talk here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is citing Arturo or anything. It is a bit quicker for him to provide well cited material because he knows more history. The article is a dog's breakfast and any kind of help is welcome. Everything is discussed and reviewed before being added to or taken from the article. It is completely ok, transparent, fine. For example I did this removal [14] after Arturo suggested it two weeks earlier and about 30 comments were exchanged on the talk page. Go and check the talk page history if you like but the article is better for the removal. --BozMo talk 14:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we shouldn't just take someone's word for it that they are what they say they are, no matter how nice, polite, and helpful. Anyway, there are probably 10,000 factually accurate articles about BP that Wikipedia could be presenting to readers. Granted that this is one of them, the concern is that it's the one BP prefers on balance; otherwise Arturo at BP would suggest a change. That's as much a legitimate concern as it would be if instead of coming from Arturo at BP the contributions had come from Nigel at the Sierra Club. Also, "Wikipedia Engagement Team" in other contexts would be taken to imply off-site coordination. If that team is just Arturo's research assistants, I can only envy him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Virgin...we are not a news organization and frankly you are actually wrong. News organizations do indeed let companies add input to there articles. How do you think they get accurate information? What...do you think they pull it out of their butts?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem that requires such aggression? Are you seriously suggesting that a reputable newspaper would take a significant body of text submitted by BP and add it to an article about BP, without mentioning the source? (Of course papers designed to sell advertorial space do that, but they are not reputable and would not even count as WP:RS.) Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take the "Pulling it out of their butts" comment as aggression. It is an expression and yes, I am saying that Newspapers regularly take information provided by companies to incorporate into their stories without attribution of any sort. Now...when writing a book or academic journal it is almost always added to a notes section, but journalist do not have that requirement. And as I said...we are not a newspaper and we are not journalists. That is my point and I do wish to make that as strongly as possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear,hear! Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest template was removed from the article by Rangoon11 with an edit summary describing it as 'highly dubious', reasoning that BP employee Arturo has never directly edited the article. However a conflict of interest still exists because material that he wrote has been inserted into the article without any indication that it was written by a BP employee. The Template:COI documentation is clear that the template applies to changes that are the "direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or a person with a close connection to the subject". With a growing number of news articles ([15][16][17][18][19]) reporting on the fact that Arturo's edits make up some 40% of the article, it would be irresponsible of us not to make use of the template, at least until the extent of any bias can be ascertained. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 20:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has already stated that there is nothing wrong with what the user has done and that the information that was moved to the article was vetted by other editors, so the responsibility of the edits falls on them. So it is essentially those users' edits just as much as it is Arturo's. A COI template is only added when there is reason to believe that COI edits have made the article non-neutral. There is no reason to believe that in this instance, as the edits were properly vetted. If you have concerns about a specific section, sentence, or use of words in the article, we can talk about it, but ther eis absolutely no reason for the COI template. And, really, the COI template isn't very useful for anything, the POV template actually addresses the content of the article. Silverseren^C 20:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the template is offensive to those editors who added Arturo's draft text to the article - I have no connection to BP, and neither do the other editors who added Arturo's text to the article - as well as to those editors critical of BP who were watching the article at the time and were more than capable of speaking up if they had an issue with the proposed text (they certainly weren't shy in speaking up about all manner of other things, and we have had lots of debate and discussion on this talk page all through the period Arturo has been active here). Rangoon11 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If you want to nominate the COI template for deletion because you think it is useless, feel free. I understand how you might be defensive, given that you are the editor who signed off on some of those edits, but a COI template is not a badge of shame. Rather, the template serves to inform readers that an impressive chunk of the article has been written by a BP employee and that, yes, there are neutrality concerns, as have been already outlined on this talk page. Per your suggestion, I've added a POV template. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 21:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren is also spot on about edit ownership, the drafts of Arturo which I added to the article I am very happy to call my edits, and to stand by them and defend them 100%. The text I added to the article which Arturo had prepared was excellent and I would have very happy to produce something of the same quality and depth, and certainly I would have struggled to find the time to do so. This article is radically better than it was two years ago, and Arturo is part of the reason for that. Those attacking him above have largely contributed nothing to this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the amateurish shambles that this article was back in 2010: [20] An embarassment to WP. A crude attack piece. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to some COI/neutrality template for the time being, so long as the discussion shifts to evaluating the actual content alongside the review of how it got there. Template:COI says:

"...Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {pov} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame.... Like the other neutrality-related tags, this tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found."

It's sound advice. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is so not what I suggested. You're only supposed to add a POV tag if there is actually POV issues with the article. Then, once those issues ar epointed out, they are fixed so that the template is removed. Templates are not meant to just sit on article pages, they are meant to be fixed. So, what exactly is POV issue here, what part of the text is POV I must ask? Silverseren^C 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI templates are for alerting editors to alleged issues with the content itself, not with who added it. Unless someone identifies a problem with the actual text supplied by Arturo then there is no basis for including such a template.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think the transparency shown by Arturo is a breath of fresh air for wikipedia. I spend a lot of time in the even-more-contentious area of Israel/Palestine, which almost certainly includes many unidentified paid advocacy editors. Arturo's behaviour should be used as a positive example on the quest to solve the inherent COI issues on wikipedia. Unless someone can point out faults in the edits or information provided (which they haven't so far), then I don't see a COI problem given that it has been fully disclosed. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view it that way. I read about this situation on CNet and it makes Wikipedia look bad. I agree about adding the COI notice to the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And remove it when? Article tags are meant to indicate that something is wrong with the text. So, what's wrong? Unless that is identified, it can't be fixed. Silverseren^C 19:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if the article is changed or rewritten so that it does not reflect significant contributions by BP, it would be time to remove the COI template. This is not intended as a reflection on any editor or group of editors, but simply my belief that Wiki's BP article should be written by people unaffiliated with BP. My feeling is that BP contributing 40% of the text, assuming that's correct, is an inherent problem even if that text is fine. I am more of an outsider than a Wikipedian, I haven't been contributing for very long, and I think that outsiders would view BP's participation in this article with revulsion. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

40%? Where did that come from? Less than 4% certainly. 0.4% perhaps? --BozMo talk 20:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the CNet article, 44%. [21]. Not true? I said "assuming that's correct." Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm as I understand it that figure comes from a Wikipedia contributor. Ask them how they came up with the number. I do not support the use of the COI template in this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the 44% number was never accurate. The vast majority of Arturo's drafts went off the information in the article, so the existing sections were the base to which he added a few sentences here and there and re-arranged a few things, along with adding better references. So, while i'm sure his drafts as a whole are indeed 44% of the article, at least 40% of that information was already in the article in the first place. Silverseren^C 06:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned that these supposed figures have been taken as real. I find them to be of such crap I can't even begin to express my disbelief in adequate terms.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The time and effort expended on the above utterly pointless discussion of behvaviour wholly in complicance with WP policies should have been directed at improving articles, adding citations etc. It is discussions like this which damage WP and waste time and energy. The focus should be on one thing alone: creating the best articles possible. If WP fails to do that it will be replaced by something else. 92.19.151.202 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's something wrong with the policies if they allow corporate public relations people to write and rewrite text of articles. I wish Wikipedia was as concerned about its terrible public image as BP is about its terrible public image. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The COI tag was re-added to the article without providing explanation for this. The template's documentation says: "Use this tag to indicate that an article is biased or has other serious problems as a direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or a person with a close connection to the subject (e.g., professional public relations staff). Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other pov tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame." Notwithstanding multiply request, there was no evidences provide to proof that Arturo's proposals have created any serious problem with the content. Therefore, I will remove this tag. As for POV tag, I can't find at the moment, who added this and related to what issue in the article, so I will leave it now and try to find if there is any explanation. Beagel (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would also like to know what the POV dispute is. If we don't know why the tag was placed how can we correct the issues if there even is anything actually in dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this was done for dubious reasons. In the edit summary no POV issue was raised, just that Sliverseren had suggested it[22]...which as you can see above, he did not. No actual dispute of Point of View issues with actual content has been raised and the tag was not properly place with a discussion of the issues to resolve. I am removing the tag.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've asked Arturo if he would object to placement of the COI notice on the page. I think that would be an enormously helpful gesture of good faith and I urge him, as BP's representative to Wikipedia, to consent to it as a voluntary gesture of disclosure to Wikipedia readers. I think that agreeing to it would go a long way to diffusing the situation. Coretheapple (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I find [23] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is information here [24] Gandydancer (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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.[25][26] (The AP Style Guide and Chicago Manual of Style prefers “despite” to “in spite of” because it means the same thing and is shorter).[27] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have added a TNK-BPsection to the Environmental section. TNK-BP is a joint venture between BP and a consortium of Russian oligarchs. It is the third largest oil producer in Russia, and represents a quarter of BP's global production. As such, I believe that a mention of their environmental record is appropriate for this section. Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - was. However this article does need a "Joint ventures and shareholdings" section to deal with topics such as TNK-BP, the shareholding in Rosneft, Shell-Mex and BP and the former BP Mobil European downstream joint venture.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sale is completed? Gandydancer (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware Shell Mex BP had been disolved for a decade when I joined Shell in 1989... so better suited to a section on history? --BozMo talk 19:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And since BP-TNK was such a major part of BP for a decade it deserves a mention in the lead as well. Yes aware that Shell Mex BP is defunct, as is TNK-BP (as a BP JV - it continues (for now) as a subsidiary of Rosneft) and BP Mobil, however these are important enough to deserve a proper treatment in a Joint ventures and shareholdings section as well as a line in the History.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rangoon. I looked for a more recent ref than this [28] but could not find anything. Gandydancer (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deal only completed a couple of days ago.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link? Gandydancer (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[29]Rangoon11 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked our BP rep for input. Gandydancer (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sale of TNK-BP was completed on 21 March and TNK-BP is owned now by Rosneft (RT, UPI, RFE/RL, Reuters). In addition to this, it is not correct to add TNK-BP environmental record here as that company in reality was not controlled by BP. It was discussed here. Beagel (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rangoon11. TNK-BP belongs to the history section as other mentioned former joint ventures. I don't think they should be included in the separate section, particularly if there is a separate article TNK-BP. Beagel (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, I remove the TNK-BP subsection. Beagel (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section from the "Environmental record" has been removed:

NK-BP is a joint venture between BP and a consortium of Russian oligarchs. It is the third largest oil producer in Russia, and represents a quarter of BP's global production. In 2012 Russia's environmental minister blamed TNK-BP for causing massive oil pollution in the Siberian region and using "practically all of its profit, almost $8 billion", on dividends while failing to invest in rebuilding its "rusty oil pipe infrastructure". The company reported 413 pipeline ruptures in 2011. In April 2012 it was announced that regulators would ask for damages from TNK-BP as one of the biggest polluters of the Ob and Yenisei river basins in Siberia.[296] [297]

I wonder if we need a little more discussion before this is removed? I note that when the Texas refinery was recently sold the new owners were not liable for BP's past conduct nor did we remove it from our page. Thus I wonder whether or not it is reasonable to remove all reference to this information from the BP article. Incidentally, I note that BP retains a 20% ownership. I have asked Arturo to check in on this and it seems to me that it would be prudent to wait for his input before we remove this section--with, of course, an update on the recent sale. Gandydancer (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was described two days ago why this does not belong to this article. There was no response. As it was already said back in last September, BP did not have control over TNK-BP during last years since dispute between BP and Russian partners in 2008 which culminated with Bob Dudley's escape from Russia. Also, the claim that BP still owns 20% of TNK-BP is incorrect. As of today, BP owns 19.75% of Rosneft's shares not TNK-BP. Rosneft owns 100% of TNK-BP International (50% bought from AAR, 50% bought from BP), which owns 95% of TNK-BP Holding (rest 5% is traded at the Moscow Exchange), which owns different operating companies (commonly known as TNK-BP). This information is all public (and some links were provided above), so I don't understand which information should be checked. Beagel (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel. Yes I saw that you left a note and I was hoping that someone new to the article would give feed back now that the article has generated so much controversy. Considering that it opened a whole new area of thought, one could have done the needed research quite easily. So where are we? Complaints that Arturo is writing the article but not enough interest to present an opinion. I must say, I still have to shake my head in wonder to think that anyone would snip at me saying there's nothing to worry about here what with over a hundred article watchers. Beagel, I don't know if you are correct or not--I only know that both you and Rangoon sure know a lot more about BP than I do. I will not persist in my argument. Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we're clearly already past the point where WP:SIZE and WP:UNDUE come into effect, considering a lot of minor information is being added into the article and the article is already rather long. So we should really look into splitting sections of the article off into separate article and leaving a shorter summary here. That way, it'll be fine if more minor information is added to those other articles, because those articles are about a more specific subject, while this main article should stick with only the most general information. Silverseren^C 22:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which minor information are you speaking of? Gandydancer (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ignoring when it was added, but just speaking in general, most of the 2010 to present section. You know there's a problem when the section covering just three years is just as long as the sections covering decades of a company's history. There's way too much minor detail in the section that shouldn't be in an overview article like this. Also, the Release of Lockerbie bomber section seems incredibly minor. It's pretty much a "look at how horrible BP is" section, while the actual information has no real relevance to BP as a whole. In comparison, the Lobbying section seems way too short. Only 2 sentences? They have to have more of a lobbying history than that, every company does. And lobbying isn't a bad thing, mind you, since all groups do it, environmentalist groups included. Silverseren^C 23:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a statement of fact, "all groups do it" is incorrect. Not every group can afford to hire a dedicated lobbyist, or afford to get their members in to see their elected representatives. But we're verging on WP:SOAP territory here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. I personally feel that lobbying in the sense of putting forth arguments to legislators should be allowed, but any exchange of money or gifts should be explicitly outlawed. But, again, off-topic. What do you think about the sections I mentioned? Silverseren^C 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, most of Wikipedia suffers from the same focus on recent issues. I would be surprised if this article was any different. But you know this already, so I will assume there are other reasons for your comments here. BP is a very very large company and have been involved in some very newsworthy events in recent years - why would you want that little piece of "the sum of human knowledge" downplayed? And leaving out BP's involvement with the release of the Lockerbie bomber? Are you really suggesting that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's why I suggested splitting. It is too minor for this main article beyond a few summary sentences, but would be appropriate if there was a more specific topic article on the History of BP.

And I also think that we should do our best to improve the older history sections to make it not so tilted toward recency. In truth, Arturo would be the best person to ask about the older history of BP, because he can ask people that would likely have access to the information on that. Reliable sources would still have to be found of course, but it's far easier to look for a source for a piece of information than to just look for sources in general without knowing what you're looking for. Silverseren^C 23:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo is not needed for an elaboration about the history of BP, which has been amply covered by many authors. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, Wikipedia editors are going to work on whatever interests them, which is why we have such an imbalance in our coverage of subjects compared to a typical encyclopedia. If people want to work on expanding the history of BP, they will. It will happen when it happens, like everything else in Wikipedia. At present, I don't think the article is too long. Is there some kind of deadline that relates to this article? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense. I want to work on improving this section now and the article is already long enough that sections should be split, so I made this discussion section to discuss what should be split. Silverseren^C 00:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Binksternet. In further reading there's The History of the British Petroleum Company in three volumes. It seems like that those would be the reliable sources of first resort. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo would be using those same sources, like the reliable sources he's been using the entire time, he is just the expert (or has access to the experts) that know how to summarize them best. Now, back to the actual subject of this section, which is about splitting. Silverseren^C 00:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not the case that any representative of the company is a good choice to summarize the sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I would assume he was chosen because he is good at doing that. And, thus far, that appears to be true, since he's been doing a great job at it. Silverseren^C 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No company representative is a good choice to summarize the sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Clearly, a large amount of editors disagree with you. Silverseren^C 00:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTE] "Arturo would be the best person to ask about the older history of BP, because he can ask people that would likely have access to the information on that." Well, hope springs eternal, but the last time I asked Arturo a question it took more than three months for him to give me an answer. Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessary to turn to Arturo for this.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a question related to the history of BP or other information in the article? He may have just forgotten about the question. God knows there's a number of articles that I promised people I would work on with them and things happened and I never got around to it. Silverseren^C 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you would think that when he had to stumble over it on his talk page to answer further questions he would notice it, wouldn't you? As to whether or not it was related to the article, are you thinking that maybe I was just chatting or something? Gandydancer (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was three months ago, then I don't know what you were talking about with him. I still have stuff on my talk page that I haven't responded to (though they might be in archives by now, that shows how long I didn't respond to them for). Though, why is any of this relevant? This isn't at all about the subject of this section. Can we get back on track, please? Silverseren^C 00:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, you were the one who suggested that Arturo, an employee of BP, was "the best person to ask about the older history of BP", and that is why people are responding to your comments. In my opinion, the best person to write an article like this one would not be a random selection of Wikipedia editors, it would not be someone with an anti-BP agenda, and it wouldn't be a PR professional being paid by the very company that you are writing about. It would be someone with a significant amount of knowledge in this subject area and no ties to the oil industry. Would that not be a better choice to write this article? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I just don't think such a person exists. If you have a significant amount of knowledge in the subject of companies, the only reason would be because you have a connection to them, whether it be positive or negative. Silverseren^C 03:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't underestimate the ability of a sharp editor to succinctly summarize the sources after reading them. I, for one, have been able to compose or greatly improve articles on topics that were previously outside of my knowledge. I don't think you should assume previous expertise. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history section might be split into a new article and summarized here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the history section and maybe even the operations section could be split off.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, although either History or Operations is a large enough topic for a separate article at some point, the level of treatment in this article at present does not justify break out articles, neither does the present overall length of the article. Breaking out either would leave this article even more skewed and unbalanced, with the undue and bloated laundry list attack content of the Environmental record and Accidents sections dominating the article even more. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those should be split off as well. It's quite clear that there is way too much information in this article about them. Preferably, every major section should be split off into a subarticle, because every major section should have enough information that necessitates such a thing. And that does appear to be true. Silverseren^C 22:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I see no point in splitting until there is sufficient content in this article to justify it, since these are not really separate topics but break outs from this one. The history section here is not especially long, and neither is the overall article. There are serious issue of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM in the bottom half of the article but the History section actually seems underdeveloped, at least the pre-2000 part. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct to say BP paid a 4bn fine. The fine was 1.25bn. I suspect there is a lesson here on the dangers of coming in and editing an article in a fit of righteous indignation. Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Please, WP:AGF. I think it was just overcompression which happens in ledes. I expanded the "$4B in fines" to "$4B in fines and penalties" which all three sources verify. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)  Done[reply]

I did AGF. The point is that we had edited this fact carefully, and crusaders against COI put the incorrect fact in. Of course they meant well. Of course they also trumpeted how they were "replacing falsehood with truth". Had they AGF'd about the previous editors, they might have taken a little more time and got it correct. Rich Farmbrough, 04:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

anyway we are good now, right?Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is text describing BP's invention of a method to clean up oil spills using booms and a tanker or dracone barge in the "environmental initiatives" section. This does not seem to be any kind of "environmental initiative nor does it seem particularly notable. Its an old and expired patent. Anybody object to deleting the paragraph? Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like an environmental initiative to me. If it's old then maybe it should be moved to a different article, since it's been deemed that this article is about the current company. Rich Farmbrough, 04:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Good find. I agree that it should go. BTW, Farmbrough, what do you mean by "the current company"?Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that above a conversation was started about consolidating duplicated content in "environmental" section and "accidents" section but it seemed to have bogged down. I'd like to do a quick consolidation in a section called "environmental and safety record". It is jarring to see the same events brought up twice, in such close context. Intention is not to delete any material, just to consolidate. It would improve the article while any fine-tuning is going on. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a good idea. Rich Farmbrough, 04:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

just revised my text above -- this was hashed over, i read too fast the first time... thanks for the quick OK. will wait til tomorrow for other feedback. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we should have three sections, Environment, Incidents, and Safety. We do not really cover safety, as far as I know, and I have no idea if there are RS on this. Environment should cover three main areas, the impact of product, the impact of operations (referring to but not covering incidents) and innovation. Rich Farmbrough, 04:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support merging these sections, Safety record/Accidents and Environmental record are quite separate topics, although there is a close connection between some aspects of the topics. However there remain major issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM in the current Environmental record and Accidents section. For example, in Accidents we only have mention of one accident pre-2005 (and that's only one and a half lines for an incident which caused 13 deaths) and yet a 2008 blow out in the Caspian, ultimately a pretty minor event, gets a whole subsection and five lines of text.

I have always favoured a section which addresses BP's safety record in the round rather than a bloated laundry list of recent accidents. I tried to get the ball rolling on this a while back by posting a draft for discussion but it proved too painful so I lost interest. I will try again below. We could then have a break out article which enables laundry listing.

Similar points apply to the Environmental record section. We have nothing pre-1993, but have a 16 line sub section devoted to the Prudhoe Bay spill 2006–2007, despite it having its own article. Its not really a description of BP's environmental record at all.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I thought it might be helpful for me to recap the previous discussion about restructuring these sections. Earlier this year, I suggested that we could bring "Environmental record" and "Accidents" together under a heading of "Environmental and safety record", like so:

• Environmental and safety record
  • Environmental record
    • Environmental initiatives
    • Allegations of greenwashing
  • Safety record
  • Incidents
    • Sea Gem
    • Texas City refinery
    • Prudhoe Bay
    • Deepwater Horizon
    • Other incidents

Other editors agreed with the goal, although they had concerns about the specific titles of subsections. In particular, there was discussion about whether "Incidents" was the correct term to use. Beagel put forward an adjusted version of the structure most recently in the discussion:

• Environmental and safety record
  • Environmental initiatives
  • Allegations of greenwashing
  • Safety record
  • Sea Gem accident
  • Texas City refinery explosion
  • Prudhoe Bay oil spill
  • Deepwater Horizon oil spill
  • Other major incidents

Based on this, I set up a draft version in a sub page of the BP Talk page using the material that was current in the article at that point. The draft version followed Beagel's proposed structure, with just a few small changes: I found that it helped organize the information if "Environmental initiatives" and "Accusations of greenwashing" were subsections of "Environmental record". Additionally, within "Other major incidents" I included subsections for each incident, using the headings that were current at the time. Although this created another level of section headings, these helped to break up the text and organize the information. I do still prefer the version I proposed (see above) because I think the organization is easier to follow, but most of all I would like to find consensus.

The previous discussion stalled, but I do still feel that a re-organization would help the clarity of these two sections and remove the repetition of information within them. The above linked structure draft is a proposal for one way that this could be done. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the organisation should be changed, especially to remove duplication. It might be an idea to try to separate reorganisation from rewriting. In other words we could reorganise the page using the existing (merged where necessary) text. Rewording could then be considered as a separate issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two structures above I prefer the top one as I find it more logical and I can forsee the bottom one creating issues as to where some material should go, for example where to place content which is about negative aspects of BP's environmental record but not connected to a specific incident, the top structure would be more flexible in this regard.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the structure is too fragmented, every subsection is a separate mini (or even midi in same cases) story and there is no the whole picture about environmental record or safety record. Laundry list approach is not the one to create a good article and we really need to go forward with finding the best structure based on examples of FA and GA class company articles as was proposed in the separate section above. In the meantime I support the Martin's proposal that as the first stage we just should to merge these two sections without changing structure or wording (except removing duplicated information). Findind consensus about the structure and changing wording should be the next steps. Beagel (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has just been added:

On September 8, 2010, BP released a 193-page report on its web site. The report says BP employees and those of Transocean did not correctly interpret a pressure test, and both companies neglected ominous signs such as a pipe called a riser losing fluid. Transocean, responding to the report, blamed "BP's fatally flawed well design."^[1]

Can anybody tell me its purpose? Are we trying to say that BP's well design was fatally flawed? If so we need a much more authoritative reference than the one given, if not, what is the 2-year old news agency report telling us? That a pressure test (which one, and when?) was incorrectly (how?) interpreted? There is no indication of the significance of the test, why it was incorrectly interpreted, or how much any party is to blame for this. It is just another piece of random anti-BP text with a source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to round out the information on the explosion. The main article would have more particular information, though perhaps my addition could use improvement as I just took it from the main article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what does it actually tell us? We have a rather prominent "BP's fatally flawed well design" but we cannot say that on the basis of a news report of another company's opinion. So now what is left? Only a vague reference to 'a pressure test', being misinterpreted. Can you really say that misinterpretation of a pressure test is worthy of mention in an article about BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the section on "accidents" and the added text helps explain why the accident happened. The addition and especially inclusion of the BP report as a source is very helpful. Let it stand. However, I looked at the reference for the "fatally flawed" quote and unfortunately it is not in the cited source...I found it in others, and selected a Christian Science Monitor article to replace it. I also edited the content to clarify that while BP accepted some blame its report, it also blamed Halliburton and Transoceean, and both of them together rejected that and shifted blame back to BP.Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The added text does nothing to explain why the incident happened. The article on the subject gives seven main causes, with detailed explanations of each. We cannot do that here so why give a half-baked mention of one of the reasons. The quote is what Transocean, who were under pressure themselves, said about BP, it is not even a comment from an independent party. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, thanks for the feedback (and for your patience!) I removed any mention of a "pressure test" because I think you were right in your criticism. As for the well design wording, do you have a better idea? As for the other two blaming BP, I think it is just what one would expect--they all blame each other. I agree that the independent party's final decision on blame is the most important one. Reading the main article "Disposition of financial obligation", it is so long and involved, does anyone have an idea for a way to condense it without listing every party and every settlement? I would think that just a couple of lines would do but I have no idea how to condense it that much. Gandydancer (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that but we still have, Responding to the report, Transocean and Halliburon placed all blame on BP and Transocean released a statement that blamed "BP's fatally flawed well design" and "cost-saving decisions that increased risk" . As you say, in a case like this everybody tries to blame someone else. The two quotes "BP's fatally flawed well design" and "cost-saving decisions that increased risk" unfairly promote Transocean's POV. remove then and all we have is Responding to the report, Transocean and Halliburon placed all blame on BP. I think it all should go. I agree that if we can get an overall independent apportionment of blame we should have a short summary of it in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had a look at the "Disposition of financial obligation" and all it seems to say is that BP sued everyone it could and they all some of them settled out of court. This does not help us much. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that seems fair and reasonable. I'll remove that from the article. I still hope that someone can come up with a final closure statement. Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We still need some sort of closure--we can't just leave it in the air like this. Gandydancer (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that we must add some text to this section? As I say above, an authoritative, overall, and independent apportionment of blame, would be a good thing to add to the article, but is there one? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well we do have the DOJ's findings but this month was supposed to be the findings re the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act, plus of course all the civil suits. But for this section I think we need more about the final finding of blame about whose fault the explosion was. There is a lot of information here [30] but I'm not sure if it would be considered RS, and here is some recent information: [31] Gandydancer (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not sure what you are trying to achieve. Is it to add more detail? Is it to update facts? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subject of the court proceedings at the moment to establish "who to blame". The trial is going on at moment. Lets wait the court decision and add it then. Beagel (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In place of the current laundry list of recent accidents involving BP, which may be suited to a break out article, this article should offer a proper treatment of BP's safety record. This is a draft text which I posted here a while ago and post again. I hope that it will at least get the ball rolling on a proper Safety record section rather than present laundry list.

"Analysing the safety record of a major international oil company such as BP, and comparing it to industry averages and peers, is highly complex and fraught with subjectivity.[32][33]. The task is further hindered by a lack of standardised information in most countries. It should also be noted that any comparison between the safety record of a company such as BP and companies in other sectors is more difficult still in view of the oil and gas industry being inherently hazardous.[34]

A number of aspects of BP's safety record appear to broadly conform with industry peers.[35] In 2004 the National Journal described BP's LNG safety record as "exemplarly".[36] (p 3077) An analysis by the Financial Times in 2007 concluded that BP was "far from uniquely bad among the oil and gas ‘super-majors’ for its record of workforce deaths".[37] BP's safety record in offshore drilling and oil production in the United States is, in terms of number of leaks and fatalities over the past three decades, broadly comparable with peers and better than industry averages.[38] (p86)

However BP's activities in the United States have been involved in a number of high profile safety incidents over the past decade, most notably the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent leak, which killed 11 workers and injured 16 others and resulted in the largest accidental marine oil spill in history, the 2006 Prudhoe Bay oil spill and an explosion at the Texas City Refinery in 2005 which killed 15 workers and injured more than 170 others. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster BP's safety record in the United States received harsh criticism in the American media and from prominent American politicans. Links were drawn between incidents such as Deepwater Horizon, Prudhoe Bay and Texas City, with BP's safety culture being widely criticised as being complacent and compared unfavourably with peer ExxonMobil.[39] In "Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster", published in 2012, investigative reporter Abrahm Lustgarten made a number of claims that BP's safety culure and performance was damaged during the period in which John Browne was Chief Executive due to a management approach which emphasised controlling costs over safety.[40] It has also been argued that BP inherited safety issues from Amoco, and the Texas City Refinery was originally an Amoco site.[41] (p92)" Rangoon11 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want to replace the present section with this? The first source listed: COLIN READ is Professor of Economics and Finance at SUNY College at Plattsburgh, and a columnist for the Plattsburgh New York Press Republican newspaper hasn't even drawn any reviews nor have his other books, as far as I looked. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just want to get the ball rolling on a long over due treatment of BP's safety record, as opposed to a mere laundry list of accidents over the past decade. Please propse additions, different sources, amendments or even an entirely new text. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "highly complex and fraught with subjectivity" bit is ridiculous. It is clear from many sources such as the ABC piece "BP's Dismal Safety Record" that BP has been reliably accused of safety violations many times, at a rate much higher than the industry standard. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BP has had safety issues in the US - around a third of its overall activities - over the past decade. And the parts of BP's US activities involved in those issues amount to a minority of its overall US operations. Yes those issues should be addressed, but that does not make the sentence "Analysing the safety record of a major international oil company such as BP, and comparing it to industry averages and peers, is highly complex and fraught with subjectivity" any less correct. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Has been accused' is not the same as 'is' and no news article is going to change that. I think Rangoon's first paragraph is an essential precursor to any serious discussion of any large oil company's safety record. It is quite obviously a very complex job to compare the safety records of very large companies and anyone who thinks otherwise does not even understand the question.

Rangoon's proposal is vastly more encyclopedic than the current list of new items. News items, by their very nature, concentrate on the bad and spectacular. You never see a paper saying, 'Nothing happened at the XXX plant today except for oil production'. I we are going to have section on BP's safety record it should be written from a genuinely neutral and objective viewpoint. You are hardly going to get that from news sources after the Deepwater Horizon incident. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC source looks at US government sources and compares across the industry. For instance, it says "BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)." This kind of reporting is not changed because of a recent accident. Rather, it stays relevant for the time of the report, making BP by far the most unsafe oil company working in the US in the 2000s, with a whopping 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations. Any discussion about BP's safety record will have to include how extremely bad they were in the US in the 2000s. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Rangoon's references paint a different picture. I have no way of telling the real truth and neither do you. Unless we have truly authoritative and comprehensive source saying so we must not say, or imply that BP had a worse safety record than other companies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the sentiment, but I think some of the wording is argumentative, especially the first paragraph. As I have said before, I do believe this section and the environmental record section are too lengthy and there is a bit too much overlap. While I think some better wording is needed than what Rangoon suggests, my opinion is that we should have balanced summaries of the company's overall record in these areas, rather than laundry list sections.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how you can find the first paragraph argumentative. How can comparing the safety records of giant multinational companies be anything other than 'highly complex and fraught with subjectivity'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Words such as "highly" and "fraught" are problematic and the whole first sentence is a bit unnecessary as it does seem to be obvious as you say. However, I am also concerned about some of the later wording in the paragraph. I believe the point about the safety record being oversimplified can be conveyed with less suggestive wording.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If it is just the wording then I can agree with you. The point that I believe needs to be made is that discussion of a huge company's comparative safety record is not a simple matter and we cannot base our article on media reports or even court findings. Courts have the job investigating and dealing with a particular incident not comparing one company with another. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely fine with rewording too. I know that the draft above needs both expansion and better sourcing too, in no way was I proposing it for copying straight into the article. Hopefully now there's more activity on this page producing something capable of consensus will be more achievable. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the wording definitely needs to be worked on. But I support the sectioning out of this subject. What might be better is to create the separate article first and then it would be easier to have a summary here, because that's how it's supposed to be. You can't have the content here be stuff that not covered in the split out article. So splitting first might be the better method. Silverseren^C 00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed "accidents" to "incidents," which I think is more neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been changed back (not by me, I am unbothered) but incident is also broader (in that it includes intentional misbehaviour such as product dumping). --BozMo talk 08:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where has the wording of the section title been discussed? I don't see it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was February. There was a lot of good input but no decision was ever reached. I liked Beagel's "Major incidents" the best, though I did not have any strong feelings on it. Arturo suggested "Accidents and incidents" at one point. It's an interesting read for anyone that is interested in how important choosing the right wording can be. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to reopen that discussion. "Accidents" downplays the seriousness of the incidents described. "Incidents" is more neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Incidents' is just more general than 'accidents'. 'Accident' would not include sabotage or a deliberate release. In the sub-headings we can be more specific with 'spill', 'leak', 'explosion' etc. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's untrue that a consensus to use "incidents" has been reached. Does it not make sense that a neutral term is inappropriate to describe non-neutral events? petrarchan47tc 17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely lost me. "Accidents" implies "mistake," as in "it was an accident," while "incident" would encompass events in which BP was at fault. To call them "accidents" whitewashes their severity. I am new to this article so I don't know if consensus was reached or not. I'm just looking at the article afresh, and the section header "accidents" stood out. I think that this should be discussed and that there should not be edit warring over this. Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the last discussion on the titling of the "accidents" section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BP/Archive_8#New_structure_for_Environmental_record_and_Accidents.2Fsafety_record I see now that a valid objection was raised to titling the section "incidents," on the grounds that it might tend to minimize the serious events that transpired. I think that the current title, "Accidents," is worse. I favor "Environmental disasters" Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be incidents that are not disasters. Who is to decide what a disaster is? Incidents is a good generic term, the individual incident sub-headings can be more descriptive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All accidents are at the same time incidents but not all incidents are accidents. Disaster is too subjective term. Also, as it was said, not all incidents are disasters. If the term 'incidents' would be used I propose to add a word 'major' before it to avoid a false impression that this subsection covers all incidents. Beagel (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Core, thanks for your note. Check out this definition of "accident". petrarchan47tc 06:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Beagel, 'Major incidents' would be a neutral, accurate, encyclopedic generic term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with this as more neutral.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Major incidents" is marginally better than "accidents." Petrarchan47, I see what you mean, and I understand your unease with "incidents." But it concerns me that "accident" is commonly used in the "traffic accident" sense, which in this case does not seem appropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous discussion I said that I did not care for accident because the word often suggests something that has happened that is (often) beyond one's control, while investigations into BP's "accidents" have invariably shown that they were, in fact, "accidents waiting to happen". I prefer Bealel's suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The heading "Major incidents" makes the most sense to me, too. It describes all the types of events, is neutral and using "major" implies that only notable events will be included rather than the section becoming a long list of every possible event. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has reverted my addition of 2 external videos twice and told me to come to the talk page - though he has not mentioned anything here. I think this is the second set of edits I've made on the page and the second time something similar has happened. The first time I corrected an incorrect "fact" and the edit eventually stayed in the article.

I have no question that the videos will stay as well. The Frontline video, which is now back in the Environmental record section, starts out with about 20 minutes on BP's environmental record and environmental strategy, and then goes on to show how the Deepwater Horizon oil spill fits in this pattern. The Stanford video takes more of an engineering approach and examines deep water drilling in the Gulf with the Deepwater spill as the centerpiece. Both clearly related to BP's environmental record, both made by responsible organizations. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the videos build up to the topic of the Deepwater Horizon disaster by describing the background of BP engineering and the unsafe practices. Would you characterize the videos as being primarily about the Deepwater Horizon disaster, or would they be more about BP as a corporation? Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two videos have very different starting points, but I'm tempted to say right between your two choices - the firm's environmental record. The Frontline video starts with the environmental record and the firm's strategy, and the Deepwater spill appears to emerge inevitably. On the Stanford video, I haven't gotten through all 80 minutes yet (it's tough going), but I'd say the major single point is the near impossibility of conducting fully safe drilling in the Gulf - a big part of BP's strategy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would maintain a neutral position by also having a BP video about their safety procedures? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems just a tad frivolous to me. It reminds me of this article. Or perhaps this one. But maybe I'm misinterpreting; I would welcome alternative explanations -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 09:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The videos are highly relevant and should be included. The article currently is unbalanced in that it provides insufficient material on that catastrophe. Coretheapple (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]