Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Template:Energy portal news
Template:Add

BP Oil Spill

This article should be named "BP Oil Spill". That is the name that President Obama, who is funded by the oil industries, and other officials are calling it. The media, which is also funded through advertising by the oil industry, has opted for the term "Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill". But make no mistake the oil spill is a BP oil spill. The article should be named as such. 66.230.102.117 (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not even going to justify stupidity / trolling with an intelligent response 87.211.50.236 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zetaex, 14 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

It has now been confirmed that 70,000 barrels per day are being released. An Exxon Valdez size spill every four days.

Zetaex (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 01:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly refers to this NPR story: [1] --Kkmurray (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good story to me.Mojokabobo (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The most reliable estimate is now 95,000 barrels per day (70,000 + 25 BPD). Steve Wereley, a professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, testified that this was the combined leak rate before congress.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/may/19/deepwater-horizon-gulf-oil-spill-size http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/19/94467/engineer-oil-spill-videos-show.html http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view.bg?articleid=1256108&srvc=rss

The Government still has not backed off the 5,000 barrel per day estimate http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/19/gulf-oil-spill-markey-dem_n_582444.htm

But BP has already admitted that it has been siphoning 5000 bpd and video of the siphon showed that 5000 bpd barely put a dent in the amount leaking. http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/05/20/bp-siphon-capturing-5000-barrels-oil-day/ http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-05-21-wetlands_N.htm http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_concedes_more_oil_spilling.html Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A possible explanation of the discrepancy is that a large fraction of the volume coming out of the ground is gas, not oil. See http://www.theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/66377

—WWoods (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Unified Command has recalculated the flow rate found here: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/569235/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchemist1342 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Geyser or Spill

A spill comes from above via a cup or a vessel like Exxon-Valdez, on the other hand, a geyser comes from below gushing from the ground like Yellowstone National Park. I know this is just semantics but they matter, just curious!69.137.120.81 (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've thought from the beginning that "spill" was kind of an odd term to be using in this case. But what do the sources call it? I did see one reference today that called it a "gusher", which is probably closer to the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil spill is the correct term. Gandydancer (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Oil spill" is, I agree, as others noted above, a term that many might misinterpret and in that sense misleading but as Gandydancer notes, is still the commonly used term. A more precise wording might be "underwater spill" or a spill involving an "underwater leak" which would give a more more accurate picture than using the traditional term "Spill" without modifiers. Perhaps something along those lines might be used in the article.Harel (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not technically a "spill", as it's bubbling up. But if that's what the media are calling it, then that's what it is. (It wouldn't be the first time the media have mislabeled something.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil leaking from a tanker is not techincally spilling out either - it is leaking or gushing out through a rupture in the structure that was confining it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's above the waterline. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spill Gandydancer (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, it's a spill whether above or below the waterline, as per "to cause or allow to run or fall from a container". In the case of an offshore drilling platform, the "container" would be the platform's drilling system, I suppose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I would consider the container to be the earth. Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil spill is the NOT correct term. The official term, even in government documents, for this type of event is BLOWOUT. Someone else provide a reference, I don't remember where I downloaded the oil spill response plan documents from (it may have been the huffington post). I have the document, but not the source.

Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Spill" is definitely misleading, since it implies a finite container, and thus grossly understates the case - and what a coincidence that we've all taken to calling it that, much to the convenience of the corporate perpetrators? Anyway, "blowout" has the dual virtues of being both more technically correct and more viscerally descriptive of this phenomenon, which is a kind of crude oil volcano. True, it's being commonly called a "spill", but if we make "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" a redirect, we can be sure that anyone seeking information about the disaster under that name will find this article. I wouldn't presume to make the change myself, since this is not my field, but I wish that qualified persons would consider doing so. MdArtLover (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the use of the term "Blowout." Spill connotes a predetermined amount of volume less than or equal to the amount of the container. If the earth qualifies as a container, then so should the ocean; we might as well call it a "transfer." User:es138 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2010 (PST)

• Note that other articles on oil leaks are all titled as spill, including similar ones on platforms: Ixtoc I oil spill, Montara oil spill, 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, and others that don't involve tankers or any type of container. Skullers (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Subjective "worst" claim

Neutrality of article may be in question by citing Exxon Valdez as the "worst" oil spill in US history. Valdez leaked 37k tonnes of oil into Prince William Sound, but the Greenpoint, Brooklyn spill leaked somewhere between 55.2-97.4k. tonnes, and the Hawaiian Patriot spill leaked 109k tonnes. (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills) While it may be argued that the Valdez spill caused more damage to coastline, damage to the Gulf Coast is being mitigated.

Oftenoptional (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mitigated? Do the math! Nobody believes that a "mere" 5,000 barrels per day are leaking. Imagine a worse-case scenario and use the 70,000 figure, or even worse use the 100,000 figure as was suggested today by experts after they had seen the video. This is a heartbreaking ecological disaster, and a financial and emotional disaster for the people of the Louisiana coast who have suffered so much already. And just let us hope that this is not the last straw for the beautiful coral reefs that are already threatened by global warming and pollution Gandydancer (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. I do not mean to downplay the severity of the current crisis, my concern is as to the accuracy of the article claiming that the Valdez spill was the worst spill in US history, when it was never the largest oil spill in that category.Oftenoptional (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to use the word "worst" in a Wikipedia article because the word means "most severe or serious." By what objective measure is one oil spill worse than another? It's possible a small spill in one locale may have a severe effect on one arguably important thing whereas a large mid-ocean spill may be deemed to be less serious by comparison. That's the opinion of a fellow who managed the native lands adjacent to the Exxon Valdez spill site a few years before the mishap. I am one of those who appreciate objective reporting. I also object to fear-mongering, hysteria and public clamor. //Don K. (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Being that BP is not a U.S. company, and given that the Ixtoc I was the largest spill in the Gulf of Mexico, "worst" is indeed a pointlessly subjective and, worse, unclear statement. The ecological damage has probably (or will likely, were the spill even to stop before June 2010) surpassed that of Ixtoc I in part due to barrier islands off Texas, not so in Louisiana. I am changing to "largest in U.S. territorial waters." Evaluation of ecological impacts should wait.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Editorializing

{{editsemiprotected}} The media analysis subsection states (apparently disquotationally) that "Six years later, BP still wasn’t ready" in reference to the company's capability for dealing with a major oil spill. This opinion does not seem to attributed to any commentator or reliable source, and so does not seem a neutral statement of uncontroversial fact. I propose that it be removed. Thank you. 86.45.155.132 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems covered to me: 2004 [...] the company wasn't prepared for the long-term, round-the-clock task of dealing with a deep-sea spill.[...] It still isn't, as Deepwater Horizon demonstrates - 2010 being 6 years after 2004.  Chzz  ►  11:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Suggestion: The U.S. Government has named BP as the responsible party in the incident and officials have said the company will be held accountable for all cleanup costs resulting from the oil spill.[11][12] BP has accepted responsibility for the oil spill and the cleanup costs, but indicated they are not at fault as the platform was run by Transocean personnel.[13] I suggest removing the last part shown here in italics. BP may have argued with Transocean and Halliburton initially, but they have since repeatedly and consistently accepted responsibility. --ArishiaNishi (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

solusion

i think i have the answer use brazilan magnets around the outside of pipe then force some metal scrap metal in the pipe enought to form a doughnut shape then use a rubber coated steel ball and force that into the pipe if it is a 16 incn pipe than a 14 inch ball brazilian magnets are strong and don't demagnatize for 300 hundred years - raymond gallant

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.13.146 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't even spell solution right.

69.136.72.16 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

His spelling is not relevant to the point. Skullers (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Where did it start?

I wonder are "in the United States" categories precise? It seems that Deepwater Horizon was located not on the U.S. territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the baseline) and not even in the contiguous zone, but much further on the open international waters of Mexican Gulf, within the U.S. exclusive economic zone. It may be one of "disasters in Louisiana" but the spill itself is rather international maritime incident. Cien (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a very interesting point that has crossed my mind, too. I do a whole lot of work with Categories, so I'm going to give this question some serious thought. You might also want to raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories and see what folks there think. Cgingold (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. exclusive economic zone, although at the same time international waters, is under the administration of the U.S. authorities. Also, the Macondo Prospect federal lease to the BP-led consortium was done by the U.S. administration. Therefore, "in the United States" categories are fully applicable. We have similar practice with all offshore oil and gas fields which are usually outside of exclusive economic zones, but categorized as "oilfields of country X" or something similar. Beagel (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - does that mean other countries with economic risk might also have authority? Granted that operations would be expensive but may pay off in the long-run. Also how does BP have authority to restrict the area, especially that of the air? --66.223.168.45 (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed name change

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move to this particular location at this time. However, another rename proposal (to a different name) may certainly be pursued. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Deepwater Horizon oil spill → BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill — I was already of the opinion that "BP" should be included in the name of the article - and now it's official: "BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill".

With the establishment of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, I think we know with certainty the name that will go in the history books. So we may as well make the switch to the official name without delay.

I honestly can't imagine any serious objections to using this name, but for the sake of Wiki-procedure... now is the time to make your views known. Cgingold (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of facilitating a clear-cut up-or-down decision on the name change I've proposed, I would like to request that we confine our remarks to the specified proposal and not consider any alternative names that various editors may favor. The only reason I went forward with this name-change proposal is purely because the US government has now bestowed an official name on this incident, not because I happen to agree that BP should be part of the name. (Sorry if I caused any inadvertent confusion on that point.) Cgingold (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD ALL COMMENTS TO THE APPROPRIATE SUB-SECTION BELOW

Agree

• I agree that this article should reflect the official name attributed to the incident. If other unofficial names are in common practice, they should be included, and follow the title in the "also known as format", with a redirect page in these names. This is my opinion of what would be proper.My76Strat (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Favor Can someone please ask voters if they work for BP? I can't believe the votes I am seeing. 75.166.179.110 (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. I suspect that this will undergo several more name changes over the course of time, but the given reason seems sufficient to move the article now. I don't see any of the opposing votes engaging with the reasoning given in the move proposal. 187.143.14.132 (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. The US goverment has indicatede BP is responsible for the Oil Spill/Blowout. BP has stated they will hold responsibility for the cleanup. Multiple Media sources are siting this as the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchingDragon (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. However, BP Gulf of Mexico spill might be even better as that is what BP is calling it. They use it on the site they are running google adds about: http://www.BP.com/GulfOfMexicoResponse Jeff Carr (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. The title should reflect the official name. I also think that, at this point, leaving BP out of the the title violates NPOV. In addition, leaving BP out makes it harder to find this article through search engines. I therefore strongly agree with this renaming.--Emptytalk (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. 174.101.224.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC).
• Strongly Agree Everyone knows this as BP.... even the US Gov. and media is calling it "BP Deepwater Horizon disaster" --Bakerboy448 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree If the official, government approved name includes BP, then this should be included in the title. It also reflects the term used by the media. In response to the comments below opposing the name change - as BP has officially declared itself responsible for the incident, it would not be NPOV if BP was omitted from the title. --Geckoz rule (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree that current name is not O.K., but no need to add BP - everybody knows its BP. Something like Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Disaster would do better, with Gulf gusher added among the alternative names. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree As is the case with the Exxon Valdez oil spill article, the company responsible for the spill should be included in the title. Though common knowledge, it still should remain labeled. I also agree with the above mentioned that not including 'BP' seems to be a violation of NPOV. diswiz (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. In case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Exxon Valdez was the ship name.Beagel (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree

• Oppose. The name is misleading because it suggests that Deepwater Horizon was owned by BP. This is not correct. In case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Exxon Valdez was the ship name. It was also discussed previously that 'blowout' is more correct term than 'oil spill'. I also think that the name should have a geographical indication. Therefore, my preferences are:

1. Macondo blowout
2. Macondo oil spill
3. Deepwater Horizon oil spill (the current title)
4. 2010 Gulf of Mexico blowout
5. 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill

Beagel (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose: "Deepwater Horizon oil blowout". 'Blowout' is unclear without the modifying word 'oil' (just as in some above-suggested titles it's called an 'oil spill', never simply a 'spill'. 'Deepwater Horizon' is the unique name of the vessel destroyed in the incident, and is well-recognized by anyone who's heard even vaguely of the incident; therefore '2010' is unnecessary as a modifier, as is any reference to Macondo or the Gulf of Mexico. And calling it by the name of the vessel doesn't associate it with BP. The name of any company whatsoever is omitted - like 'Valdez' without 'Exxon'; therefore, Beagel's first objection is not really an issue. MdArtLover (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification. The ship name was Exxon Valdez, not just Valdez. The name of the rig is Deepwater Horizon, not BP Deepwater Horizon. Therefore, having fragment of the title as 'BP Deepwater Horizon' is misleading. So, there are options to use the rig name or BP in the title, but not in the way that 'Deepwater Horizon' follows directly 'BP'.Beagel (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As of suggestion by User:MarylandArtLover, I prefer Deepwater Horizon oil blowout compared to the current title.Beagel (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, the official name is almost irrelevant. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so even if we know with certainty the name that will go in the history books, that's also irrelevant. If it can be shown that the common name is already the proposed article title, that would be different. Andrewa (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose I think the current name strikes a good balance as a descriptive name. The media commonly, and the public in general, refer to the event as an oil spill... even if blowout might be more technically correct it really is a case of splitting hairs (in short I also Oppose Deepwater Horizon oil blowout) As noted by Andrewa, the rig's not BP Deepwater Horizon, nor is BP the only party involved. So to I have some NPOV issues with singling them out. Frankly, I thought we had this all resolved in the last name change dicussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per Labattblueboy. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• This proposed name change adds "BP" to the current title. I oppose that; several companies were involved, BP being only the largest. However, I came to the talk page today to propose a name change. The phrase "oil spill" is no longer correct, and gives people the wrong impression about what is going on. According to the recent NearShore Surface Oil Forecast from NOAA [2] the size and scope of the situation in the gulf is no long just a "spill". Each square on that map is approximately 4900 square miles. Realistic estimates put the size at 10 times the Exxon Valdez now, and it's still flowing. The NOAA.gov page on deepwaterhorizon.noaa.gov now uses the phrase "Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico". It's now clear the effects will be far larger than the Gulf, and with the addition of dispersants, and their toxic effects, the result will be far greater than just oil spilling. Unless something dramatic changes in the activities to stop the flow of oil, this will be the greatest environmental disaster in the US in a century. I'd suggest "Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster, Gulf of Mexico", or something similar that removes the phrase "oil spill". Jmd2121 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose neither the current name nor the proposed one is the WP:COMMONNAME. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The current name is unambiguous and uncontroversially correct except for using the popular term "spill" instead of the industry jargon "blowout". For the record, I am not involved in the industry. Thundermaker (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The current name is factually accurate. As noted by others, the rig was neither owned nor operated by BP. The oil lease was BPs, but a contractor (Transocean) did the drilling. I would guess that the legal challenges for responsibility will play out in the courts for several years but our job in WP is not to try to outguess that process. I'll also note, for the record that I have no relationship to BP or Transocean or the US government whatsoever, whether by employment, contracting, stock ownership, etc., except that I do pay taxes to the US government. N2e (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - It sounds like POV-pushing, and besides there's already a redirect from BP oil spill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Adding BP to the title sounds like a political move by the government (of which I am an employee in the DoD). Wikipedia need to be Neutral Point of View. The name of the company has never been included in an oil spill in the past. The only exception is the famous 1989 oil spill, and the Exxon corporation had the misfortune of naming their ship Exxon Valdez after their company and an Alasken port. Also BP does NOT own the Deepwater Horizon, Transocean does. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 04:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree that current name is not O.K., but no need to add BP - everybody knows its BP. Something like Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Disaster would do better, with Gulf gusher added among the alternative names. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding BP to the title breaks NPOV. Title is fine as it is. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose May as well have Transocean in the title. Note that none of the other articles on oil spills have a party or company name in the title. Skullers (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vote Rigging?

Do any of these voters work for BP? 75.166.179.110 (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're an IP from Denver. Who do YOU work for? A rival of BP, perhaps? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's impossible to rule out the possibility that one of these editors may be employed by BP. But in all honesty, that strikes me as highly unlikely. Every editor's complete edit history is open to view, and I believe all the registered editors were around before the current disaster began. Feel free to check out each of their edit histories if you wish. (I'm not particularly concerned and my time is limited.) Cgingold (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you search for "BP oil spill", it offers you the choice of the current one, or one from 2006, as a bonus. Way too much time is wasted on wikipedia debating the specific names of articles, especially for news items which may have multiple "common names", none of them "official". This one can easily be found if "BP" is the only thing you know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true. If you search "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster", this article doesn't show. And Wikipedia is almost always on page one of any search. "Deepwater Horizon" is not what most people are thinking about when they are thinking about the "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster."

It's like using "Felis Concolor" as the title for the Wikipedia page on "Mountain Lion".

"Felis Concolor" is the scientific name for a mountain lion, but no one is going to search for that.

In answer to the question about my affiliation--

I don't work for any energy or oil company of any sort.

About BP possibly trying to spin Wikipedia articles--

You don't think that BP, a multi-BILLION dollar company, wouldn't have a Wikipedia Public Relations team ready at all times, in case of an emergency like this?

Imagine having hundreds of millions of dollars for public relations--

Imagine being one of the most powerful companies in the world. BP has it's own private fire department for rig explosions, always ready for the next fire. You think they don't also have their own Public Relations Department, always at the ready too?

They could have been cultivating Wiki Private User Pages all along, just in case of a spill (the risk of spill always being present in the oil business). Their Public Relations team always ready with Wikipedia Private User Pages, just like a fire department. I'll bet a lot of big companies do it.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears you are trying to discredit people for having opinions different from your own, people that have been contributing to Wikipedia for much longer than you have on a breadth of issues far wider than just BP, or the energy industry in general. Please focus your energy on improving Wikipedia, rather than making inflammatory and unsupported accusations. TastyCakes (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by my Google search, this article does show up as the 8th result for "gulf of mexico oil disaster", not surprisingly considering the amount of coverage from sources other than Wikipedia. TastyCakes (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If the soapboxing OP had bothered to check, he would have seen that the redirect page Gulf of Mexico oil disaster was added four days ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin (and it won't be me, I'm involved in the discussion... but no, I don't work for BP) will of course look at the arguments, not just count the votes. So I wouldn't get too worried, either way. If there's any reason to suspect that those voting are one-issue accounts or socks or both, there are ways to check, and we do when necessary. But I see no grounds for the allegations at all.

We should also assume good faith on the part of the IP raising the issues. It takes a while to learn the rules here (such as NPA, which doesn't say what most think it does). Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, ranking eighth means almost off of page one and studies actually show that almost no one clicks below number five on Google and Yahoo search results.

On the issue of determining user-affiliations with BP, I have never accused any one of being a BP employee.

I have not accused-- I have asked-- and according to Wikipedia guidelines it is OK to ask about that.

Someone else said it wasn't likely that a company like BP would try to spin a Wikipedia article-- and I answered that GENERAL statement with good reasoning for why it's very likely a potential problem.

That was a general answer to a general statement, not a personal accusation.

Another point about BP (and oil companies in general)-- (As it pertains to Wikipedia neutrality)-- there is an investigation underway right now of Oil companies bribing Interior Department (Bureau of Minerals) inspectors. We are talking about lots of bribery and not just a little either. (You can find that in all the major media outlets).

So it is NOT soapboxing to be concerned that an industry that is being investigated for (very recently) allegedly bribing US government officials, could also be easily capable of spinning a potentially high-profile Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia forbids that kind of editing. So why can't we ask (generally) if that rule is being breached?

75.166.179.110 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that it is really relevant at all, but do you have a source on oil companies bribing US officials? The problem is you weren't asking "generally", you were asking because you didn't like the way the vote was turning out. Rather than taking a cursory look at the histories of who was voting against the move, you chose to accuse them of being BP puppets, not exactly showing good faith and not exactly a good way to get people on your side. TastyCakes (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal accusations about individual voters-- but am I concerned that a company like BP, given it's record, could spin a Wikipedia article, or even a Discussion Page Edit Vote? Absolutely.

Here is the MSNBC report on Federal Drilling Regulators accepting gifts from the Oil Rig Industry. It just came out-- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37337727/ns/gulf_oil_spill

Look, let me say this-- I don't think any particular individual person who voted for or against a Title Change on this article should be considered to be a BP PR worker. That would be unfair. I'm sure-- absolutely sure-- that there are well intentioned citizens on both sides of the issue here.

But could BP PR workers play or spin an article like this (or the BP corporate article)? Honestly, think about it.

Question-- what is the appropriate Wikipedia procedure for dealing with (investigating) this kind of concern?

How does Wikipedia handle this issue-- (huge companies manipulating Wikipedia pages related to them)?

I am not accusing, I am just asking a question. What is the Wikipedia procedure?

67.41.144.20 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, I am writing from a Cafe today, hence the different IP address. I'm the same person that started this section.

Signed

67.41.144.20 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

While it is obvious to all that this is an oil spill of disastrous proportions, you [IP] are being distinctly counterproductive. Earlier you made legal threats against me on my userpage, and now are continuing this nonsense here. Since you don't get the hint, I will be requesting you be blocked from editing Wikipedia for the legal threats. We don't have time this here; we write articles. And I know that you hop IP's: don't, and drop it. You may appeal this when you are ready to make contributions instead of continual, time-wasting baseless accusations. No, don't repeat that "you're not accusing": I don't have time for doublespeak. Awickert (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question though: checkuser would be a place to start. But you'll have to and build up a case in order to try that. Awickert (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I made no legal threats against you. You are the one making personal accusations, not me.

I asked you if you were employed by BP. Under Wikipedia guidelines I have every right to ask if you have a conflict of editorial interest.

If you can't tell the difference between a question and an accusation that's your problem.

I owe you no apologies-- I asked you a legitimate question.

Wikipedia guidelines say I can ask anyone that question. Especially considering current events, it's a very reasonable question to ask.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You said "Please be aware that a false answer could easily be revealed later by a criminal fraud investigation or a civil investigation" on his talk page. Any reasonable person would call that a veiled legal threat and it's going too far. Please stop being so aggressive and unreasonable about this: there is no conspiracy by BP to slant this article. Enough time has been wasted on this issue, please try to improve the article and stop being a distraction. TastyCakes (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To answer the IP's question - For the sake of argument we will assume that BP employees are editing the article. But, for every editor who is a BP employee, there are thousands who aren't. As Wikipedia works on consensus, any addition or deletion of material that breaches WP:NPOV will be countered by those thousands of other editors. In other words, it's not likely to be a big problem. NPOV means we record good stuff and bad stuff. For example, we don't apportion blame; but if blame is found by an enquiry or court of law, we report that fact.

The vote rigging issue has been flagged up at WP:ANI, and will be borne in mind when it comes to closing the RM. All editors' history can be checked, and editors who have few contributions or none out of the topic may find that their views are discounted by the closing admin. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser investigations are not supposed to be fishing expeditions. But even if somebody does one, biased editors are more likely to be stockholders than employees, and stockholders can live anywhere. Thundermaker (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Call for re-vote with disclosure requirement posted:

Thanks for following up on this. Is it possible for admins to ask each voter whether or not they have an oil company affiliation?

Or alternately, could a general requirement be posted that each voter must disclose any oil company affiliation before voting.

In the second case, I suggest doing a second vote so that everyone can see the disclosure requirement first.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Both of those suggestions are unworkable, unreasonable and unnecessary. And as for redoing the vote, that is just silly: it is obvious that consensus is against renaming it as you would like. The name makes sense as it is now, please stop wasting our time. TastyCakes (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I must reluctantly agree. While we assume good faith, the evidence is mountng that this IP is here merely to promote their POV. There are numerous violations of policy, and gentle replies have not worked. A 24 hour block has now been tried by another admin. Andrewa (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Article size

Is anyone getting at all concerned with the article size. It currently stands at 117K, which a bit large. Any suggestions at cutting down the size a bit? --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is somewhat big. But if it can no longer be cleaned up and whatnot (thus, all information possible is included), then it is what it is. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes for inline refs are certainly needed (though dated ones need updates), but bloat of redundant References and External links sections can certainly be culled, if not eliminated altogether. Also, a Timeline section or Infobox might be helpful. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is too big, then maybe it can be split. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Split or let the article grow is the right answer rather than deleting useful and helpful material. Labattblueboy removed relevant material with this edit saying that the article was too large in his edit summary. I made the edit that added the visual aids and think they are an important part of this complex story. Since I made the edit adding some of the information which was removed, I thought I'd ask folks here to weigh in on the removal of this material. I am open to the idea that maybe not all of the information in the references section needs to be there, but I believe strongly that the powerful visual and reference aids that are being produced by reputable sources to convey what is happening below the surface should be a part of this article. Theflyer (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering that this is the largest oil disaster in U.S. history, no the article is not too big at all, and should even grow larger as the disaster continues to unfold. Sub-articles may need to be created, to handle the growth, but there is no need to shrink the overall content.67.41.144.20 (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Making sub-articles is the right way to handle it, not chopping the article back.

Possible sub-article that could grow over time out of this "main article"--

1) Civil or criminal investigations of spill (both have been discussed on all the major news outlets).

2) Environmental impact studies (the impacted area is enormous and the issues will be complex)

3) Cultural impact-- Today MSNBC did an article on the possible devastation of Cajun and Creole cultures (especially in the Bayou country) due to the disaster.

4) Clean-up. This will continue to be massive and is expected to take 10 years or more. Likely this will eventually need it's own sub-article as well.

All of this supports the fact that this is a subject that should not be cut-back, but should rather be accommodated by additional sub-articles as needed.

The article about the worst oil disaster in U.S. oil history should not be shrunk into a brief or an abstract.--67.41.144.20 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Several sections of this article should be trimmed by using summary style. Right now some sections look like an online news reporting, which Wikipedia is definitely not. Beagel (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Entirely agree.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed this page goes on and on. Consequences, for example, should be summarised and maybe have its own page too. Same with Volume and extent of oil spill. You don't need a section the size of a normal article on that! --Half Price (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Any thought about splitting the explosion details for the article and moving them to a new article, possibly Deepwater Horizon explosion. Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

agree -- Books, and even encyclopedias, will be written about this catastrophe. Let Wikipedia be the resource. I hate to see highly relevant and damning testimony, including telling quotations (when especially apt) chopped ("summarized"). Make some separations, please, and let's keep focused on incorporating into the sub-articles the emerging facts from the the ongoing investigations, which well might deserve their own articles, if truth be told. Paulscrawl (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Paulscrawl. Gandydancer (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Another section that can easily go to where it belongs with a one-sentence wikilinked mention: Atlantis Oil Field safety practices Paulscrawl (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

'Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ","' under Short-term efforts section

There's red error text in the third paragraph of Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Short-term_efforts. I know it'll get fixed soon anyway, but hopefully pointing out will get it fixed sooner. Thanks. 174.55.189.19 (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Made a sloppy fix to it. Broke it into (1000) and (5000) instead of (1000-5000). - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 05:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Great illustration in the Economist Magazine

showing lines connected for a top kill

BOP broken riser and top kill context

Could somebody replicate the excellent graphic in the Economist Magazine and put it here?

http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2010/21/ST/201021STC294.gif

from the article: http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16160853

58.179.137.101 (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to create a few simple diagrams of a blowout preventer stack at Commons:Category:Blowout preventers, derived roughly from various sources. I have included two at the right here.

-84user (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (I have just uploaded File:Subsea blowout preventer stack riser mud.svg as a context diagram, see right)-84user (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work 84user! FYI, there are some pretty interesting illustrations that have been added to the external links section of the Blowout preventer article. For example, this one, added only today, gives a great representation to the complexity (and size) of a subsea blowout preventer. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, 84user! Paulscrawl (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There are now some improved larger context versions, with numbers only and with larger font sizes, see below.

• 
  Large context numbered instead of text
• 
  Large context with largest practical font size

-84user (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispersants

We seem to be missing an article on Sea-Brat/Sea-Brat 4 ... and the Corexit article could do with expansion.

70.29.210.155 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not much yet in truly substantive news sources on Sea-Brat yet -- almost all news mentions of Sea-Brat simply cite BP response to May 20 EPA directive. I'll try to work on it, after a few more pressing updates to Dispersants section and Corexit article, re: BP response & EPA counter-response to May 20 directive. Paulscrawl (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Litigation section - Smith Stag LLC

I have concerns that the Litigation section has been largely written by representatives Smith Stag LLC. The section, written largely by Pwendel66, almost exclusively quotes and mentions the partners in the firm (Michael Stag & Stuart Smith). I'm not sure if this is a case of someone rep'ing the company but nonetheless suggest the text be removed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A mention is fine, but this is ridiculous. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to summarize and trim this section, but further work is needed. Beagel (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made a bit of a clean start of it, but it could still use some additional material.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Arnegrim, 25 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph states 'The spill has eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the worst US oil disaster in history'. None of the articles posted to support that claim make such a definitive statement.

Sentence should read 'The spill is expected to eclipse the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the worst US oil disaster in history'. Arnegrim (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done: This reference does say that much. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1269675/Gulf-Mexico-oil-spill-FIVE-times-worse-new-leak-wrecked-rig.html -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not completely uncontroversial. The only way it hasn't already become the largest disaster is if the low-end estimate is correct (5000 bbl/day). It has been 35 days, so if the actual rate is 7,142 bbl/day or greater, it's the largest.

Also, the word "worst" seems to insert unnecessary POV. Damage is not strictly a function of oil volume but also currents and response.

Let's try to get a consensus. Thundermaker (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have changed worst, to largest. I agree with Thundermaker that worst is still a matter of assessment, and remains undetermined.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article states 'could'. It very well may be larger already, but without a definitive determination it would be irresponsible to make such claims.Arnegrim (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Arnegrim. The references given appear to me to say "expected to within a few weeks", "could" and so on, none of them seem to say "it's now the biggest oil spill in US history". It's not Wikipedia's job to extrapolate from oil rates mentioned in news (that falls under original research), so we need to find a reliable source that says it's now the largest spill in US history or change the wording to "expected to be" or "may be". I also think "largest US oil disaster" should be changed to "largest US oil spill" for obvious neutrality reasons. TastyCakes (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How about if the wording were changed to, "According to many independent experts, the spill has...", since by most estimates it has now exceeded the Exxon Valdez spill? Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's my point though: although there are articles from a while ago saying "it will become the biggest spill in the next few weeks", I haven't seen any that say "it is now the biggest". I might be wrong of course, please correct me if so. That said, I have changed the line to "The spill is thought to have eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest in US history" which I think is an accurate and unbiased statement... TastyCakes (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My beef was with the use of worst, given the longterm effects remain largely uncertain. I like the current edit of "The spill is thought to have eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest in US history." I would also accept "expected" instead of "thought to have".--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't seem like anyone has demonstrated that it is "worse" than the Valdez at this point, even if it is bigger. TastyCakes (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I found [3] which quotes a White House official as calling it "worst", then the article suggests it's due to location. I'm not sure that helps but I thought I'd post it. Thundermaker (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I see, that seems a little confusing since the Valdez was much closer to shore than the Deepwater Horizon... Presumably they mean the location is worse because it's closer to a lot of economic activity than the Valdez was. I don't think environmentally it has been shown to be worse than the Valdez was yet, at least not on shore... TastyCakes (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Something was incorrect in the volume numbers, which were set at 18,000,000. which would require 400,000 bbls a day, which is not credible. Even 70,000 bbls of oil is day is not credible, and the computation which came up with that number used the wrong ID for the riser ( He used the published OD of 21 inches, not the ID of 18.75, and assumed all the volume fraction was oil, rather than a gas oil mix. I would suggest the bounds of the federal report on estimated volumes be used, as that group had access to real data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BakuMatt (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Percentage of Gulf closed to fishing

I know fishermen are liars, but I thought the National Marine Fisheries Service could do better than this fishy percentage comparison:

"The closure measures 45,728 sq mi (118,435 sq km), which is approximately 19 percent of the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone." "FB10-040: BP Oil Spill: NOAA Modifies Commercial and Recreational Fishing Closure in the Oil-Affected Portions of the Gulf of Mexico" NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Southeast Fishery Bulletin. May 18, 2010. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/pdfs/2010/FB10-040_BP_Oil_Spill_Closure_051810.pdf

vs.

"The closure measures 54,096 sq mi (140,109 sq km), which is slightly more than 22% of the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone." "FB10-045: BP Oil Spill: NOAA Modifies Commercial and Recreational Fishing Closure in the Oil-Affected Portions of the Gulf of Mexico" NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Southeast Fishery Bulletin. May 25, 2010. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/pdfs/2010/FB10-045_BP_Oil_Spill_Closure_052510.pdf

At least one of those percentage estimates must be wrong. What is the exact size of the Gulf of Mexico's share in the US Exclusive Economic Zone?

Paulscrawl (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Most commercial fishing is coastal, so what percentage of the fish-able waters would that be?

69.171.160.67 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting video

Someone at my forum posted this from the video - I had no idea that these explosions were going on. How on earth can they ever get this beast plugged up? http://monkeyfister.blogspot.com/2010/05/major-change-down-below.html Gandydancer (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Referencing and citations

I think it's about time we talked about taking a standardized approach to referencing. Having some citations in the notes and some in the reference section is unmanageable in identifying unused references. My suggestion is that we employ only inline notes, as that makes up the majority of the references present. Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree as I noted above on previous suggestion re: article size: if not deemed citable as inline Notes, most such links not worth wasted space in References section. That's what Google or Lexis/Nexis is for; literally tens of thousands of articles could be so listed References: do the work of incorporating citable Notes in article or please don't bloat article with undigested References. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose to this extent: some frequently updated, albeit not necessarily cited agency or specific issue home page sites, will be convenient to have at hand, given local needs of those most vitally concerned and inevitability of years'-long studies and investigations. Suggest References be restricted to such sites' home pages. Beyond the obvious US govt. sites, a very comprehensive source (22 pages as of 2010-05-25) of such sites and contact information is available at the Gulf Alliance Educational Consortium (I have no personal, academic, business, nor governmental affiliation). This could be well adapted into a References table, serving both BP victims as well as Wikipedia relevancy and bandwidth. See Gulf States Information & Contacts for Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have completed the folding in. I have identified them through their various stages (I broke it into 4 parts, with a couple error corrections after - starting at 364618290 and ending at 364624402) should the wish be to return to previous format in the future.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Great work! Now the work begins of holding External links to this standard: should this external link not be contextualized as an inline reference? If not, why link at all? Is this a truly important reference site of comparable import to this article itself?

On these criteria, I've added above external link and may add some more from that source Paulscrawl (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article: on the potential technical solutions

Here is an interesting article on the potential technical solutions, pros and cons of each. It is technically more descriptive than the typical news media accounts, but still written for a layman level of understanding. Worth the read: Grading the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Improvised Cleanup Tech N2e (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that the above article describes the so-called "Top Kill" approach, the approach BP has been preparing for several days now and may execute as soon as today. N2e (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Disaster or Catastrophe?

BP seems to dislike the word "Catastrophe" associated with the damage and effects of this during interviews and is quick to correct any news agency or reporter using this word specifically. Wikipedia itself defines the word as "A catastrophe is an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event." and merriam-webster defines Catastrope as "3 a : a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth". Does this not fit the definition? B4Ctom1 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Compared to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake it's very small fray so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Description of a "Top Kill"

This article, Grading the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Improvised Cleanup Tech, describes a "Top Kill" this way:

The Top Kill

"With the majority of the leak now funneled through the riser insertion tool, and no signs of additional degradation of the riser, BP appears ready to attempt a complete and somewhat orderly shutdown of the well. The procedure is called a "top kill" and would involve pumping heavy mud and other drilling fluids into the riser's still-functioning valve structure. Once the flow becomes a trickle, crews would chase the mud with concrete, eventually plugging the entire riser and much of the well's structure near the seabed. BP is reportedly planning a top kill as soon as May 23rd. That would be a happy ending. Or as happy as this story can possibly end.

"The Upside: Top kills are probably the most routine of the tactics that BP has tried or has yet to rule out.

"The Downside: Unfortunately, no one has attempted a top kill at depths of 5000 feet. And while the riser does not seem to be getting worse, there's always the chance that it could break up or otherwise fail before a sufficient amount of mud and/or cement is pumped into it."

My understanding is that BP has been manuevering to prepare for such a process for several days now, and may actually attempt the "Top Kill" today. N2e (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It has indeed begun today. Too early to tell results, if any. http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_says_top_kill_has_begun.html Paulscrawl (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

{{editsemiprotected}} under the list of casualties from the original blast you should remove "Jason Weise, 24, Yorktown, TX" and replace it with "Blair Manuel,56, Eunice, Louisiana" -- Edit request from Slinxxx, 26 May 2010

Slinxxx (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this information? Why would "Jason Weise, 24, Yorktown, TX" need to be removed, at any rate? Would it not suffice simply to add any other casualties (assuming they can be verified)? Intelligentsium 23:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Corrected. Source is Anna M. Tinsley (2010-05-21). "Gulf oil spill: Remembering Deepwater Horizon's dead"

Fort Worth Star Telegram. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/21/94649/remembering-deepwater-horizons.html#ixzz0p2hV2SY4

I object to recent removal of the names of the victims by another user and uncited mention of 2010-05-25 memorial service, using same reference, as latter dated 2010-05-21. Reverted. These names are already being cited in testimony and it is not only of human interest and decency but of relevancy as to who they were. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done At present Star Telegram source above only lists 10 names. Found better source. Added missing name. Changed ref to completely accurate one, documenting survivors' concerns that the victims have been forgotten; cross-referenced names with official memorial site, which includes obituaries.. Paulscrawl (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Dredging suggestion

why dont they just hire all of the dredging compines around the us to start sucking up the water and oil thats all they need to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.78.71 (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--mono 01:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

BP (formerly British Petroleum) & Casualties

Is there any opposition to removing the "(formerly British Petroleum)" from the lead. No mention of British Petroleum is made in the main text so IMO I see no reason to include it in the lead.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

BP is (or was) British Petroleum. As I interpret it, this explanation is given so that readers more familiar with the older appellation will know that BP, from there onward refers to British Petroleum. Thus there is no need to mention it further in the article as it has already been explained in the lead section, in a similar fashion to an uncommon term being defined. Intelligentsium 00:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was indeed the point. Cgingold (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Names of the 11 Men Who Died The main page: The 11 men were killed in the explosion were: Jason Anderson, 35, Midfield, Texas; Dale Burkeen, 37, Philadelphia, Mississippi; Donald Clark, 34, Newellton, Louisiana; Stephen Curtiss, 39, Georgetown, Louisiana; Gordon Jones, 28, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Roy Wyatt Kemp, 27, Jonesville, Louisiana; Karl Klepping, 38, Natchez, Mississippi; Dewey Revette, 48, State Line, Mississippi; Shane Roshto, 22, Franklin County, Mississippi; Adama Weise, 24, Yorktown, Texas; and Jason Weise, 24, Yorktown, Texas. [51]

"The 11 men were killed in the explosion were:" change to "The 11 men killed in the explosion were:"

The names are not correct in the main page. Here is the list. Blair Manuel, 56, Shane Roshto, 22, Roy Wyatt Kemp, 27, Jason Anderson, 35, Stephen Curtis, 39, Dewey Revette, 48, Adam Weise, 24, Gordon Jones, 28 Aaron Dale Burkeen, 37, Donald Clark, 49 and Karl Kleppenger, 38. --ArishiaNishi (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. In my edit summary, I noted the very strange coincidence of two men having the same last name and age and asked if they were fraternal twin brothers. It would be great if you would go ahead and insert the correct name yourself. Cgingold (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

♥ I don't have edit privileges for the main page. --ArishiaNishi (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. See "Casualties" section above. Paulscrawl (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Added missing name. Changed ref to completely accurate one, documenting survivors' concerns that the victims have been forgotten; cross-referenced names with official memorial site, which includes obituaries. Paulscrawl (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cuba

Some scanty news on talks with Cuba: [4]

Not addressed in this: if the oil spill ruins Cuban fishing and beaches, is BP required to pay reparations? Is BP allowed to pay reparations? Wnt (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting topic. My personal interpretation of the embargo law would be that BP is prohibited from any transfer of wealth to Cuba, even if they admit responsibility. But we need a WP:RS talking about it in order to add it to the article. Thundermaker (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@Thundermaker.... interesting, but that doesn’t take into account the fact that BP’s parent company is British, which perhaps allows Cuba to make its own litigation against the company and maybe exempts it from the embargo. curious that the only thing that dictates what BP has to do for Cuba is an American law Scuwat (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Some more random refs: [5][6] [7] [8][9] Very little info per inch, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that this well belongs to BP America, a subsidiary of BP. (see [10]) While apparently they share funds enough that British investors don't differentiate the two, I have a suspicion that when push comes to shove, BP is going to say that the liability is owed by BP America, and BP America isn't allowed to pay. But I haven't found any source taking the remotest stab in this direction. Wnt (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of workers kept in seclusion/isolation

why is this not included? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100521/sc_ynews/ynews_sc2191 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.150.9 (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This was already discussed (archived discussion). Beagel (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody objected to including it 10 days ago (short archive cycle!), but nobody added it either. If you want it added, write it up into a paragraph with refs and post it here with an {{editsemiprotected}} tag and instructions saying exactly where you think it should be inserted. Transocean's denial should be covered in the same paragraph. Thundermaker (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This was added at some point, but seems it was removed from the current version. Beagel (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed it while copy editing the POV text from the Litigation section. I can reinsert it without much trouble but I'm not sure where it should go, it doesn't really fit in the Litigation section. Thoughts.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered what happened to that, too. It would not have gone unnoticed if you hadn't folded it into a large edit without noting it in your edit summary. Please slow down & avoid folding multiple significant edits into one large edit -- especially when passages like this are being deleted. This also makes for better edit summaries, which would permit the rest of us to follow what you're doing more easily and with some assurance that we're not missing something significant. As you're well aware, this is not the first time this issue has come up -- and I just spent 15-20 minutes (and a lot of unwanted aggravation) hunting down the edit that had moved the Investigations section back to where it had been before I moved it to a more appropriate location -- again, because you made no mention of it in your edit summary. (I was sure it must have been some other editor!) Please take this more seriously. Cgingold (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PS - I've been meaning to ask you, what does "ce" mean. It strikes me as a generic substitute for a meaningful edit summary. Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit. I feel my summaries are more than sufficent and I am by no means hiding my activity. There is unfortunately not enough space to describe the heinous amount of copy editing to maintain a summary style for this article. Before criticizing my editing so harshly, it best that you first examine your editing behaviour. The movement or creation of entire sections without broader consultation is no more appropriate. I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding the Investigation section, I wasn't the one who moved it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Creating new sections is entirely appropriate, and I encourage all to do so without feeling the need to discuss them first. I did it myself in this article at least once, maybe more. It is inevitable that new sections be made for an article to grow, and it is impossible to discuss them until after they are made. But it is easier to discuss deletions before they are made. (This is a general comment, and I haven't examined your particular edits) Wnt (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it was missing, but decided to wait for comment from other more experienced editors, and when there was no comment I decided it must not be newsworthy for this page. As a less experienced editor, I find Cgingold's edits much easier to follow than Labttblueboy's edits. For example, I noticed that Rep Markey's strong statement re BP and his remark that they have used a low figure of the flow rate to lessen their liability were deleted with only this remark: "ce, converts, merge para., ref work". Gandydancer (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if you find my edits difficult to follow. I have started expanding my details a bit further. If they remain an issue please return to my attention.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

First and by far most important, I want to say that your new & improved edit summaries are much appreciated. I realize it takes a little more work -- in fact, I know it first hand -- but it is well worth the added effort because transparency in editing is hugely important, especially in an article like this. Second, please be aware that I have, in fact, held back on criticizing your efforts as I am well aware (trust me) that trimming excess verbiage can be a rather thankless task. But (as I said to another editor) it needs to be done with a scalpel, not a meat cleaver.

Lastly, I assure you I did not just imagine the edit where you moved the Investigations section. As I already said (but it bears repeating), I truly did not think that you were the one who had moved it -- because I was sure you would have mentioned it in one of your edit summaries. So I was really shocked when, at long last, I discovered that it had been moved in THIS EDIT, with the following edit summary: return to "thought to be largest spill", discussion started on talk page to ensure consensus that this indeed the case. I'm sure you can understand my dismay (to put it mildly) at discovering what had transpired. (I see from your edit summary that you have now moved that section to a slightly different location, which I am okay with.) Well, I guess that about covers it... Cgingold (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now under Casualties and rescue efforts (end of 1st para), still seems a bit out of place but better suited than it was before.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Diagram/photos of the actual leak

I've seen animations on TV of the blowout preventer sitting on top of the sea floor with oil leaking out the top, but I've also seen video of oil spewing from a broken pipe that appears to be lying horizontally on the sea floor. Is it possible to get an accurate diagram or photo of the actual accident site showing how the equipment and piping is actually arranged? (especially a before-and-after) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the main leak is from the riser, which is the pipe you mentioned. There are (or were) several holes in the riser where oil was gushing out of. One of the holes may have been close to the BOP (this diagram shows it that way, but if it was missing the "pipe" entirely I suspect the image you saw was just a simplification (or mistake). TastyCakes (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Needed..."Largest Spill in US History"

The Article states: "The spill is thought to have eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest in US history." This is incorrect if you look at the Ixtoc I oil spill. It is said about the Ixtoc I: "On 3 June 1979, the well suffered a blowout and is recognized as the second largest oil spill and the largest accidental spill in history." The Ixtoc Oil Spill leaked 3,000,000 barrels (165 billion gallons). Even at the highest estimates, the DH is nowhere near that amount. It is true that the estimates have surpassed the Exxon Valdez oil spill. But there needs to be definition as to what is meant by "largest". The sentence implies largest volume which is incorrect. Also, considering the Ixtoc I happened in the Gulf of Mexico and did affect US beaches, it would still be incorrect to say "in US History".

Thanks. JP 5/27/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.181 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Ixtoc I spill/blowout remained largely in Mexican waters. As I understand it, the quantity of oil that did enter US waters was far less than that spilled by the Exxon Valdez or by the Deepwater horizon leak. I have also not seen any sources that express teh Ixtoc I as the largest in US history.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Labatt here. I don't think Ixtoc was actually an "american" oil spill. I will add though that the numbers for "oil spilled" are still a matter of debate. While I'm pretty sure this spill is larger than Valdez, I don't think there is consensus for this among RS. Perhaps calling it "largest" is premature? NickCT (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ixtoc probably bears mentioning though, "largest oil spill in the US and second largest in the gulf of Mexico, after Ixtoc" or something like that. TastyCakes (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes: 28° 44′ 12.01″ N, 88° 23′ 13.78″ W coordinates are incorrect, this places the rig 330 miles SW of where the decimal coordinates are.

28.73667, -88.38716 are far closer to actual location. News stories claim the depth is around 5000 feet , this matches up with these coordinates. The other set are in 10,000 feet of water.

75.34.58.84 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The decimal coordinates that you say are closer appear to be the ones being used in the article, and were in place before you made the foregoing post. I'm not sure where you got the DMS coords, but I don't see anything to correct here, so I'm deactivating the {{geodata-check}} tag. If there's still an error that we're missing, please explain it more completely and remove the "tlc" prefix from the tag to reactivate it. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Supplement - Okay, figured it out. The coordinates in the article are correct or very close to being correct. You're being taken to the wrong place, probably, because you're clicking on the Google Earth "Open" link in GeoHack. Google Earth (and occasionally Google Maps) sometimes do not interpret GeoHack requests correctly. If you'll use the "w/ meta-data" Google Earth link instead of the "Open" link, it will almost always work correctly. Better yet, use Wikimapia, Bing, or Acme. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Worst and largest ?

I removed the statement from the lead that stated this is the worst oil spill in US history given that still appears to be a matter of opinion. Largest doesn't after all mean worst and we hadn't seen analysis regarding heavy crude (Valdez spill) vs. light/sweet crude (BP spill).

Secondly, do we have a general consensus that this is indeed the largest in US history? Before we insert that statement is best we give it some thought because it's kind of a big deal.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it's premature to refer to this as the "worst oil spill in US history", for all the reasons that were raised about the use of that term in the previous discussion of the issue. On the other hand, I do think we can & should now refer to it as the "largest" such spill, given the release of quasi-authoritative estimates on the total volume of oil that has been released. Cgingold (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree entirely with your conclusions. You guys are sounding like some wishy-washy BP executives unable to understand the facts and make a decision. The facts are there that this oil spill IS ESTIMATED to be the WORST OIL SPILL IN US HISTORY. Sure there will today and always be questions about whether it is absolutely positively THE worst, and “worst” is not entirely definable here, but the facts are:

The US Geological Survey released estimates that this the “Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the worst in U.S. history,” (Source: National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100527-energy-nation-gulf-oil-spill-top-kill-obama/

“Figuring that the leak began when the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig sank to the gulf bottom April 22, and subtracting the oil siphoned from the leaking pipe and pumped onto a barge, the flow rate would mean that between 17 million and 27 million gallons of oil have polluted the gulf. The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, by comparison, put 11 million gallons of oil along more than a thousand miles of Alaska's coastline.” Washington Post, Source: Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052701957.html?hpid=topnews

CNN reports Deepwater Horizon gusher called worst US oil spill to date

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/27/explainer.worst.oil.spills/index.html

11 people were killed in the Deepwater Horizon incident. No other oil spill has had loss of life that I am aware of and surely not the Exxon Valdez. That adds to its “worst” definition.

What more evidence do you need of the seriousness of the spill? Maybe for the oil to start gurgling up your home faucet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.73.133 (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that "worst" is a subjective term. They probably mean "largest", but it could also mean most costly, or most environmentally damaging. Because of this, I think "largest" is still a better term than "worst": it is simply more precise. That doesn't seem "wishy washy" to me, it sounds more accurate, which is what we're looking for here. TastyCakes (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am of the same opinion as Cgingold and TastyCakes. I think there is enough evidence to call this one the largest but that "worst" is a rather subjective term.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Viable links for citations

• We have a problem. This may be something to bring up in a discussion of what constitutes a "reliable source". Gandydancer reverted one of my edits because the reference didn't support it. I knew it did, so I went back and reverted the revert. But when I clicked on the link, it wasn't even the same article! How does a newspaper change an article that much? The second writer was now in the list of others who contributed, at the end of the article, and there was a new second writer. There was a new headline. The information I added to the article about sick fishermen wasn't there, so I knew Gandydancer had done the right thing and I reverted my revert of the revert. Furthermore, the lowest estimate of the size of the spill had changed, so I fixed it in the article. The source did not, however, state that the U.S. Geological Survey was involved in the lower and higher estimates, so I flagged them. The information looks like it would be reliable, but we just don't know where it came from. Whoever added the statement does.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• That citation/URL threw me, too. Upon closer inspection, I believe the problem is that the articles are only on the USA Today website, and may never appear in print. It looks like the USA Today website recycles at least some of its URLs with new or updated stories each day. Clearly these should be avoided in citations here on Wikipedia. Cgingold (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• We have another problem. People keep adding "authoritative" information and claiming it came from an important-sounding organziation or agency. The problem is no one will give a source for it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• As you may have already noticed, I have reworked that passage and provided an "authoritative" link to the original source. Cgingold (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm sorry my source (not USA Today but a local newspaper) never got used, but that's life. My actual newspaper has that updated version with the different second writer, and nothing about fishermen being sick.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion here should anyone wish to contribute. I should mention my article, which was the original subject of discussion, was not the one that was "only on the USA Today website". But I never thought a local newspaper would change an article so substantially and then keep the same URL.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

relief methods

Shouldn't Top kill , Junk shot , Top hat dome , etc be made into articles? Top kill currently redirects here. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Top kill is now an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Numbers fail basic sanity check

From the article:

The spill is now thought to have eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest in US history.[17] Estimates of the total amount of oil spilled range from 19,000,000 barrels (800,000,000 US gallons; 3.0×109 litres) to 39,000,000 barrels (1.6×109 US gallons; 6.2×109 litres).[18]

This is probably a mistake, as it fails a basic sanity check. Even at a likely overestimated 100,000 barrels/day (far above government figures), it would take 190 days to spill the minimum 19,000,000 barrels. A check of the source cited suggests that the 19,000,000 to 39,000,000 figures are probably gallons, not barrels. Certainly, one of the two figures must be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.184.95 (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I came here to say this, those numbers could possibly be correct. The number in the cited source is 18 million gallons total. Not anywhere near the stated 800 million to 1.6 billion gallons of oil. That is insane. Reportingsjr (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done I checked the source and it should be in gallons, not barrels. I will quickly address that. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Investigations: US Coast Guard/MMS Joint Investigation & summary edits

After massive and wildly premature "summary style" edits, I am rapidly losing interest in updating this article with the emerging facts from the Joint Investigation. I don't need lectures on Wikipedia style, I need fellow editors to discuss such cleaver-sized cuts, not scalpel-sized copy edits, here, and beforehand.

This is not yet history, this is news, like it or not. This article will be newsy for awhile yet. It will not resemble an article on WWI battles for a long time. Telling quotes and contextual explanation of technical terms used in testimony are highly appropriate at this time, if Wikipedia as a source for this ever-expanding news story is to be relevant. I suggest a sub-section for US Coast Guard/MMS Joint Investigation, which I can then flesh out as I have attempted to do, eventually to split into its own article, if need be. This is exactly what we see with the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which has a separate article for the Rogers Commission Report.

Don't kill history with premature summary edits.

Paulscrawl (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "summary style" edits, I strongly agree. Twice I have added quotes from lawmakers from the testimony going on in congressional hearings and they have been deleted. At present there is no mention in the article that congress has even been hearing testimony - perhaps because it has come down to the general public in the form of quotes from angry congressional representatives. I am not sure why some editors are so reluctant to use quotes and I hope that is because they fear that they sound tabloid-like and not because they have been so harsh of BP. Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because another editor removed something doesn't mean you should necessarily give up on it and say to yourself, "Oh, well - I guess that's settled then." You are free to restore deleted passages if you feel that you can make a good case for them. And any editor who deletes passages should likewise be able to make a good case for doing so. When necessary, issues are brought to the Talk Page for discussion, and to see what other editors think. Cgingold (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon organization chart. Legend: Underway Mode: Master is in charge. Drilling mode: Offshore installation manager (OIM) is in Charge

“ The driller was outlining what would be taking place, whereupon the company man stood up and said, 'No, we'll be having some changes to that.' It had to do with displacing the riser for later on. The OIM, tool-pusher and driller disagreed with that, but the company man said, 'Well, this is how it's gonna be,' and the tool-pusher, driller and OIM reluctantly agreed. ” — Doug Brown,

I don't doubt their good intentions or neutral point of view; I believe these summary style deletions are the results of their justifiable concern with the article size (see so-named Discussion section above) and Wikipedia's encyclopedic summary style. I've read it, I get it. But splitting articles is the way to address the former concern (let's start with Atlantis Oil Field safety practices and the explosion sections, and make provision via sub-sections for sub articles on the several independent investigations). Time will take care of the latter, when historical perspective is called for. Not yet: we are still living this news; it is not yet history, alas.

Today, it is all news and newsworthy quotes are apropos. There are many Wikipedia articles concerned with current events that will, in this very now, appropriately have telling, pithy, pertinent and even damning quotes which may eventually, with the hindsight of history, be deleted for summary style. Then again, good writers and readers and editors might agree that it is wise to retain or even highlight some quotes, as in the article linked above or to your right, for their historic interest and pithy summary. That's right, quotes themselves can be a summative assessment! At present, deleting really apt quotes would be premature here. This is like the Watergate hearings -- history in the making. Some quotes matter mightily. How about this one?

Paulscrawl (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. -- I could work on a suitably detailed draft in my user space, if preferred, before creating a separate article for U.S. Coast Guard / Mineral Management Service Joint Investigation, summarized and linked to from here. What I can't do is waste my time and yours. Paulscrawl (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the issue of large, "summary style" edits: as far as I am aware, these are all the work of a single editor. Please take a look at the colloquy I entered into above. Cgingold (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As for splitting off articles, I believe it will undoubtedly make sense very soon to have a separate article dealing with all of the ongoing investigations, with separate sections for each. Cgingold (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So I see. A good historian, and well respected, but this ain't yet history. I'll be working on my vision for this section -- and soon to be article -- this weekend, in my sandbox. Input welcomed. Paulscrawl (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm puzzling over these words: "A good historian, and well respected". Am I missing something? Cgingold (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Respect. He has a few well-deserved Barnstars for some WWI articles. Paulscrawl (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, one article for all investigations, with separate sections for each, more useful and manageable than separate articles for each. Also avoids massive article-naming headaches. Paulscrawl (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• My use of summary style edits is largely out of necessity, due to the article size. At 120K+, this article is large and I have noticed rendering delays and difficultly in making quick edits due to loading time. I couldn't only imagine what a slower connection is dealing with. For an article that is getting this level of coverage, accessibility is key. The article doesn't always have room for lengthy quotes, where a sub-article might. I am entirely supportive of splitting, I think we are fast approaching that point. Given the number of investigations, inquires and commissions examining the matter, I suspect the Investigation section would be a good candidate for an article split.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not doubt your intentions, only their effect on my contributions and the article's relevance. Good to know you entirely support splitting, and I can only hope you now entirely support discussing such major changes as section moves and your not-so well documented summary style edits on the aptly-named Discussion page before making such changes in the future, as this seems to have been an issue for you, one you have acknowledged and vowed to correct. I mean this with all due respect to you as an experienced editor (I've only been posting under my Username since ~2001): I especially appreciate your energy and diligence in removing unneeded external links.

May I suggest we leave your summaries of investigations in place while I work on what I consider to be needed details -- human names and technical terms -- for Deepwater Horizons oil spill Investigations sub-article this weekend? In the meantime, I leave it to more experienced editors such as yourself and esp. Cgingold to prune sections immediately prunable from an article entitled Deepwater Horizon oil spill -- 1) the explosion itself, 2) U.S. and Canadian offshore drilling policy, & 3) Atlantis Oil Field safety practices

. One sentence summary and link should do it for latter two.

As Cgingold acknowledged in previous discussion just cited, summary edits are a difficult and a thankless task. Thank you, but please slow down. They are certainly needed here, but not until we have the infrastructure in place to preserve the details that matter. We learned a lot of new personal names of consequence and weird uses of familiar words (to me at least, thank God ;) like deep throat, as well as unfamiliar words from the Watergate hearings. We will certainly learn more personal names and technical terms in the next few days and months ahead. This is not an attack on a valuable editor, only a plea for collaboration, so that I, too, may become a more valuable editor. Thank you. Paulscrawl (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.100.104.34, 28 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} We need a section on the Oil Spill Syndrome all the workers are getting. below is a short excerpt from the below link for a news article to start with. Oil Spill Syndrome is real and the article should mention it. INMHO

According to Clint Guidry, president of the Louisiana Shrimp Association:

.....If you would do your research, the same situation occurred with Exxon Valdez over twenty years ago. It is a question of liability. The minute BP declares that there is a respiratory danger on the situation is the day that they let the door open for liability suits down the line. If they could have gotten away with covering this up, like they did in Alaska Valdez situation, like Exxon, they would not have to pay a penny for any kind of health-related claims....(source; democracy now)

The oil and chemicals are not only beginning to make the clean-up workers sick, but it will have long term health consequences for the people of the Gulf.

The odor is so bad that Guidry reports:

....The closest I got was Venice, Louisiana, and you could smell it from Venice. At the time I was down there, they were actually spraying Corexit 9527A on the oil spill on top of the water and spraying all around—Venice sits on a peninsula, the Mississippi River, right at the—right above the Head of the Passes. And they were actually spraying this Corexit in the air all around where people were living, with kids and children, and continuously saying how safe it was, which is incorrect....(source)

Just like what occurred after the Sept, 11th attacks, brave workers are doing what they can to try to help in a disaster. These workers will likely have to suffer for years and years, just like those workers of 9/11 did. Some might even die from their clean-up efforts. But these workers are knowingly risking their health and maybe even their lives.

Guidry says, "I spoke to several individuals. It was a choice between not paying the bills and having food for their families and maybe taking a chance of getting sick."

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/50/773/Fishermen_Hospitalized:_BP_Not_Allowing_Clean-Up_Workers_to_Use_Respirators.html

67.100.104.34 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Goodman interviewed Guidry on Democracy Now on May 27: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/coast_guard_grounds_ships_involved_in Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: You did not make clear the changes you wanted made. Try writing out the section instead of recommending a generic idea if you're going to use the {{editsemiprotected}} template. Also denied because your reference is what I'd consider "unreliable" (overtly bias). If would like to explain more or need help just leave a post on my Talk page. Spitfire19 ^T/_C 18:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

WebMD was on this month ago: http://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20100430/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-could-affect-health

LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/26/nation/la-na-oil-workers-sick-20100526

Today, Congressman asking President for health care action: http://www.melancon.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1520:rep-melancon-to-join-president-obama-for-briefing-at-coast-guard-command-station&catid=58:2010-press-releases&Itemid=19

Paulscrawl (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I was not supporting this anon poster or the info. I actually questioned how reliable this info could be...time will tell... Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya, seems like judging the allegations' importance to the big picture would be impossible at this point. If it becomes a big issue in the lawsuits that follow, then it's time to put something about it in. TastyCakes (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The ref used for this addition does not mention it and I can't find info on the web. I will remove it until someone can get a reference, if there is one. Gandydancer (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

seafood safety

NOAA publications about seafood safety after an oil spill. This could be used in the relevant part of the article. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

oil zine

Per http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article216214.ece it sounds like they have stopped drilling the second kill well. That site looks like a better source of info than general news media too. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

New York Times: "great oil spill of 2010"

possible new name for the oil spill?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/science/earth/29plume.html?hp

Sandeylife (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reported explosions and resulting collapse of the sea floor

There have been reports since the 24th of May that there have been numerous explosions and what appears to be oil gushing from the sea floor. Can anyone confirm this and add it to the article if it's true that the seabed has collapsed around the BOP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.111.9 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

so has the "top kill" procedure worked or not?

I keep hearing a lot of conflicting reports. Some sources claim that the flow of oil has stopped, while others say otherwise. How are we supposed to know which sources are correct? --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe BP, the fluid coming out of the well is now mostly mud, not oil. I would guess that is what sources mean when they say the flow of oil has stopped: however obviously something is still coming out of the well. TastyCakes (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well according to this CNN article, Top Kill is a failure. It quotes senior BP guys saying that they're moving on to other options. Looks pretty legit to me. More news about this is likely to appear over the next couple of days or so. --Xyiyizi 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my big mouth! This information is already in the article, it seems. Kindly ignore me :) --Xyiyizi 00:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya, since I posted that (or maybe a little before) they came out and said it wasn't working. TastyCakes (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Public Opinion

In the public opinion section, the first statistic is a poll about President Obama's handling of the spill. It is followed by a poll about BP's handling of the spill. If it is BP's spill, shouldn't the BP statistic be placed first? 67.83.97.88 (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to rename article to BP oil spill of 2010

Google test

• "deepwater horizon oil spill": 8,050,000 results
• "bp oil spill": 37,600,000 results

--Sonjaaa (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• "gulf of mexico oil spill": 36,400,000 results - Steve3849 03:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this, at great length, previously. BP oil spill disambiguates two of many BP oil spills, as would the designator "of 2010". As we all know, the rig was leased by BP, owned by Transocean, and named Deepwater Horizon. Brevity works. So do redirects. Perhaps more redirects are needed. What others would you suggest?

I have no dogs in this fight (20,300,000 results)/ dogs in this game (63,400,000 results). But, why not ... Play this fun name game at home!

• "BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill": # 6 Google hit for this article, with 3,390,000 results. http://www.google.com/search?q=BP+Deepwater+Horizon+oil+spill
• "Deepwater Horizon oil spill": #3 hit Google for the article by that name, with 5,150,000 results. http://www.google.com/search?q=Deepwater+Horizon+oil+spill
• "BP oil spill": #25 Google hit for this article, with 24,500,000 results. http://www.google.com/search?q=BP+oil+spill
• "BP oil spill of 2010": #9 Google result, with 37,400,000 results. http://www.google.com/search?q=BP+oil+spill+of+2010
• "oil spill": just for fun. This will certainly be the oil spill that defines the class. http://www.google.com/search?q=oil+spill

BTW, a Wikipedia search for "BP oil spill of 2010" links right here as the first result: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=BP+oil+spill+of+2010 -- a redirect might be in order, that is, at least until the next one of 2010, God forbid. Paulscrawl (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I created this redirect, as it is an obvious possible search term. Renaming is contentious, but by all means add redirects when you think of something people might often type in. Wnt (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article should definitely include "BP" at the beginning. It's a logical designator of both property ownership, as well as ownership as it relates to causitive factors involved in this disaster. Unfortunately, combating BP PR & Marketing Department is beyond my capabilities. --Vancedecker (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

How much of the sea can catch on fire?

That image of the controlled burn is truly remarkable. Now that weeks have passed and so much more oil has come out, I have to wonder: how much of the sea could catch on fire at once if, say, a controlled burn became an uncontrolled burn? Wnt (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename to Gulf of Mexico oil spill

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion closed since there is already one rename discussion underway. Let that one finish before a second one is opened. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill → Gulf of Mexico oil spill — I believe it would be most appropriate to rename this page to Gulf of Mexico oil spill based on the fact that although the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon was the start of this disaster, the ship did not in fact carry any oil, therefore to infer that the ship spilt oil is incorrect. Also, it is very clear based on media coverage and public opinion that this disaster is most often refered to by its location and not by its starting point. Also, even though there is still on-going discussion on the use of "oil spill" versus "blowout", I would still suggest approving this rename as either Gulf of Mexico oil spill or Gulf of Mexico blowout would still be more appropriate then any Deepwater Horizon variant. Jcarle (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose/Support (read on!) First of all, what ship? "Deepwater Horizon" was the name of the drilling rig. There was no ship involved. So, "Deepwater Horizon" does, in effect, refer to the location: it occurred at the drilling rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico. (Btw, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, perhaps the most famous oil spill in the world until now, was named after the ship that sprung a leak.) Secondly, "Gulf of Mexico oil spill" is much too vague. Another oil spill could (or perhaps already has) happen(ed) in the Gulf of Mexico, what then? Besides being unique (and more accurate), "Deepwater Horizon" has a memorable, almost foreboding, zing to it. In the future, people will look up the famous name and find the broader context in the article. OK. Here's where I agree with you: I would like to see this page moved to Deepwater Horizon oil disaster - as this title would include the explosion that caused the whole predicament. This is an important distinction because, as you have said, it was not merely an "oil spill" or "leak" (a la Exxon Valdez). Disaster is a better umbrella word than "blowout" because it includes the blowout and the spill. Wikkitywack (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request from Moehrchen, 30 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macondo_Prospect

Moehrchen (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 Already done The first mention of Macondo Prospect is wikilinked to that article. Celestra (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

BP acknowledges 5,000 barrel per day estimate is wrong?

It seems BP is acknowledging that their 5,000 barrel per day spill flow rate estimate was incorrect, according to the link below. By saying the estimate came from government satellite images, they look to be distancing themselves from it. Should the 5,000 barrel estimate be taken out or shown that even BP doesn't agree with it now? It should be noted that the government claims that the 5,000 came from BP themselves. Link. Patken4 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition, BP says they are recovering 5,000 barrels per day. I haven't seen a source saying they are recovering all the oil that is leaking out. Link. Patken4 (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Using your link, I added some info in the spill rate section. Re your second post, this info was lost in a revision - you just can't keep everything! Gandydancer (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S History

As a british person who is reading this article I feel slightly insulted that it says 'worst offshore oil spill in US history'. This takes into account that it is a spill off a British oil rig and also that it is not only on the US coast but also Mexico and Cuba. If someone could change this, I would be grateful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.227.171 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Easy Solution

Simply let the shaft cave in, and the sea floor will fill in and bury it all. But the shaft was expensive to drill, and they want to keep it intact. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)