Talk:Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Framing (social sciences)#Framing in mass communication research|media framing]] The anchor (#Framing in mass communication research) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Split[edit]

Why no discussion of split on talk page of parent article? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of reducing the size of the main article had been going on for a while. It was up to 180K at one point. I may at some point copy the comments relevant to date format (ISO), cite templates (yes please), and "reactions" over. --Lexein (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby jindal[edit]

is there no reaction from the LA. governor? Im sure there has been but theres nothing here.Lihaas (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News Media[edit]

Why has it been flagged as not neutral with no discussion?

I'm not the one who added the flag, but I did move it here when I moved the whole section from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. Since the move, I have a done a significant amount of rewriting to make the section less biased. While I'm not done, feel free to remove the flag if you feel it's no longer needed. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK Government Reaction?[edit]

Why is there only a paragraph about the UK Government's reaction? There's no real mention of any of the well documented diplomatic consequences, the offers of assistance, changes in public perception of the U.S. Government. That needs to be expanded which I will endeavour to do.

The whole article is also still very biased against BP. There's no indication that there was any support for BP throughout... TomB123 (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

America's Blame Culture[edit]

Shouldn't there be some mention of the misuse of the term 'British Petroleum' by the US media. It certainly annoyed a lot of people here in the UK, who perceived it as the US attacking our reputation. BP has not gone by that name in years and is hardly a 'British' company anymore. Yes, it's HQ is in London, but it is a multinational company with shareholders from around the world, including the United States. I think it's also important to point out that the people who actually caused the disaster... The actual individuals who physically allowed it to happen... Were not British. I'm pretty sure that they were American. Some mention should be made of this (perceived) defamation of Britain and the British people. Hundreds of relevant articles from British newspapers can be found with a quick Google search. I'm happy to add it myself, but I'm obviously biased. Perhaps it would be better if someone with a more neutral point of view could do it. Kind regards, Z. Zestos (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The perceived defamation of Britain would make a good addition to this article. If you find some quality articles from prominent reliable sources such as The Time of London or the BBC, I would be willing to add the subject and make sure it is reasonably neutral. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was surprised at how often I heard the term "British Petroleum" in the media. It was understandable in the first few days, but beyond that there was no excuse for it. The late night comedy talk shows also frequently referred to the disaster as though it was a result of something that the Brits had done to us, though certainly BP's British spokesperson had a lot to do with that. BTW Zestos, I do not think you need worry about your own POV - I certainly feel quite strongly about any of the articles that I edit because I very well know that someone with a strong opposite POV will come along and set me straight! Gandydancer (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice title "American Blame Culture". The British think that they are above criticism from Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.22.170 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fake BP Twitter[edit]

Why is there no mention of the Twitter account that was mocking BP? http://twitter.com/bpglobalpr Sources: CNN CNET — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielDPeterson (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chris Huhne.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Chris Huhne.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]