Talk:BP/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about BP. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

"Political influence" revisited

The phrase "BP has been criticized for its political influence" has been removed from the Intro, due to supposed lack of references.

Here are some references that might be a good first start to properly adding this information to the article and restoring the phrase. petrarchan47 t c 23:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

BP Lobbying Europe

BP's Influence Peddling In Congress Bears Fruit Two Years After Gulf Spill - HuffPo

TIME A Brief History of BP

Politico - BP PAC pads political pockets

BP is getting more political, and that may help weather oil-spill storm WAPO

(from an earlier post)

Fifty-one percent of BP was owned by the British government until recently.

BP is receiving tens of millions of dollars in US government contracts[1][2]. See also BP Hires a Pentagon PR Warrior

BP is said to be the initiator of the Iran Coup of 1953. See Stephen Kinzer on the History of BP/British Petroleum and Its Role in the 1953 Iran Coup.

(from another earlier post)

How British oil giant BP used all the political muscle money can buy to fend off regulators and influence investigations into corporate neglect - From the last 2 paras (Italics mine). US Environmental Protection Agency's lawyer, for 10 years was in charge of investigation to see about BP's possible debarment, Jean Pascal:

But Pascal quickly ran into the oil-company equivalent of “too big to fail”—and knew that her threat was essentially empty. Although this is not widely known, BP has been one of the biggest suppliers of fuel to the Pentagon

If she pushed debarment too hard, Pascal was sure the Pentagon would simply invoke a national-security exception that would allow BP to continue to sell it oil. “When a major economic and political giant" tells you it has direct access to the White House, it’s very intimidating,” says Pascal.

This is a poor start. Take [3] for example. This is an example of - oops - the US govt breaking the law and bullying BP into paying for the gulf oil spill (and its yet another example of how distorted all this discussion is by the gulf spill). It is an example of BP's lack of political influence. Your first ref has no clear status. Your last one - which you're obviously pleased with, as you quote from it - is just one woman's opinion with no evidence.

We all know that all big companies lobby pols and govts. Does BP lobby more or less than most? We won't find out from your links. I've no objection to some section about lobbying providing its written on a sensible basis. [4] is yet another angry article that was written in the aftermath of the gulf spill and it doesn't even say what you want it to say. It doesn't support BP having political influence William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The last quotation is not just someone's opinion. That EPA lawyer oversaw a ten year investigation into BPs safety practices prior to the gulf spill. Reliable sources are determined by the media outlet or by the reliability of the person being quoted. Her claims are considered highly valuable. You removed (two or three times now) any mention of political influence from the intro, saying we should at least have a good section in the article first. You do no research and make no effort to this end, and when I post many good links, you attempt to discredit the idea by cherry picking links you consider weak, calling my efforts a poor start? We have the EPA saying BP has direct access to the White House. There is enough here to expand on the few sentences regarding lobbying and other political influence as well as to restore the phrase to the intro that was agreed to by every single editor who has been working in this page all summer, including an admin, Johnfos, who you called "some bloke". Since you removed the content, it's on you to help put together a proper section and if you don't like my research, please do your own. You could begin research on how BPs political influence and lobbying compares with others, since you seem to think that's an imperative addition. Also "everyone does it" is a baffling argument when it comes to writing an encyclopedic article. Because - so? That makes it irrelevant? Is that the point being made? petrarchan47 t c 18:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of your ideas are wrong. This matters, so let me go into this in detail. You claim "Since you removed the content, it's on you to help put together a proper section" - this is completely wrong. I'm fully entitled to remove stuff that is bad and under no obligation at all to replace it with something else on the same subject that is good. Anyone is entitled to do the same. Of course whether the section was bad or not is another issue but if its bad then I can remove it, without needing to replace it. However, I am happy to try to help replace it.

Secondly, you seem to think that admins have some special role in content matters - at least, I can't understand your "including an admin, Johnfos" any other way. That is completely wrong, too.

Third, and now onto the issues at hand: I've attacked 3 of your references. You've defended - weakly, in my opinion - only one of them. All your references need to be defensible. You've can't just throw a pile of references up and hope a few of them stick - you have to do the work in advance of producing decent quality references that are to the point, because you want them in the article.

I post many good links, you attempt to discredit the idea by cherry picking links you consider weak - you post links you think are good. I point out why I think they aren't good. You defend them, if you can. But if you put up 8 or so links, and I can find flaws in 4 of them, I'm not obliged to wade through the whole lot before I complain. And no, I wasn't "cherry picking", please drop your bad faith William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You removed "BP has been criticized for their political influence" which I take to mean that you see no good sources supporting the fact that they have been. You then argued that because they are getting kicked out of Russia (and you mentioned something about the Gulf - you seem to think they aren't drilling there?), they have no political influence. But that wasn't actually the claim you removed. It didn't say "BP is politically influential". I don't need to throw up 100% everyone-agrees-these-are-good references when it's just a list on a talk page with the intro: "this is a first step" (ie, beginning research) to re-adding the phrase and to create a proper section in the article. That you focus on 3 or 4 you didn't like, but ignore the rest instead of using the RS you find applicable in order to build the article, or make a suggestion for it, gives me pause. We all agree that TIME magazine is RS. It's not cutting edge independent Eco-journalism by any means. That said, a quotation TIME: "...the seeming inability of the government to staunch the flow (after DWH explosion) without BP's aid — has provided a stark reminder of the power that Big Oil still holds over national politics and the fate of entire communities that live in its shadow... BP has long wielded such influence — in fact, the story of its origins is moored in empire and controversy..." and it goes on. I am unable to comprehend why the facts about BP's political influence (and controversial aspects) are so difficult to add to the Wikipedia article. (And your insinuation that articles written post-Gulf Spill are somehow not RS because of an assumed rage on the part of the author is bogus.) Now that you've highlighted what doesn't work, can you speak to the RS that do? Do you still stand by your proclamation that BP has not received criticism for its political influence, after viewing said RS? The reason I believe "it's on you" to defend your removal is because the removal is not supported by RS (facts). RS show BP has most assuredly been criticized for, and does have, political influence. petrarchan47 t c 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

WMC, since you removed this statement, you need to be able to support your move with RS. If you agree there is RS that supports the fact that BP has been criticized for political influence, the statement should be restored and a supportive section in the article should advanced. petrarchan47 t c 18:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Contributions to political campaigns

Per BP's announced policy and its audited annual report ([http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/set_branch/STAGING/common_assets/bpin2011/downloads/BP_Annual_Report_and_Form_20F_2011.pdf}) (p 74), BP does not participate directly in party political activity nor make political donations and has not done so for a number of years. The reference in the article to donations to the campaigns of Barack Obama and Ron Paul are actually to BP employee political action committee contributions. Considering the small size of the donations and the fact that they are not actually by BP the text should in my view be removed. The current text misleadingly suggests that BP has broken its commitment not to make such donations, and somehow endorsed/endorses Ron Paul and Barack Obama. Neither is true. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That link isn't quick to download... On the lede I agree with you (now I have read the annual report section). That stuff will be compliance checked pretty seriously --BozMo talk 18:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry link may have been broken this should work [5]. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The source we were using for this section, Open Secrets, has: "BP's political action committee and employees contributed more than $530,000 in the 2008 cycle and $6.2 million since 1989" under their section "BP basics". I think it remains a question whether donations by BP's political action committee and employees are considered for inclusion in this article or not. To me it seems a matter of correct wording. I assume we'll have the same argument with the same editors opposing each other on this too. petrarchan47 t c 01:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We cannot accept BP's own publication about an internal policy as a rebuttal for observed action. Internal policy is not always followed, is it? Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed:

During the 2011-2012 election year, Barack Obama received $23,210 in contributions from the oil company, almost twice that of the second largest recipient, Ron Paul.

^[1]

because its clear that it is wrong as it stands. Whoever added it has badly paraphrased the source, which itself may have been misleading. So if we're all agreed that BP, as a company, doesn't give to pols, then what is the correct wording? I suspect this is some kind of employee-contribution-with-tax-benefits thing? We can't just say:

During the 2011-2012 election year, Barack Obama received $23,210 in contributions from BP employee political action committee contributions, almost twice that of the second largest recipient, Ron Paul.

^[1]

or somesuch, because no-one outside the US will know what that means. So could someone who does understand it please tell us? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am struggling to see why this article about a $400 billion turnover global company with an over 100 year long history which operates in over 80 countries should include information that its employees, not BP made some really pretty modest donations to the campaigns of Barack Obama and Ron Paul. This seems about as clear a case of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTIST as I can imagine. The sole reason for inclusion seems to be to imply that BP has broken its own commitment - wholly volunatary of course, and not matched by most of its US-based peers - to not participate directly in political campaigns. It has not.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again you've mistaken this topic for the one that has yet to be written: History of British Petroleum. This current article about BP will include all the main points summarizing the last few decades. As is normal for any article, the most recent events are densest, the most strongly represented. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No I think that yourself a couple of others seem to have mistaken it for Criticisms of BP America, 2000 to present.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be "1995 to present", to match reliable sources tracing the blame for the current mess to John Browne's changes in corporate culture. We've already argued the issue, whether criticism should remain in this article or be shunted to a ghetto article, and consensus is to keep it here. Your wish that criticism be greatly reduced is not constructive. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rangoon and WMC on this one. $23,000 is so small an amount that it's meaningless and its inclusion does appear to suggest that BP went back on their word. Gandydancer (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

One might be able to flush out the lobbying section with these links, to start. If i am wrong, and these links aren't helpful, my apologies. petrarchan47 t c 00:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

BP Lobbying Europe (section 4)

BP's Influence Peddling In Congress Bears Fruit Two Years After Gulf Spill - HuffPo

Politico - BP PAC pads political pockets

BP is getting more political, and that may help weather oil-spill storm WAPO

Actually the Washington Post one was particularly interesting. Mention of the "lobbying disclosure data" makes me wonder if it is possible to find a list of companies by size of lobbying spend? $20m for BP sounds like a fortune (I don't think any company spends that in the UK) but for a company of that US presence it is usual or not? --BozMo talk 05:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is some useful information [6]. Gandydancer (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Context is good, encyclopedic information to be sure. But let's not run with the assumption it is an imperative. We can simply add information about BP without comparing it to others. Though I might add, when we do have comparisons that make BP look bad (like OSHA's findings) editors here suddenly hate the comparison idea and won't allow it in the article. Example: (ABC News)petrarchan47 t c 19:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This book says: "Oil companies with the largest lobbying expenditures are ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, and Shell." Sounds like a list of nowadays Seven Sisters. Probably should be copy-pasted in all these companies articles. Beagel (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b BP: Summary | OpenSecrets

Oil spill removal

For context on removing the comment "According to the Public Interest Research Group, between January 1997 and March 1998, BP was responsible for 104 oil spills.^[1] " BP's own record on oil spills [7] shows it has never had less than 200 in a year. Funnily, some people include oil spills outside the USA...although BPs figures exclude Siberia. --BozMo talk 08:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is meaningless and reflects the complete ignorance of many of those who have been editing the article and adding in crude and contextless attack content. All major oil companies have large numbers of spills every year. There were over 42,000 oil spills in the US alone over the period 1980 to 2000, or 2,100 per year. [8] Rangoon11 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, please try to avoid insulting other editors when making constructive comments on this talk page. We all saw the way you changed the Intro in a way even you are not proud of. Basically, treat others as you want to be treated is a good motto. petrarchan47 t c 19:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I will propose that Rangoon would remove the part of its comment about attack content and Petrochan would remove its comment about other editor. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What I have said is a fact. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What you have said relates to edits made in 2010. You are attempting to tie those edits to current editors - which is far from truthful. petrarchan47 t c 00:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

References

^ "SaveTheArctic.com". SaveTheArctic.com. Archived from the original on 16 December 2008. Retrieved 5 June 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Stock history

The previous discussion about this topic is discussed here. Beagel (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the section where I left links regarding current stock and previous two years. petrarchan47 t c 03:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Petrarchan asked if I would be able to provide some material or input into creating a section focusing on BP's stock history. After some research and with assistance from others at BP more knowledgeable about our stock history, I have prepared a new subsection for review. This covers the stock history since 1979, the beginning of its privatization, and details major changes from that point. An aspect I am curious about here in describing historical events related to the company's UK history: I've written in American English, but perhaps words such as "privatization"/"privatisation" should be in the UK spelling?

The draft is in my user pages here: User:Arturo at BP/Stock history

I have also created and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons two graphs, showing the stock price on the NYSE from 1979 to 2000 and on the LSE from 2000 to 2012. The range of data for the LSE did not go as far back as that for the NYSE, hence the older data being specific to that stock exchange. For the more recent data, as there is already a graph for 2000 - 2012 for the NYSE in the article, I thought the LSE data would provide a non-US view of the stock price for this time period.

The images are here: File:BP stock price NYSE 1979 - 1999.png and File:BP stock price LSE 2000 - 2012.png

I've written this with the intention that it will be added to the Corporate affairs section, if there is agreement to do so. As it has worked before with drafts I've prepared, please review and make any changes to the draft in my user pages, but let's keep the discussion of the draft on this page so that it is easier to follow. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just one question: why are the share prices quoted in dollars if the primary market is the LSE? --BozMo talk 15:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a month ago I made two diagrams (File:BP stock value on the NYSE in 2000-2012.png and File:BP stock value (closing price v. adjusted closing price) on the NYSE in 2000-2012.png) based on historical data from http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=BP+Historical+Prices. The first diagram shows monthly open, high, low, and close values of the BP's share in 2000–2012. The time period was chosen after merger of British Petroleum and Amoco, and after split of share in 1999. The second diagram compares monthly closing and adjusted closing values for the same period. The first oner is currently used in the history section. Beagel (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi BozMo, the reason that I used U.S. dollars in the draft is that BP uses the U.S. dollar as its functional currency and its ordinary shares are also denominated in dollars, as mentioned on the company's website. Additionally, the sources I used here gave the figures in dollars, so I felt that it did not make sense to convert them to British Pounds. Having said that, I am open to whatever currency makes the most sense to use here. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

For consistency across the article and for the reasons given I think US dollars is fine. The draft text is excellent and I support its inclusion in the article as propsed in the Corporate affairs section. I would suggest that the stock price graph currently in the History section be moved to the new sub section. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, makes perfect sense. --BozMo talk 05:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for your comments. It looks like Rangoon, BozMo and Petrarchan (see message on his user Talk) have reviewed the section and are happy with its content. Since it appears there's agreement to do so, would someone be able to add the draft into the Corporate affairs section, along with the graphs of stock prices? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I am very happy with it. petrarchan47 t c 19:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why this change from "BP traders" to "BP Products North America Inc. (former Amoco Oil Company)"

Why was this change made when it diverges so drastically from the sources used?

In 2004 the US Justice Department charged several BP traders with conspiring to manipulate and corner the propane gas market. In 2005 a federal judge dismissed the indictment against the traders. BP was required to pay approximately $303 million as part of an agreement to defer prosecution.

Changed to: In 2004 the US Justice Department charged five BP Products North America Inc. (former Amoco Oil Company) traders with conspiring the price of propane flowing through a pipeline that starts in Mont Belvieu, Texas.

Here are the sources: [9] and [10] petrarchan47 t c 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It is quite natural that journalists do not make a distinction between BP and its subsidiary BP Products North America Inc. However, if you look for the court case filed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, you see that it was filed against BP Products North America Inc. and its traders. Correct information restored and the reference to original complaint is added. Beagel (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

For readers, it is confusing to suddenly hear a novel phrase with no explanation - I had never heard of "BP Products North America" until last night, but there was no further understanding given and just left me confused. I felt like I was being told "This is not really BP" but didn't know what it actually was, other than formerly Amoco, again confusing because the reader has already been told that BP bought Amoco (in the Lede), why are we being reminded in this section?

I looked up the company, and I added the description I found, "a subsidiary of BP" to the section, in case others aren't aware.

So, is this the same as "BP America"? I'm still a bit confused. petrarchan47 t c 22:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I just read the sources and they both say "BP traders" then it explains the lawsuit was filed against "BP Products North America", describing it as "a Warrenville, Ill.-based unit of London-based BP PLC." I am not comfortable with the change made to exclude mention of "BP traders". Your argument may well be true, that these were not in fact BP traders and that the RS got it wrong, but you cannot add that understanding to Wikipedia without a secondary RS to back it up. Otherwise it is verging on WP:ORIGINAL and it still diverges wildly from the sources. This recent case shines a light on the need for secondary sources at WP, regardless of an editor's expertise in the subject. petrarchan47 t c 23:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The PDF showed that the court order used "BP Products North America" interchangeably with "BP" - I think it is much more clear to just stick with "BP". I'm going to change it to fit the references and for clarity. petrarchan47 t c 23:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not original search. The court case filed by CFTC says clearly that it was filed against BP Products North America, while BP is used as a short form of the name. It lists also accused persons (traders) names and their positions–all named as employees of BP Products North America. Also the story by AP says: "In addition to Abbott, Radley and the company itself, other current and former BP Products North America employees who face charges include: Donald Cameron Byers, the unit’s former chief operating officer; Martin Marz, the compliance manager; James Summers, the vice president of natural-gas liquids; and Cody Claborn, a propane trader." So, the sources make it clear that the accused company was BP Products North America. Beagel (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

We cannot possibly separate BP from "BP America" or "BP USA" or "BP Products North America". BP is the central topic here. BP is a global company with global problems; the huge problems in North American cannot be shunted off to the side in an attempt to make BP look nicer. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That is true that activities of a subsidiary company can't be fully separated from the parent company. However, on the other hand removing information about the exact company involved in this case is not NPOV. Hugh problems in North America may be true; however, this case is a separated case which according to the court documents is limited to the BP Products North America. It says nothing about the parent company being involved or even aware of the traders' actions. And even more, the case was dismissed by US courts. If this is a problem, I don't knew. I personally have been raised in spirit to respect the court, at least in the democratic countries. Beagel (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No effing way are we going to clean up the BP article by removing North American material. Amoco and BP merged in 1998; from that time forward Amoco's legacy became BP's business. The two cannot be dealt with separately here. They can only be separated artificially by national or smaller jurisdictions that have no authority over a global company. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you probably misunderstand the issue. As far I understand nobody suggested to remove North American material. If you have another information, please provide diffs. The issues are mentioning the exact company name (and yes, to be encyclopaedic, it should be mentioned), and if this paragraph belongs here at all as the court dismissed all accusations. I don't have strong feelings about the second, but WP:WEIGHT should be considered here in the context of the whole subject. Also, having a laundry list is not the way to create a good article. Beagel (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I do wish you would have made this change and argument while 203 was still here - which is when I re-added this section after someone had removed it. Everyone was silent about my edit when 203 was here. Now it's being argued that a primary source (court document) wording take precedent over reliable secondary sources - which is NOT how Wikipedia works. I will see if 203 can stop and comment about this, and if s/he is busy I will seek an unbiased second opinion elsewhere.

The story of the accusations and subsequent court findings is perfectly acceptable for this article, whether a judge found them innocent or not, BP for some reason paid over $3 Million to defer charges, and that is all I've attempted to add to article, using the language found in reliable secondary sources.

These are the sources cited, their wording, and the two versions of this story:

Primary source

Court case wording "1. As is more fully alleged below, Defendant BP Products North America, Inc. ("BP" or "Defendant"), by and through it's employees, including but not limited to....(lists specific traders)" From PDF via Beagle

Secondary sources

MSNBC "The Commodity Futures Trading Commission said Wednesday that BP traders — with the consent of senior management — “purchased enormous quantities of..." and "BP denied any wrongdoing, but a former employee admitted taking part in a conspiracy and agreed to cooperate with criminal prosecutors...."

Houston Chronicle"...dismissal of charges against four former BP propane traders" and "The decision is unlikely to change an agreement BP made with the government to pay $303 million in fines to avoid charges."

My version:

"The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused several BP traders with conspiring to manipulate and corner the propane gas market in 2004.[256][257][258] In 2007, BP paid approximately $303 million in restitution and fines as part of an agreement to defer prosecution.[259] In 2006, one former trader pleaded guilty.[257] In 2007, four other former traders were charged; however, charges were dismissed by an U.S. District Court in 2009. The dismissal was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011.[258]"

Beagle's version (presently on page, after reverting mine several times):

The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused the BP Products North America Inc. (subsidiary of BP plc; former Amoco Oil Company) traders with conspiring the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2004.[265][266][267] In 2007, BP paid approximately $303 million in restitution and fines as part of an agreement to defer prosecution.[268] In 2006, one former trader pleaded guilty.[266] In 2007, four other former traders were charged; however, charges were dismissed by an U.S. District Court in 2009. The dismissal was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011.[267]

From what I can see, "BP Products North America, Inc." is used in the court document interchangeably with "BP", and all secondary RS refer to this as "BP traders", and as a case against "BP". I cannot see how this present version fits Wikipedia's penchant for secondary sources, and for keeping things more simple so that non-industry insiders understand what they are reading. If one feels a need to add that the court documents refer to not only BP but more specifically BPPNA, I don't see how it improves the article, but also have no problem with it. But to argue the words "BP traders" appear no where in the section does not seem NPOV at all.

Are we attempting to deflect blame from BP, and to tell a new story (an argument not found in any RS) here at Wikipedia ("it wasn't BP traders, it wasn't even actually BP, really... and plus it USED to be Amoco, so...")? That is NOT how this works and I feel confident everyone here is well aware of it. petrarchan47 t c 22:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We cannot be trying to deflect blame from BP that is attributed to them by reliable secondary sources such as MSNBC, Houston Chronicle, etc. Any attempt to recast BP as some other entity is misleading and violation of NPOV. I will restore the name "BP" to re-align this section with NPOV and WP:SECONDARY. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Beagle, this encyclopedia likes secondary sources, you have again added your own take, diverging from RS.

With this in the intro "British Petroleum merged with Amoco", why does the reader get reminded again in this section? Please explain your thought process. petrarchan47 t c 04:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is deflecting flame as it is still the part of BP as a group, although I don't understand what blame you are talking about as all court cases are dismissed. At the same time, removing completely the exact company name is misleading and violation of NPOV. As I already mentioned above, the news written by AP says: "In addition to Abbott, Radley and the company itself, other current and former BP Products North America employees who face charges include: Donald Cameron Byers, the unit’s former chief operating officer; Martin Marz, the compliance manager; James Summers, the vice president of natural-gas liquids; and Cody Claborn, a propane trader." So, also secondary sources also use the exact name describing the case, so there is no problem with WP:SECONDARY. At the current version the exact name is mentioned in the first usage and BP is used afterwards, so I hope this addresses your concerns.

For Petrarchan47. If you look for the history of discussion this topic, you see that the main issue that time was (and maybe still is) if this paragraph after all belongs here taking account the fact that court dismissed cases. Also, the source about court dismissal provided by William M. Connolley was ignored while re-adding the text. Beagel (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not see WConnolley's discussion. Reliable sources are still mentioning this case, including the judge's decision - which makes it applicable for this article regardless of WC's opinion. Though the judge found the actions to have been lawful, it is still a story, with BP admitting to a problem and paying a large fine:

" BP conducted its own investigation of the trading fraud and has since determined ways to increase compliance within trading regulations. BP has also worked on better training for traders and improved monitoring of transactions. The internal investigation also concluded that the illegal trades resulted in $10 million in losses for the company.

In the oil company's press release, BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone said, "These agreements are an admission that, in these instances, our operations failed to meet our own standards and the requirements of the law. For that, we apologize." He added, "This settlement acknowledges our failure to adequately oversee our trading operation. The agreement provides compensation for victims and establishes a foundation for working with the government to ensure our participation in the nation's energy markets is always appropriate. We are determined to restore the trust of regulators in our trading operations." YAHOO petrarchan47 t c 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

On 3 July William M. Connolley added on the talk link to the source which provided information that charges were dismissed. [11] The sub-section about accusations on the market manipulation was re-added on 26 August by edit which ignored this link and totally dismissed the information about dismissal of charges. [12] Beagel (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

More secondary sources, just to name some of them:

Beagel (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

These sources generally revert to using "BP" for brevity, as do the justice department papers, the primary source ("hereinafter "BP"). Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a justification to remove entirely the exact company name. "Hereinafter "BP"" does not mean that in first time using you don't have to use the exact name. Not mentioning the exact name against reliable primary and secondary sources is violation of NPOV. Also, primary sources are reliable sources if used to state the pure fact (it is different with using the interpretations provided by primary sources) and the defendant exact name in the filed complaint is a pure fact. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as there is no attempt to dodge higher responsibility, the full name of the subsidiary is okay for one mention. How about this:

The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused several BP traders and BP's US-based operations (BP subsidiary BP Products North America Inc., formerly Amoco) with conspiring to fix the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2004.

That wording keeps the higher responsibility where it belongs. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be other way around: the full name should be first and BP later. Our responsibility is to provide straightforward facts, not our point of view about higher or lower responsibility. Beagel (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My opinion? The great majority of reliable sources say that BP was ultimately responsible, not the subsidiary of BP. Here's a typical example: "BP Settles Propane Price-Fixing Suit". BP has agreed to pay $303 million to settle civil charges that it cornered the propane market three years ago and inflated heating and cooking costs for about 7 million mostly rural American households, a source familiar with the accord said. The London oil giant has been fighting criminal and civil charges..." (emphasis added). Another example, from TIME: "BP traders tried to corner the market for propane 'with the knowledge, advice and consent of senior management.' This wasn't the first time BP has been accused of price fixing." Higher responsibility is BP corporate in London. Again, I am against any attempt to make it appear that BP central was not so much involved. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid stating opinions as facts. Beagel (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess you would rather we follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and say that BP headquarters in London has been blamed for the BP problems in the USA by the Washington Post, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the New York Times, Newsweek, Business Week, Reuters, Bloomberg, the Independent, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Esquire, The Daily Beast, ProPublica, CBS News, ABC News, MSNBC, PBS, Amy Goodman, Abrahm Lustgarten, CNN Money and John_Browne,_Baron_Browne_of_Madingley. That way we could make sure the opinion is attributed properly. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey I have a novel idea: why not just stick to the simplified wording used in the vast majority of RS? We hear "BP traders" "BP" was charged, "BP" paid the fine. "BP" said it will do better next time. If you want to let the reader know the exact language in the court file, it should be stated clearly that is what you are doing, otherwise a reader is led to believe we aren't really talking about BP. We don't want to mislead anyone. Most readers are not as well versed in legalese or the oil industry as some who might be editing this page; it is for the average reader we should write this article. In no sources did it say "formerly Amoco" so that was an addition made solely on this page, a subtle argument, wholly against Wiki principles. Hopefully it will remain off the page. petrarchan47 t c 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia and that means that information should be correct. The average reader is not an idiot as you seems to imply. If the article says that it is BP's subsidiary, I think that the average reader understands what it is and what it is not. As for Amoco, well, BP Products North America was Amoco Oil Company, one of the three major subsidiaries of Amoco, and not Amoco itself. As there is no article about BP Products North America (in the discussion above one could see that creation of that article is opposed by the same editors who are trying to remove the exact company name from this paragraph to make a false impression that there are only bad guys in London who manipulated the market and it has nothing to do with our own fellows here in Texas) where the roots of this company could be mentioned. Sorry to say but arguments of the last proposal seems more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. Beagel (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and since this is providing information about criminal charges it is crucial that the information is 100% correct. If we can be 100% in this case, and we can be, then we should be. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the present wording, with the court terms but without mention of amoco. No one is trying to say there are bad guys in London, come on. I am trying to replace a section that was removed and shouldn't have been. Then it was reworded without mention of BP or BP traders. Now I'm a pov editor because I'm trying to stick to RS? Anyway, for the reasons you both put forth, its only fair we should also add some of BPs statement. petrarchan47 t c 03:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Should I take silence as agreement? Would you like me to add the information, or would one of you like to do it? Thanks. petrarchan47 t c 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What kind of agreement you are talking about? What kind of wording and adding information you are talking about? The current wording does not mention Amoco Oil Company (which is not the same as Amoco Corporation as it was mentioned at this talk page several times) anymore, so what you want to change? the former name (Amoco Oil Company) was added just for information as this is mentioned nowere in this article, but this is a minor detail so we can live without it. The current wording summarise the case, which was actually dismissed, so I really don't understand what you like to do. Beagel (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to my suggestion that part of BP's statement be added for clarity and for addition of encyclopedic information. Not the entire statement, but perhaps the first bit. petrarchan47 t c 19:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So you propose to add the sentence: BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone said, "These agreements are an admission that, in these instances, our operations failed to meet our own standards and the requirements of the law."? Beagel (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also suggest their statement about improvements to trading should be added as well. Some version of this is only fair to BP, in my opinion (I like to add their statements when applicable): "This settlement acknowledges our failure to adequately oversee our trading operation. The agreement provides compensation for victims and establishes a foundation for working with the government to ensure our participation in the nation's energy markets is always appropriate. We are determined to restore the trust of regulators in our trading operations." What's your take? petrarchan47 t c 19:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And what is wrong with the first sentence, which is shorter and says the same thing without being wordiness? Beagel (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence? "This settlement acknowledges our failure to adequately oversee our trading operation." Is this the one? Nothing wrong with it. Is this the one you prefer? If so go ahead and add it. petrarchan47 t c 17:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

By my understanding the current paragraph covers adequately the case, so I don't see any rational reason to expand it. However, by the first sentence I mean the sentence I referred above from the source you provided. (BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone said, "These agreements are an admission that, in these instances, our operations failed to meet our own standards and the requirements of the law.") Beagel (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is best to add statements from the company whenever possible/applicable. I have done that numerous times on the page, it's only fair to BP to share their 'side', as it were. Plus it's encyclopedic just as getting the exact wording from a court case. I think your suggested sentence is fine. petrarchan47 t c 00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Due weight

This article suffers a lot from problems of due weight and very strong US bias. BP is a significant and notable company is getting on for a hundred countries and attracts plenty of newspaper coverage in each of them. In some countries some official organisation will have a go at local oil companies in the hope of gain every few months. I think a reasonable test for sufficient notability for inclusion in this article rather than in a sub article on a topic is non-copied media coverage in at least five countries, but perhaps other people have a better proposal? Otherwise we are taking a random selection of thousands of pages of media coverage. --BozMo talk 08:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been major problems with BP in the US which is why the article seems to be US-centric. If there were huge problems with BP Sweden (just making it up here), with the largest-ever oil spill in the Baltic Sea, and fatal explosions in Gothenburg, and toxic releases in Kiruna then there would a heavy amount of coverage about BP in Sweden. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be why the article on Microsoft is dominated by EU anti-competition lawsuits or Google's article is dominated by issues of censureship in China? Oh, but hang on a minute those are just mentioned but not to the point of dominating the actual content. Stuff like "U.S. regulators may file charges against BP related to..." is just not in the top thousand things one could mention. --BozMo talk 19:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

On my PC I make it four and a half screen fulls of negative content versus less than a screen for each of Microsoft and Google. That is undue weight; BP doesn't get more negative inches in mainstream papers aside from recent political posturing in the US. --BozMo talk 19:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Software doesn't kill people or cause environmental catastrophes. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nor, 99.9999% of the time, do oil companies. It is reasonable having some coverage about BP's recent US pollution because it was a high profile event with a lot of political fuss and it was material enough to change the perspective of investors and some customers in the US. But a lot of this four screens is about stuff which is mundane and immaterial on the scale of a company which on turnover, energy use, direct and indirect employment etc would as a country be about the 12th biggest country in the world. Sure they employ criminals inadvertantly and people die in their operations but so does Belgium and working for BP is safer than living in New York and New York certainly causes a lot more pollution....I wonder without looking how much of the coverage of a typical US city is about the crime rate. --BozMo talk 05:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If the 0.00001% kills and maims people and leaves horrific environmental damage then it will take a lot of column inches to describe it. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

On which basis I take it you are on your way over to the main United States of America article to put in many thousands of pages on the Gulf Wars, use of depleted Uranium shells, torture of detainees etc. What is that you say, "water boarding" should not even appear in the main article on the USA? I wonder why? That has has more notable comment from serious sources than any BP disaster. The thousands of people executed by then US government gets one line. You cannot be a world scale operation without issues which appear big compared to an individual but Wikipedia has to give due weight to them. --BozMo talk 07:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Bozmo, are you suggesting somehow that this talk page would be better served if the editors were also pursuing NPOV at US Govt related pages (like this)? How so? We have quite a task on our hands here, bringing in false equivalencies only compounds it. Please also add your suggestions to how each problematic sentence below could be remedied. Thanks. petrarchan47 t c 00:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Um. It does suggest how they should be remedied. Most should simply be removed. --BozMo talk 05:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am still waiting to hear why you are questioning whether editors here are also editing US govt related pages. petrarchan47 t c 19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this addressed to me? I did not reply at first because I did not understand what you meant, you did not seem to follow from my remarks in any way. Binkernet suggested that "If the 0.00001% (of a companies activities) kills and maims people and leaves horrific environmental damage" it should definitely be included. This is not the case, we have rules on undue weight which mean very nasty notable stuff might not automatically be included in a balanced view, a case has to be made. BP is a similar size to a country on lots of measures. We do not, by way of illustration, include all very nasty notable stuff on our pages on countries such as the USA. Is that clearer? --BozMo talk 09:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The case is made by the dozens of high quality articles and books written by expert authors and investigative journalists. We are not going to stick our heads in the sand and try to ignore all of the media fuss raised about BP's willful negligence resulting in accidents. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Examples of sentences which should be removed

"According to the Public Interest Research Group, between January 1997 and March 1998, BP was responsible for 104 oil spills" as an isolated snippet this is completely meaningless

"According to activist Antonia Juhasz,..." (whole section is just not notable enough... "green activistic slates oil company" come off it)

"Prudhoe Bay" section much too long given it has its own article

Whole section "2008 Caspian Sea gas leak and blowout". There are hundreds of instances on this scale in every large oil company.

"Colombian farmland damages claim" again, there are loads of these kind of things. This one wasn't big, expensive, particularly noxious, it was settled etc.

"2010 Texas City chemical leak" this is recent enough to stay in but why are pollutants suddenly in pounds weight rather than more usual measures like tonnes

"Mist mountain project" immaterial raking around with nothing notable excepr "green activistic slates oil company"

"1965 Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster" too old and two few causalties. BP operations probably kill what, 50 people a year (as I say safer than New Yord). 13 people 47 years ago should not go in unless it drove particular change or was otherwise notable.

The more recent refinery stuff is ok. The political stuff also. The market manipulation shouldn't be in the political section. --BozMo talk 06:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind reworking this entry to look a bit more like this so each point can be seen clearly and dealt with separately? petrarchan47 t c 22:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty clear to me. I agree with BozMo, there is too much soapboxing going on here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin, can you explain your comment? I don't see where bozmo claimed there was soapboxing, what do you see going on here (do you mean on the talk page or article)? Examples might help. Thanks petrarchan47 t c 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is evidence of scrapping around trying to find any kind of insufficiently notable negative material to include. A much lower standard of notability being applied for negative items is a form of soapboxing.--BozMo talk 05:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly as as BozMo says, a lower standard of notability seems to be being applied to negative reports about BP than to positive items.

I might add the I am a completely independent editor with no connection with BP or the oil industry and that I am not part of any tag team or grouping of editors. I just do not like to see WP used as a vehicle for smear campaigns. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see. You've come with your list of suggestions, and strange "go pick on your own country" argument above at a bad time. This group of editors has been going at it all summer. The problem of bias in the article isn't going to be solved by having even more biased editors piling on. The fact that you were invited by WMC to 'add a voice of sanity' to the BP page, and after seeing you mention at the COI you believed the only reason there is anything negative in the media about BP is due to political posturing by the US government shows me you've come with bias. Now is not a good time to deal with this (tag teaming). It's the last thing we need to move forward. You may have some good points above, but we have an open RfC on the Intro, and as a group are considering turning this whole thing over to formal mediation. Regarding BP and RS, in general, all of the articles I've ever read about BP (excluding purely financial ones prior to 2010) have mentioned some sort of controversy, with the majority pointing out it's pretty serious and pervasive with BP. There are endless deaths, accidents, disasters, that's true. But a finite number are written up in multiple RS or are otherwise notable - and more importantly, a finite number have been included or considered for inclusion in this encyclopedia. There are reasons for everything that has been included in the article. Though it needs improvement and pruning (and additions), every change deserves a discussion - and this is not the time to push for a whole bunch of changes on an already stressed group of editors. I don't have the time to explain why certain information should be kept in the article and then be forced to defend and argue each point. petrarchan47 t c 06:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please immediately withdraw the unacceptable personal attack, it does your case no favours. Being asked to "add a voice of sanity" to a page and topic where I have no position is not a basis for claiming a bias and I do not "team tag". I have produced a list of material which obviously should not be in this article on the talk pages. If no one provides a reason why it should in fact be included I will go ahead and remove it. --BozMo talk 08:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you have entered this discussion with a to-do list at a very bad time. Your saying the only reason one finds negative information online about BP is due to political posturing by the US government shows you are massively ill informed and need to do some research before helping out here. I assume since you have said you are unbiased (and if true, I withdraw my comment) you will be more than happy to see what RS says, regardless of how good or bad BP might end up looking. I don't see any evidence that that is the case, but I am happy to be proven wrong. petrarchan47 t c 20:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am interested to hear your answer to my question in the argument above ("Bozmo, are you suggesting somehow that this talk page would be better served if the editors were also pursuing NPOV at US Govt related pages? How so? "). How does my attempt to add NPOV to US govt articles in any way relate to this page? How does that argument add sanity to this talk page? I await your reply. petrarchan47 t c 20:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Aside personal attacks, and other unfounded items (including one silly attempt to misrepresent me with the sentence starting "your saying"), the gist of your comments eludes me. Therefore, I suggest you stick to the point raised. There are loads of negative items of insufficient weight which need removing. I have given an initial list. Please defend any which you think genuinely merit being in the article and explain why. Then we can move on to the next list. --BozMo talk 21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Make that "Your having said,..." (that the only reason there was negative media regarding BP has to do with US political posturing). Did you not say that? It is important because if you do believe that, it shows you have an incomplete and skewed idea of what RS says about BP. That may very well have to do the with location from which you access the internet. But it is no less true. BP is 1/3 US. It's not a separate entity. What happens in the US is important, just as what happens in Russia or the UK, given its importance in the world and with BP. I noticed you complained that we have not listed BP-TNK information regarding spills. The reason is that the company is only half owned by BP and soon to be divorced from it (this, per Beagle). I believe you can edit without bias, but your recent comments regarding America (in another section) are troublesome, very negative, not grounded in any RS and without basis. Again, if you have a bias against the US that is a problem if you are editing this article. By the way, since the Sea Breeze is BP's first every accident, why would you suggest it isn't noteworthy? petrarchan47 t c 23:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not say "that the only reason there was negative media regarding BP has to do with US political posturing". I did not even say anything like that. I said political posturing was the reason why it had relatively more negative media in the US than equally morally dubious US companies, which is quite different in meaning. This is not the first time in the above that you have taken time to misrepresent other people in the above rather than concentrating on arguments presented. Despite your deep belief in everyone else's bias, none of us appear to be trying to whitewash BP's record. Some of us are trying to improve this article which gives undue weight to relatively minor US-centric events; to the point that a numerate reader finds surprising. Please could you take time out and go and read WP:AGF a few times. Then read it again. Only return when you think you can try to live by what it suggests because at present that seems to present somewhat of a challenge. --BozMo talk 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

BozMo, you are welcome to put waterboarding and whatever else you see fit into the USA article. You might be successful, probably not, but that does not concern us. What we are discussing here at Talk:BP is the BP article, nothing else. Due weight includes all the problems of the late '90s merger with Amoco, the problem of BP wanting the oil income but misunderstanding or downplaying the cost of getting it. The merger is a third of BP financially but the hassles that can be traced to the merger overshadow everything else at BP. Yes, we should have a prominent part of this article about the problems in the US. Absolutely. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Should I take that as a "I offer no objection to what you propose to remove"? It doesn't seem to. --BozMo talk 21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

BozMo, it should be obvious that an editor should not make a list of "I don't like it" stuff and threaten to remove it if it is not defended to your satisfaction - fortunately Wikipedia does not work that way. And to bring your list up at this time shows, IMO, an extreme lack of willingness to try to move forward to article content that we can all agree to. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I hear you, but your charactisation of the above is unfair. The list is clearly framed within the issue on "undue weight" which is an important one for the article. A perception exists that undue weight is being given to items simply because they are negative or American whilst other things are neglected. No one seems to disagree that the list is items which are undue and US centric. Not a single argument has been ventured as to why any of these should be retained, just lots of off-topic hot air, personal attacks and outrage about other stuff. If we focused on obvious improvements to the article it might be better. Some editors seem to be wilfully missing the point. --BozMo talk 14:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It is NOT acceptable that you make a long list of items that you plan to remove if not defended to your liking. At a glance I agree with the info you just deleted, but I do not agree with your summary, "meaningless snippet which no one has defended including on talk" and if you continue to remove items on your list I will start to revert your edits with a summary, "please see talk page". Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And I encourage other like-minded editors to do the same. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to your contributions and suggestions to improving the actual article. Which is a disgrace of course. --BozMo talk 15:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way I am sure you did not mean to sound like you were inciting people to edit war. Now that wouldn't have been constructive, would it? --BozMo talk 15:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Can editors here consider putting this section on hold, for the most part, until we have time to deal with it or until the mediation begins? I see that silence is being interpreted as "no objections" but I have already stated this demand that we defend content in the article NOW or else it will be removed comes at a bad time. Items like measurements are easy - for conformity we are using the metric system. Market manipulation is dealt with by the govt, so the political section makes sense pending a better idea. For more serious changes, I am requesting we press "pause". petrarchan47 t c 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Mediation is about the ongoing dispute on certain paragraph of the lead. It can't be used for locking the article to avoid cleaning up the laundry list. In general, I agree with BozMo comments, but I think that instead of the laundry list style more coherent prose should be used (the exception being DH oil spill which deserves its own subsection). Beagel (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Safety record overview

I would like to involve other interested editors in the drafting of a Safety record overview section for this article. I propose that this be added ahead of the current Accidents section, with that then becoming a subsection of the new overarching section.

In my view this overview should address the safety record of BP worldwide, where possible compared to industry averages and peers using proper metrics. Highly notable individual accidents should of course be mentioned, but within a wider context. Although there will inevitably be a greater focus on the past two or so decades, and a greater focus on the second than the first of those decades, all events must be placed in a historical context and the section does need to address the fact that BP has a much longer history.

I will prepare a draft text of certain aspects of BP's safety record. I will not be proposing it as finished text for the section, but merely as content which can form a part of it. I would be grateful if others can do the same. This is very much something which will require multiple editors to contribute ideas, facts and references to in order for it to be as comprehensive and neutral as possible. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This not the History of British Petroleum article where a greater emphasis on pre-1995 operations would be expected. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Reiterated here:

I will try to post some text up in the next day or two. I want to be clear though that I will not be proposing it as the whole text for the section, but merely part of it. That is why I have invited others to assist, I am clear that a decent, comprehensive text which is as neutral as possible will require the contributions of more than one editor. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Should I assume that this proposed text will not be forthcoming anytime soon? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do still intend to do this shortly, thanks for the prompt.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

According to you, a proposal such as the one you asked of me (the creation of a paragraph relating to BP's safety and accidents record for the Intro) should take no more than 30 minutes. "Do you have any CONSTRUCTIVE sugguestions to make regarding the lead? Your previous suggestion was ludicrous and was rejected by multiple editors. And it doesn't surprise me that it took you ten days to produce a low quality piece of writing a few lines long which someone of basic competence could have put together in 30 mins, but that is your problem, indeed your tragedy." [Rangoon11 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2012]. I look forward to seeing your proposal soon. petrarchan47 t c 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is some draft text for comment. As noted above I am not in any way proposing this as finished text for the article. Rather I am trying to get the ball rolling on something that this article very badly needs - an overview of BP's safety record. I recognise that this is a hugely complex, controversial and subjective area and hope that the more editors who contribute to drafting and developing the text, the more balanced it can become. It should be noted that this text is intended as an introduction to a Safety section which will still contain the existing text found in the Accidents section (on Deepwater etc) as sub sections. We therefore need to avoid too much overlap with those sections.

"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.[13][14]. 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.[15]

A number of aspects of BP's safety record appear to broadly conform with industry peers.[16] In 2004 the National Journal described BP's LNG safety record as "exemplarly".[17] (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".[18] 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.[19] (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.[20] 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.[21] It has also been argued that BP inherited safety issues from Amoco, and the Texas City Refinery was originally an Amoco site.[22] (p92)" Rangoon11 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, was that written by BP themselves? The phrase about analysis being "fraught with subjectivity" is a dodge, helping BP to scurry out from underneath EXTREMELY bad analyses. "BP's safety culture" is another dodge, describing the unsafe conditions which result from a corporate culture of deferred maintenance and pulling too much money out of operations. Your bit about "BP's safety record appear[s] to broadly conform with industry peers" is so wrong it's not even funny, considering how BP is more than ten times as bad a "wilful" safety violator as other petroleum companies. Your heart is in the right place—if you were answering to BP—but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

97% of those OSHA violations (which covered a three year period only) related to just two oil refineries in the US (one of which now is sold), a small part of BP America and a miniscule part of BP worldwide. We can mention those violations if we place them in some context. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, can you show us a reliable independent source which confirms that, 'BP is more than ten times as bad a "wilful" safety violator as other petroleum companies'. Without such a source we cannot adopt that stance in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I provided sources in my version of the lead section. For one citation I brought in this ABC World News article: "BP's Dismal Safety Record", in which they compare the safety records of various global petroleum companies operating in the US. They find that BP made "760 'egregious, willful' safety violations", quoting OSHA data. All of the other petroleum companies combined to make 19 such violations. BP was said to be responsible for 97% of all the safety violations noted by the OSHA with regard to petroleum companies operating in the US. This was not just a single news item; other stories ran in other news outlets: "BP's Horrible Safety Record: It's Got 760 OSHA Fines, Exxon Has Just 1" in Business Insider, "Study: BP Refineries Produce 97% of Violations" in CBS News, "BP Safety Violations: OSHA Says Company Has 'Systemic Safety Problem'" in Huff Post Green, "Transcript: BP's Managing Director on 'FNS'" on Fox News, and "BP Defends Record As 'Safe And Reliable' Despite Hundreds Of Egregious Violations (VIDEO)" on Huff Post Green. Other stories about how unsafe BP is relative to other petroleum companies: "As CEO Hayward Remade BP, Safety, Cost Drives Clashed" in the Wall Street Journal, "BP Wins New Blocks To Drill In Gulf Of Mexico" in Forbes and "Deficiencies at all levels of BP caused refinery disaster, says US regulator" in the Times. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and as I stated above 1. 97% of the violations related to just two BP refineries, which constitute a small part of BP America and a miniscule part of BP worldwide, 2. the data covers just the US, and 3. it covers just a three year period. Using this data to infer conclusions about BP as a whole is therefore grossly misleading. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, IMO your references are, for the most part, very problematic.

Ref #1 compares all chemicals, Dow, for instance, in the discussion.
Ref #2 states, it’s worth noting that these tallies are not necessarily the best measure of a company’s safety record, as they do not account for the number of accidents per worker hour, the possible differences in the way companies count deaths or many other factors.
Ref #3 is the same as #1.
Ref #4 - Perhaps if you want to use that book we should use this one [23] as well for an alternative viewpoint, such as calling BP the most sophisticated PR machine of all time.
Ref #5 - One reference in a government study? I can't quite figure that one out--it seems to me to be one of those that come from the bottom of the barrel when an editor is trying to win a losing battle.
Ref #6 Industry deaths for years 2003, 4, 5, and 6 are not very helpful.
Ref #7 is the Colin Read book again--page 86 is not shown
Ref #8 NYTimes, acceptable
Ref #9 This is from Abrahm Lustgarten, the author of the book I mentioned above. But he is far from alone in his claims.
Ref #10 - This is Colin Read again. Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's very easy to criticise. It's far harder to actually attempt to write something appropriate (or even just to make constructive comments on how this draft can be developed).

There is a real issue with a lack of adequate information which enables fair comparison of the safety records of companies like BP. Media coverage is generally highly anecdotal, narrow, US centric, recentist and highly skewed by a small number of high profile incidents.

The Colin Read book is very useful because unlike virtually all other sources I have seen it does actually use metrics and compares BP with peers and industry averages over a long period. Even Read is still narrow however, and only really addresses BP's operations in the US.

The draft text I have prepared above suffers also from being too recentist and too US centric. What would be great is if editors can provide quality sources which enable proper comparison of BP's operations worldwide with those of peers and industry averages.

Re ref 1, a refinery is far more analagous to a major chemicals plant than to an oil field or to oil drilling (and refineries generally have major chemicals facilties too). That is why metrics which look at the safety of refineries often include chemicals companies within their remit. I'm not sure why this should be an issue.

Yes data on number of accidents per worker hour which compared BP with peers and industry averages would be great - do you have it? Because I don't and in the absence of which the FT study is particularly useful.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that the section should also have something on BP's safety initiatives post-Deepwater, which have been extensive e.g. creation of the global wells organization and implementation of the recommendations of the Bly Report.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-addition of tag "Article's contents not adequately summarized by Intro"

Please do not remove or change this tag (as was done previously) until we have solved the Intro issue which has been under discussion since May, and for which we have an ongoing RfC. Please find related discussions here and here. petrarchan47 t c 18:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No consensus for this, and your readdition is disruptive. The neutrality tag is more than adequate. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality tag was switched with the tag regarding the Intro. It is being interpreted by half of the editors here as an excuse to remove negative content from the article, but to ignore the Intro. The tag you prefer in no way addresses the ongoing Intro problem, and since there are several open discussions as well as the RfC regarding the INTRO, there most certainly IS consensus. petrarchan47 t c 19:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is patently no consensus for your ideas on the lead, nor for the addition of this (wholly unnecessary, in view of the neutrality tag) tag. Edit warring and disruption seems to be the modus operandi of the tiny but exceptionally persistent clique trying to turn this article into a crude attack piece on BP.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. So you are saying that ONE sentence about BP's accidents and safety record covers sufficiently the article's contents in your opinion, and that an editor saying otherwise is attacking BP? Is that correct? There IS consensus that the Intro does not cover the article's contents. I feel ridiculous stating the obvious, but I guess it's needed. petrarchan47 t c 19:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite endless repetitive discussions you have patently failed to achieve a consensus for your ideas on the lead.

The addition of the tag has been reverted - if you really are so desperate to add it, despite the existing neutrality tag, then seek consensus on this page. Your repeated edit warring is unacceptable (although all I have come to expect from you and the anti-BP clique). Rangoon11 (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus that the intro is insufficient is inferred by this talk page and the reasons I have stated. Was consensus requested or attained for the tag you prefer? Show me the diffs for that please. petrarchan47 t c 19:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been no such consensus. You and a couple of others are simply ignoring that fact and hoping that by dragging a discussion on indefinitely such a consensus will somehow appear.

The article is now not stable thanks to your edit warring. The tag has been imposed purely through edit warring.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11, the lead section does not adequately reflect the article, and you have been instrumental in bringing about that inadequacy. The tag belongs. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"the lead section does not adequately reflect the article" - in your opinion. There has been no consensus for that view in very lengthy discussions. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus, period. No consensus to keep the lead the way it is (restricting negative information), and no consensus to expand it according to the guideline at WP:LEAD, summarizing all important article points. Something has to give here. I suggest easing up on the obstructionism. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, Rangoon11, are you going on record as saying that the Lede presently summarizes the article, with due weight, etc? petrarchan47 t c 17:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a pretty good lead, excellent in fact when compared to the WP articles of most major companies. Please remove the childish tag which you have tried to impose through edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a farce! The last paragraph is abominable, downplaying a history of huge accidents and then equating whatever bad reputation BP has acquired with an empty puff PR statement of supposed green activism which amounted to little. Here's the paragraph: "BP has been involved in several major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change." Awful, just awful. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No what is a farce is the junk which you tried to add in its place (repeatedly, by edit warring, during an open RfC):

"Since the management and operational changes implemented in the mid-1990s, BP has been criticised for their environmental record based on toxic releases such as oil spills and the dumping of hazardous substances. BP promote their involvement in alternate fuel research, but the company has been accused of greenwashing. BP were fined for safety, environmental and criminal violations such as the Texas City Refinery explosion in 2005, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006, ongoing safety violations and worker fatalities through 2010, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010—the largest accidental marine oil spill in history. The company has given money to elect politicians, and they have lobbied for their political interests such as the release of the Lockerbie bomber; they have 47 lobbyists focused on the United States Congress."Rangoon11 (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That is by far the better 4th paragraph. When I added it it conformed quite well to the LEAD guideline. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. The quoted paragraph by Rangoon11 as Binksternet's proposal is clearly not even close to acceptable for the article lead. It fails undue weight by several miles as a start. The existing lead looks ok, although the 1997 statement is a bit of a non sequitor. --BozMo talk 09:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that paragraph is an accurate embodiment of WP:LEAD, in which the various topics presented in the article are summarized in the lead section. Here's where I added it, along with extremely well-cited information pointing to Browne's corporate policy changes as the oft-reported reason for BP's subsequent string of serious accidents. Your complaint about undue weight is empty; the paragraph is a succinct summary of article text. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Repetition does not make a weak claim any stronger. There is a degree of subjectivity about "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" but there isn't really any way that your text could be considered part of such. There are quibbles about parts of your text are accurate but mainly it is just not representative. --BozMo talk 21:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That bit about repetition is rich. A weak claim would be one with no basis in policy. My additions to the article, including the expanded lead section, were based specifically on a thorough reading of the article, bringing the most important points to the fore in summary form. It is a strong addition. I can accept that you don't like it personally, but there is nothing wrong with it in terms of Wikipedia's policies. It conforms to WP:LEAD and it was written specifically to apply proper weight to the topics covered most prominently in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not personally dislike your text. In some contexts (for example if written in Private Eye) I might even pay to read it. However I judge it to be very out of line with Wikipedia's policies; even compared to the version of the article for which it was written (in which bits on contributions I think were later corrected). It does not form part of a summary of the most important aspects of the article. It attempts to highlight some of the more speculative (internal soap opera) and marginal parts of the article even though they appear to be the parts of the article about which you personally care a great deal. --BozMo talk 12:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we start with the existing text and see what incremental improvement is possible? I don't think "BP has been involved in several major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters.[14] In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change.[15]" is quite adequate because it does not mention the repute/publicity angle and because the second sentence does not follow from the first. So how do we improve it? --BozMo talk 21:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally does the article mention that BP was removed from the main ethical investment index after the Gulf spill? That seems to me to be much more significant than some of the trivial incidents since it involves a representative overview of their activities from a credible source [24] --BozMo talk 21:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

[autogenerated4-1] BP: Summary | OpenSecrets

[2] "SaveTheArctic.com". SaveTheArctic.com. Archived from the original on 16 December 2008. Retrieved 5 June 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[1]

[1]