Talk:Royaldutchshellplc.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Content 2 Speculative Comments 3 Website blanking 4 Request for comment 5 Viability of "Appeals to Shell shareholders, Shell employees, and the public" section 6 Changes I just made to this page -- explanation

[edit] Content

Whilst the content is good, it may be worthwhile, having convinced myself this site is notable, in re-styling the way in which the article is written according the the manual of style. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 00:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope that I will be able to reinforce your conclusion that the article is notable. For the record, I do object to the article being deleted. In my humble, biased opinion, the content is notable and of interest to the public (and potential targets of gripe sites). The information it contains is true and verifiable.

I have mentioned in the reworked article that the parties involved in the WIPO proceedings were notified that the case was “exceptional”. I can supply verification and even a link to the official notification if deemed appropriate.

With regard to the Wall Street Journal article, I have written to the Dow Jones Company General Counsel so they are aware of the extract and thus far they have raised no objections. I included it because it provides a balanced account. The purpose of my email to Dow Jones legal department was to seek permission to publish a head cut image of Alfred Donovan (on the Wikipedia article) which is the copyright of the Wall Street Journal. They have already agreed that in can used on the gripe site under the “fair use” doctrine. Whether it would be acceptable within the rules of Wikipedia is another matter.

I have cited several organisations who have used the gripe site to communicate with Shell employers and/or Shell shareholders e.g. WWF. In each case, Alfred Donovan (my father) was approached by the relevant organisations. I can supply verification of this fact.

I hope that anyone who views the article and finds fault will please redraft as they deem appropriate. I am a novice as must be evident and although I have checked the information and wealth of helpful advice which is available on Wikipedia I am a slow learner so I would welcome any input. If ultimately the opinion is that the reworked article is still unsuitable (I will be continuing to make changes over the weekend), I will accept any such decision without rancour.

John Donovan

16.50pm 30 June 2006

PS. If it is decided that the article can remain, then ideally the page heading should be changed as there is no capital letter in a domain name. Perhaps the heading should be: Internet domain name: royaldutchshellplc.com or URL: royaldutchshellplc.com

[edit] Speculative Comments

This article contains many speculative, original research and POV statements. One of the worst appears in the global impact section:

"The use of the royaldutchshellplc.com website by so many organisations and the fact that the site is now recommended by Fortune magazine as a prime source of information about the Royal Dutch Shell Group, demonstrates the potential of a low cost gripe website to make a significant global impact."

What evidence is there for this? For starters, "significant global impact" is an extremely subjective statement, but also there is no evidence that the website actually has made a "significant global impact", whatever that is. The entire article however is littered with such encyclopaedic statements because of which I have added a citation request template until these issues can be sorted out. Canderra 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed two of the statements where citations were requested as I do not condiser them sufficiently important to remain. With regards to the list of organisations who have used the site, email correspondence is available to confirm each claim. Thus the statements are factually true and can be proven as such. The emails are available on request. Whether this is acceptable form of confirmation is another matter. I will study the citation page next week. JohnaDonovan: 16 November 2006.

I accept that more references are needed throughout the article. I will put some time in to doing this next week (as I am moving house over the weekend). JohnaDonovan: 16 November 2006

With regard to the section added about the Ogoni use of the website, I am happy to supply on request for verification purposes, copies of emails received from NUOS Int USA requesting publication of information provided. JohnaDonovan: 17 December 2006.

Moved the reference and link to a US News article about gripe sites to the Wikipedia "Gripe Site" article where it is more appropriate to be located. User: JohnaDonovan: 14 January 2007 22.00

Removed the "Advertising" notice posted at the top of the article by "Jacroe" who has not posted any comment on this discussion page explaining the reason for the tag. The following are extracts from the Wikipedia page "Advertising": "Advertising is paid communication through a non-personal medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled."; "Advertising clients are predominantly, but not exclusively, for-profit corporations seeking to increase demand for their products or services." In this case anyone is free to edit the article as they wish. There are no products involved. There is no service requiring payment or any consideration of any kind. There is nothing to purchase. The website which is the subject of the article is non profit and non commercial. There are no fees or charges of any kind. There is no advertising on the website. The company which is the focus of the website is free to edit the article to correct any inaccuracies and add any information if deemed appropriate to provide balance (as is anyone else). User: JohnaDonovan: 17 January 2007. 10.35am

With regards to the obviously important issue of balance, it is my intention to add a section or a link ASAP providing Shell's point of view about the owners of the website and the website itself. This will consist of comments already made in writing by Shell lawyers over the last 18 months. I will let Shell have advance sight of the relevant substantial remarks so that the compilation can be amended or updated as they wish. User: JohnaDonovan: 18 January 2007. 16.20

[edit] Website blanking

Wikipedia is not a source of campaigning material of this sort. Stephen Parnell 15:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, nominate the article for deletion or add a speedy deletion tag. Don't just blank it. Also, usually new topics go at the bottom of a talk page. Rawling4851 15:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this. Could you do it for me? Self-evidently a nonsense...Stephen Parnell 15:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rawling. That's fine. So long as someone is on the case. It damages Wiki for this sort of cr*p to be on it don't you think! Stephen Parnell 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The description of the article as being "a nonsense" and "cr*p* does not seem appropriate within Wikipedia etiquette and with all due respect, the use of such intemperate and disrespectful language suggests a bias on the part of the person or persons using it. I note the total absence of any detailed or constructive comments on any section of the article. I will now pay daily visits to the article so that I can participate in any developments and offer my hopefully constructive and objective views. As the author of what is now described as “cr*p”, I have always been receptive, polite and constructive in respect of all comments made. I have also always being upfront about my identity so that this fact can be taken into account. User: JohnaDonovan: 22.14, 26 January 2007.

The bias, Mr Donovan, is entirely with you. You have, in my view, created a Wikipedia entry whose sole purpose is to give exposure to your personal campaign against Shell. You tried earlier to hijack the Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues entry and now you have created your own platform with this new entry. It is tendentious, not remotely neutral in content or tone and seems to me to conflict completely with what I thought Wiki's values were. I am not a Wiki editor and am relatively inexperinced as a contributor so I will leave further comment and action to those who are. But I would hope and expect that those who run this excellent website would remove your trivial and prejudiced entry as soon as possible. Stephen Parnell 10:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I cannot address you by your real name as you choose to use a pseudonym, as you are entitled to do. Your comments are based on inaccurate information and therefore unintentionally misleading. You seem to be under the impression that because I raised questions about your “editing” on the Royal Dutch Shell article, that I have “now” created this "new" article. If you check the records available on this website you will be able to confirm that in fact the article in question has existed since June 2006 and preceded the Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues page by several months. You will also be able to confirm from the talk page assigned to me that the article “Royaldutchshellplc.com” was created by me as a result of options suggested by a Wikipedia editor, Stephen B Streater. You will also see that, like you, I am also a Wikipedia novice. In my case I am also rather ignorant in IT matters, as is no doubt evident. As for hijacking the Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues article, my contributions after its creation have to the best of my recollection been relatively limited. When such matters were included in the single Royal Dutch Shell page, far from campaigning against Shell, I was solely responsible for adding a number of positive sections including one which you deemed appropriate to delete in its entirety, the section on Shell’s Shell LiveWIRE Programme campaign which has been a great success story for Shell and a boon to young people trying to start a business. I was also responsible for the sections on The Shell Foundation and the Shell whistleblower helpline. I added all of these sections to create a balanced article covering positive and negative aspects of Royal Dutch Shell. I note that you intend to leave further comment and action on this article to more experienced Wikipedia editors. However, I have no problem if you would like to redraft the entire article to see if we could reach a compromise on what you would consider to be a balanced article. If so, please post the revised article on the talk page assigned to me. I hope that I am not suggesting anything improper, just a possible way to resolve the issues in a constructive way, unless of course you are intent for some reason on seeing the whole article deleted. User JohnaDonovan. 13.55, 27 January 2007

If you do wish to take up the suggestion above, I would be prepared to supply evidence to you to support all or any statements made in the article which you feel require sight of proof as to veracity. I have documents and written communications including emails. You could then contact the parties concerned for further verification should you deem it appropriate. However, before supplying any such information I would obviously need to know your identity which, if disclosed to me, I would promise to keep secret. User: JohnaDonovan. 14.09, 27 January 2007.

A good place to start with any redraft might be the long article about the website authored by the senior correspondent of the Petroleum Economist, Derek Brower, published on page 12 of the February issue of Prospect magazine, a respected publication. It is currently on sale at Tesco and WH Smith. The article is also accessible on the internet. User: JohnaDonovan. 14.37, 27 January 2007

One final comment for the time being: I used the word "bias" because you moved to this article after the words between us on the discussion page of the Royal Dutch Shell articles. That rightly or wrongly made me suspicious about your motives and the associated rude comments. I recognise that you have invested a considerable amount of your time on the main and subsidiary Royal Dutch Shell articles. The offer stands. User: JohnaDonovan. 15.17pm. 27 January 2007

I would respectfully ask any person reading the above exchanges to visit the user page of "Stephen Parnell" to read his recent highly relevant discussion with "BozMo" who raised a vitally important and relevant point about "notability". This same materially crucial point was first made several months ago by another experienced Wikipedian. The notability of the website has grown even further since then, as is evident from the more recent various news articles, including the February 2007 Prospect article mentioned above. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would have thought it proper and polite for mention of this materially crucial point to have been registered on this discussion page by “Stephen Pannell” so that anyone interested in matters raised by “Stephen Pannell” could immediately be aware of the comment by "BozMo" and the response from “Stephen Pannell”. In view of this latest development, I withdraw my offer to "Stephen Parnell". This leaves “Stephen Pannell” in the same position as me or any other Wikipedia contributor. I guess that the "notability" point also applies to the McLibel case featured on Wikipedia. User: JohnaDonovan. 22.08pm 28 January 2007.

I note that “Stephen Pannell” has not placed an apology on this discussion page for injecting misleading and inaccurate information into the discussion initiated by him or her in an effort to get rid of the article without apparently taking the trouble to research the facts. Does he or she hold the same strong opinion about the McLibel case article? My impression is that “Stephen Pannell” is uninterested in any rewriting to remove the bias alleged by him or her, but wanted the whole article to be deleted. Naturally I resent the totally unfounded accusation that because of a discussion between us over editing of the Royal Dutch Shell article, I reacted by originating the Royaldutchshellplc article. There are a number of unpleasant implications which arise from that unfounded accusation. “Stephen Pannell” is at work today elsewhere within Wikipedia. I can only surmise that he or she has not revisited this discussion page. However, knowing the speed of reaction on other occasions, that seems unlikely. It is ironic that I have been accused of writing “campaign material”, “nonsense” and “cr*p”, which is allegedly biased. In fact the content of the article is founded on provable fact whereas the serious charges of hijacking the Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues entry and then starting a “new” article are untrue. They are a consequence of an intemperate campaign by an individual using a pseudonym who appears to be driven by malice. He or she knows a lot about me. I know nothing whatsoever about the person who uses the name of “Stephen Pannell”, other than by making an assessment based on their conduct in dealing with these matters. One advantage of using a pseudonym is that it is easy to switch to a new one if needed. User name: JohnaDonovan. 15.34, 29 January 2007.

[edit] Request for comment

In an attempt to reach an agreement on the fate of this article, I've listed it on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy and trade. Hopefully we can get some editors with a clearer view of policy to decide what direction to take this. Rawling4851 15:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed Stephen Parnell 18:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments under "blanking" section above. User: JohnaDonovan: 22.17, 26 January 2007.

[edit] Viability of "Appeals to Shell shareholders, Shell employees, and the public" section

I'm unsure about the "Appeals to Shell shareholders, Shell employees, and the public" which relies on primary sources. Could other editors indicate whether this section should be removed... Addhoc 16:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes I just made to this page -- explanation

Hi. I came here in response to the RfC notice and found this talk page confusing to follow. At first I thought content had been removed, then I realized the sections were out of their normal order. I moved the newer "Website blanking" section down below the older 2 sections where it belonged. I also indented different editors comments using one or more leading colons (":") to better show who was saying what. Finally, I added date/time stamps to several signatures. The Talk Page Guideline discusses all this in the "Technical and format standards" section.

The guideline also makes it clear that folks shouldn't normally edit others' comments. I think what I've done here is OK, but I realize this discussion is "volatile" at times and nerves may be a little raw, so if I've offended anyone, feel free to revert.

I think formattting in line with the guideline will make it easier for outsiders to follow. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added in a reference to a press statement issued by Shell in March 1995 which mentions our internet activities. There was an existing link to the press statement but no mention of the press statement within the article. I have found a Daily Telegraph report from 1997 about our Shell related gripe sites which operated at that time and will, within a few days, add reference to the article, plus a link to it. User: johnadonovan. 16.00, 10 March 2007. Johnadonovan 16:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)