Talk:Byford Dolphin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:44, 27 October 2009

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Underwater diving C‑class

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Underwater divingWikipedia:WikiProject Underwater divingTemplate:WikiProject Underwater divingUnderwater diving articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

A fact from Byford Dolphin appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 May 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a freak decompression accident on board the oil rig Byford Dolphin in 1983 literally caused a man to explode?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/May.

Wikipedia

Reference

I advise people not to seek out the referenced article unless they have a strong stomach. It contains some disturbing photographs that would not be out of place at rotten.com. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 22:49, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I hope such scum editors crawling in the gutter at such exploitation sites, will never get their hands on any forensic photographs from this accident and if they do, may they rot in hell!--mark.t 14:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree those sites are horrible. -- FP ^{(talk)(edits)} 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typos?

"The igor mortis was unusually strong. The hypostases were light red, and in two cases there were numerous petechial hemorrhages in the livors." i'm no doctor, but livors sounds wrong, and 'igor mortis' is just funny. -- Pauli133

There should be a link for rigor mortis, and there is if you look at the page source, but for some reason it's just not linking right. I've had this happen on my own wiki page and I think it's just a bug in the mediawiki somewhere. -- 12.218.2.203

It seems to be fixed now. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 00:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Description warning"

This article has the most graphic description of "mutilation" I've read on a wikipedia article, or really anywhere. I suggest we trim it back or at the very least add some sort of strong warning. -- 69.198.110.248

Well, that doesn't bother me much. It's pretty clinical. But it would be great if we had an on-line version of that article somewhere. Lupo 22:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being graphic doesn't seem to bother the folks at, say, the oral sex talk page. Though in this case, I agree that a clinical presentation of the details is important, potentially disturbing or not. It's not as if we have inline images here. Vonspringer 22:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowlege that it is a graphic article. But remember Wikipedia is not censored and as Lupo says, "it's pretty clinical." -- FP ^{(talk)(edits)} 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The graphic description is needed, as it was a horrific accident, which occurred and the worst diving accident ever recorded. A description warning could be made, but as it is clinical described, from the pathology report and includes no pictures from that report here at wikipedia. I don't personally think it's necessary, due to it's importance to the general public unaware of this tragedy and of medical interest. Pressurized diving/chamber & bell systems ARE extremely dangerous, and do terrible things to the human body when something goes wrong, as in this case.--mark.t 14:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That has got to be the best description of what happens to the human body during explosive decompression I've ever read. You hear about it in any books or movies that mention how the difference in pressure can kill you, but I never imagined it anything like that. Thumbs up to whoever wrote that piece! -- Ghostalker

Well thanks :) I know it is an unpleasant and graphic topic but a lot of people are interested in it and it is important to show how dangerous these pressure vessels can be. -- FP ^{(talk)(edits)} 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

What's up with all those weasel words? The article currently says "Some individuals have alleged that the investigation was a cover-up...". Who said so? Are there any Newspaper reports? And are "outboard pressure gauges and safe communication system"(s) still not mandatory, or what? Lupo 22:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll ask User:Mark.T who made the claim to offer some evidence. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 00:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

"outboard pressure gauges and safe communication system"(s) still ARE mandatory, and where even long before the accident took place, and those are some of the things that where covered up and not mentioned on purpose, by the investigating committee, I have read the offical committee report released by the norwegian goverment, and there is no mention of such vital equipment, Though there were representatives from the norwegian oil directorate, who travelled out to the rig during the contracted work & made dispensations before the accident took place, they meant that since there was such a short time left on the contract, That such equipment was unnecessary, which proved to be extremely fatal, on the 5 of nov 1983 for the divers inside the pressurised system. I also personally know one of Diving supervisors, who was not on that shift at the time of the accident, but was sent out along with another diver, to 'clean up' the chamber system & the remains of his killed colleagues afterwards, can you imagine! It is well known that dispensations made by the norwegian oil directorate proved to be fatal, among former deep sea divers. The whole accident has been hushed down ever since it happended, that is why it is not well documented at all until now at wikipedia. Other than a small article released by the norwegian goverments information service http://www.odin.no/ and the offical committee report on the accident. You can also read some old norwegian newspaper reports on the accident from 6nov 1983, but you would not get much of a story from it. --mark.t 14:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting in the references below the article that a worker injured by a pipe durring the accident and had just sent an email saying that he had worked a shift of "34 continuous hours, broken by only 2 hours' sleep" and that the paperwork did not show any unusual shift length. Falsification of records? WonderWheeler (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

I have removed some material from the article because it was taken verbatim from the printed reference (plus it went into too much detail I think). Everyone please remember the copyvio rules. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 00:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why are the divers references like they are?

For instance, one is called D1. Why is that? - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:44 (UTC)

So that you can easily match them up with the diagram. -- 220.238.93.104

Right, but do we lack actual names for them? Were they anonymized by the investigation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.165.251 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trunk

An editor added a rd lk to Trunk in an effort to explain the multiple refs to "trunk" in the article, but after 11 months there appears to be no suitable article. IMO this is a term looking for an article that would be simply a dictdef. The accompanying article lk'd to the Dab trunk until i removed it. Perhaps someone will

use ------>
or the ref in the Ed sumry reading

was looking at Byford_Dolphin and trying to get a better idea... had to consult http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trunk

to compose an inline clarification by the first use of "trunk". I'm removing the lk to the Dab, and diving trunk is red at this time.
--Jerzy•t 10:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am the editor who added that. Can you explain further? I'm having a bit of trouble reading your contractions. I just wanted to clarify that the term for those of us not familiar with diving terminology so I linked to Trunk and added some text to that, which I see has recently been removed.... As I see from reading the Byford article, the second usage of trunk clarifies its meaning, so maybe further clarification by wikification is not necessary?

Just FYI, I took the text that was in the Trunk disambiguation page and added it to the wiktionary page for trunk. I suppose that's better than nothing. Root⁴(one) 13:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced information

This article has recently had a paragraph of unsourced speculation added (twice so far today). If anyone has a reliable source to substantiate these claims, then please state it here, so that the article has a chance of being improved without edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same unsourced paragraph has been re-inserted today. I've marked it up to indicate the places where the allegations made require substantiation - i.e. verification from reliable sources. If this cannot be done, the paragraph will have to be removed. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced information has been added to reference list, so please do not remove the investigation section paragraph or it's references again, also do not remove external links added to the article, as long as their related to the article itself, they should not be removed. unsigned contribution by User:Mark.T2009

I don't know Norwegian, but the book looks as though it is a general book on diving safety. Does it really cover the accident in detail, and make these allegations? In any case, we should certainly be told exactly who it is who is making these allegations. If they are made in this book then we should say they are made in this book. "some people" is not acceptable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to clarify my concerns with that paragraph. Since the allegations made in that paragraph contradict the findings of the investigating committee, such claims really do require a reasonable level of sourcing - see WP:REDFLAG. Since Mark.T2009 (talk · contribs) has edit warred consistently to insert this text and remove any templates asking for sources, I'll direct this specifically to him:

Some individuals have alleged ... is a classic example of WP:WEASEL. Who are these individuals? Who did the source that you used say they are?
... the irresponsible dispensations requested by comex ... - what is the source that says comex requested dispensations and in what way does it describe them as irresponsible?
... authorized by the diving section to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate ... - where in your source does it say that the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate authorised the dispensations?
... vital equipment in their report, which had a large role in the accident's occurrence ... - what source assigns a 'large role' to equipment in the occurrence of the accident?
... they also alleged the accident was due to a lack of proper equipment ... - what source says that the 'lack of proper equipment' caused the accident?

I believe that there is no source that substantiates these allegations, otherwise it would have been produced by now. Please be clear that I am not casting doubt on the truth of these claims. I am merely saying that without reliable third party sources that can verify them, they have no place in Wikipedia. I am a disinterested party in the matter of blame for the incident, but I find it disgusting that a SPA account can force content into Wikipedia that does not meet its most basic policies. --RexxS (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

Some individuals have alleged ... is a classic example of WP:WEASEL. Who are these individuals? Who did the source that you used say they are?
... the irresponsible dispensations requested by comex ... - what is the source that says comex requested dispensations and in what way does it describe them as irresponsible?
... authorized by the diving section to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate ... - where in your source does it say that the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate authorised the dispensations?
... vital equipment in their report, which had a large role in the accident's occurrence ... - what source assigns a 'large role' to equipment in the occurrence of the accident?
... they also alleged the accident was due to a lack of proper equipment ... - what source says that the 'lack of proper equipment' caused the accident?

Answer:

Among others see Reference (the one you help me add)

3 ^ Wingen, Tom. "Byford Dolphin Disaster". Pioneer Divers in the Norwegian Sector of the North Sea. North Sea Divers Alliance. http://www.pioneerdivers.org/index.php?/en/article/byford_dolphin_05111983/. Retrieved 2009-10-26.

Quote:

From Pioneer diver Tom Wingen

'The Superintendent was Arild Skisland. I had a very interesting discussion with the Divers Representative about the inquest; apparently they tried to place all of the blame on Skisland. Both the Comex representative and the Comex lawyer were aware of requests made for a bell inter-lock system and they did not give this evidence at the inquest. Due to budgetary cut backs it was decided by Comex that this equipment should not be supplied. Comex asked for special dispensation and received that dispensation from the NPD. (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]