Talk:BP/Archive 23

Updates and corrections
As there has been more activity on this Talk page recently than in a while, I would like to take this opportunity to remind editors about the Corrections and resources sub page, where there are a number of requests for updates and corrections that have not yet received any response. Most of these are fairly small requests, so I hope that editors will be able to address them.

These requests include:
 * Updating BP's Global 500 ranking, which dropped from 5th to 6th largest company by revenue in 2013
 * Correcting inaccurate information in "History"
 * Updating "Operations", which currently includes incorrect employee numbers and number of refineries
 * Removing a duplicated quote regarding BP's position on climate change from the "Environmental record" section

There may be other updates and corrections needed in the article, these were ones that I had noticed last year. I can continue to add anything else that I see to the sub page, if editors would prefer to keep these requests there. Alternatively, if it seems that the sub page is not being looked at, I can leave requests on this page instead where they are more likely to be seen. These requests are suggestions and I do understand if editors prefer not to make any specific change. If that is the case, please indicate that on the sub page and I will know not to remind again about the particular request. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless I'm mistaken I believe that some of the above (the "duplicate quote" in particular) have been discussed in the past. If so, we really should not have a separate "corrections and resources" subpage, in which BP's requests are given special treatment by being divorced from pertinent discussions and handled separately. If they are new and not discussed it is another matter. But if they have been discussed, I don't want them to go back into some separate subpage, to sit there until some editor wanders by and does what BP wants. We work by consensus on this talk page. We are not here to take directions from BP's public relations staff. Coretheapple (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm in a bad mood. Coretheapple (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Arturo, would you be able to leave links here with the exact place the problematic text occurs in the article, and the exact text to replace it? The links are at the subpage, so that's fine. Thanks.  petrarchan47  t  c   04:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing a duplicated quote regarding BP's position on climate change from the "Environmental record" section ✅ ```Buster Seven   Talk  07:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making that edit, Buster Seven Coretheapple. For the other requests, below I will provide the link to the text to be updated and the text that I suggest in its place, as Petrarchan has suggested. Full explanations of each request are on the sub page, so I will keep these notes brief.


 * BP's Global 500 ranking:
 * Current text in Article introduction: the fifth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues,
 * Suggested text and citation: the sixth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues
 * Current text in "Corporate affairs": fifth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues
 * Suggested text (current citations are already updated, just the text here needs amending): sixth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues
 * ✅ by User:Gandydancer. ```20:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Inaccurate information in "History":
 * Current text in "1979 to 2000": Prior to the worldwide stock market crash in October 1987 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher initiated the sale of an additional GBP7.5 billion ($12.2 billion) of BP shares at 333 pence, representing the government's remaining 31% stake in the company.
 * Suggested text and citations: Following the worldwide stock market crash in October 1987 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher authorized the sale of an additional GBP7.5 billion ($12.2 billion) of BP shares at 333 pence, representing the government's remaining 31% stake in the company.
 * ✅ by User:Gandydancer. ```20:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Updates to "Operations":
 * Current text in "Operations": As of December 2012, the company had a total of 79,700 employees.
 * Suggested text and citation: As of October 2013, the company had a total of 85,000 employees.
 * ✅ by User:Gandydancer. ```20:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Current text in "United States": As of March 2013, the company employs approximately 21,000 people in the US,
 * Suggested text and citation: As of October 2013, the company employs approximately 20,000 people in the US,
 * ✅ by User:Gandydancer. ```20:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Current text in "Oil refining and marketing": As of February 2013, BP owned or held a share in 15 refineries worldwide, of which seven were located in Europe and four were in the US.
 * Suggested text and citation: As of June 2013, BP owned or held a share in 14 refineries worldwide, of which seven were located in Europe and three were in the US.
 * ✅ by User:Gandydancer. ```20:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are able to make any of these edits, let me know and I can update the sub page accordingly. Also, it seems from Coretheapple and Petrarchan's comments, that some editors might prefer that I offer suggestions and corrections here rather than on the sub page. The reason I began placing requests there was at the suggestion of SlimVirgin last year, and the idea seemed to have support from editors at the time, but I can easily make requests on this page instead if that has changed. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Eh, I was in a bad mood. I actually saw that your request for a dupe quote removal was routine and constructive, and struck out my remarks and took out the dupe quote myself. (hence Buster's refactoring of your post) I have no objection to putting requests on a subpage if they are noncontroversial and have not been previously discussed. The dupe quote is actually a good example of that kind of routine request. Coretheapple (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Arturo, it's just as easy to check the subpage, but here is fine too. I was asking if you could make it very clear and simple so that it would take me under 3 minutes to do. I searched for "Global 500" and even "500" but found nothing in the article. That was all the time I was willing to spend on this. If you outlined the exact text, I could do a search and make quick changes. Make sense? You might, for uncontroversial changes such as these, just post one line for each change requested with: present text, preferred text, and ref.  petrarchan47  t  c   03:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, you did, thanks.  petrarchan47  t  c   03:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

On further thought, it makes no sense to ask unpaid editors to work for BP for even three minutes. It does make sense for BP to use the OTRS ticket system to fill these requests, or to wait until Martin Hogbin and the Devil's Advocate show up (based on their many past declarations of support).  petrarchan47  t  c   23:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my immediate reaction, hence my initial post, but then I reconsidered, as the dupe quote request was reasonable, and I struck it out. I do think you have a point. However, my feeling is that minor factual stuff is OK, but anything that's controversial or potentially so needs to be dealt with on this page and not placed on a separate page as a kind of laundry list. Coretheapple (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To my mind, it's about taking time away from editors who do not support paid editing. Those who do, those who have voted that BP and others can hand out somewhat time-consuming work, should be here filling the order. There are Admins taking money, they should be here. There is the OTRS ticket system which is set up for this exact type of request. As a volunteer, Core, you should be updating whatever it is that you enjoy. The aforementioned editors should be here doing the footwork, not the ones who have been given so much grief by them.   petrarchan47  t  c   04:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True. But the wikignome in me was horrified by the duplicate quote! In the same paragraph, too. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You enjoyed it, good.  petrarchan47  t  c   00:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OTRS is also staffed by volunteers. In fact, OTRS is the name of the software they use; the actual group is the WP:Volunteer response team.  Their standard process is to refer "usual editorial matters" right back here.  I believe that contacting them for this would be pointless.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BP originally contacted Ocassi for help here via the OTRS ticket system, and was helped by him. This is the way it was worded anyway, but I don't doubt you're right about the technicalities.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand if any editors here would prefer not to make the additional suggested edits. However, as you mentioned Petrarchan, other editors may not have the same reluctance to look at these. Perhaps for future simple edits that I suggest, if you would rather not spend time on them, you can simply ignore the requests and others may see from the lack of replies that they are still open.


 * Since it appears that there is no aversion to any of the above changes themselves, I will try reaching out for help elsewhere. From WhatamIdoing's reply I understand that OTRS is not the right place for that, so I will try WP:COIN and see if anyone there can be of assistance.


 * Also, just to be clear, as I have said previously, I did not use the OTRS system to contact Ocaasi for help. Please see discussion of that here. I believe the only time I have used OTRS is to confirm the release of a map that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. You might try pinging User: Martin Hogbin for these requests.   petrarchan47  t  c   23:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I tried to do the updates and ended up messing up the reference list. I have no idea how to fix it and am not sure if I should delete everything I did or hope that someone will fix my edits.  Gandydancer (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A gnome came along and fixed the refs and I added the NYT ref just now. Does that take care of the changes that were needed?  Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thank you for making all of the changes so quickly, Gandydancer. Everything looks good, so I have updated the Corrections and resources sub page to close all of the requests. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Question: if this article omitted something significant that did not reflect positively on the company, would you tell us? Coretheapple (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For instance, if during the many dozens of edits that have taken place in recent months, it came to pass that there was not one word about the settlement between businesses and BP, would you bother to tell us out of the theory that readers oughta be aware of that? Anyway, no point in answering that, as it's kind of a rhetorical question.


 * Rhetorical or not, I think it is a fair point as you seem to have an extremely micro and detailed perspective on this article, with an eagle eye that can ferret out extremely minor factual inaccuracies. Yet there are gaping holes in the article and there is a deafening silence from you, and we are obliged to assume good faith that you did see the diddly-squat picayune errors, and didn't see the major stuff. It kind of gets to the heart of why you sometimes run into resentment here. In other words, there is a perception that you are 100% interested in advancing BP's viewpoint, and that it is frustrating that we have an editor in our midst with that objective, making requests that are sometimes lengthy and sometimes time-consuming that border on micromanagement, while, as far as immense holes in this article are concerned, well, la-de-dah. Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that. It's not about one person and their eagle-eye. It's the entire PR department of an enormous company involved in numerous lawsuits, from polluting the sea to price fixing. If there are 6 important updates, per BP, these must have been chosen by a well-paid team of employees who are all responsible for staying mum about the "immense holes". The supporters of POV editors (paid or otherwise) claim that it is a benefit to the encyclopedia to have 'experts', those close to the subject, making editorial suggestions. POV editors are inherently detrimental to this encyclopedia, and PR teams can overpower the efforts of independent editors quite easily. We should not be asked to deal with this. Whomever in Wikipedia's hierarchy is voting to keep PR activity legal should organize a team of editors willing to do the work - including thorough research so that "enormous holes" don't exists in our articles.  petrarchan47  t  c   00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a frustrating situation. I wish we saw you at Jimbo's page, where there are always people sitting around the fireplace, talking about this. Coretheapple (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I was intending to visit, though my usual reaction is to post "What he said" after everything you say. Seems a little weak on my part ;)   petrarchan47  t  c   02:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure your input is welcome. Anyway, getting back to the subject of updates, I think the main thing that needs to be added is plug up any remaining gaps concerning the settlement funds. This is not to say that we can't fix the minor inaccuracies noted by the company. An inaccuracy is an inaccuracy. That said, I'm not surprised nobody has stepped up to the plate to make either kind of fix. What's that old Cole Porter song about "fighting vainly the old ennui"? Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Leave it alone you two. Honestly, this article is already severely slanted against BP. If anything, having someone 100% devoted to representing BP's best interests helps lessen some of the damage from the numerous anti-corporate activists on this page. "Overpower the efforts of independent editors" indeed.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Coretheapple and Petrarchan give voice to the position of many editors interested in this article. They are not anti-corporate activists any more than you are a pro-business advocate. Your comment makes me think of an e-mail statement by a BP spokesperson on a related issue to the effect...“BP will continue to press its position on the proper interpretation......" Note:The Proper Interpretation. That's the problem some editors have with this article: the fact that BP makes the determination as to what is proper. ```Buster Seven   Talk  21:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Devils Advocate, we just had an RfC on the issue of whether the article is "anti-BP," and the definitive verdict of the RfC was that it most definitely was not. Now that the issue was settled, editing can and will proceed normally, as if this was an actual article and not a press release issued by BP Corporate Communications. Also I am frankly shocked to hear an editor suggest that an article be made less useful to the reader, indeed fairly useless concerning some of the most recent and significant news regarding the company, due to a failure to update the article, and that it is actually a good thing perhaps that we have a BP p.r. person here keeping us busy updating trivia. Even if consensus had not been firmly established and that whole "anti-BP" canard put to bed, I'd be pretty ashamed to hear that. Coretheapple (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That like-minded editors in the anti-BP crowd all agree an incredibly slanted anti-BP article is just fine should surprise no one and not be taken as a sign of true consensus. You talk about filling "gaping holes" that all happen to be negative details regarding recent events, which are already unduly represented in this article on a company with 100 years of history. It is more revealing to me what you think are "gaping" holes in this article.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be very honest: I am really tired of hearing from editors who do not ever actually contribute to the article, but point fingers at the editors instead. There was ample opportunity to help this 100-year-old company with needed updates, and the 'pro-BP' editors were called but failed to show up. Given that the consensus is that this article is biased in favor of BP, I find absolutely nothing compelling about reading another word from the Devil's Advocate, who seems unmoved by facts.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Devils Advocate, you can dislike the results of the RfC as much as you want, and view it as "pro-BP" editors chiming in or the work of the Devil or whatever you want to call it, but it took place over a very long period of time, was made widely known to the community by its initiator with such vigor that in my view bordered on canvassing, and its outcome was clear, unequivocal and overwhelming. You ought to know; you participated in the RfC. If you wish to disregard that a consensus was reached in the RfC, and that it was overwhelmingly against you, that's your business (up to a point). I agree with Petrarchan that further discussion about it is a waste of time, so rant away and get in the last word. Your refusal to accept the consensus is disruptive and I'm not going to feed it any further. Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment from Arturo: As far as I can recall, the settlement information was included in the article but was removed at some point during editors' attempts to summarize and consolidate information about Deepwater Horizon. After the settlement details had been removed, I did in fact ask last April that the total of BP's compensation payments towards economic recovery be included in the Deepwater Horizon section, which would have included the amount paid to date under the 2012 settlement. The source I provided was the Congressional Research Service report from January 2013, which specifically mentions this settlement (see pages 3 and 4). When I proposed this addition, the editors who responded were disinclined to add the information.


 * Over time and between different editors, there are a lot of differences in terms of what is seen as crucial information for this article. (The settlement being a case in point, given that the information was once included but then was removed.) Trying to guess what omitted information is important to include is a losing game here, so if something is very widely reported but editors choose not to add it to the article I must assume that it simply is not considered important.


 * Petrarchan: I have previously addressed incorrect comments from yourself and others that there is a BP team working on Wikipedia. As I have said before, this is not the case, there is no large team from BP reviewing this article day and night, I am the only authorized BP employee focused on Wikipedia and this is just one small aspect of my role within the communications team. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, the question of the RFC was essentially whether or not the article has a strong anti-BP bias. I don't think that a "no" on that question equates to a finding of "Given that the consensus is that this article is biased in favor of BP" as you indicated. I think that a wording problem with the RFC (asking about the extreme variant of anti-BP bias) further reinforces this. For example, somebody who felt that the article has only a minor anti-BP bias would need to answer "no" to that question (and if the made comments instead, they still wouldn't answer "yes". I think that the best thing would be to just set the bar at a similar level for inclusion/exclusion, and to try to be neutral / follow wp:npov in all respects. Sincerely,   North8000  (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Enough already. You raised that point during the RfC, and you responded to it in a clear manner, as did everyone. This is not a Supreme Court case, and it should not be wikilawyered to death. It's time for the people who are in the minority to accept that they are in the minority. This constant effort to repudiate the clear consensus of the RfC, which lasted a month and obtained community opinions of the neutrality of this article, is tendentious and disruptive. Coretheapple (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear on something. I haven't added updates on the settlements, which this article clearly needs, because I haven't had the time to research them, which lamentably this requires. It is not because of the objections raised here about NPOV, which has been dealt with by the RfC. In fact, I'm going off wiki for a while. When I get back, if it isn't done, I'll add material, but obviously any editor can do so in the interim. The ruling doctrine is neutral point of view not BP point of view. And by the way, if I may add just one final point: if this article was imbalanced, and if editors were gunning for BP, the biggest news about BP, the settlement and the continuing controversy over it, would be all over this article, blasted all over the place, and not totally omitted because people just plumb forgot. The fact is I and the other independent editors here are not paid to edit Wikipedia, and no we are not ideologically motivated at all, so we just don't have the impetus to stay current and to add stuff about a subject that's so important to BP that it places a full-page ad in the New York Times every day to blast one aspect of the settlement or another. The fact that some editors here don't even want it mentioned, apart from being shameful, shows what the POV problem, if there is one, really is. Coretheapple (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't misstate what I said.  The result of the RFC is that the article has not  "become a forum for anti-BP sentiment".   I am just pointing out what it actually said, not trying to reverse that,  and pointing out the difference between that and what you said.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Uh no, the overwhelming sentiment was that the article was not overly negative, your misstatements to the contrary notwithstanding. How the question was poised is immaterial. Please stop wikilawyering. This was not a court case, with strict rules of pleading. That was the consensus of the views expressed in the RfC. You held a contrary view, which you expressed, and you need to accept that your view did not prevail. Coretheapple (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What you just wrote now is different from your previous characterization that I was discussing, and is a lot closer to the actual RFC.   Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is obvious where the POV problem lies given how big a deal you make about that settlement issue. There is an article devoted to litigation concerning the oil spill and another devoted to the compensation and settlements both in addition to the article devoted to the spill itself. Yet here you are, blowing your top and going after Arturo because he did not suggest adding more details about Deepwater Horizon in the company article when there was already an eight-paragraph section and a paragraph in the lede about the oil spill.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed this article from my watchlist but I have I just dropped in to see how it is going. I wish you luck Devil's Advocate, this article still makes a mockery of the word 'encyclopedia'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * DA, Arturo agreed it should be in the article... this article. What a strange argument you're making. Quite a stretch.   petrarchan47  t  c   05:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All I see is him stating that he supported including the compensation figures. I do not see even the slightest indication of him supporting the kind of excessive focus being advocated by you and the other anti-corporate activists here.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to speak for other editorss but I would rather be called pro-reader or pro-WP visitor rather than anti-corporate (which sounds so un-American). I'm easily hurt by name-calling. ```Buster Seven   Talk  00:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Just curious
Currently the article states "The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest accidental release of oil into marine waters in the history of the petroleum industry, resulted in severe environmental......." Would it be accurate to change it to say, "in the history of the planet Earth resulted in..."? I realize such a change has little chance of making it into the article and I am not suggesting that it be implemented. I'm just curious if it was, in fact, the largest oil spill in recorded history. ```Buster Seven   Talk  06:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It was the largest oil spill that was a) in marine waters and b) accidental. So it does seem superfluous to mention "in the history of the petrol industry". It would be more accurate to say "in the history of everything".   petrarchan47  t  c   09:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not seeing any reason why there should be a change. The current wording seems sufficient.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Total volume from cold seeps is going to be higher given the timescales involved. In recorded history it would depend on the figure you use for the gulf war oil spills and if you combine all the leaks there together or count them separately.©Geni (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * By "accidental", we aren't including natural seepage. By "marine" we exclude oil spilled on sand. It is the largest accidental marine oil spill of all time.   petrarchan47  t  c   01:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but what does it matter? Given that Earth has presumably only played host to one civilization capable of extracting petroleum products from beneath deap sea basins and that capability has only been within said civilization's possession over the past century, I fail to see the utility in talking about the "history of the Earth" or "history of everything" unless one were trying to make some sort of point inconsistent with that expected of an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Such desired alterations to the wording may be indicative of one or more individuals who have a vested interest in some ideological or political stance on the activities of certain multinational energy conglomerates.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Florida sues BP over oil spill environmental damage
For future addition ref   petrarchan47  t  c   19:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This would belong in the article on litigation from the spill. At best we can justify a few words noting such suits here, though I fail to see the need.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel like this article is at risk of becoming another WP:COATRACK for the Gulf oil spill. Having said that, I actually think that the litigation related to the spill is more relevant to the company itself (and therefore this article about the company) than most of the DWH environmental issues are, at least beyond establishing that it was a Very Bad Thing for a lot of reasons. Geogene (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is such a terrible "coat rack" that it didn't even mention the entire oil spill settlement process until recently, even though that same settlement process is in the news constantly, and even though BP takes out out full-page ads in the New York Times every day attacking the claimants. That's really terrible - for the reader, not for BP. BP has nothing to complain about. A reader who came to Wikipedia looking to see what BP was angry about would have to search and search and search. It wasn't mentioned in this article, that's for sure. So please, stop the nonsense. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the article as it is today. Your comment is not germane to the present version, except for the fact that it comes off a little like someone trying to justify a grudge. In any case you continue to express considerable disdain for the subject of this article. I'm only interested in the spill, and my comments only relate to the spill, yet you keep making negative remarks about the company itself in your replies to me as if there were some relevance. I don't care, but changing the subject isn't helpful. Geogene (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon impact on fishing and tourism
In the current version of the "Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill" section, there is a paragraph focusing on impact on economy of the Gulf states, which specifically mentions tourism and fishing. I would like to propose adding some information to the section on this topic and also to raise a couple of concerns with the existing language. The paragraph is as follows:


 * The spill had a strong economic impact on both BP and the Gulf Coast's economy sectors such as fishing and tourism. In late 2012 local fishermen reported that crab, shrimp, and oyster fishing operations had not yet recovered from the oil spill and many feared that the Gulf seafood industry will never recover.


 * I am going to remove this section. Tourism was a short term issue--has certainly recovered--and is best discussed in the main article. I did a lot of reading and for the most part crab, shrimp, and oysters have seemingly returned, though some habitat has been lost due to fresh water and oil. On the other hand, in some cases the dollars figures can be deceiving because the prices have gone up. As for fish and other sea creatures, it's too soon to know what long term survival will be. Also, the shrimpers, etc., in this area are small businesses and do not have the ease of recovery potential of large operations that can shift money from here to there, etc. Most of them are people who have lived from the waters of the Gulf and know nothing else. I still have not been able to find out how many of them have been made whole and are working as they were before the spill. At any rate, this is information that needs to be written up in the main article rather than the BP article. I looked at a few of NOAA's figures and here are a couple of examples:


 * Perhaps others can find different figures? Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above didn't work. Try this:    Gandydancer (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We can update that. I'd not favor removal. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest some wording? Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well we might want to look at this peer-reviewed study. I can get it if it isn't available from free sources. Apparently it's not a simple issue despite some of the press reports. Coretheapple (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Good find. Here it is:   Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, good. It's a very short section, and we can just add a sentence or two saying things have gotten better or whatever. But the impact on tourism, even if transitory, was a big story and I think warrants the brief treatment it got here. In fact, if things have improved, that is all the more reason to retain and update. I think that people just assume that things are cruddy down there in the Gulf, and may not be aware if there's been a rebound. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I added what had been dropped out about the settlement, as that was the No. 1 priority in this article and was a gaping and embarrassing omission. I then added some text concerning the rebound in tourism. There was a Fox report and a Reuters report recommended by Arturo, and I used both along with the Journal article. The actual article appears to be diffferent from the somewhat longer link that you provided above. To be on the safe side I downloaded the actual journal article, which was a bit shorter possibly because of formatting. There was a preliminary online version and a November 2013 version, published January 2014, and I quoted from the latter. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Citations missing
One quick fix needed here is to re-add some citations for the economic impact, as at some point the citations supporting the first sentence appear to have been snipped and the one source remaining refers only to impact on BP's stock price. I am not sure what sources would be best here, whether they should be from early in the spill or more recent.

Information on tourism recovery
This leads to my next suggestion, which is that there is no information to clarify the whether the impact on fishing and tourism in the Gulf is ongoing. I would like to suggest adding some information to the section on these two points. There are multiple sources mentioning the improved performance in the tourism industry from 2011 onwards, for example:


 * "Gulf Coast Sees Record Tourism Rebound After Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill", Fox News, December 28, 2011
 * Quote: "This year wraps up with not only better tourism numbers than before the oil spill, but better than any year on record. Florida’s oil-impacted beaches in the Panhandle saw tourism shoot up 61 percent over 2010. Alabama rose 51 percent, while Mississippi gained 7 percent."


 * "Two years after BP oil spill, tourists back in Gulf Coast", Reuters, May 27, 2012
 * Quote: "The U.S. Gulf Coast is a hot destination again two years after the massive BP Plc oil spill made the region a tourist dead zone, with the petroleum giant pumping more than $150 million into promotions to help the region recover."

See above; also updated with citation to a journal article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Information on fishing
Also, in a previous discussion, I mentioned a concern with the current sentence regarding reports from fishermen. This sentence relies on anecdotal information and opinion rather than figures and I would like to ask editors to consider whether this sentence should remain. Whether or not it should, I suggest also adding in recent data on the state of the fishing industry, for example the NOAA official figures regarding catches in 2011 onwards:


 * "U.S. seafood landings reach 14-year high in 2011", NOAA, 19 September 2012.
 * Quote: "Catches throughout the Gulf of Mexico rebounded in 2011 to the highest volume since 1999, following a curtailed 2010 season due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill."

2012 NOAA figures are also available, although the report does not compare against previous years' catches. If a source providing a comparison is needed, the NOAA's Annual Landing Statistics page allows you to run a query comparing several years. From that query you can see that catches for the Gulf in 2011 and 2012 were higher than in previous years.

If editors would prefer to add in an official response from BP regarding tourism and fishing instead, the company's State of the Gulf website includes a page focusing on this topic, here:


 * BP’s Economic Restoration Work

Once again, these are suggestions and I hope that editors here will consider them. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh yeah, that's helpful. So is this. I'll see if I can get the actual study, but feel on more secure ground linking not just to the journal article but also to the coverage thereof in reliable secondary sources. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whilst trying to find the original study I ran across this, which is very important to add to the articles as it is the exact opposite of what we were told during the spill: "The study also found that the 'weathered' oil — which had been broken down by wave action and chemical dispersants used to keep the oil out of fragile wetlands — was more toxic than fresh oil." The Australian   petrarchan47  t  c   18:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the study:   Gandydancer (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Another site (other than the Science journal: The most recent stock assessment, conducted in 2012, estimated the spawning population to be at only 36 percent of the 1970 baseline population. Additionally, many other pelagic fishes were also likely to have spawned in oiled habitats, including yellowfin tuna, blue marlin and swordfish.
 * Read more at:
 * What exactly do you expect people to do with that source in this article? Such information is of too narrow a focus to belong in the general article on BP. It may warrant a brief mention in the oil spill article and definitely in the environmental impact sub-article, but not here.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * People that work on this article work on two other BP articles that deal with environmental issues as well. Gandydancer (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And both of the other two environmental BP articles have talk sections where this can be more appropriately discussed. Geogene (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. We have a source conflict between NOAA and Al-Jazeera. NOAA is a government science agency that keeps the official statistics, AJ is a media outlet that has been making hysterical pronouncements ("the Gulf will never recover") all along. Al Jazeera has lost so much credibility with their apocalyptic reporting that I don't think they're RS on covering this event. (Do you think AJ's stakeholders just might, plausibly benefit from stirring up political opposition to US energy production?) So on fisheries I'm kicking AJ out and leaving NOAA in. I'm also taking out the heart study because there's nothing there we don't already know--PAHs are bad for fish. No, really? Geogene (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, we don't "kick out" reliable sources no matter whether you like them or not. NOAA hasn't got perfect credibility, and we do not necessarily consider government agencies to be reliable sources at Wikipedia. In the midst of BPs biggest trial of all time, which right now is looking specifically at ecological damage to determine the amount of the fine, I think these sudden and very prolific changes to all related articles should be of great concern to those interested in an encyclopedic take, as opposed to the take of the US government or BP. There's nothing authentic looking about this activity and its timing, imo.   petrarchan47  t  c   00:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * From Panel challenges Gulf seafood safety all-clear:
 * "Citing what the law firm calls a state-of-the-art laboratory analysis, toxicologists, chemists and marine biologists retained by the firm of environmental attorney Stuart Smith contend that the government seafood testing program, which has focused on ensuring the seafood was free of the cancer-causing components of crude oil, has overlooked other harmful elements. And they say that their own testing — examining fewer samples but more comprehensively — shows high levels of hydrocarbons from the BP spill that are associated with liver damage...What we have found is that FDA simply overlooked an important aspect of safety in their protocol...We now have a sufficient number of samples to provide FDA with probable cause to include such testing, really. They need to go back and test some of their archived samples as well."
 * Study: FDA Allowed Unsafe Levels of Chemicals in Seafood After BP Oil Spill "The study found that by using flawed assumptions and outdated risk assessment methods, the FDA allowed contamination up to 10,000 times the level deemed safe, and failed to identify risks for pregnant women and children." (study)
 * Is this a reliable source? "The U.S. government says that seafood from the gulf is safe to eat and that cancer-causing chemicals are at acceptable levels for humans."*


 * Please explain, precisely, what you mean by "nothing authentic looking about this activity or its timing", by which I believe you mean my edits. A cursory review of your edit history shows you have a tendency to make exactly the same accusations against pretty much all editors that you don't agree with, that you have been doing this over a period of years, and that you have already been warned about this a few times before, with no change in your behavior. NOAA, by the way, has more credibility on science issues than Mother Jones. Also, you seem to emphasize individual papers over the scientific consensus in your weighting the two. Perhaps you should review the RS natural science standards. Geogene (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Going back two years is not a cursory search, it's creepy. Why do you know so much about me when we've only bumped into each other a couple of times?  petrarchan47  t  c   07:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you do think I'm creepy. That will make you to be less likely to persist in your vendetta against me. Geogene (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the sources you listed above, consider that they're coming from an environmental attorney. It's a viewpoint that you can add, but it carries less weight than the established scientific consensus, which is basically the view of the Federal science agencies, that Gulf seafood is safe to eat. Also both studies are three years old and I see no evidence that they represent the scientific consensus. Doesn't mean you can't use them but you should weight them appropriately. Geogene (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anoher misrepresentation. I listed ABC and Fox News. We can and do add what government officials say, and their words are given due weight. But drop the haughty "scientific consensus" line. There's no such thing.    petrarchan47  t  c   07:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The article states:


 * "Although Gulf fisheries recovered in 2011,[391] a 2014 study of the effects of the oil spill on bluefin tuna by researchers at Stanford University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, published in the journal Science, found that toxins released by the oil spill sent fish into cardiac arrest. The study found that even very low concentrations of crude oil can slow the pace of fish heartbeats."


 * Why is there an "although" there? Presumably the fisheries were damaged by the spill, but the fisheries recovered. It's like saying, "Although the fisheries recovered, we recently found out how easily they could have been damaged..." This is irrelevant to the subject of the article because of the fact that the fisheries recovered...especially since the study was actually done in vitro in a laboratory, using models of Gulf seawater and aquarium fish, and not in the actual Gulf. We have data from fish in the actual Gulf that shows the effects to no longer be significant, while the study itself wasn't intended to predict the future of Gulf fisheries, but rather to show the mechanisms by which PAH exposure could be dangerous to fish, yes even at low concentrations. But use this study to try to imply the status of Gulf fisheries is to take the source out of context, a form of original research. Geogene (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply from Arturo: Thank you for the thoughtful responses and edits, Geogene. Thank you Coretheapple, as well, for adding more context to the details in the article about the impact of the spill on tourism and fishing.

I am looking for further official figures on fishing from 2012 onward, but meanwhile I do have two suggestions for the additions to the Environmental impact paragraphs in the "Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill" section.

I noticed that in discussing dolphins and the Environmental Science & Technology study in both the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill articles, Coretheapple included BP's statement from the source: "BP said the report was “inconclusive as to any causation associated with the spill”. How would editors feel about also including this statement where the study has been added to this article?

As well, I noticed that Petrachan added new information about a study from the University of South Florida about weathered oil and fish health. An article about that study appearing in the Tampa Bay Times included a statement from BP. What are editors thoughts about including BP's response following Petrachan's edits? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that adding responses, if available, is always appropriate. I've been sidelined but I am sure that someone will get to it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback, Coretheapple. I am curious about your decision to reinstate material related to the fishing industry from 2012. This was previously removed by Geogene. See the discussion above starting February 27th here.
 * I also noticed Geogene updated the article with BP's response to the University of South Florida's study on fish livers. Thank you, Geogene. What do you think about also including BP's response about dolphins in the Environmental impact section from this source? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also like a more detailed explanation from Coretheapple, per WP:BRD. The edit comment he left was not especially helpful, and this is now in the Discuss phase. The first part of the material in contention: "but reports of damage to the fisheries persisted through 2014." The source for that content was the bluefin study. Trouble is that the fish in that study lived in an aquarium in California, not the Gulf, so there are no "reports of [Gulf] fisheries damage" therein. It also doesn't apply to 2014 because the paper was finished and submitted for peer review in 2013, August, I think. So somebody even managed to get that wrong. This kind of thing is an alarmingly common problem in the DWH articles, all of which have some pretty serious WP:COMPETENCY issues for such an important subject. The second part of the content I dispute: "In late 2012 local fishermen reported that crab, shrimp, and oyster fishing operations had not yet recovered from the oil spill and many feared that the Gulf seafood industry will never recover." That's two years out of date and based mostly on anecdotes from fishermen. So nobody should be surprised that "may never recover" was deleted when NOAA says "have recovered". By the way, I think NOAA's claim is also a stretch, but it has more scientific credibility than AJ does. Geogene (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One passage in WP:COMPETENCY reads as follows: "Some editors hold personal opinions so strongly that they cannot edit neutrally and collaboratively with other editors." Another is "Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment." You may want to consider whether both, one or neither of these passages might apply to the person observing you in the mirror. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to review and possibly roll back all of Geogene's edits since late February (which have all centered on the oil spill, Corexit, and environmental damage). If one were to look at the edit histories of the BP, BP oil spill and Corexit articles, there is no justification to allow this person's edits to remain. They have been made by edit warring, abusive words, and wiki-layering that speaks not of a relatively new and inexperienced user, but of someone who knows the score and even the editors here. We have had trouble here before with editors who have very abrasive personalities just like this, and it makes sense to expect that tactic to be used again, if (since) talk pages and RfC's aren't going so well for BP, yet multiple billions of dollars are on the line.
 * It does not make sense to ignore the obvious, and to allow this much tendentious editing and edit warring to take up 5 editors' time, when this editing does not look to be in good faith. Is it not pure common sense that when a giant company is fighting a giant court battle, that the content in dispute be more heavily guarded here at Wikipedia? It seems like there should be a more direct and less time-consuming way to deal with the obvious and expected, rather than to expect volunteers to keep up with the daily onslaught from Geogene.   petrarchan47  t  c   19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All edits are subject to review, but I suggest that you not roll back any editor's edits wholesale, unless they are unambiguously vandalism which is clearly not what is happening here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * How about a temporary, voluntary topic ban for me? And me only. I'm not admitting to any wrongdoing, but it seems that my very presence here has, by no intention of my own, created a disturbance. And I've been prolific, too. Maybe the best "contribution" I can make is to not contribute for a while, if it might help calm things down. That way some very serious issues that there seem to be can be negotiated elsewhere without disrupting articles. Hypothetically, if I were to voluntary refrain from posting in the DWH/Oil Spill/BP/Corexit/etc article cluster (Talk and Article space) for a while, how long would that need to be for people to stop publicly questioning my good faith? Seeking community input on that. Geogene (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't give them an inch. They're bullying you because you are standing up to their anti-corporate agenda-pushing.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do see this as bullying and I resent that it might be necessary to protect the article. Did you notice how Arturo's question, which I seconded, and which was on content, has been transformed into a referendum on me? Geogene (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have the patience to wade into all the verbiage here, but I can say that your entire approach in multiple articles has been attacking, confrontational, insulting and generally WP:TENDENTIOUS. You sometimes are right, you sometimes are wrong. You are generally nasty and condescending. You are in no position to accuse anyone of anything, least of all WP:COMPETENCY, and your effort to gang up on another editor and drive her off Wikipedia is pretty shabby. In general you stretch the presumptions of WP:AGF to the breaking point. However, I do not believe that any further drama concerning one editor belongs on this page. This article has problems, and they are caused by a longtime deference toward the subject of the article, characterized by major errors, such as overemphasizing and mischaracterizing the role of the Alternative Energy segment, and by some editor's deletion of any reference to the Gulf settlement process and that omission not being noticed for months and months. There is a tendency on this page to engage in argumentation ad nauseum, which wears out editors seeking to improve the article. That needs to stop because the more we argue over minor crap the less we can get to addressing this article's problems, which I emphasize are not that it is too nasty to this poor little misunderstood company. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Figureof9. I was actually referring to things like misused sources, misplaced sources, duplicated sources ("[21],[21]"), not reading sources before using them, sources of questionable reliability, my being repeatedly confronted by people that did not read a source, and copyvio, such as the complete paragraph from a major US newspaper that was recently inserted into a related article. These are competency issues. I see, appreciate, and welcome that you are going out of your way to help me out, but discrediting the messenger is not the optimal response to criticism of articles, and pretending problems aren't there to avoid offending anyone is not necessarily going to lead to a better article either. I will self-reflect on whether I have a right to be here, as you politely asked. And because you are an astute editor, I politely request that you pick any section of any DWH-related article and treat it like you do some of my additions: spot check every statement to make sure that a source is used properly, is in the right place, and no cv, so that you can perhaps see what I'm talking about. In fact, my edit history is a record of what I've done and you're welcome to scour that too. I don't expect agreement but it may show I'm more useful than people seem to think I am. Thanks again. Geogene (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are just a few edits that shaped my opinions:
 * *
 * Georgette changed
 * "In 2012, a study found that Corexit increases the toxicity of oil by 52 times."
 * Gulf of Mexico clean-up makes 2010 spill 52-times more toxic
 * Study: Mixing oil with dispersant made the BP oil spill worse
 * Gulf of Mexico Clean-Up Makes 2010 Spill 52-Times More Toxic


 * to
 * "In 2012, a study found that Corexit's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more bioavailable to planktonic animals, increasing their toxicity to plankton by up to 52 times."
 * Took the issue of Corexit toxicity to the fringe noticeboard.
 * Misrepresented/rewrote science about the most damning fact re environmental damage and BP's culpability (being reverted here)
 * It's silly to characterize my pointing out what looks to be whitewashing (albeit with helpful edits thrown in) as bullying. I do recommend someone look through these edits. What I've seen makes me uncomfortable.  petrarchan47  t  c   07:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Petrarchan, have you still not read the sources I left you that describe that as a plankton study? Corexit made the oil 52 times more toxic to rotifers in a laboratory study. The reason is that after the dispersant emulsifies the oil (breaks it up into tiny droplets) planktonic animals are more exposed to them because of the greater surface area of the droplets. I have tried to explain this to you more than once, and I put a source in the Corexit article that backs it up. You have nothing to stand on here. I caught the article misinterpreting the science and changed it. You're only damaging yourself by drawing attention to it. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here, read it on the Fringe NB:, and read it here on LiveScience: . Plankton study. Quit hounding me on it. Let it go... Geogene (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Geogene, reliable sources and the scientists themselves describe the result of their findings as "made the oil spill 52 times worse". NO reliable sources boils it down to "damaged tiny sea creatures". My issue is with your changing the wording so that it is not only harder to understand for the average reader, but does not resemble the way sources clearly state it (as evidenced by the 3 sources I added above). You cannot blatantly rewrite this very important aspect of the oil spill story in a way that is contrary to RS guidelines and simultaneously complain when folks question ("hound") you on it. We would question any change like this, no matter who was behind it.  petrarchan47  t  c   19:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not believe this discussion is productive, Petrarchan. I do see that you are very concerned about it, so I recommend that you take this to a relevant noticeboard and let disinterested third parties consider the problem. Geogene (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are being untruthful by saying that the article misrepresented science in the Corexit Lede, and that you fixed it.


 * This is what the scientists titled their study:
 * Gulf of Mexico clean-up makes 2010 spill 52-times more toxic; Mixing oil with dispersant increased toxicity to ecosystems.


 * We represented the study by saying
 * In 2012, a study found that Corexit used during the Gulf spill had increased the toxicity of the oil by up to 52 times.


 * Your fix was
 * In 2012, a study found that Corexit's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more bioavailable to planktonic animals, making it up to 52 times more toxic to rotifers than the oil alone.'


 * Who wouldn't be concerned about this?   petrarchan47  t  c   20:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to read that further than just the title. Or maybe we could get a third opinion. But please re-state your objections in the Talk:Corexit page so we can do that. Try to be succinct so we'll have a better chance of getting assistance. Geogene (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Geogene, you are being incredibly misleading in your assessment and in your edit summaries. I sincerely hope no one is taking your remarks here as fact without really looking into what you actually doing. You restated the science in a way that looks nothing the actual conclusion, and made this change to the Lede, where we do not favor details over summary style language. There was nothing misleading about how this science worded in the Lede for the last year and a half, and no one has had a problem with it until now. Your recent edit, though the edit summary indicated you were making some huge change, did not actually change back to your version, but only changed one word, making it a causal statement, but retaining the clarity and basic point, which is fine.  But don't scream "Noticeboard! Get consensus!" when it is misleading to imply you  have made a big change, and I am being problematic. Your change was helpful - but it is very far from your first attempts which are glaringly POV.


 * Realistically, one could spend two months here doing neutral or helpful edits, but if they were to change a fact as monumental as the one I'm talking about, that BP's use of Corexit made the oil spill 52 times worse, the overall effect would be massively tendentious. This isn't just some example I'm fixated on. You know damn well what a big deal this is. Not everyone is studying this spill and aftermath to the degree required to fully evaluate your edits. That is a problem, it is up to sheer luck and willing volunteers. Sometimes we find ourselves up against someone who seems to have very detailed knowledge and can talk circles around us, tire us out, and we haven't really come up with a good response for that yet. It has bade many people leave this talk page, to be sure. (Also, Geogene, attacking other editors shows you want to distract from the issue at hand: tendentious editing that would, if allowed to remain, be of great benefit to BP right about now.)  petrarchan47  t  c   22:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait. Did you just say that you don't have a problem with the current 52-times wording at Corexit? You mean, there is no problem there? You're just here to soapbox about my evil doings then? Seriously? Geogene (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you going to continue to play niave? You do understand things, so I cannot take this as good faith. Reread: "Your change was helpful - but it is very far from your first attempts which are glaringly POV." You don't get credit for making a sensible edit after multiple attempts to destroy the meaning of the statement. If you're going to just toy with me and pretend not to understand what I'm saying, then I'll address my statements to others from now on.  petrarchan47  t  c   17:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Geogene, regarding your suggestion that you leave the article, it seems to me that you are perhaps being too sensitive. IMO, you have made some good suggestions for improving the spill articles, but your comments have been making working with you difficult. Looking back for an example I picked a diff at random: ''Remove ridiculous remark about "opening a fault" on the seafloor. Expert did not say that, journalist did. Please pay attention to who is being quoted. In another case you remarked on one of my edits: ... an editor decided to resort to WP:OR and present three facts to try to lead readers to a desired conclusion: that there were dangerous levels of airborne contaminants. This is a type of original research known as WP:SYNTHESIS, the presentation of facts from various sources to try to create a desired, but untrue, conclusion--that people were exposed to "high doses" of carcinogens from burning--that is not supported by any RS. It's disingenuous and I'd like to encourage the editors around here to refrain from WP:ADVOCACY. I certainly had not'' intended to mislead readers and if I did it would be better to improve the article with an explanation rather than decide that I was being dishonest. If you feel that it would be best to leave the article, that's up to you, but I haven't seen evidence of editors "bullying" you or chasing you away.Gandydancer (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't exactly say you picked those two "at random", Gandydancer, but those are mine and they certainly were abrasive, particularly abrasive for me. The "faulting nonsense" that was originally in the article came from a journalist's misunderstanding of science that was published in a reliable source, but it still was, is, and has always been, nonsense. Most educated people wouldn't recognize it as such, nor would I expect them to, because fault kinematics is somewhat obscure knowledge. Still, it's nonsense. I found another reliable source, this time AJ, that explained the "faulting" thing in a manner I found plausible and I rewrote it based on that. Nonsense gone. I'm pleased with that edit. I should not have been so harsh in describing the content. But what was there was nonsense, RS or not. Your second example is much less defensible, although I do feel that there's a lot of advocacy involved here in these articles. I feel like editors have been shopping for the most extreme claims they can find, and that this does not represent the scientific view. In fact, at the last Gulf Science Conference in Mobile, they devoted an entire afternoon session to talking about the patently false/extremist claims circulating on the Internet. They might even have been talking about some of these articles. Geogene Also, I am not proposing leaving because I'm being too sensitive. I would gleefully debate all of this, with all of you, point by point, and I think I'd do a good job of it too. But that's not what we're here for. This discussion on content has become a referendum on me. And I think there are larger problems here that should be mediated elsewhere. (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Geogene, I said I picked a diff at random, not two diffs at random. At any rate, I can't imagine why you would question even that.  I scanned the page avoiding the ones I was not familiar with or the ones regarding Corexit.  I chose the second conversation because I wrote most of that article including the portion that you found problematic, and in that case I took your accusations personally.  Which is not to say that to some extent many or most of your abrasive words are written as though one of the present BP editors is your target when actually the editor may be long gone, not one of the present "cabal" that you speak of that is responsible for these articles.  Re the "ridiculous" info about the fault line, I was not objecting to the fact that the information needed to be rewritten, it is your calling another editor a careless fool that I objected to.  It was an easy enough mistake to make. As for the health article I mostly wrote, no I was not shopping for the worst I could find, I was looking for anything I could find and I tried to write a fair article.


 * As to your complaints about the generally critical content of these BP articles, that is for good reason. It is not because editors dislike BP and are slanting their WP articles.  The info is critical because the US government, the press, and the people in the US were critical of the massive spill that went on for months. (In fact, I believe much more critical than they would have been if BP were instead based in America.)  And every time BP tried to defend themselves, it turned into a disaster.  Then it was found that they had been lying all along about the spill rate, and on and on. Then, in the end when it was found that the regard for the safety of the workers or the environment  meant nothing to the corporation, they only cared about money...you think that these articles are not going to sound critical?


 * I am giving this feedback because you asked for feedback, not because I wish to turn this talk page into a discussion about you. Again, I don't see anybody trying to turn this into a referendum on you.  You are having a disagreement with Petrar and it seems to me that perhaps your anger has spilled over to the other editors here.  I am sure that you would "gleefully debate all of this, with all of you, point by point", and I think you'd do a good job of it too.  Not me, I hate it and I hope I'm done with this conversation.  Gandydancer (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't enjoy this either. I sat out as long as I could whilst Geogene went at it on four separate articles for weeks. I don't think it's fair that protecting facts supported by RS is this difficult... at least when that RS makes BP look bad. With a company this large in the midst of such a gigantic court case, it seems Wikipedia should have a more helpful response than to hope some volunteer comes along and wants to study the details related to this oil spill to the point that they can argue with someone who has detailed, seemingly inside, info, endless energy and sharp nails. They should have a special crew of editors who can be called in to deal with situations like this. Or something.   petrarchan47  t  c   01:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just been lurking here, and only did a quick scan of the talk page. My vague impression is that the side that wants the "it's really bad" version has been using more advocacy groups as sources and the "it's not so bad" group has been using the more scientific objective groups as sources.   And maybe some folks are trying to bully away one of the latter, including suggesting wholesale reversion of their work, a large amount of edits, based only on who made them.  Let's stop doing that.  And my suggestion is to lean towards sources that not only meet the "floor" of WP:RS, but which have objectivity and expertise regarding the topic.    North8000  (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note after only a quick glance. The subjects of meeting wp:RS criteria and actual reliability of a source are two completely different questions and in many places in the above discussion the two have been treated as one. Actual reliability includes expertise and objectivity with respect to the topic at hand, two things which are not conditions in wp:RS. There is nothing wrong with editors also discussing actual reliability (including objectivity and expertise with respect to the topic/statement at hand) and taking that into account.  North8000  (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Reliability of sources is not the problem. For an extensive period of time this article was erroneous in a serious way, grossly overplaying the role of BP's alternative energy division (calling it a separate "Business Segment" when it was not) and likewise hewed to the company line by not even mentioning the entire settlement process. Again, that rather dreadful situation took place because the article was indeed bad - bad in the sense of not being complete and accurate in a manner that made BP look better than it was, and bad in that it underplayed things that the company did not like to talk about (except when it was suing the government to lift its ban on doing business or taking our full-page ads attacking claimants). Yes, we do have a corporate rep here to micromanage aspects of the article that he doesn't like, which can give the impression that entire article is a terrible thing for BP when in fact the opposite has been the case for a very long period of time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

First, my glance was through this seciton on the talk page. In my quick glance I was seeing things like NOAA as a source vs. advocacy organizations or items cherry picked (with implied applicability) by advocacy organizations. A study done in California elsewhere with much higher concentraitons of the chemicals seemed like the latter. Those were more what I had in mind when I wrote the post.  North8000  (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to Coretheapple: I would like to clarify once again (see previous discussion here) regarding the information about the settlement process not appearing in this article for a while, that this was not due to any action on my part to keep this information out and I do not feel it is in BP's favor to avoid inclusion of these details. First of all, the information was included in the article for a while, during which time I did not ask for its adjustment or deletion. As far as I am able to tell from the edit history, material was removed by volunteer editors as part of consensus changes to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill section, a discussion and process that I was not part of. I later asked for information about the amount of compensation paid out by BP to be added, including settlement payments, and editors including you did not want to add this information. It is actually not in BP's favor to omit information about the settlements, since not including means there was no record of the amount the company had paid out, nor was there any clear discussion around issues such as why BP was appealing payments.
 * Regarding the "micromanagement" that you appear to object to, I am afraid that this may simply be due to the fact that editors have previously asked me to focus on specific factual updates, corrections and individual pieces of information that are problematic. Until early last year, I had been proposing draft material for larger changes (mainly seeking to improve the "Operations" section, which was woefully underdeveloped when I first started making suggestions here), however some editors were concerned about my providing drafts in this way and asked that I stick to individual updates, corrections and questions. This may come across as micromanagement but it is certainly not intended to be. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Bluefin Study and Material Core Restored
I want to discuss why Core restored the following material I removed, per BRD. His edit summary was that it "somehow fell out", and that's not helpful.


 * The first part of the material in contention: "but reports of damage to the fisheries persisted through 2014." The source for that content was the bluefin study. Trouble is that the fish in that study lived in an aquarium in California, not the Gulf, so there are no "reports of [Gulf] fisheries damage" therein. It also doesn't apply to 2014 because the paper was finished and submitted for peer review in 2013.


 * The second part of the content I dispute: "In late 2012 local fishermen reported that crab, shrimp, and oyster fishing operations had not yet recovered from the oil spill and many feared that the Gulf seafood industry will never recover." That's two years out of date and based mostly on anecdotes from fishermen. So nobody should be surprised that "may never recover" was deleted when NOAA says "have recovered". Geogene (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The first part is incorrect and I've fixed it. The second part is adequately sourced. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Geogene (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

BP's response to dolphin study
As the discussion in my original request has become very long, I wanted to call out my remaining request (aside from discussion of the 2012 fishing industry detail that Geogene has raise above) here so that it does not become overlooked. Here are the details:


 * I noticed that in discussing dolphins and the Environmental Science & Technology study in both the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill articles, Coretheapple included BP's statement from the source: "BP said the report was “inconclusive as to any causation associated with the spill”. How would editors feel about also including this statement where the study has been added to this article?


 * The response can be cited to this source.

Coretheapple had replied above to say that they felt adding in a response is appropriate but that they did not have time to make such an addition. Would anyone be able to add this detail? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can get someone to develop it from the above, that would be ideal.   If not and you are able to draft it ready for a dummy-here like me to put it in, I'd be happy to.  North8000  (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Coretheapple, for adding that wording. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Updates from BP Annual Report
Hello, BP has just released its annual report with updated statistics in a number of areas. As there are a lot of small updates, for now, I have focused on some general performance and production-related figures that need to be updated. For consistency, I have used the same citation model as is currently used for the 2012 report. Could someone add this reference to the "Bibliography" section:




 * In the infobox and the introduction, production output should be "3.2 million barrels of oil equivalent per day" not 3.3.


 * Number of employees should be updated to 83,900 in the infobox, introduction and "Corporate affairs" section.


 * BP has operations in approximately 80 countries . This wording should be updated in the introduction and "Operations" section.


 * Oil equivalent reserves should be updated to 17.9 billion barrels in the introduction.
 * ✅``Buster Seven   Talk  16:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In "Operations", the service station number should be updated to 17,800 in two places.


 * The last sentence of the "United States" section states that there are 10,000 retail sites, that number should be updated to 7,700


 * Lastly, there are two numbers in the infobox that have been correctly updated matching the new annual report, but the sources have not been updated (in each case the reference is still the 2012 report). I've prepared a citation for each that can be added in.
 * Revenue: US$396.217 billion.


 * Total assets: US$ 305.690 billion

Would an editor be able to make the updates sometime soon? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * NOTE: - I tried to make the changes as requested which took at least an hour of my time. The result was some "Cite Errors" so I Un-did the changes I had made. Rather than mess-up a second time, I will leave the change request for someone else to implement. ```Buster Seven   Talk  17:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... this appears to be the kind of error that happens when a "ref name" is invoked for a reference that is not actually in the article. However, I'm not sure if that's what happened here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe so. I hope some editor can find the time necessary to make the changes. I can see what happens but I'm not sure how to "do it right". ```Buster Seven   Talk  18:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose to replace also other references to AR2011 and AR2012 with references to AR2013. Beagel (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank You, Beagel, for your prompt response and for the editing lesson |:~). I personally have no problem with your suggested update to the current Annual Report where appropriate. ```Buster Seven   Talk  19:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you to both Buster Seven and Beagel for making the updates. I apologize if the reference formatting was a little complex, as mentioned, I had tried to model the existing formatting used for the 2012 Annual Report citations since that seems to be preferred compared with individual citations for each section of the report. Beagel, replacing the other references to the previous Annual Reports where possible would be very helpful. I have some further updates to suggest to bring the article up-to-date using the new Annual Report information, so I will list those here soon to help with this process. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)