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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 |
As mentioned previously, I have a few more updates from the BP annual report and other sources. I have divided them by section below. Let me know if there are any questions about these changes.
It appears on second look that some of the financials in the infobox have been updated for 2013, but are slightly off from what is reported by BP.
The company's revenue, operating income and net income need to be updated here as well as in the infobox. I have prepared a new sentence to replace where these numbers are mentioned in the " Corporate affairs" section.
I would appreciate it if an editor could make these updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
My recent request for some further updates to company information was archived, as there had been no response yet. Since this page has generally been quiet, I assume that it is just that editors are busy elsewhere and am reposting this request. Here are the details again:
As mentioned previously, I have a few more updates from the BP annual report and other sources. I have divided them by section below. Let me know if there are any questions about these changes.
Extended content
|
---|
InfoboxIt appears on second look that some of the financials in the infobox have been updated for 2013, but are slightly off from what is reported by BP. I-1Operating income should be US$ 31.769 billion [1] not US$ 31.310 billion. I-2Profit should be US$ 23.758 billion [2] not US$ 23.451 billion. I-3Total equity should be US$ 130.407 billion [3] rather than US$ 129.302 billion. OperationsO-1I missed this last time, but there is a mention of the number of BP employees in the " Operations" section that needs to be updated as it has been elsewhere in the article. Here is the citation for that: 83,900 [4] O-2The investment in energy development in the " United States" section should be updated from $55 to nearly $50 billion. I have updated the sentence accordingly below: Done ``` Buster Seven Talk 15:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-3The natural gas production also needs to be changed in the section about U.S. production. It currently says, "In the lower 48 states, BP has a presence in seven of the top gas basins and in 2012 produced more than 1,651 million cubic feet per day (46.8 million cubic metres per day) of natural gas." Using the formatting currently in the article, I have drafted an updated sentence:
Done. Beagel ( talk) 13:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-4Following that sentence, the number of wells mentioned, as well as the name of the North American Gas division, have changed.
Done. Beagel ( talk) 13:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-5In this same section, I noticed the article states: “BP is the largest producer of oil and gas and the largest leaseholder in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.” BP is still the largest leaseholder, but not the largest producer of oil and gas in the deepwater anymore. Using this New York Times article, I have updated the sentence:
Done ``` Buster Seven Talk 14:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-6The next sentence, mentioning over 200,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent, is also outdated. The updated number can be found in the PDF release by BP from the end of March. The sentence should be:
Done ``` Buster Seven Talk 15:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-7I'd like to suggest also adding one additional sentence to the end of this same paragraph. In March the ban on new leases for BP was lifted and the company won 24 new leases in an auction that same month. This is supported by the same New York Times article as above. Here is the new sentence I would like to propose:
Done ``` Buster Seven Talk 22:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC) O-8BP's stake in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System should be updated to 48.44% from 46.9% based on this source from The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. |
The above requests have been completed by Beagel and Buster7, so I have collapsed the discussion. Thanks to you both. Arturo at BP ( talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Finally in the " Alternative and low carbon energy section", BP's investment in renewable energy sources should be updated to reflect the 2013 number in the BP Annual Report and Sustainability Report. Some of the original sourcing should still be preserved, so I have drafted the updated sentences below.
Extended content
|
---|
C-1The company's revenue, operating income and net income need to be updated here as well as in the infobox. I have prepared a new sentence to replace where these numbers are mentioned in the " Corporate affairs" section.
I would appreciate it if an editor could make these updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 21:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC) |
This request has been completed, so I have collapsed it. Thanks to Beagel for making all of the above updates. Arturo at BP ( talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Most likely more than one editor will take on this task. It would be beneficial if editors would mark "Done" above as each request is accomplished. That way we can all see what is getting done and what still needs to be done. ``` Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I have been looking back through the information on BP America in the article and noticed that an edit was made to the " United States" section not too long ago that added in information about BP America's retail sites. The new sentence is as follows:
While the addition states that the data is for BP America, the number of retail sites is a global figure and is actually out-of-date. The total number of retail sites worldwide was 21,000 in 2011, but 17,800 as of the end of 2013 (this detail is already included elsewhere in the article). I would therefore like to ask if editors would look at removing this sentence. Thanks Arturo at BP ( talk) 19:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand that we want to keep the corporate statistics in the article reasonably up-to-date, and that we don't want to misrepresent the company's situation through editor slack, but I'd point out that these numbers are data more than they are information, and, inconveniently, all of those figures, when given precisely, will become obsolete when the next report comes out, which will be at least annually, and in some cases, quarterly. There is also the question of how interested the general readership is in these numbers, and whether those that are would not be better served simply by linking to the company's shareholder reports and SEC filings at the end of the article. That's where anyone that actually needs those numbers will look anyway. As those stats are updated, it might be well to ask whether each one serves a purpose in the article that justifies perpetual updates, or whether there's a less specific way to convey the information that won't need to be updated so frequently. If it were up to me, I wouldn't try to be so precise, so I wouldn't have to make so many changes in the future. Geogene ( talk) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment from Arturo: If there is consensus, then I am happy with reducing mentions of specific figures within the "Operations" text. I see that Geogene has made some changes so far, which generally appear reasonable. However, there are a couple of queries I have due to issues resulting from these edits:
With regards to the discussion above about direct editing, it is my preference to not make any direct edits to this or other BP-related articles. As Geogene mentions, there is the potential for any edits I make to be negatively viewed, whether or not editors here have approved them. So long as the majority of the Wikipedia community seems more in favor of no direct editing for editors with a conflict of interest, I will follow that practice. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 22:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
While looking through Beagel's edits to the "Operations" section, I noticed a couple of small issues in the section.
First, an inaccuracy. BP is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the Gulf, but it is no longer the second-largest in the United States as stated in the first sentence of the "United States" section and in the article's introduction. Can this be removed?
As well, details regarding natural gas wells in the United States were removed in favor of simply listing the locations of the wells. As part of this change, some information was removed which explained why some "unconventional" wells are deemed as such. This may potentially lead to confusion, particularly as the wikilink to the page concerning unconventional oil has been removed. Would it be possible to add that link back in with a brief description of what unconventional means? For reference, the previous wording was, "using methods other than conventional oil wells to produce oil or gas."
It also seems that one of the open requests from a previous message has been archived. I've pasted it below.
Done More or less as requested, left comments below. Geogene ( talk) 18:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: This edit has not yet been made, perhaps due to Coretheapple's comment about the use of the word "initiative". I am open to any alternative wording instead of "initiative" if editors feel this is problematic; the key update here is to state that the investment target was reached in 2013. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 23:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the chart that User:Johnfos added, and I've taken it out. I think that the chart is well-located, as it fills a gaping white space (at least on my browser). However, my concern is that the chart shows "trend lines" through 2020, and I feel that our doing so falls under the category of WP:OR, in this case by simply extending the past trend to the future. Also the colors aren't quite distinct enough, which makes them a bit hard to follow for those of us who don't have great eyes. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Several weeks ago, an editor changed the "Canadian tar sands" section name to "Canadian oil sands," stating that tar was a pejorative term. Coretheapple reverted the edit with the reasoning that 'tar sands' is the more common term and that 'oil sands' is industry jargon.
Oil sands is the term that appears more frequently in the titles of the article's sources, including pieces from mainstream publications like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Oil sands is also used over a dozen times in the article, far more often than tar sands, which only appears a few times.
I'd also like to point out that the Wikipedia article on the subject is called Oil sands and has a section about nomenclature, which explains the prevalence of the term.
I'd like to request that editors consider using oil sands for the section heading and perhaps using the term more consistently throughout the article. If editors could review these points, I'd like to hear others' thoughts. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 14:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Albertan oil has the potential to contribute more than $2 trillion to the national economy over the next 25 years, about $84 billion per year, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute... The greatest obstacle to energy infrastructure projects isn’t technical expertise or financial capital; it’s gridlock due to opposition from strong alliances between environmental organizations and First Nations and their ability to attract media attention and stop or stall development. This gridlock has been fomented by the Tar Sands Campaign, a heavily-funded international initiative launched by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Tides Foundation in 2008.
Five representatives from the Cree First Nations are coming to co-ordinate their campaign against key players in the carbon-heavy energy sector with British environmentalists.
Eriel Tchekwie Deranger, from Fort Chipewyan, a centre of Alberta's tar sands schemes, said: "British companies such as BP and Royal Bank of Scotland in partnership with dozens of other companies are driving this project, which is having such devastating effects on our environment and communities.
Ripping a page — or the cover — from fellow Conservative and former tobacco industry lobbyist Ezra Levant's book, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new environment minister, Peter Kent, have taken to referring to the product of the Alberta tar sands as ethical oil. The Prime Minister and Mr. Levant go back a long way. It was Mr. Levant who reluctantly stepped aside as the Alliance candidate in Calgary Southwest so that Mr. Harper could run in a by-election there in 2002. But the "ethical oil" argument they promote has holes as big as the ones in the ground around Fort McMurray.
A subpage has been created at Talk:BP/Corrections and resources, where errors or omissions are noted, along with the action taken.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Looking over the article for information to update based on the recently released 2014 annual report, I noticed that a new subsection has been added for the " 2007 Texas City Chemical Leak" in the "Health and safety violations" section. The information in the section is missing the actual final outcome of the suit and is extremely one-sided (most likely since it is based on a press release from the law firm representing plaintiffs in a case against BP). Below I've provided some links to news articles and would like to ask editors to update the section with accurate details of what happened.
BP has denied harming any of the workers and has stated that no toxic substance was released at the refinery on that date. In March 2010 a U.S. District Judge overturned the jury award of punitive damages against BP (this is the amount currently mentioned in the article) and awarded a total of $340,660 to the ten workers. None of this information is currently included in the section.
There is news coverage of the suit that provides a neutral view of this event and the outcome of the suit, here are just a few links:
I'll be back soon with some suggested updates based on the new annual report. Meantime, I hope that someone can take a look at this, since it is currently presenting a skewed view of events. Thanks, Arturo at BP ( talk) 16:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I just went ahead and deleted it. We'll see what happens... Gandydancer ( talk) 23:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I never noticed this before, maybe because the page used to be immense and is now uncluttered, but apparently for the past couple of years there has been an unsigned notice at the top of this page, evidently from the BP employee monitoring this page, which has never been archived. It announces that there is a subpage page called "Corrections and resources." Nowhere is it disclosed that this is a page created in June 2013 by the subject of the article for the purpose of shaping the article to the purposes desired by the company.
I have archived this notice and changed the name of the subpage to more accurately reflect its purpose and to disclose that its purpose is to showcase requests by the subject. I have also placed a statement at the top of the subpage stating clearly that its purpose is to show requests by the subject of the article.
I that this subpage is highly inappropriate. If the subject of an article wants something corrected, he or she or it should place a request on the talk page of the article. If the correction is archived, it can be again placed on the talk page. We don't need a permanent page reflecting the agenda of the subject, written by the subject. We certainly don't need a permanent unsigned notice at the top of this talk page, directing editors to that page. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Does anybody knows there were BP gas stations in California? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.206.210 ( talk) 07:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Most edits completed, remaining ones moved into a new request |
BP published its Annual Report for 2014 last month, and I have been reading through the article to see what can be updated based on it and a few other new documents. My suggestions for updates are below, but I may post again if I see any others. I've also found a few new pieces of information that can be incorporated into the article, but I will work on a separate message detailing those.
References
AR13-fields
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Is someone able to make these changes? Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 17:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting at WikiProject Companies (which brought me here.) Please bear in mind that there is currently a 2 month backlog of 92 COI edit requests: [ [3]]. Your post is only 3 weeks old so it seems volunteers are making unusually fast progress with your request. I changed the archive settings so that threads must be 3 months old before they are archived, which hopefully stop current requests from being archived. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 11:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed the production year from 2013 to 2014 and I added hidden {{ update after}} tags to automatically mark some key items to be updated at this time next year. I also posted some visible dated info tags at a couple of the key paragraphs you mentioned, which might nudge it up a fellow volunteer's to do list. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 11:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. As this request has been archived, a new request should be made on the current talk page if needed. |
As the above request has been partly completed and isn't so clear as to my remaining suggested edits, I am closing it out. The remaining items to be updated are listed here, as well as a few other additions that would make this article more up-to-date:
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |registration=
, |dead-url=
, |editors=
, and |subscription=
(
help)
As always, these are suggestions and I am grateful for any assistance editors can provide in assessing them and making the changes that are acceptable. As I am an employee of BP, I will not make any of these edits myself. Would someone be able to make the rest of the edits? I am happy to discuss any questions. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 22:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Though this might be a good place to ask for someone to update:
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC).
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
BP. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
BP. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The last paragraph of this article, under the heading Market manipulation investigations and sanctions, contains two sentences referring to an investigation into alleged price manipulation. However, on Monday, December 7, 2015, EU investigators dropped the investigation of BP, as well as Royal Dutch Shell and Statoil, as has been reported by the Financial Times, Reuters and Bloomberg Business. Margarethe Vestager of the European Commission is quoted as saying in relation to this investigation: "It’s important to close down probes when evidence and data don’t support the suspicions, … When it turns out there’s no basis for a case, it should be shut down instantly."
Given the statement from Vestager, and the fact that the investigation did not go anywhere, could this paragraph be removed, or should it simply be updated to reflect it has concluded? As always, I will not make direct edits to this article because of my conflict of interest, since I am a BP employee. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 16:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Article does not cover the company well. It is very biased and not neutral. True, oil is evil and anyone who uses oil is bad but we should still be neutral. Maserati Turbo ( talk) 05:58, 20 May 2016 (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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 |
As mentioned previously, I have a few more updates from the BP annual report and other sources. I have divided them by section below. Let me know if there are any questions about these changes.
It appears on second look that some of the financials in the infobox have been updated for 2013, but are slightly off from what is reported by BP.
The company's revenue, operating income and net income need to be updated here as well as in the infobox. I have prepared a new sentence to replace where these numbers are mentioned in the " Corporate affairs" section.
I would appreciate it if an editor could make these updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
My recent request for some further updates to company information was archived, as there had been no response yet. Since this page has generally been quiet, I assume that it is just that editors are busy elsewhere and am reposting this request. Here are the details again:
As mentioned previously, I have a few more updates from the BP annual report and other sources. I have divided them by section below. Let me know if there are any questions about these changes.
Extended content
|
---|
InfoboxIt appears on second look that some of the financials in the infobox have been updated for 2013, but are slightly off from what is reported by BP. I-1Operating income should be US$ 31.769 billion [1] not US$ 31.310 billion. I-2Profit should be US$ 23.758 billion [2] not US$ 23.451 billion. I-3Total equity should be US$ 130.407 billion [3] rather than US$ 129.302 billion. OperationsO-1I missed this last time, but there is a mention of the number of BP employees in the " Operations" section that needs to be updated as it has been elsewhere in the article. Here is the citation for that: 83,900 [4] O-2The investment in energy development in the " United States" section should be updated from $55 to nearly $50 billion. I have updated the sentence accordingly below: Done ``` Buster Seven Talk 15:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-3The natural gas production also needs to be changed in the section about U.S. production. It currently says, "In the lower 48 states, BP has a presence in seven of the top gas basins and in 2012 produced more than 1,651 million cubic feet per day (46.8 million cubic metres per day) of natural gas." Using the formatting currently in the article, I have drafted an updated sentence:
Done. Beagel ( talk) 13:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-4Following that sentence, the number of wells mentioned, as well as the name of the North American Gas division, have changed.
Done. Beagel ( talk) 13:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-5In this same section, I noticed the article states: “BP is the largest producer of oil and gas and the largest leaseholder in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.” BP is still the largest leaseholder, but not the largest producer of oil and gas in the deepwater anymore. Using this New York Times article, I have updated the sentence:
Done ``` Buster Seven Talk 14:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-6The next sentence, mentioning over 200,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent, is also outdated. The updated number can be found in the PDF release by BP from the end of March. The sentence should be:
Done ``` Buster Seven Talk 15:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC) O-7I'd like to suggest also adding one additional sentence to the end of this same paragraph. In March the ban on new leases for BP was lifted and the company won 24 new leases in an auction that same month. This is supported by the same New York Times article as above. Here is the new sentence I would like to propose:
Done ``` Buster Seven Talk 22:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC) O-8BP's stake in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System should be updated to 48.44% from 46.9% based on this source from The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. |
The above requests have been completed by Beagel and Buster7, so I have collapsed the discussion. Thanks to you both. Arturo at BP ( talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Finally in the " Alternative and low carbon energy section", BP's investment in renewable energy sources should be updated to reflect the 2013 number in the BP Annual Report and Sustainability Report. Some of the original sourcing should still be preserved, so I have drafted the updated sentences below.
Extended content
|
---|
C-1The company's revenue, operating income and net income need to be updated here as well as in the infobox. I have prepared a new sentence to replace where these numbers are mentioned in the " Corporate affairs" section.
I would appreciate it if an editor could make these updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 21:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC) |
This request has been completed, so I have collapsed it. Thanks to Beagel for making all of the above updates. Arturo at BP ( talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Most likely more than one editor will take on this task. It would be beneficial if editors would mark "Done" above as each request is accomplished. That way we can all see what is getting done and what still needs to be done. ``` Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I have been looking back through the information on BP America in the article and noticed that an edit was made to the " United States" section not too long ago that added in information about BP America's retail sites. The new sentence is as follows:
While the addition states that the data is for BP America, the number of retail sites is a global figure and is actually out-of-date. The total number of retail sites worldwide was 21,000 in 2011, but 17,800 as of the end of 2013 (this detail is already included elsewhere in the article). I would therefore like to ask if editors would look at removing this sentence. Thanks Arturo at BP ( talk) 19:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand that we want to keep the corporate statistics in the article reasonably up-to-date, and that we don't want to misrepresent the company's situation through editor slack, but I'd point out that these numbers are data more than they are information, and, inconveniently, all of those figures, when given precisely, will become obsolete when the next report comes out, which will be at least annually, and in some cases, quarterly. There is also the question of how interested the general readership is in these numbers, and whether those that are would not be better served simply by linking to the company's shareholder reports and SEC filings at the end of the article. That's where anyone that actually needs those numbers will look anyway. As those stats are updated, it might be well to ask whether each one serves a purpose in the article that justifies perpetual updates, or whether there's a less specific way to convey the information that won't need to be updated so frequently. If it were up to me, I wouldn't try to be so precise, so I wouldn't have to make so many changes in the future. Geogene ( talk) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment from Arturo: If there is consensus, then I am happy with reducing mentions of specific figures within the "Operations" text. I see that Geogene has made some changes so far, which generally appear reasonable. However, there are a couple of queries I have due to issues resulting from these edits:
With regards to the discussion above about direct editing, it is my preference to not make any direct edits to this or other BP-related articles. As Geogene mentions, there is the potential for any edits I make to be negatively viewed, whether or not editors here have approved them. So long as the majority of the Wikipedia community seems more in favor of no direct editing for editors with a conflict of interest, I will follow that practice. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 22:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
While looking through Beagel's edits to the "Operations" section, I noticed a couple of small issues in the section.
First, an inaccuracy. BP is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the Gulf, but it is no longer the second-largest in the United States as stated in the first sentence of the "United States" section and in the article's introduction. Can this be removed?
As well, details regarding natural gas wells in the United States were removed in favor of simply listing the locations of the wells. As part of this change, some information was removed which explained why some "unconventional" wells are deemed as such. This may potentially lead to confusion, particularly as the wikilink to the page concerning unconventional oil has been removed. Would it be possible to add that link back in with a brief description of what unconventional means? For reference, the previous wording was, "using methods other than conventional oil wells to produce oil or gas."
It also seems that one of the open requests from a previous message has been archived. I've pasted it below.
Done More or less as requested, left comments below. Geogene ( talk) 18:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: This edit has not yet been made, perhaps due to Coretheapple's comment about the use of the word "initiative". I am open to any alternative wording instead of "initiative" if editors feel this is problematic; the key update here is to state that the investment target was reached in 2013. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 23:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the chart that User:Johnfos added, and I've taken it out. I think that the chart is well-located, as it fills a gaping white space (at least on my browser). However, my concern is that the chart shows "trend lines" through 2020, and I feel that our doing so falls under the category of WP:OR, in this case by simply extending the past trend to the future. Also the colors aren't quite distinct enough, which makes them a bit hard to follow for those of us who don't have great eyes. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Several weeks ago, an editor changed the "Canadian tar sands" section name to "Canadian oil sands," stating that tar was a pejorative term. Coretheapple reverted the edit with the reasoning that 'tar sands' is the more common term and that 'oil sands' is industry jargon.
Oil sands is the term that appears more frequently in the titles of the article's sources, including pieces from mainstream publications like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Oil sands is also used over a dozen times in the article, far more often than tar sands, which only appears a few times.
I'd also like to point out that the Wikipedia article on the subject is called Oil sands and has a section about nomenclature, which explains the prevalence of the term.
I'd like to request that editors consider using oil sands for the section heading and perhaps using the term more consistently throughout the article. If editors could review these points, I'd like to hear others' thoughts. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 14:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Albertan oil has the potential to contribute more than $2 trillion to the national economy over the next 25 years, about $84 billion per year, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute... The greatest obstacle to energy infrastructure projects isn’t technical expertise or financial capital; it’s gridlock due to opposition from strong alliances between environmental organizations and First Nations and their ability to attract media attention and stop or stall development. This gridlock has been fomented by the Tar Sands Campaign, a heavily-funded international initiative launched by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Tides Foundation in 2008.
Five representatives from the Cree First Nations are coming to co-ordinate their campaign against key players in the carbon-heavy energy sector with British environmentalists.
Eriel Tchekwie Deranger, from Fort Chipewyan, a centre of Alberta's tar sands schemes, said: "British companies such as BP and Royal Bank of Scotland in partnership with dozens of other companies are driving this project, which is having such devastating effects on our environment and communities.
Ripping a page — or the cover — from fellow Conservative and former tobacco industry lobbyist Ezra Levant's book, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new environment minister, Peter Kent, have taken to referring to the product of the Alberta tar sands as ethical oil. The Prime Minister and Mr. Levant go back a long way. It was Mr. Levant who reluctantly stepped aside as the Alliance candidate in Calgary Southwest so that Mr. Harper could run in a by-election there in 2002. But the "ethical oil" argument they promote has holes as big as the ones in the ground around Fort McMurray.
A subpage has been created at Talk:BP/Corrections and resources, where errors or omissions are noted, along with the action taken.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Looking over the article for information to update based on the recently released 2014 annual report, I noticed that a new subsection has been added for the " 2007 Texas City Chemical Leak" in the "Health and safety violations" section. The information in the section is missing the actual final outcome of the suit and is extremely one-sided (most likely since it is based on a press release from the law firm representing plaintiffs in a case against BP). Below I've provided some links to news articles and would like to ask editors to update the section with accurate details of what happened.
BP has denied harming any of the workers and has stated that no toxic substance was released at the refinery on that date. In March 2010 a U.S. District Judge overturned the jury award of punitive damages against BP (this is the amount currently mentioned in the article) and awarded a total of $340,660 to the ten workers. None of this information is currently included in the section.
There is news coverage of the suit that provides a neutral view of this event and the outcome of the suit, here are just a few links:
I'll be back soon with some suggested updates based on the new annual report. Meantime, I hope that someone can take a look at this, since it is currently presenting a skewed view of events. Thanks, Arturo at BP ( talk) 16:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I just went ahead and deleted it. We'll see what happens... Gandydancer ( talk) 23:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I never noticed this before, maybe because the page used to be immense and is now uncluttered, but apparently for the past couple of years there has been an unsigned notice at the top of this page, evidently from the BP employee monitoring this page, which has never been archived. It announces that there is a subpage page called "Corrections and resources." Nowhere is it disclosed that this is a page created in June 2013 by the subject of the article for the purpose of shaping the article to the purposes desired by the company.
I have archived this notice and changed the name of the subpage to more accurately reflect its purpose and to disclose that its purpose is to showcase requests by the subject. I have also placed a statement at the top of the subpage stating clearly that its purpose is to show requests by the subject of the article.
I that this subpage is highly inappropriate. If the subject of an article wants something corrected, he or she or it should place a request on the talk page of the article. If the correction is archived, it can be again placed on the talk page. We don't need a permanent page reflecting the agenda of the subject, written by the subject. We certainly don't need a permanent unsigned notice at the top of this talk page, directing editors to that page. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Does anybody knows there were BP gas stations in California? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.206.210 ( talk) 07:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Most edits completed, remaining ones moved into a new request |
BP published its Annual Report for 2014 last month, and I have been reading through the article to see what can be updated based on it and a few other new documents. My suggestions for updates are below, but I may post again if I see any others. I've also found a few new pieces of information that can be incorporated into the article, but I will work on a separate message detailing those.
References
AR13-fields
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Is someone able to make these changes? Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 17:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting at WikiProject Companies (which brought me here.) Please bear in mind that there is currently a 2 month backlog of 92 COI edit requests: [ [3]]. Your post is only 3 weeks old so it seems volunteers are making unusually fast progress with your request. I changed the archive settings so that threads must be 3 months old before they are archived, which hopefully stop current requests from being archived. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 11:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed the production year from 2013 to 2014 and I added hidden {{ update after}} tags to automatically mark some key items to be updated at this time next year. I also posted some visible dated info tags at a couple of the key paragraphs you mentioned, which might nudge it up a fellow volunteer's to do list. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 11:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. As this request has been archived, a new request should be made on the current talk page if needed. |
As the above request has been partly completed and isn't so clear as to my remaining suggested edits, I am closing it out. The remaining items to be updated are listed here, as well as a few other additions that would make this article more up-to-date:
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |registration=
, |dead-url=
, |editors=
, and |subscription=
(
help)
As always, these are suggestions and I am grateful for any assistance editors can provide in assessing them and making the changes that are acceptable. As I am an employee of BP, I will not make any of these edits myself. Would someone be able to make the rest of the edits? I am happy to discuss any questions. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 22:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Though this might be a good place to ask for someone to update:
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC).
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
BP. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
BP. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The last paragraph of this article, under the heading Market manipulation investigations and sanctions, contains two sentences referring to an investigation into alleged price manipulation. However, on Monday, December 7, 2015, EU investigators dropped the investigation of BP, as well as Royal Dutch Shell and Statoil, as has been reported by the Financial Times, Reuters and Bloomberg Business. Margarethe Vestager of the European Commission is quoted as saying in relation to this investigation: "It’s important to close down probes when evidence and data don’t support the suspicions, … When it turns out there’s no basis for a case, it should be shut down instantly."
Given the statement from Vestager, and the fact that the investigation did not go anywhere, could this paragraph be removed, or should it simply be updated to reflect it has concluded? As always, I will not make direct edits to this article because of my conflict of interest, since I am a BP employee. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 16:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Article does not cover the company well. It is very biased and not neutral. True, oil is evil and anyone who uses oil is bad but we should still be neutral. Maserati Turbo ( talk) 05:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)