User talk:CBuiltother/Occidental Petroleum Controversy

This is my proposed revision for Occidental Petroleum#Controversies. To guard against a potential COI, I'm proposing these edits here first. Most of this proposal consists of additions, and not deletions. A comparison of this proposal vs. the current revision may be found here.

Additions

• Changed "Controversies" to "Controversy." (This seems to be the best practice, see Chevron Corporation.)
• Added an introductory paragraph to the section to emphasize WP:NPOV. I used the first paragraph of the Criticism of Google article as a model.
• Made a separate section under "Controversy" for litigation.
• Renamed the Cano Limon subsection to Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum, as that section mainly focuses on the lawsuit.
• Added updated information about Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum.

Deletions

• One, removed a paragraph regarding Ecuador that another editor flagged for a citation needed more than three years ago, and that information doesn't appear to have a reliable source.

I look forward to hearing feedback about these changes. Thanks, --CBuiltother (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Draft Peer Review

General thoughts

Hi CBuilt, I got your note on my talk page and would be happy to look at your draft. Just a few questions. You have addressed a COI saying Oxy is one of your employer's clients. You don't have to disclose specifics, but it might be helpful for you to clarify if your employer is a PR firm which specifically hires people like you to work on Wikipedia articles. That kind of job has especially high levels of scrutiny attached to it around here, but I believe many have been successful in transparently serving two masters, by following one set of our policies closely. Since you've already been open about your potential bias, the only sources of unintended POV I can anticipate would be:

• Leaving out some controversies which received as much if not more press attention. (see WP:WEIGHT in WP:NPOV)
• Leaving out press attention that was particularly critical of broader aspects of company policies and operations
• Leaving out specific numbers indicating the scope of harm/liability due to the incident
• Using WP:Weasel words to convey a less negative story
• Generally giving less attention to this subject, mainly through cutting the word count
• Combining incidents under a single section or header to minimize the appearance of multiple incidents

I'm not even beginning to accuse you of any of these, but it's good to know where those might creep in. If you would like second opinions about general or specific policy issues, you can always ask at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard at WP:COIN.

Draft comments

I'm initially wondering why your draft is coming up. The current 'Oxy' article has a section addressing controversies, so I'm curious what you find problematic about that section. If it ain't broke, why fix it is decidedly NOT our motto around here, but it can give some indication of what you were trying to achieve with your revisions. That's basically what I will do, looking at your changes in comparison and addressing each one. In fact, we can use this diff to directly compare the drafts.

Controversy sections, like criticism sections are often a sign of fractured writing. Typically, controversy should be integrated throughout the article in relevant incident/history/reception sections. Even the choice of headers can be a way to improve this, for example, BP used 'Corporate Social Responsibility' as an overarching title.

Here are specific changes with my comments (in parentheses):

1. 'changed 'controversies' to 'controversy' - (no problem with that, but i think a general safety/environment/legal/political structure under a common 'Corporate Social Responsibility' header may be better)
2. added intro - "Oxy engages in oil and natural gas exploration and production primarily and states that is "committed to respecting the environment, maintaining safety and upholding high standards of social responsibility throughout the company's worldwide operations."[1] Its critics have raised concerns about the company's historical operations." (1. small typo, need an 'it' before 'is committed'. 2. I prefer we start with a neutral sentence rather than a positive and then negative one. Basically, I don't want company promo-language in the topic sentence, although it's fine in the second or third sentence.)
3. changed Cano Limon to 'other' (I prefer using the common names, especially if these events have been named as such in the press. 'Other' is ok for a mix of smaller events, but I don't see a problem with naming them individually, since it helps readers navigate.)
4. add Litigation header - (not a bad title, although litigation is really secondary to the area of controversy, e.g. safety/environment/land rights, etc.)
5. add litigation outcomes - (no problem there, good updates)
6. note: Maynas Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum should be in a level 4 = = = = sub-header per WP:MOS#headers rather than ' ' ' bolded ' ' ' .
7. added: "Occidental formerly operated in Ecuador, but the government ended the company's interests in block 15 in the Ecuadorian Amazon in 2006." (good update)
8. removed: "In 2005, Occidental and partner Liwa won eight out of 15 exploration spots on the EPSA-4 auction, making both companies among the first to enter the Libyan market since the United States lifted its embargo on that country." (why was this removed?)
9. removed: "In August 2005, the company was accused of 42 legal violations in Ecuador, including environmental destruction and espionage. The Ecuadorian government subsequently refused to renew a contract for oil field exploration. Protesters in the northeastern part of the country called for the withdrawal of Occidental." (why was this removed?)
10. added: [environmental record] section. (section header makes sense)
11. added: Oxy states that it is “committed to respecting the environment.” Its environmental activities have been recognized by conservation organizations, but some critics have raised concerns about its historical operations. ('some critics' isn't a great phrase. prefer just 'critics' or 'criticism has been raised')
12. added: Oxy has been noted within the oil and gas industry as being among the first to employ carbon dioxide (CO2) injection for enhanced oil recovery; this technique is a means of permanent geologic storage of CO2, which could reduce future greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere." (ok, positive information, well cited)
13. added: Occidental was recognized by the EPA in 2008 as Production Partner of the Year and in 2009 for Continuing Excellence (5 Years). (ok, positive information, well cited)
14. added: Occidental is a member of the Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC). The WHC has certified the habitat conservation and education programs at several Occidental sites." (ok, positive information, well cite; can we quantify how many/what proportion of Oxy sites have been certified?)
15. added: OxyChem has achieved Star Status under OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs as being among the safest work sites in the U.S." (ok, positive info, well cited)
16. added: Researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst identified Occidental Petroleum as the 47th-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with about 1.2 million pounds of toxic chemicals released annually into the air. (ok, negative/factual information, well cited)
17. added: Pollutants emitted by the company included chlorine, antimony compounds, benzotrichloride, and hydrochloric acid citation needed. (where's this info coming from?)
18. added: According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Occidental might be potentially liable for at least six Superfund toxic waste sites. citation needed (let's get a cite for this)

Generally, your draft improves the structure, removes some negative information and adds a good deal of positive information. This will change the POV to look at the company more positively, but many of those changes appear warranted by the citations. I'm particularly concerned about the removed information. Also, while we are adding positive environmental references, NPOV encourages we try and find equally well-cited negative information (or sources which merely give neutral overviews). I think you've put a lot of effort into this draft, especially getting the citations correct, and can definitely work from it.

You can respond to comments by referring to them by number, (or by making a list in which each line starts with a #). You can also intersperse your comments directly in this section, either by using italics or perhaps [brackets]. Whatever you'd prefer. Ocaasi (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Responses

Thanks for the feedback (although it appears you're not finished--feel free to continue adding your thought above this response if that helps keep it organized). I think there might have been some confusion about this draft-- this incorporates the existing text in the article with my edits on top of it. This isn't a completely new rewritten section, I just thought it might be easier to present it this way. I've made some of the edits you already listed to the draft. Do you think we should reorganize these sections (Controversy and Environmental record) into those like BP (Safety record, Environmental record, Political record) and put it all under a Corporate Responsibility header? --CBuiltother (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

To your last point, why not two lvl2 subheaders (Safety and Environmental record) and (Legal issues) a la Monsanto. Midlakewinter (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I do like the BP model, since it is more neutral than 'controversies' and gives room for a variety of subjects without them necessarily being about what the company is alleged of doing wrong and how it then defends itself. Ocaasi (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi - i think Ocaasi has done a good job reviewing your draft and i generally agree with him - i also think the BP model is the right template to use.--Itemirus^{Message me!} 13:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful (and quick) feedback! I've edited and reorganized the draft to incorporate your suggestions on points 1, 3, 6, and 11. I agree/have no comment on points 5, 7, 12, 13, 15, and 16. Comments on remaining points:

#2 I used the intro of the Criticism of Google article as my model here, and for me, it’s difficult to improve upon it. Would this be a suitable (albeit minor) rewording?

Oxy is a company that engages in oil and natural gas exploration and production. The company states that it is "committed to respecting the environment, maintaining safety and upholding high standards of social responsibility throughout the company's worldwide operations,"[1] but its critics have raised concerns about the company's historical operations.

#4 I've renamed "Litigation" to "Legal issues" as in Monsanto. Acceptable wording?

#8 Sorry for not making it clear -- This sentence already exists in the "Oil and gas" section of the article and I don't think it belongs in this section.

#9 I’m unable to find a reliable source for this paragraph. I've added this back into the draft until we can either find a source or come to agreement that it should be removed.

#14 According to Oxy's website[1], there are 8 such sites. I’ve been unable to find an outside source on this exact number. Can we use this as a source?

#17 This info already exists on the article; the old cited source was a dead link.

#18 Same as #17.

--CBuiltother (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

2. I do prefer the initial sentence as you suggested. Even though it is a bit obvious/redundant, I appreciate it's neutrality, and we can work from it to be slightly broader. (Perhaps: Occidental's role in oil and natural gas exploration and production, to which they have pledged a commitment to responsibility, has also been a source of criticism. The company states that it is "committed to respecting the environment, maintaining safety and upholding high standards of social responsibility throughout the company's worldwide operations." Critics have raised concerns about Occidental's historical operations in these areas). Maybe something like that, although it's getting wordy. Either way.

4. "legal issues" is fine. The point I was making is that we could organize the legal issues as subsets of content areas (cf. BP where environmental/safety/political structure is overarching, and legal issues would be a subset of each. If Oxy's range of problems is not as broad as BP's then maybe legal issues works as it's own section.

8. I'm ok with that move, unless there was controversy related to Oxy's role in Libya. Then we'd want to make sure to describe it wherever it ends up. So if it's in 'Oil and Gas' we could add a sentence about public reception or criticism related to involvement there. Or if it stays in the 'CSR' section, then it can be part of 'Political record'. Either is ok with me. Do you know of particular critical responses to the Libyan situation?

9. I'll double check on a source for this. Otherwise, per WP:V you're entitled to remove it, especially if it's controversial.

14. I'm ok using Oxy's website for this information, but since they are not neutral, would prefer we add in-text attribution (Occidental reports that..., or Occidental's website lists....). Ideally we would use the government's certification reporting. If we can track it down.

17 &18. Ok. I didn't see it elsewhere, but that's fine.

Generally, good work on the responses so far. I think the remaining ones can be ironed out easily. Then you can either move this to the talk page for comment, or just be WP:BOLD and add the version, perhaps with a note on the talk page linking to this discussion and mentioning your involvement. Ocaasi (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Thanks, I've incorporated your language.

4. I see what you mean about weaving the legal information into the rest of the article; I'll try to find a suitable way to do that.

8. A quick search hasn't revealed anything controversial about Oxy's operations in Libya.

9. Thanks.

14. Agreed; I'll edit this as such.

17. & 18. They're in the existing article under "Environmental record" at the bottom if you're looking for them.

I'll make these last few edits to the draft and then probably incorporate them into the article. The article talk page is very inactive, hence why I sought out your help. Regardless, I'll make a new section on the talk page linking back to this discussion for any other editors to provide feedback. Thanks again! --CBuiltother (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, and I like both the introduction as well as the structure. I think we miscommunicated about the legal section. I think there are 3 options here:

1 make it a level 3 [===Legal issues] subset, of the level 2 [==Corporate social responsibility] section (just like Environment, Safety, and Political are)

2 make it a level 4 [====Legal issues] subset of each Environment, Safety, and Political, where there are cases (e.g.

3 get rid of the 'legal issues' header entirely, and just give the individuals cases level 4 headers in the section where they fit.

This is just formatting, though and can be fixed once the draft is added. I'd say add it.

Just for ease of focus, I'm going to list items we have resolved as crossed off: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 (so 2 4 8 9 14 are left, in part... that's 4 8 9). DEFINITELY ADD IT. NICE WORK! Ocaasi (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)