Talk:Tony Hayward/Archives/2013

Non sequitur
"Obama and Vice President Joe Biden faced similar criticism for playing golf on the same day as Hayward attended the yacht race.[40]" This doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything. Why don't we also say, "The same day, the Vatican continued to face criticism over the sex abuse scandal." I'm sure it would be easy to find a reference, but what does it have to do with Tony Hayward? This sentence should be removed.
 * Thanks for your thoughts. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Spliced and diced"[sic]
I think someone should put [sic] after the spliced and diced quote. I've tried to verify it and it looks like this really is what he said! It's quite a cute malapropism to be honest - I wonder who we'll be splicing him with? Fred Goodwin? Anyway, although for now the malapropism is probably well know, give it a year and without a [sic] it will look like a typo on wikipedia, and get changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.129.235 (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I put that text in, and I agree it looks odd, but as you say it's what our RS, The Daily Telegraph, reported in "BP oil spill: Tony Hayward 'will be spliced and diced' by US politicians". I've put a [sic] after it, and, if you'll excuse me, corrected your amusing typo. Ericoides (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote should be added of Hayward Calling the BP Gulf Oil Disaster "tiny"
It must take a mighty big ego to call the Gulf oil disaster "tiny". Lets get all that ego right into this article. Sean7phil (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is egocentric about saying the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf is small compared to the total size of the Gulf? Sounds more like a fact to me.  Also you should probably read wp:BLP and wp:NPOV, it is not Wikipedia's objective to show someone's personal flaws.  Regardless, the section right now is kind of weird (and weak), I'm sure more could be said on the spill and Hayward's part in it.  TastyCakes (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

TastyCakes: To follow a similar line of reasoning, a quarter of a gram of cyanide would be tiny compared to a person's body weight. Surely you wouldn't want to take that tiny bit of cyanide, although it's a "fact"? What use does this fact serve then other than you trying to cover up his gaffe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.169.255.53 (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to cover it up, and it is in the article already. What I'm saying is that it's obviously not egocentric to say such a thing.  Further, at the time the comment was made there were estimates as low as 1,000 barrels per day, and BP believed it could deal with the oil before it hit the shore.  I think that helps to explain the statement to a degree, but I agree he should never have said it: he apparently made sweeping comments without knowing all the facts.  TastyCakes (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As did the Coast Guard, and the Secretary of Energy, and Barack Obama (and his mouthpiece in the press department), and the plagerizer serving as the VPOTUS. TastyCakes has a good bead on this:  At the time, no one knew the extent.  QueenofBattle (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

He makes a valid point; more oil is dumped into the Niger delta every year than was spilt in the Gulf oil disaster. But hey, you Americans don't care about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.132.90 (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At least we dont go around insisting that every person in a different country is identical and evil, then insulting them as if that were a reasonable way to go about it. Its really rude; you British dont care about that. Back to the main point; its not really an issue of ego, its an issue of this guy being a jerk and trying to hide his disasters as much as possible. Thats not ego, though its pretty awful behavior. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Education
People keep setting his university to Birmingham. This is incorrect, he went to Aston, and I know this because he graduated out of geology there a year above my parents. They certainly did have a geology degree then, I don't know if they still do. The interview given as a citation was apparently mistaken, or by "study in Birmingham because of their cricket team" he is referring to the city not the school. TastyCakes (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Aston and Birmingham geology departments merged at Birmingham in 1988 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.178.221 (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but he graduated in the 70s. TastyCakes (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to insinuate the contrary, just thought I would clarify the situation. unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.27.103 (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, thanks. TastyCakes (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why include salary?
So why is his salary and bonus in 2008 encyclopedic? In order for it not to be just a bit of triva, it would need to be placed in some type of context - and we would need a third party source making an analysis of the salary/bonus to give it context. Active Banana (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems quite appropriate and encyclopedic to include it. I see no need for the proposed "third party source making an analysis of the salary/bonus" as a prerequisite for stating the fact that he is paid some particular salary. The income of present day oil man T. Boone Pickens is included in his article. Information about his net worth would also be encyclopedic, just as it is included in the article on Pickens, an earlier oil man, John D. Rockefeller, and more recent oil men, such as Ed Bass, H. L. Hunt, J. Paul Getty and Hugh Roy Cullen. Monetary facts such as prices paid for race horses and money donated to charities are often included in oilmens' articles. The article on John Browne, Baron Browne of Madingley, his predecessor as head of BP, includes what his compensation was. Edison (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He has been widely condemned for saying "he wants his life back", many of those affected in the gulf region do not make this amount of money in a lifetime. It is very relevant due to his own statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonanaggie (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's very relevent. It's not trivia but it's there to show that this person earns a stupid amount of money but let's hope he loses it all soon enough.  This person is the lowest of the low and now that he's gone on holiday it should be time for someone to cease all his assets.


 * It's relevant by default for persons with a high position in a company or an organisation. The point is of course comparing the position with the responsibility, which in turn is matched with performance, so that salary and bonuses can indirectly be compared with performance. Everybody do this comparison, and it is by no means trivia. It is social control, and we demand it! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 11:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind, of course, that Wikipedia is not an executive compensation research organization or a performance measurement matrix, but a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. QueenofBattle (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think you're overthinking it Rursus. It's left on the page (in my opinion) because it's notable (ie interesting) and reliably sourced, that's all.  TastyCakes (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, so now I'm disclosed! Anyways wasn't my claim funny? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's Who 2009
Anthony Bryan Hayward, PhD

Born Slough, 21 May 1957; s of Bryan and Mary Hayward; m 1985, Maureen Fulton; one s one d Group Chief Executive, BP plc, since 2007

Educated Univ. of Birmingham (BSc); Univ. of Edinburgh (PhD Geol 1982)

Joined BP, 1982; BP Exploration, 1982–99: various tech. and commercial posts, London, Aberdeen, France, China and Glasgow; Exploration Manager, Colombia; Pres., Venezuela, 1995–97; Dir, 1997–99; Gp Vice Pres. and Mem. Upstream Exec. Cttee, 1999–2000; Gp Treas., 2000–02; Exec. Vice Pres. and Chief Exec., Exploration and Prodn, 2003–07; Exec. Dir, 2003–07. Mem., Business Council for Britain, 2007–. Chm., GLOBE CEO Forum for Climate Change —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittybrewster (talk • contribs)
 * If the preceding is copied from a "Who's Who" it is likely a copyright violation, and not fair use. Edison (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bilderberg
Can we have a reference please, or just drop this? 66.255.40.98 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite. I've removed it. Ericoides (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Born in ...
Currently the article says he was born in Eton in the infobox. As has been widely reported, and as noted above from "Who's Who" he was born in Slough. Please correct this. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill: NPOV?
There seems to be a number of personal attacks, and incendiary comments in this section. Especially troublesome are those attributed to members of an American presidential administration presiding over historically high unemployment rates that they themselves can't seem to get a handle on, all the while talking about an oil spill that they have neither the education or experience to do anything about.Lowellt (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be specific. What do you think shouldn't be there?  Conversely, what do you think is missing?  TastyCakes (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Made scapegoat after heroic response to spill
Tony Hayward made a classic and heroic response to this Gulf oil spill by immediately recognizing BP responsibility and making clear BP would foot the bill; AND masking the most massive response in history with bringing in 10s of 1000s of beach cleanup workers, 100s of oil boom ships; and paying substantially (but intended to be completely over time) businesses losing money. NO ONE in history has been more rapid and responsible in responding to such a situation. BUT, the present US administration decided to blame and scapegoat Hayward, claiming he lied from the getgo and badmouthed him nonstop, picked up by the media and carried on relentlessly. (and all 100 % inaccurate and LYING by the US admin and media) All the while this US admin has nationalized auto, health care, and financial industries and is presently targeting to wipeout, the only 15 % of US businesses left - oil, tech and small business. This massive and clearly inaccurate and unfair, scapegoating should be pointed out in this article. — 69.121.221.97 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of his comment, "I'd like to get my life back", do you see as heroic? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * His full comment, per the article, was "We're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused to their lives. There's no one who wants this thing over more than I do, I'd like my life back." (A better punctuated version was in The Times: "We’re sorry for the massive disruption it’s caused their lives. There’s no one who wants this over more than I do. I would like my life back.") The only possible interpretation of this was of a man, exhausted by deep involvement for over a month in the containment, clear up and resolution of an industrial accident under the permanent gaze of an understandably unsympathetic public, stressing he was as concerned as anyone in sorting it out. It's not like he did nothing until told to do so by someone else (eg Obama, the US Coast Guard, media commentators). However, unlike most commentators or people directly (or indirectly) affected by the oil spill, he was in a position to do something about it - and he did. It's obvious that Hayward and BP have been singled out as scapegoats, whilst the involvement of others (Halliburton, Cameron, Transocean; even Obama who lifted a ban on offshore drilling a mere 3 weeks before the Deepwater Horizon explosion ) has been whitewashed. Sure, BP is responsible. However, it has not shirked its responsibilities, unlike Union Carbide at Bhopal 20 years ago. So, yes, heroic.80.169.189.68 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to look for some valid sources to improve the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

and some key facts ab massive BP cleanup response:
 * 45,000 people were employed at the peak by BP to aid cleanup including


 * 25,000 for beach cleanup, and today (8/4/10) there is NO oil on any beach in Fla, Ala, Miss, La
 * 8,000,000 feet (approx 160 miles) of boom to contain oil
 * 6,000 skimming boats and 27,000,000 + million gallons of water processed to remove oil
 * 1) 50 spotter aircraft / day to spot oil slicks
 * 2) 2 billion plus paid out so far in claims ...
 * 3) and today, there are no oil slicks left and no oil on beaches and so the hysteria ignored entirely that above massive cleanup ... esp as any remaining oil anywhere, (as recall oil is made from biomass) and degrades rapidly back to be a non harmful matter .../s/ bapoo gandi sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all very nice, but you still haven't provided any sources in support of your lengthy editorial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

buggs, here is one source of bp response, a bp page with details, see also summaries in bp ads across TV;
 * Gulf Spill Response

buggs, also see next paragraph ab perm kills; fear the bear, mother earth protector !

Static and relief kills
Coast Guard Adm Thad Allen, nat'l commander for the gulf oil spill, relates how the static kill from the top, begun Tuesday 8 3 10, may kill, and permanently prevent the Macondo well from spewing any more oil; but that also, he will insist that addtionally, that the relief well "kills" from below will also be done.

Ref: static and relief Macondo kills —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Static kill works and holds Leak Plugged Perm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Esquire 75 most influential people of the 21st century
"51, Group chief executive, BP, London

Because he's reinventing what it means to be a big oil company in the 21st century.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/most-influential-21st-century-1008#ixzz0rj2gIWxw" 80.225.135.159 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Doctrine of responsibility
Hi, I included this section, quoting from the 55 minute lecture given by Tony H at Stanford Business school. It took place there and was uploaded to the business school youtube channel. The section was deleted by an undo by an editor on the grounds that youtube is not a reliable source. This is the entirety of his lecture to postgraduate students at Stanford outlining his doctrine of responsibility, and the quote in context is very NPOV. His position is that the purpose of our corporate lives is to take care of the world as a means to create value for shareholders. Here is the totality of the deleted section.

Someone advise: how can YouTube not be a reliable source if it is a matter of the entirety of the lecture as uploaded by the Business School? What on earth could be more reliable? Here is the deleted section.

On May 12, 2009 in a postgraduate lecture to Stanford Business School, Tony Hayward outlined a philophy which underlay the reorganization of the company for which he was Chief Executive Officer, stating, "...our primary purpose in life is to create value for our shareholders. In order to do that you have to take care of the world." A further remark, sometimes quoted out of context, stated "But our primary purpose in life was not to save the world." Createangelos (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * YouTube is not, by itself, a reliable source because there is no editorial control (i.e., anyone can post anything on the site) so verifiability becomes impossible. Please see Wiki's guidelines on reliable sourcing.  Is there another source that can be used for this?  Also, is there a way to work it in to the BLP more seamlessly (assuming you can find a reliable source for the statements)?  For BLPs we must tread lightly.    QueenofBattle (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I added NPR as a source and you deleted again??? Createangelos (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page. Is there a magazize that published excerpts of his speech?  Was there a publication, with a reputation for fact checking, that reprinted the text of his speech?  Are there reliable secondary sources that can be used?  QueenofBattle (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

National Public Radio transcripts are not reliable?
 * Not when they are on YouTube. YouTube has long been held to be junk "jounalism" around here.  Although popular, it has little place in Wikipedia articles.  The theory goes that with the advent of home computing, conceptually, anyone can doctor any video to convey a message that may not be what the subject intended.  So, reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and verification are used.   QueenofBattle (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What is a BLP by the way
 * Short for Biography of Living Persons.

Createangelos (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you are misunderstanding something. The transcript and reference are from the npr.org website!

The youtube is only for the sentence about context.

Try reverting it and have a look.

Also the title of the NPR piece is a bit pov but nothing can be done about it. It is quite important to get this right, a lot hangs on this.Createangelos (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at it, but just because it is from NPR's website, it still is a YouTube feed. So, IMO, it's not going to work.  How about something from BP's website (although a primary source) or media coverage of the speech?  Or quoted in another magazine?  Anything along those lines??  QueenofBattle (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a youtube feed! It has nothign to do with youtube! Please get this right. Here it is

On May 12, 2009 in a postgraduate lecture to Stanford Business School, Tony Hayward outlined a philophy which underlay the reorganization of the company for which he was Chief Executive Officer, stating, "...our primary purpose in life is to create value for our shareholders. In order to do that you have to take care of the world." A subsequent remark (sometimes quoted out of context of the full 55 minute lecture ) also stated "But our primary purpose in life was not to save the world." Createangelos (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's annoying I'm trying to quote the source I wrote without the markup. By the way, the NPR site does not say where it comes from but it does not say it comes from youtube. I know there is a short youtube soundbite, but the 2 refs are to the transcript of the NPR program and to the full version of the youtube lecture on the Stanford Bus School channel. Createangelos (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are trying a bit to hard with synthesis here. The NPR bit attributes the remarks to someone named Browne, not Hayward (i.e., "We had too many people who were working to save the world," Browne said at the time. "We sort of lost track of the fact that our primary purpose in life was to create value for our shareholders.").  And, the YouTube bit (as per the reference) is simply not going to work.  QueenofBattle (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. That is such a strange typo, what a shame. The video clearly shows Hayward saying that in the context of a 55 minute lecture. Now it really does need to get clarified.Createangelos (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That is clearly a misspeak on the NPR page (the radio announcer misspoke) as it is saying what Haywood said in the paragraph before and afterwards, and for some reason teh name 'browne' is put in one place. What a shame. Createangelos (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to contact NPR and ask them to fix it or find yet a better source like as you say a BP document. Perhaps NPR changed that to protect themselves? So very strange.Createangelos (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I really need a bit of help here. The NPR radio program includes a sound clip of Hayward's speech. The actual NPR radio program says

In a 2009 speech, HAYWARD said BP had too many shallow generalists and not enough people with detailed knowledge of their field. It was a company that was too top-down, too directive and not good at listening.

[begin sound clip of what is obviously Tony Hayward's voice]

"We had too many people who were working to save the world, We sort of lost track of the fact that our primary purpose in life was to create value for our shareholders."

The transcript replaces HAYWARD by HE, and replaces the sound clip by the two sentences separated by the words 'Browne said'

Whew! Createangelos (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The challenge is, in part, the "obviously Tony Hayward's voice" part. How do we verify that it is his voice?  Remember Wikipedia is about what can be verified or proven.  Not trying to be difficult, but accuracy and verifiability is what is important here.  Just as a reporter finds several sources for a story, or a single very reliable source, so too do we need to hold our articles to the same standard.  If NPR has used the name Browne in place of where we think they intended to use the name Hayward, we have no choice at the moment but to trust what they have said and not attribute the comments to Hayward.  QueenofBattle (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Stanford University Business school has an abstract of the talk on their website http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/speakers_vftt.html, and the website links to the video of the talk as it links to the videos of all the talks there.

The link is to the Stanford University Business School YouTube channel.

So perhaps a reference to the Stanford University Business School series would be more appropriate?

I do see that it is a bit strange for a biography, but I am definitely not proposing to put a 'smear' here. This is representing his idea at its best. I actually respect that too, rather than the pretense "I have your interest at heart." He is very clear and honest. Createangelos (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am proposing a ref to http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/speakers_vftt.html If it really matters we could ask Stanford to independently post a second copy?Createangelos (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's give it a day to see if other editors will weigh in here. There seems to be some controversy with this (I, for one, don't think it has a place here, but rather in the BP article), so it's best to go slowly.  If it's a good add and I'm the only one that has an issue with it, it'll be just as good if it marinates overnight.  QueenofBattle (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll give it a bit of time before I do this so we can think, but I want to add one personal comment. I have lived in both England and America, and it has taken me time to understand how unethical the false American sweetness is "Trust me, I'm a good person." A very ethical English person is aware of the limitations of his ethics. T.H. in his lecture actually says 'to do that you have to take care of the world,' he uses those words, saying it must be done, yet there also is the concept along the lines 'It ain't up to me guv, I'm just doin me job.' It is a very honest and modest approach which the Americans could learn from. He is not saying it is automatic. He is saying, personal sympathy for the planet will not save the world. But he knows pretending to care about things he is not in a position to care about (such as wind power etc) would be unethical. We all have limits of our ethics. When we are in a supermarket a poor family is near us. Do we give them some food from our basket? Now, we look the other way. But we could also give them a bit of advice. I know this is hard to understand but I believe that what he explained was clear and honest and important and should be included in proper context of understanding his full 55 minute lecture. Createangelos (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(7 AM, West Midlands UK) OK, I have not really slept last night, except to have some nightmares about getting this wrong. I think it is really OK now. The National Public Radio quote from the lecture really is out of context, but I know that is a strong statement, but correctly it is 'outside the context of the full lecture,' because it takes quotations which refer to the individual corporate remit. But the clear statement to the students is 'You have to take care of the world,' and the reason is that otherwise no value would be created for the shareholders. In the wider context it is all of their shareholders combined, who have a shared interest in taking care of the world. I think just the Stanford Business School ref which links to the full audio and video along with the NPR ref is best, even though the NPR ref has a typo.Createangelos (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice edit QB, I see it is now in a later section. I'll defer to your experience on this question.Createangelos (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the fact that it is linked to by NPR and Stanford makes the Youtube video a reliable source. Youtube is not a "source" in the traditional sense, it is a medium, just as tv is.  Just because you see something on tv doesn't make it a reliable source.  But if it's something broadcast by CNN, a documentary or PBS or any other numbers of sources, it likely would be.  Similarly, a video uploaded onto Youtube by Stanford Business school and reported on by NPR is an entirely adequate source.  That is assuming, of course, the material is worth putting in the article.  TastyCakes (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Financial Times, anybody subscribe?
On the home page for the Financial Times is a teaser saying as of July 3 2010 Hayward is probably going to step down. Anybody watching this for future updates? 4.249.63.175 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica
Il Corriere della Sera reported in Italian his statements about perforations in South Pole

If You think ins worth to be added...

Gianni(Italy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.252.140 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Still CEO
Uh, as of today 7/25/10, Tony Hayward is still the CEO of BP. He may be on his way out, but he is officially the CEO as of today. Jumping the gun might be fun, but it's inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.59.84 (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)