Talk:Bernard Looney

Personal life
I am seeking an update to Personal life on behalf of BP. Bernard Looney is no longer married. There are no independent press sources that confirm this, but I am asking if Wikipedia editors can revise Personal life to simply say: "Looney lives in central London, England." There is actually very little sourcing on his marriage in the first place. It is briefly mentioned in the "CV" section of the source that is used in the live article. This detail has not received significant attention.

As BP's representative on Wikipedia, I do not directly edit articles relating to the company. Would someone be willing to review this request and correct Personal life? Thanks for taking the time to consider this. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Arturo at BP. As I was the one who added it, I do not see any real issue in removing it, and have done so. Once Looney takes over as CEO, there will no doubt be more articles in reliable sources that we can make use of. Edwardx (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the article, Edwardx. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Year of birth
I am seeking another update on behalf of BP.

Infobox and introduction The introduction and infobox display Bernard Looney's year of birth as "1969/1970". I have confirmed that Mr. Looney was born on Sept. 5, 1970. There are no sources that explicitly state this, but I am asking if Wikipedia editors can revise so the detail is more definitive.

As BP's representative on Wikipedia, I do not directly edit articles relating to the company. Would someone be willing to review this request and update? Thanks for taking the time to consider this. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we cannot add the full birthdate per WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPPRIMARY. If someone was to add it to a biography page or similar at the BP website, then we could use it. Edwardx (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that, Edwardx. I wonder then if the birth year range could be removed from the introduction since it is not specific? Or is it possible to use this Companies House link to confirm Mr. Looney was born in 1970. If this source is appropriate, could you correct the year, Edwardx? Arturo at BP (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Using information from Companies House can be problematic, as it may be seen as WP:BLPPRIMARY. Edwardx (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Edwardx. Do you think it might be ok in this case since the source is clarifying what secondary coverage says? Reuters, The New York Times, and others note that Mr. Looney is 49; Companies House just confirms that he was born in 1970. If not, I'll continue looking, but I'd hoped that a UK government site might work for this, since it’s an official website. It's also worth noting that earlier this year, Bloomberg reported he was 48. If Mr. Looney turned 49 this year, he must have been born in 1970. I know that usually sources should not be used together, but for something like this, I think it does demonstrate Mr. Looney's correct birth year. I also think the reader is better served by having the exact birth year when there is strong evidence pointing to it. Thank you again. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have amended the article to born in 1970. After all, it is a fact. And as you say, we could interpolate the secondary sources to arrive at such a result. Some might argue that strays into WP:OR territory - there will always be grey areas. Edwardx (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look into this and for updating the article, Edwardx. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Bad Link 1st Para
The link to "Ashgrove" in the first sentence of the article points to an unrelated place in Northern Ireland. Looney's Ashgrove is in Co Kerry, Republic of Ireland.

Thanks.

Help with recent changes
Hello, editors. I've noticed recent edits to this article that have been made with regard to bp and Rosneft. I do not think they meet WP:NPOV and WP:RECENT, and in places I do not think the live article accurately reflects the sources cited. For example: the article says (bold emphasis is mine) "Looney, by virtue of his 20% stake in Moscow-based oil-producer Rosneft …". Mr. Looney does not, nor has he ever, personally held a 20% stake in Rosneft. That was bp's stake in Rosneft.

Now that things have settled somewhat regarding Rosneft, I'd like to propose updates that I think meet Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV and RECENT, and are verified in independent reliable sources.

First, I'd suggest reverting the introduction to how it was on February 8. It seems to me there is too much detail in the introduction about Rosneft (WP:WEIGHT).

Second, I'd like to propose removing the Russia controversy subheading, in addition to revisions of the text to keep it more focused on Mr. Looney himself, based on reliable sources. The following is a suggestion for editors to consider. I invite other editors to use their own judgment and collaborate on the text:

Please let me know what you think of these suggested changes. Edwardx, you've reviewed my other requests, would you consider taking a look at this one as well? Thanks in advance for all your help with this matter. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Snooganssnoogans made most of the edits. Also, I belive this request is unnecessary and am considering declining it. Quetstar (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Denied per above. Quetstar (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Inaccuracies and bias have been introduced to the article as described in my previous post. This is particularly important because this is a biography of a living person. One blatant inaccuracy is it is not supported by sourcing to say it is Mr. Looney’s stake in Rosneft. It should be made clear that bp has a 19.75% stake in Rosneft, not Mr. Looney.
 * The Guardian "Kwarteng is believed to be uneasy about BP’s 22% stake in Rosneft, the Russian state oil firm, particularly given its role in providing fuel for the military effort in Ukraine."
 * BBC "BP's 20% stake in a company majority-owned by the Russian state was always uncomfortable and Russia's invasion of Ukraine has led the government to think it untenable."
 * CNBC "BP has had a presence in Russia for over 30 years and is the largest foreign investor in the country via a 19.75% stake in the national oil company Rosneft."
 * The Times "BP also confirmed yesterday that it was exiting its interest in Rosneft, where it held a 19.75 per cent stake — the second largest stake in the company after the Kremlin’s. BP made $2.7 billion operating profits from its holding last year."
 * The New York Times "The British oil giant BP said on Sunday that it would “exit” its nearly 20 percent stake in Rosneft, the Russian state-controlled oil company, making it one of the first large companies to abandon Russia after its invasion of Ukraine."
 * Please let me know what you think. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the stake ownership. The rest of the text is appropriate considering the circumstances, so I will not reconsider my position. Quetstar (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm here from the BLP board. I agree with you that the material appears to be presented in a way that emphasizes negative rather than keeping neutral tone. I believe that the additional information provided regarding Igor Sechin is unnecessary. More info is accessible to the readers from Igor Sechin's article, which is linked in the same paragraph, so I can not see a good reason for reflecting additional detailed information about Sechin here.
 * More:
 * After Russia invaded Ukraine, Looney and BP refused to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine. - The source does not say that Looney refused to condemn Russia. "After Russia invaded Ukraine" is also incorrect. We cannot claim that the event occurred after Russia invaded Ukraine since a provocative question was asked the next day after the war began(invasion just statrted), and nothing said about it in the source.
 * Also, this is one of the cases when RS age matters. Invasion of the Ukraine began on 24 February 2022 and the all of the sources used for "Russia controversy" section of the article are from 25-27 February 2022. Appears to me that those do not have enough time to properly analyze information. Thus, we should focus more on quotes that peer reviewed reputable academic journals and history books have analyzed rather than cherrypicking sensationalist news articles.
 * The way sentences are written flags potential synthesis issue. Seemingly number of sources combined to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Abrvagl (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Looney insisted that BP would continue to do business with Rosneft, the Russian state-owned company. - this is also not quite supported by the source. According to the source "Looney said he would not speculate on the outcome of growing Russia-Ukraine tensions, but the company would make a judgment call if the situation escalates,", which is a completely different tone from what is written in the article. Looks like a bit of original research applied here. Abrvagl (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed some material as per my talk above. The further comment from my side: I do agree with you that whole "Russia controversy" thing does not belongs to Looneys BLP article. It would more suits to BP article. What BP does is not really about bibliography of the Looney. Abrvagl (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for your note and examining that content in detail. It is much appreciated. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Request to fix small inaccuracy
Hello editors. I wanted to correct a small inaccuracy in the article. Currently, the Career section that Mr. Looney "sits" on the Rosneft board. Mr. Looney stepped down in February, as noted in this Times article. Can we update the Career section to reflect that Mr. Looney left the board? As always I will not make any edits myself due to my conflict of interest. Thank you in advance. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Quetstar (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, thank you. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Request to remove subheading
Hi editors, I have another request. Could we remove the Russia controversy subheading? It doesn't seem to me that applies anymore with the current text, and as pointed out, there really isn't anything to indicate a "widespread public debate" about the Rosneft board position being a controversy. In addition, as noted in the NPOV guideline, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure," which I think has happened here. The guideline also asks us to consider "headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject," which again, I think is happening here in an unduly negative manner. Please let me know what you think. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not see a reason to remove the subheading right now. Also, I see that @Thenightaway adequately sourced the edits. Therefore, I have removed this ER from the queue. Anyone may reopen this at anytime. Quetstar (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I am not sure that my concern was really addressed, however. The concern I have is with the "Russia controversy" subheading itself. That seems like a pretty clear example of a violation NPOV guideline on formatting elements that I cited above. I also sought some additional feedback from the NPOV noticeboard, so I'll be reopening this request for responses from that board. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Request closed since no one has responded on the NPOV noticeboard. Quetstar (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Help with recent changes
Hello editors, I'm here again with some questions about recent changes to Mr. Looney's article and requests to improve their neutrality. It seems to me that both the wording and the presentation of the COP27 controversy and 202 Bonus controversy sections make them less than neutral. It also strikes me that by omitting the name of the criticizing parties (Global Witness; Greenpeace and Global Witness, respectively), the wording of these sections makes it sound as though criticism of Mr. Looney was much more widespread than it actually was, which further degrades the neutrality of these additions. Any thoughts on this from other editors? I'm always open to different perspectives. To get this conversation started, I have suggestions for how we can make these sections fall more in line with Neutral point of view. I request that we remove these two subheadings entirely, and move the text of both subheadings into the main Career section. Further, I'd request that the criticizing groups be specifically named and internally linked, along with additional context. Finally, I'd request that in the Bonus controversy section, the clauses "has been criticized by campaigners as a “kick in the teeth” for consumers facing the cost of living crisis, as his pay package more than doubled to £10m following BP’s record profits linked to the war in Ukraine." be removed and replaced with text that is more neutral. I have a suggestion on what the new Career section might look like, if editors are interested:

Looney, who has spent his entire career at BP, worked in core production and drilling roles in the North Sea, Vietnam and Mexico, serving in other executive roles before taking over the upstream division in 2016. In October 2019, it was announced that Looney would succeed Bob Dudley as group chief executive in February 2020. He sold BP shares worth £7.8 million in February and April 2019. Looney was one of five BP employees who attended COP27 as delegates of Mauritania, where BP has made significant investments. The company said Looney and the others attended for a signing ceremony; however, Looney's attendance was criticised by Global Witness activists who were unhappy at the influence of executives from fossil fuel companies at the conference. In March 2023, it was announced that Looney had received a 2022 pay package of £10 million, more than double what he received the previous year. The package included a £1.4 million salary, a £2.4 million bonus, and a £6 million share award, as well as benefits. It was criticized by Greenpeace and Global Witness, which questioned the appropriateness of such an increase while energy bills are a struggle for some families to pay.

I think these changes (note: the visible text has only changed in the last two paragraphs, I included the Career section prior to the Russia subheading just for clarity on placement) make the text more neutral and provide a more complete and accurate picture of criticisms levied at Mr. Looney. I also took the liberty of correcting the citations so they are complete, though I could not locate the Morningstar article in the paragraph about Mr. Looney selling shares. Please let me know what you think of these changes. As always, I am happy to discuss them and won't make any changes myself due to my conflict of interest. , you were kind enough to take a look at the last issue on this article after I made a post at the BLP noticeboard, would you consider taking a look at this request as well? I'd really appreciate it. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , if someone else does not respond in a week, then ping me again please. I have a lot of other things going on at the moment. Cullen328 (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for being willing to take a look! As requested, I'm pinging you more than a week later as no one else has responded to this request. I really appreciate you taking the time. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw you recently made some copy edits to the article. Thanks! I had hoped to make some further changes to the content you worked on, noted above in the request here. I'm not trying to whitewash anything here, or remove content, just update some phrasing to be more neutral, remove subheadings that violate WP:STRUCTURE, and add in further context from the sources already in use to make the article more complete and accurate. The biggest thing is the subheadings. Would you be willing to take a look? I'd really appreciate it. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for taking a look! Arturo at BP (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Retiring
Hello editors, I just wanted to leave a small note here that I will be retiring as bp's representative on Wikipedia. My colleague Vishal BP will be taking over in my stead. The volunteers here won't notice too much of a difference. Thanks for the guidance and assistance over the past decade. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome Arturo. I'm excited to jump in! Vishal BP (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The first BP CEO to hurt retired members of staff.
Despite the already documented increase to Bernard Looney’s personal remuneration in 2023, he became the first CEO to preside over a reduction in the real value (adjusted for inflation) of the benefits being received by retired members of staff in the UK who helped to build his company and who are now members of the BP defined benefits pension scheme. 86.171.176.145 (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

T/a and Petro
Rumor has it u will get rid of card and will raise the price of parking why truck drivers don’t make that much why would u take advantage of us. The mark up is already 200% or more. 174.211.113.248 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Looney forced to resign
Looney resigned as CEO of BP in September 2023. I don't know enough to add to the article itself. See for example, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66790609, and articles in the Financial Times and New York Times. 69.141.122.178 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)