Talk:BP/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Gulf spill section

Speaking about the Gulf spill section, on April 5 Jytdog said he planned to "do some condensing too, as these sections contribute to the article's bloat. For example, I think there is fat in DWH section... the 2nd paragraph in particular could go altogether, and the 3rd and 4th paragraphs could be condensed into one, with the quotes all taken out." and on April 6 he did complete these edits. On that date I objected with only one editor in agreement, however that editor made no move to restore a more balanced version. So, consensus remains in agreement with the new version, is that correct? Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a lengthy reply to you, to which you did not reply.... we achieve consensus by talking and reasoning. I gave reasons for my changes. Why don't you respond? This is not "my way or the highway" - we should be able to reason our way to a consensus. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get I'm saying "my way or the highway"? I stated that I was not satisfied with the changes but I did not revert you, and now I am asking other editors for input on the section. If the other editors are satisfied then it should be left as is. If not it should be adjusted. What is wrong with that? Gandydancer (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with that. You are free to do as you please. But we are apparently the two most interested parties. I don't understand why you wouldn't continue the conversation to reach consensus with anybody who is talking. No obligation of course. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What would you all think of updating and expanding a bit the environmental impact mention in this section? Presently, the article has "there was damage" and leaves it at that. I don't see why the reader isn't allotted a bit more detail. In my view, the amount of information given about the effect on the environment should exceed the court-related information. The only reason BP is in court over this is because it was so harmful to the environment. If they'd spilled a non-toxic substance, they probably wouldn't be in court in the first place. So it's baffling to me that we act as if the environmental damage deserves barely a mention. At the anniversaries of this accident (right now we are approaching the third year anniversary), good summaries of these effects appear in the media - always they mention "we won't truly know the environmental effects of this for years" - but we do know some results. The latest:

"Three years after BP oil spill, USF research finds massive die-off"

"Dolphin Deaths in the Gulf Three Years After the Oil Spill"

Commentary on above NWF piece

"Three years later, oil effects still unfolding"

(related) :

"Take It With a Grain of (Sea) Salt: Gulf Microbe Study Was Funded by BP"

Perhaps the related oil spill article can be updated while we're at it. petrarchan47tc 05:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think some compressed, very summarizing statements on environmental consequences would make sense. Right now we have compressed, summarizing paragraphs on the event and on legal consequences, both very relevant to BP as a company. We have "main" links to the 2 "main events" - the explosion and the spill. We have "see also" links to several of the subarticles from the spill (just added one for environmental consequences) The subarticle on the environmental consequences should be the most up-to-date and detailed; the section in the article on the spill should summarize that (for instance, via a copy of the lead of that article), and as I mentioned, a very compressed summary of that section could go here. One of the big problems with wikipedia is the way that content isn't kept harmonized -- people often just want to load content into the topmost article in the chain, which leads to bloat in that head article and what is worse, a poor (uneven, duplicative, and often contradictory and because of all that, time-wasting) presentation of information for anybody who actually cares and wants to learn about what happened. (fixing this elsewhere is what got me active as an editor) I would support an addition of information done that way - there should be no source here is that is not in the detailed article. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The legal ramifications and the environmental ones should be given due weight in this article - we just have to figure out what due weight means in this case. It is certainly unbalanced now and represents a major disconnect - the highest fines of all time are being levied because of the amount of damage done. I should have been more clear: I am asking for help updating all 3 relevant articles with this new information. I would need help to add anything to the main oil spill article (long story, see the talk page there to understand the problem). Also, the split-off article dealing with environmental damage needs tremendous help. It was cut off from the main article without any agreement on the talk page, and the summary was created and added by one person without any input from the group (and continues to be trimmed in a way not in keeping with Wiki guidelines). The split-off page gets about 20 views per day and is quite a mess. When I try to make an update to these two articles, it is followed by the removal of other content. I have reason to believe my work as an editor is more harmful than good on these BP oil spill articles due to personal games being played, therefore I am asking for other editors to please help with this. As for, "but we do have links to related articles" - we also have links to related "litigation" article but yet have a giant paragraph here representing about 2/3rds of the coverage of BP & the world's largest accidental marine oil spill. There was never consensus to cut the Gulf spill section down to two paragraphs, that I'm aware of. I think it would be good to question "due weight" once again with regard to this section and BP's article as a whole. petrarchan47tc 22:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, I can understand how difficult it is to find yourself in a position where it appears that signing your name to an edit is a kiss of death for it--see for instance my recent attempts to edit the Purdhoe section that were instantly deleted along with Arturo's as well because it was thought that it was all my work. When it was thought that it was Arturo's work there was no objection. So, it is a problem. As for the way the splits were done, it was indeed about the nuttiest thing I've ever seen. First someone that had never worked on the article dropped in out of the blue and did a bunch but left no summaries and then the editor from Hell popped in and then I asked for help from a stranger and got a lot more than I had asked for... *gandy crosses her eyes* I wonder--where would be a good place to start? Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, thank you so much for your response. I have two thoughts. BP has a "Wikipedia editing team" or some such thing (as per the HuffPo article). It is clear to me that because taking them on, so to speak, is so challenging and stressful given their limitless resources and fantastic support system here at Wiki that, as you earlier suggested, the only answer is to 'combat' it with an equal force. As you said, that would very literally mean that a COI editor from the 'other side' should be here doing the same thing Arturo does. We would also need a team like CREWE. When I first heard you suggest the Greenpeace rep (was that your example?), I thought it sounded ludicrous. Now I see it is exactly as ludicrous as having BP PR write this article. I watch the indies here bite each others' ankles every time one turns around. And it strikes me this is a function of our working for free, and for very little reward. This is why an organized team somewhat like CREWE, even if more loosely organized and with few members, is actually a good idea. If Wiki editors are now seriously being asked to do what we are doing at this page, we need to take a moment and reflect on what that really means. We are up against a PR department of one of the most powerful, wealthy companies in the world. And they are not about to stop caring A LOT about what this page says. They have loyal editors here who seem much more organized and less emotional than those of us interesting in removing spin. If that doesn't change, nothing will change with regard to the POV in the article. Another idea also is to keep this talk page very content-focused and the moment feelings are hurt, personal talk pages could be used instead of this one to deal with it. But I also agree that we must not silence ourselves or each other regarding the bullshit that has gone on at this page for about a year now. We've really only just begun uncovering the story.

The way to move forward in my opinion, is to keep talking about all of this: problems with the BP page, the oil spill page and its insane editing history, etc. Lastly, as either Core or Carbuncle said, the indies do need to just start being bold and making edits. The assumed suggestion is that with a lot of eyeballs now on these pages, edits sticking to guidelines should have enough support to remain in one form or another (ie, our efforts won't be thoroughly wasted). petrarchan47tc 23:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it surely was not Carbuncle that boldly edited--Jytdog told him to be bold and edit and instead he sulked off calling us shills. Re paid editors, I agree that we need something in place for corporations when they believe that their article is not accurate, but the scenario that you put on you talk page with an paid environmental editor rewriting entire articles as company editors are doing really does give a person something to think about. I wonder if anyone of the Higher Ups have given any serious thought to the idea of having watch dogs or watch dog groups for any article with a paid editor? Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

From my read, it seems the really High Ups prefer to assume all is going well with Paid Editors on talk pages. No investigation into the truth of that has been made, and it appears that will remain the case. petrarchan47tc 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I think it's important to expose this article to as many eyes as possible within Wikipedia, and to utilize adjudication boards/procedures as much as possible, such as the RfC that I just commenced when editors repeatedly removed text from the Clean Air Trial section, and demoted it to subsection. If nothing else, doing so will get more editors involved. The paid editor issue is not the only one troublesome in this article; the rest seems to be concerted whitewashing, which may or may not have a COI element. Your general point on paid editing is an important one. We have a paid editor to point out when the article tilts in one direction, but no countervailing force when the article points in another direction. The article cries out for expert attention from persons versed in environmental issues and this company's track record. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right. To give you some background, in the past, our RfCs have not attracted much attention. The last one filed by Martin Hogbin attracted literally no one. But perhaps you know some secrets? And I really do agree that a counter-force should be called in here. Of course, with the attitude towards environmentalists, I can't imagine anyone accepting that delicious offer, unless they were paid like Arturo. Non-profits probably don't have extra help and resources lying around to spend time in the recesses of Wikipedia. What would be the payoff for them? petrarchan47tc 20:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Updating

Leading to the third anniversary, lots of good summary articles will emerge. I'll leave them here:

On dolphins, shrimp, etc.. petrarchan47tc 04:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On seafood petrarchan47tc 06:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On use of Corexit - Newsweek

On use of Corexit - GAP report petrarchan47tc 03:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Corexit, human health, coverup

Louisianna update petrarchan47tc

[BP oil spill continues to affect Louisiana coast Louisiana update 2] petrarchan47tc 04:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Three years after BP oil spill, USF research finds massive die-off"

"Dolphin Deaths in the Gulf Three Years After the Oil Spill"

Commentary on above NWF piece

"Three years later, oil effects still unfolding"

Atlantic: Three Years After the BP Spill, Tar Balls and Oil Sheen Blight Gulf Coast

Empty nets in Louisiana three years after the massive BP oil spill petrarchan47tc

(related) :

"Take It With a Grain of (Sea) Salt: Gulf Microbe Study Was Funded by BP" petrarchan47tc 06:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Gulf Coast still waiting for funds after spill petrarchan47tc 03:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

US witness claims BP gas explosion cover-up petrarchan47tc 03:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Texas City information improvements requested

Recently there have been a few edits to this article regarding the Texas City refinery, including the addition of a new paragraph on a recently filed lawsuit. This information was added in the "Air pollution violations" section, although BP was not charged with any violation for the incident in question. The addition repeats the allegations in the lawsuit, which without context creates the impression that BP was in violation of air pollution laws. As media reporting at the time explained, the gas that was released was odorous but was not dangerous (see this StateImpact report and this ABC News article). No charges of air pollution were brought against BP. As it is written, the information in the article is misleading to readers and places undue weight on this incident, particularly since the lawsuit has only just been filed.

Can other editors look at this addition and consider removing or amending it? If some of this information should remain, would it be better placed in the "Refinery fatalities, safety violations, and leaks" section?

Texas City Refinery

Request collapsed here - explained more below

On the same topic, I have been looking at the information under the "2005 Texas City Refinery Explosion" and would like to request an update to be added to here. Specifically, following the Clean Air Act sentence, I suggest adding this sentence or some language that includes this detail:

In March 2012, the probation was lifted when the U.S. Justice Department stated that the company had addressed the most serious of the safety issues related to the accident and otherwise satisfied the terms of its agreement.

I have collapsed this request here so that I can explain it further in a new request below. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"...fatalities, safety violations, and leaks

I would also like to request a change to the wording in the "2006–2010: Refinery fatalities, safety violations, and leaks" section to provide some more detail and clarify information regarding the lawsuits. The additional detail needed is described below:

Current:

In June 2012, over 50,000 Texas City residents joined a class-action suit against BP, alleging they got sick in 2010 from the 41-day emissions release from the refinery. Texas has also sued BP over the release of emissions. BP says the release harmed no one.

Clarification:

More detail recommended re Texas suing BP: In August 2010, the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit seeking civil penalties against BP Products North America in relation to the leak. As of June 2012 should replace “In June 2010” in sentence describing class-action suit and same source currently in article can be used.

References

References

your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light.It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light. I would like to ask that you please follow WP:AGF in regard to your interactions with me.===Safety and Health violations=== As a separate point, the new "Safety and health violations" seems out of place in the "Environmental record" section and is very detailed. Perhaps editors could also look at this. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

To facilitate editor awareness, please mark the changes you make with the done tag. It really helps to inform all editors as to the status (open or done) of Arturo's requests. [ 00:21, 19 April 2013‎ Buster7]

Can you please point out any factual inaccuracies in the section, along with references to support your contention that the statements are inaccurate? There is ongoing litigation going on and it concerns me that we make the extensive changes that you describe, without clear inaccuracies, based on the views of one party to the litigation. In fairness I think that someone should contact the plaintiffs to this litigation to see if they share the BP rep's views of this section, and to ascertain if there are, in addition to any errors pointed out by the BP rep, any other material matters that were omitted and need to be mentioned. I think that we should obtain such input prior to considering any of these changes. Whether or not such input is obtainable, unless there are clear inaccuracies, not just alleged "misimpressions" and the opinion of BP that it is undue weight, I don't think that we should act on this request concerning ongoing litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the BP rep took several weeks, (or was it months?) to get back to editors on the Prudhom Bay spill information, I just can't see a reason for any rush here. I am still trying to untangle that mess and expect no assist from BP. If corporate editors are going to be allowed to offer their requests, they should be responsible to offer answers to requests of their corporation as well. And those requests should be answered in a timely manner. Gandydancer (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@Core. The point you make about the views of only one side of the litigation is valid. I would hope no changes occur until we can come to agreement as to what to do. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that we need to bend over backwards to be even-handed, which means not altering the "spin" of an article on litigation at the request of one side or another. If there any factual inaccuracies it is one thing; inaccuracies should be corrected immediately. But one side or another not liking the slant of a section, not feeling it is getting proper weight as the BP rep says here, is another matter entirely. An independent editor created this section and I believe it was edited by other independent editors thereafter. The text should not now be shaped by one party to the litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I moved this text from its own section to a subsection - but I agree this doesn't make perfect sense. Should it be its own section? I also agree it could be trimmed, but this is before having read it carefully. It just looks more meaty than what we usually add. I noticed also that the Gulf spill section (except the coverage of court cases) is dwarfed by both this and the Prudhoe Bay spill. I wonder if this is well-balanced coverage given what we find in RS. Imbalance happens naturally after an active editing period. We could take a moment to do a 'big picture' review of the article, imo, and expand/update the first section of the Gulf spill. petrarchan47tc 04:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The section is no longer under "Environmental record", thanks for pointing out my mistake. petrarchan47tc 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that it is back in its own section, it's certainly not too meaty. I shouldn't have commented before reading the section. petrarchan47tc 03:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I was the one that wrote the Safety and health section. I did not feel that it fit under the Environmental section and put it under a third heading but another editor moved it to the environmental section. I have nothing against shortening it but since it does not have its own article it tends to be a little longer. I'll copy it here to see what other editors think about the depth of coverage:

Safety and health violations

Citing conditions similar to those that resulted in the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion, on April 25, 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined BP more than $2.4 million for unsafe operations at the company's Oregon, Ohio refinery. An OSHA inspection resulted in 32 per-instance willful citations including locating people in vulnerable buildings among the processing units, failing to correct de-pressurization deficiencies and deficiencies with gas monitors, and failing to prevent the use of non-approved electrical equipment in locations in which hazardous concentrations of flammable gases or vapors may exist. BP was further fined for neglecting to develop shutdown procedures and designate responsibilities and to establish a system to promptly address and resolve recommendations made after an incident when a large feed pump failed three years prior to 2006. Penalties were also issued for five serious violations, including failure to develop operating procedures for a unit that removes sulfur compound; failure to ensure that operating procedures reflect current operating practice in the Isocracker Unit; failure to resolve process hazard analysis recommendations; failure to resolve process safety management compliance audit items in a timely manner; and failure to periodically inspect pressure piping systems. Here's the OSHA report: [1] Gandydancer (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To respond to Coretheapple's comment above asking to clarify what the inaccuracy is: the information about the Texas City lawsuit is placed under the heading "Air pollution violations", but this does not relate to an air pollution violation. As I explained above, BP was not charged with any violation for the incident in question, so placing it under this heading is incorrect. There are no sources that state that BP was charged with an air pollution violation for this incident.

As to the points raised regarding information about the lawsuit representing "only one side": the information currently does only provide the views of one side, since it details only the claims of those bringing the lawsuit against BP.

The other changes I've presented above are small changes to bring information up to date (adding the sentence about the probation being lifted) and adding clarity (the new sentence about the lawsuit brought by the Texas Attorney general, to replace the sentence saying "Texas has also sued BP").

I would also like to respond to Gandydancer's comment above: editors are welcome to respond or ignore my requests as they wish. I do my best to reply to any questions that editors here have for me. Regarding Prudhoe Bay, I replied to you explaining it would take me some time to look into the details (as I am not an expert on all areas of BP and the people who are have more important priorities) and provided a full response within one week of your questions. As you did not reply again, I assumed this provided the information you needed. It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light. I would like to ask that you please follow WP:AGF in regard to your interactions with me. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the above post. First of all, re the last point, I do not believe that BP's rep here, acting in the scope of his employment, should be citing WP:AGF in addressing editor comments. This is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I think that as a general proposition that that policy is not applicable to editing by PR personnel acting within the scope of their employment. But that is a discussion for another time and place.

Secondly, the section reports what is stated in the suit. It is highly material - very serious allegations that "BP’s oil refinery released highly toxic chemicals for 15 consecutive days in November 2011 and inflicted permanent environmental and health damages upon the local community. BP allegedly knew about the potential harm these chemicals could do, but 'failed to take proper action to stop or control the release,' the lawsuit states."[2] If that is not air pollution, I don't know what is.

It is true that these sources do not contain BP's point of view or response. However, that was by BP's choice, According to the footnoted Houston Chronicle article, "'We will review this matter and address it through the court system,' BP spokesman Scott Dean said in an email."[3] That is BP's choice. If it's changed, if there has been a statement responding to the suit, I'd like to know about it and if BP's rep can site one, on the BP website or elsewhere, it should be added. We should not go beyond that without obtaining input from the opposing party. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Arturo. Yes, looking back I see that you replied after 8 days to my Prudhoe Bay question. I had lumped my previous experience when it actually did take several months for you to respond and came up with a sarcastic response. I should know better by now--never use sarcastic remarks on Wikipedia because you will live to regret it. However, yes, one's "reputation" is important to most editors. Mine is important to me. You say, "It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light. I would like to ask that you please follow WP:AGF in regard to your interactions with me." I'd really appreciate it if you'd point out the other inaccurate observations I have made so that I may either defend my position or apologize. It may be appropriate on this page if it would clear something up, but if not you can reply on my talk page. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

According to The Courthouse News Service: "in 2011, BP agreed to pay $50 million in fines for emissions from the facility, and that the fine was the largest for Texas Clean Air Act violations at a single facility." So while the "incident in question" may not have received penalties from Texas, there was a history of penalties for emissions from this plant that is the subject of the lawsuit. Therefore I do not think that a change in the header is appropriate. If one reads the Courthouse News Service article, from a secondary source noted for its objective reporting of lawsuits, one can read more about the background of this situation. If BP has not taken a position on this lawsuit that's its privilege, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with a BP rep, at a time when BP is silent on the lawsuit, attempting to influence what appears in Wikipedia on this subject, especially since no inaccuracies have been brought to the attention of editors. We are under no rush here, and again i am not in favor of responding to requests to add "context" from one side of this litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, unless I missed something, none of the sources about the lawsuit say that the complaint the suit focuses on was an "air pollution violation" and there is no source to say that BP was charged with air pollution violations in this case. Keeping information about this lawsuit under a heading of "Air pollution violations" appears to be incorrect, but obviously that is for editors to decide. The fine that you added to this section is already covered in the "2005 Texas City Refinery explosion" section, and relates to that event (see this source), not to the case that is the focus of this new lawsuit. The lawsuit may mention other incidents involving the Texas City refinery, but as the Houston Chronicle and Associated Press articles explain, the specific event at the center of the lawsuit is a leak in 2011.

Gandydancer, I would be happy to discuss on my discussion page or yours, if you think that's more appropriate. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, your page is fine. BTW, we were in an edit conflict when I make my post below. Gandydancer (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Further thoughts from Gandydancer. Arturo, I think that perhaps you do not appreciate some of the dynamics of what has recently transpired. You are complaining that I have not used WP:AGF while I am saying that that is exactly what got me into trouble here in the first place. I had specifically asked you about the follow up re pipe replacement after the 2006 Prudhoe spill and you replied only that the pipeline had been replaced. And I looked no further. I said, "Great rewrite!" or some such. Only later did I find that there was much more to that story...

Do you really believe that the editors here should accept in good faith that you were not aware that as a matter of fact BP had not resolved the actions that it had been directed to and was fined a further $25 million civil penalty, the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill? But after this was all published outside of WP, rather than complaints regarding your work here, I saw nothing but high praise for your outstanding performance, including from Jimbo. As for the lowly editors that work here for free, like me, complaints such as, "asleep at the wheel" and such. So all in all, it should not be surprising that I have become a little disgruntled from time to time...and be a little sarcastic... Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are obligated to fact-check BP's drafts and respond to talk page comments, the work of a professional PR team. Content is being checked and responded to by unpaid editors in their free time. With that in mind, please quadruple-check everything coming from your department to ensure no wild goose chases. petrarchan47tc 23:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Arturo, the article indicates that the $50 million fine was for violations for the Texas Clean Air Act. Here is another article on that.[4] What you're talking about was the $50 million criminal fine for the federal clean air act. I know, there are so many fines and penalties imposed on your company that it's easy to be confused. Coretheapple (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be sure this is clear: You said The fine that you added to this section is already covered in the "2005 Texas City Refinery explosion" section. That does not appear to be true. The coverage indicates otherwise; i.e., that it was not already mentioned in the article, and that the $50 million fine mentioned in the section was paid out to the federal govt. The settlement of Texas clean air act charges was not mentioned. I've put it in the air pollution section. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, you are right, I had read the line in the "Texas City Refinery" section quickly and missed that this related to the federal Clean Air Act, whereas the information you added related to the Texas Clean Air Act. I apologize for the mistake. Thank you for clarifying and to Petrarchan for moving the information relating to the recent lawsuit to the Texas City Refinery section. When editors have time, it would be great if they could revisit the other recommendations made in my post which I believe will improve the article. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not. We should not adopt any wording recommended by BP's rep here, and certainly not the wording suggested above.

The first suggestion recommends the following wording: "In March 2012, the probation was lifted when the U.S. Justice Department stated that the company had addressed the most serious of the safety issues related to the accident and otherwise satisfied the terms of its agreement."

This wording is problematic for two reasons:

1. It was drafted by BP's public relations department, and our readers should not be reading text that is drafted by BP's public relations department, regardless of any other factors.

2. The suggested text does not completely reflect the source text, which is an article by Abraham Lustgarten in ProPublica entitled, "Feds Let BP Off Probation Despite Pending Safety Violations." Lustgarten's article states, inte alia, " As the probation expired, confusion remained about exactly what improvements BP had made at its refineries. According to the 2010 agreement with OSHA, BP pledged to address the risk of catastrophic chemical releases and to install new protective equipment and instrument systems across the sprawling refinery’s 28 units. It was not clear how much progress the company had made, however, and BP spokesman Daren Beaudo characterized the OSHA issues as Unresolved." This provides nuance that is required for this article, and needs to be reflected.

I'm not going to be able to work on this article for most of the next week. I suggest that editors, when they have time, independently decide, without BP's input, whether further text is needed for that section of the article. Given that litigation is ongoing, it concerns me that a situation that is complicated - so complicated that BP's own rep here is understandably confused over the various penalties imposed - and that we need to be wary of allowing any party to litigation to influence the wording of a section that pertains to the litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we find a speed other than high gear to edit this article. BP is 100 years old. It's not going anywhere. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the above 4 requests (by thread) are still open. Please...NO rush to complete conversations, I just want to be sure that they get marked as  Done if that is the case. I think monitoring Arturo's requests in this manner (creating individual threads to seperate and manage discussions and marking as done) is a good idea and may be something to consider within the ongoing Paid Editor Conversation elsewhere. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is one very long thread with alot of important discussion. I hate to lose it (and the capacity to edit it) to the archives. Going back to the 18th, and moving forward, have we concluded the discussion and have we come to a decision on implementing all or any part of Arturo's request? If segmented decisions and inclusions were made, please mark them as  Done. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Requesting edit to "History"

I have a request relating to some information in the "History" section that is incorrect. The "2000 to 2010" section within "History" includes the following wording, which needs to be amended:

In 2001, the company formally renamed itself as BP plc and adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum," which remains in use today. It states that BP was never meant to be an abbreviation of its tagline.

There are two issues with this information:

• "Beyond Petroleum" is not still in use today. In this article from Mother Jones it states the company was no longer using the slogan in 2009, and our commercials in recent years do not feature this tagline. See these BP commercials on YouTube: December 2011, April 2012 and August 2012.
• Also the sentence "It states that BP was never meant to be an abbreviation of its tagline" has no source and is confusing. It is not just a claim of the company that BP is not an abbreviation of "beyond petroleum", it is a simple fact. The company name was changed to BP plc. in 2001, per this release from the time, meanwhile the tagline was used in commercials in the 2000s but was never the company's name. This article from Time magazine explains the name change and tagline well.

Please can editors review this request, remove the incorrect statement about "beyond petroleum" being in use today and adjust the other wording as needed? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at this now. Just past this section, are two claims without any citation. I'll leave them here until sources are found.

"Most Amoco stations in the United States were converted to BP's brand and corporate identity. In many states BP continued to sell Amoco branded petrol even in service stations with the BP identity. Amoco was rated the best petroleum brand by consumers for 16 consecutive years and also enjoyed one of the three highest brand loyalty reputations for petrol in the US, comparable only to Chevron and Shell. In May 2008, when the Amoco name was mostly phased out in favour of "BP Gasoline with Invigorate", promoting BP's new additive, the highest grade of BP petrol available in the United States was still called Amoco Ultimate."

"ААR contributed its holdings in TNK International, ONAKO, SIDANCO, RUSIA Petroleum (which held licenses for the Kovykta field and the Verkhnechonsk field), and the Rospan field in West Siberia (the New Urengoy and East Urengoy deposits). BP contributed its holding in SIDANCO, RUSIA Petroleum, and its BP Moscow retail network."

I've removed the incorrect parts, but have not added the story of the name change per Arturo's Mother Jones and TIME articles. Should we cover this in a small section devoted to the story of the name changes? Right now we have a small mention in the history section, followed immediately by something of questionable relevance about the Tate gallery. petrarchan47tc 21:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Arturo, there is already a very small section on the name change, and it is being covered in the history section as well. Seems silly to talk about the name change in two different places. petrarchan47tc 22:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the details from the "History" section, Petrarchan. It seems fine to me to just discuss the name change in one place in the article, too. Thanks again. Arturo at BP (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so that's part of the to-do list, the name-change section. Remind us if we forget. petrarchan47tc 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by editing

Rangoon restored Arturo's requested removal, repeatedly, and although banned, is now sending another editor to make these changes. This section was also added:

In many states BP continued to sell Amoco branded petrol even in service stations with the BP identity as it had a good reputation with consumers. In May 2008, when the Amoco name was mostly phased out, the highest grade of BP petrol available in the United States was still called Amoco Ultimate.

If this belongs in the article, we should find a source before adding it again. petrarchan47tc 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I assure you I'm not sent here. I am pretty sure I have disagreed with Rangoon many a time, and I am not a fan of BP in the least. Nonetheless, I think that this section is true (I remember because my brother briefly worked for $7 an hour at a BP around the time of the rename - not the sort of experience that would lead to a conflict of interest). Being aware that my limited restoration of this section may have appeared like a contract job, I took special effort to remove the seeming pro-BP bias of Rangoon's edit. I don't think that the removed sentence in any way serves to further BP's interest and I applaud P47's effort at impartiality in not only reviewing his own reversal but then also bringing it here. Nonetheless I bridle at the notion that I'm "sent" here and would appreciate an apology before going any further with this discussion - note that all of the pro-BP portions of R12s edits were not restored in my edit. The two sentences concerned do not form a new section, simply a restoration of the useful information contained within the original edit with all the puffery removed. Still needs a source, sure, not sure what the "undue weight" bit means or if it refers to something I didn't add back in.

As a sidenote and as an indication of my own personal biases, I ride my bicycle to work daily unless weather conditions or a strong desire to read forces me to utilize public transport. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess what concerns me about that addition, Mr. C, is that it had two problematic tags on it, "citation needed" and "undue." The "per Rangoon" edit summary didn't help much. So I can understand why the edit raised red flags, it being unsourced and might be of undue weight. Coretheapple (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "per Rangoon" meant, but I took it to mean that you were doing a favor for her while she is away. So, my apologies. It might be a good idea to bring your ideas and sources to the talk page, first. petrarchan47tc 06:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No sources in the pipeline, I was just trying to restore which of Rangoon's edits seemed useful. I could endeavour to find more sources, I suppose, but this is not an area of interest of mine. I hadn't realized just how much was at stake in this page (as I hadn't realized the depth of BP involvement).  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It appears to be an unusual situation to have the subject of the article so intimately involved in the editorial process. I was surprised to learn that Wikipedia rules allow it, and especially seem to sanction intimate involvement of a corporation in proposing text and sources on subject matter in which it is involved in litigation. I just addressed the anomaly of that situation in an essay taking form on an administrator's subpage[5]. It's somewhat like a controversial company, while enmeshed in litigation, having a delegate at the daily editorial meetings of the Environment or Business desks of the New York Times. But it's allowed, at least under present rules, so we have to cope with it. Unfortunately, one byproduct is that it has not improved the climate on the page, and generally is a negative aspect that is highly burdensome, both in terms of time and otherwise, to the editors here. Coretheapple (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, just to explain, Ragoon has, in the past, been specifically solicited by the BP rep to act as a proxy. Alarm bells go off when she appears or when she is mentioned. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened to Churchill?

Why was the consultancy of Churchill removed? Why was the edit summary "more history" used. Its misleading and doesnt mention the major fact that one piece of boring history replaced a piece of interesting history. Why not actually add the new info without deleting? I don't understand the value of the replacement over what was replaced (re:Churchill). Please can editors review this recent edit and request removal of the boring statement and readjust to the "reader interesting" statement about Winston Churhill. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What information was removed? If you look at the end of the second paragraph, the sentence "In 1923, Burmah employed future Prime Minister Winston Churchill as a paid consultant to lobby the British government to allow APOC have exclusive rights to Persian oil resources, which were subsequently granted." is still there without any changes. Could you please actually read the text before making accusations? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, could you please specify which information you refer as "boring statement"? Information that APOC built the first ever refinery in the UK and Australia or that the name of British Petroleum Company was originally used by the subsidiary of the Germancompany? Why this is "boring"? Beagel (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe information should be discussed on the talk page before being removed. This has not been happening. petrarchan47tc 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Information about Churchill was not removed or changed. The accusation of removing this was falseincorrect (by my understanding made by a mistake not intentionally). Beagel (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

My statement was more general, in the case of the Iranian Coup for instance, the bits to be removed should be brought here for discussion first. Otherwise, unless someone takes time out to sort through all edits to the page, we have no idea what's being deleted. petrarchan47tc 22:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to this diff..[6]. When I saw it, late at night, I mistakenly thought it was removed. I see now that it was just moved..so its position in the article changed. My accusation was not false. It was mistaken. BIG difference. The claim that it was false is Spin. Although you soften it right away with "by my understanding" you still spin my mistake into a falsehood. That ploy was not necessary if we are to collaborate. The fact that I made an embarassing mistake was obvious. The fact that you see it as a falsehood, like a venial sin, to be pointed out to everyone, is also obvious. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I believe this was a mistake. However, this mistake resulted with an accusation in this thread which is incorrect. The original comment was not struckthrough or there is no apology for the baseless accusation, which one may expect if that kind of mistake is made. Beagel (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You have your strike-through, now would you agree to stop removing content from the page before bringing it to talk, please beagle? petrarchan47tc 22:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed the Iran Coup information, it was reverted (with removing also some other added text) and although I still think that these details does not belong here, I have made no further changes to that part. All other information I have removed (repetitions and some trivia) have been not challenged or have been copyediting, not removal. Your remark is even more strange as there has been a removal of large part of information by other editor, but you have had no objections. So, taking account comments like this, this, this, or [7], also the long going practise to make baseless accusations against editors who have different POV, I have to kindly ask you to stop. Beagel (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What other content and editor are you referring to, please? And this: the long going practise to make baseless accusations against editors who have different POV is itself a baseless accusation, and I need to ask you to refrain from doing that in the future. petrarchan47tc 05:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So-called 'Environmental initiatives'

I'm concerned by the "environmental initiatives" section for several reasons. First it's not about "environmental initiatives" for the most part, but is a mismash of things dealing largely deals with positions BP has taken on environmental issues, and with BP's efforts on alternative energy thrown in. The latter is not an environmental initiative but a question of business (or pr) strategy. Thus the very title is POV and promotional. The section had previously begun with an item of trivia - BP being among the initial sponsors of a climate change institute in England in 1971 - which I have removed. The source was a passing reference in a book, indicating that BP was just one of a list of sponsors, with the amount not mentioned and BP just mentioned in passing. In general, considering the trivial and insubstantive content, the length of this section is disproportionately long and is violative of NPOV. Coretheapple (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed these problems by moving the alternative energy aspects to the alternative energy section. That rectified a duplicate mention of BP giving money to create a biofuels institute, which was already in the alternative energy section, but which I guess some editors found so thrilling that they wanted it mentioned twice. That left us with BP's position on global warming, so I renamed the section and place it in the section above, where it belongs. If anyone knows of BP engaging in any actual environmental initiatives apart from giving speeches on global warming and getting involved in alternative energy, we can re-create this section if they are of the same significance as the other items of BP's environmental record in that section. Coretheapple (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative energy section

The section on alternative energy is grossly disproportionate. When you go to BP's annual report, you find that the resources devoted to alternative energy are so small that they are not broken out separately in the summary listings of BP's employee count. "Upstream" and "downstream" (industry jargon that we may want to translate for our readers) are by far of greater significance. This is an oil company ladies and gentleman. Its alternative energy operations are as much p.r. as they are anything else, and I have news for everyone: this article is not an extension of the BP public relations department. I have tagged for undue emphasis, which it screamingly needs. It needs to be cut signficantly. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC) According to a figure cited in the article, BP alternative energy employs 5,000 people, out of nearly 86,000 employees! I question whether its efforts deserve a section at all, much less the lavish space devoted to it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've cut back on the size of the section and removed the "undue" tag. However, I do so with misgivings, given the tiny size of this unit, so small that its revenues are not broken out. It is still given co-equal treatment with gas and oil, and that's just wrong. This is still a work in progress; I think that the approach of this article to alternative energy needs to be rethought. Listing it as co-equal, and giving less attention to its vast oil holding than to its piddling, fast-evaporating operations, which mainly seem to be p.r. efforts, strikes me as ridiculous. Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It is very strange to see that naming company subsidiaries is tagged as undue. If the subsidiaries would not be mentioned in the parent company article, where should they? Beagel (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

To call them "subsidiaries" is an overstatement. They are tiny ventures of negligible consequence to the company, and belong to a unit of the company that is so small that its financial results are not broken out by the company. Whenever efforts are made to add discussion of environmental horrors to this article, the argument is always made that those details are not warranted because of the immense size and grandiose history of this company. Here we have a unit of the company that is tiny by any measure, and mentioning it in the same section as discussion of its immense oil and gas operations is quintessential undue. Be assured that even with those tiny subsidiaries removed, this section is problematic and gives the reader, by its size, a false impression of the company. It is the primary neutrality issue in the article at the moment. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

(Well, I would say an equally major neutrality issue is the BP oil spill section. Just take a gander at these sources, and then look at the minuscule mention of (non-financial) impacts from the spill, the overall size of this section compared with others in the article, and consider the size of this oil spill in terms of impact to BP, whose stock is down 1/3rd since the 2010 explosion.) petrarchan47tc 23:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and a central "to do" list might be helpful in helping us all focus our attention on areas needing help the most. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I examined the sources you cite, and compared to the main article, and you're 100% correct. "Summary style" is one thing, "short shrift" is another. BP caused the biggest oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. There need to be subsections on the health, environmental and economic impact. That section is a disgrace, as is this article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that the more we fill this article with meaningless unimportant "fluff" the less room there is available to fill it with Important, (but not necessarily the most favorable) "stuff". So..When the choice is between fluff and stuff, I choose.....stuff. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying what is stuff or what is fluff depends in some cases of the editor/reader POV. One may call the fact that the company built first ever refinery in the UK and Australia, or the company name of its subsidiaries dealing with ethanol production "fluff". However, other readers may find this information useful; particularly if this information is not repeated elsewhere in Wikipedia. One may have a POV that all information about the DWH oil spill should be added in this article notwithstanding the fact that more specific articles exist. Others would prefer to go to the DWH article if they need information about that. Beagel (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors need to use their common sense and examine the available data. The tiny size of the Alternative Energy unit, one-seventeenth of the BP workforce before the wind units are shed, is indicative of clear overemphasis of that aspect of the company in this article. Whether its purpose is p.r. or not is not our judgment to make, but its tiny size, so small that its results are not broken out, speaks for itself. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

More detailed information about ethanol and buthanol subsidiaries was removed with the edit summary: culling out duplicative material and text sourced to press releases; if these are important enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia they will be in reliable secondary sources. However, this information is not duplicated, reported by agencies such as Reuters and Bloomberg which qualifies as third party RS. These RS were specifically added based on the request at the edit summary of the first time removal. Beagel (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliably reported or not, you're padding this section with trivia. The names of units that, compared to a company of this size, aren't worth the powder to blow them away. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not trivia as information about subsidiaries a part of the parent company's article–particularly if not provided in other articles in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that listing major subsidiaries in this article is appropriate, minor, fly-speck ones no. I haven't removed their names as they are sourced to secondary sources, however, I think that it's unnecessary detail considering the immense history of this company and its far-flung operations, and the extremely small size of these ventures. This is the kind of minute detail that gives this article a "BP wrote this" feel to it, which needs to be avoided. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying what is stuff or what is fluff depends in some cases of the editor/reader POV. But not in this case. The point that I make is that I feel there is an effort to fill the article with "Fluffy Filler type trivia" in order to elongate the article past the point of accepteble length and thereby not having any room for unfavorable (to BP) information. "Sorry Buster. The article is too long. There is just no room for your edits about the pollution of Lake Michigan." ```Buster Seven Talk 06:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Biofules

After current edits this section includes the sentence: Once the sale is consummated, BP's renewable energy business will be limited to biofuels research and ethanol refining in Brazil. This is cited by two references–Bloomberg and The Independent. While the sentence actually comes from Bloomberg, the Independent actually says nothing about Brazil. At the same time this reporting by Bloomberg is incorrect as references above show that BP has biofuel activities also in the UK and US. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's because the sale hasn't been consummated. It was just announced a couple of weeks ago. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the source, the Independent said BP would be left with "a handful of biofuels businesses and low-key research projects." I'll be happy to add that characterization. Coretheapple (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

BP has announced a sale of its biofuel activities in the UK and US? When? Beagel (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Bloomberg's opinion

The last sentence of the current text of that section says: Bloomberg called the retreat from wind and solar "(BP's) retreat to fossil fuels.". It is sourced by three references: Bloomberg, The Independent and Farmington Daily Times. First, The Independent and Farmington Daily Times says anything about Bloomberg saying this. Second, this is (incorrect) opinion as biofuels are not fossil fuels. Beagel (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Retreat to fossil fuels. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the sourcing issue, and reconsidered that sentence. That "retreat" language was used only in the headline of a brief article, so I've removed it. If someone wants to restore it I certainly wouldn't mind, but my present feeling is that the snap judgment of some wire service headline writer probably doesn't make the cut. It's a bit too glib. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This solves that particular issue. Beagel (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that the headline needs to be included, but the Bloomberg piece is representative not of a snap judgment, but of RS in general. See here and here and here ~ these could all be entitled "BP's retreat to fossil fuels". petrarchan47tc 22:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, definitely, and if you want to revert that language I certainly won't object at all. I just am bending over backwards to be fair to BP, as always! Coretheapple (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to include that specific text as long as the context remains. petrarchan47tc 03:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I could not understand how Bloomberg could have said that. Personally I thought the headline was inaccurate. BP had never retreated "from" oil and gas in the first place, judging from the picayune resources it devoted to alt energy, which were so slim that they resulted in widespread charges of greeenwashing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

True, I think it was a play on words in response to BP's unrelenting greenwashing. petrarchan47tc 20:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a "main business segment"

There is a serious error in this article that I've just corrected. It said that there are "three main business segments": upstream, downstream and alternative energy. That is sourced to the 2011 annual report and the BP website. But the website, while listing alt energy alongside the two others, does not refer to it as a main business segment. The 2012 annual report at p. 15[8] says specifically that there are "two main business segments." This is a major friggin' error, made all the more glaring by the fact that an employee of BP is monitoring this talk page, supposedly for the purpose of correcting errors. Yet here we have a glaring error, a ridiculous error in fact considering how tiny alternative energy is and how few people it employs. I have broken out Alternative Energy as a separate section, removing it from the Main Business Segments section as it is not a main business segment of the company, and is indeed too small to be broken out separately and has 1/17th of the company's employees. What made this error particularly unfortunate is that it exaggerated the role of alternative energy at BP, further slanting this article's POV in a serious and significant way. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Coretheapple, I would like to clarify that the wording that I originally proposed last year did not describe BP Alternative Energy as a main business segment, instead it said that "BP has three areas of operation: Upstream, Downstream, and BP Alternative Energy". This made it clear that alternative energy is not part of the company's Upstream or Downstream activities. The source I used linked to a page on the BP website that you can see here, which breaks the BP group organization into Upstream, Downstream and BP Alternative Energy. At some later point this wording was edited to describe BP Alternative Energy as a "main business segment" and I did not notice this change. Often there are many edits in a single day on this article, so it can be nearly impossible to keep track of each individual phrasing. I am aware of a number of factual inaccuracies in the article, but I am trying not to overwhelm volunteer editors with too many requests at once and will continue to make recommendations in stages as I have been. I would also like to remind editors that I have many other responsibilities at BP than my work on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, everyone here is doing the best job they can to keep the article updated. I would appreciate it if you could be less quick to criticize other editors in this manner. Arturo at BP (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I said as follows: "This is a major friggin' error, made all the more glaring by the fact that an employee of BP is monitoring this talk page, supposedly for the purpose of correcting errors." It is a major frigging error, and it is made all the more glaring by the fact that an employee is monitoring this page for the purpose of correcting errors. If you know of any other factual errors, you should by all means disclose them. I think that it would have done our readers a great service to know that we were misstating the number of main business segments in this company, and specifically treating Alternative Energy as a main business segment when it is actually tiny in size, so as to prompt accusations of greenwashing as you know. Your wording quoted above is in my opinion not constructive, and apparently contributed to the overweighting of text on Alternative Energy. This exemplifies why I am not comfortable with a BP public relations employee suggesting text for insertion in the article by editors.

This also exemplifies why we should be careful about using the BP website as a source. Apparently BP has been pushing hard at Alternative Energy in its corporate communications efforts, including its website via the page you mention. It gives a grossly misleading impression of the significance of Alternative Energy to BP, and it should not have been adopted by editors without further checking, as apparently was the case. No, I don't blame the corporate editor for making this specific suggestion, as that was his job, but I do blame the editors who adopted it without further checking. Coretheapple (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I went back through the article history and found that the erroneous "three main business segments" language was inserted by User: Rangoon11 in this edit on July 5, 2012, nearly ten months ago.

I think this shows how important it is for editors not to adopt the corporate BP editor's (or any corporate editor's) suggested changes and textual additions, no matter how seemingly innocuous, routine or apparently well intentioned, unless they are for clear factual errors, the erroneousness of which can be independently verified. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Arturo said, " I would also like to remind editors that I have many other responsibilities at BP than my work on Wikipedia." It is very hard for me to continue to be told by the BP rep that he has not had time for the article and thus we need to consider that and avoid being overly harsh with our comments. Arturo, almost two weeks ago you said that I have been making comments about you that are not factual. In other words, either purposely or accidentally making stuff up. We agreed that you would discuss this accusation on your talk page and I am still waiting. I think that you should have been able to find the time by now. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We all have many other responsibilities, but only the BP corporate editor is editing this page within the scope of his job duties. It is simply inexcusable that a serious error, one that perpetuates the "Green BP" corporate p.r. thrust, was permitted to mislead readers for the last ten months. Independent editors, editing this as a hobby, cannot be expected to immediately read an article and see errors. However, I think that there is a reasonable expectation that a corporate employee, one tasked to monitor this article, would not be at that disadvantage. In addition to the unease that I feel by this error and its pendency for the past ten months, under the eyes of the BP employee monitoring this page very closely, I am deeply disturbed by that employee tsk-tsking about editors who insert non-corporate content into this article not behaving the way he wants them to behave. That kind of comment needs to end, and end now. It just is not acceptable, and frankly I find it to be offensive. Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, it isn't Arturo, it is BP's PR team. TEAM. petrarchan47tc 19:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As in a legal document, the singular can be construed as plural where appropriate in dealing with this particular phenomenon. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple of replies here: first to Gandydancer, I just saw your comment here and I think this may have been due to a misunderstanding between us both: I was expecting you to leave a message for me, while you were expecting me to write to you.

Coretheapple, on the issue of whether BP's Alternative Energy business was a "main business segment", it certainly is a separate area of operation to the company's upstream and downstream, which is what the wording I proposed stated. Your arguments that the change in wording by Rangoon overstated the importance of Alternative Energy are largely focused on recent events, particularly the announcements regarding BP's wind business. Until recently this business area was involved in a great deal of activity worth including in this article and that highlighted its importance, not to mention that the company has spent $7.6 billion on this area since 2005, more than $4 billion of it in the U.S. It is relevant to also compare BP's Alternative Energy business with other alternative energy companies to show how notable and large this business is in relative terms: BP Biofuels was ranked 12 in BioFuel Digest's list of hottest biofuel companies and BP was ranked 6th for market share and 5th overall for new wind energy installation in the US last year, higher than many companies that specifically focus on wind energy. So, until very recently BP was quite an active player in alternative energy.

Also, to address the issues you raised suggesting that it was my requests that led to "overweighting of text" on Alternative Energy: when I first started looking at this article, there was already a lot of language about Alternative Energy and the material I later presented suggested adding specific details under the relevant locations in "Operations", providing just a top-level view in the Alternative Energy section (see my request in October 2012 and the draft I proposed). As you can see, comparing my draft with the current section, there's much more detail in the article now, all of which was added by volunteer editors as they felt necessary and did not relate to my requests. With the recent events impacting Alternative Energy operations, editors have revisited the details in the article and that makes sense.

On a more general point, I first introduced myself here in May 2012, so it is incorrect to say that it has been "years". The primary reason I started taking an interest in the article in the first place was due to there being very little information about BP's operations and of that, some of it was inaccurate. Updating this information has largely remained my focus in the last year. Also, I would like to clarify that at no point have I said that it is my job to monitor this article for every incorrect detail: as part of my role I have been offering corrections here where I see they're needed as well as providing details and sources to include. Editors here have made an assumption that working on Wikipedia is my full-time role and that it is in my job description to monitor for every and all discrepancy, but this not the case. This is why I have noted that I have other duties, since this misunderstanding seems to persist. Another point that has persisted despite my pointing out that it was an error by one reporter, is that there is a "Wikipedia Team": I am the only BP employee, although I do fact check with other BP employees which might require research if they don’t already know. Finally, I have no expectation that volunteer editors should reply to my requests and I am grateful to anyone who is willing to review my suggestions. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Suffice to say that the sincerity of BP's alternative energy program is disputed widely by the critics, and it is not our job to reflect one side or another, but rather to reflect what is stated in reliable secondary sources. However, the fact that is that alternative energy is not one of the three main business segments, and a falsehood to the contrary was stated in the article for ten months without a peep from BP, which appears to monitor the page closely and has made voluminous suggestions in furtherance of the corporate narrative at a time when it is in the midst of serious civil litigation. This was a major and conspicuous error. I do not believe that any BP official reading this article could not have been cognizant that it was in error, and that it contradicted the clear statement in its annual report that there are "two main business segments." This error gave our readers an unfairly exaggerated view of alternative energy as a BP priority, and might have been seriously problematic had the Wiki article been cited by the court as I believe has happened in the past (with other articles). We must be vigilant to prevent inaccuracies, as it appears that inaccuracies/omissions favorable to BP are not going to be noticed unless the independent editors on this page do so. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, it seems likely that you will not accept my explanation but I would like to say that the wording is something I would have corrected if I had noticed, as I have in the past made requests for changes not favorable to BP. For instance, I provided an update to AE information in the article asking for the Highlands project to be removed as it had been discontinued. The phrasing about AE was just two or three inaccurate words buried within the Operations section, so if I missed this, and so did others, it seems hard to believe that this can have had a huge impact on how BP is perceived. I actually just noticed that there are some sentences claiming the wind sale is tied to our $38 billion divestment target, but that target has already been reached so that fact is incorrect, although I will doublecheck to make sure. There are a number of other incorrect facts, and I will provide outreach on that in the next week. I’m sure there are even some I haven’t noticed. I do appreciate that you value my contribution to the article so much that you are holding me to a higher standard than any other editor. Arturo at BP (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The presence of a corporate official in the editing of an article on that company, acting within the scope of employment and participating actively in the editorial process, creates a presumption that the article is indeed being read carefully and that no factual error, major or minor, has been overlooked. In this case, the error was blatant and significant, and favorable to the company's position.

The ostensible purpose of the corporate presence is to correct errors, and the corporate editor's interest is solely in articles about the company that employs him. In this instance, this was a statement in the article that there were three "main business segments," in quotes, a fundamental and not trivial fact about the company that exaggerated the importance of BP's Alternative Energy division. This was a basic fact about the company, and it was contradicted by the plain language of the annual report. I could not disagree with you more strongly that this did not have a significant impact on how BP is perceived. I can see that same error picked up in hundreds of school and college reports in the ten months during which it was in the article, as Wikipedia is lamentably used by students as basic source material. I find this error to be extremely disturbing, but to be frank I do not expect BP to share that opinion.

There are numerous, one might say enormous advantages for a company to have a representative at Wikipedia monitoring the article(s) about them. But one drawback, from the company's point of view, is that when there are errors in the article that favor the company, it's only natural that independent, nonaffiliated editors will question why those errors were not brought to the attention of Wikipedia, especially when the corporate rep is prone to lengthy and frequent talk page posts, and obviously is monitoring the article very closely. In this instance, the serious error was in the article for ten months. It's just common sense to presume that this error was noticed by the company but was allowed to remain because it favored the company's position. One does not leave one's common sense at the door when one edits Wikipedia. Yes, a casual reader would not realize that this error was an error, which is why it was such a problem. But a corporate rep, assigned by his employers to monitor an article, is not a volunteer editor who just edits Wikipedia out of casual interest and is not versed in the company's operational structure. Coretheapple (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Core, I wish I'd found it sooner, but I do believe you are making too much of the issue, and it's been fixed now. This article is thousands of words long, and I am quite sure that is not the only factual problem to be found here. It's my plan to continue to watch the development of the page and continue to offer suggestions as I'm able. And I will continue to do so even when the change is not "favorable" to BP. However, in the Deepwater Horizon section, which we've been discussing below, the section includes a great deal of detail that is unfairly slanted against BP, and I think this also does a disservice to readers. If you are unwilling to help me bring some balance to this section, because you dislike my employer or because you believe my oversight to have been malicious, that's too bad and I will ask other editors to weigh in. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

But I don't believe that it is inbalanced. I've requested previously that you substantiate your contention that the section is, in your words, "unfairly slanted against BP." You have not done so, and I think this is the second or third time I've asked. You obviously don't have to respond to that or any other query, but not substantiating an accusation of that kind tends to detract from its credibility.

As I've pointed out previously on more than one occasion, what is in that section was summarized from other articles in Wikipedia that are monitored closely by BP, and were not dropped from the sky here for the first time. They fairly summarize what is stated in secondary sources.

I further noted that some of the material that you wish to add is from a source, a Prof. Hazen, who have been paid by BP for their research work in the past and whose work appears to be financed by the company. That does not make them unusable, but such connections need to be taken into consideration. Moreover, I believe that a good deal of the sourcing that you have requested be reflected in the article could not possibly address any "balance" issue as they appear to address issues not dealt with in the section at this time. Obviously we can use such sourcing, but I fail to see how itnroducing new subject matter would address an inbalance issue, especially when claims are made that are controversial, such as the ones made by Hazen, and their disputed character would need to be noted.

Requesting such details, and expressing concern about a blatant error favorable to BP for the past ten months, is not an "expression of dislike" for BP, and I don't think it's constructive or helpful to take that position or to make disparaging comments about volunteer editors who are not paid, who do not have a conflict of interest, who do not draw their paycheck from one party or another, and who are taking time from their busy lives to improve this article. Further I think that the civil litigation in which BP is currently enmeshed concerning the Gulf oil spill makes it especially important for editors to exercise care, and not to accept at face value the views of one party to the litigation concerning additions to the article on matters related to the litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

For example, note this comment[9] that I made yesterday concerning your request to introduce sources. You didn't respond. When an editor doesn't engage in dialogue, and just adamantly insists, without providing evidence, that there is inbalance and that he will "ask other editors for help" if he doesn't get satisfaction, it does not persuade one that there is a genuine problem as opposed to simply not liking what's there. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A few of the sources provided and points I have made were not addressed in your responses. Others were. I'll reply, but I want to be thorough in doing so. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. There's no rush, no deadline. I shouldn't have implied otherwise. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@Arturo--you say that you thought I'd leave a message for you on your page. I don't know what you thought I might have to say as I have no idea why you would say that I have made remarks about you that were not correct/proper that made you look bad...I forget your wording. I thought that I have been fair and honest in my comments and I'd appreciate it if you'd point out my comments to me because many others read this page as well and I'd like to keep my "reputation" clean, and/or apologize if need be. Gandydancer (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Arturo? What does "....that's too bad and I will ask other editors to weigh in." mean. "I will ask....." sounds rermarkably like the Head of a Department asking his underlings to weigh in, to support him. to speak up. I don' think Ive ever seen canvassing handled in that way. So....will they weigh in because they want to or because you asked them to? That, to me, is the peculiarity that we have here. Now that you have instructed them, whomever "them" is (i guess we'll find out), to weigh in does CoretheApple stand a chance. What is your objective. Are you rallying the troops? Im not comfortable with any of this, even my own response. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue would easy to fix by just removing the word "main". No need to create a drama. Beagel (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, I have added specific notes in the section below to clarify how I think the section is imbalanced and made suggestions as to what information should be added or where editors may want to look more closely at the information included.

Gandydancer, as requested I have placed a note to you on my Talk page. Please reply there if you would like to discuss further.

Buster Seven, I meant only that I would leave a note on this page (or perhaps relevant WikiProject pages) asking other editors here for their input if Coretheapple preferred not to respond to my requests. If you read more into this and were concerned about canvassing, hopefully a quick look at my contributions would help calm those fears. I understand the rules about that, however at the moment I have not reached out to even one editor off the page about this. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Norway

BP caused an oil leak Norway that garnered this response from the Norwegian oil and gas safety authority. Seems to underline the references we've been seeing with regard BP's safety record. petrarchan47tc 19:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Coretheapple (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Guardian article: Norway on BP safety record petrarchan47tc 01:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)