Talk:BP/Archive 10

The problem: informing editors, but not readers

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

Adding BP's drafts to the article

 * User:Arturo at BP/Overview of operations
 * 563 words, posted by Arturo 3 July 2012; added to the article on 5 July by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion


 * User:Arturo at BP/BP UK
 * 385 words, posted by Arturo 25 July 2012; added to the article on 15 August by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion


 * User:Arturo at BP/US operations
 * 984 words, posted by Arturo 24 August 2012; added to the article on 30 August by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion


 * User:Arturo at BP/Stock history
 * 509 words, posted by Arturo 18 September 2012; added to the article on 20 September by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion


 * User:Arturo at BP/Alternative Energy
 * 202 words, posted by Arturo 23 October 2012; added to the article on 3 November by Beagel; talk page discussion


 * User:Arturo at BP/Worldwide operations
 * 690 words, posted by Arturo 5 November 2012; added to the article on 17 November by Beagel; talk page discussion


 * User:Arturo at BP/Canadian oil sands
 * 301 words, posted by Arturo 19 November 2012; added to the article on 28 November by Beagel; talk page discussion


 * User:Arturo at BP/Allegations of greenwashing
 * 179 words, posted by Arturo 7 December 2012; added to the article ?; talk page discussion


 * User:Arturo at BP/Prudhoe Bay
 * 421 words, posted by Arturo 25 February 2013; added to the article on 1 March by Silver seren; talk-page discussion


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

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

SlimVirgin (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

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


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


 * Martin, you took part in the discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is inherently wrong for us to use material generated by a BP employee, but I think it is vitally important that we thoroughly review such material with a critical eye before any of it is allowed into the article. I'm especially skeptical of BP's ability to write about their environmental record in a truly NPOV fashion. BP's environmental record is abysmal pretty much any way you slice it. Arturo's framing of their record as merely "mixed" in his userspace draft reveals the logical intersection of COI and NPOV – minimize the negative, accentuate the positive. I would much rather see Arturo suggest individual edits to this section rather than a complete rewrite. That way each change can be discussed in detail and evaluated for NPOV implications. Kaldari (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin, I would be open to editors reviewing the material added to the article to ensure that it is neutral.
 * Also, to clarify, the Allegations of greenwashing draft was not added to the article and the Canadian oil sands draft was also not added in the form it appears in my user space. Per discussion at the time with Beagel and Martin Hogbin, this was reduced to a summary which they both approved. The majority of drafted material that was added to the article — sometimes after edits by other editors — focuses on the company's operations and provides a factual overview of the company's activities that could hardly be considered controversial. Edits have been made by other editors to this material since it was added to the article, so please bear this in mind when reviewing. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like much of the work you've done for this article is helpful and uncontroversial. I don't think we need to be COI-absolutists when it comes to presenting uncontroversial facts. If it improves the article, that's what ultimately matters. I'm sure you can appreciate the delicacy of dealing with the more controversial areas, however. Subjects like "environmental record" consist to a large degree of synthesized opinions and evaluations (some of them competing or contradictory), thus it would be largely inappropriate for BP to author such a section (and I think most people would agree with this). Requesting individual factual corrections to this section would be fine, however. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I am missing something, but is this not exactly, to the word, what we recommend that entities and article subjects do instead of editing the articles themselves? That other editors find the proposals reasonable and acceptable means that the article subject is "getting" Wikipedia, not that it is abusing it.  This page has 238 watchers, 143 of whom are active users. Risker (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How can this editor be so out of touch? At one of the other articles with a paid editor, that editor was ready to, as s/he had been doing for some time with no comments from anyone, insert his extremely biased version of a lawsuit into an article while the ongoing suit was  still in the courts.  There seems to be some sort of idea that what with so many editors on an article's watch list, certainly nothing like this could go unnoticed.  And yet, only two editors have made any comments on that attempt to bias that article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have not noticed, Gandydancer, but this project is intended to present a neutral point of view, not one that focuses on bullying article subjects that one doesn't like. He has absolutely been doing things exactly the way he is supposed to be doing it. What happens on other articles is no excuse for the abuse being heaped on this one. There have been plenty of experienced eyes on this article, and lots of other editors actually editing the article. It seems to me that this is a classic example of "this article doesn't say what I'd say if I was writing an article", and then blaming that on the fact that someone from the company has been carefully and forthrightly following our rules about his participation. Wikipedia has a well-deserved reputation for poorly sourced, badly written, slanted articles about corporations, focusing on any complaints (documented or not) about them, while skipping over key information that is also readily available. Better to start cleaning up these atrocities (I can think of dozens of them without even trying) so that corporations don't need to have to come onwiki to work with our editors to fix them. Risker (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about and why the nasty note? I certainly have not "abused" Arturo.  I have stated "regarding Arturo I want to say that I certainly do like him and I've never felt that he has attempted anything sneaky or dishonest. Furthermore, all things considered, I have felt that his edit suggestions have been, as far as I could tell, accurate and fair". Furthermore, I have also stated that he has done nothing wrong and is only doing his job and I have yet to see any editor say otherwise.  Your statement "It seems to me that this is a classic example of "this article doesn't say what I'd say if I was writing an article", and then blaming that on the fact that someone from the company has been carefully and forthrightly following our rules about his participation." is absurd. Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be better described as an attempt to unbias the article. So long as some editors treat this article as a soapbox in which every piece of sourced bad news about the subject has a rightful place, there is going to be opposition from a variety of sources.  A WP article is not the place to try to put right great wrongs or expose bad things and if editors continue to treat it that way there is likely to be continued conflict here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec; reply to Kaldari) The problem is that we're not in a position to judge those drafts. Determining neutrality requires being familiar with the body of source material that exists on each of the issues. Ensuring the best sources were used, that there was no cherry-picking, no omission of fact, no key sources left out, no subtle rephrasing of the material, would involve a tremendous amount of work. That BP would write this is by definition controversial, especially because – and this is the key issue – our readers didn't know they were reading BP's words. And when it comes to the environmental issues, it's even more controversial given that the company faced criminal charges.


 * When Microsoft paid someone to change its article, Jimbo suggested it publish its views elsewhere so that we could cite them (see "Microsoft Violates Wikipedia's Sacred Rule"). I think that would be a good way forward here; BP could publish its perspective on its website and we could link to it. If there are simple factual errors, Arturo can list them here, so that editors can fix them. But we can't have any more of BP's words being added to the article unless they're in quotations marks and attributed to the company. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kaldari. In light of the recent discussion, your proposed process for the more sensitive sections of the article makes a lot of sense. In place of the draft I originally proposed, in the next couple of days I will offer some helpful comments and source material addressing the current issues with the introduction of the Environmental record section. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If an individual is prepared to take responsibility for them, all editors are equal and should be judged on the basis of the edits. If a BP staff member can make good neutral edits to this article, they should be encouraged to--placing them first on the talk page for review is all that might be necessary, and this is mainly necessary because of the abuse of the editing privilege by various editors in the past, and because of the difficult in detecting COI in little-watched articles. . Personally, I think once they've shown a degree of capability, they might as well make the edits on the article itself. BRD still applies.
 * I see no reason why BP would be less neutral than an environmental activist on an article such as this one. An avowed editor from BP has not only their reputation, but the company;s reputation at stake, and is not likely to do anything outrageously partisan., especially considering the general lack of sympathy here. A person with an undeclared environmentalist POV has no particular reputation at stake,  is likely to be extremely partisan and may think, often rightly, that they will get away with it,   considering the general sympathy of many people here to such POVs. There's something special about financial COI: it's predictable and usually obvious, and can be dealt with. The danger is the partisans, and its as much the partisans of causes I agree with as those I do not.
 * Certainly on the sort of topics I work on, the problem is generally the crudest sort of corporate advertising, especially the very incompetent stuff likely to come from non profit organizations such as universities, and this is easily dealt with, no matter where they put it. As for the articles likely to affected by partisans, including this one, I do not edit there except in a technical sort of way, because dealing with them is too frustrating. (This is all the more so when I too am personally an advocate for the cause, because then the COI editing really embarrasses me. When I disapprove of the cause, I tend to think, what else can be expected of them.)  DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Slim objects that so much of the content added has been developed by an employee of a major corporation, but it appears to me that Arturo has complied fully with our guidelines, even though they are just guidelines. Editors here reviewed the content, made changes, and then implemented the revised version of Arturo's suggestion. I see nothing wrong with that. Amazingly, in spite of Arturo's heavy involvement, my impression is that the article is more negative than positive as other editors have tendentiously tried to vilify the corporation. This is not really surprising given how BP has been publicly vilified for its failure to minimize the environmental impact of its petrochemical operations. Personally, I would prefer if the "BP = Bad Petroleum" types and the COI types were not writing this article, but that is just the way it tends to work in these situations. Instead of crowing about how some parts of this article have been developed by someone who may be biased towards the company, how about we discuss how to strike a balanced approach between the two camps?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * If you look at the latest draft, User:Arturo at BP/Environmental record, I know it would take me days of solid work to check this. The first sentence is a red flag; it's unsourced and doesn't seem to be the way most sources describe BP's record. And things like: "it continued to draw criticism from groups including Greenpeace for its focus on increasing oil production." Was it really only criticized for this by "groups" (implying activist groups)? There are problems like this throughout the draft. A person would have to do so much reading to check this that it would be faster to write it from scratch. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That first sentence is actually completely accurate. BP's reputation in the 90's was rather positive, it was a company seen as ahead of the curve and that actually worked toward proper environmental policies. Then the incidents happened in the 2000's and their reputation became more negative because of them. So, one decade is positive, another is negative. I think that's exactly what we call mixed. You seem to be focusing just on recent events and not on BP's history as a whole. Silver  seren C 23:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously suggesting that you would find it difficult to check four paragraphs of material for issues? The current environmental record section is a complete mess and some of the material is duplicated in the "accidents" section, with far too much detail on individual incidents in both sections. While there may be some neutrality issues with Arturo's proposal, I daresay it is a step in the right direction and would not be difficult to review.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Devil's Advocate that there is at least as great a threat to the quality, neutrality, and integrity of this article from anti-BP editors than from those with a connection to BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way to make a fair judgement of a summary of a corporation's environmental record is to look at a summary written by their rep and to look at a summary written by one of their "green" critics along side of it.  It is not just a simple matter of checking four paragraphs for "issues".  Information can be presented in a manner that accents the positive and minimizes the negative, to say nothing of just leaving some things out completely.  Here is another summary of BP's environmental record for comparison :  BTW, regarding Arturo I want to say that I certainly do like him and I've never felt that he has attempted anything sneaky or dishonest.  Furthermore, all things considered, I have felt that his edit suggestions have been, as far as I could tell, accurate and fair. It's only when Arturo rewrote this more controversial section that I have become very concerned. And then when editors that have never worked on the article began to arrive to place it in the article for him I began to wonder why I have spent so many hours and endless pages of talk when a paid editor and his crew can come and insert anything they want into the article.   When I saw that Silverseren had even posted a few links so that that his posse could do a quick BP for Dummies read to bring their level of understanding of what they were about to vote on up to snuff--well who wouldn't wonder if some editors had not taken the "anybody can edit" slogan too far. Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * "his posse"
 * What the hell? And are you talking about the source links I gave above on criticism of BP that I thought should be included? Silver  seren C 01:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * "[P]eople I trust tell me ... that Andrew Witty ... is a lovely and honest man. He wants to do the right thing, they say. He bangs his fist on the table and talks of integrity. And I am entirely prepared to believe that this is true. But it's also completely irrelevant: because this is the serious global business of health, affecting every single one of us. We cannot allow the behaviour of the pharmaceutical industry to swing on a pendulum ... with our chances of getting proper data forever at the whim of whether the person at the top is nice."


 * Similarly, whether Arturo has been nice is not the issue, and whether he has followed our rules isn't the issue either. To paraphrase Goldacre, this is the serious business of producing an article that our readers can trust. If the current rules allow BP to rewrite the article, then the current rules suck. It's not a question of fault or who is or isn't polite. It's just a silly situation that we have to try to fix. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to actually read the old discussions before you make such a condescending statement: "I do wonder whether some of these drafts got passed because some editors didn't want to be a nuisance." I can assure you that neither Petrarchan, Binksternet nor I have been bamboozled because we thought that Arturo was "nice" and the suggestion is, frankly, infuriating.  My perception of Arturo has been that he is fair and honest but I've never had any stars in my eyes to where I'd think that his first duty is to Wikipedia and not to BP.  Please read the the discussion at the top of this page where this topic is discussed. Gandydancer (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And that is the actual accusation isn't it? Not that Arturo has done anything wrong but the editors who added the contributions are. It is baseless, without any merit and just a horrible way to treat your fellow Wikipedians. This entire situation is dragging more editors through the mud than just Arturo and it is incredibly disrespectful to the entire Wikipedia community.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


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


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


 * It's just a silly situation that we have to try to fix. Actually, what is the situation? It was asked several times, what is exactly wrong with this article? There was no other answer than it is to much work to get know which is wrong. But how to you know that anything is wrong at all? I can understand that you don't trust Arturo as a COI editor. It is understandable because everybody should be cautious about COI editors. But notwithstanding the fact that drafts were proposed by Arturo, the actual text (which may be somehow differ from the drafts at Arturo's page) was added by other editor who don't have a COI issue (at least, I hope so). So, you did not trust these editors too? Based on what? This is a disrespect against these editors. Being one of these editors you used drafts proposed by Arturo I have a right to knew what I was made wrong. Being accused I at least want to know what is my fault. Beagel (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...whether he has followed our rules isn't the issue either. I hope you did not mean what you wrote. What about the rule of law? Beagel (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * This information is now appropriately incorporated at Conflict_of_interest_editing_on_Wikipedia. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 17:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


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

The sad thing is
Even after all this, there has yet to be a single person to point out a single thing wrong with the drafts Arturo made. Silver seren C 18:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a case of bad journalism and IDONTLIKETHEM, especially since Arturo has never edited article space.Smallman12q (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If people don't like WP policies then they should go to the correct forum and try and change them. Arturo's behaviour here has been strictly in line with current policy, as the founder of Wikipedia has said himself. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * That's true; Arturo was having his edits checked by BP's subject-matter experts. It's certainly true that no other Wikipedian had that access, or had the time that Arturo had. Following that line of reasoning, the New York Times should just hand over space to BP to write its stories about the company, because BP has access to the insider knowledge. The Times could invite a group of volunteer readers with no specialist knowledge to review BP's drafts, and if they're okay in the opinion of those volunteers, add them to the Times using the name of one of its journalists, so that no one knows BP was the author. There's no need for anyone to know BP was involved, so long as the volunteers say those articles are accurate, right? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would we have to let the readers know about companies making suggestions and not about anti-company activists that actually edit the articles directly? Silver  seren C 22:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @SlimVirgin, BP did not ghostwrite the article in the manner you're suggesting. The additions were neutrally-words and reliably sourced to third parties, (except where BP is a better source for certain company facts). Anyone can examine who wrote the article by viewing the history, talk page and relevant editors. The main concern around COI is that edits are done covertly and in a way to detract from the quality of the article. Arturo clearly identified his COI as is evident by his username, "Arturo at BP" and on his userpage. He did not directly edit the article, rather made suggestions that were reviewed and accepted. Rather than ad hominem attacks, you should point out any perceived deficiencies that arose from the incorporation of Arturo's suggestions so they may be addressed and corrected.Smallman12q (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * @SlimVirgin: You're normally a pretty level headed editor. What happened?  I suggest that you take a step back to reflect.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Only on Wikipedia could people argue with a straight face that there is anything improper about SV's comments above—the rules say that it is ok for a major company to devote massive resources towards presenting their point of view on Wikipedia, so long as unqualified and under-resourced anonymous volunteers think it's ok. Welcome to the future. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Johnuniq: I think that you've lost your perspective. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: how can you guys crow about "unqualified and under-resourced anonymous volunteers" contributing here without your heads exploding?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 01:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just a simple statement of the facts. Of course there are many editors who are expert in the areas in which they edit, and many more with a good understanding of their topic, but that is extremely unlikely to be the case here. When managing a major public relations problem, a company would be glad to spend literally millions of dollars to guide an article towards a favorable state (I'm sure that millions are not needed here, but that money would be available). What editors should do about this situation is of course tricky, but a good approach would be to acknowledge that SV's comments are very sensible, then argue that BP's material is nevertheless acceptable for whatever reasons. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that there is nothing sensible about raising complaints regarding content that don't actually indicate any problems with the content. Certainly if Slim had just ignored this and not spammed this argument all over the place it wouldn't have been noticed by the media, presuming Slim didn't just follow with her implicit threat to raise it with the media. If the content is acceptable there is no reason for someone interested in having quality encyclopedic content to stir up a ruckus and bring the project into disrepute. Seems to me that some editors are allowing their personal feelings about BP and the environment to get in the way of what should be our core mission of providing quality encyclopedic content to as wide an audience as possible.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 02:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that none of us have the background or resources to determine whether there is a problem with the material presented by the company. I have been ignoring this topic for some time, but have just now quickly reviewed a couple of pages and can see that just as SV has reason to be concerned by a company devoting unlimited resources to managing its public relations, so those arguing against SV have reason to be concerned by some of the melodramatic and unhelpful actions opposing BP's material (for example, adding excessive detail or "controversy in Wikipedia" in this article). There is no good procedure to handle a case like this, and while some will never understand the obvious, it should be quite possible for most to agree with SV's comments and at the same time argue that the BP material is ok. To provide balance, I should note that some of those supporting BP's material have also been over-the-top melodramatic in some places. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really believe that we cannot determine if there is a problem with the material. You just need someone with a good head on his or her shoulders to review the material and sourcing. Certainly, I understand where Slim is coming from, but she has only really focused on the "mixed" description of BP's environmental record by focusing on media mentions. Reality is that "mixed" is a pretty good way to describe the record of a company that has been a pioneer in terms of environmental advocacy in the corporate world and alternative energy research that also has been responsible for numerous severe ecological disasters, including the worst oil spill in history.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnuniq, that there is need for caution but but panic. It is easy enough to spot and change material that is over promotional. As always, any editor is free to challenge material that they might be considered whitewashing of bad things, and we seem to have plenty willing to do this. We also have the option of asking Arturo to provide more independent sourcing for anything that we might consider to be based too much on unpublished documents.  If he is unable or unwilling to do this we should consider removing the unsupported material.


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


 * Martin, yes, having access to people willing to point us to interesting published material is good. But these people are sources. The problem here is that the source was allowed to write the article, and have that text rely on the published sources he chose to highlight. No news organization would ever allow this, and although our mission is somewhat different, there are very good reasons that journalists keep their sources at arm's length. Those reasons apply to us too, particularly given the limited amount of volunteer time available to check anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern but there is no need to panic or take any form of drastic action. Arturo did not write the article he proposed additions that were added by others, who have reviewed the material and taken responsibility for what was added.  Nevertheless, I can see the possible dangers of a subtle bias being transmitted to the article and we must be on our guard against this.


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


 * Nothing should be based on unpublished material. Aside, has Arturo confirmed his identity and position with BP through OTRS or someone? Tom Harrison Talk 11:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong there, it was just an impression that I got from the talk here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is citing Arturo or anything. It is a bit quicker for him to provide well cited material because he knows more history. The article is a dog's breakfast and any kind of help is welcome. Everything is discussed and reviewed before being added to or taken from the article. It is completely ok, transparent, fine. For example I did this removal after Arturo suggested it two weeks earlier and about 30 comments were exchanged on the talk page. Go and check the talk page history if you like but the article is better for the removal.  --BozMo talk 14:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like we shouldn't just take someone's word for it that they are what they say they are, no matter how nice, polite, and helpful. Anyway, there are probably 10,000 factually accurate articles about BP that Wikipedia could be presenting to readers. Granted that this is one of them, the concern is that it's the one BP prefers on balance; otherwise Arturo at BP would suggest a change. That's as much a legitimate concern as it would be if instead of coming from Arturo at BP the contributions had come from Nigel at the Sierra Club. Also, "Wikipedia Engagement Team" in other contexts would be taken to imply off-site coordination. If that team is just Arturo's research assistants, I can only envy him. Tom Harrison Talk 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Slim Virgin...we are not a news organization and frankly you are actually wrong. News organizations do indeed let companies add input to there articles. How do you think they get accurate information? What...do you think they pull it out of their butts?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the problem that requires such aggression? Are you seriously suggesting that a reputable newspaper would take a significant body of text submitted by BP and add it to an article about BP, without mentioning the source? (Of course papers designed to sell advertorial space do that, but they are not reputable and would not even count as WP:RS.) Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't take the "Pulling it out of their butts" comment as aggression. It is an expression and yes, I am saying that Newspapers regularly take information provided by companies to incorporate into their stories without attribution of any sort. Now...when writing a book or academic journal it is almost always added to a notes section, but journalist do not have that requirement. And as I said...we are not a newspaper and we are not journalists. That is my point and I do wish to make that as strongly as possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hear,hear! Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please, WP:AGF. I think it was just overcompression which happens in ledes. I expanded the "$4B in fines" to "$4B in fines and penalties" which all three sources verify. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC) ✅
 * I did AGF. The point is that we had edited this fact carefully, and crusaders against COI put the incorrect fact in. Of course they meant well.  Of course they also trumpeted how they were "replacing falsehood with truth".  Had they AGF'd about the previous editors, they might have taken a little more time and got it correct. Rich Farmbrough, 04:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC).


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

reference to dracone barge in "environmental initiatives" section
There is text describing BP's invention of a method to clean up oil spills using booms and a tanker or dracone barge in the "environmental initiatives" section. This does not seem to be any kind of "environmental initiative nor does it seem particularly notable.  Its an old and expired patent.   Anybody object to deleting the paragraph? Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like an environmental initiative to me. If it's old then maybe it should be moved to a different article, since it's been deemed that this article is about the current company. Rich Farmbrough, 04:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Good find. I agree that it should go. BTW, Farmbrough, what do you mean by "the current company"?Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest addition to the Deepwater Horizon section
This has just been added:

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

Can anybody tell me its purpose? Are we trying to say that BP's well design was fatally flawed? If so we need a much more authoritative reference than the one given, if not, what is the 2-year old news agency report telling us? That a pressure test (which one, and when?) was incorrectly (how?) interpreted? There is no indication of the significance of the test, why it was incorrectly interpreted, or how much any party is to blame for this. It is just another piece of random anti-BP text with a source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was trying to round out the information on the explosion. The main article would have more particular information, though perhaps my addition could use improvement as I just took it from the main article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But what does it actually tell us? We have a rather prominent "BP's fatally flawed well design" but we cannot say that on the basis of a news report of another company's opinion. So now what is left? Only a vague reference to 'a pressure test', being misinterpreted. Can you really say that misinterpretation of a pressure test is worthy of mention in an article about BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the section on "accidents" and the added text helps explain why the accident happened. The addition and especially inclusion of the BP report as a source is very helpful.  Let it stand. However, I looked at the reference for the "fatally flawed" quote and unfortunately it is not in the cited source...I found it in others, and selected a Christian Science Monitor article to replace it.  I also edited the content to clarify that while BP accepted some blame its report, it also blamed Halliburton and Transoceean, and both of them together rejected that and shifted blame back to BP.Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The added text does nothing to explain why the incident happened. The article on the subject gives seven main causes, with detailed explanations of each.  We cannot do that here so why give a half-baked mention of one of the reasons.  The quote is what Transocean, who were under pressure themselves, said about BP, it is not even a comment from an independent party. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin, thanks for the feedback (and for your patience!) I removed any mention of a "pressure test" because I think you were right in your criticism.  As for the well design wording, do you have a better idea?  As for the other two blaming BP, I think it is just what one would expect--they all blame each other.  I agree that the independent party's final decision on blame is the most important one.  Reading the main article "Disposition of financial obligation", it is so long and involved, does anyone have an idea for a way to condense it without listing every party and every settlement? I would think that just a couple of lines would do but I have no idea how to condense it that much.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that but we still have, Responding to the report, Transocean and Halliburon placed all blame on BP and Transocean released a statement that blamed "BP's fatally flawed well design" and "cost-saving decisions that increased risk" . As you say, in a case like this everybody tries to blame someone else.  The two quotes "BP's fatally flawed well design" and "cost-saving decisions that increased risk" unfairly promote Transocean's POV.  remove then and all we have is Responding to the report, Transocean and Halliburon placed all blame on BP.  I think it all should go.  I agree that if we can get an overall independent apportionment of blame we should have a short summary of it in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just had a look at the "Disposition of financial obligation" and all it seems to say is that BP sued everyone it could and they all some of them settled out of court. This does not help us much. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, that seems fair and reasonable. I'll remove that from the article. I still hope that someone can come up with a final closure statement. Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We still need some sort of closure--we can't just leave it in the air like this. Gandydancer (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that we must add some text to this section? As I say above, an authoritative, overall, and independent apportionment of blame, would be a good thing to add to the article, but is there one? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well we do have the DOJ's findings but this month was supposed to be the findings re the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act, plus of course all the civil suits. But for this section I think we need more about the final finding of blame about whose fault the explosion was.  There is a lot of information here  but I'm not sure if it would be considered RS, and here is some recent information:  Gandydancer (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still not sure what you are trying to achieve. Is it to add more detail?  Is it to update facts? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


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

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

"Analysing the safety record of a major international oil company such as BP, and comparing it to industry averages and peers, is highly complex and fraught with subjectivity.. 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.

A number of aspects of BP's safety record appear to broadly conform with industry peers. In 2004 the National Journal described BP's LNG safety record as "exemplarly". (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". 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. (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. 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. It has also been argued that BP inherited safety issues from Amoco, and the Texas City Refinery was originally an Amoco site. (p92)" Rangoon11 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Rangoon's proposal is vastly more encyclopedic than the current list of new items. News items, by their very nature, concentrate on the bad and spectacular.  You never see a paper saying, 'Nothing happened at the XXX plant today except for oil production'.  I we are going to have section on BP's safety record it should be written from a genuinely neutral and objective viewpoint.  You are hardly going to get that from news sources after the Deepwater Horizon incident. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The ABC source looks at US government sources and compares across the industry. For instance, it says "BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)." This kind of reporting is not changed because of a recent accident. Rather, it stays relevant for the time of the report, making BP by far the most unsafe oil company working in the US in the 2000s, with a whopping 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations. Any discussion about BP's safety record will have to include how extremely bad they were in the US in the 2000s. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but Rangoon's references paint a different picture. I have no way of telling the real truth and neither do you.  Unless we have truly authoritative and comprehensive source saying so we must not say, or imply that BP had a worse safety record than other companies.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the sentiment, but I think some of the wording is argumentative, especially the first paragraph. As I have said before, I do believe this section and the environmental record section are too lengthy and there is a bit too much overlap. While I think some better wording is needed than what Rangoon suggests, my opinion is that we should have balanced summaries of the company's overall record in these areas, rather than laundry list sections.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not see how you can find the first paragraph argumentative. How can comparing the safety records of giant multinational companies  be anything other than 'highly complex and fraught with subjectivity'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Words such as "highly" and "fraught" are problematic and the whole first sentence is a bit unnecessary as it does seem to be obvious as you say. However, I am also concerned about some of the later wording in the paragraph. I believe the point about the safety record being oversimplified can be conveyed with less suggestive wording.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. If it is just the wording then I can agree with you.  The point that I believe needs to be made is that discussion of a huge company's comparative safety record is not a simple matter and we cannot base our article on media reports or even court findings.  Courts have the job investigating and dealing with a particular incident not comparing one company with another.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely fine with rewording too. I know that the draft above needs both expansion and better sourcing too, in no way was I proposing it for copying straight into the article. Hopefully now there's more activity on this page producing something capable of consensus will be more achievable. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I've changed "accidents" to "incidents," which I think is more neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been changed back (not by me, I am unbothered) but incident is also broader (in that it includes intentional misbehaviour such as product dumping). --BozMo talk 08:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where has the wording of the section title been discussed? I don't see it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Perhaps it's time to reopen that discussion. "Accidents" downplays the seriousness of the incidents described. "Incidents" is more neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Incidents' is just more general than 'accidents'. 'Accident' would not include sabotage or a deliberate release. In the sub-headings we can be more specific with 'spill', 'leak', 'explosion' etc. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's untrue that a consensus to use "incidents" has been reached. Does it not make sense that a neutral term is inappropriate to describe non-neutral events?  petrarchan47  t  c   17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


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

Rangoon has copy/pasted her previous proposal. I will copy/paste my previous response as well:

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) Gandydancer (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * just revised my text above -- this was hashed over, i read too fast the first time... thanks for the quick OK. will wait til tomorrow for other feedback. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ideally we should have three sections, Environment, Incidents, and Safety. We do not really cover safety, as far as I know, and I have no idea if there are RS on this. Environment should cover three main areas, the impact of product, the impact of operations (referring to but not covering incidents) and innovation. Rich Farmbrough, 04:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't support merging these sections, Safety record/Accidents and Environmental record are quite separate topics, although there is a close connection between some aspects of the topics. However there remain major issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM in the current Environmental record and Accidents section. For example, in Accidents we only have mention of one accident pre-2005 (and that's only one and a half lines for an incident which caused 13 deaths) and yet a 2008 blow out in the Caspian, ultimately a pretty minor event, gets a whole subsection and five lines of text.
 * I have always favoured a section which addresses BP's safety record in the round rather than a bloated laundry list of recent accidents. I tried to get the ball rolling on this a while back by posting a draft for discussion but it proved too painful so I lost interest. I will try again below. We could then have a break out article which enables laundry listing.
 * Similar points apply to the Environmental record section. We have nothing pre-1993, but have a 16 line sub section devoted to the Prudhoe Bay spill 2006–2007, despite it having its own article. Its not really a description of BP's environmental record at all.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

The previous discussion stalled, but I do still feel that a re-organization would help the clarity of these two sections and remove the repetition of information within them. The above linked structure draft is a proposal for one way that this could be done. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the organisation should be changed, especially to remove duplication. It might be an idea to try to separate reorganisation from rewriting.  In other words we could reorganise the page using the existing (merged where necessary) text. Rewording could then be considered as a separate issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of the two structures above I prefer the top one as I find it more logical and I can forsee the bottom one creating issues as to where some material should go, for example where to place content which is about negative aspects of BP's environmental record but not connected to a specific incident, the top structure would be more flexible in this regard.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


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

Conflict of interest template
The conflict of interest template was removed from the article by Rangoon11 with an edit summary describing it as 'highly dubious', reasoning that BP employee Arturo has never directly edited the article. However a conflict of interest still exists because material that he wrote has been inserted into the article without any indication that it was written by a BP employee. The Template:COI documentation is clear that the template applies to changes that are the "direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or a person with a close connection to the subject". With a growing number of news articles reporting on the fact that Arturo's edits make up some 40% of the article, it would be irresponsible of us not to make use of the template, at least until the extent of any bias can be ascertained. Gobōnobō + c 20:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jimbo has already stated that there is nothing wrong with what the user has done and that the information that was moved to the article was vetted by other editors, so the responsibility of the edits falls on them. So it is essentially those users' edits just as much as it is Arturo's. A COI template is only added when there is reason to believe that COI edits have made the article non-neutral. There is no reason to believe that in this instance, as the edits were properly vetted. If you have concerns about a specific section, sentence, or use of words in the article, we can talk about it, but ther eis absolutely no reason for the COI template. And, really, the COI template isn't very useful for anything, the POV template actually addresses the content of the article. Silver  seren C 20:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The addition of the template is offensive to those editors who added Arturo's draft text to the article - I have no connection to BP, and neither do the other editors who added Arturo's text to the article - as well as to those editors critical of BP who were watching the article at the time and were more than capable of speaking up if they had an issue with the proposed text (they certainly weren't shy in speaking up about all manner of other things, and we have had lots of debate and discussion on this talk page all through the period Arturo has been active here). Rangoon11 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) If you want to nominate the COI template for deletion because you think it is useless, feel free. I understand how you might be defensive, given that you are the editor who signed off on some of those edits, but a COI template is not a badge of shame. Rather, the template serves to inform readers that an impressive chunk of the article has been written by a BP employee and that, yes, there are neutrality concerns, as have been already outlined on this talk page. Per your suggestion, I've added a POV template. Gobōnobō  + c 21:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Silver seren is also spot on about edit ownership, the drafts of Arturo which I added to the article I am very happy to call my edits, and to stand by them and defend them 100%. The text I added to the article which Arturo had prepared was excellent and I would have very happy to produce something of the same quality and depth, and certainly I would have struggled to find the time to do so. This article is radically better than it was two years ago, and Arturo is part of the reason for that. Those attacking him above have largely contributed nothing to this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the amateurish shambles that this article was back in 2010: An embarassment to WP. A crude attack piece. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to some COI/neutrality template for the time being, so long as the discussion shifts to evaluating the actual content alongside the review of how it got there. Template:COI says:
 * "...Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {pov} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame.... Like the other neutrality-related tags, this tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found."
 * It's sound advice. Ocaasit &#124; c 21:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is so not what I suggested. You're only supposed to add a POV tag if there is actually POV issues with the article. Then, once those issues ar epointed out, they are fixed so that the template is removed. Templates are not meant to just sit on article pages, they are meant to be fixed. So, what exactly is POV issue here, what part of the text is POV I must ask? Silver  seren C 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * COI templates are for alerting editors to alleged issues with the content itself, not with who added it. Unless someone identifies a problem with the actual text supplied by Arturo then there is no basis for including such a template.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I don't view it that way. I read about this situation on CNet and it makes Wikipedia look bad. I agree about adding the COI notice to the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And remove it when? Article tags are meant to indicate that something is wrong with the text. So, what's wrong? Unless that is identified, it can't be fixed. Silver  seren C 19:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that if the article is changed or rewritten so that it does not reflect significant contributions by BP, it would be time to remove the COI template. This is not intended as a reflection on any editor or group of editors, but simply my belief that Wiki's BP article should be written by people unaffiliated with BP. My feeling is that BP contributing 40% of the text, assuming that's correct, is an inherent problem even if that text is fine. I am more of an outsider than a Wikipedian, I haven't been contributing for very long, and I think that outsiders would view BP's participation in this article with revulsion. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 40%? Where did that come from? Less than 4% certainly. 0.4% perhaps? --BozMo talk 20:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in the CNet article, 44%. . Not true? I said "assuming that's correct." Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhm as I understand it that figure comes from a Wikipedia contributor. Ask them how they came up with the number. I do not support the use of the COI template in this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Except that the 44% number was never accurate. The vast majority of Arturo's drafts went off the information in the article, so the existing sections were the base to which he added a few sentences here and there and re-arranged a few things, along with adding better references. So, while i'm sure his drafts as a whole are indeed 44% of the article, at least 40% of that information was already in the article in the first place. Silver  seren C 06:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am very concerned that these supposed figures have been taken as real. I find them to be of such crap I can't even begin to express my disbelief in adequate terms.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The time and effort expended on the above utterly pointless discussion of behvaviour wholly in complicance with WP policies should have been directed at improving articles, adding citations etc. It is discussions like this which damage WP and waste time and energy. The focus should be on one thing alone: creating the best articles possible. If WP fails to do that it will be replaced by something else. 92.19.151.202 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's something wrong with the policies if they allow corporate public relations people to write and rewrite text of articles. I wish Wikipedia was as concerned about its terrible public image as BP is about its terrible public image. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The COI tag was re-added to the article without providing explanation for this. The template's documentation says: "Use this tag to indicate that an article is biased or has other serious problems as a direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or a person with a close connection to the subject (e.g., professional public relations staff). Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other pov tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame." Notwithstanding multiply request, there was no evidences provide to proof that Arturo's proposals have created any serious problem with the content. Therefore, I will remove this tag. As for POV tag, I can't find at the moment, who added this and related to what issue in the article, so I will leave it now and try to find if there is any explanation. Beagel (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I would also like to know what the POV dispute is. If we don't know why the tag was placed how can we correct the issues if there even is anything actually in dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears this was done for dubious reasons. In the edit summary no POV issue was raised, just that Sliverseren had suggested it...which as you can see above, he did not. No actual dispute of Point of View issues with actual content has been raised and the tag was not properly place with a discussion of the issues to resolve. I am removing the tag.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've asked Arturo if he would object to placement of the COI notice on the page. I think that would be an enormously helpful gesture of good faith and I urge him, as BP's representative to Wikipedia, to consent to it as a voluntary gesture of disclosure to Wikipedia readers. I think that agreeing to it would go a long way to diffusing the situation. Coretheapple (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Any addition of tags is content and requires a consensus. I think it would be dishonest to add that tag as there is no Conflict of Interest, just unfounded accusations. Also, as pointed out here. Tags are for content and are not a permanent display. The point of this would be to display the tag until such time that editor has driven out. That is not within the spirit or policy of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there a COI template then reference should also be made to editors, who from their editing history of only adding strongly negative information about BP, would appear to have some kind of COI that impairs their ability to cooperate in the writing of an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Size and weight issues
At this point, we're clearly already past the point where WP:SIZE and WP:UNDUE come into effect, considering a lot of minor information is being added into the article and the article is already rather long. So we should really look into splitting sections of the article off into separate article and leaving a shorter summary here. That way, it'll be fine if more minor information is added to those other articles, because those articles are about a more specific subject, while this main article should stick with only the most general information. Silver seren C 22:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which minor information are you speaking of? Gandydancer (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, ignoring when it was added, but just speaking in general, most of the 2010 to present section. You know there's a problem when the section covering just three years is just as long as the sections covering decades of a company's history. There's way too much minor detail in the section that shouldn't be in an overview article like this. Also, the Release of Lockerbie bomber section seems incredibly minor. It's pretty much a "look at how horrible BP is" section, while the actual information has no real relevance to BP as a whole. In comparison, the Lobbying section seems way too short. Only 2 sentences? They have to have more of a lobbying history than that, every company does. And lobbying isn't a bad thing, mind you, since all groups do it, environmentalist groups included. Silver  seren C 23:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As a statement of fact, "all groups do it" is incorrect. Not every group can afford to hire a dedicated lobbyist, or afford to get their members in to see their elected representatives. But we're verging on WP:SOAP territory here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  23:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * True. I personally feel that lobbying in the sense of putting forth arguments to legislators should be allowed, but any exchange of money or gifts should be explicitly outlawed. But, again, off-topic. What do you think about the sections I mentioned? Silver  seren C 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Silver seren, most of Wikipedia suffers from the same focus on recent issues. I would be surprised if this article was any different. But you know this already, so I will assume there are other reasons for your comments here. BP is a very very large company and have been involved in some very newsworthy events in recent years - why would you want that little piece of "the sum of human knowledge" downplayed? And leaving out BP's involvement with the release of the Lockerbie bomber? Are you really suggesting that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's why I suggested splitting. It is too minor for this main article beyond a few summary sentences, but would be appropriate if there was a more specific topic article on the History of BP.


 * And I also think that we should do our best to improve the older history sections to make it not so tilted toward recency. In truth, Arturo would be the best person to ask about the older history of BP, because he can ask people that would likely have access to the information on that. Reliable sources would still have to be found of course, but it's far easier to look for a source for a piece of information than to just look for sources in general without knowing what you're looking for. Silver  seren C 23:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Arturo is not needed for an elaboration about the history of BP, which has been amply covered by many authors. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Silver seren, Wikipedia editors are going to work on whatever interests them, which is why we have such an imbalance in our coverage of subjects compared to a typical encyclopedia. If people want to work on expanding the history of BP, they will. It will happen when it happens, like everything else in Wikipedia. At present, I don't think the article is too long. Is there some kind of deadline that relates to this article? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment makes no sense. I want to work on improving this section now and the article is already long enough that sections should be split, so I made this discussion section to discuss what should be split. Silver  seren C 00:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Binksternet. In further reading there's The History of the British Petroleum Company in three volumes. It seems like that those would be the reliable sources of first resort. Tom Harrison Talk 00:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Arturo would be using those same sources, like the reliable sources he's been using the entire time, he is just the expert (or has access to the experts) that know how to summarize them best. Now, back to the actual subject of this section, which is about splitting. Silver  seren C 00:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not the case that any representative of the company is a good choice to summarize the sources. Tom Harrison Talk 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, but I would assume he was chosen because he is good at doing that. And, thus far, that appears to be true, since he's been doing a great job at it. Silver  seren C 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No company representative is a good choice to summarize the sources. Tom Harrison Talk 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Clearly, a large amount of editors disagree with you. Silver  seren C 00:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * QUOTE] "Arturo would be the best person to ask about the older history of BP, because he can ask people that would likely have access to the information on that." Well, hope springs eternal, but the last time I asked Arturo a question it took more than three months for him to give me an answer. Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary to turn to Arturo for this.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Was it a question related to the history of BP or other information in the article? He may have just forgotten about the question. God knows there's a number of articles that I promised people I would work on with them and things happened and I never got around to it. Silver  seren C 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you would think that when he had to stumble over it on his talk page to answer further questions he would notice it, wouldn't you? As to whether or not it was related to the article, are you thinking that maybe  I was just chatting or something?  Gandydancer (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was three months ago, then I don't know what you were talking about with him. I still have stuff on my talk page that I haven't responded to (though they might be in archives by now, that shows how long I didn't respond to them for). Though, why is any of this relevant? This isn't at all about the subject of this section. Can we get back on track, please? Silver  seren C 00:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Silver seren, you were the one who suggested that Arturo, an employee of BP, was "the best person to ask about the older history of BP", and that is why people are responding to your comments. In my opinion, the best person to write an article like this one would not be a random selection of Wikipedia editors, it would not be someone with an anti-BP agenda, and it wouldn't be a PR professional being paid by the very company that you are writing about. It would be someone with a significant amount of knowledge in this subject area and no ties to the oil industry. Would that not be a better choice to write this article? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, I just don't think such a person exists. If you have a significant amount of knowledge in the subject of companies, the only reason would be because you have a connection to them, whether it be positive or negative. Silver  seren C 03:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't underestimate the ability of a sharp editor to succinctly summarize the sources after reading them. I, for one, have been able to compose or greatly improve articles on topics that were previously outside of my knowledge. I don't think you should assume previous expertise. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The history section might be split into a new article and summarized here. Tom Harrison Talk 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the history section and maybe even the operations section could be split off.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, although either History or Operations is a large enough topic for a separate article at some point, the level of treatment in this article at present does not justify break out articles, neither does the present overall length of the article. Breaking out either would leave this article even more skewed and unbalanced, with the undue and bloated laundry list attack content of the Environmental record and Accidents sections dominating the article even more. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those should be split off as well. It's quite clear that there is way too much information in this article about them. Preferably, every major section should be split off into a subarticle, because every major section should have enough information that necessitates such a thing. And that does appear to be true. Silver  seren C 22:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but I see no point in splitting until there is sufficient content in this article to justify it, since these are not really separate topics but break outs from this one. The history section here is not especially long, and neither is the overall article. There are serious issue of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM in the bottom half of the article but the History section actually seems underdeveloped, at least the pre-2000 part. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Splitting serves the interest of BP, not the interest of our reader. As Editors, whose interest should we be concerned with? ```Buster Seven   Talk  12:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)