Jump to content

Talk:BP/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

RfC: Clean Water Act Trial: How much detail?

Should the "Clean Water Act trial" section of BP be a section or subsection, and should it contain the following paragraph (subject to alteration of the amount of potential fines to $17 billion, as suggested by the BP corporate editor) :

The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible.[1] A finding of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, which could amount to $20 billion, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims that weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs in 2012. [2][3] [4]

References for paragraph

  1. ^ Oberman, Mira (19 February 2013). "BP vows to 'vigorously defend' itself at US oil spill trial". Agence France-Press. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
  2. ^ Thompson, Richard (5 April 2013). "BP to begin presenting its defense Monday in Gulf oil spill trial". The Times-Picayune. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
  3. ^ DuBois, Shelley (8 April 2013). "BP: Negligent, but not grossly?". Fortune. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
  4. ^ Johnson Jr., Allen (18 March 2013). "BP Loses Bid to Dismiss Gross Negligence in Spill Trial". Bloomberg LLC. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue was discussed previously in Talk:BP#Oil_spill_trial.

Comment by RfC initiator

The above text has been repeatedly removed. The subsection in question is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#Clean_Water_Act_trial The edits that gave rise to this RfC are [1] and [2], removing the above text and demoting this from section to subsection.

I believe that the text should be reinstated. I believe its relevancy, neutrality and significance is self-evident and indisputable. The trial in question, which commenced in February and will run through 2014, is clearly deserving of a separate section, given the potential enormous exposure that BP has and the fact that this trial will be ongoing, generating headlines, through next year. The text in question states that the Justice Department is seeking maximum penalties that could run into the billions.

The trial, which has received extensive coverage in the media, deals with BP's actions in the Gulf Oil Spill for which BP has already pleaded guilty, and faces fine of up to $20 billion. The presence of other articles is immaterial. This is a very serious trial, and it behooves us to mention it to readers, and state what is at stake. Failure to do so would be a serious NPOV violation, as is the fact that the legal jeopardy that BP faces is not mentioned in the article thanks to the recent edits, and I have so tagged the article.

On the "$20 billion" figure, the BP Corporate editor monitoring the article on the talk page here has indicated that other sourcing states that the actual figure of BP's exposure from this trial is really $17 billion, not $ 20 billion. If that can be verified, the figure can be adjusted, but first we need to deal with whether we are going to deal with this in the article at all. Right now we are in the extraordinary position of an article on BP not stating that the U.S. Justice Department is seeking maximal penalties in the billions concerning an issue in which BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

  • I have been involved in the article in the past but I have not yet taken part in discussion or editing of the trial section. I think the paragraph is generally good, after expanding the contraction, and after telling the reader that one estimate is $20B while BP's estimate is $17B. This is an astoundingly large amount of money, unique in global corporate history let alone BP's 100-year history. It must be in the main article because of its great significance. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment by uninvolved editor The amounts involved are material, considering BP has a market cap of 130 billion dollars, and should therefore be mentioned. TFD (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that there is any argument against mentioning the figures involved. The RfC is about whether the court case deserves it own top-level section and the wording of the text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
On re-reading the text that I removed I see that the figures are pure speculation. There would be no objection to adding some figures when we actually have some. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Clarification regarding figures Coretheapple mentioned above that I had offered a clarification previously about the maximum penalty under the Clean Water Act and I'd like to explain this again for those who may not have seen. Following a judge's ruling in February, oil recovered by BP will not be included in calculations of any penalty that the company faces, which reduced the potential maximum penalty from $21 billion to approximately $17.6 billion. This estimate is explained in the Reuters source I linked before, and also the Environment News Service article provided by Petrarchan below. Recent articles about the trial including coverage by The Huffington Post, The New York Times, Bloomberg and Reuters as well as many more refer to a maximum penalty of around $17.5 or $17.6 billion, clearly showing this is the widely accepted estimate of the potential maximum penalty amount currently. These links should provide the verification of the lower estimate. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I would have no objection to a short sentence saying something like, 'BP is expected to have to pay from $XXX to $YYY in further penalties, dependent on the outcome of court cases'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: Per the new references, I made the change to $17.6 ealy this A.M. I think that concludes all of Arturo's requests from the 10th. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment by uninvolved editor This is the biggest accidental oil spill in the history of the oil industry, and an important event for the company to the extent that it even threatens its survival (not to mention the long-term prospects for the area's fishing industry and the health of the ocean). As it is now, it certainly does not violate WP:WEIGHT, as long as the editors remember WP:NOTNEWS, which can be a fine line to walk in an article of this nature. I'm actually surprised the coverage is not three times its present size. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

  • Comment by involved editor. This article is about BP as more than 100-years old company. It already has a separate subsection about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Taking account that this article should cover all aspects about BP and its history, as also the fact that there are more specific articles about the the oil spill (namely: Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its series, for the court proceedings there is a separate article Deepwater Horizon litigation), having two sections about this event in this article gives undue weight to this event compared with the other aspects related to the company. As the trial is going on at the moment, the above-mentioned paragraph is speculative. It is justified to be added in the Deepwater Horizon litigation article but not here. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment by involved editor As per Beagel above. I removed the content shown because, even based on the sources cited it is clearly biased against BP. Compare, for example the article text, "The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible", with the title of the supporting reference, "BP vows to 'vigorously defend' itself at US oil spill trial".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)
  • Stating the Obvious. I'm pretty sure you meant to write "Clean Water Act", is that correct? Why would the Clean Water Act trial (aka, "phase two" of the BP Gulf spill trial) be handled separately from the other litigation revolving around this spill? Right now, the explosion, spill and related court cases are covered together in one small section. I would suggest splitting the Gulf spill litigation into its own section, and the upcoming Clean Water Act trial could be handled within that. BP did recover some of the spilled oil, and the court agreed that amount would be deducted from their CWA fines. This is why the figure dropped. Source petrarchan47tc 19:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the error. Yes, that's not a bad idea. (the separate section on the environmental litigation, that is) Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment by involved editorDoes not deserve its own section or subsection. I edited this down to something similar to the current statement, and removed the section divider, shortly after Core originally posted this. Reason it does not deserve its own section or subsection: This article is about BP as a whole; there is already a section on Industrial Accidents and within that, a subsection on DWH. DWH as a topic has 2 main articles (explosion and spill) and each of those has spawned several sub-sub articles. One of them is on litigation. These main DWH articles and the subarticles, including litigation, are linked as "see main" in the BP DWH section. Detail on this trial should go in litigation article. A summary of that should go into the 2 main DWH articles. And very compressed and highlevel content should be in the BP article, as brief sentences in the DWH section. Not blow-by-blow, which would quickly blow up to overwhelm the BP article. About the specific content. The content itself is overly florid and detailed for its desired location in the BP article - already getting into the blow-by-blow. I would edit as follows (just the facts, ma'am): (strikeouts are deleted text, italics are added text) "The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible.[2] A a finding of gross negligence, which would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, which could amount to $20 billion, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims that weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs in 2012. [3][4] [5]" Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
As ugly as it may be, we need to reflect on what this trial means in light of BP's history and the history of this type of fine in general. BP has a 100 year history. If we find one singular event that effects the company as much as the Gulf spill has, that should be reflected in the coverage given by this article. As it is, Wikipedia is saying that the Gulf spill and related court cases are barely a side-note, indeed as influential as their "environmental initiatives" if judged by article space allotted. In fact, BP's stock since the spill has fallen by 1/3rd. Did any other event in this company's history have such an effect? The fines in this case are outstanding in terms of being the 'first ever of this size'. That fact alone warrants a reconsideration of the weight given by Wikipedia (ie, we, the editors). To argue that we are making too big a deal out of this, or because it's covered in other spin-off articles (the litigation article received 36 hits today) there is little need to mention it here, makes no sense to me unless NPOV isn't the true goal. petrarchan47tc 20:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting question - Most important events in BP's history! Destruction of its colonialist business model in the ME and Africa. Divestment by British gov't. The Torrey Canyon spill (at that time, the biggest spill ever - gets a single sentence.). Pioneering role in Prudhoe Bay field (not mentioned) and in North Sea. Remaking under Browne via M&A. Involvement in Caspian projects which are of enormous geopolitical significance vis a vis Russia and Europe. Maybe pioneering role in deepwater Gulf of Mexico and off coast of Brazil. String of Big 3 disasters in the US over past 10 years are important for BP itself due to the loss of trust in the country where the "new BP" has made its biggest investments and concomitant increasing size of penalties. Even if DWH were the only one, it would have been significant. This is very US/Euro focused - I am still learning about BP in Africa, far east, and S America. How would you answer the question? Jytdog (talk)
Sorry, what question exactly? Since this conversation is similar enough to a past one with Rangoon11, instead of repeating myself, here is my comment about US centered, recent content. petrarchan47tc 20:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't take questions as rhetorical, and you asked only one: "Did any other event in this company's history have such an effect?" ie. What are the most important events in BP's history? (if we are trying to judge weight...)Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to focus on bite-size pieces? It seems we do have enough information about the impact of the Gulf spill to see that its coverage in the article is massively imbalanced, for the reasons I described in my response to your 'failed experiment". After the media coverage of the problems at this page, there was a suggestion that each section written by BP should be analyzed for spin or missing content. Why don't we, as a group, decide a plan of action and focus on one thing at a time. As for a list of "worse things ever" for BP, this might prove helpful. petrarchan47tc 22:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a wholesale reappraisal of the POV of this article is urgently needed. Hopefully this RfC will be the catalyst for such a reappraisal, and also will get more eyes on this article. I also think that your idea of breaking out a section on the litigation has merit. However it is structured, the information contained in the paragraph that is the subject of this RfC is either going to be in the article or not. That's the issue before us. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree too. This page needs to revert to being an encyclopedia article about a company rather than an attack site. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Re-comment by involved editor - last night I actually added to this section, although I do not believe that the subsection should exist and there is already too much information on the litigation here. I did that because the material added recently by editors who want this information here, was of embarrassingly poor quality. Information was spread across two sections (the DWH section and this subsection) and the content expressed no understanding of the flow of the litigation nor how the DOJ's Aug 31 filing fit into it - it was just a tactical step, not a dramatic change in strategy - and not the Dramatically Important Action that the content made it out to be. This is what litigation is like. The parties have goals (for BP, come through this with as few penalties as possible; for the plaintiffs, come out of this with the maximum penalties they can win) and there are endless tactics deployed and postures taken to achieve those goals. The article detailing the litigation (Deepwater Horizon litigation) is even worse - people "cared" enough to post a lot of fragments based on news reports, but not enough to fit them into a coherent narrative. My hope is that the text currently here gets moved as a whole into the litigation article and a brief, summary statement as per my post above is stated here, in the DWH section - not in a subsection. Again, blow by blow descriptions of tactical filings (and reactions to them) and daily trial reports should NOT be here. I don't understand how editors can be so passionate about driving this content into this article and including it in WIkipedia, but have not put in the time to understand even these issues enough to write about them accurately. I don't get it. Jytdog (talk)
I was also wondering how it came to be that there was no mention of BP's guilty plea to criminal charges connected to its 1999 North Shore oil spill. That kind of inexplicable omission troubles me, and there may be a good deal more, which is why I am not enthused with the kind of wholesale slashing that you advocate. This article has gone through the whitewash mill already, it doesn't need to go through it again. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Less detail here?

I wonder if the following paragraph could be cut back some?:

On August 13, 2012 BP filed papers with the court urging it to approve an estimated $7.8 billion settlement reached with 125,000 individuals and businesses in the consolidated suit, asserting that its actions "did not constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct."[370] In response to the BP filing and in order to ensure that BP could not use its filing and any possible acceptance of the settlement to escape a judgement of gross negligence,[370] on August 31 2012 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed papers describing the spill as an example of "gross negligence and willful misconduct".[371][21] BP rejected the charges saying "BP believes it was not grossly negligent and looks forward to presenting evidence on this issue at trial in January."[370] A ruling of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in Clean Water Act penalties, which would cause the penalties to reach approximately $17.6 billion, and would increase damages in the other suits as well.[372][373][374] Gandydancer (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed somewhat. All this should go into the Litigation article with only a brief summary left behind. This is directly related to the topic above, not sure why you made a new section. The last sentence is all that is needed out of what you pulled out here. Core insisted on the 2nd and 3rd sentences. The 2nd sentence makes no sense without the first, which I added along with the prefacing phrase to the 2nd sentence. . Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It can be reduced in size without it being a "brief summary," especially since some editors have been striving to make that "brief summary" so uninformative that it fails to contain a reference to the billions of dollars ($17 billion at last count) that is being sought by the Justice Department. This RfC was brought about because of the whitewashing of that very section, removing the reference to the billions sought in damages by the Justice Department. That's why we're here. Let's be clear on that. What we're seeing at work here is the same kind of overly aggressive slashing that resulted in the section on the punishment for the 1999 oil spill not mentioning BP's guilty plea. JYTdog, you sought aggressively to remove any mention of the billions in exposure from this section and now you remove efforts to take out extraneous detail[3]. I just can't figure out what you're doing here. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I just implemented what I wrote above, and Gandy's suggestion too. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, and in the course of that you removed any mention of the fact that the Justice Department was claiming gross negligence and willful misconduct, while you included the docket number. I've fixed that. Why did you include the docket number, which is unencyclopedic and trivial, while not including a reference to the gross negligence/misconduct claim even though it is nowhere else referenced in that section? Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
@ Jytdog Please read my post again because actually I didn't make any suggestions. I was looking for input. Again and again one finds the ol' Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive, eliminate the negative here and I want to avoid that. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That's right. All you did was say that it could be "cut back some," and most certainly did not suggest that it be trimmed so as to exclude any mention of the Justice Department's contention that BP committed gross negligence. Without that sentence on what the DOJ is seeking, the sentence that follows (about quadruple damages) makes no sense. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Gandy, sorry I took it as a suggestion. I agreed with your "wondering." And i am NOT downplaying the negative. I did remove blow by blow which is too much detail for this article. I left the biggest thing, which is that BP is at risk for a finding of gross negligence - which it always was - and what the consequences of that finding would be. Core, it figures that you don't find the docket number important. If you want to do any actual research on this - you know, so you can actually know the details of what you are writing about - the docket number is essential for finding information. And as I wrote above, BP was ALWAYS at risk for a finding of gross negligence -- DOJ only filed those papers in response to BP's attempt to establish a judge-approved record that it was not. As stated in the reliable source that Core provided. All of that is entirely normal in litigation, where everybody maneuvers to maximize the chances of getting what they want, in a settlement or in court. Which I explained above already. Frustrating. You don't understand these things, in the big picture (i.e. how litigation goes) nor in the details of this specific litigation, yet you are so demanding that your expression of them be accepted as correct. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Very simple question: Why did you omit that the DOJ accused BP of gross negligence and willful misconduct, and that it was seeking the maximum penalties? Don't give me the "big picture." Give me an answer. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Third time. Will just copy/paste this time. "And as I wrote above, BP was ALWAYS at risk for a finding of gross negligence -- DOJ only filed those papers in response to BP's attempt to establish a judge-approved record that it was not. As stated in the reliable source that Core provided. All of that is entirely normal in litigation, where everybody maneuvers to maximize the chances of getting what they want, in a settlement or in court." The reueters article (originally cited via Guardian's publication of it, which is now dead) is the source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/gulf-oil-spill-2010-bp-gross-negligence_n_1856209.html Here is what it says: The new comments do not represent a change in U.S. officials' legal stance, said David Uhlmann, a University of Michigan professor and former environmental crimes prosecutor. "The Justice Department has consistently maintained that BP and Transocean were grossly negligent and engaged in willful misconduct in the events leading up to the Gulf oil spill," Uhlmann said in an email to Reuters. The department's latest filing "contains sharper rhetoric and a more indignant tone than the government has used in the past," he said. But the filing does exhibit exasperation on the part of government lawyers. They wrote that they decided to elaborate on BP's alleged gross negligence because they believed BP was trying to escape full responsibility. The Justice Department said they feared that, "if the United States were to remain silent, BP later may urge that its arguments had assumed the status of agreed facts." End of quote. BP has an obligation to its shareholders to make its liability as small as possible and that is what they are doing. The DOJ has a responsibility to get the max for the people, which is what they have always been doing. This is just legal maneuvering, blow by blow stuff. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that your position is that because all that stuff was in the source materials it didn't have to be mentioned in the Wiki article. That's what I thought, but I just wanted to be sure.
"Legal maneuvering, blow by blow stuff"? That's your opinion. We just have to reflect what's in the reliable sources and not what any particular Wiki editor thinks. I know, you're the expert, and the rest of us (particularly me) are morons, but that's how it has to be. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Core my understanding is that you based the "going for the max" content on the August DOJ filing. Is that accurate? Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not accurate. Nowhere did I insert anything about "going for the max." The sentence on "stiffest fines possible" is from an article from Feb 2013 at the commencement of the oil spill trial. It's easy to find the source for that sentence; just look at the footnote. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I see, so my understanding was wrong. Thanks for pointing me to the obvious thing I should have looked at. my bad. I can admit when I am wrong. And oh please pardon me for using a brief slang phrase to describe going for the "stiffest fines possible". The source is covering the immediately pre-trial posturing tactics that go on in every litigation. It is still an absurd detail to include. of course DOJ is going for the max. of course BP will try to minimize its liability. It is blow by blow stuff. Not important. It doesn't tell the reader anything that is not painfully obvious. Now if in reality the DOJ said "oh, we intend to treat BP with kid gloves in this trial" and BP said "Oh, in this trial we want to pay as much as possible to atone for the terrible thing we did" this would be Significant. But in the real world, if they saw eye to eye enough, there would have been a settlement already. You can leave this, it is not worth fighting about with you.Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be pretrial posturing if this was a traffic accident lawsuit. But this is more like the civil trial that followed the OJ Simpson prosecution, except that Simpson was acquitted while BP was convicted. BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from the very same acts that are the subject of the criminal trial. So no, I don't think that we should whitewash this particular aspect of the proceedings. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Already said I am not arguing with you on keeping this or not. And I am not whitewashing. It is not fair. Discussions about weight are honest differences of judgement. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
We're not talking about "weight." We're talking about necessary information being omitted from the article on specious grounds. Coretheapple (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
whether the detail is ncecessay is exactly about weight. Reasonable, good faith people can differ on weight. Please stop violating the AGF policy. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no interest in your motives for your particular actions and I have no idea what they are. However, your removal of significant detail for reasons that make little sense, combined with your insults and your denigration of other editors as "environmentalists" and "ignorant," has not made it easy. Coretheapple (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It is not a bad thing to be an environmentalist. Not at all. And it is not bad to be ignorant, either. I am ignorant about a lot of things. These things only become issues if people who are environmentalists, or business people, are too singly focused and won't compromise and start POV-pushing on those issues. And ignorance is only a problem if judgments based on it are pushed too hard and there is no willingness to learn and change. And I do insist that the only thing that 'whitewash' means is POV-pushing, bad faith editing. I told you before that i completely agree that bad things need to be in the article and I pushed for the end to "quick delete" so there would be room to add it (remember?). But good faith disputes are possible over the level of detail. I'm repeating myself. Should stop. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
OK. I don't want to repeat myself either. I just wanted to convey to you the message that while you may have a self-image as being a neutral arbiter, you tend at times to project a level of condescension that undercuts that image, and can tend to raise concerns among other editors as to whether you are contributing in good faith. Please take this as a friendly remark, nothing more. Just to be clear, I'm not at all offended by any of your remarks, including the one that I was moved to delete from my user talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article contain the Deepwater Horizon oil spill series navigation template?

Per a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC, this RfC is closed. There is no consensus to either simply include or exclude the template. This presumably means at the top of the article as given in the diff in the original RfC statement. Several of those opposing the prominent placement at the top of the article said they would not be opposed to placing it in the relevant section. This provides a nuanced view that was simultaneously a include and exclude comment. Reading most of the include comments, it did not appear that they were opposed to inclusion of the template in the #Deepwater Horizon section. The consensus of this RfC is that the {{Deepwater Horizon oil spill series}} navigation template should be placed in the BP#Deepwater Horizon well explosion and oil spill section. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The RfC has been open for nearly a month, so I'm closing it, and have asked at WP:AN/RFC for an uninvolved editor to sum up consensus. [4] SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Responses:

  • Include: SlimVirgin, Petrarchan47, Coretheapple, Buster Seven, Gandydancer, Amadscientist, Mr.choppers, Nomoskedasticity, Figureofnine, Robert McClenon, GoodeOldeboy
  • Move to Deepwater Horizon section: Vanisaac, Kvng
  • Oppose: Rangoon11, Martin Hogbin, RightCowLeftCoast, Collect ("One or the other - not both"), Beagel, The Devil's Advocate
  • Oppose or move to DH section: NickCT ("Strong Oppose ... I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to putting the template under the appropriate subsection ..."), Noleander, daranz

Should the article include the {{Deepwater Horizon oil spill series}} navigation template (see below right), as in this version? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

This article is part of a series about the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill
  • Include. The spill was a serious environmental disaster that had a significant financial and legal impact on BP. Several readers are likely to come here to find out about the spill, rather than about the company, and the navigation template will help them find their way to the relevant articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Include at top of page. There should be no question the template belongs here. As it is, the template exists on all related pages but this one, even though BP is listed first in the series. petrarchan47tc 21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
*Oppose 1. We already have a navbox for Deepwater (shown below) and this is wholly duplicative, and also less comprehensive. 2. The said nav box is already included in this article. 3. This article is not part of a "series" of articles on a narrow topic, Deepwater is rather a small part of BP as a topic, and BP existed long before Deepwater. Side bar navigation devices are used for closely defined series of articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Include BP is included in the box as part of the series for a reason: even if totally whitewashed and turned into a reflection of the agenda of the BP p.r. department, the BP article is an intrinsic part of the Deepwater Horizon series. It contains information not available elsewhere on the impact of the disaster on the company, even if all other information reflecting negatively on the company is blotted out. Thus it would be difficult to conceive of a BP article that does not belong in that box. The box is there for a reason, and its placement at the top of the article is designed specifically to guide readers toward articles of interest. Coretheapple (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Include BP will forever be connected to the Deepwater disaster. Various people, from Presidents to paupers, have called DWH "the worst environmental catastrophe in history." You can.t hide from over 200 million gallons of oil spilling into the gulf. Millions of people (see:readers) were affected. Why would we even think of hiding a connection (BP to DWH) that every knowledgeable adult on the planet makes. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Include I had to take some time to think about this. My decision rests on the fact that the Gulf spill has been called the second greatest environmental disaster in American history and the oil company BP is largely responsible. So with that thinking it should be obvious that it belongs in the series. Gandydancer (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per Rangoon11. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Include As the editor that created the template I can at least attest to the reason it was created and some small background about its use so far. The Deepwater Horizon article had already been split several times. The article had consensus to split a number of sections even further and reduce them in the main article to smaller summaries. One concern raised was that, with all the splits, the bulk of the information was now in separated articles and links may not be as obvious to some readers. I proposed using a template to organize all the articles under the scope of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into one "series" template as is done on a number of FA articles. The opinion of some is that using a template in this manner is not appropriate, but as I said I based this on an FA articles use of a similar box. See Mitt Romney. The navigation boxes are currently hidden and the casual reader may not ever click the two un-collapse buttons required to see it. The template is about a specific event and the related subjects. That event is the oil spill itself and all those related articles and provides "at a glance" information the reader can see quickly, where the reader may be expecting such information. I believe that readers are looking for this information and believe the "series" template to have encyclopedic value. I should note that I did not add the template here originally, when the template was created, because I figured a bold addition such as that would surely be reverted. After the Arturo controversy I went ahead and made the bold edit to add the template and it was indeed reverted. Any addition such as this on an article like this one requires a consensus. I am glad we are having the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I am struggling to see the relevance of the Mitt Romney article. Having both a nav box and a side bar for exactly the same topic is a mess and sets a bad precedent for this project, particularly as those in favour primarily want it there purely to provide greater emphasis on Deepwater in this article rather than for any policy reason or to serve genuine navigational needs.
The nav box is also far more comprehenive and is the appropriate form of navigation feature. The possibility also exists to make the navbox more visible.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Quite the opposite of a mess. It's a finding aid. Look at Mitt Romney. Totally on-point. If anyone has a problem with the Romney template or this one, they can nominate it for deletion. The fact is that there is a gulf oil spill template, it relates to an immense and complex controversy, and every assistance we can render to our readers in navigating the articles is helpful. You know, Wikipedia is not exactly user friendly, and readers need all the help they can get. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The Romney article is one of the 4 million or so WP articles. So what. It's not even a particularly good article, despite being FA, and it certainly didn't achieve FA because of a side bar. Having a nav box and a side bar for exactly the same topic is messy, duplicative and confusing.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
State of Palestine is another with top and bottom navboxes. So were the articles on the Second World War that I skimmed. If I was a betting man, I'd wager you a nice sum of money that just they are commonly found in large and complex subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
And why do you keep saying "confusing"? That's like saying that having more than one dictionary on your desk is confusing. It makes no sense to say that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
particularly as those in favour primarily want it there purely to provide greater emphasis on Deepwater in this article rather than for any policy reason or to serve genuine navigational needs. Not so. Serving the readers needs is a primary concern of most quality editors. Also, most editors here can navigate articles like a Gran Prix racer. But thats not so for our readers. Giving our reader as much assistance as we can is logical. If its not a principle, it should be. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment A direct comparison between the Valdez spill and BP's gulf spill cannot be made for 3 reasons. 1) the Gulf spill lasted 87 days and was the equivalent of a Valdez-sized spill every three days during that period. 2) The massive devastation caused (during the clean-up) by the Valdez spill is actually the fault of BP, not Exxon]. 3) The Deepwater disaster caused a 30% drop in BP's value, which remains the case to this day. Exxon is the number one company in the world right now, at this point the company is obviously unscathed by the spill. If a company is all about stock value, and an event impacts that stock by 1/3, that event is pretty damn important to the story of the company as a whole. Were the trials long-past, and the stock value closer to pre-spill levels, I would agree the navbox could go under the DWH spill section rather than the Lede. petrarchan47tc 19:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
@petrarchan47 - Not really. The two spills are quite comparable. True the BP spill involved about ten times as much oil, but oil dumped in the middle of the gulf is significantly less meaningful than oil dumped off the coast of Alaska. In total the economic impact of Valdez was probably over half of the impact Deepwater created. In terms of the company's stock value, give it 30 years and I'm pretty sure BP will be sitting as pretty as ExxonMobile is. ;-) NickCT (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but just as we want to avoid recentism, we have to be cognizant of reality, which is that the Deepwater Horizon spill continues to reverberate after three years, which is precisely why readers seek out articles on this topic and why this template is warranted as a reader guide. It was an exceptional event. The fact that it was recent just makes it more important, really. We don't have "Eruption of Mt. Vesuvius" templates. Coretheapple (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
@ NickCT -- Except that "oil dumped in the middle of the gulf is significantly less meaningful than oil dumped off the coast of Alaska" is untrue. The Deepwater was an oil gusher, not spilled oil, but emanating from the seafloor where it was immediately mixed with an industrial strength solvent called "Corexit", which made the toxicity of the oil 52 times greater, and made the toxic compounds airborne and more permeable to humans, fish (chemicals that can emulsify crude oil can do a number on cell walls and anything made of lipids) and the environment. That dispersed oil, as well as tar balls and tar mats, continue to wash up, and cause massive health and ecological problems on the coasts of four US states. The air in oiled marshes is killing off the insects in Louisiana. We also don't yet know the amount of oil "spilled", as whistleblowers with video evidence, are alleging a coverup of the true amount. petrarchan47tc 05:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
@Coretheapple - I largely agree with what you're saying. But at the same time, I'm sure Valdez was "reverberating" about as much a Deepwater is three after the event.
@petrarchan47 - Mate, if you think me dumping 100 barrels of oil in the middle the Atlantic is going to be as environmentally harmful as me going to your local protected nature reserve and dumping it there, you've got to check your perspecitive on reality. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
@NickCT -- Reality: "The spill fouled 1,100 miles of beaches and marsh along the Gulf coast" source -- "from the Louisiana barrier islands west of the Mississippi River to the white sands of the Florida Panhandle. A still-unknown portion settled on the floor of the Gulf and the inlets along its coast. Tar balls are still turning up on the beaches, and a 2012 hurricane blew seemingly fresh oil ashore in Louisiana. Well owner BP, which is responsible for the cleanup, says it's still (April 2013) monitoring 165 miles of shore" source "I have seen some of the smaller islands, that birds nest on, literally disappear in the past three years. The oil killed the marsh grass and the mangrove roots leaving the islands with nothing to hold them together and now some are completely gone. As far as the amount of tar balls washing up on beaches — it varies from day to day. BP’s claims that the Gulf Coast is back to normal are simply not true." source petrarchan47tc 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Given that there is a more expansion template (which is already included in the article) of the subject that is the oilspill, one can say that the inclusion of the less expansive template is unnecessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • One or the other - not both Wikipedia does not need multiple inter-article links. If the only choics is up or down on the pretty template oppose inclusion if that is the choice offered. Personally, a link to other articles is good, multiple links is not so good. Collect (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The guideline that applies then is WP:OVERLINK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
No, "overlink" applies to those pesky internal links that assume the reader doesn't know simple words. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to this clause of OVERLINK/REPEATLINK:

A term should be linked, generally, at most once in an article's lead, perhaps once again in the main article body, and perhaps once at first occurrence in each infobox, table, caption, and footnote.

Using the logic of REPEATLINK and extending it to templates, there is already a template which is far more expansive regarding the subject of the oil spill, as such the more expansive template should be used over the less expansive navigation box. That is my opinion, which others can differ from. This is an RfC after all, which is designed to get multiple opinions to see what the greater consensus is (especially from editors who were not previously engaged in editing an article).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Include -- a useful feature for readers, and in my mind that's a sufficient reason to include it. Funny how some editors want to make it more complicated than that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rangoon11, NickCT and RightCowLeftCoast although arguments presented by Amdasscientist are valid. I would find the inclusion of this template justified and being reader-friendly if the DWH section in this article would be just a "normal" mentioning of this event which is usually expected if more specific articles exist. Instead of this, we have undue weight section which could without problem serve as a separate article. Links to all relevant articles are already provided in that section. In these conditions including this template does not have any added value for readers but rather serves to point to BP. As for argument that if not included here the template should not exist at all, I disagree with this logic. The template is useful for the DWH articles, particularly after several splits of the main article (which is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and not BP). This was already explained by Amadscientist. At the same time the question is if the BP should be included in this template or not. All articles included in this template, except BP, deals with the DWH or with the different aspects of the spill as a main topic of the articles. The only exclusion id BP in which case the DWH or any of its aspects is not the major topic of the article. This article also does not cover any aspects of the spill which is not already included in or which does not belong the more specific article. Beagel (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
*Oppose - This article is not part of a series on DWH, it concerns a topic which existed long before DWH. It looks like it is being shoe horned in here simply to give more prominence to DWH in this article.2.101.1.7 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Sock of User: Rangoon11 petrarchan47tc 21:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Deepwater Horizon section. It's certainly appropriate for content contained in this article, but it is general practice to place navigation templates at the head of the associated content. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 11:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose (or move to DH section) - This is a tough call, but BP is a huge company, and it seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE to emphasize this one incident with a prominent sidebar at the top of the article. There are at least 3 better approaches: (1) use a footer navbox; (2) move the sidebar into the DH section; or (3) create a new DH category and put the article in that category. Bottom line: a colorful, large sidebar near the top offends both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. --Noleander (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Include. A helpful graphic. Does no harm, and I don't see any NPOV issue because of the prominence of the oil spill in BP's history. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Include the template. Much better idea than including the attack material in this article, subject of a separate survey below. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
*Strong Oppose - Why BP and none of the other organisations relevant to the spill (Halliburton, Transocean, Gulf Coast Restoration Organization, MMS, Anadarko etc)? Why have two navigation templates on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Why place the template in pride of place at the top of this article? The template and its placing in this article seems at best badly thought out and executed, and at worst simply another attempt to give even more prominence to Deepwater in this article. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11 Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support using this template, and any other features that make Wikipedia easier to use. Let's think of the 11-year-olds who are trying to find material for a school project, and make it easy for them. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no basis for including BP as part of the template on Deepwater Horizon unless we list every involved company. We definitely should not have this template at the top of the article. The current section on the spill is excessive and WP:UNDUE in the first place with this just magnifying the problem.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: not sure what other companies you are talking about. No other company is named on the template, nor does Halliburton oil spill redirect to BP oil spill. A Google search of Halliburton oil spill found this New York Times/Reuters article, The big oil services company set aside $637 million to settle some claims from the 2010 BP oil spill. Notice how WP:RS refers to the spill in question? To ask for this template to be placed at Halliburton is WP:UNDUE. petrarchan47tc 21:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons above, unless moved to the relevant section. To put simply, the article is not part of a series of articles on the Deepwater Horizon spill - rather, it is a related article about the involved company, but nevertheless an article that contains a whole lot more information beyond just BP's involvement in the spill. The template being near the top places undue emphasis on this particular event in the history of BP, and while it is probably the most notable thing that BP is known for, it is not the reason for BP's notability. Putting the template in the DH section would also allow us consolidate all the hatnotes on top of that section right now.  — daranz [ t ] 20:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Deepwater Horizon section as per Vanisaac. It also looks like we're unlikely to get consensus on either inclusion at top or removal. ~KvnG 12:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources for Deepwater Horizon section

In the recent expansion of the Deepwater Horizon section, a lot of information has been added that provides only a negative view of the company, even where sources exist that show a more balanced view. In particular, it is concerning that studies are discussed in this article that have only provided initial findings or whose findings are contradicted by other research available. I have cited a few sources below, but there are quite a few more that I am more than willing to share.

Environmental impact

For the "Environmental impact" subsection, there is no mention of the increase in bacteria which broke down oil in the Gulf:

And recent research contradicts the research cited in the article that one-third of the oil remains in the Gulf:

Regarding the impact of oil and dispersant on the food chain, samples of fish and crustaceans have been tested by the NOAA and FDA, and by state agencies:

Response from Hugh Kaufman

I've shown Hugh Kaufman (EPA whistleblower) the above and asked for any help in getting a fuller picture. I've italicized his words. These are the links and selected text I received, in this order:

---

Hazen's position BEFORE BP paid him off:

Some experts have also said that the use of Corexit has prolonged by decades the presence of toxic crude oil, because the dispersant sinks the oil beneath the ocean surface, where it cannot be quickly broken down by sun, waves and microbes.

And the head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Ecology Department – Terry Hazen – argues that the use of dispersants can delay recovery of ocean ecosystems by decades:

Hazen has more than 30 years experience studying the effects of oil spills. He says the oil will be damaging enough; toxic dispersants will just make it worse. He points to the 1978 Amoco Cadiz Spill off the coast of Normandy as an example. He says areas where dispersants were used still have not fully recovered, while areas where there was no human intervention are now fine.source

Use of Corexit in 1978 Oil Spill Delayed Recovery by DECADES

I previously pointed out: Some experts have also said that the use of Corexit has prolonged by decades the presence of toxic crude oil, because the dispersant sinks the oil beneath the ocean surface...

---

"Just three days after the U.S. Coast Guard admiral in charge of the BP oil spill cleanup declared little recoverable surface oil remained in the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana fishers Friday found miles-long strings of weathered oil floating toward fragile marshes on the Mississippi River delta..." source

'Serious problems' for wildlife forecast if the oil gets into coastal marshes

---

"The criticism of the government report comes as other independent studies this week concluded that not only has the oil not vanished, but it could be significantly more dangerous that we've been led to believe. Scientists at the University of Georgia have found that the vast majority of the oil is still in the water. Scientists from the University of South Florida have a new study finding that the oil suspended underwater may be more toxic to microorganisms in the Gulf than researchers previously thought. And researchers from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution released yet another study contradicting government reports. Theirs found that not only is the dispersed oil hanging in a 22-mile-long, one-mile-wide plume, it's also degrading much more slowly in the plumes than it would at the surface. 'The plumes could stick around for quite a while,' study co-author Ben Van Mooy told the AP. source

Government officials admit the now-infamous report was just an "estimate."

---

The Toxic Gulf - The uncalculated aftermath of the deepwater horizon oil spill

---

(Petrarchan's question to Hugh Kaufman: "from an initial glance, it looks like there is no new direct refutation of Hazen's findings.
In an article from 2012: "Ira Leifer, a petroleum geochemist also at UC Santa Barbara who co-wrote a rebuttal to the 2011 paper published in Science, said the latest study was limited because it was based on a computer model "which is only as good as the input or assumptions" on which it is based. He noted, for example, that the authors had neglected to include a discussion of whether the bacteria would run out of critical nutrients necessary for them to consume the oil and gas and reproduce" source
I think from your reply, any proof of plumes is proof that microbes didn't eat all the oil, so more of an indirect refutation?

Hugh Kaufman:

Dispersants sink the oil, shielding it from the natural processes like sun, waves and microbes which break it down:

[Texas A&M University coral reef expert Wes Tunnell] stood in the clear, waist-deep water of the protected reef lagoon holding what appeared to be a three-inch-thick slab of sandy gray clay. When he broke it in two, it was jet black on the inside, with the texture and smell of an asphalt brownie. Here on the lagoon side, where the reef looked gray and dead, the Ixtoc tar mat was still partially buried in the sediments. But on the ocean side of the reef, where winds and waves and currents were stronger, no oil remained. The lesson for Louisiana and the other Gulf states is clear, Tunnell thinks. Where there is wave energy and oxygen, sunlight and the Gulf’s abundant oil-eating bacteria break it down fairly quickly. When oil falls to the bottom and gets entrained in low-oxygen sediments like those in a lagoon—or in a marsh—it can hang around for decades, degrading the environment.

source

Independent context

(Added by Petrarchan47)


  • Comment: The linked ProPublica blog source regarding the microbe study was published in 2010 and refers to research from U.C. Berkeley, whereas the links I provided above are from this month and report on more recent research by researchers at the University of Tennessee. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but they both involve Terry Hazen, who has made presentations frequently along the same lines in the past, when he was at Berkeley, and whose work has been very generously funded by BP. He made the same point in 2010, and I found the following in a U of C Berkeley press release entitled "Study shows deepwater oil plume in Gulf degraded by microbes":
"Hazen, who has studied numerous oil-spill sites in the past, is the leader of the Ecology Department and Center for Environmental Biotechnology at Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division. He conducted this research under an existing grant he holds with the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) to study microbial enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. EBI is a partnership led by the University of California (UC) Berkeley and including Berkeley Lab and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP."[5] (boldface added)
So while I'm not entirely clear on his present funding, his (at least) past relationship with BP is clear and has received quite a bit of publicity. This does not disqualify his research from Wikipedia by any means, but his BP ties would have to be disclosed. This indicates why it behooves us to be careful, to not rush, to not accept sourcing suggestions and claims of "imbalance" from anyone (especially a party to litigation) at face value, to obtain countervailing expert opinions if at all possible, and to deal with these sources with care, if at all. Coretheapple (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I want to thank Petrarchan for her excellent work in providing an independent perspective that is greatly needed, and without which I do believe this article and Wikipedia readers would be dealt a severe disservice. As the above indicates, we need to examine all sources with appropriate skepticism and not make any changes/additions to the article based on the complaints of one party to litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Core. If you want to read about the Gulf oil spill, you have to look at the 2012 version of the article (before the ecology section was split away on Christmas Eve without any consensus, followed by cutting the article almost in half) - today Hazen is not mentioned in the main oil spill article (it is in the "oil spill response" which got 14 views today), but here is what I had recorded before the great pre-trial scrubbing: petrarchan47tc 06:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Thanks very much. Clearly this article and the Deepwater Horizon article have been subjected to grotesquely skewed editing over these past months, and need to be fleshed out to make them even marginally useful to readers. BP's involvement in the article serves primarily to highlight how inadequate this article is, how much it needs to be improved, and why BP's involvement in the editorial process of Wikipedia is problematic and represents a significant challenge for editors on this page. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
you do realize that aurturo doesn't edit the article, which goes above and beyond WP:COI... so quit complaining about it. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 15:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Accurately stated, Aturo doesn't "directly" edit the article. Myself and other editors have acted as his proxy. Coretheapple is right when he states that BP's presence at the article is a challenge. The challenge is to make sure that the article is ABOUT BP, not BY BP. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Remaining oil



petrarchan47tc 23:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Many more references are listed here

  • Comment: The information about the oil on the seafloor and the "dirty blizzard" are currently included in the "Environmental impact" section, so the inclusion of these sources is redundant here. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Food Safety


  • Comment: Related to Coretheapple's point below about being careful in using scientific studies, it's important to note as best I can tell that the sources above all relate to one study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, critiquing the FDA's risk assessment of seafood. (I didn't see a second study mentioned in third source linked, perhaps there's some confusion in that the NRDC study was carried out by two scientists per the quote Petrarchan highlighted.) Per the Time article linked above, the results of this study contradict both the FDA and other agencies' findings:
Quote: "The FDA said most of the seafood it sampled after the spill had no detectable trace of oil. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals calculated that every day for five years the average person could eat 1,575 jumbo shrimp or 130 oysters without health concerns."
The current details in the article only tell one side of the story, but as I have shown above, there are sources that justify giving a more rounded perspective on this issue, assuming editors think this level of detail deserves to be in the article at all. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You keep saying that you want a "rounded perspective" and that the current article tells only "one side of the story," but at this point the detail is so bare bones that it barely even touches on he Gulf situation at all. There is not one word about food safety. In what way is that unbalanced on the subject of food safety? The article says that the oil and dispersant entered into the food chain. Are you saying that it didn't? When you make an accusation of bias in the article, and then propose a raft of sources, I think that it would give your statements considerably more credibility if you presented some evidence of imbalance and did not just make conclusory allegations. Doing so is not constructive. Coretheapple (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Economic impact

The section on "Economic impact" relies on anecdotal evidence about the impact on catch size, which goes against official reporting about the Gulf seafood industry. See:

  • "U.S. seafood landings reach 14-year high in 2011", NOAA, 19 September 2012. Quote: "Catches throughout the Gulf of Mexico rebounded in 2011 to the highest volume since 1999, following a curtailed 2010 season due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill."

Additionally, there is no note of the recovery in the tourism economy. See for example:

While this section mentions $42 billion in charges to BP, it fails to give much detail including the compensation provided by BP to support economic recovery, which totals $10.7 billion paid as of March 31, 2013. Additionally, the section does not mention the efforts by BP to clean up the spill, including the $14 billion spent on cleanup operations (see the Congressional Research Service report from January 2013). If there is to be such a high level of detail on the Deepwater Horizon spill, BP's response should be noted. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if we had someone monitoring this page from the environmental movement, who could correct errors that favor BP? Or sources that don't further the BP narrative? Or can point out gaps and omissions in the article, the absence of which tilts the POV of this article on behalf of BP? We can be reasonably certain that any adverse fact that is unflattering to BP will be countered on this page, and that those efforts will be treated with the utmost deference by editors here. But we have no countervailing force and that is a continual issue that has already had a deleterious effect on the article, tilting it far in favor of BP and allowing a serious error to go uncorrected, tilting the POV of the "Alternative Energy" area, for a period of ten months.
As far as the above suggestions are concerned, I recommend that we keep the principle of "no deadline" in mind, and evaluate them in conjunction with other source material that has also not been used, such as the recent Newsweek article, "What BP Doesn’t Want You to Know About the 2010 Gulf Spill". Keep in mind, too, that virtually all of the additions to the Gulf Oil section was taken from other Wiki articles, which are a wealth of material that can be used for this article if that is necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
"Wouldn't it be nice if we had someone monitoring this page from the environmental movement" - yes! It's a heck of a lot to ask of us! petrarchan47tc 21:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be an excellent idea if these representatives of environmental movements will be the subject of the same rules as other COI editors, inter alia declaring COI at the user page as also here at the talk page, including the Connected contributor template, restricting editing to the talk page, and their requests/proposals are considered in depth as requests/proposals of any other COI editor. Beagel (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's the idea. Coretheapple (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to weigh in here, if you have concerns about how a response to BP's Wikipedia engagement team is being addressed. petrarchan47tc 19:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you please explain what you mean by "BP's Wikipedia engagement team"? I knew one person, Arturo, who has been engaged here on behalf of BP. One person is not a team, so you probably mean something else. Beagel (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
In a response to media following the Violet Blue article, BP acknowledged what they referred to as their "BP Wikipedia engagement team" operating on Wikipedia. Ask Arturo for more information, that's all I have. petrarchan47tc 02:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan, your comment here was brought to my attention by Beagel and I would like to again explain that there is no "BP Wikipedia engagement team". I have previously explained on the Talk page here, but that comment is now in archives and perhaps you did not see it. For you and any other editors who are confused on this matter, The Huffington Post incorrectly stated that there is a BP Wikipedia engagement team, based on their interpretation of a statement from BP. The full statement can be seen here and you can see that there is no mention of a "Wikipedia engagement team". Once again, I am the only representative of BP here. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but shouldn't your complaint be directed at the Huffington Post? If a retraction is in order, it should be obtained. Then it will be up to that organization to either stand by its story or issue an appropriate correction. The article does not state that it was interpreting the statement in question. Coretheapple (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
While the Huffington Post story was far more accurate than many others, we did express our concerns to them on a number of issues with their story to no avail. However, our statement was a written statement so it is not in dispute. That written statement was quoted in full by the Nola.com story which I link to in the archive discussion. The Huff Post just carelessly paraphrased it. I would not expect anyone to know this without me pointing it out, but I have done so in the past, and I am doing so again. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
But you see, that's my point. You raised the "team" issue with them and they did not correct it, and you are making an assumption about where this "team" phrase comes from that is not evident in the article. Perhaps they were misquoting your statement, but perhaps not. It's not evident from looking at that article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope the issue is cleared now and hopefully these allegations about undercover BP team editing here would stop. Beagel (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
These aren't allegations of anything "undercover" - don't put words in my mouth. Do you not have Google in your country? Do a search for the phrase in question. Please stop harassing volunteer editors. petrarchan47tc 21:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not refer only to your comment but also this comment by other user at this talk page and a number of similar comments at the different talk pages by editors representing certain POV. I agree that you did not used the word 'undercover' - that was logical conclusion of these comments. If you say that there is a "BP's Wikipedia engagement team" but at the same time only Arturo has disclose his COI, there is only two options: other "team members" edit undercover (that mean no disclosing their link to BP) or there is no such team. However, there is no proof presented and Arturo has provided his clarification, so could we please stop making that kind of allegations. Beagel (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
As indicated above, the "team" phraseology was mentioned in a Huffington Post article which it has declined to retract despite being asked to do so by BP. Therefore I think that whole "team" issue is between BP and Huffington Post and that it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to act as nannies here, denouncing other Wikipedia editors who utilize that phrase. Frankly it strikes me as not being a very serious issue, considering that BP is represented on this page in a corporate capacity. Hence there is a team aspect whether or not the Huffington Post article is correct. Personally I prefer to simply say that BP is represented here, avoiding reference to individual editors entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:TALK the purpose of a talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. If any editor thinks that there are editors who have not disclosed their COI properly, it should be reported at the relevant discussion/notice board. Making allegations about opponents without providing proofs (other than misinterpretation of poorly written media which is clarified now) is poisoning to the editing atmosphere and one could say it is even disruptive to Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Beagel. Let me tell you what is poisoning the atmosphere here and what is disruptive to Wikipedia (wherever it happens) but especially here. You see us (me and petra and core and gandy and maybe 3 or 4 others) as opponents. That is why you have a problem with us. You don't see us for what we are--collaborators. We are not your opponents or Arturos opponents or Martins opponents. I may not agree with 80% of what you do but I dont see you as my opponent. I see you as a fellow collaborator trying to whittle this article into something we can ALL be proud of. Maybe I get confused about who or what preceeded the most recent edit war and who was involved prior to April 28th (or was it the 29th?) and why it resulted in one of the two (or is it 3?) RfC's. But I'm not confused about one thing-- I am a collaborator here. I am not anyones opponent. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Beagle, you have extrapolated from my comments things I haven't said. Why is that? No one should be blamed for quoting directly from what appeared to be a BP official. According to WP:RS, the Huffington Post is a better source than any comments made on this talk page by insiders. As for comments about non-declared COI editors at this page, I have made none. Again, you imply that I have said (or meant) things I haven't and then berate me with claims of poisoning to the editing atmosphere ... disruptive to Wikipedia, which is itself disruptive and poisonous to the atmosphere. petrarchan47tc 06:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that editors need to desist from causing a drama over this, as was the case here when an editor went specifically to the BP rep here to make trouble over this. Look, "engagement team" is in a reliable source. BP tried to get HuffPo to retract that and failed. BP is now claiming that we need to side with it anyway, not in the article but in our own talk pages and internal deliberations. The fact that BP is here is bad enough, but trying to get BP involved in intra-editor discussions, making a mountain out of a molehill, is making a bad situation even worse. Making a fuss over an extremely minor issue is disruptive and has to end. Coretheapple (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
@Buster7. Please let me clarify. By opponent I meant a person who does not share the certain POV of other editor. I agree that you are fellow collaborator and so I am. However, there are different comments, where editors say that the sides do exist or describing editing in Wikipedia as a battle, so it seems that this concept does not have an unanimous support. But I hope we really could cooperate to improve this article. This is hard but not impossible.
@Petrarchan47 and Coretheapple. Notwithstanding what Huffington Post says, Arturo has explained this. I would just repeat what I said: If any editor thinks that there are editors who have not disclosed their COI properly, it should be reported at the relevant discussion/notice board. I would like also say that making allegations about fellow collaborator without providing proofs is not "an extremely minor issue" but harassment and disruptive behaviour. Also, asking clarification from the editor who was specifically named by other editor (quote: Ask Arturo for more information) is not "causing a drama" and "make trouble over this", but is a request for clarification. To end this issue, could we, please, stop making accusations and respect our fellow editors? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. I personally don't talk about "teams" or whatever as I feel that it isn't necessary. BP has an acknowledged presence here, period. For what it's worth, I always have assumed that "Wikipedia engagement team" refers not to hidden cadres of editors but of a team of people at BP, not necessarily editors here. As for its precise meaning, you'd have to write the Huffington Post. Since it isn't being used in the article I'm not sure why we're discussing it here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, agree. I am also not sure why we are discussing it here or why comments about "engagement team" or "more than just Arturo are getting paid" were being added at this talk page in the first place. As I said, if anybody think that that kind of things are hapepning here, it should be reported at the relevant noticeboard. But as these comments were being made, it needed clarification. As the issue is clarified right now, I assume that there is no such kind of allegations anymore and we could end this discussion. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The Huffington Post article does not have "BP's Wikipedia engagement team" in quotation marks. I am not assuming anything about where they got it from. I know they are mischaracterizing that written statement because I work in the Communications department that provided it to them. Numerous other sources like Nola.com who were provided the same statement did not engage in the same mischaracterization. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Understood. You know, since it is not contemplated that we use the "team" language in the article space, it might be best in the future to deal with this in dialogue with the individual editors. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Another useful source: Corexit: Deadly Dispersant in Oil Spill Cleanup, Government Accountability Project, April 2013. It may not be a bad idea if editors not paid by the company would list other sources that they are aware of, which can then be used in this article and the other articles on this subject. Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Coretheapple, I have started this thread for the purpose of discussing points that I think should be included in the article, and if you'd like to discuss other sources or other topics, please edit the article as you may or begin a different thread. If you're willing to help address the issues I have raised, that would be excellent. If you're not interested, that's fine too. I am willing to work with anyone who is willing to help me address the omissions I've raised here. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not about addressing your issues. This is about improving the article, which may or may not involve addressing your issues or making you happy with the article. Also I certainly hope you are not suggesting that this thread is only to discuss what you want it to discuss. That's not how talk pages work, and people who commence discussions do not dictate how they are to be conducted. Coretheapple (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Core, I agree that making me happy is not the goal of this article or this discussion. However, I have pointed out some specific problems with the Deepwater Horizon section, and I believe these points deserve a fair hearing. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand, but the editors need to make a determination if there are problems with what is there now. Please be mindful of the fact that the additions to that section were directly taken from material existing elsewhere on Wikipedia, inluding the highly trafficked Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill article. You're acting as if they plopped down from the heavens. They have been in Wikipedia for years. I assume that BP, given its close monitoring of Wikipedia, is cognizant of those other articles. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Editors also need to be mindful of the fact that BP is a defendant in litigation concerning its role in the Gulf oil spill. As I have previously indicated, I do not think that it is right for one party to this litigation, the defendant, to be quite so active and influential in an article that relates directly to the issues of the litigation, with so many billions at stake. This goes well beyond a party to a suit complaining about content. We're talking about intimate involvement here, as a participant, a degree of access to the Wikipedia editorial process that the other parties to the suit do not have, either through choice, ethical qualms, or ignorance. I think that we owe it to the reader to be mindful of this and vigilant to be sure that the sourcing is determined for the purpose of making the article better, not pleasing or assuaging the feelings of one party to the litigation or the other. Coretheapple (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
There was mention of BP's compensation in the August 2012 version, I put it there. I wonder how it was removed. petrarchan47tc 23:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Tourism

The tourism should be noted along with mention of BP's efforts to promote it:

petrarchan47tc 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

These are great sources. Thanks very much. (I was referring to Petrarchan's list of sources under "independent context." By the way, I was going through one of the articles quoted by the BP editor and I found something that is worth underlining. It's found in this article[6], and it says as follows, concerning scientific studies published concerning the environmental impact of the Gulf oil spill: "As with similar research results released in peer-reviewed scientific magazines or at other scientific meetings, the results of the two researchers represent only small slices of the wide body of research being conducted into the effects of the oil spill. Much of that research is being done to support the ongoing lawsuits by the federal government against BP and other parties believed responsible for the spill, and many of the results of that research are still being withheld from the public until the legal battle is over." (boldface added to original)
Those are important points, I think that it's important, in using scientific studies quoted in the media, that we make an effort to actually get hold of the studies in question and ascertain their funding, which is ordinarily disclosed within the body of the study. Also, as indicated in that article, we want to use with caution scientific studies that are outside the scientific consensus or represent a minority point of view. I have access to scientific studies, and can obtain them as required. If a study was financed by either the petroleum industry or critics thereof, or parties to lawsuits, we need to be cognizant of that and say so. There may be studies that summarize the existing literature, and if so we can obtain them or I can if it is behind a paywall. If there is a particular search logic that I should use, please let me know. P.S. I wasn't addressing those comments to you, P., as I know you're already aware of this, but making a general observation, really more for my own benefit as anyone else's. Coretheapple (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I do wish a knowledgeable environmentalist was available to answer your question about search terms. I'm not sure at the moment. Another point, though, about available studies is discussed here: BP’s Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative issued 19 grants for about $20 million last year. Only two were for environmental toxicology projects.petrarchan47tc 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A related comment: I remember reading that BP had bought out quite a few university science departments to do their own research, but put a three year gag order on the researchers supposedly with the intent to have them on their own payroll rather than that of their opposition in the upcoming lawsuit. Gandydancer (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Well-documented, that. I think it is covered in the recent slew of 3rd-year anniversary articles, I'll dig it up at some point (I've got about 30 new articles filed away). petrarchan47tc 19:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This is context yet to be added: BP buys up Gulf scientists for legal defense, roiling academic community. Also related, from Scientific American ""Free and open access to scientific information concerning oil spills is not a given," noted the authors of a Congressional Research Service report (pdf) on the oil spill's ecosystem impacts last October. For example, dead dolphins that washed ashore earlier this spring have been seized by the U.S. government. "NOAA and other federal agencies came into every lab with a dolphin in the fridge and confiscated it," says Casi Callaway, baykeeper for Mobile Bay in Alabama. "All data, all studies, all work on dolphins was sequestered." petrarchan47tc 20:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
"The contract makes it clear that BP is seeking to add scientists to the legal team that will fight the Natural Resources Damage Assessment lawsuit that the federal government will bring as a result of the Gulf oil spill." That's the lawsuit that is underway now. This underlines the necessity to be cautious in scrutinizing sources, and to ascertain their funding. We don't want to be manipulated by anybody's p.r. campaign. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Petrarchan, it sounds like we are in agreement that the recovery in tourism should be mentioned in the "Economic impact" section. Would you like to propose a sentence to add to this section? Arturo at BP (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The Reuters article in Huffington Post indicates a mixed picture, and more than one sentence may be warranted. Also, obviously, it is not necessary for Petrarchan or any uninvolved editor to "propose" anything. It just can be added to the article directly, along with material from other sources that might be utilized. Coretheapple (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you again, Core. I must admit, the to-do list was weighing on me a bit. petrarchan47tc 19:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem, but I won't be able to get around to it for awhile. petrarchan47tc 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Civil litigation underway

I just wanted to remind editors, in dealing with sourcing issues and in particular the sourcing requested by BP itself at the top of this section, that BP is a defendant in litigation concerning its role in the Gulf oil spill in which billions of dollars is at stake. The issue of damages, if any, will be determined by test jury trials. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#Civil_proceedings Given the sensitivity of this matter, we need to be extremely cautious in dealing with efforts to influence the content and POV of the Deepwater Horizon section by parties to this litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Specific issues to address

Elsewhere on this Talk page, Coretheapple has asked that I explain the errors or omissions in the Deepwater Horizon section that have led to it presenting just one side, so here are the main issues I see:

  • There is no mention in the section that BP has funded independent research on the impacts of the spill in the Gulf. As Petrarchan mentions above, BP has committed $500 million to funding independent scientific study through the Gulf of Mexico Research Institute. To be clear: BP has no influence on the studies funded through the Institute, as the GoMRI website explains. Also, I've seen that arguments have been made about taking into account whether studies were funded by BP, I think that this is an over complication given that BP has no input into or control over the findings of that research.
  • Although the "Environmental impact" section notes that research is ongoing, it then devotes most of the second paragraph to research findings relating to one specific hypothesis. There is no mention that other studies have found contradictory data, for example the UT study I linked above. Also, federally funded studies have found that bacteria was able to consume spilled oil, including a 2012 study published by the National Academy of Science, reported on by the Wall Street Journal, CBC News and a study also in 2012, funded by a number of organizations including the National Science Foundation, NOAA and Gulf of Mexico Research Institute reported in Live Science.
  • The "dirty blizzard" described in the "Environmental impact" is also contradicted by findings of scientists forming the Operational Science Advisory Team (comprised of scientists from governmental agencies as well as BP) found that no oil or sediments exceeding the benchmark for aquatic life that were consistent with MC252 oil either offshore or in the deepwater Gulf. See the OSAT-1 final report.
  • The "Environmental impact" section repeats information about tar balls continuing to wash up. This is mentioned as happening 2 years after the spill in the second sentence of the second paragraph, then in the final sentence of that paragraph it is mentioned as occurring 3 years after the spill.
  • In the "Economic impact" section anecdotal information is included, particularly the sentence "One Mississippi shrimper who was interviewed said he used to get 8,000 pounds of shrimp in four days, but this year he got only 800 pounds a week." However, data from the NOAA in 2012 indicating a recovery in catch size to the highest volume since 1999 is not included. Given that other factors such as flooding or changes in water temperature can affect fishing in one particular location (see this article from The Times-Picayune), so it is important to consider the whole industry rather than highlighting individual examples such as the quoted shrimp fisherman. Additionally, it is problematic to rely on anecdotes like this as there are plenty of those offering a different perspective including this Houma Today article and this WLOX 13 article both on the rebound in charter fishing, raising the question of why the negative shrimp fisherman quote should be included but not a quote from a charter fisherman whose business has improved.
  • Also in the "Economic impact" section, I think the second sentence is a nod to BP's efforts toward Gulf restoration but it is poorly worded and unclear.
  • Additionally, as discussed above where Petrarchan indicated they may make an addition: the recovery across much of the tourism industry and BP's efforts to assist with that are also not currently included.
  • I bring up the "Health impacts" section last as I feel that this is potentially a question of weight and judgement that may be best for volunteer editors to review carefully and consider, but: the list of health effects is based on self-reporting, rather than findings of a study and there is no official data given here to support this information. (There's also a small typo at the beginning of this section "csurvey".)
  • Another point worth considering regarding the "Health effects" section is that the EPA monitored air quality following the spill and the CDC reviewed their results, both finding that air quality was generally normal for the Gulf coastline and that the low levels of pollutants in the air were not expected to cause long-term harm. See the details on the EPA website, which states "The levels of some of the pollutants that have been reported to date may cause temporary eye, nose, or throat irritation, nausea, or headaches, but are not thought to be high enough to cause long-term harm."
  • Finally, I mentioned the findings from the FDA and other agencies regarding seafood, this is relevant to include regarding potential health effects that seafood testing showed that 96 - 99% had no detectable oil or dispersant residue.

This hopefully demonstrates why this section is one-sided at the moment and provides a basis for editors to look at making updates as they feel are needed. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Dirty Blizzard findings from 2013 cannot be refuted by a government report from 2010, Arturo. petrarchan47tc
Newer findings:
"In April 2012, Louisiana State University’s Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences was finding lesions and grotesque deformities in sea life—including millions of shrimp with no eyes and crabs without eyes or claws—possibly linked to oil and dispersants.

■ Toxins at 3000 times the acceptable level in gulf seafood

■ Dead dolphins in record numbers, killed by weakened immune systems and brucella bacteria

■ Blue crab populations wiped out

■ Oyster beds not reproducing

■ 60% of coral on platforms killed

■ Toxicity to rotifers, base of food chain, is 52 times higher with Corexit"

And from Scientific American Remember the BP Oil Spill? Malformed Fish Do-A new study shows that sediments fouled with oil from the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico caused problems for fish embryos.
With recent, independent findings in mind, the section seems out-of-date and whitewashed in favor of BP. Indeed, a real disservice to readers. petrarchan47tc 00:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Petrar, it may be helpful to link to the science and not press releases.
  • Chase, D. A., Edwards, D. S., Qin, G., Wages, M. R., Willming, M. M., Anderson, T. A., et al. (2013). Bioaccumulation of petroleum hydrocarbons in fiddler crabs (Uca minax) exposed to weathered MC-252 crude oil alone and in mixture with an oil dispersant. Science of The Total Environment, 444, 121–127.
  • Goodbody-Gringley, G., Wetzel, D. L., Gillon, D., Pulster, E., Miller, A., Ritchie, K. B., et al. (2013). Toxicity of Deepwater Horizon Source Oil and the Chemical Dispersant, Corexit® 9500, to Coral Larvae. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e45574.
  • Rico-Martínez, R., Snell, T. W., & Shearer, T. L. (2013). Synergistic toxicity of Macondo crude oil and dispersant Corexit 9500A® to the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera). Environmental Pollution, 173, 5–10.
Et cetera. Many good papers all saying that the dispersant will have long-term negative effects. On the other hand, these papers affirm that the oil itself has been largely cleaned up. I appreciate Arturo's editing here and if we supply him with good references maybe he can respond with equally good sources of his own. Shii (tock) 13:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Petrarchan, it is important to note that the CBS News report about the 2013 findings and the Science Daily report you link here are very clear that this is an initial presentation of evidence to support a hypothesis. (Also, I did not say "refuted", I said "contradicted", I was pointing out that other research has had different findings on this matter.) Notice that the Science Daily report (which is taken from an FSU press release) says the dirty blizzard "may account" for missing oil, not that it does. The Take Part story (which seems to be an activist source) says deformities are "possibly linked" to oil and dispersants, not that they are. Additionally, editors may be interested to read this scientific paper pointing out methodology issues with the research that found toxicity to be 52 times higher with Corexit. Lastly, I am not sure what you mean by "out-of-date and whitewashed" when it was written within the past few weeks by Coretheapple, whose views on this article you seem to share.
It doesn't matter who added the part, it comes from the BP oil spill article, which has been whitewashed and is very out of date. Unlike "CREWE", independent Wikipedia editors don't team up and agree mindlessly with each other, we are here to build an informative encyclopedia. The "activist source" is no less qualified than the BP website or the US Government for discussion about article content. BP's active presence on this page is calling for an "activist" presence, and I am looking into that presently. petrarchan47tc 20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Shii, thanks for joining this discussion and I take your point about sources: I have mainly focused on news items but if you feel it would be helpful, I can certainly link to scientific reports in future. Also, I am not arguing for the removal of information derived from credible sources on long-term impacts from the oil and dispersants, but am rather making the point that information on the DWH oil spill currently included in this section is distorted and one-sided. As I have detailed above, the section currently provides only one view. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


From 2010, The federal government — which has had to repeatedly revise its estimate about how much oil has gushed into the gulf from the Deepwater Horizon disaster — announced Wednesday that "the vast majority" of the oil appears to be gone.
Most of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil that spewed out of the collapsed well has "either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed," according to a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Interior Department.

Independent scientists scoffed at the report's findings. Several pointed out that the report estimates that a quarter of the oil is still floating in the gulf or contaminating beaches and marshes, while another quarter was dispersed, either with chemicals or naturally. In other words, half of it, or about 2.5 million barrels, is still unrecovered.'
Primary sources can be found, but we don't rely on them exclusively, as everyone here knows (per WP:RS). The government is not necessarily a reliable source at this point, with regard to Gulf spill science. According to independent scientists, government agencies like NOAA and the EPA have been (per EPA's Hugh Kaufman) "sockpuppets for BP" in the post-spill response. I've brought evidence of this to this talk page in the past. Therefore, we need to consider what independent scientists are saying, whether it's printed in Tampa Bay Times or any other RS. (We use BP press releases in this article all the time.) The government has displayed a clear POV with regard to the spill, that context needs to be considered when looking at the science, imo. petrarchan47tc 19:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Petrarchan, other editors may have a better understanding of the policy on sourcing than me, but it seems counterintuitive to say that governmental agencies' official reports are not reliable, even if they might be primary sources. On your points raised above, I have no idea what you mean regarding CREWE. I know of the group through a post to my user Talk page, but I am not a member. Also, I feel I should point out that I have had no involvement at the main DWH oil spill article to date, and so as far as I am aware any discussion of content in that article was by independent volunteer editors. Finally, I noted that one of the articles you linked was an activist source so that editors were aware of its POV, not to suggest it is not a valid source for use in the article. Arturo at BP (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Arturo, I did not say nor imply that you were a member of CREWE. Silver Seren is one of the big supporters of that group, which supports paid editors. And you reach out to him for support, so whether you are a 'member' or not, BP does indeed use their services. But that was not my point, I was replying to your insinuation that because Core made the edits, I should not find fault with them, ie, because we are a team or somehow aligned. My point was that CREWE and others who (like many Republicans who signed an oath to never raise taxes no matter what) have agreed to support paid editors of Wikipedia and work as a team, differ from independent thinkers/editors who will naturally diverge from each other regularly. petrarchan47tc 18:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BP/Archive_17&oldid=1151018640"