Talk:BP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 BP was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 7, 2006
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.
Environmental Record Task Force BP is under review by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers and organizations throughout the encyclopedia. The task force is part of the WikiProject Environment.

Contents

[edit] Wrong Numbers?

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)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 7, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes.
2. Factually accurate?: Not very, in respect to citations.
3. Broad in coverage?: Very.
4. Neutral point of view?: Somewhat, but it did skirt around the Prudhoe Bay section.
5. Article stability? Very.
6. Images?: Excellent.

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)

[edit] BP EARNINGS

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 02:20, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

Turnover simply means the TOTAL amount of money earned, before any deductions (e.g. tax, payroll etc etc). 88.111.8.75 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Also known as Revenue. Revenue is a subjective measure and does not enjoy the smae solid accounting rules as Net Income or Cash Income. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.1.103.72 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Stock

Its stock symbol is BP. User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 16:09 August 31, 2004 (EDT)

[edit] "Officially described as" what?

"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)

Yeah, it's confusing as written. I'll see if I can find a way to reword it. Essentially, BP bought Amoco, but for a variety of reasons it was officially described as "BP and Amoco merged" rather than "BP bought Amoco". I imagine competition issues had something to do with this, but I think there may have been more complex legal reasons relating to the way the stock swap and so on was arranged. But I'm not a lawyer, much less a lawyer specializing in the complexities of corporate restructurings. --Delirium 22:20, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
At the time there was a complex exchange of shares/cash for Amaco shares becoming BP shares. It would be an interesting piece to add to the article. Gnangarra 04:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] info about US pumps in intro?

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)

I agree and I've moved it to Miscellaneous Thincat 15:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accident

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)


[edit] ARCO details

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)

[edit] CURRENT EVENT TAG

The entire article is not acurrent event-only the section on Prudhoe bay

[edit] whats the name really?

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)

[edit] A bit of History needed here

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.

[edit] West Papua

Could anyone confirm the NPOV and correctness of this section.

It really doesn't matter if anyone can confirm the NPOV or correctness. The section needs sources, not original research. It's clearly one-sided and needs cleanup. Also, please sign your posts using four ~. Thanks.Thedjb 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

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)

Agreed, but when there is an accusation made against the subject of an article, it certainly seems prudent to add the citation...it is, afterall, just adding a "1" after the statement. The more information provided with reliable sources, the better the article...and this article definitely needs work.Thedjb 18:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Browne's resignation

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)

[edit] Shouldn't the Environmental Record/Accusations of "Greenwashing" Section be deleted?

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)

If you feel the section can/should be improved, of course I think you should go ahead and do so, but given that BP has gone out of its way to present itself as a green company, and given that this has been an ongoing source of widely reported controversy, it seems notable and encyclopedic to me. This might be something to bring up with the Environmental Record Task Force. I agree the Alaska information should not be presented twice! Benzocane 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The section has been deleted because it is a copyright violation. You can't just copy and paste from a copyrrighted source and change an "is" to a "was" and pull out a few words as if the Guardian UK didn't already own the copyright to it. Please rewrite entirely in your own words, whoever wrote it, if you want it retained. I will have to get some administrative oversight now to remove it from the history also. The material is notable enough to have other sources, and to be written up without taking it from someone else's already own piece. KP Botany 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have read the Guardian article cited and altered the text to distance it from its source (I don't actually see the copywrite conflict to which you are referring). In the cited article I don't see any significant overlap. Or are you refering to another article? Let me know if you feel it needs further work. Thanks. I've also added another source.Benzocane 18:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I will look again, however, since I pulled 4 different multiword (4 or more word) strings from your text in this article and successfully searched for them in the article you referenced, this is a copyvio. If you did it in high school and it would get you an F, it's not allowed on Wikipedia. English is a huge and robust language, a sentence or two on the topic, in well-worded English, rather than picking the same adjectives that the article uses would be plenty. Check for yourself how many multi word strings you now have in common with the source, if it's 1 or more the article still needs editing, and you should get a second source on this one, also. KP Botany 21:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What you're referring to as "my text" is a palimpsest of several editors; I have never added anything that violates copy policy, to my knowledge. I'm working in good faith to improve this and other entries, and the admonition about high school grading policy, the observation that "English is a huge language," etc., hardly seem necessary. I believe I have now identified the problematic string, which, as you say, should have been in quotation marks or paraphrased. Benzocane 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who did it, it was clearly excessively copied and pasted from its reference, and you said you "don't see any significant overlap," when there was quite a bit of significant overlap. So you appear to be defending what was obvious copying. So, I elaborated to make it clear that the edit could not stand as it was. Again, it could simply have been cleaned up without defending it.KP Botany 03:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't defend it; I simply said I didn't see the overlap initially. Then I saw it and I attempted to correct it. I appreciated your pointing it out.Benzocane 13:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
And I appreciate your correcting it. I will look it over again when I get the moment, but I generally assume that most editors who say they corrected it, did so. Thanks. KP Botany 16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environment record

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)

[edit] History Bias

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)

Articles should state the truth, and I think the section does just that. Are you challenging the veracity of the statements made? Mossadeq was brought down by the CIA/MI6 just as the artcle says. "Western perspectives" shouldn't get in the way of the truth! Peterlewis 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Using quote marks in a blatantly sarcastic manner like, quote: "evidence", is highly unprofessional and somewhat loaded. While I'm not disputing that BP was almost certainly a factor in causing the turmoil in Iran, there are better ways of expressing it than bad grammar and sarcasm. If anyone agrees, I'd like to at least try and fix some of the wording in this section, because not only is some of it bad English, but it is arguably not neutral, as Wikipedia is meant to be. Note that I do not intend to "fix" the content, as it is already correct. JavaJawaUK 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think some more references are needed to back such strong statements. All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer is one sources I know off-hand. Slanting 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deutsche BP AG

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)

Not to Svenska BP AB either. In the Swedish article it says that BP got it name from that company -how is it with that? /Sv:Vivo 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BP Name

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)

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)