Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 36

BP discussion

Here are 2 discussions regarding other edits which look like POV pushing to me [removal of BP oil spill financial aftermath] and [removal of the fact that BP's oil spill was the largest accidental oil spill in marine history]. petrarchan47^Tc 02:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think an administrator's input could help. It looks to me that the points sought to be included are relevant and appropriate to this article. There seem to be only two editors involved and the opposition to the edit seems emotional and out of perspective.Coaster92 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We aren't administrators here. We are dispute resolution volunteers. The goal here is to reach agreement. Right now I am waiting until both parties have posted their arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Following Petrarchan47's comment above in which they state that 'to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Wikipedia article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great.', and in view of their repeated attempts to impose changes to the lead of this article, despite having been reverted for very good reasons and a discussion being ongoing on the article talk page, I am unwilling to enter into any further discussion with them.

I have made over 130 edits to the BP article. Anyone is free to compare the state of the article when I started working on it and the position today. My edits speak for themselves. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For those who don't have the time to follow links to various discussions, I thought I would give a summary. Reading the intro to the BP article, the third paragraph stopped me in my tracks. It was one sentence mentioning that BP has had some environmental and political problems. That is well known, and flushed out in the body of the article. But in the same paragraph was a diatribe about BP's green energy investments. To me the structure of this paragraph seems to be a statement that is not favorable to BP followed by a rebuttal. I cannot see any other reason for these two ideas to be bunched together. To remedy what I saw as POV, I separated the 2 ideas, and added the most recent petrol investments I could find at the end to give a more rounded picture. From the body of the article: "BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget, but they have since closed their alternative energy headquarters in London. As such they invest more than other oil companies..." to give some idea of just how out of balance is the 3rd paragraph of the intro.

This edit has been undone 4 times now, and I have been told to "go get a blog" based on this edit. As you can see from the discussion, I was labeled a POV pusher based on my editing after this and my earlier edits, which consisted of updating the "Solar" section. BP ended its Solar programme at the beginning of the year and posted their reasoning on their website, saying it was no longer profitable. I updated the article with this information, making statements past-tense. The article still had a section about Solar in the present tense, with a picture of Solar panels. Rangoon11 immediately deleted BP's stated reason for ending it's Solar programme but did not explain why he did so. I added it back. I also removed the image of solar panels as it gave a false impression. This edit was not disputed.

Based on these edits, Rangoon had this to say: " Your edits to this article to date are very concerning as they all appear to be motivated by a desire to push a certain POV rather than to actually develop the article. Breaking out the sentence 'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence' into a one line paragraph is about as classic an example of POV pushing as I can imagine, designed purely to emphasise a negative aspect of the company.

...I also find it interesting that you think that that sentence and the remainder of the paragraph are so unrelated that they should not even be in the same paragraph, but then wish yourself to make a highly POV linkage between the amount that BP invests in renewables and in oil and gas through the use of the words 'By comparison'. I fully expect that you will fail to see the hypocrisy of this but I personally find it offensive."

In my opinion, to not break out the sentence (and yes, it should be flushed out a bit, i imagine it used to be a fuller argument but has been whittled down over time) is to hide the sentence, and to mute the facts. To follow it with BP's 4% investments in Green Energy is pure POV and more specifically "greenwashing".

Rangoon11 rebuttal above is alarming as well. The number of edits one has made to an article does not in any way give that editor ownership or privilege. But this editor does appear to have an attitude of ownership over this article. He is also working somewhat closely with a BP employee who is giving editing advice - I add this for your information but I am not claiming that this is a problem. I don't see it as such yet, but it is interesting how friendly Rangoon11 is with the BP employee compared with his attitude towards me.

"My edits speak for themselves" "I have made over 130 edits to the page" This gives me pause based on certain edits. One of the most noteworthy facts about the BP oil spill is that is was the largest in US history, and the largest accidental marine oil spill ever. This is a well known and easily verified fact. Yet Rangoon11 saw fit to erase this statement from the BP oil spill section of the article. I brought this up on the talk page asking why. His response was to insinuate he was unaware of any sources verifying this, and asked me for proof. My understanding of Wikipedia is that the editor, before removal of statements, should do their own research to find verification. I cannot believe Rangoon11 is being honest about his motives being NPOV, and that he saw fit to remove this bit from the oil spill section because, if I am reading his statement correctly, he hadn't been able to find supporting refs. I gave him 3 refs and he did not respond.

Another edit in question was the removal of a large section detailing the aftermath of the oil spill as it relates to BP's stock, etc. This was a big part of the history of the spill. I have been told that before removing sections from a Wikipedia article, editors are to bring the section to the talk page to discuss. His reasoning for the removal included it being "out of date" - but he told me "this article is about BP throughout its history and not merely the present day" when we were discussing me edits to the now defunct solar programme.

I hope someone can tell me how Wikipedia deals with companies that might be trying to edit Wikipedia articles to better their image. I have a hard time believing it's left up to individual editors who notice POV to deal with it on their own - as you can see it is not easy or effective. The snarky attacks are not fun either.petrarchan47^Tc 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the above violates the request to 'keep it brief'. Let me know if it's better to move this to my talk page, with a link. Thanks. petrarchan47^Tc 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, can I ask why you have actually come to this noticeboard at all when you are in parallel simply attempting to force your proposed change to the lead of this article (which is long standing and has been stable for a long period of time, and was the result of discussion)?

Rangoon, I have already stated my reasons for bringing this dispute to this noticeboard. The length of time that the paragraph has been in place is irrelevant. The paragraph either is or is not POV. Outside help is needed as you and I see things quite differently. petrarchan47^Tc 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is highly relevant. The existing lead is long standing and therefore has the weight of accumulated consensus. It was also the work of multiple editors in discussion. You are attempting to make a non standard and bizarre change, which would create a one line, in fact considerably less than a line on my screen, paragraph, right in the middle of the lead, which is designed purely to give heightened emphasis to negative aspects of the company's history. You have admitted as much yourself, when you say that you feel that the text is currently hidden.

Whilst discussion is underway on this proposed change which has been reverted by an established editor for very good reasons please refrain from your efforts to impose the change through edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never come across this type of grief or 'longstanding' (ie, "carved in stone") argument when making changes to the lead of any other article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are always a work in progress. I am not alone in seeing the paragraph and your attitude as problematic. You think your reasons for reverting my edits are good ones. I do not. Changes to articles are not based on whether the editors are ["elite editors"] or editors like me. That's what I love about Wikipedia. It is (supposed to be) "for the people, by the people" and edits are to be based on their NPOV - not on who did the edits or on how long the edits have gone unchallenged. I can see why no one would want to challenge edits on this article based on my experience thus far.petrarchan47^Tc 23:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes you have to date have around 140 article edits on WP, I have substantially over 100 times more. I have worked on the leads of I would guess hundreds of company articles and you appear to date to have worked on only that of BP. I do not expect a medal for this or even any thanks. However I do ask that you stand back and ask yourself, "why is Rangoon so anti this particular edit, and yet has not reverted 90% of my edits to the BP article?". My genuine, sincere goal is to make the BP article as good as possible and to make WP as good as possible. A half a line paragraph right in the middle of the lead would draw huge attention to that text, in much the same way as if the text were in bold or italics. Why make that sentence into a single paragraph rather than any of the other sentences? Why not adhere to the usual WP approach of having no more than four paragraphs in the lead? I can't see a good reason for it.

And I don't in any way believe that the current lead is perfect. For example it should in my view have more detail about BP's history. It currently has essentially none. However this particular change would not in my firm view be a step in the right direction.

I would like to add that I do recognise that you have an expertise on Deepwater which I personally lack, and is no doubt rare, and in that regard your recent edits to that section of the article are most welcome. The section was much in need of work. aRangoon11 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine the lead is important to you as it is the most-read part of any article by far. As for the single sentence, I stated above that I believe it was probably a larger section that was scrubbed down. And I believe it should be flushed out a bit as it's quite awkward right now, even as it stands with your reversion of my edit. Perhaps you would agree that it needs to be expanded before the change is made. I have no problem with that. I have seen many a lede on Wikipedia where a single sentence stood alone in the intro. Over time these things get worked out. The 4 paragraph intro is not a rule, but a recommendation. From [Wikipedia:LEAD] In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. The stand-alone sentence does violate this suggestion but that's easily remedied. The sentence should be expanded to reflect it's importance within the body of the article. The Green Energy part should be whittled down for the same reason. Take a look at the sections within the article to see what I mean.

I am glad you are willing to join the discussion. But, I cannot believe that your sincere goal is to improve the BP article if you would remove important information about the oil spill without doing an ounce of research. You can highlight the sentence and do a Google search in 1 second. Though I have 1/100th of your experience, I would never think to remove a statement from a Wikipedia article unless I had a good reason and had done some research first to back up my moves. You never answered me as to why you removed the oil spill information. I assume based on your statements it was to improve the article and Wikipedia? Obvious POV is obvious - one needs zero editing experience to recognize it.petrarchan47^Tc 00:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding that specific edit, I can see how it might have put that thought into your head. Please note however that the text 'and caused the biggest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry' was removed from the "Safety record", where I felt it had no relevance, and was purely duplicative of the very long section on Deepwater in the Environmental record section earlier in the article, which deals with the size of the spill. My edit summary of 'dealt with at length higher up' was perhaps unclear on the point, and I should have explained it on the Talk page when you queried it. However I was annoyed by what I felt to be your confrontational attitude in terms of repeatedly making your desired change to the lead despite having been reverted for good reason, and so instead was terse.

I do stand by that specific edit though, that wording is not needed in the safety record section.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The way it reads now, the Deepwater Explosion caused (only) the deaths of 11 people. That's it, no other consequences you can think of? It also caused the oil spill, which is hinted at with the redirect to the oil spill article. But that is whitewashing if you ask me, and not fair to those who come to seek information. The Deepwater explosion caused a pretty big oil spill and that fact should be added. As it stands now, this is a single sentence section. How can you defend that after all the grief over a single sentence in the lead? Further, I have seen a few examples in your edits of late that scrub data about the financial after effects of the oil spill. This is history and very relevant to this article. It was daily news for about 6 solid months. There is no reason to delete the info altogether. Unless we aren't here to build encyclopedic knowledge but rather to - for whatever reason - mold this Wikipedia article into something favorable for BP's image.

The spill is dealt with at length in the (excessively long) Deepwater section in the Environmental record section just a little higher up in the article. Repeating that information again in the Safety record section would be pure duplication. Some of the financial impact of the spill on BP should probably go in the History section. We need to be careful to avoid duplication and overlap however, and be aware that the amount of content on Deepwater in the article is already excessive and undue.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on track: Bias and Undue Weight in the BP Lead Section:

• The [Renewable energy] section is 1 of 26 sections in the BP article
• The section consists of 3 small paragraphs, the 3rd and largest one discusses BP's Solar programme which is no longer in operation
• Renewable energy is [no more than 4% of BP's budget]
• 5 sentences in the body of the article are dedicated to current renewable energy projects

Yet, in the 4 paragraph Lead, 1st paragraph last sentence: "[BP] also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power."

3rd paragraph of Lead: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. < How is this related to --> ? > 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." < ie, 4% >

The 3rd para has a single sentence : These are very rough estimates, mind you. But take a look at the page, it's blatantly obvious we have a problem here.

The intro is in clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines for [Wikipedia:LEAD]. This is what we're here to remedy. Discuss.petrarchan47^Tc 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead is there to provide an overview of the topic. That does not mean that the length of sentences in the lead or number of sentences should try to exactly mirror that of the article.

For me the lead most requires improvement through the addition of a brief summary of the company's history. We need to avoid the lead becoming too long however, it is already about right in terms of length.

The first and second paragraphs of the lead provide a good overview of the company's operations and the company's place within its industry. The third paragraph is where I would propose adding in some more historical info. As part of this I would be prepared to lose all of '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'. Key points which in my view should really be in the lead are: the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and Iran connection, nationalisation and privatisation, and the acquisition of Amoco and ARCO.

This needs a bit of thought and work however.

The BP lead is by the standards of company articles in WP already pretty good though, and certainly better than peers such as Total S.A., or Chevron Corporation.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To begin addressing some of the above issues, I made the following edits:

• Added citation needed tag on the "major" renewables claim in the first paragraph of the intro. I don't expect a 4% investment can be described as major, but I could be missing something. When using a descriptive term like "most people", Wikipedia guidelines say that a supporting ref must accompany the statement.
• Flushed out the "Deepwater Explosion" section, which recently was scrubbed by Rangoon11 of all but one sentence: "Killed 11 people". I took a few sentences directly from the intro to the main Deepwater Horizon explosion article so that it now reads: The explosion killed 11 workers and injured 16 others; another 99 people survived without serious physical injury. It caused the Deepwater Horizon to burn and sink, and started a massive offshore oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl. I assume this information has passed the test of POV and reliability since it comes from an established article.

Luckily there are [guidelines] to help us get the intro balanced out.petrarchan47^Tc 01:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11 removed the word "major" from the renewables claim, along with the citation tag. Seems like a good move to me.

Rangoon11 also removed the last sentence from my addition to "Deepwater Horizon explosion" section, giving the reason that it was duplicated elsewhere in the article.

This is the sentence that was removed: "this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl". This claim is NOT made anywhere else in this article. That is a lame excuse and was not even applied uniformly - that the explosion caused the oil spill is also a duplicate. To me this edit is POV pushing/cleansing/whitewashing with no valid argument to support it.petrarchan47^Tc 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Intro, from Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article....In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. This includes specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, and titles. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body."petrarchan47^Tc 02:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it is getting exceptionally tedious that, whilst this discussion is ongoing, you are going to the article and making edits which you know are disputed. What is even worse is that, once reverted, you are simply making the edits again. And again.

Secondly, the Safety record section is about SAFETY. We have an Environmental record section in the article, which has a *very* long (excessively, unduly, long) section on Deepwater. That is the place for discussion about the spill and its environmental impact. It is questionable whether Deepwater should be repeated in the Safety section at all, but if it is, this should be very brief and concern only the explosion and the related fatalities.

You have unhelpfully completely ignored most of the points which I just made above about the lead. Perhaps you could now reply to them.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears I ignored your suggestions, when actually you and I were writing at the same time, and when I hit "enter", I received and "edit conflict" notice as you had just entered your bit. I was not responding to you because I had not seen your contribution - look at the time stamps. You and I are both editing during this dispute, shall we both put all edits on hold and discuss them here first? That sounds good to me.

Secondly, I have not seen any mention of the single sentence and it's need to be expanded with references. What do you suggest for fixing the problem of undue weight?:

"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence" without any refs (violating Wiki rules). This sentence is roughly 1/13th of the intro yet the subject matter is roughly 1/3rd of the article.petrarchan47^Tc 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In regards to your suggestion for the lead, it is not becoming too large given the size of the article. As for the body, I can cut some of the 'fluff' from the oil spill section. As for addition of history and acquisitions to the intro, as long as it follows the guidelines for "undue weight", I am fine with whatever you choose to do. As you know, my issue with the intro is bias. I agree the statements about green energy could be removed from the intro, but not deleted. They should be moved into the body of the article. In general, for an encyclopedia, the more information offered, the better. I have concerns with the deletion of material for no good reason. petrarchan47^Tc 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to not make any edits to the article whilst this discussion is ongoing. I may do so if edits are made by others which I feel need to be either reverted or corrected, but otherwise will not go to the article to make any changes myself.

Although the lead is at the moment not too long, and could get a bit longer, if the history content which I have suggested above were added to the current lead then I feel that it would become too long. However if those two sentences which I have identified above were simultaneously removed (and yes am happy for them to be moved elsewhere in the article), I think the length would probably be OK. I think that the removal of those sentences and addition of the history content would go a long way towards addressing any possible concerns about the lead having an excessive amount of content on renewable activities, and would provide a much better summary of the article and overview of the topic.

On the point of a citation for the sentence "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence", in my view this is more than adequately supported by the citations within the body of the article.

On the point of weight, a lead does not need to contain a direct proportion of content relative to the size of sections. This is generally impossible and impractical given the small size of the article lead and to attempt to do so would merely create a low quality overview. The lead is there to both provide an overview of the topic (since many people will only read the lead) and a summary of the article. We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length. In terms of significance to the topic, which is a company, that company's own operations and the most significant details of its corporate history are of much greater relevance than important but secondary issues such as environmental record, safety record, sponsorships and the like.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Environmental Record IS BP History, perhaps keep that in mind. The sentence mentioning BP's environmental and political controversies violates [Wikipedia:LEAD] Do not hint at startling facts without describing them....the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. ....(and for our perusal:) In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources....The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies...Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

"We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length." That's certainly debatable, but not surprising these are your views. petrarchan47^Tc 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47^Tc 02:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47^Tc 03:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate with interest and do not really have strong views on the subject. That said I think the third paragraph of the lead is very well crafted:

"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."

It makes the point that BP has been found wanting but then shows balance by going on to say what BP is doing about it. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Balance is the goal, but we aren't here to defend a company - only to present facts without bias. It's a matter of scale. First of all, know that the statements about green energy above are going to be moved to the body of the article, as agreed to in this discussion further up. The statement about BP having been found wanting is in violation of WP:Lead for the reasons I outlined above. The paragraph and general tone of the intro was heavily biased. The second reason for this dispute resolution was to show that the editor who initially defended this paragraph as being perfect and beyond reproach is pushing POV on the page and should be banned from the topic, imo. To show the bias, I offer the following:

"BP had 518 safety violations over the last two decades, compared with 240 for Chevron and even fewer for its other competitors. Since those statistics were compiled, in 2009, OSHA has announced 745 more violations at two BP refineries, one near Toledo, Ohio, and the other in Texas City, Texas, where 15 people were killed and 170 injured in a 2005 explosion. In the last decade, OSHA records show that BP has been levied 300 times more in fines for refinery violations than any other oil company." Per OSHA []

"Analysis found that their green campaign overemphasizes their investments in alternative forms of energy, when those investments are just a blip on their history of huge investments in and profits from fossil fuel energy. In the first quarter of 2010, they made $73 billion in revenue, $72.3 billion of that came from the exploration, production, refining and marketing of oil and natural gas. Only $700 million came from solar and wind energy.[]

Another assumption that, albeit well structured, paragraph forces upon us is that these investments in green energy (which peaked at 4% of BP's budget - and that was before BP Solar was shut down) do help and were meant to help 'fix' BP's troubles or the environment. BP pulled out of Solar Energy because it was not profitable ~ showing BP is involved in green energy for the same reasons it's involved with petrol; the positive environmental effect is irrelevant to BP if profits aren't there. Further, it has not been established that their green energy efforts have improved anything, so it wouldn't be right to give the impression that they have.

A tiny list to give an idea of the negative impacts BP is having, to help with scale - these are new stories from just the past month or so:

[on humans]

[on Gulf shrimp]

[on science]

[on microbial diversity]petrarchan47^Tc 02:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

petrarchan47^Tc 04:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Dormskirk, it looks like you changed the third paragraph. I was responding as if you had quoted the version I'm used to, the one that includes "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." That is how it reads now.petrarchan47^Tc 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I read this article for the first time a few days ago and since I was familiar with BP from my work on the Gulf spill article, I was extremely surprised, to put it mildly, to read the following in the lede:

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.[13] 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.[14]

I put a note on the talk page to say that I planned to edit the lede and was directed to this discussion. If the lede is supposed to give a brief summary of the article for the reader, this information regarding BP's environmental record is laughable - I don't know how else to say it. I really can not imagine that anyone could read the environmental sections and references and still say that one vague line in the lede is adequate. Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst Dormskirk and I edit on a very wide range of company articles, and on all aspects of their activities, it is fair to say that the other two editors in this thread are primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities. And primarily with increasing the emphasis on environmental impact in the article. There is zero interest being shown in the operations, corporate affairs and general history sections. That's fine, but this is an article on a company not on an environmental topic. The core of the article is about the company's own operations, corporate affairs and corporate history. Many editors in fact question whether company articles should have sections such as 'Environmental record' at all. Personally I don't take that approach, but do recognise that this is secondary information, just as information about sponsorships would be.

Dormskirk and I have also made by far the greatest contributions to the BP article in terms of number of edits. Yes that should count for something in a discussion like this.

There are also plenty of criticisms of the article being made, but few constructive suggestions. I made what I felt to be a pretty reasonable suggestion above as to how to move the lead forward. It would be good if either we could get a consensus for that suggestion, or hear some other suggestions. Otherwise we are just going round in circles. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have run across many editors that believe that "many editors in fact question whether company articles should have sections such as 'Environmental record' at all" because you have done so much work on company articles which, not surprisingly, would prefer to skip criticism sections. I would assume that most editors do believe that a corporation's environmental record is an important part of its article, not something to be left out or treated as of less importance. Regarding your suggestion that the editors with the most edits should be given special standing, in all of my years of editing I've never seen that suggestion on any talk page. I would have thought that it is obvious that Wikipedia does not work that way. Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you either (a) support the proposal made above for moving the lead forward; or (b) have any other constructive suggestions?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, please see the following from the spill article:

In September 2011, the U.S. government published its final investigative report on the accident.[38] In essence, that report states that the main cause was the defective cement job, and put most of the fault for the oil spill with BP, also faulting Deepwater Horizon operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.[39][40] Investigations continue, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stating on April 24 2012, "The Deepwater Horizon Task Force is continuing its investigation into the explosion and will hold accountable those who violated the law in connection with the largest environmental disaster in US history". The first arrest related to the spill was in April 2012; an engineer was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting 300 text messages showing BP knew the flow rate was three times higher than initial claims by the company, and knew that Top Kill was unlikely to succeed, but claimed otherwise.[41][42][43]

In view of the fact that BP has been been found to be largely responsible for what the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls the largest environmental disaster in US history, I would expect nothing less than a paragraph in the lede to summarize the Gulf spill. You seem to want to suggest that it is just "two editors in this thread [who are] primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities" as though certain editors had to really dig deep to find the dirt on BP and bias the article with it. That is absurd. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a company with a 100 year plus history and with global activities. A paragraph in the lead on Deepwater would be grotesquely undue in the context of the overall history of the company and its whole scope of activities. It would be both highly recentist and highly slanted towards the U.S. It would also place a subjectively large emphasis on the environment. For example, more people died in the 1965 Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster and the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion. Neither of those belong in the lead in my opinion, but I am puzzled why you think Deepwater deserving of an entire paragraph and show no interest at all in those events. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The history of America is far longer, and in BP's short history it has managed to create the largest oil spill ever for the US, and what most sources call America's largest environmental disaster ever, while others say it was second only to the Dust Bowl (a fact which you think had no place in the article) as well as ranking number one largest accidental marine oil spill in the entire world. These facts are undisputed. Your reasoning above in not in accordance with WP:Lead "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" I am frankly sick and tired of trying to reason with someone who clearly does not want to follow the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. No editors should have to deal with this if they are simply trying to update an article or fix obvious bias in the article - whether it happens to be that of a large company or otherwise. You were fine with mentioning environmental impact in the lede when it made BP look good. Now when confronted with facts, you declare that companies should not have to even mention environment. There are many updates to be made as the aftermath of the oil spill and the various court cases hit the media, as they doing now. I do not want to have to deal with this nonsense in order to update the article. The POV on your part is clear, and given your behaviour including bullying and lying as well as your self-appointed position as owner of this article, this will likely need to be taken to the Admin board sooner rather than later.petrarchan47^Tc 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer Rangoon's question about changes for the lede:

I don't think the DWH spill should require it's own paragraph. It should be mentioned in the lede as the single sentence mentioning BP's 'troubles' gets flushed out in accordance with WP:Lead. BP's troubles should merit a single paragraph and should not be followed immediately by a rebuttal.

Rangoon suggested removal of BP's green/climate claims from the lede and we agreed on that.

Rangoon suggested to replace the green claims with more about BP's history particularly it's acquisitions. He also said the single sentence about BP's troubles is fine the way it is. I disagree with both points. I would need to be shown why more about BP's history and acquisitions merit space in the lede. These arguments only seem valid from the POV of BP or someone hired by them to make sure BP looked good on the internet. But maybe I'm missing something?petrarchan47^Tc 21:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's amusing that despite your taking such great offence at being called a POV-pusher, and insisting that I desist from this, you have since made a plethora of personal attacks in this thread, including saying that I am working for BP and that I am a liar. I have made an effort to engage you in a constructive discussion, despite my views on your very narrow agenda regarding this article and complete lack of interest in the great majority of its content, but it is proving fruitless and very time wasting. Now you are threatening to take me to the Admin board, but simultaneously accusing me of bullying.

There are a number of highly significant aspects of BP's history which are not currently in the lead and which should e.g. mention of its foundation, nationalisation, privatisation, the acquisitions of Amoco, ARCO and Burmah Castrol, and the TNK joint venture. I propose adding in this information, and removing the sentences about BP being the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and its investments in renewables. This is a more than reasonable proposal, and yet since it was made all that has followed is unconstructive comments, absurd suggestions such as putting an entire paragraph on Deepwater in the lead, and multiple personal attacks.

I will now make a further proposal, that, in addition to my proposed changes described above, a mention of Deepwater be made in the following way:

'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence.'Rangoon11 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is from the intro to the Resolution Dispute: "We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing". I am not bullying or threatening you by saying this should go to the administrators, I am simply repeating a claim I made originally. As for saying you worked for BP, I am questioning it. My claim in the intro to this DR was "it looks to me like he is working on behalf of BP" but I have not said that you do.

As for the narrow focus with regards to this article, I have also stated that right now I am focusing, to the exclusion of all else, on the bias in the Intro and on remedying that. There is absolutely no clause anywhere in Wikipedia supporting your grief about my narrow focus. I would prefer if you were to use arguments that could be supported by Wikipedia guidelines, it makes things simpler and much faster.

Here is where you indeed told an untruth. When I pointed out that it was not located anywhere else in the article, you switched your reasoning for the edit with "not relevant to section - which is about SAFETY" and proceeded to let me know you weren't pleased I was still editing whilst in discussion. If your edits are valid you would not have to dance around looking for a valid sounding excuse for them. If you had no bias, you would not have a problem with leaving that statement in the Deepwater explosion section, as the section is very short, the information is important and well-sourced. The Deepwater explosion happens to be in the SAFETY section, but that is not justification for your removal of the sentence. Secondly, your argument makes no sense as you left other remarks in that would also need to be removed if your reasoning was valid. It does feel like you are wasting editors time by not being honest.

Keeping in mind "due weight" I stand by my recommendations for the third paragraph re environmental and safety incidents and disagree it should remain one single sentence. You don't like single sentences, anyway.petrarchan47^Tc 06:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that since your proposal to add BP history no one has commented. I said that as long as it abides by guidelines for weight, add anything you like. I also asked you to support the claim that BP's acquisitions and history deserved more space in the lede. Those facts might be important to you, but why are they important to Wikipedia? The reason this is all so hard is that your additions all seem geared toward minimizing BP's negative side and bolstering it's positive and neutral aspects in the article. I would like to work with editors who want to update the page with plain ole facts regardless of how it makes BP look. In fact, I did want to keep the mention of BP's recognition of climate change. Since they are the first oil company to do so, it is notable in my opinion.petrarchan47^Tc 06:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy to keep the reference to BP being the first major oil company to recognise climate change if there is space in the updated third paragraph.

It would be good to hear the views of the other participants in this thread so that we can implement the proposed changes.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This should help. Perhaps take a quick glance at BP, note the sections, their content, and weight (space) in the article.

From WP: Writing better articles] If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any.

Based on this and other Wikipedia guidelines, let's make a very rough draft for an unbiased Lede, starting with 'the third paragraph'. petrarchan47^Tc 02:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a guideline. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, what are your problems with the essay? It seems reasonable to me and I think that a draft proposal would be a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Essays are not policy or guideline and it is really rather tedious to have chunks of them copied and pasted in here, replete with bold text. The same thing has happened on the BP talk page. Just another example of what a tedious, timewasting exercise this discussion has been.

The question is, do we have a consensus on what should be included in the revised third paragraph. I am particularly keen to hear the views of Dormskirk, who has great experience in company articles and previously said that they thought the lead perfectly fine as is.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, company articles have no different guidelines at Wikipedia than do other types of articles. It's easiest to refer to the Wiki guidelines when going forward, which is why I continue to quote them here. Otherwise we're arguing "I'm right, you're wrong and my friend agrees!" which could take forever.petrarchan47^Tc 20:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, I am sorry to hear that you consider this discussion tedious and a waste of time. Though you have no interest, I'd still like to try to work for a reasonable lede. Petrarchan, could you go ahead and present a rough draft as you have suggested? Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Before we go any further, where are the official guidelines/policies for Leads? We need get on the same page. Also, is there a different policy for writing an article about companies? (Seems I've been referring to essays rather than official policies.) petrarchan47^Tc 21:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gandy, here is an idea of the facts I am considering when trying to create a balanced Lede. (Or, just scroll up to my June 13 entry/response.)petrarchan47^Tc 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, please reread Dormskirk's comment, you have misquoted them. They referred solely to the third paragraph and changed it slightly before saying it looked fine.petrarchan47^Tc 22:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47^Tc 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am adding my comment as I was invited at my talk to join this discussion by both involved parties. I am not the major editor of this article; however, I have previously made edits about issues related to this discussion, e.g. concerning Deepwater Horizon and BP Solar. Altogether, between 25 May 2010 and 16 June 2012 I have made 35 edits to that article, of them 10 edits are minor. If I understand correctly this dispute resolution is limited to the lead of the article, so I will comment only the lead.

As a general rule, the lead should only summarize the article and all specific details should be provided in the relevant sections. Therefore, I don't think that the lead should discuss individual accidents or particular investments. However, against this understanding I added to the third paragraph the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example. My intention was to have this addition as compromise. However, as I said, if mentioned in the lead, it does not need its own sentence or paragraph. If there will be consensus that no cases should be mentioned in the lead, I have nothing against removing this mentioning.

As of the rest of this paragraph, I think that the fact that "In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change" is justified to be in the lead. At the same time, I don't think that the information about renewable energy investments should be there. At its current stage, it may give an impression of "green washing". Therefore I propose to remove the last sentence of the third paragraph and to modify the last sentence of the first paragraph as following: "It also has renewable energy activities with annual investments over US$1 billion in the development of renewable energy sources, such as biofuels and wind power.

Concerning the lead in general, I also think that some information mentioning BP's different roots such as Anglo-Persian Oil Company or Amoco would be useful. However, I don't have any specific proposal concerning this. Beagel (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I only have experience with one other corporation, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store. Note that the lede contains an entire paragraph regarding controversy, and the largest paragraph at that. I believe that it must be repeated: BP was found almost totally responsible for the largest accidental marine oil spill in history and one of the worst environmental disasters in the U.S. To suggest that it doesn't even need its own sentence is preposterous. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The company has more than 100 years history and there is a number of things being the first, largest etc, which even not mentioned in the lead, not talking about their own paragraph. Deepwater Horizon has its own section and right now it is mentioned in the lead. By my understanding this is present in the balanced way. Beagel (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am content that the latest drafting shows some good balance:

"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 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."

I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think when seeking balance, context is required. "BP has been involved in a number of accidents" --> "In the last decade, BP has been levied 300 times more in fines for refinery violations than any other oil company"[]; BP's "culture of recklessness" was found to be the reason for this, and this understanding should be mentioned in some form. I agree with Gandy that the DWH disaster does deserve it's own sentence(s) with context - "it was the biggest...". What I find truly helpful is to imagine we are writing for a printed Encyclopedia. I grew up with those. They were pure facts and I never saw evidence of bias in them. This is how I judge my contributions to Wikipedia and to this discussion. More, not less, information - especially if it provides context - is encyclopedic.

The "company wide target to reduce greenhouse gasses" - if that is mentioned, it should be more than a 'plan' - what were the results? Remember, BP also promised to put up a $20 billion escrow after the DWH disaster, but now is trying to settle for $15B. I would disagree that a plan (target) is worth mentioning in the Lede, unless it was implemented and reliable sources show that the results were a big deal. Otherwise it might be better placed within the body of the article, rather the Lede.

I still see the placement of these 2 ideas within the same paragraph as biased, as that is bordering on greenwashing. I don't see how they relate except in terms of a rebuttal, which violates NPOV.

Again, would someone point me to the Wikipedia guidelines for Lede? Also if there are different guidelines for articles about companies we need those as well. We all seem to have have slightly differing ideas regarding these guildelines and it would help to begin by getting on the same page. Thanks. petrarchan47^Tc 04:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to mention of BP investments in alternative energy, it was agreed to earlier in the discussion to scrap those sentences. If we did mention it, I would rather it be in the form of a percentage (context), as 1 Billion sounds like a lot, but actually even before BP quit Solar, their investments were never more than 4% of annual budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed sentence about renewable energy investments. So, having mentioning Deepwater Horizon and removing renewable energy investments, it seems a decent compromise between different POVs. As for Deepwater Horizon – for the context we have a long section, not taking about the series of Deepwater Horizon articles. Beagel (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Beagel is sidestepping the real issue here when he suggests that a decent compromise has been reached with one sentence regarding environmental issues (now with a mention of the spill) and the following sentence praising BP's good work for the environment. BP's extremely long list of negative environmental practices and events, as listed in the lengthy sections of the article, need a separate paragraph in the lede rather than be combined with mention of their efforts to combat greenhouse gases, which has very little copy in the article. One could make an argument if BP had a long history of environmentally friendly activities with many references to back it up, but that is not the case at all and to give equal copy in the lede, in the same paragraph, and immediately following their poor environmental record, is very misleading. Gandydancer (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion and, although I defer to the experienced editors here on the issue of balance in the article's introduction, I thought I might be able to help with some of the figures that are getting confused. Before I get into that, Petrarchan, here is the link to the Wikipedia article guidelines for companies, and a couple about writing introductions:

• Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information
• Wikipedia:Lead section
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Lead section

Regarding the figures quoted by Petrarchan for Deepwater Horizon: BP has spent almost $23 billion on the response and claims, including $8.5 billion on claims, advances and other payments so far, not counting the $7.8 billion additional claims that have been estimated as part of a legal settlement. The escrow amount that BP committed to put aside was $20 billion. The $15 billion figure that has been in the news is just speculation — as you can tell from the wording of news articles that mention things like "an unnamed source familiar with discussions" — and is not related to BP's announcement of the $20 billion set aside right after the spill.

In response specifically to what Petrarchan was saying, that it shouldn't just be a plan for reducing greenhouse gas that's mentioned in the lead, I think the following release provides the information he's seeking here:

• BP Beats Greenhouse Gas Target By Eight Years And Aims To Stabilise Net Future Emissions, 11 March 2002

I hope that this information is helpful. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Arturo, your help is greatly appreciated. As for the greenhouse emissions, the article from BP may not be enough to warrant inclusion in the Lede, I believe we would need a reliable secondary source. As for the $20B Escrow, Feinberg was planning to spend $6B and return the remaining $14B to BP, so it gets confusing.

Thank you also for the 3 links. The Company article guidelines show that there is no different set of guidelines when writing an article about a company. The essay about Ledes is good, but Rangoon has suggested essays aren't really relevant as they aren't official guidelines, so it is of no use to us here. The article about Ledes is what I have been referring to. Here is the section which shows our one single sentence mentioning environmental issues and the spill is not sufficient: the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The 'explaining' part is why I suggested adding context to the accidents.

Beagle, I do agree we will have to compromise at some point. But the article is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 dedicated (rightly so) to environmental and political issues. The intro is supposed to let folks know what they'll be reading in the article. This is why to dedicate a paragraph to these issues in the Lede seems appropriate.petrarchan47^Tc 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

To newer editors to this discussion, note this is focused on the Intro, but I also brought up the fact that content was being removed from the article, and that the POV problem does not end with the Intro. Please see my first comment in this discussion... petrarchan47^Tc 02:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If I've understood correctly, the guidelines for the introduction refer to a standard for an ideal form of article. The BP article as it stands is not in perfect shape and much information is missing about its operations, leading to an imbalance of information about environment and politics. Would it not be better to generally improve the article first, then return to the introduction later once the other issues in the article have been addressed?

Meanwhile, here are some secondary sources for the reduction in greenhouse emissions:

• Energy Policy Journal, 2006
• Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2005 (footnote 10)
• The Climate Group, 2005 (page 4-5)

There were also some news articles, but these tended to report meeting the target as "the company announced" or "Lord Browne announced". Hopefully the above sources work well enough. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually peer reviewed sources are favored, so if a reliable source published an article about BP's reduction in greenhouse gasses, that would help. Then we would need to prove it belonged in the Lede. This discussion is focusing on getting the obvious bias out of the Lede. Other improvements can be done in time, but it's best to keep focused for now as this is dragging on longer than anyone wanted.petrarchan47^Tc 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Rangoon11 is the one introducing POV into the article, the one advocating greenwashing by butting together in one paragraph the mention of severe environmental criticism with the mention of slight environmental commendation. Though the one cannot possibly balance the other, it is made to seem so. Rangoon11's style of communication has been bullying and stultifying rather than collegial. Thank you to Petrachan47 for bringing the issue to DR. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps before coming to a discussion such as this purely in order to make personal attacks you should actually familiarise yourself with the article. And I didn't even write the paragraph in question. All I have had in this disussion is repeated personal attacks, hence why I decided I could not be bothered to continue my involvment in it. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for discussing disputes about article content, not user conduct. If you wish to complain about another user, don't do it here. Take it to WP:WQA, and if that does not resolve the issue, take it to WP:RFC/U, but please wait until the DRN case is closed. It often happens that solving the content dispute solves the user conduct issues as well.

It looks to me like we have pretty much done everything we can do here. Unless someone has an objection, I am going to close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We're almost finished, but not quite. Give me until Monday as I am researching over the weekend and will present an idea for the third paragraph as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. 174.74.66.179 (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Take as long as you need. We only want to close cases where everybody has given up or where they resolved the issue and didn't bother telling us. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That is good to hear. To be honest, I will probably need another week. petrarchan47^Tc 12:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to Rangoon11 statement to Binksternet, Rangoon is the editor who wrote the problematic portion of the 3rd paragraph beginning here. He is also the editor who added a false statement to the first para "[BP] also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power." I can find the diff if requested. petrarchan47^Tc 22:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Here is where Rangoon11 added the second portion of the greenwashing. If editors are blatantly spinning articles and telling untruths in the DR, what (speedy) course of action is recommended? petrarchan47^Tc 22:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So once again you accuse me of lying. What I meant to say was that I didn't write that part of the lead alone, Ocaasi was involved and we reached a settled position together, hence why it was so stable for months despite the BP article being a magnet for anti-BP POV pushers. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

After exhaustive research, my opinion is the following suggestion for the controversy bit in the BP Intro best reflects the references available on this topic and is equal in weight to the other paragraphs in the intro as far as their detail and length. I did not cover the "political influence" aspect, anyone who cares to research that bit is more than welcome. petrarchan47^Tc 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47^Tc 01:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

BP has received criticism for its political influence, price manipulation,^[1] and greenwashing.^[2] In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City Refinery explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history.^[3][4] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor^[5]and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company.^[6] A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.^{[7] [8][9]} petrarchan47^Tc 01:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47^Tc 01:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but this suggestion is unbalanced and POV (one may say even WP:COAT). The third paragraph as of this version is more balanced and more neutral. Beagel (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Grotesquely recentist, unbalanced, POV laden and U.S.-centric. And wholly out of step with company articles in WP. It is interesting to look at the leads of BP peers ExxonMobil, Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Total S.A. and Royal Dutch Shell, which do not even refer to issues like this at all in the lead.

The lead is there in part to provide a summary of the article, but not to provide a summary in exact proportion to the length of applicable sections in the article. A lead is by necessity highly restricted in length, and there is also a certain fairly set format which further resticts space. The primary task of a company article lead is to address the core elements of what the company is, its place within its sector, and its history.

The BP article was ruined during Deepwater, when large numbers of (I assume) American editors filled up the article with any "controversy" which BP had ever been involved with (again, generally in a highly recentist and US-centric manner - no interest in the 1965 Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster because afterall it was in the 1960s and happened in the UK, so who cares?), whilst showing zero interest in developing the article as a whole, and leaving large sections ruined. Some of that has now been rolled back, but the article remains a recentist attack piece on BP. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Should also add, it was very clear from the above very long discussion that there was absolutely no consensus for a whole paragraph on "controversies" in the lead, and in fact a number of editors stated they were fine with the lead as was. I am therefore distinctly puzzled at this drafting proposal, and how it is any way an attempt to resolve a dispute. Since this discussion began a contentious (but long standing and stable) sentence and piece of wording has been removed from the lead, and a specific reference to Deepwater added, even though the consensus in this discussion did not demand the changes. Even so, the response has simply been to push for ever more emphasis on "controversies". Meanwhile petrarchan47 has been busy adding even more "controversies" to the main body of the BP article too, whilst attacking others for POV-pushing and declaring their aim of getting me topic banned for the same.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

With BP's "dismal safety record" in the news, how can you prevent a paragraph of criticism in the lead section? The company is supremely unsafe; ABC news wrote that "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." With a ratio of BP's 760 to 11 of all the others, you can plainly see that there are grounds for prominent criticism. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I added 'more' controversies because they have been deleted from the article, and the Lockerbie release was never added. I made a note that I would be adding Lockerbie weeks ago. If anyone questions whether my suggestion for the Intro is POV, first please read the Intro now, it reads like it's meant more for folks looking to buy BP stock. Also please do a quick search "BP, safety" - that is all I did. In every single article, all three accidents were mentioned. Even though Alaska and Texas were dwarfed by the Gulf spill, they are considered in the literature to be extreme cases. My Intro suggestion is simply a reflection of what's out there. You will have to do your own search to see what I mean. This is actually a watered down version of the information on this topic. BP has had far more accidents than any other oil company whilst pumping less oil, and there is a reason: after multiple investigations and internal BP reports - that BP took more risks and cost-cut in pursuit of profits. This information was not available until recently, so it makes no sense to call any past version of the Intro perfect - you had limited information at that time. Why should this new understanding regarding the accidents not be included? Would a normal encyclopedia have this info? If it was a good one, it would. Here is how the Intro looked before Rangoon's arrival. At this time there were many editors at the page, working peacefully together, and the Intro seemed NPOV except that undue weight was given to the DWH spill. Now it's more like a dictator is controlling the page, and it's been scrubbed of vital information and a sense of balance.petrarchan47^Tc 19:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I also used the search terms "BP, accidents". I highly recommend doing a quick search like this to help with this DRN. petrarchan47^Tc 20:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Also, there is no reason to continue to compare this to other "company articles" unless we are talking about guidelines for company articles. Arturo from BP left a link earlier in this discussion for company articles - there are NO separate rules for company articles. The suggestions in the link from Arturo aren't even being followed at the BP article. It says to put stock information in a section of the article, not clog the lede with it. Also please don't compare this article to Exxon and the like, they are not following Wikipedia guidelines if they do have controversies (like Exxon Valdez) and do not mention them in the Intro. We're not using other articles to help with the Intro, we are only using the Wikipedia guidelines for WP:Lede. petrarchan47^Tc 05:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC) {od}

I wrote a long point by point reply to Rangoon but I'm not going to post it. Looking back at all the work that Petrarchan has done and to see Rangoon simply call it, "Grotesquely recentist, unbalanced, POV laden and U.S.-centric", what could I possibly say that would do much good here? If the Task Force means what they say when they state that it is their goal to see that NPOV is maintained, perhaps they can help and I have contacted one of the members to ask for advise. Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion might seem US-centric because BP itself is; the 2cd paragraph of the Intro states "Its largest division is BP America, which is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the United States." Also, please stop suggesting a single sentence is sufficient, as it violates WP:Lede.petrarchan47^Tc 22:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer note: Normally we close discussions after a few days with no discussion, but I am temporarily collapsing this one and giving it more time; See the discussion for details. If 10 days go by without activity I will close this. This discussion is still open: anyone who wishes may add comments, and anyone who wishes is free to uncollapse the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we add new content here? For now I am adding it above. petrarchan47^Tc 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the discussion going away. I have taken out the "collapse" template to make visible the recent suggestions by Petrarchan47. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the proposed paragraph again, to keep it with its references:

BP has received criticism for its political influence, price manipulation,^[10] and greenwashing.^[11] In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City Refinery explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history.^[12][13] During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor^[14]and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company.^[15] A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.^{[16] [17][18]}