Talk:American Petroleum Institute

Too clean
Doesn't this article seem a bit too... "sanitized" to you? What's the name of that software that tracks where edits to certain pages came from? I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few edits to this page from your friendly neighborhood ExxonMobil station, if you know what I mean.
 * Yes, it was clearly by industry promoters with only a few minor nods to the organization's huge influence and plainly false claims in TV ads. Now has an NPOV notice.  Needs more work on the API's efforts to hide negative health and environment effects of its "industry".

--XavierFox42 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought this article would be more in-depth than it is. At the very least I thought I'd find info on their recent greenwashing ad campaign on TV (specifically who that "Thank You For Smoking"-ish spokesperson is). Someone needs to come back here, put in all the relevant data that would flesh this article out and then request a lock from further edits because obviously someone is keeping this article small and sanitized for a reason. --ThePenciler (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now has some note of that, and the new 2011 campaign. More dirt and dirty oil references needed.

Global Warming
This article claims that "The API was also active in public relations efforts that claim that the greenhouse effect and global warming in general will be beneficial to society..."

I can find no evidence to support such a claim and believe it should be removed.

66.208.4.126 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC


 * I have removed the unsourced claim.Cyrusc 19:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't they promote Fred Singer who made exactly that claim?

General Tone
I added the NPOV tag because I felt that the general tone of this article did not seem very objective. It seems to me that the article has had various sentences added at whim by those who hate the API, and by those who adore it. I also added the stub tag - and thus until this article is expanded further, and until it cites more comprehensively its sources, i think its neutrality should remain in question. This is especially true considering that it is THE primary institute that gets referred to when people mention (especially in the media) the "oil lobby". It would be unfair for users, when searching for who this amorphous "oil lobby" is, to stumble upon this article and not be clued in to the fact that there are diametrically opposing points of view on the matter. EvanClifthorne 23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I expanded the article and added sources citing both API and opposing positions.Cyrusc 19:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. NPOV tag is back.  Terms like "leading" don't belong, obviously, or even "main", when it's fair to say "largest" or "prevalent", etc.

Role in settings specifications
This needs more work. API sets standards in several different areas of the industry, including drilling and production equipment, refining, lubricants, offshore engineering and construction. There is a spec for centrifugal pumps in refinery and flowline service, but the standard centrifugal pumps used on drilling rigs are not controlled by API (although they may be surrounded by other drilling equipment that is governed by an API spec). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marzolian (talk • contribs) 04:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial: Question raised on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN
There is a "special report" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages, including this one. Please comment there, and perhaps we can come to a consensus that applies to all the pages where this is used.


 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard


 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard

-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Among most prominent in climate disinformation
Contended content in bold:

"In December 2009, Mother Jones magazine said API and Energy Citizens were among the most prominent organizations in promulgating climate disinformation."

Discussion
The content is clearly attributed in-text in full compliance with our project's policies including WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:YESPOV. We are expected to summarize significant points of view. Sources need not be unbiased; if we suspect a source of bias, we are asked to attribute in text, and trust our readers, not to reduce or "soften" the claim of the source. If a noteworthy sport writer wrote that Michael Jordan was one of the top ten basketball players it would be non-neutral for us to summarize the writer as saying Jordan was a basketball player. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC) When we summarize what someone said, we have just as much of a responsibility to be accurate as we do when summarizing facts and events. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * MJ is clearly biased, and it is not clear at all that the view is notable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources need not be unbiased; the possibility of bias is addressed in full compliance with our project's policies including WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV via in-text attribution. When a noteworthy source characterizes a subject of an article as "one of the most" it is almost certainly noteworthy. What is your basis in policy or guideline for repeatedly deleting this contribution? Hugh (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * MJ is clearly biased, and it is not clear at all that the view is notable. What is your source for your assertion that MJ's view is notable? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Mother Jones is noteworthy as a source of investigative journalism on environmental issues. Harkinson and Mother Jones were among the first anywhere to write about climate change denial as organized, something we understand and take for granted today. We are asked to consider WP:USEBYOTHERS in evaluating the noteworthiness of sources.
 * The Oxford Handbook is a noteworthy reference on the sociology of climate change edited by noteworthy editors. The Dunlap and McCright chapter is one of the founding papers of the area of study of organized climate change denial within the discipline of environmental sociology. Another Harkinson Mother Jones (magazine) article is cited as well. It is highly significant that an academic paper cited mainstream media articles before there were many academic papers to cite. The record in noteworthy reliable sources is clear that Mother Jones (magazine) and Harkinson helped all of us, including academia, recognize that climate change denial is organized and a legitimate object of study.
 * You have deleted the clause "among the most prominent organizations" three times in recent days, rendering our project's summarization of the source inaccurate, so inaccurate as to be non-neutral, in the direction of favorable to the subject, with the following edit summaries:
 * "MJ isn't neutral, so don't quote too much from them#"
 * "nah, as before"
 * "BRD. Ever heard of it?"
 * Please clarify your edit summaries, thank you. What is your basis in policy or guideline for reducing the accuracy of our project's summarization of attributed content? I find no basis in policy or guideline for reducing or "softening" an attributed claim, on the basis of possible bias or notability or anything else. If we suspect a source of bias, we are asked to attribute in-text, not to mis-quote it; if we think a source non-noteworthy, we are asked to exclude it, not mis-quote it. Hugh (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * you wrote "...it is not clear at all that the view is notable." The subject of this article is in our category Category:Climate change denial. Here we have a noteworthy reliable source expressing the significant view that the subject of this article is among the most prominent members of that category. The source is distinguishing the subject of this article from all other members of its category; this is the very essence of identifying and including content that supports notability and is therefore WP:DUE. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Answering a question about noteworthiness by simply asserting that the source is noteworthy is circular illogic William M. Connolley (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * may I respectfully ask again, perhaps you missed the questions for you above,
 * Please clarify your edit summaries, and
 * What is your basis in policy or guideline for reducing the accuracy of our project's summarization of attributed content?
 * Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want my thanks, please stop your rudeness in editing discussion after it has been replied to. People have told you this before, and yet you persist. Are you being deliberately impolite? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would reject this change as previously rejected, and no new arguments being presented. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Specific reasons for rejecting this change as written:
 * The article doesn't say "climate disinformation"; even if it did, that term is too inherently biased for us to quote a biased source without attribution.
 * There is general agreement on a number of talk pages that "among the most prominent" cannot be used without attribution, for an organization as biased as MJ.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * HughD, since the end of your ANI against me you have failed to take the advice you were given. You dove right back into the Pinto related arguments by reverting 's correct removal of your questionable material (removal before ANI closed, restoration after ANI closed.  Despite being warned by  about your edit warring and TBAN violations  you have now reverted the same content 4 times in 27 hours (1 was my edit from last fall, 3 are 's restoration of previous consensus.  The material in question, which you have tried to restore to at least a half dozen articles, was exactly the material that has been a source of conflict between you and I as well as a number of other editors.  That seems a lot like you are trying to antagonize rather than walk away from our conflicts as was suggested to you.  Finally, your edits have been against the RSN and NPOVN consensus from last fall.  You participated in those discussions.  This is clearly edit warring and battleground behavior.  Again, PLEASE STOP.  Springee (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: American Petroleum Institute among most prominent in climate disinformation
Should the following four words, highlighted for convenience, be added to our project's article American Petroleum Institute?

"In December 2009, Mother Jones magazine said API and Energy Citizens were among the most prominent organizations in promulgating climate disinformation."

Discussion
Support as proposer. Statement of support of proposer. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) We are expected to summarize significant points of view WP:YESPOV. Sources need not be unbiased; the possibility of bias is addressed via clear in-text attribution in full compliance with our project's policy WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. There is no basis in policy or guideline for reducing, "softening," or mis-quoting attributed content, whether on the basis of the possible bias or lack of notability or anything else. If we suspect a source of bias, we are asked to attribute in-text, not to mis-quote it; if we think a source non-noteworthy, we are asked to exclude it, not mis-quote it. The summarization of the source currently in the article is sufficiently different from the source as to constitute original research WP:OR, and sufficiently non-neutral in favor of the subject of the article as to constitute a violate WP:NPOV. Our imperative to be accurate, complete, and neutral is just as important in paraphrasing a point of view as in summarizing facts and events.
 * 2) The subject of this article is in our project's category Category:Climate change denial. Here we have a noteworthy reliable source expressing the significant view that the subject of this article is not only merely a member of the category, but also among the most prominent members of its category. The source is distinguishing the subject of this article from all other members of its category; this is the very essence of identifying and including content that supports notability of the subject and is therefore WP:DUE.
 * 3) Mother Jones (magazine) is an award-winning source of investigative journalism; please see Mother Jones (magazine). Mother Jones (magazine) is noteworthy as a source of investigative journalism on environmental issues.
 * 4) We are asked to consider WP:USEBYOTHERS in evaluating the noteworthiness of sources. "*" The Oxford Handbook is a noteworthy reference on the sociology of climate change edited by noteworthy editors and published by a noteworthy publisher. The Dunlap and McCright chapter is one of the founding papers of the area of study of organized climate change denial within the discipline of environmental sociology. Another Harkinson  Mother Jones (magazine) article is cited as well. It is highly significant that an academic paper cited mainstream media articles before there were many academic papers to cite. The record in noteworthy reliable sources is clear that Mother Jones (magazine) and Harkinson helped all of us, including academia, recognize that climate change denial is organized and a legitimate object of study. Harkinson and Mother Jones were among the first to write about climate change denial as organized, something we understand and take for granted today.


 * You really ought to stop dissing the arbs and answer Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement instead of wasting everyone's time here William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If I weren't involved, I'd close this RFC as previously rejected, and no new arguments presented. That being said, IMO, even if it were the case that sources reliable for opinions (which MJ is not) were to say that API was among the most prominent (of whatever; Hugh is conflating two different sections of the MJ articles to determine what that are most prominent for), it would not be a statement which is both meaningful and notable.  The most prominent, perhaps.  Among the 2 most prominent, possibly.
 * What the MJ article said is they are among the 12 most prominent, in the opinion of the article author. The author doesn't have a Wikipedia article, nor are there indications his opinion is important.  It would be interpretation even to say that MJ "believes" these are the 12 most prominent (of whatever).
 * I don't recall whether I presented this argument before. Whether or not I did, this argument and the others I've presented previously are each adequate reasoning so that the statement should not be in any article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ,, I propose closing this RfC on several grounds. As AR said this is revisiting a previous discussion (see the RSN and NPOVN discussion two sections up) the result of which did not support the proposed change.  The originator of the RfC was a participant in those discussions thus this is forum shopping.  The fact that this is an RfC for 4 words makes it too specific to be a reasonable point of discussion.  Does "support" mean in general or the exact 4 words?  Does it mean the rest of the sentence cannot change?  Finally, the proposal was in violation of a topic ban (see admin comments here )  WP:RFC notes that if the participants agree an RFC can be closed at any time. Springee (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Support This is a more correct representation of the sources, WP:POV is not an issue because the statement is attributed to Mother Jones rathar than given in wikipedia voice. &#8220;;WarKosign&#8221; 09:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the issues with this RfC is that the originator didn't include links or summaries of previous RSN and NPOVN discussions. In those discussions the consensus was the "list" aspect of the article was a non-notable opinion. Revisiting the question without mentioning the previous consensus is an issue of forum shopping. Springee (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I participated in these discussions, but I recall we have a secondary source (The Atlantic if I recall correctly) that demonstrates the MJ perspective is due. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well feel free to find it then William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are multiple examples of other RS referencing and using the exact same article, including The Atlantic, Fortune, and HuffPo. It's also referenced in this book, which also makes heavy use of other works by the same author and in the same publication. This is very clearly a notable opinion, worthy of inclusion in the article - although obviously it should be attributed. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Per Ronz's comment, the NPOVN and RSN discussions of the article (see section above from around Sept 26th) addressed the notability of the opinions offered in the article. My reading of the consensus was that the MJ article was reliable for fact but the opinions expressed in the article, including the grouping of organizations into a "worst of" list was not a notable opinion.  HughD was trying to push the consensus view by adding quotes to the citations so that the opinion would still be within the article.  I would still favor removal assuming a second, more reliable (and preferably better supported) opinion could be found.  Springee (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Standards and certification
The "Standards and certification" section could do with cleaning up by someone who has a clue about this stuff. At the moment its just a list, but, well, questions include:


 * is there any conflict between the "standards" and the "advocacy" roles?
 * what's the relationship between API standards and state+federal standards? Does the API act to effectively set federal standards? They seem to imply that they do

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The API is both an advocacy and a standards setting organization, although this is something of a conflict of interest. It is basically because governments in the US have abdicated their standards setting responsibilities to the private sector, and by default the API has become the standards setting body for the entire US, (not to mention many third world countries which can't afford to develop their own standards). The API actually does a good job of developing standards, so you can't really fault their expertise. It is something of a conflict of interest but, in my experience getting the US federal and 50 state governments to head in the same direction and agree on standards is something like herding cats, so the API is as good as it gets. I'm speaking from the perspective of the Canadian industry, whose standards have not a great deal of convergence with API standards. In Canada, unlike in the US, the provincial governments have unequivocal constitutional authority over natural resources and set the standards. The equivalent to the API, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) is mostly an advocacy body.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There are different meanings to the word standards, posing a risk of the logical fallacy of equivocation. The types of standards API is involved with are mostly - not entirely - questions of uniform definitions, testing procedures, and engineering specifications. This is the same function that ASTM performs in many other fields. Without such uniform definitions, drill pipe from different makers wouldn't thread together, and you would never know if supplier A's grade of cement is equivalent to supplier B's. If this is a conflict of interest, I don't see how. If any state wants to mandate its own standards, it has, of course, the power to do so, but I see few items on the list in the article that would interest most politicians or regulators, who usually involve themselves in normative standards, rather than definitional standards. Plazak (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The API standards are unequivocally true standards, but in Canada the provinces set most of the equivalent industry standards. As I said, unlike American States, Canadian provinces set their own standards and define their own terms, which often differ from API ones. The difference mainly arose because provinces have unequivocal constitutional authority over both natural resources and private property. Unlike US states they can seize private corporation assets without notice and without compensation if they get upset with companies, which sometimes happens, and rewrite rules without deferring to private interests. There is also a tradition of direct government involvement in industry in Canada, which you don't have in the US. An example of a provincial standard is the Alberta Energy Regulator's [| Directive 017: Measurement Requirements for Oil and Gas Operations]. It parallels the API [| MPMS: Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards] but does not really follow it, although it incorporates parts of the latter by reference. The former is free since it is a government document, but the latter is several feet long and costs 9,064.00 to buy. The Canadian industry does things quite a bit differently, mostly in the interests of regulatory efficiency - the MPMS is too complicated and cumbersome - but of course because our kilometrage differs from your mileage:-)RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just an additional note: I checked and the article does not seem to make any references to the API Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards (MPMS). This would appear to be something of an oversight since the MPMS is the basic standard for petroleum measurement in the US, and some other countries (It is available in Spanish, and I know that a number of Spanish speaking countries use it.)RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Petroleum Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821142612/http://www.ccainstitute.org/who-we-are/our-board-bios/jack-n-gerard.html to http://www.ccainstitute.org/who-we-are/our-board-bios/jack-n-gerard.html
 * Added tag to http://www.nhpr.org/rick-perry-stumps-manchester-next-stop-iowa
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100521011930/http://www.piping-designer.com/American_Petroleum_Institute to http://www.piping-designer.com/American_Petroleum_Institute

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Mike-sommers-hi-res.jpg

Denial: sources
People seem to be keen for some version of


 * The organization has aggressively promoted climate change denial and acted against proposed mitigation measures since 1980. Over time, API has incrementally retreated on the existence, attribution, and severity of the issue as public opinion and political pressure made it less tenable to reject the scientific consensus outright. 

to be included. But if you want to write "aggressively promoted climate change denial" you need good sources. Or, better, you need one good source. Not lots of rather poor sources. From this crop:
 * the Graun: not desperately reliable on this kind of stuff, mostly isn't reporting denial as a fact, but people's opinions on it: for example, Sheldon Whitehouse's view. And "The city of Hoboken in New Jersey", but then they're suing API, so hardly neutral. And so on. And nothing about aggression, which appears to be entirely made up.
 * the Atlantic: doesn't appear to accuse API of denial at all.
 * Smoggies: appears to accuse GCC.

William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bold assertions need reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

== Much of its work has been dedicated to the advancement of climate change denial and blocking of climate legislation to defend the interests of its constituent organizations ==

I don't believe this and I don't think the sources demonstrate it. Further, it is implausible: API revenues are ~$200M/yr, and our article claims ~$3M/yr on lobbying William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)