This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
[3] leads to a subscriber-only article and is therefore not accessible to everyone. Fir3w411 24 ( talk) 02:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Given the importance of the bribery story, and the companies implicated, some concern has been expressed that this has not been reported by 'mainstream media'. The largest sources of articles, having been parties to the original leak, are Australian newspaper The Age (owned by Fairfax Media Ltd), and the Huffington Post. This article at Naked Capitalism, for instance, makes the point stated by its headline, Mainstream Media Ignores Blockbuster Expose of Massive Bribery in Iraq by Unaoil.
I am not a regular reader of Naked Capitalism and cannot vouch for its 'Wikipediaworthiness', but do think the point is validly raised. While various authorities are apparently taking the issue seriously, most international media has ignored this issue. A Google (Australia, but with locale set as US) search on 11 February 2017 for Unaoil provides me with the top 50 rankings (of about 80,900 results). I should acknowledge that I exported this with the use of a Chrome extension named SEOquake.
The 'top 50' include 21 results from the following 'significant' (i.e. I recognise the name as being 'popular' and 'newsie') sites:
Many of these results relate to very recent articles about investigations based upon the leaks, into ABB Ltd and Rolls Royce. Most are dated well after the original publications, indicating that large US and UK sources generally ignored what is a pretty big story when it first broke. The first only article I can find by searching Forbes is one dated 26 July 2016, about the UK Serious Fraud Office launching an investigation. There appears to be nothing about the original leak!
Reuters shows many more results, with its first article about the company in November 2014 about some joint agreement it had signed with another company. It then lists four articles on 1 April 2016, all covering the Monaco authorities' raid of Unaoil offices and all published within one hour and eight minutes of one another. Reuters goes on to publish three 'stockwatch' items on 4 April 2016, and a fourth article on that day saying that Eni CEO denied any links with Unaoil. Its press digest of 11 May 2016 links to an article in The Independent, stating that the Panama Papers (remember them, anyone?) showed that BP hired the company after the bribery scandal revealed by the Sydney Morning Herald in 2013. Wait, WHAT? Is that the one mentioned in three sentences at the beginning of the 'Allegations of Bribery' section of this Wikipedia entry?
It appears that extremely serious allegations have been made regarding Unaoil, on at least two occasions. This current Unaoil entry on Wikipedia seems staggeringly inadequate to the allegations, but to some extent this is explained by the paucity of coverage by international news entities.
I recommend that:
I may be able to make these changes myself, but have limited time, limited Wikipedia 'experience', and have spent both today simply identifying and seeking to quantify in some way the concern about how this issue has been covered in the press and consequently in this Wikipedia entry. Comments/responses that present different perspectives on the company and the claims against it are welcome/encouraged. Finally, I have uploaded the spreadsheet I used to examine search results (Scribd displays it awfully, so you will need to download the file). It is not at all complex, lacking even the date of each linked article, but readers are welcome to look and draw their own conclusions (or perform their own searches). Ambiguosity ( talk) 05:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
[3] leads to a subscriber-only article and is therefore not accessible to everyone. Fir3w411 24 ( talk) 02:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Given the importance of the bribery story, and the companies implicated, some concern has been expressed that this has not been reported by 'mainstream media'. The largest sources of articles, having been parties to the original leak, are Australian newspaper The Age (owned by Fairfax Media Ltd), and the Huffington Post. This article at Naked Capitalism, for instance, makes the point stated by its headline, Mainstream Media Ignores Blockbuster Expose of Massive Bribery in Iraq by Unaoil.
I am not a regular reader of Naked Capitalism and cannot vouch for its 'Wikipediaworthiness', but do think the point is validly raised. While various authorities are apparently taking the issue seriously, most international media has ignored this issue. A Google (Australia, but with locale set as US) search on 11 February 2017 for Unaoil provides me with the top 50 rankings (of about 80,900 results). I should acknowledge that I exported this with the use of a Chrome extension named SEOquake.
The 'top 50' include 21 results from the following 'significant' (i.e. I recognise the name as being 'popular' and 'newsie') sites:
Many of these results relate to very recent articles about investigations based upon the leaks, into ABB Ltd and Rolls Royce. Most are dated well after the original publications, indicating that large US and UK sources generally ignored what is a pretty big story when it first broke. The first only article I can find by searching Forbes is one dated 26 July 2016, about the UK Serious Fraud Office launching an investigation. There appears to be nothing about the original leak!
Reuters shows many more results, with its first article about the company in November 2014 about some joint agreement it had signed with another company. It then lists four articles on 1 April 2016, all covering the Monaco authorities' raid of Unaoil offices and all published within one hour and eight minutes of one another. Reuters goes on to publish three 'stockwatch' items on 4 April 2016, and a fourth article on that day saying that Eni CEO denied any links with Unaoil. Its press digest of 11 May 2016 links to an article in The Independent, stating that the Panama Papers (remember them, anyone?) showed that BP hired the company after the bribery scandal revealed by the Sydney Morning Herald in 2013. Wait, WHAT? Is that the one mentioned in three sentences at the beginning of the 'Allegations of Bribery' section of this Wikipedia entry?
It appears that extremely serious allegations have been made regarding Unaoil, on at least two occasions. This current Unaoil entry on Wikipedia seems staggeringly inadequate to the allegations, but to some extent this is explained by the paucity of coverage by international news entities.
I recommend that:
I may be able to make these changes myself, but have limited time, limited Wikipedia 'experience', and have spent both today simply identifying and seeking to quantify in some way the concern about how this issue has been covered in the press and consequently in this Wikipedia entry. Comments/responses that present different perspectives on the company and the claims against it are welcome/encouraged. Finally, I have uploaded the spreadsheet I used to examine search results (Scribd displays it awfully, so you will need to download the file). It is not at all complex, lacking even the date of each linked article, but readers are welcome to look and draw their own conclusions (or perform their own searches). Ambiguosity ( talk) 05:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)