Jump to content

Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 14

Lawsuit filed against Ken Feinberg

Seems important, but i haven't got th etime to properly add this to the article right now, hopefully someone does or I can get back to this soon. [1] 174.74.68.103 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Louisiana legislative leaders have formed a special committee to oversee the BP claims process led by Kenneth Feinberg. The committee will be chaired by New Orleans Rep. Walt Leger, a Democrat. It is expected to hold its first meeting this month. Senate President Joel Chaisson told The Times-Picayune the committee was formed because of complaints about the way Feinberg is handling the nearly 200,000 spill claims filed by Louisiana individuals and businesses with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility. Feinberg has been criticized by BP for being overly generous in his disbursement methodology and by oil spill victims who say they have been treated unfairly." [2] 72.213.45.128 (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to park this here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/nasa-data-toxic-rain_b_830481.html Gandydancer (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Add some part of this news? "possible oil slick appears and spreads near the Mississippi Delta off the coast of Grand Isle, Louisiana, suspected to be an oil spill from the Matterhorn Seastar oil rig near the Deepwater Horizon

If correctly summarized, it doesn't belong in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

BP employee lost laptop containing personal data of 1,000s of oilspill claimants

"A BP employee lost a laptop containing personal data belonging to thousands of residents who filed claims for compensation after the Gulf oil spill, a company spokesman said Tuesday.

BP spokesman Curtis Thomas said the oil giant on Monday mailed out letters to roughly 13,000 people whose data was stored on the computer, notifying them about the potential data security breach and offering to pay for their credit to be monitored. The company also reported the missing laptop to law enforcement, he said.

The laptop was password-protected, but the information was not encrypted, Thomas said.

The data included a spreadsheet of claimants' names, Social Security numbers, phone numbers and addresses. But Thomas said the company doesn't have any evidence that claimants' personal information has been misused." [3] 72.213.42.1 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Needs work/follow-up

I was hoping to link this from another articcle, but it is just too early in the accusation phase to give credible currency. No follow up. The ecology section is okay, but needs to be structured. Just jammed full of early dire warnings with no organization.

For example, turtle nesting is UP, in Florida, not down. Beaches were largely not impacted at all. Potential tourists were needlessly frightened off by all the adverse publicity, but there was no reason for most of them to stay away! Student7 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your tag:
This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, as needs restructuring. This has initial rants but no solid factual follow-up. For example, most initial predictions have proved exaggerated. Turtle nesting is UP, not down from the preceding year, including loggerheads, an endangered species. This needs scholarly follow-up so it may be linked from other articles. This is fairly early in accusations and the editors seem to have lost interest when nothing really came of all the dire predictions. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (April 2011)
I am one of the editors who have continued interest in this article, however I do not understand your reasons for tagging this section. Speaking of dire predictions and accusations does not explain at all what you feel needs to be changed. Please fully explain:
  • I looked at Wikipedia standards and have no idea exactly where you feel this section does not comply. Please point them out rather than just point to the list.
  • Which "initial rants" are you speaking of? Exactly what sort of "solid factual follow-up" are you looking for that is available for us to use?
  • Please provide references that state that most initial predictions have proved exaggerated and that turtle nesting is UP, not down from the preceding year.
  • What sort of "scholarly follow-up" works exist that we can enter in the article. Also, are you aware that NOAA has issued a gag order?
If you will be specific about your problems rather than just point at the entire section and provide some good references to back up your statements, I would be happy to improve the article. Gandydancer (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Whew. I will try. I appreciate that it may be difficult to do from a list. Easier to do as you "go along." Anyway....
"re-closed to shrimping" - what are shrimp totals for 2010 compared to 2009? Or quarter by quarter? Or something substantive other than the "expectation of failure."
There are 13 screens-worth of material related to the volume of oil. I can appreciate how this "evolved" but I would think it would be shortened. "A trillion barrels", "A quadrillion barrels" whatever. The meticulous blow by blow of figuring it out is not of much interest now. At least not at this level.
"shrimp/crab/oyster ranch"- how did this impact the harvest of crabs and oysters someplace?
"proliferation of the bacteria" - this is one of the first statements about the affects on people directly. But still at the insinuation phase with no statistics.
"34,000 birds have been counted". Must be dead birds, right? Early on, can only report dead fauna. But a follow-up needs comparison with previous years. Had to report dead fauna initially. What else could you do? But now, readers need more solid stuff. "20% fewer water fowl, 40% fewer fish near Mobile"; that sort of thing. But real stuff! Organizing it is a problem since it isn't altogether for the entire region. Only have snapshots, but have to start somewhere.
Like most "event" articles, this "just grew." My cursory suggestion would be to shorten the oil estimates down to three screens/pages summary (with fork), the attempt at clean-up to about the same.
Then concentrate on hard data to sustain a catastrophe or something short of one. It would be interesting and encyclopedic to leave in all the predictions of disaster. Then follow up with objective remarks either documenting that disaster, but also revealing where predictions were way too dire. Florida, for example, was hardly affected.
I was just looking for a place to put the loggerhead turtle info and looked like it would be a problem if I entered it. a) No real place for objective follow-up. b) loggerhead turtle info was on EAST coast of Florida as well as well coast, which of course was not affected by spill. Though it was predicted!
I will try to watch the talk page for a few days, then will go on to something else. Just a visitor here. Student7 (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. You placed the tag in the Ecology section. Did you mean to tag the entire article? Gandydancer (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The ecology section does need some work, but it might be in the opposite direction than the tag would suggest. Take a look at today's article from Bloomberg[4]:

"The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group based in Tucson, Arizona, said in a study released today it found five times as many sea turtles, 10 times as many birds and 200 times more marine mammals were injured or died than official estimates. BP faces civil penalties based, in part, on the number of wildlife and fish killed or harmed by more than 4.1 million barrels of crude that poured into the Gulf last year.

The government’s counts haven’t been updated to reflect the dozens of bird, turtle and dolphin carcasses that are washing ashore this spring, Tierra Curry, a biologist with the center, said in today’s report. The group added those casualties to the official tallies, then multiplied those numbers “by accepted scientific multiplication factors” to reach what it calls the “true mortality counts,” she said.

“The numbers of animals injured by the Gulf oil spill are staggering,” Curry said. “The government’s official count represents a small fraction of the total animals harmed by this disastrous spill.”

U.S. tallies released in mid-February counted wildlife harmed by the spill to include 1,146 sea turtles, 8,209 birds, and 128 dolphins and whales Curry said, citing government data.

By the center’s estimate, the spill caused harm or death to about 6,165 sea turtles, 82,000 birds of 102 species and as many as 25,900 marine mammals, including four species of dolphins and whales. "

See Also: Sea turtle deaths up along Gulf, joining dolphin trend - Confidential data due to BP inquiry frustrates some researchers seeking answers [5] 174.74.77.113 (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Look. I'm not going to argue with you. It's your article. Someone asked me for objective observations and I gave it to them.
There are three phases to an ecological disaster: 1) The disaster itself with all the foreboding anyone can give it. There really isn't any other information at that juncture. So "Professor Somebody at University of U is quoted as saying "It's going to be terrible."
2) Then the facts start rolling in. a Trillion birds died, whatever. Remember, birds die daily. Doubtless this disaster shortened their lives and collected their bodies for counting. But if 1,000 birds die in an area in a week normally, and 2,000 die during a disaster, that is only 1,000 more and not much in a population of (say) 100,000. Life is versatile. Individual life is fragile, but these are flocks.
3) This is the stage we are in now. It is the "recovery" or whatever, from the disaster. Yes "The affects will linger for generations." But one or two of those is enough. What is the bird count today? How did the shrimpers suffer economically? The disaster is in stage three, but the article is stuck in counting dead birds which was several months ago. It needs to be objective enough that good faith editors can insert cited figures that do not agree with the original predictions.
But it's your article. You can be stuck in whatever phase you like.
Bye. Student7 (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Your post is an insult to Wikipedia and to the hard-working editors that have tried to present a good, non-biased, well-referenced article. It is easy enough to pop in puffed up with self-importance and say the article sucks and leave in a huff with a closing rant. If you actually did have any interest in improving this article you would have furnished answers to my initial post, which you have not done. I shall remove the tag. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

BP managers, including Tony Hayward, could face manslaughter charges

"US authorities are considering charging BP managers with manslaughter after decisions they made before the Deepwater Horizon oil well explosion last year killed 11 workers and caused the biggest offshore spill in US history.

Sources close to the process told Bloomberg that investigators were also examining whether BP's executives, including former chief executive Tony Hayward, made statements that were at odds with what they knew during congressional hearings last year.

The US justice department opened criminal and civil investigations into the spill last June. The department filed a civil lawsuit against BP in December and has not filed criminal charges. An official at the department told Reuters these charges could include manslaughter, but the official declined to confirm this was under consideration.

According to Bloomberg, authorities are investigating BP managers who worked both on the rig and onshore to determine if they should be charged in connection with the workers' deaths. The investigation aims to determine whether decisions by BP managers to cut costs and increase speed on the project led to fatal safety sacrifices." [6] 72.213.42.1 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this missing the point that it was an American oil rig that blew up, not a BP one? Technically Deepwater Horizon was a Marshall Islands flagged rig. The Marshall Islands was responsible for its regulation and safety measures - or rather lack thereof. BP just hired the rig. To blame BP is like blaming the passengers when a jet crashes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that, per WP:TALK, this talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for discussing your personal opinions about whether an investigation is missing the point. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Sick fish suggest oil spill still affecting Gulf"

" Over the winter, anglers who had been working the gulf for decades began hauling in red snapper that didn't look like anything they had seen before.

The fish had dark lesions on their skin, some the size of a 50-cent piece. On some of them, the lesions had eaten a hole straight through to the muscle tissue. Many had fins that were rotting away and discolored or even striped skin. Inside, they had enlarged livers, gallbladders, and bile ducts.

"The fish have a bacterial infection and a parasite infection that's consistent with a compromised immune system," said Jim Cowan, an oceanographer at Louisiana State University, who has been examining them. "There's no doubt it's associated with a chronic exposure to a toxin."

He is certain the toxin in question is oil, given where and when the fish were caught, their symptoms, and the similarity to other incidents involving oil spills.

Cowan said he hasn't seen anything like these fish in 25 years of studying the gulf, which persuades him that "it would be a pretty big coincidence if it wasn't associated with the oil spill." [7] 174.74.77.113 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this article really need a Popular Culture section?

The article has an "In popular culture" section, which only contains a Mad Magazine reference to the spill. Given the large size of the article, is this really necessary? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. deleted.... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Due to the size and scope of the Oil Spill, as well as the shear amount of news coverage it received, we can't deny that it has nevertheless impacted popular culture in some way. But perhaps you're right, this might not be the best place for such a section, because the article is already very long. Does anyone think this could be a topic for a separate article (if one doesn't already exist)? Billertl (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
"Popular Culture" in a disaster article just doesn't seem right to me. There was only the one minor ref anyway. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems right to me. I think the article would be better with it. I disagree with you, but I'll let you have your way, since I don't have the patience to argue. I was just trying to make the article better, but I'll just forget it. Billertl (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source(s) needed in Removal section for problems east of Mobile Bay

The Removal section has a new paragraph (formerly in its own section called Collateral Damage) which needs reliable source(s) for verification. After I flagged the content as needing a citation, an improperly formatted reference was provided with just a quotation. There was no URL, title or any other publication information. I did a Google search for that quotation and found it was only used one place: in the middle of a blog posting([8]) at a site that's connected to UC Davis Veternary Medicine. This blog posting may or may not be a reliable source, but it turns out that's irrelevant, since the posting discusses a different spill and never mentions the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. See WP:SYNTH. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletions reverted

I reverted an IP editor's two deletions to Deepwater Horizon oil spill, due to the deletion of sources supporting the "largest" claim. "Largest" meaning largest amount, not necessarily having anything to do with environmental damage. We report what the sources literally say, even if what they say contradicts other claims about other oil spills (amount, or amount of damage). --Lexein (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Where are the edit buttons?

I don't see that the page is locked to editing, yet I do not see anywhere to press "edit" on the article. 72.213.47.204 (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is locked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is it locked? Has something changed, it used to be a big deal to lock an article, and it would only stay locked for a short period of time. How in the world does one edit this page? Petrarchan47 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me, the link answered some of my questions. Petrarchan47 (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know what caused this page to be locked, and for how long? Have the policies here at Wikipedia changed recently regarding locking articles? Thank you in advance. Petrarchan47 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you look on the History page you can see that Airplaneman locked it on the 21st. "Semi-protection: vandalism, sadly, protection is indeed needed again (sustained high level of vandalism)." I'm really quite surprised as I have not noted much. You could send him a message. Gandydancer (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So the locked status is up to one individual? That doesn't sounds like the Wiki I know. Something has changed. It used to be a big deal to lock a page for even a short period of time. This concerns me as I see some changes to the page that sway it in the "this wasn't such a big deal" direction. BP is one of the largest and most powerful companies in the world, and they have many court cases and much money on the line right now. It would not be inconceivable for this page to be a target for pro-BP editing. And now to find out one single person has decided to lock the page from editing? What is going on? Petrarchan47 (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an example of a change I have noticed: Indeed, the spill was by far the largest in US history, almost 20 times greater than the Exxon Valdez oil spill. However, the damage to the environment and the wildlife might be less in the Gulf due to various factors such as warmer water and the fact that the oil leaked deep under water.
The bold print is not supported by anything I have heard, nor by the 4 links after it. This addition should be of concern to the editors here.Petrarchan47 (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I did look at that and it's been in the article for a long time. The ref was a political link - it did support the info but the ref was obviously not acceptable. I removed it. As for your concerns that "BP" has tried to edit, I'm sure "they" have! So stay alert and watch for it, but on the other hand trust that "Wikipedia" is nobody's fool either. Gandydancer (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede

The second paragraph of the lede is jumbled and somewhat dated:

The spill caused extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats and to the Gulf's fishing and tourism industries.[13][14] In late November 2010, 4,200 square miles (11,000 km²) of the Gulf were re-closed to shrimping after tar balls were found in shrimpers' nets.[15] The amount of Louisiana shoreline affected by oil grew from 287 miles (462 km) in July to 320 miles (510 km) in late November 2010.[16] In January 2011, an oil spill commissioner reported that tar balls continue to wash up, oil sheen trails are seen in the wake of fishing boats, wetlands marsh grass remains fouled and dying, and that crude oil lies offshore in deep water and in fine silts and sands onshore.[17] A research team found oil on the bottom of the seafloor in late February 2011 that did not seem to be degrading.[18] Skimmer ships, floating containment booms, anchored barriers, sand-filled barricades along shorelines, and dispersants were used in an attempt to protect hundreds of miles of beaches, wetlands, and estuaries from the spreading oil. Scientists have also reported immense underwater plumes of dissolved oil not visible at the surface[19] as well as an 80-square-mile (210 km²) "kill zone" surrounding the blown well.[20]

Anyone want to have a go at rewriting it? Also, someone removed info re dead marine animals that needs to be returned. Gandydancer (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I note that an anon has removed: "The impact of the spill continues even after the well has been capped." from the lede. Gandydancer (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So the page was locked due to vandalism, but edits like that were left intact prior to locking? Fishy. Petrarchan47 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Now that you have joined you can put this article on your watch list. It's on mine but I do miss stuff - that one for instance. As for "fishy", it is up to editors like us to watch for changes - the person that locked it would have nothing to do with that. When you wonder about another editor you may want to look at their contributions page to get a "feel" for their interests, etc. Gandydancer (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks Gandy. I actually didn't mean to insinuate that the editor was suspect. Petrarchan47 (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No citation given for marshall islands reference

There is no citation given for marshall islands reference in the first section, However a reference *is* available here: http://dailyhurricane.com/2011/04/preliminary-deepwater-horizon-report-rips-transocean-marshall-islands.html This citation should be added to improve the stregth and reliability of the article. It is currently locked so I can't do this - admins please add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confusedmiked (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fsucoaps, 17 June 2011

Please add the following resource to the general External Links list: State of Florida Oil Spill Academic Task Force http://oilspill.fsu.edu/ Fsucoaps (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Avicennasis @ 17:25, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The causes need to be more clearly summarised

The Investigations section seems to cover three different facets of the investigation into the spill:

  • What the timeline of the investigations was.
  • What the immediate causes of the spill were, as shown by the investigation.
  • Whose fault the spill was, as shown by the investigation.

The third point is farmed off to its own subsection, which I think is great, but the first two points are bound up together. I think an additional Causes subsection needs to be added focusing on the second point, with the current text pushed into a Timeline (or similar) subsection. Most of the current text already falls into the first category.

The causes are summed up nicely in the report, on page 115:

The immediate cause of the Macondo blowout was a failure to contain hydrocarbon pressures in the well. Three things could have contained those pressures: the cement at the bottom of the well, the mud in the well and in the riser, and the blowout preventer. But mistakes and failures to appreciate risk compromised each of those potential barriers, steadily depriving the rig crew of safeguards until the blowout was inevitable and, at the very end, uncontrollable.

The above could be quoted verbatim, and those three things then briefly discussed. Indeed perhaps Causes could be made a section, with these three things as subsections. Alternatively, these could be given as three bullet points, each with a few brief sentences on them.

Either way, the report is a good reference for the first two points. By its own admission, the report does not say much about the blowout preventer. In the footnote on page 115 it says:

The Commission has not yet determined whether the BOP failed to operate as designed or whether any of the factors discussed contributed to such a failure. The Commission believes it is inappropriate to speculate about answers to those questions at this time. Test records of critical emergency backup systems have not yet been made available. More importantly, a government-sponsored forensic analysis of the BOP is still under way; when completed, that should shed light on why the BOP failed to shut in the Macondo well.

This forensic analysis is now complete, and is discussed in what is currently the final paragraph of the Investigations section's main text (starting "On March 23, 2011, ..."). So this could be discussed and properly sourced too. Quietbritishjim (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with this commment and suggestion.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason for not having any direct links to the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP in this article? For example, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill has a link to BP's wiki page in its opening sentence, and I think this article should have one as well. 132.208.138.100 (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange that we overlooked that - fixed now. petrarchan47Tc 02:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Dolphin death and more additions needed

Some additions to consider, or for me to add when I am able.

  • From the AFP today: oil spill partly blamed for Gulf dolphin deaths "The deaths of over 150 dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico so far this year is due in part to the devastating 2010 BP oil spill and the chemical dispersants used to contain it, a report said Thursday."
  • Feds back sick fish study "Red snapper began turning up over the winter showing lesions, fin rot and parasite infections. On some of them, the lesions had eaten a hole straight through to the muscle tissue. They also had enlarged livers, gallbladders, and bile ducts that some scientists believe show their immune systems had been compromised — possibly by oil." Petrarchan47 (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And a couple more:

What about this?

I don't know who put this in or when:

East of Mobile Bay, Alabama, the damage to the fragile environment from BP oil spill clean-up crews and vehicles on the beach exceeded damage done to the beaches by the oil spill itself. Beach erosion and disruption of plant and animal life-cycles caused by clean-up crew vehicles continues as of April, 2011 despite repeated requests by the Orange Beach Alabama Mayor and other local officials to leave the area immediately. Clean up crews also deter tourists from visiting local hotels and beaches where they are staying and working due to an increase in criminal activity caused by the influx of workers to the affected regions. Ordinarily the presence of cleanup crews after oil or diesel spills often helps deter birds from (nesting in)the affected areas potentially lessening the number of wildlife that could have been impacted however the barrier islands finite boundaries offer few or no alternative nesting sites that were suitable for many critically endangered species and no doubt some perished due to clean up crews ubiquitous presence.[citation needed]

It's most likely factual but there is no reference. Do you think I should delete it? Or can anyone find a reference? Gandydancer (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is another paragraph without a reference, perhaps best to just remove it?:

In late June 2010, reacting to the discovery of submerged oil plumes by the Universities of Alabama, and South Florida, BP's High Interest Technology Test (HITT) Team contracted with several independent researchers for the development of new technologies to detect, and map sub-sea dissolved oil plumes. By October 2010, HITT team leader, Ken Lukins, was supervising tests of a variety of sensors off Mobile, Alabama's Dauphin Island. Systems included the CODA-Octopus Acoustic Sensor Array and a helicopter deployed submerged mass spectrometer/fluorescence hydrodynamic dart system created by engineer-pilot, Robert Tur. Both systems were successful, with the helicopter based testing capable of scanning, and 3D real-time mapping of up to 1,400 square miles (3,600 km2), daily, while the ship-based CODA-Octopus Array was capable of high-resolution 3D scans, up to 120 feet (37 m), every 20 minutes. To date, despite both system's ability to prevent commercial fishers from casting their nets in hydrocarbon plumes, neither system has been green lit by BP's Gulf Coast Restoration Organization (GCRO). Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes to the deletion of both. I could not find a reference for either. petrarchan47Tc 02:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I removed them. I continue to go through the article section by section to update the wording, etc. There's still quite a bit left to do! Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There is much updating to do as well, I'll get in here soon and help out. Thanks so much for all your hard work!!petrarchan47Tc 02:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is vs. Was (Maybe it's time)

I don't know. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's time to change is to was. The following sentence, "The impact of the spill continues even after the well has been capped." makes it clear that the impact is not over. Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The lede reads: The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the BP oil disaster, or the Macondo blowout)[4][5][6] is an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico which flowed for three months in 2010.
There has been no discussion and I'm going to change my mind on this. Apparently a lot of oil remains on the ocean floor and still washes up from time to time. Oil remains under the sand on the beaches and in the grassy shorelines. Dolphins (and perhaps turtles) seem to have been affected, and we still do not know about other sea life for certain. Some scientists claim lasting health effects from airborne oil. Etc. We are calling it a spill that flowed for three months - that seems reasonable. Gandydancer (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
See what you think of this, it may officially be no less an emergency situation than it was 9 months ago, but I could be reading this wrong. Petrarchan47 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
"Is", per this. Thanks Petrarchan47. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"As of June 15, 2011, there had been a total of 9,474 days of oil-related closings, advisories and notices at Gulf coast beaches. Clean-up crews are still at work as oil continues to wash ashore in Alabama, Louisiana, Florida and Mississippi. And four beaches in Louisiana are still closed and three in Florida have remained under notice since the disaster started. A state-by-state look at oil spill notices, advisories, and closures at Gulf Coast beaches from the beginning of the spill through June 15, 2011 can be found online here: http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/gulf.pdf. ~ Source: NRDC petrarchan47Tc —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

Turns out NRDC is not a reliable source - not NPOV. Will have to source those details elsewhere. petrarchan47Tc 02:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Who told you that? They used the EPA figures... Gandydancer (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
My inclusion had been reverted. See here. I will go ahead and revert the reversion. petrarchan47Tc 02:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Gandydancer, please see WP:SOURCES and WP:RS. The NRDC document is self-published by a lobbying group. It doesn't matter if the NRDC says they got some of their data from the EPA, because their analysis is still self-published. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks JT. What do you guys think? Is it time to again open the question re is or was? I think good arguments can be made on either side. On the "was" side one could say that the Chernobyl disaster continues to cause cancer and the area remains contaminated but is now a "was". But on the other hand, this is the largest spill ever and it is still not fully investigated. Legal hassels are going on. Of course it may take years to understand the long-term effects but even short-term effects and extent of the spill are not yet known. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Gandy, take a look at this, it seems we have no business calling this over. 174.74.64.55 (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC) petrarchan47Tc 20:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - we'll wait at least till August and see what happens next. BTW, did you notice that they again called BP British Petroleum? Seems odd that they would make such a glaring mistake... Are you going to put this in the article?Gandydancer (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought BP stood for British Petroleum. I am very much behind on additions to this article, but yes I do think this needs to be added. Also, regarding the idea that was can call this a "WAS", check this out:
"It is significant that even a year after the oil spill we are finding oil on the dolphins, the latest just two weeks ago," said Blair Mase, southeast marine mammal stranding coordinator for NOAA Fisheries." - 4.7.11 Scientists link oil on dolphins to BP spill. petrarchan47Tc 22:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Gandy, would you take a look at this, especially half way down, and let me know what you think? Scientists are saying the results of this disaster are only beginning to emerge. petrarchan47Tc 23:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

About BP, actually it has not been British Petroleum for some time now. Most people were not aware of that and thought that it was all the fault of the bloody Brits, especially with the English-accented Tony Blair repeatedly making such a fool of himself. (Actually this pissed the Brits off too, since the largest branch of BP is actually located in Texas.) The new CEO is an American. Read the BP article - the vastness of these conglomerates is enough to make your head spin. And like the others, take coal for instance, they don't give a rat's ass about breaking any safety or environmental regulation there is (not that they are adequate anyway), when all they need do is fork over what is, for them, petty cash. And add to that the fact that they were furnishing the governmental agencies that were supposed to be watching them with parties, girls, and who knows what else.

Oh! What a slip I made there calling Tony Howard (Or Hayward..?) Tony Blair. If the truth be known Blair is the one of the two that I did not care for one bit! Gandydancer (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously people are completely unaware that there is no reason that we could not have a comparable spill tomorrow. Workiing on this article almost from its start, I learned a lot. I remember a slick from a couple of months ago and they said, well they needed to check and see if it was from this spill or some other...leaking capped well..? Then I noticed today when I added your info that only half of the dolphins that were oiled were oiled with oil from this spill. Scarey... There already is a big dead area in the Gulf - this certainly will not help... Gandydancer (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the dolphin deaths, visible oil on the outside of the dolphins is one thing, but they aren't mentioning whether constituents of the oil and/or Corexit were found inside the animals. Tricky language. Unfortunately, the dolphins were whisked away to some government lab for necropsy, and we are later told they had been frozen for too long, and any results they did get couldn't be release due to ongoing court cases. 174.74.64.55 (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC) petrarchan47Tc 02:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In my 10 July posting above, I described why I think that the use of the NRDC report goes against Wikipedia policy. Since no one has provided a counterargument, I will remove the NRDC report from the article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oil Spill and Texas Record Heat

Another interesting side-effect is the record heat wave hitting USA during the 2011 summer. When I researched the web, 1980 was another record hitting summer. What interesting is that, both 1979 and 2010 (the previous years), there were massive oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. 1979 oil spill

I have a hypothesis. After big oil spills, oils developed into a thin layer of sheen on the surface of water, which reduced the amount of water evaporation into the atmosphere. Without moisture, there are few clouds to make rains or to block the sun's radiation in the interior part of country, causing massive drought.

Normally, Texas and Oklahoma depend on the Gulf of Mexico for moisture to make rain. Without clouds, it has been terribly hot. In fact, the temperature in Dallas has been higher than Phoenix, Arizona. I did a pull of climate data. This year, 2011, the humidity in Dallas has been much lower than the norm in previous years. And, there were no major hurricane hitting the coastal areas. (Hurricane depends on water evaporation to gather strength.)

Thus, a less discussed post-spill event is the desertification of interior part of the country during the summer months.

Additionally, I will make a bold prediction. The winter of 2011/2012 will be exceptionally wet (i.e. snow, rain, fog, ...) in Texas, Oklahoma, etc. Since in the summer, the oil sheen has blocked the proper water evaporation, causing gulf water's temperature to remain slightly higher into the winter months. When those oil sheen finally break down, there will be more water evaporation from the gulf, effect of higher water temperature. when cold Canadian winter air meets those higher moisture, there will be more condensation, in the form or snow, fog, hail, etc.

Hence, oil spill is a catastrophic event that has profound impacts on the ecology and environment, affecting more than just marine lives. It harms the entire eco-system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raygao (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference 24 in the first heading

The reference used (24) used in the last section of the first header is misinterpretted. It should read that BP will be responsible for the mobilization of the Louisianna National Guard. No other claims of complete responsibility are made in this citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.249.76 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed that. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation Team Releases Final Report

I found this link through a news article: [9]. I won't be able to incorporate it until next week at best, so I would invite others to do so. According to the new article, basically it concludes that the main cause was the defective cement job, and Halliburtun, BP and Transocean all are, in different ways, responsible for the accident.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

reverted edits made by or on behalf of BP 99.194.143.142 (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

East of Mobile Bay damage from oil spill cleanup crews and vehicles caused more damage to the fragile dune habitat than the oil spill itself. Dune habitats can be destroyed by nothing more than light foot traffic and in no way can support the egress of 100's of vehicles being deployed. Despite overwhelming supporting evidence, BP still denies this and apparently has persons editing and or reverting Wikipedia articles in order to cover up collateral problems associated with the accident.http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP_oil_spill --99.194.143.142 (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Role of Transport Canada and Side Looking Airborne Radar Technology in large sscale mapping and resource allocation support

Canadian Videos that should be included in the article on Deepwater horizon: - May 10 2010 - Here is a link to a segment from the CBC National news which spoke to Transport Canada's efforts in the Gulf of Mexico: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/10/gulf-of-mexico-spill-0510.html - May 17 2010– Discovery Channel, – Daily planet – Houma Interview with Louis Armstrong, Transport Canada: http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/clip303968#clip303968 - (in french) http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/#urlMedia=http://www.radio-canada.ca/Medianet/2010/RDI2/RDIEnDirect201005170932_3.asx&pos=0

Information on key remote sensing equipment shall be mentionned as the US does not have them and relied on foreign support: "Transport Canada provided effective aerial oil spill detection support with their Dash 8 aircraft equiped by SSC (Swedish Space Corporation) remote sensing systems (MSS 6000) including SSC's Side Looking Airborne Radar. Icelandic Coast Guards also provided to the US their aircraft equiped with SSC SLAR radar." http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=transport+canada+dash+8+deepwater+horizon&d=4810015780899980&mkt=sv-SE&setlang=sv-SE&w=5af90a7a,4d450aef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.44.5.60 (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

small typo

Under "Dispersals" in paragraph 7 it says "Coexit" but should be spelled with an "r" as "Corexit". I would fix it, but the article appears to be locked? Zarkme (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's been fixed? I couldn't find any typo in para 7. petrarchan47Tc 20:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Bacteria cleaned it all up in 3 months?

Read here

98.118.62.140 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The article cited is unreliable at best. It seem to assume that computer simulations of large ecosystems is feasible in our times.

potential WSJ resource

Regarding Deepwater Horizon oil spill#Oil eating microbes ... How Microbes Teamed to Clean Gulf; Scientists Studied 52 Species of Bacteria and Water Currents to Explain Demise of Oil and Gas Plume by GAUTAM NAIK 10.January.2012

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Split template

I want to remove it. Objections? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The last time that article size was discussed, the consensus was that the article was too large and needed to be split. Also, last October the article was denied a GA review because it was too large. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, my friend. Then maybe we should split it. That's a sure-fire way to get rid of the template. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh brother, it makes my jaw clench to just think about it...but what must be must be. It sure is hard to re-focus, isn't it? I don't know how to start new articles, but if we decide what sections need to be split, I will try to summarize them for this article so that someone may split them off. Sorry I can't be of more help. Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. Indeed the article should be rewritten, to eliminate the obvious WP:recentism. But this is a lot of work, and I don't have time now. And indeed the hardest part is to agree a structure for the new article. If you prune it down, it probably won't need to be split, it will become short enough. To start a new article is easy, just click on here is an example of starting a new article, but don't save it.--Gautier lebon (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No need for me to get into details, but speaking from the perspective of one who worked with the article from the start, it is not without good reason that this article is so wordy. I can see very little that I'd be willing to delete. I do, however, note that the Consequences section has been split off and then goes on with a very large Economic section that could be pared down and placed in the split article. Also, I would think that the Spill response fund and Investigations could be split off. Gandydancer (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you're right. It looks like a bit of a hassle. I stopped paying attention to the article ages ago, and didn't realize "Consequences" section had been split off. (I think that was my suggestion). Now, it's an under-developed new article, with the "Consequences" section here still dwarfing it.
Some choices (excluding pruning):
  • 1) Break off another entire, large section such as"Investigations"
  • 2) Cherry pick one or two subsections
  • 3) Gandydancer's suggestion of breaking off "Spill response fund" (chr count approx. 10k)
I like #3. It's a meaty section, and might just do the trick. I guess the question is "how much is enough" (current chr count = 183,241), and "what would be most satisfactory to visitors". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:Article Size states that an article may need to be split if the readable prose size is over 50 KB. (Note that the readable prose size is generally smaller than the total size displayed on the article's history page.) Currently, the readable prose size is 109 KB, according to this script. So a lot of trimming and a pretty large split(s) would be needed to reach this limit.
I don't think that the Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster article was intended as a split, but just an independent article. I looked into this before, and that article was started with new content not found in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. That being said, we can, of course, use that article as if it had been set up to do a split. I wonder whether it would make more sense to rename the article by removing "Economic and political". About the only consequenses subsections I see that are not economic or political are the ecology, litigation and health subsections. It might make more sense to keep these together with the rest of the consequences since, for example, ecology and fisheries are closely related. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


Also "Volume and extent of oil spill" section should be trimmed. Too long, too much details which does not necessarily be here but serve better in split-off article.

I was very involved in the Volume and extent of oil spill section and will volunteer to trim it. It might take some time... Gandydancer (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible discrepancy, clarification needed, section 2.1 spill flow rate

There appears to be a numerical discrepancy in the Spill Flow Rate section when comparing the text verses the Progression of oil spill flow rate estimates box. The paragraph sections states: Internal BP documents, released by Congress, estimated the flow could be as much as 100,000 barrels per day (16,000 m3/d), if the blowout preventer and wellhead were removed and if restrictions were incorrectly modeled.[63][64]

However, the corresponding information in the chart indicates: Internal BP documents hypothetical worst case (assumes no blowout preventer): June 20: up to 150,000 (barrels per day) up to 4,200,000 (gallons) up to 16,000(m3d).

I do not know which number, 100,000g or 150,000g is the correct answer, but a 50,000 gallon a day difference is rather substantial. I am pretty sure the 100,000g is correct, but I wanted to bring some attention to this so someone far more qualified and familiar with the details of this devastating disaster could be alerted to the need for a potential correction. Thank You. Toffield27 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Random comments

On November 1, BP announced plans to spend $78 million to help Louisiana tourism and test and advertise seafood

It appear to me from the sentence that the tests result is known in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.215.112 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Random comments can mean anything. I doubt Helen Mirren has anything to do with it. --85.164.221.162 (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Update info

A couple of recent updates: [10] and [11] Gandydancer (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

More info here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120420123903.htm Gandydancer (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
And: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/04/20-9 Gandydancer (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Deepwater Horizon oil spill - May 24, 2010.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Deepwater Horizon oil spill - May 24, 2010.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 20, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-04-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill
On April 20, 2010, an explosion aboard the semi-submersible oil platform Deepwater Horizon started a massive oil spill caused by a sea-floor gusher that released an estimated 53,000 barrels per day (8,400 m3/d) of crude oil before it was capped. This picture from the Terra satellite shows sunlight reflecting off the oil (center) a little over one month after the explosion.Photo: NASA/GSFC, MODIS Rapid Response Team
Archive – More featured pictures...

Updating intro sentence - names

From Google search:

  • Macondo Blowout - 263,000 results
  • Deepwater Horizon oil spill - 7,310,000 results
  • Gulf of Mexico oil spill - 7,730,000 results
  • BP oil disaster - 18,800,000 results
  • BP oil spill - 53,700,000 results


The spill is overwhelmingly referred to as the BP oil spill 7 times more often than "GOM" or "Deepwater Horizon". Shouldn't this article reflect the way we now refer to the spill? petrarchan47Tc 01:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47Tc 01:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

But there might be another BP spill. Seriously, that's a possibility. At least the names "Macondo" or "Deepwater Horizon" will remain unique. BTW, the industry and the trade press call it the "Macondo" spill:


208.185.201.194 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


From the Wiki guidelines on naming an article: "Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic... Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English." petrarchan47Tc 06:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. See for example:

I guess we are going vogue between remaining gently neutral and stating facts. BP is the cause of this massive disaster. Turning a blind eye is kind of grotesque. Maviozan (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that was poetry. I couldn't have said it better myself. Me, I always ramble on for paragraphs and tell my life story just to try and state the obvious. You stated the obvious in three succinct sentences. Bravo. Anyone for a re-vote? Who is in charge here, anyway? MichaelWestbrook (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Poetic perhaps, but inaccurate, or at least one sided. BP is responsible for the spill, they are not the cause of it, or at least not the sole cause. Saying they are is misleading and biased, and above all oversimplistic. The truth is the "cause" is not yet known, at least not publicly. If the mistake was caused by a top level mistake by BP's company man, you might be closer to the truth. But if it was caused by any of the little mundane things that are likely culprits, the immediate "cause" is likely to be a Transocean mistake, a Halliburton mistake, or a government inspector mistake for failing to identify a serious issue. Or, more likely, a "perfect storm" of mistakes from numerous parties. Nothing has changed here, the current name is still the best option in my opinion, including BP in it would be a mistake. TastyCakes (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Stating that someone is responsible for (not)doing something is not being one sided while not stating anything indeed is. However i agree to wait untill the spill is taken care of properly before conveniently discussing the article to be renamed as the topic does not require haste but reason.Maviozan (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The final report:

The final U.S. government report on last year's massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill came out on Wednesday, and while it puts most of the fault with BP, it passes some blame to Deep Water Horizon operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton, which laid faulty cement in the well. When that cement job failed after the Deep Water Horizon well exploded in April 2010, the oil began gushing from the ocean floor. BP, however, was the one that made "a series of decisions that complicated cementing operations, added risk, and may have contributed to the ultimate failure of the cement job" in the days leading up to the disaster...

Perhaps it is time to reconsider the naming of the article? Gandydancer (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Over time the way it's been referred to has changed since the early days. It is referred to as the BP oil spill 7 times more often than any other term nowadays. There is good reason to call it Deepwater Horizon as well, it's more specific - though I've never heard anyone say "BP oil spill? Which one?". What would you suggest?petrarchan47Tc 01:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I note that none of the editors that watch this article have responded and it is not surprising as I think we are all pretty much burned out with it. We have agreed that the article needs some work but nobody, including myself, has been able to come up with the energy to do it. Perhaps best to leave the naming issue alone. Also, I note that the BP article needs some work to keep it unbiased and I would rather put my energy into that article for now. Gandydancer (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I do plan to take a serious look at reworking this article, but not in the next few months.--Gautier lebon (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Gandy, I fully agree as well. The BP article will require much attention and is in serious trouble right now. As for this one, my next goal is to update and massively trim the Feinberg section. It's hardly relevant to list the blow-by-blow story of the compensation fund. Every section might need this same type of overhaul.
Another thing to keep in mind, during the spill one of the most oft-quoted statements was "We won't know the results of this for years". Well, now we are two years in and they were right - the environmental results are flowing in fast as are the results of various court cases. I was thinking to begin a section here where I leave news and articles for helping to keep the page updated. We could cross them off once they've been added/dealt with.petrarchan47Tc 19:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Misleading Information

The statement "Studies show the tar balls contain the deadly bacteria Vibrio vulnificus" in the second paragraph of the article is misleading. From the article on Vibrio vulnificus, the bacteria is "Present in marine environments such as estuaries, brackish ponds, or coastal areas". Thus, it is a naturally occurring bacteria and not specifically related to the oil spill in any way. Explicitly stating that the tarballs contain the bacteria implies otherwise. You should consider revising this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.121.249 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Still leaking

Good thing we kept the present tense in the Intro. We now have a third report of sheen in the Macondo area. BP has been saying it is from the wreckage (a 22 inch riser pipe), but independent scientists are saying this is doubtful since the oil is not weathered and the pipe is open on two ends and couldn't have that much oil in it (plus it would be weathered). Markey, the Congressman who got the spill cam online in 2010, has called again for a live cam of the ROV's that were send down 10.14.12 to check out the area and find the source of the oil.

If anyone has time to add this to the article, great. If not, I consider this section my to-do list...

  • Almost all news reports state drilling mud was amongst the oil samples, adding credence to the theory that the oil comes from the wreckage. However, National Geographic clarifies:"The Coast Guard’s original statement, while noting the source was unknown, did say the oil “could be residual oil associated with wreckage and/or debris left on the seabed,” and some of the original news coverage of these latest developments said the oil tested showed signs of drilling mud, which would bolster that conclusion. But I called the U.S. Coast Guard Eighth District in Louisiana yesterday to check on this point. Spokesman Ryan Tippets said that the Coast Guard’s lab tests did not detect presence of drilling mud in the oil sample." petrarchan47tc 20:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations

Could we use for citing proper citation templates, such as {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}}, {{Cite journal}}, {{cite press release}} etc. The current practice adding a bare url and converting it by bot tool is not the best one as it uses simplified, not proper citation style, still may have mistakes or missed information, and therefore still needs attention by other editors. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please leave detailed instructions that newcomers can understand and follow, or better yet, a link to the Wikipedia policy and instructions supporting your request. petrarchan47tc 23:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Recent addition about oil-eating microbes are problematic as they close paraphrase this source. The first version was clear copy-paste from the source and as such, it was WP:COPYVIO. The current text is slightly re-worded but t still WP:PARAPHRASE as it follows the same structure and text without adequately summarizing the source and therefore is considered again as copyrights violation which is not accepted in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Like Gandydancer said when you did this at BP (Deepwater section), 'there are only so many ways to state facts'. Your sudden concern with 'close paraphrasing' follows a certain confrontation at BP regarding your edits. I hope Wikipedia is not being used to play personal games.
For the record, here is the original source:

What's more, some experts suggest that the proliferation of the bacteria may be causing health issues for Gulf Coast residents. Writing on The Huffington Post, Riki Ott — a marine toxicologist — says that the bacteria might be responsible for an outbreak of mysterious skin rashes local physicians have lately noted.

She writes:

There are two distinct types of bacteria based on the structure of their cell walls. Gram-positive bacteria have a single-membrane cell wall, while Gram-negative bacteria have a double-membrane cell wall. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria are "Gram-positive," while the oil-eating bacteria are Gram-negative.

But! A component of the double-membrane cell-wall structure of Gram-negative bacteria can irritate human skin, causing inflammation and activating the immune system. In other words, oil-eating bacteria, just because they are Gram-negative, can cause skin rashes. In the case of Alcanivorax borkumensis, the reaction can erupt on the skin like MRSA infections.

To make things a little scarier, some of the oil-eating bacteria have been genetically modified, or otherwise bio-engineered, to better eat the oil — including Alcanivorax borkumensis and some of the Pseudomonas.

Ott says that she's spoken to numerous Gulf residents and tourists who have experienced everything from rashes to "peeling palms" after coming in contact with water in the Gulf.

My first fix:

Some experts suggested that the oil eating bacteria may have caused health issues for residents of the Gulf. Local physicians noted an outbreak of mysterious skin rashes which, according to marine toxicologist Riki Ott, could be the result of proliferation of the bacteria in Gulf waters. Ott notes that gram-negative oil-eating bacteria can cause skin rashes and that the reaction to Alcanivorax borkumensis can present MRSA-like infections. Oil eating bacteria like Alcanivorax borkumensis and some of the Pseudomonas have been genetically modified or bio-engineered to eat the oil faster. Ott claims to have spoken with numerous residents and tourists of the Gulf who have experienced symptoms like rashes and "peeling palms" after contact with the water in the Gulf.

My latest fix:

Some experts suggested that the oil eating bacteria may have caused health issues for residents of the Gulf. Local physicians noted an outbreak of mysterious skin rashes which, according to marine toxicologist Riki Ott, could be the result of proliferation of the bacteria in Gulf waters. In order to eat the oil faster, oil eating bacteria like Alcanivorax borkumensis has been genetically modified. Ott claims to have spoken with numerous residents and tourists of the Gulf who have experienced symptoms like rashes and "peeling palms" after contact with the water in the Gulf. petrarchan47tc 20:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. If you can source it to a reputable scientific publication which yahoo blogs aren't.©Geni 00:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Riki Ott is RS. Her words are printed in the Huffington Post, Yahoo and elsewhere. As long as those publications got her words right, it is RS. If you want to challenge her standing as RS, take it to the noticeboard. petrarchan47tc 00:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you failed to list any reputable scientific publications.©Geni 15:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
It is my understanding that we may use a noted authority's opinion about an issue in the manner that Petrarchan is doing here. Why would we need a scientific publication to back up Ott's opinion? Gandydancer (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
we are talking about an event that happened in 2010. Any noted authority will have published in the relevant journals by now (well if we exclude those who work for oil companies).©Geni 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Split "Investigations" section off?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Support - Article is over 100 kB, and this is the only major section without its own article. Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Support That's a great start to trimming down the size of this almost unreadable article. (I would suggest that the "spill fund" could be considered for its own article as well.) petrarchan47tc 20:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment I don't object to removing the Investigation section as long as the finding of fault and settlement sections, which are both quite small, are kept in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that this section was moved into separate article as agreed. However, the relevant section here as a parent article should include a proper summary of the new article. Right now it is an empty section. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
This section is about splitting off the investigations - where did we agree to split off the text you removed? And why would you remove it before the summary was complete rather than swapping? As for writing a summary, it is no question that it created by consensus. petrarchan47tc 07:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
It looked like a logical progression and it helps to shorten the main article. So do you agree with the split or not? I don't want to waste any more time on it if is going to be reverted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Leave your summary here on the talk page, no time wasted. petrarchan47tc 19:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Split "Environmental" section off?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
  • Support splitting off environmental section into separate article (already did thanks to Alan) and leaving here a short summary of that article per WP:SUMMARY. Just for clarification: splitting article is not removal of the text but moving it into the separate article. After the last revert there are big part of identical text in two places which is not in line with Wikipedia rules. Beagel (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Just leave the summary here at the talk page an I think we will manage with it. Beagel (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I had one lined up but then I Petrarchan47 reverted before I had a chance to drop it in. Getting late here so I will carry on tomorrow. There are no real issues as things currently stand. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You had one written out already? I agree with the others--post it here and hopefully we can all come to an agreement. Also, I'll repeat what I said above, "...finding of fault and settlement sections, which are both quite small, are kept in the article." Please discuss any suggested changes that you plan for the lead as well. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for the time being, aka "pause") If space is the problem, why not start with separating the "Investigations" as we have agreed to? The version of the Environmental section should stay on this page until a summary is agreed upon. If there is a problem with repeated text (given the new article), the agreed upon version (on this page) should stay. petrarchan47tc 20:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

$7.8B partial settlement of claims

To add to the investigations section: $7.8B partial settlement of claims, and a good article for understanding the bigger picture, including other recent charges against the company, from NY Newsday petrarchan47tc 21:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge article

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Merge article with this one, until consensus on splitting environmental section into new article is reached. (I don't think we have a summary) petrarchan47tc 06:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain in more detailed way what articles exactly you propose to merge? Merging List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the result of AfD procedure. Beagel (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the article to be merged with the new, as yet non-consensed article. So because this is the home of the environmental section for now, this article should be merged here. petrarchan47tc 23:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article exists and the AfD result was merge the list specifically there. Beagel (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
But as you said, we cannot have that text in two places. That split and new article was not agreed upon but now that Alan's account is blocked, I am not sure how to proceed to fix this. Anyone know? petrarchan47tc 07:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Just replace the exact copy here with a proper summary per WP:SUMMARY. Although the fact that the split was not agreed beforehand is regrettable, the merger back is also not a solution if we take account the size of this article. Beagel (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Usually you are right on target with keeping us abreast of the rules, but this time breaking the rules is "regrettable"? From WP:Article size:
"The decision to divide it (break it out) into a new, or to combine it into an existing article, is an editorial decision that requires consensus" petrarchan47tc 20:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I just try to use a common sense and to propose a solution. If instead of it you are interested to attack editors you disagree with, I think that there is no mean to continue this discussion any longer. Beagel (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Please stop with the 'you're attacking me'. petrarchan47tc 20:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

79%

I've had a little look through this article, and I am somewhat concerned. For example "In August, scientists had determined as much as 79% of the oil remains in the Gulf of Mexico, under the surface."

The source says

Other scientists agree with the government that the oil has largely dissipated.

“I don’t think it’s still lurking out there,” Edward Overton, an environmental chemist and professor emeritus at Louisiana State University, said in an interview last week.

‘Incredible’ Resiliency

“The Gulf is incredible in its resiliency and ability to clean itself up,” said Overton, who served as a technical reviewer for the administration’s report. “I think we are going to be flabbergasted by the little amount of damage that has been caused by this spill.”

So I would say this statement does not accurately reflect the source. Over and above the obvious imbalance, "determined" is too strong, 79% is vague (it is actually 79% of the 4.1 mbls, not of the 4.9 mbls), and "under the surface" really needs clarifying.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC).

There's always more to the story. It's possible the source was changed since it was entered here. I'll look for more recent updates, from more independent sources. petrarchan47tc 01:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It would be good. Clearly it is still early days ecologically speaking, but we may as well be reasonably current with our broad brush statements. (Funnily enough Cowan was listed as NOAA when he is LSU, and Overton's NOAA work is mentioned in the Al Jareeza article.) Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC).
My point was that Overton has been outed and has lost the respect of the scientific community for downplaying the spill. In fact, he made it into "The Big Fix" documentary, where he is made fun of for doing just that. You can see him at :18 into the preview. petrarchan47tc 08:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I've got some good, new references. I'll get to them in the next few days and update this article. petrarchan47tc 18:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I won't be able to begin this process for about a week. petrarchan47tc 06:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a little tricky. Certainly there has been some coverage making Overton look deceptive, his NOAA grants are there on his home page for all to see, however. Cowan (who takes the opposite view, up to to a point) also works with NOAA. I think it is probably inevitable, working in that field. Moreover it is fairly clear that the majority of federal and state organisations involved stood to receive more money from BP, the worse the damage was assessed to be. I'm not sure what the benefit to NOAA of "concealing" data might have been. Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC).
That Overton and NOAA were accused of downplaying the spill is a fact. But I am not arguing that you don't quote Overton and NOAA, just know that it will have to be put in context with regard to criticisms that have been made so the reader can decide whether sources are truly unbiased. (NOAA helped cover up damage to wildlife from the spill and 'controlled burns', as well as other blunders Lubchenco accused of suppressing science regarding oil plumes. ) petrarchan47tc 23:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This deserves its own section. Example from sources above:
"The NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco, herself an ocean scientist, had played down the first reports of oil in the ocean depths. MacDonald and other scientists have accused NOAA of discouraging them from making public their findings about lingering oil in the deepwater." - Guardian petrarchan47tc 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Petrarchan47 that a small section discussing some of the many aspects of cover-up would be warranted. That was a salient feature of this spill from the get-go and has become grounds for federal indictment, see http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/11/15/bp-near-settlement-with-us-over-gulf-spill/1706209/ just for a start. However there is probably enough on this topic for a separate article.--Popsup (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
A separate article is in order, but yes, we should start with a section here. petrarchan47tc 20:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Why were four sections split from this article without leaving a summary here?

I've just discovered 3 more sections split off without a summary here, absolutely contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Whoever is doing this needs to leave summaries as soon as possible. 03:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:PROSPLIT "if the split is due to size, then a summary section is required". petrarchan47tc 19:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know why all of these categories were deleted recently? petrarchan47tc 20:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC) BP

  • Disasters in Louisiana
  • Oil platform disasters
  • Oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico
  • Oil spills in the United States
  • 2010 disasters in the United States
  • 2010 industrial disasters
  • 2010 in the environment
  • Halliburton

The only one remaining is

  • Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Because category:Deepwater Horizon oil spill is a subcategory of all these above-mentioned categories and this article is included in these categories through category:Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Beagel (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Intro cleanup & new subsection

I am going to spend a little time cleaning up the intro. It's too long and contains too much detail for an intro, including items that are not germane to the principal topic. I'm putting this as a Talk topic so that I don't have to repeatedly explain in my edit notes.
The intro also has a fair amount of text and references concerning possible new or ongoing spill -- a topic that doesn't occur that in the main article. It's illogical and inappropriate for something that isn't even part of the main article to be in the intro and to take up so much of it. So I'm creating a new subsection under the Containment main section and moving this text there.--Popsup (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

See Also: Continued leakage (these have not been entered yet) petrarchan47tc 21:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
You have removed the fatalities. I am returning that information since explosion information, though now in a separate article, is still covered in this article per usual WP article guidelines. Many editors have worked long and hard on this article and there still exists a great deal of contention. Please be sure to discuss changes before you remove information. Gandydancer (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Fatalities are not related to the oil spill. And just to make facts correct—the oil spill article was split-off from the explosion article, not vice versa, so saying that now the explosion information is the separate article is not correct - it has been always in the separate article. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The 11 deaths should be mentioned here in proper context, explaining they were due to the explosion, but it would be very strange not to mention them in the article. petrarchan47tc 19:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
And they are still mentioned in the section about explosion; however, this does not belong in the lead of this article as this article is about oil spill and not about explosion. The main article for this information is the article about explosion. Beagel (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Suddenly every single point in the infobox is in the lede except the 11 deaths? This - on top of the splits without consensus or summaries - with court cases heating up - is just a bit too much. petrarchan47tc 20:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
...I was called away from the 'pedia for a few minutes (I am not a professional editor). It is unfortunate that any editor would not accept that there are opposing opinions on this article and drastic changes, such as the decision to remove any mention of the fatalities from the lead without discussion. I agree with Petrarchan--it is "a bit too much" (frustrating and exasperating). I will be away again for a short time and shudder to think what new changes will be made that have no time for discussion first...Gandydancer (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
As this article is about oil spill and there is a special article about the explosion, and these fatalities are result of the explosion and not the oil spill. This information is related and therefore mentioned in the specific section (Explosion), however, it is not caused or resulted by the oil spill nor the reason for the oil spill, and therefore it does not belong in the lead. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Utter malarkey. Most people that come to the 'pedia to look up the Gulf spill come to this article, not the explosion article, and it is a fact that many people go no further than reading the lead--which is why it is supposed to contain the basic information covered in the article. How on earth can one justify leaving out the fact that eleven men were killed? I'm actually surprised and confounded that anyone would even suggest it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Nobody leaves that fact out—it is provided in the relevant section. If you think that many people are not able to read more than just a lead (that is not a fact as you state, just your opinion), this is sad, of course, but we are writing encyclopaedia which should follow certain standards and rules. If your opinion is correct, lets write only leads and do not worry about writing any body text. However, I think that you underestimate Wikipedia readers. Beagel (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it is sad--and as a matter of fact I'm quite the opposite and sometimes end up spending much more time here than I meant because I end up reading links and sources. But it is something that I've read time and again from seasoned editors. Perhaps you have missed it because you tend to edit mostly in a very small area of WP while my edits are all over the place. As to following standards and rules, I'm all for that! Gandydancer (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain why both editors defending the removal of mention of the 11 deaths were part of the original group of editors in 2010 who built this article? Does this make you POV pushers, according to Beagle it does. Check it out.

The first of two paragraphs in the Intro 5/02/2010:

Mention of the 11 deaths has been in the Intro unquestioned for over 2.5 years. But overnight, it becomes "POV pushing" to support that idea. petrarchan47tc 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Both editors have explained their reasons–it seems that the problem is that you just ignore their arguments. Referring to "original group of editors" is very interesting point of view as there is no that kind of thing as ownership of articles. However, I may confirm that both mentioned editors belongs to the "original group of editors" as they have been edited this article since April 2010 (or from the very beginning) and have been among the top editors by their edits in this article. As for arguments that if something have been in the article for 2.5 years we can't change/remove, it is not a real argument. This article needs extensive clean-up/copyediting/etc household works to increase its readability; however according to your logic we can't to do this. Also, on 2 May 2010, this article was still named Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion. It was later when information about the spill became dominating that consensus was achieved and it was moved to the current name and explosion information was separated under the old title. Beagel (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Please explain your meaning: This article needs extensive clean-up/copyediting/etc household works to increase its readability; however according to your logic we can't to do this. petrarchan47tc 06:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Nothing that you've said explains why after all this time, why NOW this fact becomes POV-pushing when it has sat in the Lede without any problems until today. Why didn't you delete it last week, or last year? Why now are people fighting to have the 11 dead men removed from the lede? I don't understand and your excuses are hollow. There is nothing NPOV about this that I can see. petrarchan47tc 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, petrarchan and gandydance. Happy to see your continued involvement. From what I've seen of your contributions I don't see any giant conflicts and hope I can clarify here. First, considering I haven't said anything in this discussion at all, only an explanation in the edit line, it's a little extreme to characterize me as "fighting" or "defending" or "pushing." I made a very simple edit that I didn't think would be, and still don't think should be, controversial in the slightest. As Beagel correctly notes, this article started off as one on the explosion. Then it got renamed or moved to be about the spill, and finally the explosion got split back off because the spill discussion had a life of its own. There was extensive discussion about what even to name the article(s), but it's long past. The mention of fatalities in both the infobox and the intro is a carryover from the original explosion article that I was not focusing on at the time. You may have no idea how rapidly the article was growing and mutating in April-May-June 2010, and we were trying to provide the most accurate possible info, practically in real-time, watching feeds from USCG and BP press conferences and then trying to test that against what scientists were saying, which was often very different. All while the articles were being heavily vandalized and POV-edited (for example, at one point the entire section on consequences of the spill was deleted). The topic is still being gamed: the Explosion article doesn't reference this Spill article in either its intro or its See Also!
I'm unclear what POV you think I am pushing. I was the one who first added info about the presumed-deceased workers' families lawsuits (see 1 May 2010). I returned to this article by invitation after an extended absence. The distance, valuable in editing, showed me an article with an intro SO long that people probably are not getting to the main content or even what they are looking for. The overall length doesn't personally bother me -- I am comfy with print encyclos and Brittanica-type Macropedia articles which are novellas -- but the Internet caters to short attention spans and more commenters than not think splits are warranted. In any case the intro is WAY too long by half. I just started at the top and was looking for places where that could be done without losing essence. Since it's undebatable that the spill didn't cause the worker deaths, I am surprised this is such a discussion.
My original deletion here doesn't trivialize the deaths, and, sensitive to that, my original edit retained the word "fatal." It was simply an edit of something not on topic. On the contrary, a focus on the human deaths -- which were NOT caused by the spill -- may in fact distract from how the spill played out, and from some other consequences. The casualties are given much longer treatment in the original Explosion article where they belong.
My intent is that no valuable info get lost. While looking mainly to streamline, there may even need to be some restorations. I disagree that every change requires Talk. That's never been WP. I usually give more than average expl of my edits. Look at my past work and please have a little trust here.--Popsup (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the oil spill article is linked in the lead of the explosion article; however, I agree that this link is not very visible. I changed the hatnote of that article so that right now the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article is linked at the top of that article. I hope it makes it more visible. The 'See also' section should include only links which are not included in the article's body text. Beagel (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Popsup and Beagle, I'm not going to go round and round about which article was first, etc., etc. because it is just hair splitting and has no bearing on whether or not the deaths should be mentioned in the lead. This is the main article by far (check the traffic) not the explosion article. To argue that this article split off from the explosion that killed the workers and thus should not mention them in the lead is one of the poorest uses of logic that I've seen in any Wikipedia argument. Again, this is the main article with many splits, including the explosion split, not the other way around. Popsup said, "On the contrary, a focus on the human deaths -- which were NOT caused by the spill -- may in fact distract from how the spill played out, and from some other consequences." C'mon now, who is talking about coverage so extensive that it distracts from how the spill played out? We are talking about FIVE words: "in which 11 men died". Popsup you have said that it's not the WP way to leave good summaries of edit changes. Since when is that? In my experience it's a good way to create a warlike atmosphere and edit warring. BTW, I did as you asked and I found your talk page edit count quite poor and not better than average at all. Gandydancer (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Removing all mention of the 11 fatalites from the lede after two and a half years of stable presence in the article is flat-out spin. This was a lethal accident with multiple fatalities, and the oil spill resulted from that. Insisting the lede only has to be about the amount of oil in the water is tendentious. Let's have some common sense here. Jusdafax 04:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Oil spill was caused by the explosion. Oil spill was not caused by these 11 fatalities. Beagel (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I rather suspect that the reason that some editors want to scrub the five words is that later in the lead it will be expected that the wording BP will pay $4.5 billion in fines and other payments and plead guilty to 11 felony counts related to the deaths of the 11 workers will obviously need to go as well. Gandydancer (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I may confirm that your suspicion is a nonsense as there was no hidden agenda when I supported edit made by Popsup. Basis of my opinion was (and still is) a fact that there is no direct link between casualties and oil spill but they are linked through the explosion which has its own main article. But yes, now when you turn attention to that particular sentence and after checking it out I have to agree that the sentence you mentioned does not belong to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill but to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and Deepwater Horizon litigation article. However, you logic is still invalid as I think that death of these 11 workers should be mentioned also in this article but not in the lead but in the oil spill article explosion subsection. Beagel (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)k
Talk about twisted logic: Popsup claims that the explosion article created on May 5 was the original article and then complains, "The topic is still being gamed: the Explosion article doesn't reference this Spill article in either its intro or its See Also!". Actually, looking back the gumshoe in me (and there's plenty of that!) finds that on May 3, I said this, ...We really do need to split this article! Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC), suggesting that only a couple of weeks into the spill some editors were aware that it was getting bulky. And then on May 5 the article Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion was created, but strangely, it was not linked nor mentioned in the main article till June 6 [12] when the split was announced. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Just for refreshing memory the historical milestones of this article in its early stage:
  • This article was created under the name Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion. On 2 May 2010, date which was cited by petrarchan47tc above, it was still named Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion.
  • On 30 April 2010, user Popsup started discussion at the talk to split the oil spill information into separate article. The discussion was closed on late 3 May without any action as there was "clearly considerable opposition to an article split".
  • On the same day, 30 April, user AniRaptor2001 started discussion at the talk page to move the article to its current title. As a result, this article was moved to its current title on 5 May. As a result, a redirect from Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion page to this page was created. It may be called article creation, of course, but actually it was only a redirect. That is the reason why this time there was no link in the spill article to the explosion article.
  • On 3 June, a new split proposal was made. As a result, on 5 June the discussion was with consensus to split the explosion section into a new article named Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion. On the same day, split was carried out by user Labattblueboy. On the same day, a link to split-off article was added in this article as correctly mentioned by Gandydancer above.
  • On 17 June, user FT2 moved Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion page to its current title Deepwater Horizon explosion.
That was very rapid and complex development of this topic, of course, but I hope that there is nothing twisted any more. Beagel (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill/Archive_10&oldid=1092041683"