Shell Wikipedia Machinations

1 March 2007 15.00 (OUR NOTE: Reference to Wikipedia articles on Shell being "managed" by John Donovan and (redacted) a reference to former Shell Execs Paddy Briggs or Andrew Cates)

SHELL COMMUNICATION

From: .
Sent: 01 March 2007 15:00
To:
Cc: .
Subject: Wikipedia entries for Shell

The subject of Shell's entry in Wikipedia has come up a couple of times recently. These are important, because they come up on the first page of Google search.

For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal Dutch Shell and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational

The first of these (the main listing) has been managed mainly by xxxxxxxxxx (ex Shell) and John Donovan (anti-Shell). The latter is the work almost exclusively of Donovan. As a result the main entry is reasonably factual (though it does contain lots of negative stuff), and the second entry is almost entirely negative.

Before anyone internally thinks about starting to edit these Shell entries, consider what happened to Microsoft and a Dutch politician when they started to edit their own entries.

«RE: Microsoft'sWiki Error» «RE: Microsoft'sWiki Error»

In short, the guidance is:
"Companies, their agents, or anyone else for that matter, are not supposed to edit Wikipedia entries they have a vested interest in. Doing so undermines the editorial integrity of the product.

"If you want something about your company on Wikipedia changed ..... go to the discussion page attached to the entry. There, you should identify yourself and your affiliation and state your case, along with links to any supporting materials.

"It is then up to the volunteer editors to consider the company's information and make the requested changes if they deem them valid. If nothing else, the company might get a notation added to the effect that the company has disputed particular facts."

We need to develop these thoughts into a strategy towards Wikipedia (and other third party sources of information).

I think it would still be OK for Shell people to create an entry on "Snake Wells" for example, as long as it was evenly balanced (there is no entry today). I guess this would be up to the subject matter experts to do.

regards

2 March 2007 16:13 & 18.56 Plus 3 March 18:01

From:
Sent: 02 March 2007.16:13
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Wikipedia entries for Shell

We need to think this through properly, and it's too detailed to finalise at the workshop. One of Mr Donovan's goals is to get us to react - to his website and other communications. Experience shows that if we do, it only gives him publicity and makes things worse.

From:

Sent: 03 March 2007 18:01

To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Wikipedia entries for Shell

The point would be to make clear to casual visitors that the environmental/reputation site is created by someone (incidentally, how do we know this?) who has along and acrimonious relationship with Shell, and also links to his own RDS plc site. SureIy this kind of negative posting is as much against the spirit of Wikipedia as would be us putting in positive material about ourselves? So any bright ideas welcomed!

Separately, you may be aware that Donovan is currently running a lot of additional new material making various claims about xxxxxxxx

Regards

-----Original Messaqe-----
From:
sent: 02 March 2007 18:56
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Wikipedia entries for Shell

Agree. Why give him oxygen?

2 March 2007 16:51

-----Original Message-----
From: ..
Sent: 02 March 2007 16:51
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Wikipedia entries for Shell

A consideration for next weeks digital workshop:

Given that Mr Donovan's website points users towards wikipedia (stating that it is an objective source of information!) - and given that it would seem that we are unable to edit content that we feel is inaccurate - what is the protocol for simply adding a disclaimer to Shell wikipedia related articles that we do not fully agree with.

Along the lines of (but appreciating that it needs refinement!):

Shell respects the rights of Wikipedia users to express their views on this subject. Rather than edit comments that we feel are inaccurate - which may be considered as inappropriate Wikipedia behavior - we suggest that readers of this article also visit the Shell website to enable a balanced opinion to be formed.

We would be keen to hear the outcome of discussions at the workshop.

19 March 2007 18.43 20 March 2007 8:10 Includes reference to "Centenary Book" in undated page from 2007

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: maandag 19 maart 2007 18:43
To:
Cc:

Subject: RE: FYI: Media monitoring - An e-mail to xxxxxxxxx at Fox News: Shells treachery in Iran

Not sure if it's the same "John Donovan" who made the post below, but I thought his name rang a bell for some reason. The "John Donovan" described in the link to a wikipedia.org page below has been in pursuit of Shell for quite some time due to a long- standing dispute (in the UK). We should be mindful of this if the possibility moves forward or this particular issue gains traction -- given the web presence that Donovan maintains against Shell.

xxxxxxxxxxx, believe we have an issues brief covering the situation with the Donovan brothers, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royaldutchshellplc.com

Centenary Book

Given the Donovans' continuing close scrutiny of Shell activities (and their appeals for any input from 'whistle-blowers'), they will doubtless subject the upcoming book to the closest scrutiny, as will xxxxxxxx (in a more balanced way) (both are authors of the Wikipedia entries on Shell).

-----Original Message-----

From: -
sent: Tuesdav. March 20, 2007 8:10 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: FYI: Media monitoring - An e-mail to xxxxxxxxx at Fox News: Shells treachery in Iran

In response to the questions that you raised:

John Donovan is the son of Alfred Donovan (they are 'self proclaimed joint owners of the "royaldutchShellplc" website which is highly critical of Shell (http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com)

The two have a long-running grudge against Shell (reason identified in the attached issue brief). Most recently they claim to have provided the Russian government with information that was used in discussions around Sakhalin II and they are "championing" a number of issues against Shell (safety standards in Shell, business principles etc).

You are also right that the Donovan's have contributed quite significantly to a Shell wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell_Environmental_and_reputationaUssues.This is almost entirely negative.

Please note that Corporate Affairs is aware of the entries - and that no amendments should be made (our response / approach is being considered).

I attach the last issue brief that was produced for Mr Donovan - this will be updated for the upcoming AGM to reflect the recent up-serge in his activities.

I would like to request that you keep myself and updated should this issue escalate - and that any comment re: accusations made by the Donovan's is first approved centrally.

Regards

« File: 2006 - 01 - Alfred Donovan.doc (Compressed) »

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: 20 March 2007 17:27
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: FYI: Media monitoring - An e-mail to xxxxxxxxxxx at Fox News: Shells treachery in Iran
Importance: High

xxxxxxxxxxxxx has asked that I develop a brief, straightforward fact sheet for external use on the Donovan issue that we could provide if the show contacted us-- and if this blows up into a larger issue.

Please review the attached one-pager for external use. Also, if there is any recent activity, please provide.

Thanks for your help on this.

23 March 2007

From:
Sent: 23 March 2007 09:30
To:
Subject: RE: CONF: GLOBAL ISSUES UPDATE

As an aside: re the Malaysia court case: Shell won - in the Judges own words "completely". But doubtless Donovan will find some grounds to criticise.

North Sea/Donovan

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. We will work with EP ex on the wider Donovan aspects, including updating the Issues brief. However, Donovan continues ,very active: recent initiatives include alerting Fox News in the US to Shell's plans in Iran; flagging the upcoming legal announcement relating to the court case on Shell Malaysia pensioners (the 'Team A' case); and claiming Shell influence because the Sunday Times did not run a promised article critical of Shell. He has also been contacted by the group of farmers claiming compensation from Shell for the Barbados aviation pipeline spill.

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: 05 March 2007 07:25
To:

 

Centenary Book
Given the Donovans' continuing close scrutiny of Shell activities (and their appeals for any input from 'whistle- blowers'), they will doubtless subject the upcoming book to the closest scrutiny, as will (in a more balanced way) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (both are authors of the Wikipedia entries on Shell).

6 June 2007 12:51 Wikipedia XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

From:
Sent: 06 June 2007 12:51
To:
Subject: FW: Online Issue Management - Group Strategy

Hi xxxxx - by coincidence, see xxxxxx note below.

Xxxx - see xxxxx email to me (attached) from this morning. Our advice has been that any attempt by Shell to edit wik sites about ourselves would result in high-profile criticism of our 'censorship'. However, this is premised on wiki contributors presenting facts, rather than (as per Donovan) openly and admittedly promoting hostile and one-sided views.

We can expect another broadside from Donovan when our History book comes out

Regards

RE: Donovan -
Financial times

SUNDAY 29 July 2007 11:31 & 30 July 2007 8:19 AM

-----Original Messaae-----
From:
Sent: Sunday. July 29.2007 11:31 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Wikipedia & Shell

Hi

I don't know if you have seen this, but Wikipedia does allow the 'truth' to be provided - in other words, we can provide our facts if we think it worthwhile arguing any of what's said here.

Regards,

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2007 8:19 AM

To:
Subject: Wikipedia & Shell

I know that we are very locally focused but I also try to stay abreast of our global interests as well (mainly by reviewing internal documentation). I was surprised to find the following story on wikipedia? No doubt the issue manager in Den Haag has seen this but for our knowledge worth noting its existence and content

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell>

30 July 2007 22:38 & 7 August 2007 14.24 Wikipedia XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: 30 July 2007 22:38
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Wikipedia & Shell

Not sure if your team is aware of the below link on Wikipedia that features quite prominently so called controversies in past and existing Shell operations/business. I won't be surprised if this link get quite a few hits when web users, such as students or even investors are seeking info on Shell.

Regards

From:
Sent: 07 Auqust 200714:24
To:
Subject: RE: Wikipedia & Shell

Thanks xxxxx - this is largely produced by our long-standing critic, John Donovan ... we, and the lawyers have been pondering for a long time what we can do about this without just drawing more attention to his efforts ....

Best regards

31 August 2007 16:17

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject: RE: CONF: D'S
thanks:
vrijdag 31 augustus 200716:17

thanks xxxxxxx all really helpful.

-----Original Message-----
From: ,
Sent: 31 August 2007 l5:l3
To: .
Subject: CONF:D'S
Importance: High

As discussed:

We should not give the impression that we are over-concerned with the D's website, or that management spends a lot of time worrying about it. It is a nuisance, but any impartial reader would rapidly come to the conclusion that as a self-confessed 'gripe site' it is only interested in material that supports its own perspective. Hope the following helps.

regards

CONTEXT
Alfred D and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website <http://royaldutchshellplc.com>thatiscriticaloftheSheIiGroup. ln 2006 the Ds re-launched their website
- providing daily news feeds of Shell-related stories and a live chat forum. They stated that they 'wanted it to become a magnet for people who had a problem with the company'.

KEY MESSAGES (on the record)
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John D, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Ds base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Ds and will continue to do so.
• Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring that Mr. D's claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. It is therefore disappointing that the Ds continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
John D and his father, Alfred, ran a business, Don Marketing, which specialised in the creation of promotions. Mr D brought the "Make Money" promotion to the UK and Shell UK Limited (Shell) paid him for its use. Shell also paid for the rights to use several other Don Marketing promotions.

In the early '90s when Shell wanted to use Make Money again, Mr D claimed that he still owned the concept. Shell paid D for the transfer of the concept.

Mr D then launched legal action against Shell in connection with two other promotions. While Shell was confident of defeating the claim, in the interest of saving costs for both sides, it was agreed that the matter would be settled.

Following this settlement, Mr D sued Shell again. He claimed that he had invented the Smart promotion and that Shell had "stolen" it from him. The case went to court but Mr D eventually abandoned his claim

Despite the settlement of the legal actions Alfred D has continued to campaign against Shell from time to time.

Domain Name registration
Prior to the public announcement of [the unification], Shell secured the domain name www.royaldutchshell.com <http://www.royaldutchshell.com> and similar names in almost every country. Following the announcement, Mr. D also registered a number of domain names including www.royaldutchshellplc.com <http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com> Shell filed an administrative complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organisation requesting the transfer of the names to Shell, but the adjudication panel did not accept that there were grounds for the transfer. There is no appeal from that decision, and although there may be scope for a separate legal challenge through the courts, Shell did not consider that such action was justified in this case.

Wikepedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royaldutchshellplc.com this is essentially the work of the Ds, as is the site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

http://royaldutchshellpic.com/
The Daily Mail might like to make its own judgement based on the standard of contributions to the 'LiveChat' section of the site.

The Daily Mail might also like to ponder on the 11/08/2007 item on the homepage, 90 YR OLD WEBSITE WARRIOR COSTS SHELL BILLIONS
<http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007 /08/11/blogger-news-network-90-yr-old-website-warrior-costs-royal-dutch-shell- billions/>
"A 90 year old war veteran, Alfred D-------, created a gripe website focused on Shell which, in an extraordinary alliance with the so-called "Kremlin attack dog" Oleg Mitvol, has cost the oil giant billions dollars and as a by-product, changed the course of history.

Current/past issues briefs attached.

« File: 2006 - 01 - Alfred Donovan.doc» «File: 2007 - 02 - Donovan Campaign Against Shell.doc »

12 October 2007 15:21 & 15:58

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: 12 October 2007 15:58
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Shell Wikipedia

FYI - interesting - any background on this? Should we get involved in the debate? Certainly this should be in our corporate capacity. If so, we might say eg

"This site has been developed and largely updated by the proprietors of the RoyalDutchShellplc website, a self-styled 'gripe site' that is dedicated to criticism of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, with which it has no connection. As such, the Wikipedia entry is biased, and we do not believe that it is consistent with the objectives of Wikipedia, ie to provide a factual and balanced source of information to web users."

Doubtless the Donovans would interpret this as indicating that we were involved in some underhand conspiracy to prevent him from expressing his views ....

-----Original Message-----

From:
Sent: 12 October 2007 15:21
To:
Subject: Shell Wikipedia

It seems that the page Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell</wiki/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell> on Wikipedia may be deleted.

Not sure how or why - but it seems that there is a period of "discussion" to see if users think the article is appropriate.

See links below:

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy
</wikilWikipedia:Deletion policy></wiki/Template:Afd>
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry
</wikilWikipedia:Articies for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell> on the
Articles for deletion </wiki/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion> page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion </wiki/Wikipedia:Guide to deletion>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

16 October 2007

Confidential

Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell

ISSUE DESCRIPTION
Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com that is critical of the SheIl Group. ln 2006 the Donovans re- launched their website - providing daily news feeds of Shell-related stories and a live chat forum. They stated that they 'wanted it to become a magnet for people who had a problem with the company'. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell'.
Over the past year the Donovans have: claimed that they provided the Russian government with Sakhalin II documentation which was subsequently used against Shell; criticised Shell's Safety Record, most specifically related to North Sea safety and allegations made by xxxxxxxxx supported xxxxxxx an ex-employee of Shell Malaysia who, the Donovans claim, was unfairly sacked; ana reported that a number of Shell insiders provide them with information on company activities.
The Donovans recently obtained a large amount of information from Shell under the UK Data Protection Act; one email was subsequently the basis for an article in the Daily Mail newspaper.

KEY MESSAGES
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovans base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans and will continue to do so.

SUPPORTING STATEMENTS
• Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring that Mr Donovan's claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.

BRIDGING
Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their Data Protection Act
requests?

We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties.
We also informed the RDSplc website that we do not use codewords in internal documents relating to their activities.
Is there any communication between Shell and the Donovans?
There has been some communication relating to legal matters/issues (the only approved Shell contacts are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. However, we do not comment on specific issues raised by the
Donovans. Our legal position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: "The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell's part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters."
Why do you not comment on the specific issues raises by the Donovans?
We have found that attempts on our part to have a constructive debate have been unproductive, as their sole objective is to criticise Shell. They will portray any information provided to them in the most negative light possible or draw inferences from it which are outside its natural meaning. This is clear to anyone accessing the site. Mr (John) Donovan, in an unofficial transcript of an interview on Radio Essex 11 October 2007 posted on their website, makes clear that he spends much of every day on the site: as he says, "other people might call it an obsession".
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
Ever since the "McLibel" case, any large corporation suing an individual is likely to lose reputationally by being perceived to be a bully, however justified a legal claim would be. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration.

16 October 2007

26 December 2007

Confidential

Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell

ISSUE DESCRIPTION
Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com that is critical of the SheIl Group, and which they wanted 'to become a magnet for people who had a problem with the company'. They stated that they 'wanted it to become a magnet for people who had a problem with the company'. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell'.
Over the past year the Donovans have: claimed that they provided the Russian government with Sakhalin II documentation which was subsequently used against Shell; criticised Shell's Safety Record, most specifically related to North Sea safety and allegations made by xxxxxxxxx supported xxxxxxx an ex-employee of Shell Malaysia who, the Donovans claim, was unfairly sacked; and reported that a number of Shell insiders provide them with information on company activities. They have recently been publishing large amounts of information relating to the reserves litigation which have already been posted by the US Court service on its Internet site and accordingly are already in the public domain.

The Donovans recently obtained a large amount of information from Shell under the UK Data Protection Act; one email was subsequently the basis for an article in the Daily Mail newspaper.

KEY MESSAGES
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovans base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans and will continue to do so (except in the most exceptional of circumstances, such as where the Donovans intended engaging in speculation

SUPPORTING STATEMENTS
• Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring that Mr Donovan's claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.

BRIDGING
Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their Data Protection Act requests?
We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties.
We also informed the RDSplc website that we do not use codewords in internal documents relating to their activities.
Is there any communication between Shell and the Donovans?
There has been some communication relating to legal matters/issues (the only approved Shell contacts are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. However, we do not comment on specific issues raised by the
Donovans. Our legal position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: "The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell's part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters."
Why do you not comment on the specific issues raises by the Donovans?
We have found that attempts on our part to have a constructive debate have been unproductive, as their sole objective is to criticise Shell. They will portray any information provided to them in the most negative light possible or draw inferences from it which are outside its natural meaning. This should hopefuly be clear to anyone accessing the site. Mr (John) Donovan, in an unofficial transcript of an interview on Radio Essex 11 October 2007 posted on their website, makes clear that he spends much of every day on the site: as he says, "other people might call it an obsession".
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
Ever since the "McLibel" case, any large corporation suing an individual is likely to lose reputationally by being perceived to be a bully, however justified a legal claim would be. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration.

26 December 2007

19 February 2008 4 Pages

-----Original Messaqe-----
From:"
Sent: 19 Februarv 2008 09:26
To: :
Cc: .
Subject: RE: Shell Safety on Wiki (sorry - one last e-mail)

While I agree that we should avoid a long e-mail exchange - please be aware that there is a llM new media team reviewing this subject (led by xxx. Before any actions are taken we would be grateful if you could run it past us (as we are looking at wider issues on Wikipedia).

FYI - I have compiled a list of the main pages related to Shell on Wikipedia.

There are a number that are critical (largely prepared by Donnovan).

Current Wikipedia pages related to Shell:


Main Shell Page

<http://en .wikiped ia. org/wiki/RoyaL Dutch_Shell>

Page on Shell Chemicals

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SheIl_Chemicals>

Page on 'Shell controversies'

(Donovan driven)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_ RoyaL Dutch _Shell>

Page on 'Safety Concerns'

(Donovan driven)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoyaLDutch_SheILsafety _concerns>

Page on Shell Foundation

<http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Foundation>

Page on Shell Australia

<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Shell_Australia>

There are also presidents being set for the removal of crisism pages (based on Wikipedia guidelines). I am following this discussion online (i.e. Wal-mart).

??????????????????????????????????

Wikipedia Guidance:

Criticism (Wikipedia policy)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilWikipedia:CRITICISM>

States that critism sections (or controversies) should not appear seperately.

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilWikipedia:NPOV> guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive
viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.

The Shell entry is part of the WikiProject Companies project. We might consider using the discussion page on this site (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies>) to open a discussion around a
standard structure for companies that makes it easier for users to navigate information (possibily in partnership with other companies). This doesn't need to include the removal of 'controversies' (but might)- .but would ensure that the structure of the entries was user friendly, balanced and easily updatable.

Regards

Internet: -:-<http://www.shell.com/>>

-----Original Message--
From:
Sent: dinsdag 19 februari 2008 10: 13
To:
Cc: -
Subject: RE: Shell Safety on Wiki

???????????????????????????????????????????????

???????????????????????????????????????????????


if you look at the Discussion and History tabs on the wiki article you will see who has been writing and commenting on the content. The main author is John Donovan, which is not much of a surprise.

We have several options:
- ignore
- add our views in the Comments section. This can eventually lead to 'recommendation for deletion'
- edit the article to present Shell views

If we start to edit the article, we have to be prepared for a long and resource-intensive struggle. Mr Donovan has said openly that he spends most of his day on this sort of thing, and no doubt can call on
other helpers, too.

Also, if we edit only part of the entry, I think that we give credibility to all the bits we don't edit ("we must be ok with them, otherwise we'd have edited them").

Happy to discuss further
regards

From:
Sent: 18 February 2008 12:39
To:
Subject: Shell Safety on Wiki

did you see this?

4 April 2008

Confidential

Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell

ISSUE DESCRIPTION

Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell'. The Donovans obtained a large amount of information from Shell under the UK Data Protection Act; one email became the basis for an article in the Daily Mail newspaper.

KEY MESSAGES
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovans base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans and will continue to do so (except in the most exceptional of circumstances, such as where the Donovans intended engaging in speculation

SUPPORTING STATEMENTS
• Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring that Mr Donovan's claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.

BRIDGING
Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their Data Protection Act requests?
We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of individuals.
We also informed the RDSplc website that we do not use codewords in internal documents relating to their activities.
Is there any communication between Shell and the Donovans?
There has been some communication relating to legal matters/issues (the only approved Shell contacts are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. However, we do not comment on specific issues raised by the
Donovans. Our legal position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: "The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell's part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matters, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters." Nor have we requested nor authorised anyone, whether employees or otherwise, to engage in postings on the RDSplc website.
Why do you not comment on the specific issues raises by the Donovans?
We have found that attempts on our part to have a constructive debate have been unproductive, as their sole objective is to criticise Shell. They will portray any information provided to them in the most negative light possible or draw inferences from it which are outside its natural meaning. This should hopefuly be clear to anyone accessing the site. Mr (John) Donovan, in an unofficial transcript of an interview on Radio Essex 11 October 2007 posted on their website, makes clear that he spends much of every day on the site: as he says, "other people might call it an obsession".
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
Ever since the "McLibel" case, any large corporation suing an individual is likely to lose reputationally by being perceived to be a bully, however justified a legal claim would be. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration. Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding RoyalDutch Shell'?
Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible - and gratifyingly these are well regarded by users and in independent site rankings.
If asked whether it is true that RDSplc gets more 'hits' than the Shell site:
• We regard these numbers as proprietary. However, interested parties can make their own comparisons through sites such as www.alexa.com. and we are very comfortable with the conclusion that they would reach.

4 April 2008

27 June 2008

Confidential

Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell

ISSUE DESCRIPTION

Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell'. The Donovans obtained a large amount of information from Shell under the UK Data Protection Act; one email became the basis for an article in the Daily Mail newspaper.

KEY MESSAGES
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovans base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans and will continue to do so (except in the most exceptional of circumstances, such as where the Donovans intended engaging in speculation on xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SUPPORTING STATEMENTS
• Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring that Mr Donovan's claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.

BRIDGING
Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their Data Protection Act requests?
We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of individuals. We also informed the RDSplc website that we do not use codewords in internal documents relating to their activities.
Is there any communication between Shell and the Donovans?
There has been some communication relating to legal matters/issues (the only approved Shell contacts are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. However, we do not comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans. Our legal position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: "The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell's part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters." Nor have we requested nor authorised anyone, whether employees or otherwise, to engage in postings on the RDSplc website.
Why do you not comment on the specific issues raises by the Donovans?
We have found that attempts on our part to have a constructive debate have been unproductive, as their sole objective is to criticise Shell. They will portray any information provided to them in the most negative light possible or draw inferences from it which are outside its natural meaning. This should hopefuly be clear to anyone accessing the site. Mr (John) Donovan, in an unofficial transcript of an interview on Radio Essex 11 October 2007 posted on their website, makes clear that he spends much of every day on the site: as he says, "other people might call it an obsession".
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
Ever since the "McLibel" case, any large corporation suing an individual is likely to lose reputationally by being perceived to be a bully, however justified a legal claim would be. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration. Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding RoyalDutch Shell'?
Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible.
If asked whether it is true that RDSplc gets more 'hits' than the Shell site:
• We regard these numbers as proprietary. However, interested parties can make their own comparisons through sites such as www.alexa.com. and we are very comfortable with the conclusion that they would reach.

27 June 2008

9 March 2009

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: maandaq 9 maart 2009 13:36
To:
Subject: FW: Wikipedia Royal Dutch Shell articles

Please see attached message from Mr D. What do you want to do about this?

-----Original Message-----
From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: vrijdag 6 maart 2009 17:24
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM SI-LC
Subject: Wikipedia Royal Dutch Shell articles

Dear Mr Brandjes

As you may be aware, I am a major contributor to the Wikipedia articles about Royal Dutch Shell - probably the main contributor.

All information has to be added and authored on an impartial balanced basis in line with Wikipedia requirements and be supported by verifiable reputable independent sources. I have always added all information under my own name and openly declared my background.

Over the past several months I have collected together a considerable volume of evidence to use in support of additional information I am adding to the existing Wikipedia pages, a number of which contain negative information about Shell e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilControversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

There has been discussion on the "controversies" talk page about the need for a Wikipedia article covering entirely positive aspects of our company (speaking as a long term Shell shareholder). This could provide a counter balance to articles containing criticism of Shell. However, no one has been prepared (or had the time?) to make the effort necessary to collect together the evidence to support a "positives" page.

I have now done this. It is included on a webpage on which I have gathered the evidence to support new information I will be adding shortly.

http://www.shellnews.net/wikipedia/wikipedia-evidence-file.html

The relevant information is currently under the heading "Royal Dutch Shell initiatives".

Could you kindly let me know if you feel another heading would be more appropriate? It is difficult to find one covering all of the topics currently included under the "initiatives" heading.

Secondly, can you direct me to any other information, which should ideally be included in the "initiatives" page?

Thirdly, if you spot any information under any of the subject headings which Shell knows to be categorically inaccurate or untrue, please say so and I will take appropriate action.

Wikipedia is a great source of encyclopaedic information for the public, the media, investors and anyone who wants to know about the Royal Dutch Shell Group. The Shell related Wikipedia articles reveal the dna of Shell and as far as I know, are already the most comprehensive and informative about any multinational. They will be further enhanced by the addition of more information that will be of continuing interest in coming decades to future generations.

The great thing is that the pages can be updated in line with unfolding events.

As you are probably aware, the Wikipedia articles relating to Shell have been edited from Shell locations without this being disclosed. Personally I believe Shell has the right to openly correct any untrue information on Wikipedia about its history or activities and would encourage Shell to do so.

Best Regards
John Donovan

8 April 2009 Focal Point

Confidential

Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell

ISSUE CONTEXT

Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell'. Recently they posted an open letter to Shell from a xxxxxx regarding alleged nuclear activity at a former Shell terminal at Earley, outside Reading in the UK, which was closed in the late 1980s, decommissioned in full compliance with all relevance legislation, and then sold for redevelopment.
They have said they will buy shares for Xxx Xxx and his son to attend the AGM. Shell xxxxxxxxxxxxx responded to xxxxxx 2 February 2009.

KEY MESSAGES
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• We do not comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans. Although we disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which they base their various allegations, our attempts to have a constructive debate have been unproductive.

SUPPORTING FACTS
• Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan's claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. Notwithstanding the impression he likes to give, he failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.
• Our legal position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: "The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell's part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters."

BRIDGING

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????


Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their Data Protection Act requests?
We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?

The experience of corporate defamation plaintiffs is that, even when successful, such cases draw far more attention to the untrue allegations that they would receive without the case having been brought. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration.

Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding RoyalDutch Shell'?
Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible.

8 July 2009 Focal Point

Confidential Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell

ISSUE CONTEXT
Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell'. In the past they have promoted allegations from eg- Shell safety auditor xxxxxxxx over North Sea safety and from a xxxxxxx over alleged nuclear activity at a former Shell terminal at Earley outside Reading in the UK, issues over a number of Shell Malaysia pensioners and articles and comments from Shell pensioner xxxxxxxx. Recently various posts on their "Shell Blog" have discussed the reorganization and some of the Shell people involved.
KEY MESSAGES
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donov~n, whO are longstanding critics of Shell.
• We do not comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans. Although we disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which they base their various allegations, our attempts to have a constructive debate have been unproductive.

SUPPORTING FACTS
• Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan's claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. Notwithstanding the impression he likes to give, he failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.
• Our position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: "The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell's part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters."

BRIDGING

????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????


Did you avoid disclosing certain information in response to the Donovans' Data Protection Act requests?
• We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
• The experience of corporate defamation plaintiffs is that, even when successful, such cases draw far more attention to the untrue allegations that they would receive without the case having been brought. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration.
Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell?
• Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible.

08 July 2009

18 December 2009 11.34: Wlkipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell'

From:

Sent: 18 December 2009 11:34

To:

Subject: Wikipedfa site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell'

Hi xxxxxxx - Legal are querying the existing wording of our issues brief, where we say that the Donovans are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell'. They suggest adding the words 'believed to be". Is it clear to the public that the Ds are behind most of the content?

Cheers

18 December 2009 12.07: RE: Wlkipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell'

see the "Discussion" and "History" tabs on the site.

Specifically, at <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Talk:Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell&action=history> (the History tab), you'll see that JD is listed as a main contributor, though his last edit was in 2008.

Revision history of Talk:Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

(SHOWS LISTING OF EDITS, MANY BY "Johnadonovan" - USE PDF LINK ABOVE TO VIEW)

The Discussion tab is at <http://en.wikipedia.org!wlki/TalkControversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell>

• Note that "This article was nominated for deletion <http://en,wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion policy>

on October 2007. The result of the discussion

<http://en.wikipedia.org!wiki/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell> was no consensus"

John Donovan is the main contributor to discussions (or at least someone using that name)

Regards

Shell Focal Point document "Donovan Campaign Against Shell": 21 Jan 2010

Donovan Campaign Against Shell

CONTEXT
Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are a main driver of a Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell'. In the past they have promoted allegations from eg Shell xxxxxxxxxxxxx over North sea safety and from xxxxx over alleged nuclear activity at a former Shell terminal at Earley outside Reading in the UK, and a number of Shell Malaysia related issues. An article about them in the 19 July 2009 Sunday Times was headlined 'Two men and a website mount vendetta against an oil giant'. Recent posts on their "Shell Blog" have discussed Transition 2009 and some of the Shell people involved. John Donovan has recently been publishing material received following a second Subject Access Request to Shell under the UK Data Protection Act for personal information relating to him, and has been distributing leaflets outside Shell Centre.

KEY MESSAGES
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell. We are disappointed that they continue to seek to use any recent Shell developments to try and draw attention to their longstanding but unjustified grievances.
• Our general policy is not to comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans. Although we disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which they base their various allegations, our past attempts to have a constructive debate have been unproductive.

SUPPORTING FACTS
• Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan's claims were fully investigated and settled many years ago.
Notwithstanding the impression he likes to give, he failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.
• Our position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: "The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell's part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters."

BRIDGING
If asked whether the Sunday Times' statement, that "When a new [Shell] executive took over marketing, he used several of their [the Donovans' schemes but refused to pay for them", is true:
• Absolutely not. Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan's claims - about a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago - were fully investigated and properly dealt with. The fact is that Mr Donovan failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. The Judge not only completely exonerated the character of the Shell executive in question, but also was highly critical of Mr Donovan's actions throughout the process of litigation.
If asked about the alleged nuclear reactor at Earley:
• We have given a categorical written assurance that Shell has never been involved In "atomic' or 'nuclear" research at Earley or elsewhere in the UK, and that no nuclear bunker is buried under the former Shell terminal. According to the European Commission, the data show radioactivity levels substantially below those considered harmful to human health. Any radioactivity found on the site has nothing to do with Shell's activities.
Did you avoid disclosing certain information in response to the Donovans' Data Protection Act requests?
• We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where It is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties. We did the same for the previous request.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
• The experience of corporate defamation plaintiffs is that, even when successful, such cases draw far more attention to the untrue allegations that they would receive without the case having been brought. However, we do not exclude this as a possibility.
Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell?
• Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible.

21 January 2010

ENDS