Not much to say here given the underwhelming response. Evidence brought to the table in this discussion makes it clear that BP's record is serious enough to warrant inclusion, and that's about all that can be said. But saying that is an exercise in redundancy, since no one here disagrees with that basic statement, I believe. Discussion is ongoing anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an ongoing discussion how the 'Environmental record', 'Accidents', and 'Political record' of this article, taking account the existing main articles of subsections of these sections, should be cleaned-up and/or developed to ensure their compliance with different Wikipedia policies, inter aliaWP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP. The discussion is concentrated on, but not limited with the Deepwater Horizon accident. Relevant previous discussions are in the sections above. Beagel (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apology if the question was not understandable for some editors. The question is: How the 'Environmental record', 'Accidents', and 'Political record' sections of this article, taking account the existing main articles of subsections of these sections, should be cleaned-up and/or developed to ensure their compliance with different Wikipedia policies, inter aliaWP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP? Beagel (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As is common with RfCs I have started two sections below. The second is for new RfC respondents and the first is for editors here to state there own opinions on the subject. This should help make the subject of the dispute clearer. I suggest that comments in the first section should be restricted to giving an explanation to newcomers of why you think your opinion is correct rather than repeating the arguments that we have had here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have classified myself as an involved editor but I actually came to this page in response to this RfC. I have no connection whatever with BP or the oil industry or with any environmental group.
I believe that the article is being used as a WP:Soapbox to push anti BP views by good faith editors who have based the disputed sections of the article on post Deepwater Horizon spill news sources rather than reliable independent sources that compare the overall safety and environmental records of BP with those of other large oil companies.
The lead, in particular, contains too much detail on one incident which is not properly put into context.
Apparently you have still not read the ABC News source: "BP's Dismal Safety Record", May 27, 2010. It discusses how BP had many years of very poor safety recorded prior to the Deepwater Horizon disaster; very poor in relation to other petroleum companies. It says, "OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 'egregious, willful' safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation." That means egregious and willful safety violations by BP were 40 times larger than the same type of OSHA violations from four others combined. Then there's the Washington Post source, "Reports at BP over years find history of problems", June 8, 2010. This team of investigative reporters found years worth of problems at BP in Alaska, California, Texas, and the Gulf of Mexico. It says the company established a culture of ignoring safety in preference for profit, "a fundamental culture of mistrust" between BP workers and aggressive managers who were falsifying safety inspections and otherwise endangering operations to save costs. In Carson, California, a BP plant kept regulators out from 1999 to 2002, telling them that they were 99% in compliance with safety standards, but when inspectors obtained a search warrant to gain access, they found the site was only 20% in compliance. BP subsequently promoted the site manager to a VP position in the UK! That's apparently the reward at BP for obstructionism in the pursuit of profit. Look at the articles I have linked above, Martin. They are from top-flight news agencies such as Reuters and Bloomberg, and big-city newspapers. Read them. It will help your understanding of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see now. BP has 40 times more safety violations in refineries in Texas and Ohio than other oil companies so they are 40 times worse at safety so that is why the Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred so the more bad stuff about BP we put in the article the better.
The might be true for all I know but, if it is, there must be a source somewhere saying just that. If you can find that source we can say that in the article. Otherwise we need to stick to the facts rather than using your statistical analysis of oil safety. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, you say that the lead contains too much info not put into context. How can you say that that a settlement that is unprecedented, regarding both the amount of money and the fact that BP has been criminally charged in the deaths of the workers and that individuals working for BP have been charged with manslaughter as well, is not appropriate for the lead? Gandydancer (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to respond in this section any more. The purpose of an RfC is to get input from new editors not to go over old arguments. I am happy to discuss anything elsewhere on this page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also recently came here after a comment from another editor. I don't have any particular interest in BP except that a decade ago I was a senior manager for one of their (unfriendly) competitors. The article is unbalanced and has lots of signs of soapboxing: particularly the inclusion of minor environmental incidents and omission of more serious ones, symptomatic of a shotgun approach of sticking in anything negative that people stumble across. Most of all though I find the level of aggression and incivility from a small number of editors rather remarkable for Wikipedia, particularly in accusing people who disagree with their perspective as having some sort of "whitewashing" agenda. This is combined with a high volume of "not quite accurately represented" material synthesised aggressively in a way which challenges any remotely indifferent editor to find the time to go through it all and check it. Who on earth wants to whitewash BP? I do not have a strong view on particular content items but in my view there are several editors who should be given a lifetime ban from this article as a way forward. --BozMotalk21:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My first experience at this page was in May 2012, when I stumbled across the Intro, which I have detailed here. This was the only mention of anything controversial in the 4 paragraph Intro:
"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period."
Now, if you don't have a problem with this version of the Intro and its coverage of BP & this article, then we likely agree on very little. My attempts to correct this and bring some balance (see link) resulted in my being told to "go get a blog", followed by three months of circular arguments and even meme's created through a misrepresentation of the facts (see edit history) to create a false narrative, which is still being spread.
As for this RfC, people seem to be misreading it - it is not about the article as a whole or about editors, but about three particular sections. As a work in progress, it makes complete sense that editors would have to do some research and some rewriting to this page, as with all of Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc01:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the "Clean Water Act trial" section of BP be a section or subsection, and should it contain the following paragraph (subject to alteration of the amount of potential fines to $17 billion, as suggested by the BP corporate editor) :
The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible.[1] A finding of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, which could amount to $20 billion, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims that weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs in 2012. [2][3][4]
The above text has been repeatedly removed. The subsection in question is at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/BP#Clean_Water_Act_trial The edits that gave rise to this RfC are [1] and [2], removing the above text and demoting this from section to subsection.
I believe that the text should be reinstated. I believe its relevancy, neutrality and significance is self-evident and indisputable. The trial in question, which commenced in February and will run through 2014, is clearly deserving of a separate section, given the potential enormous exposure that BP has and the fact that this trial will be ongoing, generating headlines, through next year. The text in question states that the Justice Department is seeking maximum penalties that could run into the billions.
The trial, which has received extensive coverage in the media, deals with BP's actions in the Gulf Oil Spill for which BP has already pleaded guilty, and faces fine of up to $20 billion. The presence of other articles is immaterial. This is a very serious trial, and it behooves us to mention it to readers, and state what is at stake. Failure to do so would be a serious NPOV violation, as is the fact that the legal jeopardy that BP faces is not mentioned in the article thanks to the recent edits, and I have so tagged the article.
On the "$20 billion" figure, the BP Corporate editor monitoring the article on the talk page here has indicated that other sourcing states that the actual figure of BP's exposure from this trial is really $17 billion, not $ 20 billion. If that can be verified, the figure can be adjusted, but first we need to deal with whether we are going to deal with this in the article at all. Right now we are in the extraordinary position of an article on BP not stating that the U.S. Justice Department is seeking maximal penalties in the billions concerning an issue in which BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved in the article in the past but I have not yet taken part in discussion or editing of the trial section. I think the paragraph is generally good, after expanding the contraction, and after telling the reader that one estimate is $20B while BP's estimate is $17B. This is an astoundingly large amount of money, unique in global corporate history let alone BP's 100-year history. It must be in the main article because of its great significance. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by uninvolved editor The amounts involved are material, considering BP has a market cap of 130 billion dollars, and should therefore be mentioned. TFD (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that there is any argument against mentioning the figures involved. The RfC is about whether the court case deserves it own top-level section and the wording of the text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On re-reading the text that I removed I see that the figures are pure speculation. There would be no objection to adding some figures when we actually have some. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification regarding figures Coretheapple mentioned above that I had offered a clarification previously about the maximum penalty under the Clean Water Act and I'd like to explain this again for those who may not have seen. Following a judge's ruling in February, oil recovered by BP will not be included in calculations of any penalty that the company faces, which reduced the potential maximum penalty from $21 billion to approximately $17.6 billion. This estimate is explained in the Reuters source I linked before, and also the Environment News Service article provided by Petrarchan below. Recent articles about the trial including coverage by The Huffington Post, The New York Times, Bloomberg and Reuters as well as many more refer to a maximum penalty of around $17.5 or $17.6 billion, clearly showing this is the widely accepted estimate of the potential maximum penalty amount currently. These links should provide the verification of the lower estimate. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to a short sentence saying something like, 'BP is expected to have to pay from $XXX to $YYY in further penalties, dependent on the outcome of court cases'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by uninvolved editor This is the biggest accidental oil spill in the history of the oil industry, and an important event for the company to the extent that it even threatens its survival (not to mention the long-term prospects for the area's fishing industry and the health of the ocean). As it is now, it certainly does not violate WP:WEIGHT, as long as the editors remember WP:NOTNEWS, which can be a fine line to walk in an article of this nature. I'm actually surprised the coverage is not three times its present size. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by involved editor. This article is about BP as more than 100-years old company. It already has a separate subsection about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Taking account that this article should cover all aspects about BP and its history, as also the fact that there are more specific articles about the the oil spill (namely: Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its series, for the court proceedings there is a separate article Deepwater Horizon litigation), having two sections about this event in this article gives undue weight to this event compared with the other aspects related to the company. As the trial is going on at the moment, the above-mentioned paragraph is speculative. It is justified to be added in the Deepwater Horizon litigation article but not here. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by involved editor As per Beagel above. I removed the content shown because, even based on the sources cited it is clearly biased against BP. Compare, for example the article text, "The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible", with the title of the supporting reference, "BP vows to 'vigorously defend' itself at US oil spill trial".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)
Stating the Obvious. I'm pretty sure you meant to write "Clean Water Act", is that correct? Why would the Clean Water Act trial (aka, "phase two" of the BP Gulf spill trial) be handled separately from the other litigation revolving around this spill? Right now, the explosion, spill and related court cases are covered together in one small section. I would suggest splitting the Gulf spill litigation into its own section, and the upcoming Clean Water Act trial could be handled within that. BP did recover some of the spilled oil, and the court agreed that amount would be deducted from their CWA fines. This is why the figure dropped. Sourcepetrarchan47tc19:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by involved editorDoes not deserve its own section or subsection. I edited this down to something similar to the current statement, and removed the section divider, shortly after Core originally posted this. Reason it does not deserve its own section or subsection: This article is about BP as a whole; there is already a section on Industrial Accidents and within that, a subsection on DWH. DWH as a topic has 2 main articles (explosion and spill) and each of those has spawned several sub-sub articles. One of them is on litigation. These main DWH articles and the subarticles, including litigation, are linked as "see main" in the BP DWH section. Detail on this trial should go in litigation article. A summary of that should go into the 2 main DWH articles. And very compressed and highlevel content should be in the BP article, as brief sentences in the DWH section. Not blow-by-blow, which would quickly blow up to overwhelm the BP article. About the specific content. The content itself is overly florid and detailed for its desired location in the BP article - already getting into the blow-by-blow. I would edit as follows (just the facts, ma'am): (strikeouts are deleted text, italics are added text) "The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible.[2] Aa finding of gross negligence, which would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, which could amount to $20 billion, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims that weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs in 2012. [3][4] [5]" Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As ugly as it may be, we need to reflect on what this trial means in light of BP's history and the history of this type of fine in general. BP has a 100 year history. If we find one singular event that effects the company as much as the Gulf spill has, that should be reflected in the coverage given by this article. As it is, Wikipedia is saying that the Gulf spill and related court cases are barely a side-note, indeed as influential as their "environmental initiatives" if judged by article space allotted. In fact, BP's stock since the spill has fallen by 1/3rd. Did any other event in this company's history have such an effect? The fines in this case are outstanding in terms of being the 'first ever of this size'. That fact alone warrants a reconsideration of the weight given by Wikipedia (ie, we, the editors). To argue that we are making too big a deal out of this, or because it's covered in other spin-off articles (the litigation article received 36 hits today) there is little need to mention it here, makes no sense to me unless NPOV isn't the true goal. petrarchan47tc20:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question - Most important events in BP's history! Destruction of its colonialist business model in the ME and Africa. Divestment by British gov't. The Torrey Canyon spill (at that time, the biggest spill ever - gets a single sentence.). Pioneering role in Prudhoe Bay field (not mentioned) and in North Sea. Remaking under Browne via M&A. Involvement in Caspian projects which are of enormous geopolitical significance vis a vis Russia and Europe. Maybe pioneering role in deepwater Gulf of Mexico and off coast of Brazil. String of Big 3 disasters in the US over past 10 years are important for BP itself due to the loss of trust in the country where the "new BP" has made its biggest investments and concomitant increasing size of penalties. Even if DWH were the only one, it would have been significant. This is very US/Euro focused - I am still learning about BP in Africa, far east, and S America. How would you answer the question? Jytdog (talk)
Sorry, what question exactly? Since this conversation is similar enough to a past one with Rangoon11, instead of repeating myself, here is my comment about US centered, recent content. petrarchan47tc20:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take questions as rhetorical, and you asked only one: "Did any other event in this company's history have such an effect?" ie. What are the most important events in BP's history? (if we are trying to judge weight...)Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to focus on bite-size pieces? It seems we do have enough information about the impact of the Gulf spill to see that its coverage in the article is massively imbalanced, for the reasons I described in my response to your 'failed experiment". After the media coverage of the problems at this page, there was a suggestion that each section written by BP should be analyzed for spin or missing content. Why don't we, as a group, decide a plan of action and focus on one thing at a time. As for a list of "worse things ever" for BP, this might prove helpful. petrarchan47tc22:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a wholesale reappraisal of the POV of this article is urgently needed. Hopefully this RfC will be the catalyst for such a reappraisal, and also will get more eyes on this article. I also think that your idea of breaking out a section on the litigation has merit. However it is structured, the information contained in the paragraph that is the subject of this RfC is either going to be in the article or not. That's the issue before us. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Re-comment by involved editor - last night I actually added to this section, although I do not believe that the subsection should exist and there is already too much information on the litigation here. I did that because the material added recently by editors who want this information here, was of embarrassingly poor quality. Information was spread across two sections (the DWH section and this subsection) and the content expressed no understanding of the flow of the litigation nor how the DOJ's Aug 31 filing fit into it - it was just a tactical step, not a dramatic change in strategy - and not the Dramatically Important Action that the content made it out to be. This is what litigation is like. The parties have goals (for BP, come through this with as few penalties as possible; for the plaintiffs, come out of this with the maximum penalties they can win) and there are endless tactics deployed and postures taken to achieve those goals. The article detailing the litigation (Deepwater Horizon litigation) is even worse - people "cared" enough to post a lot of fragments based on news reports, but not enough to fit them into a coherent narrative. My hope is that the text currently here gets moved as a whole into the litigation article and a brief, summary statement as per my post above is stated here, in the DWH section - not in a subsection. Again, blow by blow descriptions of tactical filings (and reactions to them) and daily trial reports should NOT be here. I don't understand how editors can be so passionate about driving this content into this article and including it in WIkipedia, but have not put in the time to understand even these issues enough to write about them accurately. I don't get it. Jytdog (talk)
I was also wondering how it came to be that there was no mention of BP's guilty plea to criminal charges connected to its 1999 North Shore oil spill. That kind of inexplicable omission troubles me, and there may be a good deal more, which is why I am not enthused with the kind of wholesale slashing that you advocate. This article has gone through the whitewash mill already, it doesn't need to go through it again. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the following paragraph could be cut back some?:
On August 13, 2012 BP filed papers with the court urging it to approve an estimated $7.8 billion settlement reached with 125,000 individuals and businesses in the consolidated suit, asserting that its actions "did not constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct."[370] In response to the BP filing and in order to ensure that BP could not use its filing and any possible acceptance of the settlement to escape a judgement of gross negligence,[370] on August 31 2012 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed papers describing the spill as an example of "gross negligence and willful misconduct".[371][21] BP rejected the charges saying "BP believes it was not grossly negligent and looks forward to presenting evidence on this issue at trial in January."[370] A ruling of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in Clean Water Act penalties, which would cause the penalties to reach approximately $17.6 billion, and would increase damages in the other suits as well.[372][373][374]Gandydancer (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed somewhat. All this should go into the Litigation article with only a brief summary left behind. This is directly related to the topic above, not sure why you made a new section. The last sentence is all that is needed out of what you pulled out here. Core insisted on the 2nd and 3rd sentences. The 2nd sentence makes no sense without the first, which I added along with the prefacing phrase to the 2nd sentence. . Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can be reduced in size without it being a "brief summary," especially since some editors have been striving to make that "brief summary" so uninformative that it fails to contain a reference to the billions of dollars ($17 billion at last count) that is being sought by the Justice Department. This RfC was brought about because of the whitewashing of that very section, removing the reference to the billions sought in damages by the Justice Department. That's why we're here. Let's be clear on that. What we're seeing at work here is the same kind of overly aggressive slashing that resulted in the section on the punishment for the 1999 oil spill not mentioning BP's guilty plea. JYTdog, you sought aggressively to remove any mention of the billions in exposure from this section and now you remove efforts to take out extraneous detail[3]. I just can't figure out what you're doing here. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and in the course of that you removed any mention of the fact that the Justice Department was claiming gross negligence and willful misconduct, while you included the docket number. I've fixed that. Why did you include the docket number, which is unencyclopedic and trivial, while not including a reference to the gross negligence/misconduct claim even though it is nowhere else referenced in that section? Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. All you did was say that it could be "cut back some," and most certainly did not suggest that it be trimmed so as to exclude any mention of the Justice Department's contention that BP committed gross negligence. Without that sentence on what the DOJ is seeking, the sentence that follows (about quadruple damages) makes no sense. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gandy, sorry I took it as a suggestion. I agreed with your "wondering." And i am NOT downplaying the negative. I did remove blow by blow which is too much detail for this article. I left the biggest thing, which is that BP is at risk for a finding of gross negligence - which it always was - and what the consequences of that finding would be. Core, it figures that you don't find the docket number important. If you want to do any actual research on this - you know, so you can actually know the details of what you are writing about - the docket number is essential for finding information. And as I wrote above, BP was ALWAYS at risk for a finding of gross negligence -- DOJ only filed those papers in response to BP's attempt to establish a judge-approved record that it was not. As stated in the reliable source that Core provided. All of that is entirely normal in litigation, where everybody maneuvers to maximize the chances of getting what they want, in a settlement or in court. Which I explained above already. Frustrating. You don't understand these things, in the big picture (i.e. how litigation goes) nor in the details of this specific litigation, yet you are so demanding that your expression of them be accepted as correct. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very simple question: Why did you omit that the DOJ accused BP of gross negligence and willful misconduct, and that it was seeking the maximum penalties? Don't give me the "big picture." Give me an answer. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Third time. Will just copy/paste this time. "And as I wrote above, BP was ALWAYS at risk for a finding of gross negligence -- DOJ only filed those papers in response to BP's attempt to establish a judge-approved record that it was not. As stated in the reliable source that Core provided. All of that is entirely normal in litigation, where everybody maneuvers to maximize the chances of getting what they want, in a settlement or in court." The reueters article (originally cited via Guardian's publication of it, which is now dead) is the source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/gulf-oil-spill-2010-bp-gross-negligence_n_1856209.html Here is what it says:
The new comments do not represent a change in U.S. officials' legal stance, said David Uhlmann, a University of Michigan professor and former environmental crimes prosecutor. "The Justice Department has consistently maintained that BP and Transocean were grossly negligent and engaged in willful misconduct in the events leading up to the Gulf oil spill," Uhlmann said in an email to Reuters. The department's latest filing "contains sharper rhetoric and a more indignant tone than the government has used in the past," he said. But the filing does exhibit exasperation on the part of government lawyers. They wrote that they decided to elaborate on BP's alleged gross negligence because they believed BP was trying to escape full responsibility. The Justice Department said they feared that, "if the United States were to remain silent, BP later may urge that its arguments had assumed the status of agreed facts." End of quote. BP has an obligation to its shareholders to make its liability as small as possible and that is what they are doing. The DOJ has a responsibility to get the max for the people, which is what they have always been doing. This is just legal maneuvering, blow by blow stuff. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for clarifying that your position is that because all that stuff was in the source materials it didn't have to be mentioned in the Wiki article. That's what I thought, but I just wanted to be sure.
"Legal maneuvering, blow by blow stuff"? That's your opinion. We just have to reflect what's in the reliable sources and not what any particular Wiki editor thinks. I know, you're the expert, and the rest of us (particularly me) are morons, but that's how it has to be. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not accurate. Nowhere did I insert anything about "going for the max." The sentence on "stiffest fines possible" is from an article from Feb 2013 at the commencement of the oil spill trial. It's easy to find the source for that sentence; just look at the footnote. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so my understanding was wrong. Thanks for pointing me to the obvious thing I should have looked at. my bad. I can admit when I am wrong. And oh please pardon me for using a brief slang phrase to describe going for the "stiffest fines possible". The source is covering the immediately pre-trial posturing tactics that go on in every litigation. It is still an absurd detail to include. of course DOJ is going for the max. of course BP will try to minimize its liability. It is blow by blow stuff. Not important. It doesn't tell the reader anything that is not painfully obvious. Now if in reality the DOJ said "oh, we intend to treat BP with kid gloves in this trial" and BP said "Oh, in this trial we want to pay as much as possible to atone for the terrible thing we did" this would be Significant. But in the real world, if they saw eye to eye enough, there would have been a settlement already. You can leave this, it is not worth fighting about with you.Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be pretrial posturing if this was a traffic accident lawsuit. But this is more like the civil trial that followed the OJ Simpson prosecution, except that Simpson was acquitted while BP was convicted. BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from the very same acts that are the subject of the criminal trial. So no, I don't think that we should whitewash this particular aspect of the proceedings. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already said I am not arguing with you on keeping this or not. And I am not whitewashing. It is not fair. Discussions about weight are honest differences of judgement. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
whether the detail is ncecessay is exactly about weight. Reasonable, good faith people can differ on weight. Please stop violating the AGF policy. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in your motives for your particular actions and I have no idea what they are. However, your removal of significant detail for reasons that make little sense, combined with your insults and your denigration of other editors as "environmentalists" and "ignorant," has not made it easy. Coretheapple (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a bad thing to be an environmentalist. Not at all. And it is not bad to be ignorant, either. I am ignorant about a lot of things. These things only become issues if people who are environmentalists, or business people, are too singly focused and won't compromise and start POV-pushing on those issues. And ignorance is only a problem if judgments based on it are pushed too hard and there is no willingness to learn and change. And I do insist that the only thing that 'whitewash' means is POV-pushing, bad faith editing. I told you before that i completely agree that bad things need to be in the article and I pushed for the end to "quick delete" so there would be room to add it (remember?). But good faith disputes are possible over the level of detail. I'm repeating myself. Should stop. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I don't want to repeat myself either. I just wanted to convey to you the message that while you may have a self-image as being a neutral arbiter, you tend at times to project a level of condescension that undercuts that image, and can tend to raise concerns among other editors as to whether you are contributing in good faith. Please take this as a friendly remark, nothing more. Just to be clear, I'm not at all offended by any of your remarks, including the one that I was moved to delete from my user talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: Should the article contain the Deepwater Horizon oil spill series navigation template?
Per a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC, this RfC is closed. There is no consensus to either simply include or exclude the template. This presumably means at the top of the article as given in the diff in the original RfC statement. Several of those opposing the prominent placement at the top of the article said they would not be opposed to placing it in the relevant section. This provides a nuanced view that was simultaneously a include and exclude comment. Reading most of the include comments, it did not appear that they were opposed to inclusion of the template in the #Deepwater Horizon section. The consensus of this RfC is that the {{Deepwater Horizon oil spill series}} navigation template should be placed in the BP#Deepwater Horizon well explosion and oil spill section. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose: Rangoon11, Martin Hogbin, RightCowLeftCoast, Collect ("One or the other - not both"), Beagel, The Devil's Advocate
Oppose or move to DH section: NickCT ("Strong Oppose ... I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to putting the template under the appropriate subsection ..."), Noleander, daranz
Include. The spill was a serious environmental disaster that had a significant financial and legal impact on BP. Several readers are likely to come here to find out about the spill, rather than about the company, and the navigation template will help them find their way to the relevant articles. SlimVirgin(talk)21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Include at top of page. There should be no question the template belongs here. As it is, the template exists on all related pages but this one, even though BP is listed first in the series. petrarchan47tc21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose 1. We already have a navbox for Deepwater (shown below) and this is wholly duplicative, and also less comprehensive. 2. The said nav box is already included in this article. 3. This article is not part of a "series" of articles on a narrow topic, Deepwater is rather a small part of BP as a topic, and BP existed long before Deepwater. Side bar navigation devices are used for closely defined series of articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Include BP is included in the box as part of the series for a reason: even if totally whitewashed and turned into a reflection of the agenda of the BP p.r. department, the BP article is an intrinsic part of the Deepwater Horizon series. It contains information not available elsewhere on the impact of the disaster on the company, even if all other information reflecting negatively on the company is blotted out. Thus it would be difficult to conceive of a BP article that does not belong in that box. The box is there for a reason, and its placement at the top of the article is designed specifically to guide readers toward articles of interest. Coretheapple (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Include BP will forever be connected to the Deepwater disaster. Various people, from Presidents to paupers, have called DWH "the worst environmental catastrophe in history." You can.t hide from over 200 million gallons of oil spilling into the gulf. Millions of people (see:readers) were affected. Why would we even think of hiding a connection (BP to DWH) that every knowledgeable adult on the planet makes. ```Buster Seven Talk12:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Include I had to take some time to think about this. My decision rests on the fact that the Gulf spill has been called the second greatest environmental disaster in American history and the oil company BP is largely responsible. So with that thinking it should be obvious that it belongs in the series. Gandydancer (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Include As the editor that created the template I can at least attest to the reason it was created and some small background about its use so far. The Deepwater Horizon article had already been split several times. The article had consensus to split a number of sections even further and reduce them in the main article to smaller summaries. One concern raised was that, with all the splits, the bulk of the information was now in separated articles and links may not be as obvious to some readers. I proposed using a template to organize all the articles under the scope of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into one "series" template as is done on a number of FA articles. The opinion of some is that using a template in this manner is not appropriate, but as I said I based this on an FA articles use of a similar box. See Mitt Romney. The navigation boxes are currently hidden and the casual reader may not ever click the two un-collapse buttons required to see it. The template is about a specific event and the related subjects. That event is the oil spill itself and all those related articles and provides "at a glance" information the reader can see quickly, where the reader may be expecting such information. I believe that readers are looking for this information and believe the "series" template to have encyclopedic value. I should note that I did not add the template here originally, when the template was created, because I figured a bold addition such as that would surely be reverted. After the Arturo controversy I went ahead and made the bold edit to add the template and it was indeed reverted. Any addition such as this on an article like this one requires a consensus. I am glad we are having the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to see the relevance of the Mitt Romney article. Having both a nav box and a side bar for exactly the same topic is a mess and sets a bad precedent for this project, particularly as those in favour primarily want it there purely to provide greater emphasis on Deepwater in this article rather than for any policy reason or to serve genuine navigational needs.
The nav box is also far more comprehenive and is the appropriate form of navigation feature. The possibility also exists to make the navbox more visible.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite of a mess. It's a finding aid. Look at Mitt Romney. Totally on-point. If anyone has a problem with the Romney template or this one, they can nominate it for deletion. The fact is that there is a gulf oil spill template, it relates to an immense and complex controversy, and every assistance we can render to our readers in navigating the articles is helpful. You know, Wikipedia is not exactly user friendly, and readers need all the help they can get. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Romney article is one of the 4 million or so WP articles. So what. It's not even a particularly good article, despite being FA, and it certainly didn't achieve FA because of a side bar. Having a nav box and a side bar for exactly the same topic is messy, duplicative and confusing.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
State of Palestine is another with top and bottom navboxes. So were the articles on the Second World War that I skimmed. If I was a betting man, I'd wager you a nice sum of money that just they are commonly found in large and complex subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you keep saying "confusing"? That's like saying that having more than one dictionary on your desk is confusing. It makes no sense to say that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
particularly as those in favour primarily want it there purely to provide greater emphasis on Deepwater in this article rather than for any policy reason or to serve genuine navigational needs. Not so. Serving the readers needs is a primary concern of most quality editors. Also, most editors here can navigate articles like a Gran Prix racer. But thats not so for our readers. Giving our reader as much assistance as we can is logical. If its not a principle, it should be. ```Buster Seven Talk01:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A direct comparison between the Valdez spill and BP's gulf spill cannot be made for 3 reasons. 1) the Gulf spill lasted 87 days and was the equivalent of a Valdez-sized spill every three days during that period. 2) The massive devastation caused (during the clean-up) by the Valdez spill is actually the fault of BP, not Exxon]. 3) The Deepwater disaster caused a 30% drop in BP's value, which remains the case to this day. Exxon is the number one company in the world right now, at this point the company is obviously unscathed by the spill. If a company is all about stock value, and an event impacts that stock by 1/3, that event is pretty damn important to the story of the company as a whole. Were the trials long-past, and the stock value closer to pre-spill levels, I would agree the navbox could go under the DWH spill section rather than the Lede. petrarchan47tc19:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@petrarchan47 - Not really. The two spills are quite comparable. True the BP spill involved about ten times as much oil, but oil dumped in the middle of the gulf is significantly less meaningful than oil dumped off the coast of Alaska. In total the economic impact of Valdez was probably over half of the impact Deepwater created. In terms of the company's stock value, give it 30 years and I'm pretty sure BP will be sitting as pretty as ExxonMobile is. ;-) NickCT (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but just as we want to avoid recentism, we have to be cognizant of reality, which is that the Deepwater Horizon spill continues to reverberate after three years, which is precisely why readers seek out articles on this topic and why this template is warranted as a reader guide. It was an exceptional event. The fact that it was recent just makes it more important, really. We don't have "Eruption of Mt. Vesuvius" templates. Coretheapple (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ NickCT -- Except that "oil dumped in the middle of the gulf is significantly less meaningful than oil dumped off the coast of Alaska" is untrue. The Deepwater was an oil gusher, not spilled oil, but emanating from the seafloor where it was immediately mixed with an industrial strength solvent called "Corexit", which made the toxicity of the oil 52 times greater, and made the toxic compounds airborne and more permeable to humans, fish (chemicals that can emulsify crude oil can do a number on cell walls and anything made of lipids) and the environment. That dispersed oil, as well as tar balls and tar mats, continue to wash up, and cause massive health and ecological problems on the coasts of four US states. The air in oiled marshes is killing off the insects in Louisiana. We also don't yet know the amount of oil "spilled", as whistleblowers with video evidence, are alleging a coverup of the true amount. petrarchan47tc05:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple - I largely agree with what you're saying. But at the same time, I'm sure Valdez was "reverberating" about as much a Deepwater is three after the event.
@petrarchan47 - Mate, if you think me dumping 100 barrels of oil in the middle the Atlantic is going to be as environmentally harmful as me going to your local protected nature reserve and dumping it there, you've got to check your perspecitive on reality. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT -- Reality: "The spill fouled 1,100 miles of beaches and marsh along the Gulf coast" source -- "from the Louisiana barrier islands west of the Mississippi River to the white sands of the Florida Panhandle. A still-unknown portion settled on the floor of the Gulf and the inlets along its coast. Tar balls are still turning up on the beaches, and a 2012 hurricane blew seemingly fresh oil ashore in Louisiana. Well owner BP, which is responsible for the cleanup, says it's still (April 2013) monitoring 165 miles of shore" source "I have seen some of the smaller islands, that birds nest on, literally disappear in the past three years. The oil killed the marsh grass and the mangrove roots leaving the islands with nothing to hold them together and now some are completely gone. As far as the amount of tar balls washing up on beaches — it varies from day to day. BP’s claims that the Gulf Coast is back to normal are simply not true." sourcepetrarchan47tc20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Include - if this template doesn't belong in the BP article, then the template shouldn't exist at all (not an invitation to argue for the deletion of the template). Mr.choppers | ✎ 05:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there is a more expansion template (which is already included in the article) of the subject that is the oilspill, one can say that the inclusion of the less expansive template is unnecessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One or the other - not both Wikipedia does not need multiple inter-article links. If the only choics is up or down on the pretty template oppose inclusion if that is the choice offered. Personally, a link to other articles is good, multiple links is not so good. Collect (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this clause of OVERLINK/REPEATLINK:
A term should be linked, generally, at most once in an article's lead, perhaps once again in the main article body, and perhaps once at first occurrence in each infobox, table, caption, and footnote.
Using the logic of REPEATLINK and extending it to templates, there is already a template which is far more expansive regarding the subject of the oil spill, as such the more expansive template should be used over the less expansive navigation box. That is my opinion, which others can differ from. This is an RfC after all, which is designed to get multiple opinions to see what the greater consensus is (especially from editors who were not previously engaged in editing an article).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Include -- a useful feature for readers, and in my mind that's a sufficient reason to include it. Funny how some editors want to make it more complicated than that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rangoon11, NickCT and RightCowLeftCoast although arguments presented by Amdasscientist are valid. I would find the inclusion of this template justified and being reader-friendly if the DWH section in this article would be just a "normal" mentioning of this event which is usually expected if more specific articles exist. Instead of this, we have undue weight section which could without problem serve as a separate article. Links to all relevant articles are already provided in that section. In these conditions including this template does not have any added value for readers but rather serves to point to BP. As for argument that if not included here the template should not exist at all, I disagree with this logic. The template is useful for the DWH articles, particularly after several splits of the main article (which is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and not BP). This was already explained by Amadscientist. At the same time the question is if the BP should be included in this template or not. All articles included in this template, except BP, deals with the DWH or with the different aspects of the spill as a main topic of the articles. The only exclusion id BP in which case the DWH or any of its aspects is not the major topic of the article. This article also does not cover any aspects of the spill which is not already included in or which does not belong the more specific article. Beagel (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose - This article is not part of a series on DWH, it concerns a topic which existed long before DWH. It looks like it is being shoe horned in here simply to give more prominence to DWH in this article.2.101.1.7 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Sock of User: Rangoon11petrarchan47tc21:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Deepwater Horizon section. It's certainly appropriate for content contained in this article, but it is general practice to place navigation templates at the head of the associated content. VanIsaacWSVexcontribs11:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (or move to DH section) - This is a tough call, but BP is a huge company, and it seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE to emphasize this one incident with a prominent sidebar at the top of the article. There are at least 3 better approaches: (1) use a footer navbox; (2) move the sidebar into the DH section; or (3) create a new DH category and put the article in that category. Bottom line: a colorful, large sidebar near the top offends both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. --Noleander (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Oppose - Why BP and none of the other organisations relevant to the spill (Halliburton, Transocean, Gulf Coast Restoration Organization, MMS, Anadarko etc)? Why have two navigation templates on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Why place the template in pride of place at the top of this article? The template and its placing in this article seems at best badly thought out and executed, and at worst simply another attempt to give even more prominence to Deepwater in this article. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support using this template, and any other features that make Wikipedia easier to use. Let's think of the 11-year-olds who are trying to find material for a school project, and make it easy for them. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no basis for including BP as part of the template on Deepwater Horizon unless we list every involved company. We definitely should not have this template at the top of the article. The current section on the spill is excessive and WP:UNDUE in the first place with this just magnifying the problem.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.19:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: not sure what other companies you are talking about. No other company is named on the template, nor does Halliburton oil spill redirect to BP oil spill. A Google search of Halliburton oil spill found this New York Times/Reuters article, The big oil services company set aside $637 million to settle some claims from the 2010 BP oil spill. Notice how WP:RS refers to the spill in question? To ask for this template to be placed at Halliburton is WP:UNDUE. petrarchan47tc21:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons above, unless moved to the relevant section. To put simply, the article is not part of a series of articles on the Deepwater Horizon spill - rather, it is a related article about the involved company, but nevertheless an article that contains a whole lot more information beyond just BP's involvement in the spill. The template being near the top places undue emphasis on this particular event in the history of BP, and while it is probably the most notable thing that BP is known for, it is not the reason for BP's notability. Putting the template in the DH section would also allow us consolidate all the hatnotes on top of that section right now. — daranz [ t ] 20:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Deepwater Horizon section as per Vanisaac. It also looks like we're unlikely to get consensus on either inclusion at top or removal. ~KvnG12:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per below, respondents to this RFC should look at the following questions:
The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill section of this article already has sentence-long summaries for health, environmental, and economic damage, respectively. Should these be expanded into full sections?
Does this article in general contain too much negative information and fail in our quest to provide a neutral point of view?
The statement of fact is that there is disagreement. The implied question is what the consensus is, whether to keep the level of detail about the spill that you and I consider to be excessive in this article, or to reduce the amount of detail here with the link to the spill article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to begin this, which is fitting since I came here originally because of an RfC, I think that the case is clear for a need for substantial detail on the Gulf oil spill in the article on the epicenter of the spill, which is BP. It is enough for us to know that BP is paying billions of dollars in claims related to all the elements of the Gulf oil spill, in settlement of criminal charges to which it pleaded guilty. If you examine the press coverage on the anniversary of the disaster, it overwhelmingly focused on BP, over and above any other corporate player. It is not for us to parse the evidence and decide what is related to BP and what is not. That is in effect being "more Catholic than the Pope" as BP has already accepted culpability for the entirety of the Gulf oil spill, with all of its economic, health and ecological effects. So let's stop the nonsense. An article on BP without a good discussion of the Gulf oil spill is nothing less than a whitewash article that would stand in violation of WP:NPOV and would have no place in Wikipedia.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree for the most part. That the topic of neutrality would become a matter of debate on this particular article is probably inevitable. Luckily we have another major policy principle to guide us in refining just what constitutes NPOV - go with the sources. While a company of BP's extensive history and influence is going to have no shortage of reliable sources exploring many of its facets, it's pretty clear that contemporary sources, including not just those from popular media but also scholarship of various kinds and business/legal press, are overwhelmingly, if hardly exclusively, concerned with the spill. Likewise, I think that the majority of our readers would likely consider this germane information for the article. Mind you, I don't know that a section for each of a dozen categories of consequences for the spill is necessary, but a one-sentence reference to all the ecological effects is clearly not cutting it either (those are the two extremes that have framed what I've seen of the debate above). There are plenty of places where content can be linked to the other relevant articles to keep things trim, but in general I favor an approach that is permissive of significant detail from the spill, especially in-so-far as the consequences of the spill for BP are concerned; that is certainly relevant information for this article. Snow (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why this RFC can't be used for that purpose. I think that it would be confusing to have two RFCs attached to the same article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at the moment there are three open RfC at this article, so maybe you are interested to look other two. Beagel (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see two open RFCs. I see mine, on whether to include content on the Deepwater Horizon spill, and SlimVirgin's on whether to include the Deepwater Horizon spill template. Maybe the oldest one has been removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn't see it because, first, it is at the top of this talk page (and so will be archived by Miszabot next week), and, second, it isn't listed as a business and economics RFC and so isn't on that page, being listed as a law RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that this has become an attack page simply as a result of editors having included information that reflects the commentary of reliable, high-profile sources is hyperbolic, contrary to an important principle of Wikipedia editing, and just all-around counter-productive. Not to mention counter-intuitive; our job her is to represent an understanding of the topic at hand (including, or indeed especially, contentious topics) through the lens of appropriate sources, not our own personal views on the nature (or even the importance) of said topics. The particular issues of this RfC require a somewhat subtler parsing of those guidelines, yes, but we can easily proceed with the discussion about how much of the relevant information should be located here without implications of malicious editing when the information in question is immaculately sourced and well within the guidelines of appropriate content. Snow (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...our job her is to represent an understanding of the topic at hand... I am fully agree with this. However, there seems to be a problem with understanding what the topic is. The topic is not the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (which is a topic of the separate article), topic of this article here is BP.Beagel (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Snow Rise, Figure of Nine and the good ole Wiki guidelines - our articles should reflect the sources. How much should be included in this article regarding the Gulf spill, particularly with respect to environmental damage (is this the RfC question, it still isn't clear?). Do the math: it is the largest environmental disaster ever in the US, it is the largest oil spill of its type in the history of the petrol industry, BP used the largest ever amount of Corexit to sink the oil, without knowing the damage it would cause (and it turns out the solvent made the spilled crude 52 times more toxic than if they'd let it rise to be skimmed). More math: this spill caused BP to drop from #1 to #4 largest oil company. The spill caused a 30% drop in their stock value, which remains the case to this day, and alone justifies a good-sized section in this article. The damage to BP as a company, the damage to the gulf ecosystem, it's people and BP's cleanup workers (due to BP flat-out lying about Corexit toxicity - see here and here to catch up on this) requires an appropriately sized, well-rounded section. A major disconnect exists between editors at this page. Some like to refer to any negative details (excluding financial or legal matters) about the worst accidental oil spill in history as "attack content". Those same editors think three paragraphs about court cases and two sentences about ecological and human health damage sum up this spill perfectly. petrarchan47tc18:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy that guidelines were mentioned. There are also other guidelines such as WP:POVFORK and there are policies such as WP:NPOV, part of which is WP:UNDUE. The main subject of this article is not DWH oil spill, this is the company named BP. The DWH or its different aspects is the main subject for a series of articles, inter aliaDeepwater Horizon oil spill, Deepwater Horizon explosion, Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Economic effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Deepwater Horizon litigation. Therefore, this article should include a summary of the BP's role in this (including its role in the accident and response) and the impact to the company, but not copy-paste the above-mentioned articles. In addition, although BP is the major actor in this accident, it is not the only one and it is not the only company under the ongoing trial. Therefore one can't say that BP and the spill is the same. Summarizing my points, this article should include the summary about BP's role and the impact to the company, taking account all relevant policies and guidelines, but it should not include other aspects of the spill which are covered in specific articles. Beagel (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy too, because there is such blatant ignorance of site policies on this talk page. In fact, that is what attracted me to this article in the first place. There is an RfC on something that is just utterly obvious: yes, BP obviously warrants a reader-friendly guide to other articles on the Gulf oil spill. Then, as I read further, I found a kind of delusion taking place on the page in which a cadre of editors were trying to argue that black is white, that BP is only remotely involved in the Gulf oil spill. So now we have this great drama caused by that delusion. Yes, this article obviously requires some summary paragraphs on the Gulf oil spill. Nothing immense, but enough to be informative. No, POVFORK has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. UNDUE does because it would be undue emphasis to under-emphasize the Gulf oil spill by cheaping out a couple of sentences on the severe consequences of the spill. The problem is not with the content but with editors who want to be more Catholic than the Pope, and want to exonerate BP for the Gulf oil spill when BP itself has admitted culpability, and has pleaded guilty in a court of law. It's a kind of surrealistic atmosphere here, like nothing I've seen ever before. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As I read further, I found a kind of delusion taking place on the page in which a cadre of editors were trying to argue that black is white, that BP is only remotely involved in the Gulf oil spill." Who are you talking about specifically? I can't find that comment anywhere on this page. Shii(tock)06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Include sections on disasters, and disagree that there is "too much negative information". I cannot support the position that this article about BP is guilty of having "too much negative information". How much is too much? If it takes a lot of negative text to convey the right amount of information, then so be it. There should never be an externally defined determination of how much information should be positive, and how much should be negative in an article. What we do is cite reliable sources in global media, and we summarize for the reader what is said about BP. The disasters have been clearly BP's, with guilt admitted and payments made or in progress, so we write about them in some detail, especially with regard to BP's actions, inaction, and reaction. Make this article be about the corporate culture, the corporate response, the corporate culpability, and yes, about the corporation's good works, too, in proper proportion. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is too much negative information in this article, and it has too much focus on the last ten years. BP has a long and eventful history, and most of those events have been positive. There are many reliable sources which aren't represented here because they're more than 20 years old. So they are unavailable for a Google search. For every BP drilling rig that had an oil spill, there are dozens that have uneventfully operated year after year, with no spills and no incidents. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're saying that you agree with my attempted revision, which included 4 sections about the Deepwater Horizon disaster: summarizing the effects, actions against BP, and damage to BP. Let me know if I interpreted you wrong. Shii(tock)06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the negative content is more than half the content of the article, then you can quite clearly say that it is unbalanced, especially for an article on a company that has 100 years of history and the controversies focus on just the past two decades. SilverserenC07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, what it means is that the reliable sources focus on the negative aspects of the company. If the article were to be blindly weighted entirely with regard to sourcing that dwells on the negative aspects of this company, it would be probably 90% negative. Coretheapple (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too long and unbalanced And appropriate amount of content for all the controversies should be about 1/4th of the length of the article. Deepwater should obviously make up a larger chunk of any controversies section, with the other incidents being much smaller and, for that matter, not all of them needs to be mentioned in this article. The attempts to cram as much detail and as many incidents as possible into this article is what has unbalanced it. SilverserenC07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It truly depends on the amount of controversy BP has been involved in. There is a good reason most of its negative events have occurred recently. If you know their history, you see it correlates directly with their growth during Browne's reign from a sluggish company to an oil giant, and the cost-cutting that funded it. But it is a mistake to categorize their accidents and environmental disasters as "controversies". They are facts, neutral, like history. They happen to be negative, but that does not make them controversies (meaning "dispute"). petrarchan47tc08:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems completely artificial and arbitrary (and in any event, not at all supported by any policy) to set the standard at 1/4 of the total content. That the need for a controversy section is going to vary wildly between different articles is fairly obvious. In the case of BP, this spill led to monumental changes for the company not only in terms of market share and standing in global industry but also in internal structure. The company has been sued by multiple states, the federal government and numerous other parties in connection with the event, and much of this litigation is ongoing. It was additionally found criminally liable for manslaughter and lying to congress. It paid the largest set of fines in U.S. history and moving forward will likely be involved in the largest set of civil settlements in U.S. history and possibly that of industrial accidents globally. Careers of prominent persons within the company were damaged or destroyed and some employees face criminal charges. These are all examples of information that is at least as appropriate (and almost certainly more appropriate) in this article than in the article for the spill, and it's just a fraction of such information. It's pretty clear how this issue went to RfC; nobody seems willing to compromise or, most crucially, actually do the hard work of going through the content bit by bit and establishing (or proving superflous) individual points. Too many here have an all-or-nothing disposition to this issue and it's creating needless deadlock. How about we see some competing edits for the content and start some consensus building from there? All this polarization will accomplish is help assure this debate will be resurrected ad nauseum. Snow (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Saying "look at the sources" is meaningless in terms of working out what proportion of the article should deal with controversies in the US over the past decade. Which sources? In which country? Over what period? And also bear in mind that online sources are skewed massively towards the last few years. It is clear that no sources in any country mention conversies in the US over the past decade since they had not yet happened. So sources covering 90% of the history of the company don't mention these things at all. Looking at sources over the past 10 years begs the primary question of in which country? Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a world view not a US view. The media in the US focused on events such as Texas City, Prudhoe Bay and Deepwater massively more than did the media in China or Russia, respectively the largest countries in the world by population and land mass. And even within the US media one will see far more space having been devoted to these events in more sensationalist outlets such as CNN than in the financial media.
No single source will ever tell us how much content should be given to things like Texas City and Prudhoe Bay. We are left with Wikipedia policies and common sense. In my view both of those tell me that the article currently devotes far, far too much space to controversies in the United States over the past ten years. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few points. First of all, the spill was certainly global news and dominated media concerning the company in most countries with robust international media for a significant period (searches of non-english sources will readily confirm this). Second, not all events are equal in terms of relevance to an understanding of the company's history and current state; there may be over a century's worth of documentation of the company, but no other single event has been treated by anywhere near as many sources, nor has any single event had such a profound influence on the company in a long, long time. And no, the prevalence with which valid sources discuss particular subjects cannot be entirely dismissed. I don't see anyone making the argument that there should be a 1:1 correspondence between the two (in other words, that the percentage of the page devoted to the spill should represent the rough percentage that it consumes amongst overall sources), but neither is this focus irrelevant, if for no other reason than that it in part reflects (and influences) the subjects which will be of interest to our readers. And lastly, there is no way you can possibly prove the statement that "within the US media one will see far more space having been devoted to these events in more sensationalist outlets such as CNN than in the financial media" with an degree of empirical validity; in fact, I suspect this is patently false and the reverse of the case as the financial media has had many different angles to approach on the financial catastrophe that the spill and its aftermath represent. And this will continue to be the case as many of these issues will be quite live and ongoing for quite some time. Snow (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The spill was covered globally, although far less outside the US than inside, and in much of the world, far, far less. We are also confusing coverage of the spill with coverage of BP. The spill was an event in and of itself and much coverage of it did not refer to BP at all or referred to it only in passing.
In articles which were written purely about BP during the period of the spill, the spill was obviously an important topic. However that period represents a fraction of BP's overall history.
Making comments about the future impact of Deepwater is purely speculative but BP was one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world pre Deepwater, and there is no reason to doubt that it wont be in five years time too, whatever the result of current trials (which are themselves highly uncertain).2.97.215.241 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Survey on including Deepwater Horizon Spill content
The question posed in this RfC was whether content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill should be included in this article. The question, as written, is ill-formed and responses of support and oppose were not helpful without explanation. Many of those commenting did so based on their personal preferences, and failed to cite any policy or guidelines in their comments. The overarching guideline relevant to this discussion, cited by several users, is WP:SUMMARY. The question of how much WP:WEIGHT should be given was also brought up. The simple answer to the question of the RfC is yes, information on the spill should be included. The real question should have been how much information should be included. There is a consensus that the information presented in this article follow WP:SUMMARY, even if some of those arguing such did not cite the guideline. Further, there is consensus that the present version is too detailed and should be trimmed, in line with WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE. There was very little discussion of how much detail the section should contain, and thus I can offer no more than a simple no consensus on that issue. Speaking as a potential reader, the WP:SUMMARY page gives the example of Yosemite National Park#History and History of the Yosemite area (both featured articles), that I think would be good examples to try to replicate. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?
Oppose inclusion in this article. Not necessary in this article if article on spill is linked, complicates maintenance, and responsibility for spill among three companies is still being resolved. Leaving content in separate article is a proper use of forking. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, there clearly should be a brief summary of the spill in the article but the current content (as at the date of this comment) is grossly excessive, especially bearing in mind that we have several articles on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have already raised this exact issue in an RfC above. Does reintroducing it in another format less than 24 hours later really seem appropriate to you? It's not going to change the positions of the involved editors, it's only going to further complicate a discussion with already entrenched positions. For the record, I find it to be an absolute SNOW issue to suggest that we not include any information on the spill here; that's clearly not going to happen. And the emerging consensus from the discussions above, including your own RfC, seems to indicate that a majority of editors, if not a huge one, find the current level of detail to be roughly appropriate. You can take as many bites at this apple as you like, but this approach is unlikely to win any additional editors over to your point of view. Snow (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, it is simply not true that there is a consensus for the current content. Many of those opposed to the current content have remained silent because of the recent flurry of negative additions to the article. 09:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)~
Fair enough, but regardless of how many people favour a reductionist vs. an inclusive strategy, the choice being presented in this survey is not a realistic one nor one likely to lead to a stable resolution to this issue. There are certainly plenty of details concerning the effects the spill had upon the company itself which are equally or more germane to the present article than other related pages; see some of the most recent posts in the previous thread (the RfC) for some of the more obvious example). As I've noted above, these all-or-nothing perspectives on both sides are only making the situation more intractable and this thread in particular, simply from the way it frames the debate, is only going to make things worse by drawing lines on principle. And I can fairly well guarantee that this debate is going to recycle endlessly until some effort at consensus building is made. What is needed here is a detailed, nuts and bolts discussion of the various sections, ideally with proposed drafts, not threads that inquire as to the basic positions of editors in the most general possible terms, which will only serve to divide the involved editors more strictly into two competing camps. We're meant to working together towards consensus here and surely there is room for compromise if we just slow down and take this one point at a time. Snow (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose content not directly related to BP - Yes, DH needs to be covered; but details about DH that are not directly related to BP should be removed. This article should limit itself to material directly related to BP (e.g. cause, timeline, culpability, impact, etc). Details about health & env impact do not help readers of this article. --Noleander (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about when you say "not directly related to BP"? Oil that was ejected into the Gulf of Mexico from flying saucers? Seriously, you do realize, I hope, that BP is not disputing its liability for the oil spill, and that it has admitted to criminal conduct. These are well-settled issues. Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What does the specific information about the spill itself have to do with BP? We have it in a separate article (several articles, actually) for a reason. SilverserenC07:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer your question. It has "everything" to do with BP. BP itself admits this. Why don't you? Regardless of the liability of other parties, BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal liability. This was one of the biggest environmental disasters in history. It dominates to an extreme degree all of the reliable sourcing for this article. To claim that this is somehow remote from BP, that it was just a bystander and that the real bad guys are getting off scot free in this article, is nonsense., Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose - This article is, in its present condition, a crude (pardon the pun), unbalanced attack piece. It is supposed to be an article on a 100 year old multinational oil company with operations in 80 countries. Instead half the article is currently devoted to "contoversies" in just one country over a period of just 10 years. Grotesquely US-centric, recentist, unbalanced and little more than an attack piece. This sort of article makes Wikipedia look amateurish and undeserving of its high placing in Google results. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[Restored by Martin Hogbin (talk)][reply]
Coretheapple, you cannot go around striking out everything that you disagree with because you think it is a sock. This is not one of the IP addresses mentioned in the SPI. For anything else you should get a neutral admin to take a look. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it possible that some of the editors arguing to keep this content in are doing so precisely because it so dramatically reversed the fortunes of a company of such history and scale? After-all, whatever else you feel about the spill's relevance to the company (and thus the necessity for inclusion of details here), it seems a pretty reasonable, if somewhat impressionistic, statement that this is the most significant single event for the company in decades. It has wrecked the company's profitability and reputation and the overall effect on how it does business cannot really be overstated. In any event -- and this point has been raised above but it bears repeating here -- it is really not appropriate to accuse editors of constructing an attack page when they have done nothing more than present what the sources are saying on the subject matter not only in terms of accurately portraying said content but also reflecting the overall trends in what those sources discuss; discussion of BP in both popular and professional media has been dominated by the spill more so than any other issue since it occurred. In any event, accusing another editor of malicious editing should not be done lightly, and not at all without some significant evidence of ill-intent and doing so flippantly runs contrary to our pillar civility guidelines. Please see WP:AFG if you are unfamiliar. Snow (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deepwater is an important event in the history of BP, but very far from the most important and no more so than, for example, the merger with Amoco, the acquisition of ARCO, the creation of TNK BP, the move into Alaska, discoveries in the North Sea, privatisation, the sale of TNK BP and acquisition of a substantial stake in Rosneft, the OPEC oil shock etc. BP is still fundamentally the same company as pre Deepwater, there have been some asset sales and restructuring of the portfolio but many are likely to have happened anyway. The most fundamental and long term changes created by Deepwater are actually in terms of internal safety processes rather than financials. BP will still be one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world in five years time, with a spread of global operations across the oil and gas industry. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A fair and balanced reporting of the facts. Blame for these facts outweighing 90 years of history should not be laid at the door step of collaborators that see these facts as important to the reader. To not include DWH would be un-balanced toward the extreme. ```Buster Seven Talk11:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Buster, no one is suggesting that we do not mention DWH at all and to portray the arguments of others that way is misleading. It is the excessive volume and detail that is being objected to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the question this survey explicitly asks is "Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?" And only one of the six people who has responded in the negative to that questions has bothered to qualify their position by saying "include a reasonable amount, but with restraint." All of the other five, yourself included, have simply stated your reason for opposing this content without bothering to mention any exceptions. So I think it's a little unfair for you to call him out for being misleading when he was simply responding to the explicit wording of the question that forms the basis of this poll and to an opposition argument that has been left unqualified and ambiguous (in this thread anyway). Snow (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Snow. In support of myself, I responded to the simplest strictest interpretation of the question. Support = some mention (no demarcation in the RfC question as to "how much"). Oppose = No mention (no demarcation in the RfC question as to how little). I answered the question the way it was stated. You say no one is suggesting that DWH should not be mentioned. That is your supposition. I don't share the same interpretation. A re-read of some of the opposes causes me to think that that is exactly what is being proposed...or a VERY minimal comment about Deep Water (at the same level of importance as how many gas pumps there are in the Continental USA. ```Buster Seven Talk15:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any question regarding responses here, editors should be called back to clarify their meaning. To me it's very clear that Robert, Silver Seren and Shii want zero mention of the Gulf spill in this article. While we welcome new editors, it is interesting to note that two of these editors have never stepped foot here before, and that it is possible some canvassing went on with regard to Silver Seren.petrarchan47tc17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments in RfC above, wich I hereby replicate: I think that the case is clear for a need for substantial detail on the Gulf oil spill in the article on the epicenter of the spill, which is BP. It is enough for us to know that BP is paying billions of dollars in claims related to all the elements of the Gulf oil spill, in settlement of criminal charges to which it pleaded guilty. If you examine the press coverage on the anniversary of the disaster, it overwhelmingly focused on BP, over and above any other corporate player. It is not for us to parse the evidence and decide what is related to BP and what is not. That is in effect being "more Catholic than the Pope" as BP has already accepted culpability for the entirety of the Gulf oil spill, with all of its economic, health and ecological effects. So let's stop the nonsense. An article on BP without a good discussion of the Gulf oil spill is nothing less than a whitewash article that would stand in violation of WP:NPOV and would have no place in Wikipedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to the question, "Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?" Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inclusion of more than a brief summary, since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has its own article. Link that article here, and briefly summarize its content here if that content is directly related to BP. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion of a brief summary, oppose inclusion of copy-paste from the main article, information not directly about BP and creating this section as a separate article with subsections and information about the spill in general. Beagel (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current version. Eight paragraphs is way too much. Two good-sized paragraphs at best to sum up the main issues with a link to the primary article should be sufficient.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.05:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too much At 200K, the article is too bloated and should be generally pruned back. The Deepwater Horizon material can be pruned especially heavily because there's a separate article about that. Warden (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support including a substantial discussion of the DWH oil spill,its consequences, and the various legal repercussions. It's not every day that one stumbles upon a company with such a positively enormous legal footprint as this one. BP has pleaded guilty to criminal charges in connection with one of the worst environmental disasters in history, and in the reliable sources that has overshadowed every other aspect of this company. When I began editing this article some weeks ago, it was a shambles, with editors scrambling to satisfy the wishes of a polite but aggressive BP employee, to the point that 44% of the article was actually written by BP itself. Some editors and their chums and the folks at CREWE seem to want the status quo ante, but that would do a serious disservice to Wikipedia readers, who already have been shortchanged by an article that was so pathetic that it actually misstated the number of BP operating divisions, so as to grossly overemphasize the importance of its tiny but hyped alternative energy division. One can't blame BP alone, through its rep here, for the terrible state of this article in past months. It was also the product of some simply terrible misjudgments on the part of many Wikipedia editors. NPOV does not mean that the information entering an article be neutral, but that the subject be treated in accordance with how it is treated in the reliable sources. Editors here are trying so hard to sanitize this article that they've forgotten that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support including a substantial discussion of the DWH oil spill. It would probably be too much here on the spill if we covered everything in similar proportion to what the news media has covered over the last 10 years - that is about 75% on the spill - but a very substantial coverage should be included. Putting a daughter article in, e.g. the on the spill, does not mean that material in the parent article needs to be deleted. If that were the case, I'd suggest an article, perhaps History of BP before 1980, and then get rid of most of that material which very, very few people care about now. Smallbones(smalltalk)20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose content not directly related to BP Particularly the two sub-sections "Environmental impact" and "health issues" have too many details that are not relevant for an article on BP. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there is already a primary article regarding the DWH oil spill and its impact. There should only be a very brief summary paragraph in this article which is about the company itself. The summary paragraph should be as brief as possible, neutrally worded, and very well cited. If a reader wants to read about the oil spill they should be directed to the article which has the oil spill as its primary source. As noted by others, this article needs to be checked for neutrality and ensure that it isn't an attack page regarding its subject. Criticism should be included, but it should not be given undue weight either.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support thorough coverage of the disaster here in this article, especially with regard to corporate action and inaction, legal ramifications, and how the disaster affected the corporation. Some overlapping coverage is to be expected between various articles which describe the disaster. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article does not contain too much negative material and maintains a NPOV in fact it's highly flattering given the nature of the business. The section on the Deepwater Horizon is not too extensive and is nominal considering the evolution of news reporting and it's above average impact on people and the environment. No it does not deserve it's own section and should be remanded to a subsection of industrial accidents. Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs)22:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion about the oil spill and its consequences, but what is there right now is about the maximum needed. No need for more. There is definitely NOT "too much negative information." NPOV would be violated without such content. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion. It should definitely be included, and the previous version was too short. But I would reduce what's currently there, especially the environmental and health subsections. This could be done by tightening the writing, rather than removing anything of substance. For example, sentences such as "Environmental impacts continue, and research is ongoing," lack content, and quite a bit of the section is written that way. I would reduce it to the key issues, per WP:SUMMARY, particularly the issues that affect BP directly. SlimVirgin(talk)18:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I think that you should go ahead and try some of what you suggest here. This discussion has been very difficult for me, perhaps because I have put so many hours into this and the other related articles I may have lost my perspective. At first I was against including an environmental/health section at all, but doing some work on the article I gradually came to believe that inclusion would be the way to go. But I think that some fresh eyes looking at the information would be a good thing. I am still open to whatever the group decides, including removal of the two sections with just a few sentences left. But I would like to see what you'd do with it. What do others think? Gandydancer (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I could offer would be a copy edit; I don't know enough to rewrite it. But for the benefit of the closing editor, although I support a reduction, I also support more than just a paragraph or two. I'm thinking perhaps four tightly written paragraphs would be appropriate, given how central this is to BP; two subsections – (1) what happened, and health/environmental effects, and (2) the legal proceedings. SlimVirgin(talk)02:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose excessive content. I think that while it's important to mention it, we don't need a section that details the environmental impact of oil, or its negative health effects. I feel like that's two steps removed from BP and doesn't belong in the article (though it certainly belongs in the main deepwater horizon article). I feel like a brief, one paragraph summary of the events along with a link to the main article is the way to go. Pvvni (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support detailed discussion of the spill, especially (but not necessarily exclusively) regarding the consequences for BP in terms of financial costs, legal sanctions, public image, internal restructuring, and so forth. I'm clarifying my position here with a firm vote at the request of another editor, but I would like to reiterate that I feel this discussion will not alleviate this deadlock until people begin to look at individual statements and discuss them on their own merits; we have a lot of votes here, but the tally is close and even if that weren't the case and this RfC ended conclusively, individuals would still go on parsing the meaning of the outcome due to how vaguely described the polling question is (with said ambiguity shaping the tone of all of the discussion has followed in such a way that we're basically spinning our wheels). As such, I renew my call for involved editors to start submitting specific proposed edits and working towards a consensus. There are certainly enough involved individuals who felt strongly enough to bring this debate to such a scale, but now conflict fatigue seems to have set in and no one (who is familiar enough with the subject matter and sources) seems to want to grind through that process at present, but I still feel it's our best (if not our only) way forward. Snow (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support discussion of the spill but with a substantial reduction in the length of the section from its present length. At least in the United States, BP is synonymous with Deepwater Horizon. Culture associates the two, so, even if you think the association is misguided, it still worthy of significant discussion within the article. That said, we don't need to detail specifics like the article presently does. In addition, I find that there is no tonal or POV problem with the section, only a length problem; there is no dispute that it was an environmental catastrophe. Marechal Ney (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, I agree that this debate is likely to recycle endlessly unless we do something to stop it but I do not think discussing each sentence individually will help while there is a fundamental difference of opinion between editors over the purpose of the article.
Some users seem to think that we should add everything we can find in the news or media about the subject, often in pursuance of some ulterior motive such as showing how bad the company have been.
I have no opinion, or serious knowledge, of how good or bad BP are but I do know that exposing bad things that an organisation has done is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We need to settle this question before we can go any further. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I feel that approach is putting the cart before the horse; people are simply not going to back down at this point. And in any event, following such an over-arching principle is just going to make editors inflexible and both discussion here and the article itself will continue to suffer as a result. In my experience the best thing you can do in a case like this is stop wasting time trying to establish universal principles that are almost always going to cause things to grind to a halt in practice and begin examining the actual particulars. Not only is this the only guaranteed way to sidestep entrenched positions and hyperbole, but once the process gets started and people see that they might not be so far apart after-all, the process becomes self-sustaining. It becomes as if someone opened up a hole into something under immense pressure and it just starts to flow ceaselessly and is incredibly difficult to stop. And what could be bad about that, eh? ;) Snow (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the question about including separate sections for health, environmental, and economic damage. I don't feel that it is appropriate for this article about BP to include these sections. I believe that the editors that have argued for including these sections have presented their arguments very well, but it could also be argued that including such a brief summary (as must be) in one sense tends to minimize the issues. But mainly, the information just seems out of place in this article, to me... Gandydancer (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on how much eco/health damage to mention in this article: If you do a Google search for BP, in the middle of the first page you will see the Newsweek investigation, "What BP doesn't want you to know about the (DWH oil spill)". The investigation as well as the GAP Report made a big splash, and the revelations have not been disputed. They involve BP alone. BP told the makers of Corexit to keep their safety manuals, and Nalco was left with a roomful of them, which warned that handlers of this product must wear protective gear. BP would not allow their cleanup workers, who sprayed and worked near the dispersant, to wear respirators. Many of them are now very sick, along with coastal residents. Corexit and eco/health damage go hand-in-hand. You can't talk about one without the other. Rachael Maddow covered the Newsweek investigation last week, and said when she interviewed folks in the South during the spill, their one concern was unanimous: potential eco/health damage from Corexit. At that time we were told that no one knew whether Corexit was toxic. But it turns out BP did know, according to the investigation and the GAP Report. And because of the novel, untested use of this amount of a toxic solvent, which was again 100% BP's decision, you can't talk about this oil spill, on this page, without mentioning Corexit. And you can't mention Corexit without talking about its impact and the controversy around its use, which is not even mentioned here (they told the EPA "no" when asked to stop using the product. When mandated to cut use by 75%, use was cut by 9% instead). The story of Corexit use during the DWH spill belongs in this article (and is already covered in the BP oil spill article). At the January 2013 gathering of researchers to discuss the Gulf, the number one concern of all was health effects of the spill, which further justifies more than a mention here. As for how many sections are warranted, that can be worked out amongst editors once they've seen the sources. (As for writing drafts, which was recently suggested here, I am offering up all of my research over the past year at this page, but am unwilling to put any more work into creating content (later edit: unless there is a reasonable chance my efforts won't be entirely wasted). I have put more wasted time into this page and the related oil spill page that I'd like to admit.) petrarchan47tc03:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe, and have argued in the past, that when a corporation does something the best/worst, the first/last, etc., it deserves a mention in their article. BP was the first to use such massive amounts of dispersant and it was the first to use it underwater rather than just sprayed on the water's surface. With that in mind, perhaps it is reasonable to have a small article section: Use of Corexit? Gandydancer (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Gandydancer's edit of 25-5-2013[5] has it about right. The incident already takes up a significant portion of the page. I would oppose more, if anything it can be trimmed back further, and information moved to the subpage on the incident. LK (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've examined Deepwater Horizon oil spill with the relevant sections of this article. Clearly, this article and that one need to be "synchronized," as one would do with music on an IPad, so that one does not fall behind another. With that caveat, I recommend that care be taken to ensure that this article provide a full description of the oil spill, with special emphasis on the impact on BP. Thus the "main" litigation sections need to be here, and summarized in the oil spill article. The environmental effects need to be summarized here, with the main discussion being in the oil spill article. But trims should not be made just for the sake of trimming. Summary style does not necessitate brevity. The NPOV issues raised by some commentators fall flat, because the weight of the reliable sources clearly puts the oil spill at the very top of the issues garnering coverage. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The survey question above is whether or not to mention the 2010 spill. Many answers begin with "Oppose" but don't oppose entirely. The question has confused a few people, and the answers are misleading. Personally, I wonder why we have a survey AND an RfC, but as long as we do, we should make the results more clear. It's possible we need to ask folks to come back and clarify. petrarchan47tc02:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No possible consensus can be derived from the above. 2 RfC's AND a survey....Running together (side by side STS) created the Gordian Knot above. As pointed out, one of the RfC's (If read correctly) called for strick elimination of any inclusion of DWH. But that is not how various supporting and opposing editors read it. Sorry to say but the results of these RfC's is trash and achieved only confusion rather than a cleared path to resolution. ```Buster Seven Talk13:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it was very poorly set up. One may gather from my post that I don't agree that the article needs to address BPs involvement in environmental or health issues but that is not at all the case. I don't believe that they should be addressed under separate headings rather than be included in the explosion/leak section. Also, as I continue to review current events, more and more I do believe that we need to add a Corexit section to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with the conclusion that "these RfC's is trash". Consensus is not counting votes, it is finding the solution which is the most acceptable for different POVs. Notwithstanding if the votes says 'support' or 'oppose', most of them have also explanations what editors exactly mean. Most of participants have supported something in between not mentioning all and the current version. This seems to be a consensus for the staring point for further discussions and it is more consensus than so called "consensus" for large copy-pasted edits on 29-30 April or reverting the good faith work of user:Shii. Fact that there is no majority support for the certain POV, is not a reason to call the RfC 'thrash'. Beagel (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If there is one thing this RfC showed it is that there was no consensus to revert my edits. So, I make them again. I strongly advise anyone who wishes to revert them to demonstrate why they think this RfC showed a different consensus. Shii(tock)22:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Shii, this RfC is 30 days long. The consensus won't be determined by you alone, nor will it be decided before the discussion has closed. petrarchan47tc23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very important point. As the policy just cited pointed out, it would be different if this was a living person. Yes, I realize that some editors here treat BP as if it was a living person, but it is not. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the applicable language in the policy is the following: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The exception being contentious matter added to BLPs, in which lack of consensus means removal. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In first place there was no consensus for 27-29 April mass additions. They were disputed starting from day one, so f no consensus exists, the version of this section as of 27 April should be restored. Beagel (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's beside the point. The "noconsensus" rule applies to additions, which remain if there is no consensus except for BLPs. The additions were the subject of this RfC, very clearly. What you're suggesting is contrary to WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is policy. Coretheapple (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is exactly the point as that the latest RfCs were trigged by the no-consensus copy-paste edits in that dates. Also, conclusion that there is no consensus is biased as majority of editors have said that this section should be something in between of no mentioning at all and the extensive current version. I am sorry to say this but the above arguing to preserve the preferred version of certain editors seems to contradict underlying principles of Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take back my comment about the RfC's being "trash". What I meant to say was they are a confusing mess. And User Shii's challenge...almost daring someone to edit the article...is out of line. A consensus existed prior to Shii's bold alteration. The fact that it was in place for quite some time at this article implies the editors were in at least temporary agreement. To boldly step in, make drastic changes and then dare someone to change it back is outside policy. Out of fear of retaliation (and an unwillingness to waste anymore of my time) I will not revert. But I think a revert is in order. ```Buster Seven Talk00:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should disagree again that "a consensus existed prior to Shii's bold alteration." There has never been consensus about block edits made on 27-29 April. There was edit warring, there was a discussion at the talk page etc. Saying that "the fact that it was in place for quite some time at this article implies the editors were in at least temporary agreement." is misreading the situation. Beagel (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His wholesale, en masse reversions were also contrary to WP:REVERTING. They were not, however, contrary to the general behavior that has hurt this article and driven away editors over quite a period of here time. Coretheapple (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Petachan points out in his edit summary, an RfC lasts 30 days. At that time i suggest an impartial administrator should be called in to make heads or tails out of it. ```Buster Seven Talk01:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The topic of this RfC was the summary-style section on the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. On the question of the topic, the vast majority of those commenting supported the position that both the environmental/heath and the financial/legal consequences of the spill should be covered. On the question of the length of the summary, the shortest position was just a few sentences, with the longest being four paragraphs. The middle ground of two paragraphs saw the most support. Several users commented that the length should be determined by the weight in context to the rest of the article. While this must be true to satisfy our neutral point of view policy, I see nothing in this discussion that suggests two paragraphs would give too much or too little weight to this topic. Near the end of the discussion, there were two concrete proposals for the summary. The first did not receive any comment, but the proposal by User:Buster7 had limited support. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The questions for this RfC are: (1) should the section summarize the environmental and health consequences of the spill, as well as the financial and legal consequences for the company; or should it only summarize the financial and legal consequences for the company? If respondents have other suggestions, please elaborate. And (2) roughly how long should the section be?
Cover Both - Roughly 1 paragraph - Dedicate 2-3 to both the health/environmental thing and 2-3 lines to financial/legal consequences. NickCT (talk)
Summarize of lead, in the lead of the article Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the following half of paragraph and whole paragraph extensively summarizes that subject of this article's role in the spill:
Numerous investigations explored the causes of the explosion and record-setting spill. Notably, the U.S. government's September 2011 report pointed to defective cement on the well, faulting mostly BP, but also well operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.[17][18] Earlier in 2011, a White House commission likewise blamed BP and its partners for a series of cost-cutting decisions and an insufficient safety system, but also concluded that the spill resulted from "systemic" root causes and "absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur".[19]
In November 2012, BP and the United States Department of Justice settled federal criminal charges with BP pleading guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP also agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments[20][21][22] but further legal proceedings not expected to conclude until 2014 are ongoing to determine payouts and fines under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment.[23][24] As of February 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments to a trust fund had cost the company $42.2 billion.[25]
Given that this is what has been seen as the most important parts of the subject of this article's role in the event, then perhaps we should take these parts of that article's lead and summarize it further to paragraph of no more than six standard length sentences.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both should be covered. As to length, the two paragraphs from the DWH oil spill article are concise and informative. Rather than summarize (which, to me, implies "whittling" out} some of the important information, I suggest a Wikipedia editor do a re-write...same information, said differently. Nothing removed just relocated. ```Buster Seven Talk02:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both. I agree with Buster7 above. I think that the significance of the gulf oil spill is such that it requires a thorough exploration in this article. Remember that everywhere but in this article it is referred to as the BP oil spill.Coretheapple (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both with the addition of Corexit coverage. I wholeheartedly agree with Buster's suggestion. I disagree with an arbitrarily pre-scribed number of paragraphs until we're clear about the true impact of this event on the company. petrarchan47tc02:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cover only aspects directly about the company per WP:UNDUE as there are detailed articles about all aspects of DWH (just see the template in the relevant section to find out all these articles). As for size - roughly one paragraph per NickCT (in addition to the existing paragraph in the 'Stock' subsection of the 'Corporate affairs' section, so it would be already two paragraphs together). WP:SS should be applied to avoid WP:POVFORK, WP:RECENT should be also avoided. Beagel (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification of my position: as there are several opinions that the suitable size is two paragraphs, I will support this as said by FurrySings if this is the consensus. As for the content, I support the proposal by Buster Seven described in the 'Version #2 Of DWH lead' subsection. There may be some copyediting but it seems o be a good basis. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cover only aspects directly about the company. The rest is described in several linked articles. Summarising the lead of the main article on the subject, as suggested above, seems like a reasonable idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cover the environmental and health consequences of the spill, as well as the financial and legal consequences for the company. The length should be whatever is required. Corexit should be included, as a Google News search indicates that it is a part of the overall story and interconnected with BP. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both should be covered, but greater weight should be given to the financial and legal consequences. The environmental and health consequences were why there were financial and legal consequences. As far as length, I think three good-sized paragraphs should be the maximum length, with two being preferred.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.16:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both with length to be determined in the usual manner for WP, but 2 paragraphs or so seems appropriate. The consequences of the spill, both economic and ecologic, are notable for BP based on coverage of this event in reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both, but major re-balancing is needed. Right now "impacts" and "prosecutions" constitute about 3/4 of the coverage of the spill. Major info about the spill and capping is missing. It should be rebalanced to put impacts and prosecutions (together) down to about 1/3 of the spill coverage. North8000 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both aspects should be covered (environmental/health and financial/legal). As for length, I would say four shortish, tightly written paragraphs, possibly within two sub-sections, but almost certainly no more than that. SlimVirgin(talk)17:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The amount of coverage should roughly reflect the amount of impact the Gulf spill has had on the company. This might take some investigation, but my first thought is that it caused an initial 40% drop in BP stock, which has only recovered about 10% since then (so, BP is 30% smaller than before the spill due to sell-offs meant to cover spill costs). How do we justify only a few paragraphs to cover something that has had such a large impact on the company?
Another point to consider is that the Corexit story and BP's role in it has yet to be added to the article. From the previous RfC, it was widely accepted that any part of the Gulf spill story that directly relates to BP should be covered in depth in this article. A quick summary: Corexit was chosen by BP to, according to officials, keep the oil from hitting shores; according to independents like Hugh Kaufman, it was to hide the amount of oil spilled and reduce related fines. Corexit was used in unprecedented amounts and untested ways (off-label use, like underwater and near shore). Recent studies are concluding that it is the Corexit that is causing mutations and death in the Gulf, lack of insects on barrier islands, PAHs in the sands and in the air, and human health problems due to BP's hiding the safety manuals and threatening workers' jobs if they wore respirators. The company lied about the safety of Corexit, according to an investigation by Newsweek and GAP. They knew it would hurt their clean up crews. It is a cover-up, and an enormous part of BP's story and particularly the Gulf section of this article. See herehere and here for more. petrarchan47tc22:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Yahoo Finance!, the adjusted closing price of the BP share was on 19 April 2010, day before explosion, $52.46. On 18 June 2013, the closing price was $43.29 or 82.5% of the price of 19 April 2010. This is 17.5%, not 30% less as stated above. The impact of DWH is already described in this article in the 'Stock' subsection, which is under the 'Corporate affairs' section and not under the DWH section.
The consensus from the previous RfC was that anything directly attributed to BP regarding the Gulf spill should be covered in this article. The corexit story with regard to BP's specific involvement is not covered in depth at any other article on wiki. Even if it were covered in depth, that would not be a reason to exclude it here given the directives from the community.
"Dudley has tried to revive BP after the slump following the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill by selling $38 billion in assets and shutting down production in many areas to ensure safety, causing output to decline 7 percent last year. The share price is still about a third lower than before the spill." - Bloomberg March 7, 2013 So, more like 33% than 30%, my bad. My point is not to add this information, but to use it in determining a proper amount of coverage for this event. Clearly anyone who argues "one or two paragraphs should cover it" is missing something. petrarchan47tc18:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The closing price on 18 June 2013 was 82.5% of the adjusted closing price of 19 April 2010, the eve of the DWH explosion. Share prices were provided here, so this is just the simple mathematics. Talking as of today that the share price is 30% or 33% less, is incorrect and does not correspond to the actual share price which is publicly available. The conclusion that the Corexit issue should be covered in this article per the previous RfC, is syrprising interpretation of the discussion and results of that RfC. Beagel (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wether it is 17.5% or 37.5%, I think Petra's point is accurate if not in its specifics. The DWH oil spill had a drastic effect, and is still having a drastic effect, on the BP Corporations financial health. ```Buster Seven Talk16:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a suggestion that takes environmental information from the first, second and third sections of the spill section and reduces it to one screen of information:
Environmental impacts continue, and research is ongoing. [391] According to the United States Department of Justice, oil spills are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems and can cause long-term effects years later even if the oil remains in the environment for a relatively short period of time.[362] In 2012 local fishermen reported that crab, shrimp, and oyster fishing operations had not yet recovered from the oil spill and many feared that the Gulf seafood industry will never recover. [383] In 2013, researchers found that as much as one-third of the oil remains on the bottom of the seafloor and that the spilled oil could have long-term effects on both human and marine life .[392] Three years after the oil spill tar balls are still found on the Mississippi coast, an oil sheen has been evident along coastal marshland[393] and erosion has increased due to the death of mangrove trees and marsh grass.[394][395]
In 2012 it was reported that Gulf residents and cleanup workers continue to suffer serious health problems related to the spill[396] and in 2013 studies found
that many Gulf residents reported mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. These studies also showed that the bodies of former spill cleanup workers carry biomarkers of many chemicals contained in the oil.[397] A study that investigated the health effects among children in Louisiana and Florida living less than 10 miles from the coast found that more than a third of the parents reported physical or mental health symptoms among their children. [397]
This information gives a very minimal version to bring the environmental effects up to date. I just don't see how this could be cut back even further and I'm sure that some think I have cut it too much. We should never forget that this article is about the corporation that is responsible for the largest man-made disaster in the US. I have not added a Corexit section, which I feel is needed as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. government's Sept 2011 report was one of many investigations exploring the explosion and subsequent record-setting oil spill. The report pointed to defective cement used to construct the well, faulting mostly BP, but also rig operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton. [17][18]. A White House commission had earlier found fault with BP and its partners for a series of cost-cutting decisions and an inadequate safety system. The report stated that "the spill resulted from systemic root causes and absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur." [19]
In Nov 2012, BP pled guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the EPA announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments.[20][21][22] Legal proceedings continue to determine additional fines and payouts under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment.[23][24] As of Feb 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments have cost the company $42.2 Billion. [25]
That is not too bad in my opinion. The italic emphasis, which was not in the original, should go, but it is a good start. I would use the exact wording from the DHS lead at the start, the shortened version is less clear.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a good starting point. There is one mistake needing correction: Transocean was the rig operator, not the well operator. Beagel (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There was no consensus found in this RfC. 17 users participated in this RfC. 7 expressed that none of the three options provided should be adopted. The remaining 10 were evenly split between SlimVirgin's and Martin Hogbin's versions. The substantial number expressing that none of the choices are suitable strikes me as a Wikipedia version of jury nullification suggesting that the consensuses in the previous two RfCs were not as strong as they appeared due to lack of voter turnout. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC (2), which closed on 3 July, resulted in consensus to write a two-paragraph subsection to replace the current version, covering the environmental/health aspects of the spill, and the legal/financial consequences for the company.
This is an RfC to determine whether there is consensus to add any of the following versions to the article as first drafts. Further editing of the draft would take place as usual, within the constraints of the RfC (2) consensus, once the draft was added to the article. Therefore, please choose the version you would prefer as a starting point. There is no proposal to change the images and DWH template currently in that section, so the new section will look the same in that regard; an earlier RfC, which closed on 28 May, resulted in consensus to place the DWH template there. SlimVirgin(talk)16:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. government's Sept 2011 report was one of many investigations exploring the explosion and subsequent record-setting oil spill. The report pointed to defective cement used to construct the well, faulting mostly BP, but also rig operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton. [17][18]. A White House commission had earlier found fault with BP and its partners for a series of cost-cutting decisions and an inadequate safety system. The report stated that "the spill resulted from systemic root causes and absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur." [19]
In Nov 2012, BP pled guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the EPA announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments.[20][21][22] Legal proceedings continue to determine additional fines and payouts under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment.[23][24] As of Feb 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments have cost the company $42.2 Billion. [25]
This version is based on the lead from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. Refs will obviously be fixed.
Extended content
The April 20, 2010 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico on the Macondo Prospect was followed by a sea-floor oil gusher which flowed for 87 days[1][2]. The incident claimed 11 lives,[1][3] and the total discharge was estimated at 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m3).[4]. It was largest accidental marine oil spill in history[5][6]. The well was declared sealed on 19 September 2010.[7] A massive response ensued to protect the marine and coastal environment from the spreading oil utilizing skimmer ships, floating booms, controlled burns and 1.84 million US gallons (7,000 m3) of Corexitoil dispersant.[8] Due to the spill, and adverse effects from the response and cleanup activities, extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats, fishing and tourism industries, and human health problems have continued through 2013.[9][10]
Numerous investigations explored the causes of the explosion, notably, the U.S. government's September 2011 report pointed to defective cement on the well, faulting mostly BP, but also rig operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.[11][12]
In November 2012, BP and the United States Department of Justice settled federal criminal charges with BP pleading guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP also agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to $4.525 billion in fines and other payments[13][14][15] but further legal proceedings not are expected to conclude until 2014 .[16][17] As of February 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments to a trust fund had cost the company $42.2 billion.[18]
^ abCite error: The named reference nyt020810 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Yahoo7-20100715 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference AutoBB-5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference report2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference AutoBB-4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference largest in US hist was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Aspress was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference staff4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference AutoBB-7 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference nation180412 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference BOERMEPR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference AutoBB-17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference nyt151112 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference latimes290113 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference AutoBB-21 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill began on 20 April 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon, a drilling rig owned by Transocean and leased by BP to drill an exploratory well, exploded 48 miles (77 km) off the coast of Louisiana in the United States, killing 11 workers.[1] Between then and 15 July, around 4.1 million barrels of oil (170 million US gallons) spilled from a depth of 5,000 ft (1,500 m) into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the world's largest accidental marine oil spill.[2] Around 180 miles of shoreline were "heavily to moderately oiled," according to a US government report.[3] There were further safety concerns about the 1.84 million US gallons of Corexit 9527 and 9500, the oil dispersant BP used during the cleanup, over a third of it applied at depth; it was the largest known application of such dispersants to date.[4]
The environmental impact may not be known for decades.[5] Around 7,000 dead animals were collected, including birds, sea turtles and dolphins;[6] scientists say that only a small percentage of carcasses wash ashore and that the number of dead animals is significantly higher.[7] The human health cost will likewise take years to evaluate. There are anecdotal reports of ill effects, including flu-like symptoms. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences set up the ongoing GuLF Study in June 2010 to investigate; the study aims to collect blood, urine, toenail, hair and domestic dust samples from 20,000 clean-up workers.[8] The Deepwater Horizon Study Group, an international team of 64 experts, attributed the spill to BP's safety culture; the group said safety had been compromised by poor decision-making and management.[9] In November 2012 BP pleaded guilty in the US to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress about the size of the spill. The company agreed to pay $4 billion in fines and other penalties. It estimated that settlements and other expenses would cost it $42 billion in total,[10] including $14 billion for the clean-up, $11 billion in compensation, and $500 million to support research in the area until 2020.[11]
^Robert Bea, "Final report on the Investigation of the Macondo Well Blowout", Deepwater Horizon Study Group, Center for Catastrophic Risk Management, University of California, Berkeley, 1 March 2011 (hereafter "Deepwater Horizon Study Group final report"), p. 6.
^"U.S. Scientific Teams Refine Estimates of Oil Flow from BP's Well Prior to Capping", Deepwater Horizon Unified Command, 2 August 2010: "Overall, the scientific teams estimate that approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil have been released from the well. Not all of this oil and gas flowed into the ocean; containment activities conducted by BP under U.S. direction captured approximately 800,000 barrels of oil prior to the capping of the well."
^"The use of surface and subsea dispersants during the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill", National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, 6 October 2010: "The use of dispersants in the aftermath of the Macondo deepwater well explosion was controversial for three reasons. First, the total amount of dispersants used was unprecedented: 1.84 million gallons. Second, 771,000 of those gallons were applied at the wellhead, located 5,067 feet below the surface. Little or no prior testing had been done on the effectiveness and potential adverse environmental consequences of subsea dispersant use, let alone at those volumes. Third, the existing federal regulatory system pre-authorized dispersant use of Mexico without
any limits or guidelines as to amount or duration."
Elizabeth B. Kujawinski et al, "Fate of Dispersants Associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill", Environmental Science and Technology, 45 (4), 2011, pp. 1298–1306: "Response actions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill included the injection of 771,000 gallons (2,900,000 L) of chemical dispersant into the flow of oil near the seafloor. Prior to this incident, no deepwater applications of dispersant had been conducted, and thus no data exist on the environmental fate of dispersants in deepwater."
J. Wise and J.P. Wise Sr., "A review of the toxicity of chemical dispersants", Reviews on Environmental Health, 26(4), 2011, pp. 281–300: "Chemical dispersants used for the cleanup and containment of crude oil toxicity became a major concern after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. During the crisis, millions of liters of chemical dispersants (Corexit 9527 and 9500) were used – the largest known application of dispersants in the field."
^Aileen Anderson, "BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill," in S. George Philander (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Warming and Climate Change, SAGE, 2012, p. 147: "As of November 2, 2010, 6,814 dead animals had been collected, including 6,104 birds, 609 sea turtles, 100 dolphins and other mammals, and one other reptile."
Suzanne Goldenberg, "Deepwater Horizon aftermath: how much is a dolphin worth?", The Guardian, 19 April 2012: "The dolphins are preserved in giant freezers in marine labs across America. ... The dolphins, among more than 700 that have washed up on Gulf shores since the last two years, are a crucial component of the investigation now underway to decide the cost to BP of restoring the wildlife and environment damaged by the biggest offshore spill in US history."
"FAQs on the Ongoing Gulf of Mexico Dolphin Die-off", National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 27 March 2013: "The role of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on stranding rates, diseases, and the death of dolphins during this Unusual Mortality Event remains under investigation."
^Rob Williams, et al. "Underestimating the damage: interpreting cetacean carcass recoveries in the context of the Deepwater Horizon/BP incident", Conservation Letters, 4(3), June/July 2011, pp. 228–233 (review article): "We estimate historical carcass-detection rates for 14 cetacean species in the northern Gulf of Mexico ... This preliminary analysis suggests that carcasses are recovered, on an average, from only 2% (range: 0–6.2%) of cetacean deaths. Thus, the true death toll could be 50 times the number of carcasses recovered, given no additional information."
"The GuLF STUDY", National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
^Deepwater Horizon Study Group final report, p. 5: "Thus, as a result of a cascade of deeply flawed failure and signal analysis, decision-making, communication, and organizational–managerial processes, safety was compromised to the point that the blowout occurred with catastrophic effects."
None of the above. The current version is fine, and the three alternatives are not good condensations. They fail to give adequate weight to the so-called Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. I disagree with us having to choose from three versions. What's the hurry? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above. The current version needs only a bit of tightening to be an excellent summary. If the bold subsections were scrapped, the content could fit into a nice 4-5 paragraph section. The legal sections could be trimmed to one paragraph easily. We might choose to blend some of Slim's work into the final summary, though, as it is excellent. petrarchan47tc20:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above Considering that there actually was not strong support for only two paras, six (including Martin who did not specify) with two of them saying "2 or three" and "2 or so" and five not willing to place a limit on the additional space needed for health and environmental aspects, I am not willing to support any of the suggestions. In good conscience I just can not sign my name to a decision that would give the DWH spill roughly half the space allowed for the Prudhoe Bay spill. I recently re-read the study group's final report [6] and the WP consensus guidelines and I'd prefer to drop out rather than feel that I did not do my best to see that the spill was reported with the seriousness that it deserves. Gandydancer (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point about how the votes were tallied, Gandy. I've left notes for the closing admin, and maybe your comments would be a good addition here. petrarchan47tc22:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support adding the summary I wrote as a first draft to be improved in situ, so long as it isn't extended too much. It is a compromise between the current long section and the one-paragraph version that was replaced in April, and (it is hoped) will put an end to the dispute about this part of the article. The complaint that it would make this subsection shorter than the Prudhoe Bay oil spill section, or the Texas Refinery one, is to make those shorter too, because both have dedicated articles, and the current main article is around 11,700 words long. (I also think the long history section should be moved to its own article and summarized here.)
I suspect that a lot of readers who click on BP do so to get to other articles, probably mainly Deepwater Horizon oil spill; they click on BP because they've forgotten the name of the spill, or can't be bothered to type it out. The spill article got 87,216 hits last month, and was ranked 3,098 on WP in terms of traffic. This is more hits than BP, which got 72,138 and was ranked 6,804. This suggests to me that people who want a detailed summary of the spill will click ahead, rather than stopping to read the detail in the sub-section here. The readers who don't click ahead are more likely to want the broad brushstrokes.
The draft I produced gives the basic facts, is based on good sources (it includes news sources without relying heavily on them), and the two sentences about human health are MEDRS-compliant. SlimVirgin(talk)22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a mistake to take into consideration that Beagle once put up a one-paragraph DHW summary. No one else supported it, ever. I've left comments at your talk page about the assumption that DHW page hits means that people are happy to go there to get their information rather than to have a good, fact-filled summary here. petrarchan47tc22:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Hogbin's version as the first preference but all three versions are acceptable. More detailed explanation of my position:
All three proposed version are acceptable as starting point.
The current text in the article is not an option per previous RfD and WP:UNDUE.
All three proposed drafts needs some addition and/or factual correction, so the support is given to the drafts as a starting points, not as a final text. (changes to SlimVirgin's draft are discussed here)
Per Jytdog, I am strongly in position that information should be provided in the article which is the main article about the event, that means in the case of DWH this is Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its spin-off articles. To avoid confusion and WP:POVFORK, the summary here should be lead of the Deewater Horizon oil spill article, trimmed to two paragraphs per results of the previous RfC.
Based on this, my first preference is Martin's text, my second preference is Buster's text, my third preference is SlimVirgin's text. But as I said, I am ready to support any of these drafts versus the current text.
Restoration of the 14 April version per SlimVirgin makes sense and it may be also a starting point if trimmed, inter alia the Clean Water Act trial subsection is trimmed to one paragraph, and the separate subsections are direct quotes are removed.
None of the Above - Agree with User:Petrarchan47. These proposals need tightening. If you look at the RfC that concluded on July 3rd, most respondents suggested this thing should be covered in 4-6 lines. NickCT (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - As a couple folks noticed and pointed out, my original opinion didn't make sense (largely b/c I misread Petrarchan47's comment). Let me try again. Two points - 1) I do not dislike any of the proposed versions, but I feel they are too long. I do not feel the proposed versions, as currently written, comply with the sentiment from myself and multiple others in the July 3rd RfC that the section should be 4-6 lines. If the proposed versions were tightened/shortened they'd probably deserve consideration; however, as they are currently written I support none of the above. 2) I completely agree with Petra's sentiment that "The current version needs only a bit of tightening to be an excellent summary.". Further more I agree with her sentiment that the "bold subsections [should be] scrapped,". Hope my position is now clear. Apologies for the confusion. NickCT (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I am going to have to ask that your suggestions are thrown out, based on the guidelines which state, Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.
From an earlier RfC, you revealed that you do not have a basic understanding of this spill in terms of impact on BP or the environment, nor a basic understanding of the scale of it. You compared the Exxon valdez to this one, saying The two spills are quite comparable. True the BP spill involved about ten times as much oil, but oil dumped in the middle of the gulf is significantly less meaningful than oil dumped off the coast of Alaska. In total the economic impact of Valdez was probably over half of the impact Deepwater created. In terms of the company's stock value, give it 30 years and I'm pretty sure BP will be sitting as pretty as ExxonMobile is. ;-) NickCT (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
When I gave you the facts about how much oil made it to the shorelines of 4 states, and continues to, you said Mate, if you think me dumping 100 barrels of oil in the middle the Atlantic is going to be as environmentally harmful as me going to your local protected nature reserve and dumping it there, you've got to check your perspecitive on reality. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It does follow that with this ideology, your iVotes would be outliers in the field, and indeed you are one pulling for as little mention as possible. petrarchan47tc02:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. That's probably probably the sternest rebuke I've got from someone I was trying to agree with. Look, I maintain that in terms of total economic impact, Valdez and DWH were comparable spills, though I completely accept your assertion that in terms of total volume of oil spilled DWH was significantly worse. As I'd pointed out, there a large number of variables which effect a spill's economic impact beyond simple quantity of oil spilled. Anyways, it probably won't help for us to hurl facts surrounding the spill at each other. The bottom line is that folks smarter about oil spills than you or I, have done the Valdez/DWH comparison and come to the conclusion I've stated.[citation needed]
re "indeed you are one pulling for as little mention as possible" - Well thanks for assuming good faith. I am "pulling" for two things. 1) I'm am pulling to avoid WP:RECENTISM, which I think is a large part of why the section is currently so large & 2) I'm pulling to come into compliance with Wikipedia:Article size. Is my main concern that this section be short? You're darn right it is. Am I trying to "coverup"/avoid discussion of DWH. No. DWH absolutely has to be mentioned and emphasized. It's an important and notable part of BP's history. I just think we can mention and emphasize it efficiently in 4-6 lines. Again, if you review the earlier RfC on article length, you'll note that my sentiment on length did not vary significantly from what others were calling for. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have not agreed with me, my statements referred to the text in the article, not the drafts. And I am not rebuking you, this was a note regarding policy and is really meant for consideration by the closing admin. petrarchan47tc18:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read above -
I completely agree with Petra's sentiment that "The current version needs only a bit of tightening to be an excellent summary.".
It is getting a bit confusing, in one sentence you are commenting on the drafts (too long), and the next you agree with me. But I was not referring to any of the drafts, I was talking about the 8 paragraph section in the article. I figured you thought I was talking about the drafts? Anyway, Nick, none of my comments are personal. But your misinformation and lack of information about the subject at hand does disqualify your many contributions to these RfCs, unless I'm reading the guidelines wrong. petrarchan47tc04:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Let me try to state this again. I think there are two possible solutions here - 1) We try to rework the drafts to make them shorter. Then reconsider them. Or 2) We just do what you suggested (i.e. shorten the current text).
My very initial RfC response was actually based on a misreading of what you were saying (which might be the basis for the confusion). But my next comment tried to clarify.
Regardless, you do appear to be misreading the policy, because none of the rationales for discarding seem to apply to me.
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. This is a matter for the closing admin, not for us. I have alerted him to this conversation. I expect he is brushing up on the oil spill facts as we speak and reviewing the comments for bogus arguments which should be thrown out. You didn't know the most basic facts about the topic, and even after I showed you the scale (one ExxonValdez every 2-3 days for 83 days), you still called it "ten times the size of Valdez". According to NWF, the ExxonValdez spilled 10.8 million gallons, and BP spilled 172 million. Amazingly, you believed the oil stayed out at sea and didn't affect coastlines or protected habitats. You thought the oil spilled at sea was relatively harmless, showing you aren't aware of the Corexit application to that oil, making it 52 times more toxic. Dolphins to this day are dying at 6 times the pre-spill rate. You mentioned that scientists 'smarter than you and I' have compared the Valdez and BP spills, finding them similar, but did not provide a requested source (I doubt one exists, but you surely must have seen one?). When I informed you the spill has hurt BP by making them 1/3 smaller company, you lightheartedly said "give them 30 years" - but we are here to determine the scale of this in 2013. You apparently have a preconceived notion about the spill and how it should be covered, and is isn't guided by actual DWH spill facts nor is it swayed by them. I was astounded by the result of these RfCs, and figured something went awry. Your prolific contribs to these DWH discussions have most assuredly contributed to the rfc result, a 2 paragraph limitation which makes no sense when the true scale of the spill is considered. (This doesn't mean you aren't a great guy!!) petrarchan47tc18:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re "even after I showed you the scale (one ExxonValdez every 2-3 days for 83 days), you still called it "ten times the size of Valdez". According to NWF, the ExxonValdez spilled 10.8 million gallons, and BP spilled 172 million." - Wait wait wait. Your numbers put the spill at 15.9 times bigger. You are going to tell me that my saying the spill was 10 times bigger, when (according to one set of numbers) it was 15.9 times bigger means that I have "no understanding of the matter of issue"? Ever heard of approximation?
re " Amazingly, you believed .... Dolphins to this day are dying at 6 times the pre-spill rate." - The great majority of oil didn't reach the coastline. That is true. Some of course did. When I said "relatively harmless" I repeatidly stated I was talking in terms of economic impact. Obviously it's very sad that a dolphin dies, but I'm not sure how consequential that is in terms of financial loss.
re " but we are here to determine the scale of this in 2013. " - That's exactly contrary to what WP:RECENTISM says.
re "Your prolific contribs to these DWH discussions ... contributed to the rfc result" - Ummmm... Not just me contributing "prolificly". Look at Slim. She's commenting all the time. Is she causing the astounding results?
re " a 2 paragraph limitation which makes no sense when the true scale of the spill is considered" - Well, I maintain that DWH and Valdez are comparable in scale. Obviously this is a "OSE" argument", but I think the DWH should look something like ExxonMobil#Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill. Please remember that the article is currently too long. If you want a longer DWH section, you should probably point to other parts of the article you think can be trimmed.
re "This doesn't mean you aren't a great guy!!" - None of this means you aren't a great gal either. This is probably a good topic for one to get passionate about. But we should be cautious not to let passion infringe on WP:NPOV. NickCT (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Above This is something of a Hobson's choice. Let's take a breath and start over. On the merits, I agree with Petrarchan47 who said, contrary to the misinterpetation immediately above, that the current version only needs to be tightened. Coretheapple (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re "contrary to the misinterpetation immediately above" - Man.... You are actually reading peoples' arguments? Anyways, I don't really care whether we tighten and adopt one of the new versions or "tighten" the current. Whatever we have, it's just got to be tighter. NickCT (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. You don't need to strike. You were right. I did misread. But regardless, having reread, I still think what she's suggesting is OK. But I'm also not against tightening one of the proposed revisions and using the product to replace the current text. NickCT (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin's version If we already have a consensus that 4-6 lines should be dedicated to this, then a small tightening of the present version doesn't seem possible. Of the three drafts, SlinVirgin's version is clearest. Of course, there is the dedicated article which is the primary representation of this incident on the project and we're only discussing the summary section. As a sidenote, the DH incident is covered in the lead of this article in excessive detail, in my opinion ("11 counts of felony manslaughter"). --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above. The suggested versions are too short or otherwise unsatisfactory. Deepwater Horizon was a major landmark event and should not be given less attention than other spills/explosions. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin's version I agree entirely with SlimVirgin's reasoning and (importantly) evidence above, that people don't come to the BP article to read about the DWH spill - they go to the DWH article. When sections grow into full length articles and are forked off, I strongly favor leaving a stub in the main article, strictly based on the lede of the forked article (copy/pasted, even, with refs added where lacking) along with a "see X" hat. If the lede of the forked article changes, the stub in the main article should change. That way readers are not yanked all over and Wikipedia doesn't develop thickets of conflicting-at-worst, and differing-at-best, content in different places. Martin's version is based on the lede of the DWH article. (I would actually favor just copy/pasting the lede of the DWH article here. I note that the lede of the DWH article doesn't reflect its environmental section very well!) I did not vote for SlimVirgin's because it is not based off the lede of the DWH article; and because there is detail in it, that is not even in the DWH article (~7000 dead animals and 700 dead dolphins), and I don't think those raw numbers are helpful. (Does 700 = 80% or 2% of the dolphin population?) In any case, I hope my arguments here make sense, even if folks don't agree with them. Stubs for forks should be copies of the fork's lede, so that wikipedia doesn't grow disorganized and unhelpful to readers. The thing to fight over, is the content and lede of the DWH article. Wuick additional note - I am fine with copy/pasting a lede and editing it down to fit the main article's context and needs. In this case the series of RfCs have called for something shorter than the 4 paragraphs in the DWH lede, so it should be edited down to fit the RfCs. But there should be nothing here that is not in the DWH article. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin's version. Our articles on disasters don't say that, for example, a certain percentage of NYC residents were killed in the 9/11 attacks, and I think the absolute numbers are meaningful in a way at percentages would not be. And what would the region area or volume be from which to take a percentage? EllenCT (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin's version is the best of the three, though even that one could be more balanced. Slim's version is simply unacceptable, reading like it was ripped from a Greenpeace pamphlet. I don't think, however, that we need to go with simply having the DWH article lede here as this article is about the company. Casting details in a more relevant light would be desirable.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.07:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin's version is by far the best of the three. Buster's version is far too narrow (it's just about assigning blame). Slim's version has a lot of good content in it (which should be viewed as possible additions), but also a lot of vague content-free advocacy-group type sentences. On another note, the posed question is ambiguous because it doesn't say exactly what would get deleted / replaced, so I was unable to compare Martin's to the current version of what would get replaced. (I was asked to comment by the bot) North8000 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of them I was randomly recruited by RFCbot. I would recommend first finding consensus on an outline or if that's too hard, simply listing the most important, basic points to include in a summary. Then the discussion is not clouded by word choices or style issues and it will be much clearer how many lines will be required to cover the material.. Jojalozzo03:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the point of these RfCs is to gain a rolling consensus for a variety of issues, so that progress is made.
Therefore, if RfC (1) results in consensus X, RfC (2) asks: "given consensus X, what do you prefer of the following?" Responding outside that framework – e.g. "but I didn't agree to consensus X" – just means that the dispute goes back and forth with no way forward. It also runs the risk that the closing editor will overlook that kind of response, or won't know how to evaluate it. SlimVirgin(talk)16:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slim. I have added 'Keep current version' as an option. Otherwise, if this RfC resulted in no clear consensus that could be taken as a consensus for the current version. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RfC went against that, so we already have no consensus for the current version. Please don't add anything that's inconsistent with that, otherwise there will have been no point in holding RfC (2). SlimVirgin(talk)16:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the current version as an option, although it defeats the purpose of having held RfC (2). I was going to add an old version for comparison's sake, but looking around there are several. This was a better one, but it's longish. So I propose just leaving the RfC with these four options. SlimVirgin(talk)17:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it is but it was not my wording but an attempt at generating a neutral version by using material that I had no influence over. I think responders should be made aware of its origin, therefore there should be a note somewhere indicating this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Martin, I apologize for responding to your comment and for moving it here. I didn't realize it was your survey response. I thought you were just pointing out where it had come from, and had posted it in the wrong place. Sorry about that. Please feel free to move it back, if you want to, with or without my reply as you see fit. SlimVirgin(talk)17:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a serious concern as to whether the BP Oil Spill can be compressed into two paragraphs without giving the subject lack of proper weight. Whatever local consensus may say on the subject, it does not override core policies such as WP:NPOV. I realize that this is a subjective issue, but feel I had to throw that out for discussion. That is the central issue here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it entirely subjective? I don't see it that way. We can look to some facts about the impact this spill has had on the company, size and stock-wise, as well as its impact on the environment, and the amount of "first ever" and "largest ever" fines, amount spilled, chemicals used, etc. for a more objective take, no? petrarchan47tc22:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering by what authority an editor, initiating an RfC, has the right to arbitrarily set its duration at 14 days. This is now the second RfC in which the initiator has decided it is to be 14 days. This is the middle of the summer in the northern hemisphere,and in the US we just had the July 4 holidays. A lot of us are away. Since the results of these RfCs seem to be binding, permanent and draconian, I don't think it's right to shortcircuit the process. The RfC page says "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." I'm a little behind the times, so my apologies if this has already been addressed. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've also asked Nathan to reopen the previous RfC. It may not change the outcome, but at least it will not leave people with the feeling that things have been rushed. Some of the people involved have worked on this article for a long time, and have had many head-butts with a BP employee who is treated as a kind of prince by a lot of editors. It has left them feeling bitter and I don't blame them. Let's not add to that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, besides the confusion re the length of the new section, despite overwhelming support for inclusion of the environmental/health aspects, after only a few days of discussion it is really not at all acceptable to expect an editor to vote on one of three drafts, one with no e/h information, one with one sentence and one with four. Gandydancer (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Editor Martin. Tactical maneuvering? Anti-BP? Environmental soapbox? All in one sentence? I thought we were moving toward becoming collaborators. Jargon like that doesn't help. From the first thread at WP:Consensus:Editors usually reach consensus as a natural product of editing. After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. So...the way I read that is contrary to your claim that it "Never had consensus". I know that it doesn't have consensus now and that we editors are working toward achieving consensus but there were moments, maybe not long moments, but moments nonetheless, when there was consensus. ```Buster Seven Talk21:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Buster. The non-constructive behaviour and non-readiness to accept the results of the previous RfC by some editors is hardly "moving toward becoming collaborators." Beagel (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's an objection, I've removed that the RfC will end after 14 days. I've also suggested here that, in the meantime, it might be a good idea to revert to the three-paragraph version of the DWH section from 14 April, or thereabouts, as that seems to have been a better length. That would be closer to consensus than the current version. The 14 April Clean Water Act trial section – which is part of the DWH spill aftermath – could be reduced to one paragraph, and added to that section too.
If that's not done, it means the current eight-paragraph section will be there for an additional 14 days, which is problematic given the opposition to it. As a gesture of goodwill until the RfC has closed, reverting to an earlier version – or at least reducing the length of the current version – would be a step in the right direction. SlimVirgin(talk)22:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin. The current RfC is about the clarification of the results of the previous RfCs. We already have had a full time RfC and one 14-days RfC about this issue. In these conditions, the 30-days RfC serves only purpose to keep the current text in the article as long as possible, particularly taking account that the 14-days term was opposed by the editor who inserted the current version back in April. However, I strongly support you that the 14 April version (if the Clean Water Act trial subsection is trimmed to one paragraph and the separate subsection is removed). I kindly ask you make it as it probably will be immediately reverted if done by some other editor who have been involved in these disputes for a long time. Beagel (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too would agree with that. It was a long-standing and stable version. We could then drop the RfC and discuss what, if anything should be added. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd be reluctant to do it myself, because I'm unfamiliar with this and have no science background, so writing about it and checking sources is a struggle for me. But Beagel and Martin (or anyone else), if you already know that the sources in the 14 April version are solid, or you have a background that allows you to check them quickly, it would make sense for you to restore that version (or a nearby version of similar length). I'd be surprised if anyone were to revert at this point. Arguably, a little more could be said about the environmental and health consequences, but hopefully that could be dealt with via normal editing, and without making the section much longer. SlimVirgin(talk)18:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This change requires more that Beagle and Martin's approval, in my opinion. But I'm not sure everyone is aware their opinion is being asked. They are focused on the RfC. petrarchan47tc18:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history: there was some slight expansion of the DWH section shortly after 14 April, but the main expansion happened here on 29 April. That expansion was reverted by Rangoon here, and that's where things would normally have stopped, per WP:BRD. However, Rangoon often engaged in wholesale reverting if there was any part of an edit he didn't like, and that tended to create a dynamic in which his reverts were challenged (even although, strictly speaking, he was right that new material should be removed if there are objections). Perhaps for that reason, BRD didn't hold, and first Core and then Petra reverted to the expanded version.
There was later reverting (back to the pre-29 April version) by Shii, rv by Figureofnine, and again by Robert McClenon, rv by Figureofnine; the last revert to the post-29 April expanded version was on 10 May. Robert McClenon started the first RfC on that section on 9 May, and the other two RfCs have followed on from that one. All or most of the changes that were made on 29 April are still in place.
Based on this, it seems reasonable to revert to the pre-dispute version. That would either be the version from on or around 14 April, before the slight expansion began, or from 29 April before the significant expansion took place. SlimVirgin(talk)19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate this description of my work here. I put a lot of time into this article until it became too unpleasant to work here, and seeing this reminds me of why I left. I had hoped things had become less ugly by now.Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to hope my opinion has changed. The work is rated by its quality, not the time spent. Drive-by is a reference to your history here, though I realize it normally refers to a very short period of time. I think the massive cuts you made to the environmental section is what started the very heated debate that continues to this day. Prior to those cuts, though no agreement existed, no one was too bothered by the section, and it wasn't a topic of much debate at that point. Certainly no RfCs had been proposed. we've since had three. Would you be willing to show a diff so I can see your version compared with how it looked before your arrival? I'm not able to do that much searching atm, but I'd like to see the diff and make sure I'm remembering things correctly. petrarchan47tc01:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion (which I have no hopes about one way or the other) but your behavior remains too rude for me; this is what I hoped had changed. SlimVirgin invited me to give comments, which I honored, and I am once again outta here. I have better ways to spend my wikipedia time. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can't be argued this would be an improvement. One para about the spill and three about court cases. Why don't we just breathe and realize, as others have said, there is no rush. petrarchan47tc20:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense that if there was an easy solution, an acceptable past version to which we could default, we would've thought of this already. There is no answer but to do the work required. petrarchan47tc21:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slimvirgin, there is really no such thing as a "pre-dispute" version, as there have been continual disputes over a period of years. What you're suggesting is reversion to a contentious version. Coretheapple (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth considering this earlier look at different versions of the DWH section done by editors who normally work on this article. Perhaps this past discussion and links should be reprinted here for easier access? petrarchan47tc21:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Core, the problem is that your edit of 29 April added around 400 words to a section about a contentious issue. Following the revert of that edit, a discussion should have taken place to gain consensus for the expansion. That didn't happen because the dynamic on the page was that the DWH spill had been unduly minimized in the past (at one point, not even mentioned in the lead), and at least one editor (perhaps more) was reverting for no good reason. So when people did revert for a legitimate reason, those reverts were undone several times. I understand that it happened out of frustration with prior events, so please don't take it as a criticism.
So now we have a situation where an expansion that failed to gain consensus has been in place since 29 April, despite two RfCs saying the section is too long. With the recent request that the 3rd RfC last 30 days, it means it will remain in place until at least 7 August. That's why I'm suggesting that we revert to a pre-29 April version until the RfC has concluded; you could, for example, revert your own 29 April edit. Doing that might even be enough to make the RfC moot. SlimVirgin(talk)21:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Jtydog's reductions precede Core's edits? Also, please consider the December discussion which shed an important light on the edit warring over this section. It most certainly did not begin in April. petrarchan47tc22:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I like SlimVirgin's recommendation about going back to the 14 April version; the only change that would really need to be made, is that the 2nd paragraph in that version should be deleted, as it is a partial and out-of-context discussion of the civil proceedings discussed again in the Clean Water Act section of the April 14 version. (here is the detail: The 31 August 2012 filings by DoJ that are mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the April 14 version, were just a procedural step in the civil proceedings, which actually began on December 15, 2010, as the current version states. Prior editors had not understood that the 2nd paragraph and the Clean Water Act proceedings were the same thing. I consolidated them at some point, I don't remember when exactly - that consolidation became what is the "civil proceedings" section of the current article.) I think the current version of the "civil proceedings" section is accurate and complete (unlike the April 14 version of the Clean Water Act trial) and we should use it, appended to the April 14 version, with some editing for fat as follows:
On December 15, 2010, The US Department of Justice filed a civil and criminal suit against BP and other defendants for violations under the Clean Water Act in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.[405][406]:70 The case was consolidated with about 200 others, including those brought by state governments, individuals, and companies under Multi-District Litigation docket MDL No. 2179, before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier.[407][408] Judge Barbier is trying the case without a jury, as is normal in United States admiralty law.[409][410] The Justice Department contends that BP committed gross negligence and willful misconduct, which BP contests, and is seeking the stiffest penalties possible.[411] A ruling of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in Clean Water Act penalties, which would cause the penalties to reach approximately $17.6 billion, and would increase damages in the other suits as well.[26][27][28] Any fines from gross negligence would hit BP's bottom line very hard, because they would not be tax-deductible.[412] The company paid no federal income tax to the U.S. government in 2010 because of deductions related to the spill.[413] The consolidated trial's first phase began on February 25, 2013, to determine the liability of BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other companies, and to determine whether the companies acted with gross negligence and willful misconduct.[414][415] [25] The second phase, scheduled in September 2013, will focus on the amount of oil spilled into the gulf and who was responsible for stopping it. The third phase will focus on all other liability that occurred in the process of oil spill cleanup and containment issues, including the use of dispersants.[416][417] Test jury trials will follow to determine actual damage amounts.[409]
should have said, the current "civil proceedings" section should be edited and re-arranged as follows.
On December 15, 2010, The US Department of Justice filed a civil and criminal suit against BP and other defendants for violations under the Clean Water Act in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.[405][406]:70 The case was consolidated with about 200 others, including those brought by state governments, individuals, and companies.[407][408] The consolidated trial's first phase began on February 25, 2013, to determine the liability of BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other companies, and to determine whether the companies acted with gross negligence and willful misconduct.[414][415] [25] The second phase, scheduled in September 2013, will focus on the amount of oil spilled into the gulf and who was responsible for stopping it. The third phase will focus on all other liability that occurred in the process of oil spill cleanup and containment issues, including the use of dispersants.[416][417] Test jury trials will follow to determine actual damage amounts.[409] A ruling of gross negligence against BP would result in a four-fold increase in Clean Water Act penalties, which would cause the penalties to reach approximately $17.6 billion, and would increase damages in the other suits as well.[26][27][28] (I removed the things I marked for deletion, and moved the statement about financial impact to the end, after the description of the trial phases)Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who is looking for the last undisputed version of the section, I will point you to 25 May 2012 which looked like the following (with images and references removed). I recommend this version be considered the last 'good' version, to be minimally updated with more recent information. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 20 April 2010, the semi-submersible exploratory offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizonexploded after a blowout; it sank two days later, killing 11 people. This blowout in the Macondo Prospect field in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in a partially capped oil well one mile below the surface of the water. Experts estimate the gusher to be flowing at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day (5,600 to 9,500 m3/d) of oil. The exact flow rate is uncertain due to the difficulty of installing measurement devices at that depth and is a matter of ongoing debate. The resulting oil slick covers at least 2,500 square miles (6,500 km2), fluctuating from day to day depending on weather conditions. It threatens the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida.
The drilling rig was owned and operated by Transocean Ltd on behalf of BP, which is the majority owner of the Macondo oil field. At the time of the explosion, there were 126 crew on board; seven were employees of BP and 79 of Transocean. There were also employees of various other companies involved in the drilling operation, including Anadarko, Halliburton and M-I Swaco.
The US Government has named BP the responsible party, and officials have committed to hold the company accountable for all clean-up costs and other damage. BP has stated that it would harness all of its resources to battle the oil spill, spending $7 million a day with its partners to try to contain the disaster. In comparison, BP's 1st quarter profits for 2010 were approximately $61 million per day. BP has agreed to create a $20 billion spill response fund administered by Kenneth Feinberg. The amount of this fund is not a cap or a floor on BP's liabilities. BP will pay $3 billion in third quarter of 2010 and $2 billion in fourth quarter into the fund followed by a payment of $1.25 billion per quarter until it reaches $20 billion. In the interim, BP posts its US assets worth $20 billion as bond. For the fund's payments, BP will cut its capital spending budget, sell $10 billion in assets, and drop its dividend. BP has also been targeted in litigation over the claims process it put in place for victims. A class action lawsuit was filed against BP and its initial claims administrator, the ACE, Ltd. Insurance Group company ESIS.
BP began testing the tighter-fitted cap designed to stop the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico from a broken well for the first time in almost three months. The test began Wednesday, 14 July 2010 with BP shutting off pipes that were funnelling some of the oil to ships on the surface, so the full force of the gusher went up into the cap. Then deep-sea robots began slowly closing – one at a time – three openings in the cap that let oil pass through. Ultimately, the flow of crude was stopped. All along, engineers were and still are watching pressure readings to learn whether the well is intact. Former coast guard admiral Thad Allen, the Obama administration's point man on the disaster, said the government gave the testing go-ahead after carefully reviewing the risks. "What we didn't want to do is compound that problem by making an irreversible mistake," he said.
(edit conflict) I was about to say that User:Jytdog's version is a total nonstarter, as it contains not a word about the environmental and health effects and was heatedly disputed. Also I believe that SlimVirgin was proposing reverting back to April 29,not 14. I haven't looked at the proposal immediately above and will do so. Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet, I think that version is worth considering as a starting-off point, if it can be updated to reflect the litigation etc. now underway. It is well written and has facts not contained currently (in the version I wrote). Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever. It is still by no way, shape or form a "pre-dispute" version. It was deeply disputed, and is primarily a sum-up of litigation. We went well beyond that. I honestly do not understand the zeal to "turn the clock back" in general, by arbitrarily picking old versions and calling them "pre-dispute." To quote Churchill, "let us go forward together," not backwards. Coretheapple (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, Core, on going forward toward consensus! however based on the series of RfCs the way forward is to trim back detail in this article. You are not disagreeing with that, are you? I can hear you, that the proposal to use the April 14 would lead to content being missing that you would like to see included. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has to be trimmed, but not in a manner that will result in underweighting of the DWH oil spill, which was the defining event for this company and which is the subject of ongoing news and ongoing litigation that may subject the company to serious consequences. Coretheapple (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having been busy elsewhere for a while, I have just caught up on the discussions here and would like to offer a few thoughts. I feel it would be best for me to not vote in this RfC due to my conflict of interest, but I do think that both Martin Hogbin and SlimVirgin put forward decent summaries of the spill and impacts, either would be a reasonable option in my view. With regards to length of the section, I have no preference as to a shorter or longer section, just that in either case the information should reflect all of the available news and scientific coverage.
When SlimVirgin initially presented her draft, she mentioned that BP's perspective might be needed, so if it is not too late to make a suggestion here there are two things I would like to mention:
Also, regarding the figures for dolphin deaths included in the draft, while the spill has been cited as one of the potential causes of the deaths of dolphins in unusually large numbers over the last three years, the deaths began before the spill and scientists are still investigating the root cause. If the number of dolphins should be included, it should make clear that the spill is not considered the sole reason for the their deaths. See the NOAA website on this, which states "the investigation is ongoing and no definitive cause has yet been identified".
A brief note of thanks to SlimVirgin for including this information. I appreciate your taking my comments into account. Your revisions look good to me. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I added the BP figures, but I decided just to remove the number of dolphin deaths. It would get too complicated (for this summary) to outline the argument that the increase in deaths was perhaps happening already. I added a quote from the NOAA to the footnote: "The role of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on stranding rates, diseases, and the death of dolphins during this Unusual Mortality Event remains under investigation." SlimVirgin(talk)17:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: Has this article become a forum for anti-BP sentiment?
Some editors believe that, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill, this article has become a vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment. Other editors disagree and consider the current content to be encyclopedic and neutral.
Previous RfCs have failed to resolve this issue so comment from as wide a section of the WP community is sought to obtain a definitive decision. 09:43, 5 December 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)
Patent nonsense. This article is far too vigorously defended from negative information, no matter how firmly rooted the negatives are in reliable sources. For instance, in September 2012 I tried to point the reader to published analysis of Browne's leadership, showing that a substantial vein of opinion exists that lays the blame for environmental disasters at Browne's feet, because of the corporate culture he set in place emphasizing profit above safety.[7] The response to this was immediate: reverted by Belchfire (now indef blocked). On the talk page we discussed the concerns about BLP, and I showed that Reuters UK, Fortune, Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Guardian, CBS News and more had made this exact point. The next day I returned the material to the article, reinforced this time with more sources,[8] and it was immediately reverted by Rangoon11 (now indef blocked). We talked about the issue some more, but the quantity of argument was superior (not the quality) for this widely reported analysis to stay out of the article. This experience cemented my impression that the article's defenders were not taking a balanced and neutral approach. Despite some personnel changes at this talk page, I am doubtful the culture has shifted to one of neutrality. I find it ludicrous that Martin Hogbin is making the case here that the imbalance falls the other way. Simply astounding. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No -- Quite the opposite is true. It seems like we've had far too many BP public relations staff at work here. I would say that given BP's level of environmental destruction, worker injuries, criminal activity, etc. that the brief and objectively written sections on these things in this article are remarkably mild compared to what a lot of resources have to say about it (I would even suggest that they are so mild that, as Binskternet points out, the article might even be considered biased in favor of BP). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One example would be Arturo_at_BP whose user page reads: "Welcome to my user page. I have established this account to help improve BP-related articles in line with Wikipedia standards and guidelines. In the interest of full transparency, I chose “Arturo at BP” as my username so that my affiliation with BP is abundantly clear to all parties I may interact with on Wikipedia." ... The fact that the creator of this RFC seems so interested in paid editing COI issues also seems rather suspicious to me. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please explain: "The fact that the creator of this RFC seems so interested in paid editing COI issues also seems rather suspicious to me." The creator of this RFC is Martin Hogbin. What is being said to be suspicious? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jrtayloriv, I have indeed had a lively discussion with anther editor over paid editing and advocacy but my view remains that it is some unpaid editors who are the real problem. This article is a disgrace to WP. Over half of it article is criticism of the subject, that is without parallel in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not criticism of the subject but negative factual material appearing in reliable sources. It is not unusual for an article to contain significant negative content when the sources so dictate. That point was recently made clear to me in another article in which I raised very much the same point that you are. In fact, I could very well have started an RfC very similar to what you have done here, and I think the outcome, similarly, would have been against me. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... as nominator -- Martin, could you maybe incorporate your comment here into the introduction for this RFC? As it stands here, it looks like someone is agreeing with you, when in fact, everyone else disagrees with you, and you are merely agreeing with yourself. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is normal in RfCs for the instigator to state their opinion in the body of the RfC. The introduction should be neutral. I would be happy to move my comment to the top if you like to just below the intro, Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. An absurd statement. The article is in a state of repair after an extended period during which it was a "poster child" for COI run amok, abetted by editors who placed BP-created text in the article without even cursory vetting. In major respects the article was deficient, toeing the BP line such as by giving grossly disproportionate attention to the alternative energy division, in keeping with BP's PR line. The article for a long time incorrectly stated that alternative energy was a "main business segment" when it was not, and this serious error persisted for many months despite a PR representative scrutinizing this article regularly for every single possible lack of lack of BP spin but not noticing or seeking correction of this serious error. The sorry state of this article resulted in damaging publicity and was a major black eye for Wikipedia. As Binksternet has correctly pointed out, the process of fixing this article is an ongoing process and is as yet incomplete. Coretheapple (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Saw this on the RfC page, just dropping by. After glancing over the article, with specific time given to read the section mentioned in the RfC, it strikes me as a bit ludicrous to suggest the article is too anti-BP. It reads nothing like that at all. While I think it reads fairly neutral currently, Binksternet makes excellent points that there are ongoing reliable news stories out there that are negative for BP, and are not included in the article. I think it's fair to add some of them to continue the narrative of the oil spill. Best of luck to all, GRUcrule (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not Through negligence and willful misconduct, BP caused an oil spill that has been called one of the worst ecological disasters in U.S. history. The oil was in the water, on the shorelines, and in the air through evaporation and controlled burns (5% was burned) for months. According to the US Department of Justice, "Oil spills are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems and can cause long-term effects years later even if the oil remains in the environment for a relatively short period of time."[9] It has been suggested (see above) that we are not permitted, per WP guidelines, to include any health related information in this article other than medical review articles. I don't believe that it is Wikipedia's intent to allow health coverage of the 9/11 disaster but disallow similar coverage of a disaster caused by a multinational corporation. I'd suggest to anyone that thinks we have inappropriate health coverage to read the health sections of the September 11 attack article. In fact, I don't see how anyone could read the 9/11 disaster article and suggest anything but that our coverage of the BP disaster is minimal. Gandydancer (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I have a Pavlovian response to editing this page, and usually updates remain in my files instead of on this page because I don't want to deal with the accusations and inevitable, knee-jerk RfC's. Right now, studies are coming out regarding health and environmental effects of the BP oil spill, but if we have a meme here that editors are being unfair to BP, it serves to keep such additions off the page. I imagine other editors will agree to feeling a certain nervousness when it's time to make an update here, and would probably agree that many times they have chosen peace over updating the page. I raise my hand high. For instance: this is some expected, albeit damning data that needs to be added, replacing the outdated info we currently have. But I don't want the grief, so it remains in my file box. Having a BP PR rep looking over our shoulders has had a negative effect on this article and on Wikipedia, in my opinion. As people have noted: the page is whitewashed. petrarchan47tc21:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Every corporation has its controversies. This article contains more controversy content than other content. I am aware that I am probably in the minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a recurring theme: we should judge content here based on other articles, be it corporations, oil companies, or similar. In fact, content for any article on Wikipedia depends on RS. A review of RS turns up what others have echoed: there is a LOT of very negative information out there on this company. "Three Little Piggies" comes to mind. But the bulk of it isn't being reflected here, not by a long shot. petrarchan47tc23:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. I hadn't looked at the article in years, but in reading through it now, I think it looks remarkably evenhanded. Yes, there's a lot of negative content. If there weren't, I'd be very concerned, considering the events of the past several years. There's also a considerable amount of positive content, and I see no glaring WP:NPOV problems with any of the content, positive or negative. Rivertorch (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't justify it, and as long as no specific evidence of undue weight has been presented, no one need justify it. While quantifying the criticism contained in an article may be an interesting exercise, it isn't necessarily a good way to identify a problem. Cherry-picking other articles for comparison doesn't prove anything; perhaps this article gets it right and those two articles get it wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no cherry picking of articles by me. I tried to find ones that would be expected to have much criticism. Can you find one with more than 57% of the text emotive and unencyclopedic criticism? I challenge you. Undue weight in the extreme. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparative ratios of negative content don't constitute evidence of undue weight. ("Undue" doesn't have a number, absolute or relative, attached to it.) Specific, qualitative examples of "emotive and unencyclopedic criticism" might indicate a problem. If you can provide any such examples, I'm sure they could be discussed constructively, although probably not in the context of this RfC. Rivertorch (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we're categorizing history as "negative content", when it's not actually criticism, which is what we usually consider the "negative" section of a Wiki article. In this case, there have been quite a few disasters, and their coverage is not negative or positive, it's simply encyclopedic. petrarchan47tc08:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confusion. In the case of BP some people have chosen to fill up the article excessively with negative events from the company's history.
Rivertorch, I am still baffled that you try to defend an article that has an unprecedented 57% negative content but you can see here that not only is it excessive in volume but emotively and enencyclopedically written. What exactly do you think constiutes 'weight' of not volume of text and language? The closest article that I can come up with for negative content is Joseph Stalin with 21% negative. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was full of opinionated comments like "John Smith thinks BP is the most evil corporation on the planet." then I would agree with you that the article is not neutral/balanced. However, there is a difference between opinion and FACTS. In the case of this article, what you have a problem with is that there happen to be a lot of facts that you consider to be "negative", and you would like to see those facts removed so that BP isn't viewed as negatively by people who interpret these facts the same way you do. Sorry, but that's not the way Wikipedia works. You don't get to remove factual information backed by reliable sources because you don't like how it makes something look. If there is other information about BP that you think is missing, you're always welcome to contribute more to the article. But there is nothing in policy that would justify you removing factual information that you feel is "negative". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I'm neither defending nor attacking the article; I'm taking issue with your insistence on trying to gauge due weight quantitatively. While I'm at it, I'm also finding fault with your repeated, unsupported claims that the article is emotive and unencyclopedic. If you don't understand what I wrote in my comments above, I'm sorry but I can't think how to make my thoughts any clearer. Rivertorch (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, quantity is one perfectly good indicator of weight, what better one would you propose? Secondly, I have given examples of emotive and unencyclopedic here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point, I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. I believe due weight should be determined by reviewing the amount and the nature of coverage by reliable sources. In the case of BP, the amount of coverage is vast and its nature, despite the company's enormous efforts to put a gloss on things, is generally negative. That state of affairs is reflected in the article, and it's futile to attempt to paint it as a problem with Wikipedia. Whether it's a problem with BP or a problem with the sources (or both) is a matter of opinion. As for your purported examples of emotive and unencyclopedic content, I assume you're referring to the page in your user space. I've read that twice now, and I don't think it demonstrates what you think it does. Sorry. I've found you to be a highly perceptive editor at other articles, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. Rivertorch (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we must have completely different views on the meaning of 'encyclopedic'. I take it to mean the style that you might see in a quality written encyclopedia. If WP continues like this they might make a comeback. 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Fatal flaws in the RFC wording, suggest starting over. First there is the more minor point some confusion on what the actual question is. But if one takes a guess, it is whether or not the article is "vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment.". If is, I think that Martin has shot themselves in the foot with this......they are in essence asking only if the extreme situation of the entire article being a "vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment" exists. They should have asked and should ask "is this article overly biased against BP?". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only "flaw" that I can see, from the perspective of the asker, is that the answers are overwhelmingly in the negative, and unanimously so from previously uninvolved editors. The question is clear as a bell, and the responses all deal with whether the article is overly biased. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realise that the RfC wording would be taken so legalistically, my experience is that they wander around anyway. It is pretty clear what I am getting at, 57% of this article is criticism of BP. That is more than any other article that I can find, including ones like Nazi Party and Pol Pot. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to answer that. In short, it looks like your question is not whether a bias problem exists, but whether an extreme form of it exists. And I think that many have been answering the latter question. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the RFC is worded "fatally" however you are correct that the RFC diverges from the recommended need to state the issue of contention clearly and definitivly. Thing is, everyone understands the RFC inquiry regardless, so the RFC is not worded fatally, in my opinion. That's the thing, after all: The request for comment needs to be understood so that people can give relevant replies, and I think people did that. Damotclese (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has indeed become a vehicle for anti-BP sentiment. The first half may be relatively neutral, but the second half is just one giant hate parade, especially the eight-paragraph long section on the Deepwater Horizon spill. Oddly enough, having a paid BP representative calling the shots left the article much more neutral than it is now.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.16:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the article has been turned into a WP:COATRACK. There is too much weight given to environmental and anti-corporate advocacy. The editor above me used the phrase "hate parade", which is very apt. All of the hat-noted sections linked to spin-off articles can be -should be- shortened according to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Roccodrift (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make much sense to claim that people on Wikipedia are anti-corporate, considering that the majority of the most commonly used sources on Wikipedia are from the corporate media. In fact, I'd say that the opposite is true -- most editors on Wikipedia are of the U.S./British nationalist and capitalist persuasion, and love corporations. What is generally the case, in reality, is that it is considered "biased" to include anything that contradicts the views widely expressed in the corporate media, while faithfully repeating whatever they say is considered to be "objective". It just happens in this case that BP's crimes have been so extreme, that even the corporate media can't pretend like nothing is happening, so we have a ton of "reliable sources" (i.e. "corporate media sources") talking about it. So even by Wikipedia standards (i.e. only use for-profit media sources), this article is pretty fairly balanced. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. Biased editing is reflected in the result and it means absolutely nothing that editors use corporate media sources. Plenty of corporate media sources are all too happy to cater to those harboring anti-corporate hysteria. POV-pushers will use whatever they can get away with. Roccodrift (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To say that editors "hate" BP for fairly reporting, indeed underreporting the overwhelmingly negative portrayal of this company in reliable sources is just grotesquely unfair, assumes bad faith, and inaccurate. Coretheapple (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RFC Comment: This is an interesting question. I think the initiator means to ask, if criticism of BP's environmental impact has been given undue weight in this article. There is no policy stating that 60% of an article shouldn't be criticism, rather if sources devote 60% of their coverage to criticism then 60% is the correct weight to give to criticism in the wikipedia article on the subject. Having perused the article briefly, there would seem to be less than half devoted to criticism. This all turns on sources, so as far as I can see we'd need some kind of source-counting exercise to determine the outcome of this RFC. One possibility would be to assume that coverage of Deepwater Horizon has declined in volume and that most discussion of BP in sources is no longer devoted to it, and consequently the weigh of DH should trend slowly down as time goes by. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has an negative bias As noted above, I thing that the wording of the RFC is faulty and would tend to understate the level of agreement with that "negative bias" assessment. In a quick overview, the thing that gives me this impression is that even relatively small items are included if the are negative, and there is quite a collection of such. This is an immense ($388 billion / yr) worldwide company with 100 years of history, an unequal standard has been applied to include a lot of small negative sounding stuff. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a flawed RFC. I acknowledge the attempt at neutrality in the request but I agree with North that we should start over. Simple ask the question in one sentence without referring to what any editors believe and without explaining the need to decide this. A good RFC should not try to define the positions for and against the question and there is never a need to justify an RFC (if it matters then people will participate). Jojalozzo03:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please, do you really think that those of us who responded are so feeble-minded? It's been a week, a bunch of editors have already answered, and you don't get a "do-over" because you don't like the way it's going. Coretheapple (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I agree with Coretheapple here. It is pretty clear what this RfC is about. I have seen many RfCs worded in the form, 'some editors believe X some others others Y' and so long as this is not formulated as a personal attack I see no problem. However if people here feel that the question should be something more like, 'Is the negative content of this article unencyclopedic and excessive in volume?' I would be happy to add that at the top. On the other hand no doubt someone would cry 'foul' if I try to change the wording half way through or start a new RfC before this one is finished. I think we should all show a little good faith here and try to resolve the content dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that Martin Hogbin accidentally hurt their own case by asking if a more extreme version of the actual problem is present.North8000 (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion The above RFC is on whether the article has "become a vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment." which is asking whether a severe pair of problems exists. I suggest another RFC directly on the whether or not the article has an anti-BP neutrality problem. More specifically it would ask: "Does the article have an anti-BP neutrality problem." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I think that the question (or the offered alternative to "no problem") is being interpreted as whether the article has "become a vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment" which includes a statement of mis-use of the article by people, a more severe and problem than simply having an anti-BP neutrality problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awfully condescending attitude to have toward your fellow editors. I think that the RfC was formulated in a perfectly cogent manner and is being answered and interpreted in a rational and intelligent fashion by all persons answering it. Martin himself agrees with me on this. Please drop it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quit the crap of inventing "condescending" out of my post. What I said is that editors are likely to be choosing between or commenting on the two choices given, as they are written. Unlike your false invention of "condescending", such is not a negative comment about editors.North8000 (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Drop it" implies that I'm pursuing something, which I'm not. I made a suggestion. I had an exchange for clarity with Gandydancer. Then you broke bad with your 14:30 post. North8000 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think it's fair to say that you're pursuing something when you've "made a suggestion" in four different threads, and continue to push it even though people (including the creator of the RFC) have made it clear that there is nothing unclear about the RFC? The editors here aren't stupid, and it's very clear that what is being asked is whether we should start censoring factual information about BP in the name of "neutrality". And it seems that the consensus is "no". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not making sense. The degenerating thread hadn't even occurred yet when "drop it " was mentioned. But either way, I'm not engaging on the degenerating thread. And on the overall topic, I just had suggestions and clarification on them. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article has not become a forum for anti-BP sentiment. It is far from unusual that the BP article contains a higher than "normal" negative content. Whatever negative content exists is contingent on the enormous volume of negative factual material appearing in reliable sources. As stated by some above, when fair-minded editors compare the enormous volume of sources which do NOT favor BP against the limited and constrained volume of negative content in the article, I think they will say there is not an imbalance toward negativity. The current article is encyclopedic and neutral. ```Buster Seven Talk09:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Documenting negative events is not the same as advocating a particular pro- or anti-BP position. 21:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs)
No. My experience in trying to edit here was that pro-BP editors would delete everything I did within minutes. My contributions were neutral and well-cited. Smallbones(smalltalk)00:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article may possibly reflect some sections of anti-BP press but as an encyclopaedic article of a major multi-national it fails completely to be neutral. It gives well over due weight to the recent negative incident. --BozMotalk11:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. This article certainly has a lot of negative information about BP, but that information is well-sourced and factual. Checking through the available sourcing, the weight given to the negatives is very due, as the company has faced significant criticism and censure in reliable sources for its practices. If the company would not like its public record to be one of doing harmful things, it should stop doing those things. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion One idea would be to take out all of the smaller scale negative stuff. (e.g. one group suing about one thing, or allegations that something that they do is "carbon intensive" (which oil industry/fuel inherently is)). Setting a lower threshold of notability (not referring to wp:notability) for inclusion of negative stuff (and coverage is not the reason, there are mountains of positive, neutral and negative coverage that editors are selecting from) can, of course, raise concerns. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is there no "small scale negative stuff" in this article, but as was described above a great deal of large-scale negative stuff is currently omitted. If anything, our threshold of notability has been skewed excessively high. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come off it. A complaint as yet not tested even in a first line Court based on a petition signed by 474 residents in Galveston is not "small scale negative stuff" and really is notable in terms of the activities of a company which scales like the eleventh biggest country in the world (Belgium) in terms of turnover, energy usage, and employment (if you include all the subcontractors, retailers and resellers)? Get real; anything which would not be notable enough to get into the main page for a mid-sized US state should not be included here. You get a 1000 people signing a petition about a single episode of stubble burning by a local farmer. --BozMotalk21:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. Some here have pointed out that there is more negative commentary that needs to go in, which is true. Others point out that there is too little positive information. That is also true. Please, do not try to come to a "compromise" that cuts out valid information - that is villainous. Instead, focus on getting more information in. To begin with: the article presently describes some BP market manipulation, which is absolutely important to have in there. But the article should also have useful information about BP's overall economic strategy - how they decide what to bid on and how much, everywhere, routinely, for example. Ideally there should be enough information here, in articles and sub-articles and sub-sub-articles, that people reading Wikipedia would actually feel like they know how to run an oil company, how to compete with BP, how to work with BP as a supplier or buyer, why they are tempted to cut corners even when it is stupid and going to lead to disaster, how to regulate the industry so it doesn't happen, etc. Our information should be all things to all people, and as a huge company, it's a huge topic. To get there, we need people to add, add, add, and add more, and stop fighting to delete the other guy's stuff. Wnt (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No - The point that the negative information is well-sourced is the key. BP has an established history of substantial factual "negatives" that belong in this article. I agree with the comments by Seraphimblade, Gandydancer, Coretheapple, Buster 7, Gamaliel, Petrarchan47, Smallbones, Rivertorch, and Binksternet, all of whom make solid points. We can not allow Wikipedia to become a mere PR outlet. In my view Wnt's comment is valid as long as important material is not drowned in a flood of irrelevant information. Jusdafax23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree I was randomly selected to comment on this, and I see that there is a fairly good leaning toward opposing the suggestion that the article is some how "anti-British Petroleum." If anything the article does not contain enough accurate and informative text covering the full extent of the corporation's activities and behavior. Remember: Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic, and more information is generally better than less. Since the information covering the corporation's crimes and abuses is accurate and falifiable yet is well cited then the information needs to be retained. Damotclese (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing a DUE weight problem does not necessarily mean removing information. It can be solved by adding other information. For example: BP's assets have been nationalized in four or five countries; perhaps those major actions deserve more than four or five sentences? Earnings, profits, and dividends are barely mentioned. The number of current employees is listed (twice, and with different numbers), but there is no information about the number of employees in the past. BP produces 40% of Egypt's natural gas: maybe BP's presence in Egypt deserves more than two sentences? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No - this article has not, as the header asks, become a forum for anti-BP sentiment. There is negative information, but it appears to be encyclopedic and on par with the prevalence of that same information in reliable sources as required. There is a lot of merit in the suggestions made above by Wnt and WhatamIdoing; expand the non-negative content. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a lot of merit to the suggestions by Wnt and WhatamIdoing. I am sure that Martin and some of the others who have long complained about bias in the article would be more than happy to improve the article with more copy that they consider neutral and/or "positive". Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here. It would be a much more interesting article if we continued to add information. It seems the arguments made to keep information out of the Pedia are usually done to keep a POV on the page, that, with further evidence, would crumble. I have to admit, I did research into BP's history, and if I were BP, I would want to keep this article as short as possible. petrarchan47tc08:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An update of the claims process is clearly in order as well. Also a BP employee just yesterday was found criminally liable for obstruction of justice.[10] For any other company this kind of thing would go in automatically. Here we hesitate. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that incident was immensely notable and few would argue against inclusion. The issue I think is inclusion of far less notable items unrelated to such major incidents. E.G. somebody circulated a petition or filed a court case. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We might reasonably quibble with the claim that Wikipedia editors automatically add every conviction of every employee to articles. There are far, far too few links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Obstruction of justice for that statement to be even remotely accurate (and 100 of those mainspace links are navbox links). But I agree that this is worth describing in the subarticles, and that it's probably worth a sentence here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Thank you Martin for requesting my position on your RfC. My response is that this article is not, has not been, and doubtless never will be "a vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment." The "some editors" who share that belief are mistaken. This article provides only an incomplete glimpse at the misconduct carried out by BP in recent years. If the question were rephrased as "Is this article tilted against BP in any way, shape or form?" my response would be identical. No, it is not. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
