Talk:Occidental Petroleum/Archive 1

Untitled
I think it's a shame such a large percentage of this article deals with Al Gore Sr.'s involvement in the company... 208.181.1.157 16:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Garbage
Any time I see a line that says "Critics allege..." I run for the Hills. Why don't you include some citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattDartmouth (talk • contribs)
 * Do you mean the bit about Al Gore and graft? I agree, there should be a citation for such a statement.  TastyCakes 23:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * MattDartmouth, sign your posts please.


 * I suggested adding the fact to unsourced statments.


 * Also don't expect other people to change the article for you on the talk page, I have seen this work in about 1 in 100 cases--"if you want something done, do it yourself".


 * I agree with you MattDartmouth: "Critics allege" is a unsourced garbage, and should be sourced, but I have no big interest in this article, so I am going to do the same thing that MattDartmouth did: ask someone else to do it. Travb 05:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore
Al Gore Junior is the executor of his families' trust, and not his father. Therefore, he owns the stock.72.177.29.129 22:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The above statement is true, please stop deleting information about Gore without good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foster2008 (talk • contribs)


 * Al Gore was known to have put several extremely polluting coal plants on the "fast track" for permit approval during his time as Vice President. The article's implication that Gore was some kind of "passive" benefactor of his father's holdings is laughable.71.215.184.236 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Factually misleading
"In 1942, a subsidiary of Occidental, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation" Occidental Petroleum did not purchase Hooker Chemical until 1968 according to Oxy's website at http://www.oxy.com/About%20Oxy/who_we_are/history.htm This misleading wording suggests the problem was created while Oxy was the owner of Hooker Chemical, which is not true. The entire article appears to be biased strongly against Oxy and does not present any of the positive aspects of Occidental Petroleum. A good source for the history of Oxy is "The Prize : The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" by Daniel Yergin.

Further the statement that "In 2005, Occidental Petroleum and partner Liwa won eight out of fifteen exploration spots on the EPSA-4 auction, making both companies among the first to enter the Libyan market since the United States lifted its embargo on that country" neglects to mention that Oxy already had assets in Libya, along with Marathon Oil Corp. (MRO), ConocoPhillips (COP), and Amerada Hess (AHC) who were banned by the US embargo of Libya from operating their existing Libyan assets since 1986. Suggesting it is a new entry into Libya is very misleading, especially since Oxy's discovery of a billion barrel oil field in Libya in 1966 is probably what changed the company from a small company with a modest net worth to a Fortune 500 company. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history/Oe-Pa/Occidental-Petroleum-Corporation.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbonates (talk • contribs)


 * You are welcome to rewrite the article, adding balance to the article, but not deleting factual information which puts Oxy in a bad light. Thanks for your comments, I look forward to working with you again in the future.  PS Please sign your messages with ~ Travb (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bombings
Am I alone in thinking that an accusation like Oxy requesting a village be cluster bombed should be backed up with a source a little less flaky than "ZNet" and "Amazon.org"? TastyCakes 04:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oxy in Peru
If someone has the time to add this current event to the OXY page:

http://www.livinginperu.com/news-3800-press-releases-peru-indigenous-community-sues-l-based-occidental-petroleum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.242.130 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

'Oxy' or 'Oxy Pete'
i was under the impression that the colloquial nickname for the company was 'oxy pete', not simply 'oxy'. am i wrong? Anastrophe 17:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never heard oxy pete... TastyCakes 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither have I, and I lived three blocks from their headquarters for over a year and a half! In five years of reading the L.A. Times at least every other day, the only nickname I've ever seen for Occidental Petroleum is "Oxy," which is even on their logo on their building (take a look at the photo in the article which I took).  --Coolcaesar 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * interesting. okay. a google search on 'oxy pete' brings up many results, but perhaps it's a more recent 'backronym'. thanks. Anastrophe 01:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms, Scandals, Controversies
Any and all sections that are critical of Occidental Petroleum seem to have been deleted. Occidental employees (people working from IP addresses registered to the company, anyways) appear to have deleted at least 5 sections in one edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occidental_Petroleum&diff=prev&oldid=148338420

Some of the critical sections that were removed do need to be rewriten, like the Love Canal one. However, these are very real issues that should probably be mentioned in a "controversy" or similar section. Here are some links to more reputable sites about some of these scandals:


 * http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/index.htm
 * http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/02.htm
 * http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/05/16/encana.html
 * http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/hammerop.htm

Drake 23:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm curious why you dropped this into the middle of the discussion page, rather than at the end? Anastrophe 23:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the formatting protocols, feel free to make necessary changes. I'll look into the wiki editing docs on it.

I placed it here because the content is relevant to entries under the section titled "Garbage", above. However, I think the "Garbage" section should be renamed. It seems biased and POV, so I decided to start a new section that covers scandals & controversies. Drake 07:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * the convention i've always found is that new sections are added at the bottom of the discussion page. i don't know if there's a formal policy, but it's extremely rare to find a discussion page not structured that way. Anastrophe 07:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * as to the topic at hand, while i have not removed any of the criticism section in the past, i'm of a mind that the entire love canal section shoudl be removed. why? because it's extremely misleading. occidental petroleum had nothing to do with the love canal incident. they were involved only by proxy. there's no evidence that they knew bad things would happen there, and they had no direct liability in the matter, since they never placed a single ounce of toxic chemicals at the site. the opening sentence of the section is highly misleading - as someone pointed out a year ago, in that it gives the impression that hooker was a subsidiary of oxy back when all this happened. it was not. i'm going to reword the first sentence, but the reality of how this should be approached is simple: create a Hooker Chemical wikipedia page. wikilink that article at the mention of the acquisition of it by oxy in this article. end of story. Anastrophe 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Anastrophe, It seems that I'm not the only user who talks about « people working from IP addresses registered to the company, anyways ». Talk:Microsoft 80.32.246.17 03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * and your point is? Anastrophe 03:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wording on political contributions
I reverted an edit by 170.189.193.3 mostly on grounds that it was poorly written, and also superfluous detail; however, the figures from the 2008 political contributions to major parties can stay - they should however be sufficient, but if better-written copy is proposed we might accept that too. --davigoli (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section
I find the section about the bombing in Columbia to be particularly troubling POV-wise. The article puts things in a much different light than the Caño Limón extracted here:

''Santo Domingo Bombing

''In 1998, AirScan misidentified the village of Santo Domingo as a hostile guerrilla target, leading to a December 13 cluster bomb attack by the Colombian military which killed eighteen civilians, including nine children. The incident led to different legal actions against all the parties involved, some of which are still in progress.''

The section as it's written now seems very non-neutral. TastyCakes (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the following sentence can be removed from the "Controversy" section, as it is A) duplicated in the "Oil and gas" section, and B) does not describe a controversy:
 * The company has its only operation in North Africa in Libya. In 2005, Occidental and partner Liwa won eight out of 15 exploration spots on the EPSA-4 auction, making both companies among the first to enter the Libyan market since the United States lifted its embargo on that country.
 * --CBuiltother (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision of article
I just made a few small factual edits to the article. While I seek to bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards, I should state that Occidental is a client of my employer, and as such I have a potential conflict of interest. However, I have reviewed WP:COI and WP:NPOV and I don't believe this will be a hurdle in helping to improve the article, and I will take extra caution before making any significant edits. I don't believe any of my changes will be controversial, but I will be seeking input from other editors and ensuring they are all within Wikipedia's guidelines. --CBuiltother (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Financial Performance
One of the improvements I'd like to make is adding a "Financial performance" section, as many other articles about corporations contain. I've taken the British Airways article as a template. My suggested addition can by found at my user space. I welcome any input, and will seek consensus on this before making any changes. Thanks! --CBuiltother (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * After review and consensus from other editors, I've added the Financial performance section. Similarly, I have another proposal for the "Chemical" subsection, which may be found on my user subspace. Please place any comments on the proposal's talk page. Thanks, --CBuiltother (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason we're only going back to 2005... I'm not sure what common practice is here, and last 5 years sounds about right, but does it happen to be a particularly good last 5?  In other words, would the last 10 give a better picture of Oxy's performance?  Also, either way, can we get 2010 numbers whenever they are ready? Ocaasi (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't want the table to get too large and become an eyesore. Five seemed reasonable to me, but I'm open to expanding it. --70.174.129.144 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5 is ok and it's not your job to expand it. If you come across 2010 numbers that'd be great.  Otherwise, if you have easy access to 2000-2005, I think that's a reasonable extension.  We could even just split it and go to 2003.  I'm always skeptical of charts which have few enough data points that a broader fluctuation could be obscured or hidden (not intending that's anyone's suggestion).  Also, I think a data-oriented section should go significantly further down on the page, at least after the Operations section which describes what the company actually does, and maybe after CSR, which is more than just a list.  Generally, non-prose elements (lists, charts, filmographies, bare tables) go towards the bottom.  A compromise there would be to expand on the section in a meaningful way to include aspects of business valuation and management which are not merely in a table.  (Also, you didn't sign in for your last edit, and your i.p. can be traced to a specific location.  If you want to remain consistent or discrete, you can resign the above with your account.  If not it's no big deal, my ip is listed on my userpage.  Ocaasi (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been making some revisions in the past couple weeks to bring this article further up to date and had one more edit I wanted to propose for this section that I was hoping to run by the community before implementing. Specifically I wanted to replace the following sentence with more updated material:


 * From 2007 through 2009, Occidental shareholder returns averaged 20.6% a year, sixth among 200 major U.S. companies in a Wall Street Journal survey.

My draft of the section with the new proposed content can be seen here, on my user subspace. Feel free to comment on my talk page or edit the revised draft in the subspace. I look forward to any and all feedback. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and implemented the revisions discussed above to this section. If there are any questions or objections to these edits, please feel free to comment here, or on my talk page.  Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Chemical
I've recently made the changes to the Chemical section, after getting input. Discussion is here on my user subspace. --CBuiltother (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Curious if you think this sentence-- (On October 11, 2008, an accidental spill of oleum, a chemical similar to sulfuric acid, occurred at INDSPEC’s facility in Petrolia, Pennsylvania. The accident caused contamination of the ventilation system and a cloud of toxic gas in the Petrolia sky. 2,500 residents of the area were asked to evacuate.[28])-- fits best in the Chemical section or the CSR section. I don't have a preference, especially since it's a subsidiary, but just wanted to see what you thought?Ocaasi (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably makes sense to move to CSR. --70.174.129.144 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also ok if there's some small redundancy between sections. But as a subsidiary, there's a tendency to conflate things they do with Oxy but also to separate them.  In legal reality, if a wholly owned subsidiary of yours f's up, so did you.  So maybe CSR is the best place. Ocaasi (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy/Corporate social responsibility
After discussion and review from other editors, I've updated the "Controversy" and "Environmental record" sections. These sections have been reorganized under "Corporate social responsibility," using the BP article as a model. Full discussion with other editors about these changes may be found at User_talk:CBuiltother/Occidental_Petroleum_Controversy. Many thanks to Ocassi for the help. If there any further comments about these changes, please leave them below. Thanks! --CBuiltother (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, just wanted to chime in that CBuilt was very clear about any potential conflict of interest and after looking through all of the edits I think they are improvements. We worked on phrasing, references, and structure and generally the changes are good ones.  Please give them a drubbing if you think otherwise, but know that they were made in obvious good faith, and I think are close to best practices for this kind of COI editing.  Thanks. Ocaasi (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oil and gas
I'd like to add the following to the "Oil and gas" section:
 * In 2011, the Emirate of Abu Dhabi selected the company to participate in the development of the Shah gas field, one of the largest natural gas fields in the Middle East. 

Would anyone take issue with this? --CBuiltother (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Operations
After taking a several month break from editing on Wikipedia, I’ve recently implemented some revisions to this article with the purpose of updating financial and operations information. I would like to make some additional revisions to the Operations section that would provide some substantive updates, but having disclosed any potential conflict of interest – see comment at the top of this section – I have provided a draft of the revised section in my user subspace for the community to review.

If you’re interested in the article, please take a look at the proposed revisions and let me know what you think about them either here, or on my user talk page. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * After receiving feedback from User:Ocaasi, I made a minor modification to the draft discussed above and have gone ahead and implemented the proposed revisions to the Operations section. If there are any objections or questions about these edits, please feel free to respond here or on my user talk page.  Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

History and Environmental record sections
I have drafted some minor revisions to the article’s History section that reflect the updates I made concerning the company’s key people in the info-box. I have also added citations to two sentences that were previously unsourced. In order that other editors may review and comment on these revisions, I have posted my revised draft to a subspace on my user page. Please feel free to make your own changes to the subspace if you have any thoughts for improvement.

Another minor revision I would like to propose is the removal of the following sentence in the Corporate social responsibility’s Environmental record subsection on account of it lacking a citation and being speculative in nature (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL):


 * According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Occidental might be potentially liable for at least six Superfund toxic waste sites.

Let me know if you have any thoughts or feedback on these revisions. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Having not received any objections, and believing the revisions to be noncontroversial and well sourced, I have implemented a partial version of the revisions discussed above as recent edits by another user rendered part of my original revision redundant. As always, I welcome any further discussion on these and other revisions and please feel free to comment here or on my talk page. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oxy/Occidental
The Oxy nickname is a useful shorthand, but it's not being used consistently throughout. Is there a consensus on when Occidental should be used and when Oxy is acceptable? Ocaasi (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing CSR in the lead
Per WP:LEAD, the first paragraphs should summarize all major content in the article. Currently there's no mention of the Corporate Social Responsibility section/issues/incidents. We should add a short 1-3 sentence paragraph addressing those aspects as well as any others that are not yet reflected in the introduction. Ocaasi (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding subsidiaries to the lead
I wanted to try and add the subsidiaries (a big part of any multi-national corporation) to the lead. It might read a little detail or red-link heavy, but I'll give it a shot. An alternative is just to summarize in the lead that "Oxy has several wholly owned subsidiaries including OxyChem", and detail the companies in a Subsidiaries section/subsection. Ocaasi (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bit too much information for the intro, I'm thinking something along the lines of "Oxy has several subsidiaries in the chemical industry." --CBuiltother (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can compromise and use "Oxy has several wholly owned subsidiaries including OxyChem"; or something which gives a sense of what areas the company has expanded into; e.g. "Oxy has several wholly owned subsidiaries dealing with chemical, materials, industrial products, and international energy management." (like that, but accurate). Ocaasi (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

History / name
Did anything happen to the company between 1920 and 1961? Nothing is listed which seems odd. Also I came to this page seeking the history of the name Occidental, but found nothing. Surely this is a matter of record and would add to the entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.212.48 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Concerns
Several revisions have been made over the last two months primarily concerning Oxy’s former CEO, Ray Irani, that I believe at times violate Wikipedia’s guidelines for WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. These revisions have been made to the History (| example), Operations (| example), and Corporate social responsibility sections (| example 1, | example 2). Based on Wikipedia’s content guidelines, the material introduced in the edits linked to above warrants some revision, and in cases where the community deems appropriate, removal.

As discussed on this page and my user page, I have a potential conflict of interest, but do not believe this presents an obstacle after reviewing the guidelines for WP:COI and WP:NPOV. However, in order to be sure, I will continue to post and discuss all my proposed revisions on this page before implementing them.

Accordingly, I thought it would be easiest to present my proposed revisions in collapsible boxes, organized by section. Below is my initial draft for the revised version of the History section (changes have only been made to third paragraph). Let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia.


 * should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Shortcuts: WP:COI WP:CONFLICT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowboy128 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Cowboy128 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Drafts

 * CBuiltother asked me to take a look at this and I am inclined to agree that an extended treatment of Irani's affairs are undue weight on this article. --John (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time and feed back, John. I will allow some more time for other interested editors to weigh in before implementing the revisions. CBuiltother (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and implemented the revisions discussed above. If anyone has feedback or questions concerning these edits, feel free to comment here or on my user talk page.  Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oxy Revisions
In a free society, it is vital not to allow corporate proxies to suppress verifiable information about management and policies. The information was properly sourced and is a matter of public record. Occidental has unlimited resources to issue press releases. Wikipedia wasn't designed to be an adjunct to corporate public relations units. Quite the opposite. Cowboy128 (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick comment here: Wikipedia was not designed to be a bulwark against corporations, or in other words, a muckracker. That is a role played by journalists and activists.  The mission of here is encyclopedic--and though it may involve summarizing details of corporate embarrassment or wrongdoing--that can only be because good sources have already written about it sufficiently.Ocaasit 06:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest
CBuiltother -- I understand that you are relatively new to Wikipedia. I mention the following only in the spirit of edification. You did not reveal that you work, albeit indirectly, for Occidental. You deleted all of my revisions citing a concept that didn't apply to your own revision. Donald de Brier was mentioned only once. Chazen was mentioned minimally. Yet you deleted any mention of their compensation. Executive compensation vis-a-vis Occidental has been cited thousands of times in innumerable articles about the company. Irani was certainly given appropriate weight since that he is one of only two chairman's of the board in the last fifty plus years! You invited no objective feedback and simply sanitized the page. I respectfully ask you to cease any editing of this page based on Wikipedia guidelines. Please read this.

Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia.

should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Shortcuts: WP:COI WP:CONFLICT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowboy128 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
I see there's been some disagreement here about what information to include, and who should be editing. I've worked on this article in the past, as well as others relating to corporate history. I think we can reach consensus with a little bit of organization, policy, and civility. I think the easiest way forward is to place the contested material on this page below so we can deal with issues of sourcing, phrasing, and length. Then we'll see whether and how to include it. Sound good? Ocaasit 06:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, CBuilt has been very transparent regarding his relationship to Occidental. He's allowed to edit here with the understanding that we follow what sources say.
 * Every piece of information that is contested must be fully backed up by a reliable source--a major news organization, in this instance.
 * Not every piece of sourced information must be included; what is included and how much space it receives depends on WP:WEIGHT, a concept that requires careful editorial discretion.
 * Editors should not talk to eachother with presumptions of bias or agenda. Instead, stick to policies and facts.

Compensation
This is currently included/disputed section #1:
 * Irani and Occidental President, Stephen Chazen, ordered a reduction in company expenditures that resulted in hundreds of company job terminations, the majority of whom were veteran employees, in 2007-2008, at the height of the recession, even as Irani collected a massive $460 million dollar total compensation package for 2006 and the company enjoyed record profits. Irani was subsequently awarded a $900,000 cash bonus by the Occidental board of directors for exceptional performance in implementing a cost-cutting initiative (including reduction in force job terminations) in anticipation of a “world-wide economic deterioration.” This was awarded on a discretionary basis by the Occidental compensation committee and not by any company performance metrics. [9] According to the Associated Press, within the last decade, he has received $857 million. "We're not in the business to employ people. We're in the business to make a profit," Irani has said. Chazen collected $38,080,344 and Irani $76,107,010 in fiscal year 2010, nearly doubling his 2009 compensation despite shareholder outrage over the Occidental board of directors executive pay policies. A survey of Fortune 500 corporate general counsel compensation revealed that Occidental general counsel Donald de Brier was second highest on the list at approximately $6 million with total compensation reaching $34, 528,779.[10][11] Irani retired as CEO on May 10, 2011 after the California State Teachers' Retirement System and Relational Investors, two major institutional Occidental Investors, objected to the company's compensation policies and announced plans to replace long-term board members who were described as "ossified" in a letter written in protest of Irani's salary. They also termed Irani's salary a "corporate giveaway program." Irani's salary was considered excessive and not truly performance based for decades by a number of corporate governance authorities who noted that Irani's compensation had exceeded that of the head of energy giant ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, who leads a company with a market cap that is five times larger than Occidental Petroleum. Former CFO and current President Stephen Chazen was named CEO of Occidental to replace the 76 year-old Irani who plans to stay on as executive Chairman until 2014. Despite retiring as CEO, Irani continues to exclusively utilize the company's Boeing Business Jet, enjoys lavish perqs, and is often jointly interviewed with Stephen Chazen in business publications, causing some to question whether he has truly relinquished leadership of the company.[12][1][13] Since 1990, Occidental has gone from a collection of unrelated businesses to one that focuses on oil and gas.[14] During Irani's tenure as CEO, Occidental’s market capitalization increased to more than $80 billion from $5.4 billion.[15]

I see a few initial problems here.
 * For one, words like "massive" are not appropriate since they express a judgment on the part of Wikipedia. We can only make those kinds of subjective determinations though the eyes of a published source with that opinion.
 * I'm not sure what relevance the salary of corporate general counsel has. Is it just another example of highly paid executives, or is there some suggestion that the lawyers were paid to deal with problems Irani and Chazen caused.
 * The current construction of the paragraph seems to advance a point: namely, that instead of paying workers the executives paid themselves. Phrases like 'even as Irani collected' are not appropriate and need to be removed, since they advance an argument and/or express an opinion.  That is fine in a piece of investigative journalism, but not here.  Basically, the firings need to be separated from the compensation issues, unless a source directly commented on their connection.
 * All direct quotations need citations immediately after them.
 * It's not clear how much attention this subject deserves here. Assuming the paragraph can be rewritten for neutrality, that will be the next question. Ocaasit 06:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I really dispute just about everything that you have stated here. "Massive" is clearly the point of all of the executive compensation surveys that are cited in articles by the WSJ and Los Angeles Times as well as articles on corporate governance experts and shareholder groups who clearly express that opinion about Irani's salary. This is real nitpicking and you are losing me on that one. Irani's compensation in 2006 was one of the largest payments in the history of corporate compensation and the shareholder revolt (widely reported) which resulted in executive changes at Occidental reflect this. The articles reported on these opinions and Wikipedia doesn't directly express an opinion here. Only the content of the articles. The general counsel's salary is simply noted as part of the overall executive compensation dispute at Occidental that has been widely reported. The firings and the compensation are merely noted as being concurrent. That is simply a matter of public record and fact. It is not for me or you and anyone else to judge whether that was fair and equitable or something quite a bit less that that. It is simply a timeline of verifiable fact. I think we will need to raise this to a higher level and ask for guidance from a larger group and arbitrate this. Thank you for your efforts and feedback.Cowboy128 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ocaasi and Cowboy128, while I don’t question the verifiability of the material in this section concerning Irani’s and de Brier’s compensations, I believe the added material lends a disproportionate focus on the issue in a section dedicated to the company’s overall history, as based on my understanding of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Of course, as noted by Ocaasi, this is a matter of editorial discretion and worthy of further discussion.  My general feeling is that while the majority of this material is appropriate for the Ray Irani article, the Occidental Petroleum article should be limited to discussion concerning the controversy around Irani’s compensation and his consequent relinquishment of his title as CEO.


 * Additionally, I agree with Ocaasi that the phrasing of some of the language expresses a non-neutral point of view and should be revised in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines concerning impartial tone. In the interest of addressing the controversy over Irani’s compensation while remaining in line with Wikipedia’s policies concerning WP:NPOV, I would suggest revising the first sentence of material above to something along the lines of the following:


 * The company’s compensation policies came under scrutiny in 2007 after it was announced that CEO, Ray Irani, collected $460 million in stock shares and salary in 2006. (source: Elizabeth Douglass, “|Occidental CEO's 2006 paycheck: $460 million,” The Los Angeles Times, 4/7/2007)


 * I haven’t been able to find coverage of the reduction in company expenditures in 2007 and 2008, but if someone could point me to that, it would be appreciated. In the hopes of WP:CONSENSUS, please provide any feedback you may have.  Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and drafted up what I believe would be a good alternative to the current version of the disputed material from the history section pasted above by Ocaasi. In the proposed revision provided in the dropbox below, I tried to address the concerns raised by Ocaasi concerning the tone, structure, and relevance of some of the material as well as my own concern as to how much weight the issue deserves based on my understanding of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and observations of other history sections in similar, well ranked articles. At the same time I have tried to retain the substance of Cowboy128's revision, namely the controversy surrounding Occidental Petroleum's compensation of top executives and provided additional substantiation.


 * If you're interested, please feel free to review the draft below and make or suggest any revisions or feedback you consider necessary. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Because activity on this page has been low recently, I reached out to some additional pages including the WP:BLPS notice board, the WP:PLA talk page, and other editors on their talk pages and on the WP:HELP live chat to solicit feedback on these revisions. However, due to a low level of interest in the topic, I have not received any feedback as of yet and in the interest of moving things forward, I have gone ahead and implemented the revisions in the drop box discussed above.

Recognizing that this material has been the subject of some disagreement and that Wikipedia is a work in progress, I continue to welcome further discussion and would encourage any editors interested in the topic to provide their thoughts or feedback on this content. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tax shelter
This is currently included/disputed section #2:
 * Irani put funds into an overseas tax shelter arranged by Deutsche Bank AG that the IRS later deemed an illegal tax avoidance scheme. The Occidental Chairman opposed the U.S. Department of Justice subpoena of Deutsche Bank AG records as part of an investigation of myCFO Inc. His appeal was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2006. Occidental’s Board of Directors took no action against Irani despite the IRS ruling. An Occidental spokesman said that Irani’s participation in the tax avoidance scheme was a personal matter and was not a violation of the company’s code of conduct policy.

My feeling with this section is simply that, to be in accordance with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, it should be housed in the Ray Irani article and not in the Occidental Petroleum article as it concerns the private assets of the company’s executive chairman, not the company itself. Let me know if there is any feedback. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, CBuiltother! However, you have glossed over the fundamental point of the entry relating to the tax evasion scheme. The Occidental Code of Conduct is quite clear about ethical transgressions. Your point is, with all due respect, totally irrelevant. Any behavior, whether private or company related is actionable according to the company code of conduct. The code states that employees should consider how their conduct would be viewed if, for example, it was published in the Los Angeles Times. In other words, any sort of disreputable conduct would be actionable and could result in dismissal if it crossed the threshold of embarrassment to the company and harmed the company reputation. Tax evasion, or avoidance, is universally held to be unethical and the Irani funds were placed into what the IRS described somewhat charitably as a "tax avoidance scheme." Since "avoidence" and "evasion" are obviously synonymous-- I think you must surely get the drift here. Some MyCFO.com executives were subsequently indicted and convicted in this affair. For the Chairman of Occidental Petroleum, who has been compensated some $900,000,000 (and counting) during the last decade, to participate in an illegal tax avoidance scheme can not be properly categorized as a private matter. Especially since Occidental Petroleum has paid in excess of $400,00 annually for Irani's tax preparation services. I hope I have addressed your concern. Best Cowboy128 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no conflict of interest whatsoever in this area, but I say again that this is undue weight on this article. It is right and proper to cover it in more detail on the Ray Irani article. Cowboy128' s comment above looks too much like original research to me and so carries little weight. --John (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback John. I have gone ahead and removed the section on account of the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT concerns discussed above.  While I have not made any changes to the Ray Irani article – the same material is already there – I have started a section on that article’s talk page dedicated to adding any appropriate content concerning this issue.  As always, I welcome any feedback or thoughts on this content and revision. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with John and CBuiltother. Therefore, I'm going to revert Cowboy's reinsertion of the material. Cowboy, you will need to find some consensus from other editors before putting this material in the article. I note that the material is in the Irani article (put there by Cowboy in August). I won't comment on whether it belongs in the Irani article, but if it belongs anywhere, it's there, not in this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Libya and Libyan Investment Authority sections
As with the tone of some of the content in the history and Irani tax shelter sections discussed above, I believe there are similar WP:NPOV concerns with the language and content in the Libya and Libyan Investment Authority sections. However, I do not take issue with the general substance of these sections and have accordingly drafted some proposed revisions in the drop box below addressing the concerns I had with the sections’ tone and lack of substantiating sources.

In my revised draft I have also subsumed the material in the Libyan Investment Authority section into an expanded Libya section discussing both issues. I have additionally tried to keep the substance of the content true to the original material while at the same time addressing my concerns over impartial tone and undue weight and providing further substantiation.

Recognizing that material on this page has been the subject of dispute, I welcome any feedback on these revisions and would encourage other editors to make modifications directly to the proposed draft in the drop box below if there are any specific changes they consider necessary. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regettably, CBuiltother, you took the qualified support of John as being the green light to undertake massive edits of the Occidental Petroleum history section. I don't think you have remotely achieved the critical mass to undertake these revisions without real support and any real factual basis for your edit.     — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowboy128 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cowboy128
CBuiltother: Thank you for your comments. It doesn't appear as though you have achieved any creditable support for your revisions. Since I have followed all of Wikipedia's policies and have no vested interest in the subject, your relentless removal of properly sourced, properly weighted material is somewhat bewildering to me. I would feel better about your edits if you would present a coherent argument in favor of the revisions. In other words, you say that you are adhering to Wikipedia guidelines but you never present any convincing evidence of your assertion. Respectfully yours Cowbow 128Cowboy128 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

California production status
I realize this is a minor issue compared to the WP:BLP-violating and WP:UNDUE stuff that's been going on here for a while, but I need to point out that Seeking Alpha, while providing great info for investors, is not a reliable source. It's essentially a blog with guest writers, nothing peer-reviewed. This piece happens to be wrong about one fact: Oxy is the third-largest oil producer, not the second-largest, in California. Here is the official 2009 report from the California Division of Oil and Gas; data is on page 66. (This is the most recent year for which statistics have been released; Chevron and Aera still blow them away, even adding in THUMS and Vintage, which are subsidiaries of Oxy.) If you're industrious you can get the 2011 numbers by querying this database (hit "back" to get other operators); the same relationship holds true, with Oxy coming in third (they're still first in gas production by a huge margin because of the colossal Elk Hills reserve). Antandrus (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Antandrus-- You need to make the case. "Hit piece" is very strong language.
I have properly sourced all of my contributions to this article. My knowledge of this subject is extensive and bullet proof. I think that an intellectually honest argument would acknowledge that I have included no false statements. Rather, I have provided a comprehensive and factual record of a major and undeniably controversial company. Rather than automatically delete my hard work and honest effort to make a contribution to an important subject why don't you show exactly what it is that you object to and why you think it should be completely deleted?

I am planning on inviting many "neutral" contributors and administrators to evaluate your relentless purging of any material that is less than positive regarding Ray Irani and Occidental Petroleum. Above and beyond that, I may well seek an arbitration. However, I would be willing to work directly with you if you will provide a written report that persuasively and thoroughly supports your edits.

Your allegation of a "hit piece" violates Wikipedia policy as it is a personal attack and suggests that my work is dishonest. You need to provide a factual basis for your deletions or else I can only assume that you are vandalizing this article. I would hate to think that about any of our contributors to this article but you could reassure me by providing a real rationale for your massive edits.

Cowboy128 (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer some specifics: my edits are hardly massive.  I reverted your absurdly undue weight and WP:BLP-violating screed about Irani, which doesn't belong -- how many people now have removed it?  You do realize that you ALONE are edit-warring against a lot of editors who disagree with you, yes?  My other edits you can look for yourself; I corrected a couple figures and changed a cite.  We work by consensus here, and consensus so far is completely against you. Antandrus  (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Another link I recommend you read is this one about soapboxing. If you are truly editing from a neutral point of view -- pretty important here -- it should be impossible to tell from your edits what your opinion of Mr. Irani is.  How do you think your edits come across? Antandrus  (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there have been three who disagree and have blown away the whole substance without any real rationale. One admits being employed indirectly by Occidental, you have suddenly appeared (and from where, I wonder?), and another blew away my contributions without any discussion tonight. There is no consensus here. "Screed" is absurd and reveals your obsession with eliminating any negative facts about Irani and Occidental. Honestly, can you tell me how neutral you are? I think anyone reading this would laugh out loud at your "neutrality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowboy128 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please respect talk page guidelines, and post in the correct order, OK?
 * "Hit piece" is accurate. People coming to an encyclopedia, seeing an article on Oxy, which has been around for a hundred years in one form or another, and seeing a section on "history", might expect to find -- amazingly -- something about the history of the company.  In your version, they find a lot of detailed and highly negative info about Ray Irani. This is an article about the company.  Have you read the undue weight link yet?  If not, please do.  The section you are insisting we include, over the objections of many others, is a textbook example of giving something undue weight.  Trim that back to one paragraph, removing POV language.  It's clear that you are outraged; but this must not come across to the reader.  Mind WP:NPOV.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from the section below, an uninvolved admin has declined to restore the article to before Cowboy's changes. I believe the admin is wrong in the sense that a consensus has been reached as to the inappropriateness of the material, but that's their view, and we have to accept it. As far as I can tell, Cowboy (a single purpose account with a single agenda) is alone, and there are many editors who disagree with him. Some have contributed here on this page, and others have voiced their opinion by reversion/edit summaries. Cowboy's sometimes veiled, sometimes direct accusations of editors are garbage and should not be taken seriously. I'm not sure what more there is to do here to confirm that a consensus has already been reached. I welcome any constructive suggestions as to an efficient resolution of this.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:WRONG, it isn't an endorsement of the version of the text. tedder (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a topic at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)