![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Technical point, mergers are ALWAYS euphemisms for takeovers. There's no such thing as a company merger as such. Mintguy —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 26 February 2003 (UTC)
Its stock symbol is BP. User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 20:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"BPAmoco was formed in December 1998 by what was officially described as the merger of British Petroleum and Amoco to avoid competition issues". What? What is the official description? That British Petroleum and Amoco has merged, or that it was "to avoid competition issues"? "To avoid competition issues" is such and incredibly stupid thing to say about the reason for a merger. That statement and "officially" should not be in the same sentence for any reason whatsoever. - Jerryseinfeld 19:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems odd that an article about BP, a company that does massive business around the world, has an introduction that includes the signage of it's gas stations in the US. That seems like info that belongs somewhere in the article perhaps, but the intro is not the place. -- jacobolus (t) 17:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the introduction, the merger occurs in August '98, but later in the article, it says that it takes place in December '98 66.227.169.72 19:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any new development of what was the real cause behind this story? "On March 23, 2005, an explosion occured at a petroleum refinery in Texas City, Texas, that belonged to BP. It is the third largest refinery in the United States and one of the largest in the world, processing 433,000 barrels of crude oil per day and accounting for 3% of that nation's gasoline supply. Over 100 were injured, and 15 were confirmed dead, including employees of the Fluor Corporation as well as BP."
On 17 May BP released a report into the accident and posted it on its website. Here is the link:
"
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=97&contentId=7006065"
JP Onstwedder (disclosure - I work for BP)
I've removed this as I don't think this is really encylopedic either in style or content. Possibly a rewritten para would be appropriate in ARCO.
"BP began marketing itself to customers in areas where BP no longer exists (i.e. ARCO Territory), this may be the precursor of a rebranding of ARCO, similar to Amoco. ARCO has begun to signal its relationship with BP including smaller versions of BPs logo on its signage. It has been speculated that Arco stations may soon be rebranded BP but retain their unique business practices. Arco stations are often attached to the convenience store ampm which was included in the acquisition by BP. Prior to its purchase of Arco, BP already had stations on the West Coast. These stations were run by Tosco but by the mid-1990's, these stations were rebranded as Union 76." Rd232 09:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It states in the articles for ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell what their profits were, but here it says "by turnover". As an economic simpleton, what is "by turnover" supposed to mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 ( talk) 01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The entire article is not acurrent event-only the section on Prudhoe bay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.163.161 ( talk) 09:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 7, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.
My one problem is this. You have not enough references. Fix this, and nominate it again, then it will definitely pass. -- Evan 10:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be possible to determine the name this company is registered under now (stock market, tax paying...) and therefore clarifing the matter of if "beyond" is just a slogan. The article is a bit unclear on that... -- Echosmoke 01:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The name was formerly 'British Petroleum' but since the merger it is now known by the initials 'BP'. The 'Beyond' being a slogan. Maybe somebody can somehow integrate that into the current article. Gunis del 05:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I just read about "Operation Ajax" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax and how the British government teamed up with the CIA to overthrow democratically elected Prime minister of Iran Mr. Mossadegh in 1953. Why did they do this ? To insure that BP (formerly Anglo-Iranian Oil Company or AIOC) would keep pumping Iranian Petrol against low counterparts. Given what's on the news these days, I think it's good to go back in time a bit. It helps to understand how we ended up with this mess.
Could anyone confirm the NPOV and correctness of this section.
References or tags are not needed for every line, surely? There is already an external link to the Justice department story. Peterlewis 06:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
In the "Texas City Refinery Disaster" bit it says "The disaster led to the premature resignation of Lord Browne, and will continue to affect the company for some time to come.".
I am not quite sure but I thought Lord Browne resigned because he had lied to the High Court about a gay relationship.
[1] source
How should I change this in the main Article?
StonedBeer
17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph doesn't really say anything of note, save that a company trying to brand itself as environmentally friendly uses green in its logo. The second paragraph recounts the Alaska leak that was described earlier in the article. Delete? 63.107.135.125 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Can't log in, but that was me above. (Topher0128) 63.107.135.125 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
A heinously biased point was being made about how bad BP's environmental issues are. You really can't use the emissions of the product BP sells to say that it has a bad environmental record. For better comparability you should only use BP's own emissions- it is one of the ten biggest companies in the world so I have no doubt at all that the emissions of the product it sells is about the same as that of Britian or Canada or whatever.
Where on earth is this sections evidence for "one of the ten worst companies"? All we get are a couple of web-based opinions. That's like someone linking to an article on alien abduction and then suggesting that it actually happened! Please remove it unless you can substantiate it beyond personal biased opinion. Twobells 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The history section, and especially BP#Activity in Iran 1909 - 1979, seems to be biased against western perspectives and Britain in particular. I belivee that statements like "So the British played on America's then paranoia about the Communist "threat" by producing bogus "evidence" that Mossadeq was scheming to bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence." are clearly not NPOV. Superm401 - Talk 05:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This article says nothing about the relationship to the above company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinyMark ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
All the company's like Arco are subsidiaries if you go to a Arco it says right there part of BP and also i have e-mailed BP and hope to get response soon because i believe its still British petroleum just better petroleum is just a advertisement slogan. Sparrowman980 06:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope - the company is "BP plc" which stands for nothing (well, the "plc" does!). "Beyond Petroleum" is a tagline which conveniently shares the initials of the company. Furthermore the letters 'B' and 'P' in the logo are written in the lower case "bp" but the company refers to itself as "BP", in the upper case, unless it is specifically referring to brand and logo useage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.74.114 ( talk) 13:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Question - Then why does the beginning of the article imply otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.93.3 ( talk) 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention how the BP company benefits the UK population. Surely, it's their oil; but it states that it is a private ownership and they just have a few gas/petrol stations in the UK and that's it. The UK has better oil than Canada and yet people there pay more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.114.141 ( talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Revenue / Net Income, etc. in the side bar read Millions, not Billions? It's simply incorrect to say they've have 20,000 BILLION Net Income... 141.164.72.157 ( talk) 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Page shows BP posting a 20billion net loss. I think they should be in the black, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.65.25 ( talk) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I made a minor correction while reading this article (identifying a now-defunt company as the current one which controls its assets, while keeping the reference to the defunct one but making the wikiword link through the current one), there was an edit conflict, and when I saved my changes, big chunks of the article were gone. I guess whoever I had the editconflict with had deleted a lot of the history section... Sure, it was a little long, but it was very complete and detailed. I hope whoever did that comes forward and at least explains it on the talk page. 65.113.71.3 ( talk) 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Some points to keep in mind that are often neglected:
I came here to read factual and encyclopedic information about a company and the article seems dominated by trumped up "controversies" pushed to the fore of the "frame" or definition of the company's presentation by people with an anti-corporate agenda...that's really not neutral and it's the sort of thing that ends up tarnishing Wikipedia's reputation. You should have to take a political neutrality/centrism test before ever being allowed to author anything on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.22.4 ( talk) 04:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The current 'History' section relies quite heavily on John Foster Dulles & Operation AJAX - Why Iran Really Hates Us from the blog America Under Siege, The North American Union by blogger 'Sashzilla'. As this blog provides no references and is apparently anonymous, it is not a reliable source. Furthermore, some of the statements in the article twist the source material, for example:
So the British played on America's then paranoia about the Communist threat by producing bogus evidence that Mossadeq was scheming to bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence.
This implies the British government faked evidence of a Communist threat while the given source describes this as a 'misconception' by the government of Britain. So the source is unreliable and also fails to support the given claims. If no further sources are given, I will delete the unsupported material in 'History' - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Should some information from this article [2] be included? BP rebranded themselves as Beyond Petroleum but have since turned their back on some renewable energy fields. I think this deserves mention. Smartse ( talk) 10:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Any citations on calls to dismantle BP? If properly cited that should of course go into the article.
Rather than BP I suggest that Obama is 'dismantled' from office as it was him who okayed offshore drilling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh32n-kwnqM Twobells ( talk) 11:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
75.71.192.54 ( talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
If it's quoting a source that has an opinion, but reporting that as a part of the story, then no, it's not a NPOV issue at all.
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=290 states that oil exploration has led to horrific human rights violations. Sarcelles ( talk) 19:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
"This was the era of the Thatcher government's privatisation strategy. The British government sold its entire holding in BP in several tranches between 1979 and 1987." So when was BP invested in by HMG...? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
All the answers are on WP :-) - here < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britoil#cite_note-4>
HMG didn't invest in BP. HMG owned the original organisation extracting North Sea oil (BNOC), which then became Britoil. BP was a separate company (then British Petroleum) which initially just bought shares in Britoil, and then bought the Golden Share from HMG in 1988, taking over what had been a state-run business. Aja2010 ( talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Does their ugly ass logo have a name? I'm sure it does. 70.88.213.74 ( talk) 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Its called the Helios
"Official" explanation from BP is here. < http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9028307&contentId=7019193> Aja2010 ( talk) 13:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The section BP#recent is US centric, while I have no problems about coverage of incidents, or national rebranding as the result of aquisitions but the sale of a few retail sites in Colorado just isnt notable, even worse is speculation like In 2007, according to some private BP-branded gasoline center operators in the Metro Atlanta area, BP planned to leave the Southern market in the next few years. All corporate-owned BP stations, typically known as "BP Connect", will be sold to local jobbers.[32] . Maybe theres a possibility to consider the developement of regional articles for BP to allow for a regional focus where such issues are more significant. Gnan garra 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, regarding the bp brand chapter,
here in Germany BP bought 2002 ARAL, and is since then the biggest operator of petrol stations in Germany with 2407 petrol stations (2010 numbers).
Might be important to include, people try to avoid BP now and since BP renamed all his petrol stations in "Aral" in Germany this should be included in the article :-)
not possible to do this on my own, article seems to be protected.
thx, Stefan -- Xergon ( talk) 14:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to do a minor non-pov, structural reoganization of the article, including:
As currently organized, it's a bit discontinuous and not hierarchical. Feel free to make the changes yourself, too. Ocaasi ( talk) 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
the article that this links to is in the Independent, which I have no idea how reliable it is, but the article is obviously set out to criticize Churchill. That and the fact that the author describes 5,000 lbs in 1923 money as "the equivalent of perhaps millions in today's money." seems suspicious. It took me less than a minute to calculate the value in today's currency (using 2 different indexes), and it was not millions. anyway, if this is an actual known fact, or just a rumor it should be in a better source. also, did they get the monopoly? 67.176.160.47 ( talk) 23:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I second. The article references no documents to prove the bribe. Perhaps we can find a better reference?
76.126.17.14 (
talk)
06:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Good day,
I respectfully submitt you have two slightly different versions regarding the history/origin of BP. Source German wiki
here is my not very eloquent translation of the german wiki text:
In 1904 (DPAG) German Petroleum Company was foundet. In 1906 the DPAG evolved into the (EPU) European Petroleum Company, which created (BP) British Petroleum in the same year to better market its products in England. With the outbreak of World War I, BP was confiscated by the british government and 1917 merged into APOC.
"Die Geschichte der Britisch Petroleum Company beginnt in Deutschland. 1904 wurde in Berlin die Deutsche Petroleum-Aktiengesellschaft (DPAG) gegründet, die 1906 in die Europäische Petroleum-Union (EPU) überging. Diese gründete 1906 für den Vertrieb ihrer Produkte in Großbritannien eine Tochtergesellschaft namens British Petroleum Company. Damit wurde die Abkürzung BP zum Markennamen für die Vermarktung der Ölprodukte des Unternehmens. Nach der Beschlagnahmung der in deutschem Eigentum befindlichen British Petroleum Company durch die britische Regierung bei Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkriegs wurde diese Firma 1917 in das Eigentum der Anglo-Persian Oil Company überführt." Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Ludwig C. Lenze 217.7.239.181 ( talk) 07:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
[3] — goethean ॐ 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- === 1980s-1990s: Brain cancer deaths===
- Six former BP (then AMOCO) chemical engineers at the firm’s
Naperville, Illinois research campus developed a deadly form of brain cancer in the 1980s and 1990s. Researchers who conducted a three-year study of the cancer cluster determined that the cancer cases were workplace-related, but they could not identify the source of the workers' ailments. In June 2010, BP demolished “Building 503” where the workers had worked, because according to a company spokesperson, the building was “underused,” and “required upgrades the company deemed too expensive.” Heirs of one of the cancer victim workers won a $2.75 million suit against BP Amoco PLC in 2000.
[1]
- —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
WatchingDragon (
talk •
contribs)
21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Done
{{ editsemiprotected}} In the History section, the sentence "The new regime of Ayatollah Khomeini broke all prior oil contracts and signed new contracts with British Petroleum with 90% to BP and 10% to Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers" is without sources and should be removed. It appears to have been made up to make the Revolutionary government look bad. I cannot remove it myself because of article lock. Thank you. 141.213.171.53 ( talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"[...]analyzed videotape of the leak[...]" requires the use of a determiner, probably "a". -- 114.178.185.100 ( talk) 11:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Where it says "BP is the UK's largest corporation" in the opening, it should say "BP is the
United Kingdom's largest corporation". 'United Kingdom' should be spelled out and linked on the first occation i think.
86.156.195.209 ( talk) 22:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Done Good call.
Spigot
Map
22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to match the colors of the BP logo but it looks a little off. Any help from someone more skilled in graphics would be appreciated. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Second paragraph last sentence - Citation required
"Efforts at containing the spill were at first futile but some progress has been made since the fitting of a cap to stem the leak."
Citation Link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37463005/
Citation contained in the linked article
The U.S. Coast Guard said Friday the containment cap placed atop the gusher a mile beneath the Gulf's surface was collecting some of the oil.
"Progress is being made, but we need to caution against overoptimism," said Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's point man for the crisis. Early in the day, he guessed that the cap was collecting 42,000 gallons a day — less than one-tenth of the amount leaking from the well. Since it was installed, it had collected about 76,000 gallons, BP said in a tweet Friday night. CmdrX3 ( talk) 01:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Done, thank you for your contributions! {{
Sonia|
ping|
enlist}}
10:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The article says: "In 1923, the company secretly gave £5,000 to future Prime Minister Winston Churchill to lobby the British government to allow them to monopolise Persian oil resources.[11]"
I initially assumed this had been established as a fact. However the source for this allegation posing as a fact is given as an article in an Irish newspaper by a little-known sensationalist journalist. The journalist himself offers no source or evidence whatsoever.
No reputable authority would rely on such a source without any supporting evidence and to give the impression that the citation gives authority to the claim is entirely misleading and dishonest. If Wikipedia is to be of any value it needs to be more than a collection of mutterings and gossip. 86.144.151.146 ( talk) 10:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Done Agreed, poorly sourced sensational statement.
Spigot
Map
12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that BP is in the news right now for the incident in the States, however vandalism of the logo doesn't help nor do much. I've reverted it back. Pmhtuk ( talk) 08:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be some summary of BP's record overall. See this CBC clip, for a start: 30 employee deaths, price fixing propane, millions in fines, etc. A summary, if anyone can find one, could probably go at the top of the Incidents or Environmental and Safety Record sections. -- Natural RX 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've found a number of BP-related articles that are not under the Category:BP that I'm adding. I'm also creating some new sub-categories based on existing breakdowns for other companes. All of my changes with the cats are meant to be strictly non-controversial but, if you see anything that doesn't look right, just let me know on my talk page and I'd be happy to pause until we reach a consensus. RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit seems to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.24.95 ( talk) 11:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen this shield?
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP-skylten,_Stockholm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.28.214 ( talk) 10:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and restructured the sections, breaking the list of controversies into their natural categories (environmental, safety, political). The revision diffs aren't very helpful because of the massive text moves, but a quick look at the articles themselves, particularly the table of contents, will give you the jist of the edits. I think this will be a better skeleton for the article going forward.
Other than the heading/outline changes, the text is exactly the same (except for one grammatical tweak in the introduction). It still reads a bit like an anti-BP tirade, although, the company's record is largely to blame for that... 69.142.154.10 ( talk) 10:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
By what measure? This seems like a cite-worthy fact, as well. 143.239.96.226 ( talk) 17:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC) BP doesn't "own" the well. It leases it from, and is undertaking exploration on behalf of, the US federal government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.170.214 ( talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Including the most current events in the second paragraph is a bad idea. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper article. BP has a history, and other durable information that should be listed first.
As topical and important as the current environmental catastrophe may be, it is not the first thing that should be detailed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In the political contributions section, BP's donations to the Obama election campaign should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.153.143 ( talk) 00:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you out of your mind, there can be no mention of that, they need to be painted as a company that only gives money to Republicans, even though Obama is their single largest recipient of funds in the past 20 years: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris1123 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
What you mean the 77 thousand he received from BP- which would amount to 1 100th of a percent of his campaign fundraising for Senate and President? Why do you feel that's notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.96.214.162 ( talk) 15:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This has been debunked many times. From ( http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005240042): "all of that money came from BP employees, not BP the company. A spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics confirmed Monday that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees." The CRP spokesman also stated that "Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC. And corporations themselves are prohibited from donating directly to candidates from their corporate treasuries." " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.107.2 ( talk) 15:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The illustration of the “Classic” logo is not, as stated, as designed by Raymond Lowey; it is a later re-design, and didn’t come into use until after his death. It was met with much derision when revealed to the public, as the much-hyped large amount of money spent on the so-called re-design appeared to have largely been spent on setting the text from normal, to italic… Jock123 ( talk) 12:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
is this article ready for "Category: Corporate crime" yet? -- T1980 ( talk) 02:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Who's joking? I wholely agree to place BP in the corporate crimes category. This is a tragedy. Not a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.149.156 ( talk) 23:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to add mention regarding BP's recent purchase of key adwords on Google and Yahoo?
Alexsandyr ( talk) 14:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there could be notability there, it's been commented often enough and it's certainly not standard practice for an oil company to sponsor a link on 'oil spill'.
raseaC
talk to me
00:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if it's standard practice for companies to do this, it isn't right. You must watch "Madmen" too often or something, James. They're pulling a black out, and it's obvious. Stop trying to side with these daft fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.149.156 ( talk) 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
While I'm no friend of any oil company, this article is a bit overloaded on the incidents and environmental record details to the point that it would be biased. Incidents is a very large section, perhaps that and the environmental record part could form a new article and we can cut down the detail in the main article. It would still be heavily critical but would help to balance it slightly at least.- J.Logan` t: 22:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No. We are NOT going to section off BP's mistakes into some seperate less easily found area. Their errors should be easily found. 67.8.149.156 ( talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Flagg
Hello,
It seems to me that putting information about the Deepwater Horizon in the opening paragraph completely defeats the point of the article which is to discuss the company. This wouldn't be done for any other company that had a major disaster. We already have a section about the incident within the article and infact a whole other article for this incident, putting such a detailed bit in the opening paragraph is just not the way this article should be presented.
Would welcome views on this.
Thanks. StephenBHedges ( talk) 17:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree 100%. No way should one news story take up half the opening paragraph on a company this large. - RommiePlayer ( talk) 05:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
See this previous discussion. 69.142.154.10 ( talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You two sound like PR drones. Don't defend these louts! 67.8.149.156 ( talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Flagg
Neutrality, Current Disaster and Current Events Templates: User 88.106.108.70 put a Neutrality template on the whole article over this very issue of how much oil spill should be here versus the Deepwater Horizon article. What is on or off topic is certainly a valid discussion but that not a neutrality issue so I'm removing the POV template. I reached out to the user at his/her talk page but it's an IP editor used for only that one edit. I wanted to add a current disaster template for just that section but there is no section function for it so I'll add a current event one instead. As always, I'm open to further ideas/improvements. If someone wants to add a section function for the current disaster template, that would be helpful. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we can justify the new statement in the intro that BP risk being taken over from Libya - the story is just that the head of Libya's Sovereign Wealth Fund has said he would like to invest in it, but BP are refusing to comment and it's one of many similar stories. [4] If nobody can raise a more credible source to justify, let's modify that part of the new sentence, although I agree with the rest of that new part of the lede. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 08:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed a para in the logo section about competitions run to 'redesign' the BP logo in light of the oil spill, it's non note-worthy and unencyclopedic. raseaC talk to me 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
BP stands for, or at least used to stand for, British Petroleum. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? This has nothing to do with politics, it just seems logical that there should be some explanation as to what the B and the P stand for (or at least once stood for). Can someone put this in somewhere? 98.221.124.80 ( talk) 03:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
since 2001 bp dropped "british" from it's name, becoming bp plc, it should though be mentioned in the title paragraph that it is only 40% traded in London, with another 39% in new york, i also believe the second title paragraph has a certain amount of bias, it should be emphasised that there is likely to be no trace of the oil after less than two years in gulf conditions, and that other companies were working on the well, bp's only involvement was the possession of the well and putting the exploration contract out for tender —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Johnnnsalis (
talk •
contribs)
16:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the origin of the acronym is what brought me to this page (no joke). I heard someone offhand mention that it *used to* stand for British Petroleum, and I came here out of curiosity, trying to find out when and why that was changed. Omitting this is like leaving out any mention of "kentucky fried chicken" from the KFC article. 24.68.241.7 ( talk) 03:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not an acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.254.54 ( talk) 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not an employee of, or in any way connected with, the oil industry or BP in particular. However, it seems analagous to say in the opening paragraph "BP plc (formerly British Petroleum Co. Ltd). The company changed its name from "THE BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY P.L.C." to "BP AMOCO P.L.C." on 31 Dec 1998, and then again to "BP P.L.C." on 1 May 2001. [5] It has therefore not had the word "British" in its name for over 11 years. It appears that the words British Petroleum were introduced on 11 May (ie after the Deepwater Horizon explosion) /index.php?title=BP&oldid=361428701). There is a redirect from "British Petroleum" in any case. If we are to have the former names of companies included in Wikipedia (and I see no reason why not), surely this should be in a separate section? Not in the opening words and not after 10 years after the name change. Please can this be amended? 80.169.189.68 ( talk) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It will be useful to know their name when the call goes out to dismantle the company and sell its assets to help with restoration of the Gulf.
75.71.192.54 ( talk) 02:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Dream on. Twobells ( talk) 11:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but the main entry confirms that British Petroleum was the old name of the company - after the merger with Amoco it became BP Amoco and then just BP. Aja2010 ( talk) 13:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The Corporate Name timeline in the History section is confusing as it suggests that "British Petroleum Company" was the name only beginning in 1954, however the included advert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BP_Motor_Spirit,_1922.jpg (if the date is correct) suggests that this name existed well before the Fifties. What gives? Blbachman ( talk) 21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It's clear that the company is now called BP. In it's history, it was British Petroleum. I think the sections which explicitly describe the history of the company should use the name which accurately identify the company as it operated at the time. 69.142.154.10 ( talk) 21:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
User Comhar added Corrib gas controversy in the 'See also' section. How exactly it is relevant for the BP article? I propose to remove this addition. Beagel ( talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is very biased.I understand that BP has one some really bad stuff, especially recently, but there are no mentions of anything positive in this article. Even the Hitler article isn't this biased!people should learn to aim there hatred off an encyclopedic article. ( 24.22.195.180 ( talk) 00:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)) What do you expect, these are a bunch left wing lunatics, they will not allow for any objective info that makes them look good. I have had my factual and relevant edits removed twice now from the various oil spill articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris1123 ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It looks like a joke...quoting the opinions of Mother Jones or the Aboriginal something or other. So far no reference to Mr. Blackwell's worst dressed list though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.80.79 ( talk) 11:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. If anything, the article is overly positive towards BP. We don't need to play devil's advocate to this massive corporation. They have lobbyists for that, which you two have seemed to fallen under the spell of. There's a one line sentence on the oil spill, an event which is quickly becoming the worst environmental disaster this decade. Also, Kris1123, your use of "left wing lunatics" completely outs you as having any credibility or neutrality on this issue, so why don't you go edit Conservapedia instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.149.156 ( talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The whole purpose of Wikipedia, as with any encyclopaedia, is to avoid bias. It doesn't matter whether an article is about Ghenghis Khan or Mother Teresa. 92.0.201.142 ( talk) 15:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The currently reads "BP plc is a British-based global energy company". This is not good English. The word "British" is an adjective, and you can't have an adjective followed by "-based" (if you don't believe me, try "French-based" rather than "France-based", or "American-based" rather than "America-based"). The company (BP plc) is based in the UK, not in some ficticious country called "British". Grammatically it would of course be acceptable to write "BP plc is a British global energy company", but this is simply NOT TRUE. Only 40% of shareholders are British (in fact the two largest shareholders per Amadeus are American, not British: JP Morgan Chase - 28% - and BlackRock - 6%). Please therefore may I have other editors' permission to change the opening words to "BP plc is a United Kingdom-based global energy company", as I tried to last night? Thanks. 80.169.189.68 ( talk) 10:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It used to read 'global', what was the rationale for changing it back then? raseaC talk to me 15:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed from lead: (my paraphrase) "40% of BP shareholders are from the UK, and 39% are from the United States. [2] The United States has more individual investors–almost double the UK figure." A bit too technical for the intro. Duplicated in the History section under recent stock decline. Ocaasi ( talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Lolz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.139.238 ( talk) 05:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I read elsewhere that BP didn't own or operate the rig or owned it but didn't operate it and it was the responsibility of transocean or BP just owned the well, yet the wikipedia article states that BP owned AND operated the well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.226.37 ( talk) 19:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The source on Note 49 confirms the rig was owned and operated by Transocean, and leased by BP Aja2010 ( talk) 13:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The US Government is holding BP responsible for it, and it is not an 'incident' it's a disaster. Sean7phil ( talk) 06:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes...it is interesting that Obama is holding BP responsible rather than the actual American operators. Here's something to consider: Imagine if you will, a pest controller comes to your house to do a job and while there he gases the neighbours to death but his incompetence was carried out while he was on your property, he then points the finger at you to the police and says "but I did it on his property, he owns the land so I am guiltless, here is the real culprit". Who is the guilty party under criminal law? Twobells ( talk) 22:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC).
But not safety, that was the purview of TransOcean, the so-called 'company man' was a on-site corporate facilitator, he had absolutely no hands-on responsibility, again that was TransOcean Twobells ( talk) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There were many failures. BP owned the well and the well design, but contracted other parties to drill the well (transocean) and to case the well (halliburton). Aspects of both have since failed. No accoustic switch is required in US waters. No operator currently uses them in the gulf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mourndekai ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Is that Facebook group advertisement on the leak section really Wikiworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.222.190 ( talk) 05:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
BP seems to dislike the word "Catastrophe" associated with the damage and effects of this during interviews and is quick to correct any news agency or reporter using this word specifically. Wikipedia itself defines the word as "A catastrophe is an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event." and merriam-webster defines Catastrope as "3 a : a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth". Does this not fit the definition? B4Ctom1 ( talk) 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
. . . since the "top kill" has FAILED (or will need several weeks to work well) in the May 29 update of my article, I suggest the SIMPLEST and FASTEST way to STOP the oil spill within TWO DAYS: . http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/070oilspillsolution.html . posted by gaetano marano May 30, 2010 . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.47.41 ( talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I know that BP sits at the center of one of arbuably the worst environmental disaster in history, but I wonder if the article has a negative POV. I notice that many of the incidents that are listed are pretty small. I ask the previous question inside of a concern forWP:POV. It makes me wonder however: this article reads to me as a bit of a feeding frenzie for BP critics. I would suspect that those critics are also people who want BP to make good on it's promise to pay people. As it now stands, the likelihood of BP being taken over or sold off in pieces is increasingly high. This is happening while BP is trying to raise cash to meets it's obligations and if the brake up of BP is hastened by all of negative publicity, will it put the payment of the obligations to the victims of the spill in jeopardy? Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 00:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed that in some parts of the article the date is listed like this: 20 April 2010 while in other parts it is listed like this: July 27, 2010 Which way is the preferred method here on Wikipedia, or are both acceptable? Killersquirel11 ( talk) 21:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the article reads "After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill BP's stock fell by 52% in 50 days ...". This is not exactly correct. The stock market did not react until 6 days after the disaster, on April 26. How can this be reworded? BTW, it is interesting that it took so long for most investors to grasp the severity of the situation. In fact, stock holders were slower than politicians: It was not until June 9, when it was announced BP would come under U.S. congressional scrutiny, that the biggest volumes got traded - at a price almost at the bottom of the curve. — Sebastian 23:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, this lead of this article is now far too heavily biased towards information about the recent oil spill: Over half the lead section is about it. Such information should be kept to the deepwater horizon oil spill page. This article is supposed to be about BP, and the spill should only be notable in that context for the impact it has had on BP, and the lead should be more focused on BP as a business. We must remember that wikipedia should inform users about established facts, following the news as it is verified. Wikipedia should not try to be a source for the latest news as we have wikinews for that. Therefore, I feel that information such as the departure of BP's chief executive should be kept to the 21st century history section as at the moment the lead seems to be trying to report the latest news. -- 92.28.10.142 ( talk) 00:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned about the sentence in the article stating that the April 2010 oil spill affected tourism. I say this because Florida tourism is actually up so far in 2010 vs. in 2009. I would therefore like to add the word "possibly," so the article would say the spill "possibly affected tourism."
I made that edit earlier today but had it reverted. I am concerned about the encyclopedic nature of an article when the claim is stronger than the evidence to support it. Clearly common sense would tell you that tourism was possibly affected, but there's not enough data to be definite, given that Florida tourism is up for the year. Of course, last year was a very bad year historically, due to the recession, but still.
I would like to put in the word "possibly" but don't want to get into an edit war. Hanxu9 ( talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should summarize the article. For better or worse, three very large sections of this article involve an incident-by-incident description of things BP has screwed up in the environment, in safety, or in politics. At the least the sections mention controversies or notable allegations about issues. I recommended we put the following sentence in the lead:
BP has a long record of environmental and safety incidents, as well as involvement in several political controversies.
It was reverted in good faith as not neutral. Problem is, either the sentence isn't neutral, or the whole article isn't neutral, because that sentence is a pretty benign summary of sections 5-7 of the article. Ocaasi ( talk) 08:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no doubt reading the entry that far too much negative weight has been given to this article. I can only assume the article has been kidnapped by elements biased towards a certain ideology so I suggest it needs a substantial clean up. Twobells ( talk) 10:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Technical point, mergers are ALWAYS euphemisms for takeovers. There's no such thing as a company merger as such. Mintguy —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 26 February 2003 (UTC)
Its stock symbol is BP. User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 20:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"BPAmoco was formed in December 1998 by what was officially described as the merger of British Petroleum and Amoco to avoid competition issues". What? What is the official description? That British Petroleum and Amoco has merged, or that it was "to avoid competition issues"? "To avoid competition issues" is such and incredibly stupid thing to say about the reason for a merger. That statement and "officially" should not be in the same sentence for any reason whatsoever. - Jerryseinfeld 19:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems odd that an article about BP, a company that does massive business around the world, has an introduction that includes the signage of it's gas stations in the US. That seems like info that belongs somewhere in the article perhaps, but the intro is not the place. -- jacobolus (t) 17:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the introduction, the merger occurs in August '98, but later in the article, it says that it takes place in December '98 66.227.169.72 19:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any new development of what was the real cause behind this story? "On March 23, 2005, an explosion occured at a petroleum refinery in Texas City, Texas, that belonged to BP. It is the third largest refinery in the United States and one of the largest in the world, processing 433,000 barrels of crude oil per day and accounting for 3% of that nation's gasoline supply. Over 100 were injured, and 15 were confirmed dead, including employees of the Fluor Corporation as well as BP."
On 17 May BP released a report into the accident and posted it on its website. Here is the link:
"
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=97&contentId=7006065"
JP Onstwedder (disclosure - I work for BP)
I've removed this as I don't think this is really encylopedic either in style or content. Possibly a rewritten para would be appropriate in ARCO.
"BP began marketing itself to customers in areas where BP no longer exists (i.e. ARCO Territory), this may be the precursor of a rebranding of ARCO, similar to Amoco. ARCO has begun to signal its relationship with BP including smaller versions of BPs logo on its signage. It has been speculated that Arco stations may soon be rebranded BP but retain their unique business practices. Arco stations are often attached to the convenience store ampm which was included in the acquisition by BP. Prior to its purchase of Arco, BP already had stations on the West Coast. These stations were run by Tosco but by the mid-1990's, these stations were rebranded as Union 76." Rd232 09:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It states in the articles for ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell what their profits were, but here it says "by turnover". As an economic simpleton, what is "by turnover" supposed to mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 ( talk) 01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The entire article is not acurrent event-only the section on Prudhoe bay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.163.161 ( talk) 09:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 7, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.
My one problem is this. You have not enough references. Fix this, and nominate it again, then it will definitely pass. -- Evan 10:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be possible to determine the name this company is registered under now (stock market, tax paying...) and therefore clarifing the matter of if "beyond" is just a slogan. The article is a bit unclear on that... -- Echosmoke 01:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The name was formerly 'British Petroleum' but since the merger it is now known by the initials 'BP'. The 'Beyond' being a slogan. Maybe somebody can somehow integrate that into the current article. Gunis del 05:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I just read about "Operation Ajax" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax and how the British government teamed up with the CIA to overthrow democratically elected Prime minister of Iran Mr. Mossadegh in 1953. Why did they do this ? To insure that BP (formerly Anglo-Iranian Oil Company or AIOC) would keep pumping Iranian Petrol against low counterparts. Given what's on the news these days, I think it's good to go back in time a bit. It helps to understand how we ended up with this mess.
Could anyone confirm the NPOV and correctness of this section.
References or tags are not needed for every line, surely? There is already an external link to the Justice department story. Peterlewis 06:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
In the "Texas City Refinery Disaster" bit it says "The disaster led to the premature resignation of Lord Browne, and will continue to affect the company for some time to come.".
I am not quite sure but I thought Lord Browne resigned because he had lied to the High Court about a gay relationship.
[1] source
How should I change this in the main Article?
StonedBeer
17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph doesn't really say anything of note, save that a company trying to brand itself as environmentally friendly uses green in its logo. The second paragraph recounts the Alaska leak that was described earlier in the article. Delete? 63.107.135.125 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Can't log in, but that was me above. (Topher0128) 63.107.135.125 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
A heinously biased point was being made about how bad BP's environmental issues are. You really can't use the emissions of the product BP sells to say that it has a bad environmental record. For better comparability you should only use BP's own emissions- it is one of the ten biggest companies in the world so I have no doubt at all that the emissions of the product it sells is about the same as that of Britian or Canada or whatever.
Where on earth is this sections evidence for "one of the ten worst companies"? All we get are a couple of web-based opinions. That's like someone linking to an article on alien abduction and then suggesting that it actually happened! Please remove it unless you can substantiate it beyond personal biased opinion. Twobells 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The history section, and especially BP#Activity in Iran 1909 - 1979, seems to be biased against western perspectives and Britain in particular. I belivee that statements like "So the British played on America's then paranoia about the Communist "threat" by producing bogus "evidence" that Mossadeq was scheming to bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence." are clearly not NPOV. Superm401 - Talk 05:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This article says nothing about the relationship to the above company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinyMark ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
All the company's like Arco are subsidiaries if you go to a Arco it says right there part of BP and also i have e-mailed BP and hope to get response soon because i believe its still British petroleum just better petroleum is just a advertisement slogan. Sparrowman980 06:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope - the company is "BP plc" which stands for nothing (well, the "plc" does!). "Beyond Petroleum" is a tagline which conveniently shares the initials of the company. Furthermore the letters 'B' and 'P' in the logo are written in the lower case "bp" but the company refers to itself as "BP", in the upper case, unless it is specifically referring to brand and logo useage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.74.114 ( talk) 13:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Question - Then why does the beginning of the article imply otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.93.3 ( talk) 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention how the BP company benefits the UK population. Surely, it's their oil; but it states that it is a private ownership and they just have a few gas/petrol stations in the UK and that's it. The UK has better oil than Canada and yet people there pay more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.114.141 ( talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Revenue / Net Income, etc. in the side bar read Millions, not Billions? It's simply incorrect to say they've have 20,000 BILLION Net Income... 141.164.72.157 ( talk) 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Page shows BP posting a 20billion net loss. I think they should be in the black, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.65.25 ( talk) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I made a minor correction while reading this article (identifying a now-defunt company as the current one which controls its assets, while keeping the reference to the defunct one but making the wikiword link through the current one), there was an edit conflict, and when I saved my changes, big chunks of the article were gone. I guess whoever I had the editconflict with had deleted a lot of the history section... Sure, it was a little long, but it was very complete and detailed. I hope whoever did that comes forward and at least explains it on the talk page. 65.113.71.3 ( talk) 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Some points to keep in mind that are often neglected:
I came here to read factual and encyclopedic information about a company and the article seems dominated by trumped up "controversies" pushed to the fore of the "frame" or definition of the company's presentation by people with an anti-corporate agenda...that's really not neutral and it's the sort of thing that ends up tarnishing Wikipedia's reputation. You should have to take a political neutrality/centrism test before ever being allowed to author anything on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.22.4 ( talk) 04:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The current 'History' section relies quite heavily on John Foster Dulles & Operation AJAX - Why Iran Really Hates Us from the blog America Under Siege, The North American Union by blogger 'Sashzilla'. As this blog provides no references and is apparently anonymous, it is not a reliable source. Furthermore, some of the statements in the article twist the source material, for example:
So the British played on America's then paranoia about the Communist threat by producing bogus evidence that Mossadeq was scheming to bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence.
This implies the British government faked evidence of a Communist threat while the given source describes this as a 'misconception' by the government of Britain. So the source is unreliable and also fails to support the given claims. If no further sources are given, I will delete the unsupported material in 'History' - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Should some information from this article [2] be included? BP rebranded themselves as Beyond Petroleum but have since turned their back on some renewable energy fields. I think this deserves mention. Smartse ( talk) 10:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Any citations on calls to dismantle BP? If properly cited that should of course go into the article.
Rather than BP I suggest that Obama is 'dismantled' from office as it was him who okayed offshore drilling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh32n-kwnqM Twobells ( talk) 11:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
75.71.192.54 ( talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
If it's quoting a source that has an opinion, but reporting that as a part of the story, then no, it's not a NPOV issue at all.
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=290 states that oil exploration has led to horrific human rights violations. Sarcelles ( talk) 19:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
"This was the era of the Thatcher government's privatisation strategy. The British government sold its entire holding in BP in several tranches between 1979 and 1987." So when was BP invested in by HMG...? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
All the answers are on WP :-) - here < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britoil#cite_note-4>
HMG didn't invest in BP. HMG owned the original organisation extracting North Sea oil (BNOC), which then became Britoil. BP was a separate company (then British Petroleum) which initially just bought shares in Britoil, and then bought the Golden Share from HMG in 1988, taking over what had been a state-run business. Aja2010 ( talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Does their ugly ass logo have a name? I'm sure it does. 70.88.213.74 ( talk) 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Its called the Helios
"Official" explanation from BP is here. < http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9028307&contentId=7019193> Aja2010 ( talk) 13:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The section BP#recent is US centric, while I have no problems about coverage of incidents, or national rebranding as the result of aquisitions but the sale of a few retail sites in Colorado just isnt notable, even worse is speculation like In 2007, according to some private BP-branded gasoline center operators in the Metro Atlanta area, BP planned to leave the Southern market in the next few years. All corporate-owned BP stations, typically known as "BP Connect", will be sold to local jobbers.[32] . Maybe theres a possibility to consider the developement of regional articles for BP to allow for a regional focus where such issues are more significant. Gnan garra 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, regarding the bp brand chapter,
here in Germany BP bought 2002 ARAL, and is since then the biggest operator of petrol stations in Germany with 2407 petrol stations (2010 numbers).
Might be important to include, people try to avoid BP now and since BP renamed all his petrol stations in "Aral" in Germany this should be included in the article :-)
not possible to do this on my own, article seems to be protected.
thx, Stefan -- Xergon ( talk) 14:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to do a minor non-pov, structural reoganization of the article, including:
As currently organized, it's a bit discontinuous and not hierarchical. Feel free to make the changes yourself, too. Ocaasi ( talk) 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
the article that this links to is in the Independent, which I have no idea how reliable it is, but the article is obviously set out to criticize Churchill. That and the fact that the author describes 5,000 lbs in 1923 money as "the equivalent of perhaps millions in today's money." seems suspicious. It took me less than a minute to calculate the value in today's currency (using 2 different indexes), and it was not millions. anyway, if this is an actual known fact, or just a rumor it should be in a better source. also, did they get the monopoly? 67.176.160.47 ( talk) 23:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I second. The article references no documents to prove the bribe. Perhaps we can find a better reference?
76.126.17.14 (
talk)
06:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Good day,
I respectfully submitt you have two slightly different versions regarding the history/origin of BP. Source German wiki
here is my not very eloquent translation of the german wiki text:
In 1904 (DPAG) German Petroleum Company was foundet. In 1906 the DPAG evolved into the (EPU) European Petroleum Company, which created (BP) British Petroleum in the same year to better market its products in England. With the outbreak of World War I, BP was confiscated by the british government and 1917 merged into APOC.
"Die Geschichte der Britisch Petroleum Company beginnt in Deutschland. 1904 wurde in Berlin die Deutsche Petroleum-Aktiengesellschaft (DPAG) gegründet, die 1906 in die Europäische Petroleum-Union (EPU) überging. Diese gründete 1906 für den Vertrieb ihrer Produkte in Großbritannien eine Tochtergesellschaft namens British Petroleum Company. Damit wurde die Abkürzung BP zum Markennamen für die Vermarktung der Ölprodukte des Unternehmens. Nach der Beschlagnahmung der in deutschem Eigentum befindlichen British Petroleum Company durch die britische Regierung bei Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkriegs wurde diese Firma 1917 in das Eigentum der Anglo-Persian Oil Company überführt." Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Ludwig C. Lenze 217.7.239.181 ( talk) 07:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
[3] — goethean ॐ 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- === 1980s-1990s: Brain cancer deaths===
- Six former BP (then AMOCO) chemical engineers at the firm’s
Naperville, Illinois research campus developed a deadly form of brain cancer in the 1980s and 1990s. Researchers who conducted a three-year study of the cancer cluster determined that the cancer cases were workplace-related, but they could not identify the source of the workers' ailments. In June 2010, BP demolished “Building 503” where the workers had worked, because according to a company spokesperson, the building was “underused,” and “required upgrades the company deemed too expensive.” Heirs of one of the cancer victim workers won a $2.75 million suit against BP Amoco PLC in 2000.
[1]
- —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
WatchingDragon (
talk •
contribs)
21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Done
{{ editsemiprotected}} In the History section, the sentence "The new regime of Ayatollah Khomeini broke all prior oil contracts and signed new contracts with British Petroleum with 90% to BP and 10% to Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers" is without sources and should be removed. It appears to have been made up to make the Revolutionary government look bad. I cannot remove it myself because of article lock. Thank you. 141.213.171.53 ( talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"[...]analyzed videotape of the leak[...]" requires the use of a determiner, probably "a". -- 114.178.185.100 ( talk) 11:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Where it says "BP is the UK's largest corporation" in the opening, it should say "BP is the
United Kingdom's largest corporation". 'United Kingdom' should be spelled out and linked on the first occation i think.
86.156.195.209 ( talk) 22:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Done Good call.
Spigot
Map
22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to match the colors of the BP logo but it looks a little off. Any help from someone more skilled in graphics would be appreciated. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Second paragraph last sentence - Citation required
"Efforts at containing the spill were at first futile but some progress has been made since the fitting of a cap to stem the leak."
Citation Link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37463005/
Citation contained in the linked article
The U.S. Coast Guard said Friday the containment cap placed atop the gusher a mile beneath the Gulf's surface was collecting some of the oil.
"Progress is being made, but we need to caution against overoptimism," said Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's point man for the crisis. Early in the day, he guessed that the cap was collecting 42,000 gallons a day — less than one-tenth of the amount leaking from the well. Since it was installed, it had collected about 76,000 gallons, BP said in a tweet Friday night. CmdrX3 ( talk) 01:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Done, thank you for your contributions! {{
Sonia|
ping|
enlist}}
10:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The article says: "In 1923, the company secretly gave £5,000 to future Prime Minister Winston Churchill to lobby the British government to allow them to monopolise Persian oil resources.[11]"
I initially assumed this had been established as a fact. However the source for this allegation posing as a fact is given as an article in an Irish newspaper by a little-known sensationalist journalist. The journalist himself offers no source or evidence whatsoever.
No reputable authority would rely on such a source without any supporting evidence and to give the impression that the citation gives authority to the claim is entirely misleading and dishonest. If Wikipedia is to be of any value it needs to be more than a collection of mutterings and gossip. 86.144.151.146 ( talk) 10:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Done Agreed, poorly sourced sensational statement.
Spigot
Map
12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that BP is in the news right now for the incident in the States, however vandalism of the logo doesn't help nor do much. I've reverted it back. Pmhtuk ( talk) 08:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be some summary of BP's record overall. See this CBC clip, for a start: 30 employee deaths, price fixing propane, millions in fines, etc. A summary, if anyone can find one, could probably go at the top of the Incidents or Environmental and Safety Record sections. -- Natural RX 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've found a number of BP-related articles that are not under the Category:BP that I'm adding. I'm also creating some new sub-categories based on existing breakdowns for other companes. All of my changes with the cats are meant to be strictly non-controversial but, if you see anything that doesn't look right, just let me know on my talk page and I'd be happy to pause until we reach a consensus. RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit seems to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.24.95 ( talk) 11:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen this shield?
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP-skylten,_Stockholm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.28.214 ( talk) 10:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and restructured the sections, breaking the list of controversies into their natural categories (environmental, safety, political). The revision diffs aren't very helpful because of the massive text moves, but a quick look at the articles themselves, particularly the table of contents, will give you the jist of the edits. I think this will be a better skeleton for the article going forward.
Other than the heading/outline changes, the text is exactly the same (except for one grammatical tweak in the introduction). It still reads a bit like an anti-BP tirade, although, the company's record is largely to blame for that... 69.142.154.10 ( talk) 10:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
By what measure? This seems like a cite-worthy fact, as well. 143.239.96.226 ( talk) 17:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC) BP doesn't "own" the well. It leases it from, and is undertaking exploration on behalf of, the US federal government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.170.214 ( talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Including the most current events in the second paragraph is a bad idea. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper article. BP has a history, and other durable information that should be listed first.
As topical and important as the current environmental catastrophe may be, it is not the first thing that should be detailed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In the political contributions section, BP's donations to the Obama election campaign should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.153.143 ( talk) 00:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you out of your mind, there can be no mention of that, they need to be painted as a company that only gives money to Republicans, even though Obama is their single largest recipient of funds in the past 20 years: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris1123 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
What you mean the 77 thousand he received from BP- which would amount to 1 100th of a percent of his campaign fundraising for Senate and President? Why do you feel that's notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.96.214.162 ( talk) 15:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This has been debunked many times. From ( http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005240042): "all of that money came from BP employees, not BP the company. A spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics confirmed Monday that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees." The CRP spokesman also stated that "Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC. And corporations themselves are prohibited from donating directly to candidates from their corporate treasuries." " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.107.2 ( talk) 15:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The illustration of the “Classic” logo is not, as stated, as designed by Raymond Lowey; it is a later re-design, and didn’t come into use until after his death. It was met with much derision when revealed to the public, as the much-hyped large amount of money spent on the so-called re-design appeared to have largely been spent on setting the text from normal, to italic… Jock123 ( talk) 12:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
is this article ready for "Category: Corporate crime" yet? -- T1980 ( talk) 02:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Who's joking? I wholely agree to place BP in the corporate crimes category. This is a tragedy. Not a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.149.156 ( talk) 23:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to add mention regarding BP's recent purchase of key adwords on Google and Yahoo?
Alexsandyr ( talk) 14:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there could be notability there, it's been commented often enough and it's certainly not standard practice for an oil company to sponsor a link on 'oil spill'.
raseaC
talk to me
00:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if it's standard practice for companies to do this, it isn't right. You must watch "Madmen" too often or something, James. They're pulling a black out, and it's obvious. Stop trying to side with these daft fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.149.156 ( talk) 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
While I'm no friend of any oil company, this article is a bit overloaded on the incidents and environmental record details to the point that it would be biased. Incidents is a very large section, perhaps that and the environmental record part could form a new article and we can cut down the detail in the main article. It would still be heavily critical but would help to balance it slightly at least.- J.Logan` t: 22:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No. We are NOT going to section off BP's mistakes into some seperate less easily found area. Their errors should be easily found. 67.8.149.156 ( talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Flagg
Hello,
It seems to me that putting information about the Deepwater Horizon in the opening paragraph completely defeats the point of the article which is to discuss the company. This wouldn't be done for any other company that had a major disaster. We already have a section about the incident within the article and infact a whole other article for this incident, putting such a detailed bit in the opening paragraph is just not the way this article should be presented.
Would welcome views on this.
Thanks. StephenBHedges ( talk) 17:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree 100%. No way should one news story take up half the opening paragraph on a company this large. - RommiePlayer ( talk) 05:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
See this previous discussion. 69.142.154.10 ( talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You two sound like PR drones. Don't defend these louts! 67.8.149.156 ( talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Flagg
Neutrality, Current Disaster and Current Events Templates: User 88.106.108.70 put a Neutrality template on the whole article over this very issue of how much oil spill should be here versus the Deepwater Horizon article. What is on or off topic is certainly a valid discussion but that not a neutrality issue so I'm removing the POV template. I reached out to the user at his/her talk page but it's an IP editor used for only that one edit. I wanted to add a current disaster template for just that section but there is no section function for it so I'll add a current event one instead. As always, I'm open to further ideas/improvements. If someone wants to add a section function for the current disaster template, that would be helpful. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we can justify the new statement in the intro that BP risk being taken over from Libya - the story is just that the head of Libya's Sovereign Wealth Fund has said he would like to invest in it, but BP are refusing to comment and it's one of many similar stories. [4] If nobody can raise a more credible source to justify, let's modify that part of the new sentence, although I agree with the rest of that new part of the lede. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 08:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed a para in the logo section about competitions run to 'redesign' the BP logo in light of the oil spill, it's non note-worthy and unencyclopedic. raseaC talk to me 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
BP stands for, or at least used to stand for, British Petroleum. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? This has nothing to do with politics, it just seems logical that there should be some explanation as to what the B and the P stand for (or at least once stood for). Can someone put this in somewhere? 98.221.124.80 ( talk) 03:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
since 2001 bp dropped "british" from it's name, becoming bp plc, it should though be mentioned in the title paragraph that it is only 40% traded in London, with another 39% in new york, i also believe the second title paragraph has a certain amount of bias, it should be emphasised that there is likely to be no trace of the oil after less than two years in gulf conditions, and that other companies were working on the well, bp's only involvement was the possession of the well and putting the exploration contract out for tender —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Johnnnsalis (
talk •
contribs)
16:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the origin of the acronym is what brought me to this page (no joke). I heard someone offhand mention that it *used to* stand for British Petroleum, and I came here out of curiosity, trying to find out when and why that was changed. Omitting this is like leaving out any mention of "kentucky fried chicken" from the KFC article. 24.68.241.7 ( talk) 03:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not an acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.254.54 ( talk) 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not an employee of, or in any way connected with, the oil industry or BP in particular. However, it seems analagous to say in the opening paragraph "BP plc (formerly British Petroleum Co. Ltd). The company changed its name from "THE BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY P.L.C." to "BP AMOCO P.L.C." on 31 Dec 1998, and then again to "BP P.L.C." on 1 May 2001. [5] It has therefore not had the word "British" in its name for over 11 years. It appears that the words British Petroleum were introduced on 11 May (ie after the Deepwater Horizon explosion) /index.php?title=BP&oldid=361428701). There is a redirect from "British Petroleum" in any case. If we are to have the former names of companies included in Wikipedia (and I see no reason why not), surely this should be in a separate section? Not in the opening words and not after 10 years after the name change. Please can this be amended? 80.169.189.68 ( talk) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It will be useful to know their name when the call goes out to dismantle the company and sell its assets to help with restoration of the Gulf.
75.71.192.54 ( talk) 02:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Dream on. Twobells ( talk) 11:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but the main entry confirms that British Petroleum was the old name of the company - after the merger with Amoco it became BP Amoco and then just BP. Aja2010 ( talk) 13:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The Corporate Name timeline in the History section is confusing as it suggests that "British Petroleum Company" was the name only beginning in 1954, however the included advert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BP_Motor_Spirit,_1922.jpg (if the date is correct) suggests that this name existed well before the Fifties. What gives? Blbachman ( talk) 21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It's clear that the company is now called BP. In it's history, it was British Petroleum. I think the sections which explicitly describe the history of the company should use the name which accurately identify the company as it operated at the time. 69.142.154.10 ( talk) 21:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
User Comhar added Corrib gas controversy in the 'See also' section. How exactly it is relevant for the BP article? I propose to remove this addition. Beagel ( talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is very biased.I understand that BP has one some really bad stuff, especially recently, but there are no mentions of anything positive in this article. Even the Hitler article isn't this biased!people should learn to aim there hatred off an encyclopedic article. ( 24.22.195.180 ( talk) 00:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)) What do you expect, these are a bunch left wing lunatics, they will not allow for any objective info that makes them look good. I have had my factual and relevant edits removed twice now from the various oil spill articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris1123 ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It looks like a joke...quoting the opinions of Mother Jones or the Aboriginal something or other. So far no reference to Mr. Blackwell's worst dressed list though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.80.79 ( talk) 11:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. If anything, the article is overly positive towards BP. We don't need to play devil's advocate to this massive corporation. They have lobbyists for that, which you two have seemed to fallen under the spell of. There's a one line sentence on the oil spill, an event which is quickly becoming the worst environmental disaster this decade. Also, Kris1123, your use of "left wing lunatics" completely outs you as having any credibility or neutrality on this issue, so why don't you go edit Conservapedia instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.149.156 ( talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The whole purpose of Wikipedia, as with any encyclopaedia, is to avoid bias. It doesn't matter whether an article is about Ghenghis Khan or Mother Teresa. 92.0.201.142 ( talk) 15:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The currently reads "BP plc is a British-based global energy company". This is not good English. The word "British" is an adjective, and you can't have an adjective followed by "-based" (if you don't believe me, try "French-based" rather than "France-based", or "American-based" rather than "America-based"). The company (BP plc) is based in the UK, not in some ficticious country called "British". Grammatically it would of course be acceptable to write "BP plc is a British global energy company", but this is simply NOT TRUE. Only 40% of shareholders are British (in fact the two largest shareholders per Amadeus are American, not British: JP Morgan Chase - 28% - and BlackRock - 6%). Please therefore may I have other editors' permission to change the opening words to "BP plc is a United Kingdom-based global energy company", as I tried to last night? Thanks. 80.169.189.68 ( talk) 10:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It used to read 'global', what was the rationale for changing it back then? raseaC talk to me 15:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed from lead: (my paraphrase) "40% of BP shareholders are from the UK, and 39% are from the United States. [2] The United States has more individual investors–almost double the UK figure." A bit too technical for the intro. Duplicated in the History section under recent stock decline. Ocaasi ( talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Lolz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.139.238 ( talk) 05:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I read elsewhere that BP didn't own or operate the rig or owned it but didn't operate it and it was the responsibility of transocean or BP just owned the well, yet the wikipedia article states that BP owned AND operated the well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.226.37 ( talk) 19:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The source on Note 49 confirms the rig was owned and operated by Transocean, and leased by BP Aja2010 ( talk) 13:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The US Government is holding BP responsible for it, and it is not an 'incident' it's a disaster. Sean7phil ( talk) 06:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes...it is interesting that Obama is holding BP responsible rather than the actual American operators. Here's something to consider: Imagine if you will, a pest controller comes to your house to do a job and while there he gases the neighbours to death but his incompetence was carried out while he was on your property, he then points the finger at you to the police and says "but I did it on his property, he owns the land so I am guiltless, here is the real culprit". Who is the guilty party under criminal law? Twobells ( talk) 22:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC).
But not safety, that was the purview of TransOcean, the so-called 'company man' was a on-site corporate facilitator, he had absolutely no hands-on responsibility, again that was TransOcean Twobells ( talk) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There were many failures. BP owned the well and the well design, but contracted other parties to drill the well (transocean) and to case the well (halliburton). Aspects of both have since failed. No accoustic switch is required in US waters. No operator currently uses them in the gulf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mourndekai ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Is that Facebook group advertisement on the leak section really Wikiworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.222.190 ( talk) 05:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
BP seems to dislike the word "Catastrophe" associated with the damage and effects of this during interviews and is quick to correct any news agency or reporter using this word specifically. Wikipedia itself defines the word as "A catastrophe is an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event." and merriam-webster defines Catastrope as "3 a : a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth". Does this not fit the definition? B4Ctom1 ( talk) 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
. . . since the "top kill" has FAILED (or will need several weeks to work well) in the May 29 update of my article, I suggest the SIMPLEST and FASTEST way to STOP the oil spill within TWO DAYS: . http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/070oilspillsolution.html . posted by gaetano marano May 30, 2010 . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.47.41 ( talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I know that BP sits at the center of one of arbuably the worst environmental disaster in history, but I wonder if the article has a negative POV. I notice that many of the incidents that are listed are pretty small. I ask the previous question inside of a concern forWP:POV. It makes me wonder however: this article reads to me as a bit of a feeding frenzie for BP critics. I would suspect that those critics are also people who want BP to make good on it's promise to pay people. As it now stands, the likelihood of BP being taken over or sold off in pieces is increasingly high. This is happening while BP is trying to raise cash to meets it's obligations and if the brake up of BP is hastened by all of negative publicity, will it put the payment of the obligations to the victims of the spill in jeopardy? Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 00:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed that in some parts of the article the date is listed like this: 20 April 2010 while in other parts it is listed like this: July 27, 2010 Which way is the preferred method here on Wikipedia, or are both acceptable? Killersquirel11 ( talk) 21:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the article reads "After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill BP's stock fell by 52% in 50 days ...". This is not exactly correct. The stock market did not react until 6 days after the disaster, on April 26. How can this be reworded? BTW, it is interesting that it took so long for most investors to grasp the severity of the situation. In fact, stock holders were slower than politicians: It was not until June 9, when it was announced BP would come under U.S. congressional scrutiny, that the biggest volumes got traded - at a price almost at the bottom of the curve. — Sebastian 23:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, this lead of this article is now far too heavily biased towards information about the recent oil spill: Over half the lead section is about it. Such information should be kept to the deepwater horizon oil spill page. This article is supposed to be about BP, and the spill should only be notable in that context for the impact it has had on BP, and the lead should be more focused on BP as a business. We must remember that wikipedia should inform users about established facts, following the news as it is verified. Wikipedia should not try to be a source for the latest news as we have wikinews for that. Therefore, I feel that information such as the departure of BP's chief executive should be kept to the 21st century history section as at the moment the lead seems to be trying to report the latest news. -- 92.28.10.142 ( talk) 00:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned about the sentence in the article stating that the April 2010 oil spill affected tourism. I say this because Florida tourism is actually up so far in 2010 vs. in 2009. I would therefore like to add the word "possibly," so the article would say the spill "possibly affected tourism."
I made that edit earlier today but had it reverted. I am concerned about the encyclopedic nature of an article when the claim is stronger than the evidence to support it. Clearly common sense would tell you that tourism was possibly affected, but there's not enough data to be definite, given that Florida tourism is up for the year. Of course, last year was a very bad year historically, due to the recession, but still.
I would like to put in the word "possibly" but don't want to get into an edit war. Hanxu9 ( talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should summarize the article. For better or worse, three very large sections of this article involve an incident-by-incident description of things BP has screwed up in the environment, in safety, or in politics. At the least the sections mention controversies or notable allegations about issues. I recommended we put the following sentence in the lead:
BP has a long record of environmental and safety incidents, as well as involvement in several political controversies.
It was reverted in good faith as not neutral. Problem is, either the sentence isn't neutral, or the whole article isn't neutral, because that sentence is a pretty benign summary of sections 5-7 of the article. Ocaasi ( talk) 08:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no doubt reading the entry that far too much negative weight has been given to this article. I can only assume the article has been kidnapped by elements biased towards a certain ideology so I suggest it needs a substantial clean up. Twobells ( talk) 10:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)