Talk:Bhopal disaster/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

First off, I have recently edited this article. I do not believe my edits are significant enough to make me a "major editor" to this article, which would prohibit me from being involved in an individual reassessment. However, if there are those who believe otherwise, I will withdraw from commenting, so that other uninvolved parties may review and decide.

My concerns with this article have to do primarily with writing style, and neutrality/objectivity.

It appears that the article is a mix of US English, British English, and Indian English (to the extent that I can make those distinctions). I admit that I am guilty of a few small edits in US English, when the article specifies British English and the talk page specifies Indian English. The larger problem, however, is that many sections of the article are not written as well as one might hope, in any form of English. A section-by-section edit might bring clarity and economy of expression to the article, if a seasoned editor cares to undertake that task. I believe there are also issues related to the way the chronology of events is laid out.

This is an emotional issue, with many facts still in dispute. There are both cultural and national interests that make fact finding all the harder. Under the best of circumstances, it would be difficult to present this article with neutrality and objectivity. Nonetheless, I believe we could do a better job, finding this article's neutral voice. It appears to lean in the direction of the Indian government/NGO perspective. While some of Union Carbide's positions and statements are presented, they are underweighted when one takes in the full breadth of the article.

There may also be a need for updating certain information, but my GOOD ARTICLE concerns are most related to the two issues stated above. Gulbenk (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was passed way to easily and I echo your concerns about NGOs as the major contributor to the article is directly affiliated, but I wont blame him anyways as this is a bit sensitive issue. Thanks Gulbenk for raising issues. I'm too much packed in real life and wont be back on Wiki till 10 November so it is my humble request to not to take any actions like delisting due to inactivity. I'll be sure to address the issues once I'm back in 20 days. Thanks again for taking time and bringing the issues up. Take care :)  TheSpecialUser TSU 10:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Everyone should have adequate time and opportunity to comment. No decisions/action before mid November.Gulbenk (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Despite TSU saying he won't blame me for such an easy pass, I agree with the pass. This was my second GA and I did not quite understand the system. After this review, I learned the whole system behind GA nominations and now I never pass like I did here. So I take the responsibility for the easy pass. I would like to comment on the article regarding the concerns you raised, however I won't. Tomorrow I will work on the article regarding some concerns. Hey, if I passed to easily, I might as work on the article to make up for GA. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments John F. Lewis. No need to take a bullet for the team, we're all working together on this project. Look forward to your helpful edits. Gulbenk (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. And just for clarification, John, when I said I won't blame him, I intended it for Ineck who has developed the article and unintentionally in a bit non-neutral manner (most probably because of his affiliation with the topic). And as far as American and British English goes, it does make a difference and an article wont be considered a Good article unless it is fixed so I have fixed it with the help of a wonderful script :)  TheSpecialUser TSU 09:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there an Indian English script? Sandcherry (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually British English is accepted at Indian articles as difference of spellings is very rare and mostly in typical Indian words.  TheSpecialUser TSU 06:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ineck appears to be a "her", rather than a "him". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this article meets the Good Article criteria notwithstanding the points raised by Gulbenk. The major concern is neutrality as it draws heavily on Dr. Ingrid Eckerman’s (user name Ineck) published research that could be perceived as biased. Revisions I and others have made over the past several years have generally eliminated uncited and biased material added by contributors other than Ineck and improved the readability of the article. The tone is critical of Union Carbide and the government of Madhya Pradesh which is not unreasonable considering their involvement in the tragedy. Of lesser, but still valid, concern is the hodgepodge of American and Indian English. Dr. Eckerman is from Sweden and obviously not a native Indian English speaker. Neither am I. Although the use of American English in an Indian English article is not correct, it does not seem to be a sufficient reason to withdraw GA status. In summary, while there is still a lot of room for improvement, I believe the article meets the GA criteria. Sandcherry (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Any more comments? Hope to conclude this reassessment in the next 10-14 days. Gulbenk (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be late. I'll be going on an overhaul on the article again and will be done by tonight (Indian Standard Time) and I'll give my comments. Thanks for all your patience and my apologies too for being late.  TheSpecialUser TSU 08:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about adding some tags while the article was under GA reassessment. I should have commented here, first.  Points to be considered:
 * tagged "All-important" is clearly a WP:PEACOCK term.
 * tagged That UCC submitted to Indian jurisdiction in agreeing to the Indian forum is not obvious. Hypothetically, UCC could have filed a motion in a US court that the US forum was not proper, and in an Indian court that the Indian courts did not have jurisdiction over UCC.  A specific citation is needed.  (I took a semester of law school recently &mdash; these things can happen.)
 * Reference 5 (Eckerman 2005) is clearly not a reliable source for opinions and conclusions, per the review at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257585/ . I don't know about Eckerman 2001 and Eckerman 2006.
 * As for the tone, being critical of UCIL and the government of Madhya Pradesh is understandable; being critical of UCC is not, as there has been no evidence presented (in the article, or, apparently, in court) that they were at all responsible except possibly for not monitoring the actions of UCIL. I don't know if I'll have time for additional input, but, if I do, I'll comment here, rather than editing the article.  Sorry for the unintentional disruption.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Observations and comments, from all quarters, are appreciated, and are an important part of this process. Edits that improve the article, or point to places that need improvement, are never disruptive. Gulbenk (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Eckerman (2005) has been used over 50 times as a source and I really cannot do much if it isn't reliable. I actually never worked on its referencing, so I'd give up there. Looking at the article, I too feel that I should have neutralized and it isn't completely neutral. I think that it is a bit tough to fix this up as my schools are starting and I'd be too busy to work anymore. I rushed the GA nom right after fixing MoS. I never took up for refs or neutrality which are the main issues here. I've learned it and have taken care of it in 5 of my GA noms at present. As far as this article goes, I won't oppose if it has been delisted as I too believe that it isn't up till GA level. I'd re-nom it in future when I'll have enough time for cleaning up this article. Right now, I'd support a delist.  TheSpecialUser TSU 13:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you  TheSpecialUser TSU.  Your comments, I believe, reflect the majority opinion on this issue. I will finish up the formal reassessment process by the end of the month, and look forward to working with you (and with the others who commented here) on improving the article. Gulbenk (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The article meets GA criteria:


 * 1. Well-written - after extensive editing including conversion to British English
 * 2. Factually accurate and verifiable - includes numerous independent references
 * 3. Broad in its coverage - addresses humanitarion, technical, political, legal, and other issues associated with the accident and aftermath
 * 4. Neutral - balanced may be a better description which could be considered neutral
 * 5. Stable - mostly stable for the last two years except for minor improvements and some random vandalism
 * 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images - includes multiple images

Like many GAs, additional improvements are needed. However, these improvements do not warrant delisting in this case. Sandcherry (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

GAR Findings
A Good Article Reassessment was undertaken on October 25, 2012. On that date, notification of the GAR was sent to major contributors. A statement outlining the reasons for reassessment was posted to the GAR page, and that statement was transluded onto the article TALK page. Comments were solicited over a five week review period. Findings from that reassessment are as follows:


 * 1.Well-written? - Efforts to conform the language of the article to one style (British English) appear successful. However, problems with presentation (notably the chronology of events) persist. As mentioned initially, a section-by-section edit might bring clarity and economy of expression to the article, if a seasoned editor cares to undertake that task. The article, as it stands now, is not well written.


 * 2.Factually accurate and verifiable? - In the course of the reassessment it was stated that Reference 5 (Eckerman 2005) is not a reliable source for opinions and conclusions, per the review at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257585/, and that this particular reference has been used over 50 times as a source. Additional effort, reworking the referencing of this article, is indicated. The article can not be said to be factually accurate and verifiable.


 * 3.Broad in its coverage? - The article addresses a broad number of issues.


 * 4.Neutral? - The initial statement, outlining the reasons for reassessment, voiced a concern that the article appeared to lean in the direction of the NGO perspective. That concern was echoed by several editors. It also appears that Union Carbide/Dow Chemical positions and statements are underweighted. Discussion of UCIL autonomy in the operation of the plant, and the culpability of local managers is all but absent. Additional editing is required, if this article is to achieve neutrality and balance.


 * 5.Stability? - This article has undergone substantial revision in the past, most notably in an effort to bring order to the chronology of events, and to implement general improvements. However, in the absence of edit warring and excessive vandalism it can be accepted as stable.


 * 6.Illustrated? - The article includes six images, four of which are photos. Maps would enhance the article, but are not included. One photo, which appears to show the deteriorated remnants of the abandoned MIC plant is not labeled as such, nor dated. It holds the potential for misimpression, placed in the "Equipment and safety regulations" section, while the "Ongoing contamination" section would be more appropriate. Nonetheless, the article is illustrated.

Upon reassessment, this article does not achieve three of the six criteria required for the designation of Good Article. Gulbenk (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hold on a minute here... re: 2. Factually Accurate" I read the article reviewing Ingrid's book. The article pointed out two tiny errors, and took issue with some of Ingrid's claims, then went on to say "Eckerman’s biases against industry and government can be forgiven when compensation was delayed for years, a reliable health care infrastructure is still not in place, environmental laws are not enforced, and worker safety appears compromised by lapses in oversight".  You can't just throw out Ingrid's whole book as a source, on the basis of a few phrases in one review.  Unless you are Union Carbide looking to silence criticism. Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Am I reliable?
This was a very interesting discussion! ;-) I would like to know what an "NGO perspective" is. Is it the opposite to "industry perspective"? or "government perspective"? or "victims' perspective"?

When I came into this article some years ago, it was terrible. It was mostly about The Yes Man and the current state of the legal affairs. I started to write down facts (pre-event phase, event phase, post-event phase). I used the format from my book with points, to make it very clear.

Other people wrote the legal chapters, and I did not bother about them. Other people added things with not reliable sources like TV programs, when I had much more reliable sources in my book. Also, much of what I had written was questionned, so I had to explain. I had to add more and more detailed texts and references (the ones I used in my book).

Someone from UCC added one paragraph (Union Carbide's defence). Others added lots of text about contamination.

I sorted all references in different groups. I was keen on adding references from UCC and very old references, like two reports from the Swedish defence and the ILO report, to make it possible for the readers to find out themselves.

YOUR PROBLEM, Gulbenk, as mine 10 years ago, is that so much is written about this disaster. It is difficult to see what is true and what is exaggerated. That's why I collected these 200 references and did my best to sort them out, structure the content, try to come as close to the truth as possible. I used different methods to analyse the whole process.

Your problem is that my book is the best if you want to get a review (history book) of what was actually the causes and consequences. Otherwise you will have to go back to the 200 documents. No, more, because now more old scientifical studies are published. Actually, I am supposed to be the "expert", and I was the one asked to write the Bhopal chapter in Elsevier's Encyclopedia of Environmental Health.

Another way of expressing it is that your problem is to show which parts in the text that are not true. Good luck! You will be busy for a year or two.

MY PROBLEM is that during the process to make it a GAR article, it lost so much! The format, with lots of sentences after the other instead of ... (what do you call it? dotted paragraphs?) makes it much more difficult to read, to get an overview of. The reference/read more list, the films, the music, the media response, different kind of reports, my presentations, my essay, etc etc etc, are all gone. Before, it was a living document. Now it is dead.

Why don't you try to find out what I have written in my book, and in what way?

If you go into my website you will find a link to my essay from 2001, a short version of my book. http://www.eckerman.nu/default.cfm?page=The%20Bhopal%20Saga

Read some of The Bhopal Saga at Google Book http://books.google.se/books?id=F4quv-lYCGEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ingrid+eckerman&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=zn6-ULXRE9GL4gSshIHQDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ingrid%20eckerman&f=false

In this presentation you find the problem tree that I used to analyse the process. http://www.lakareformiljon.org/images/stories/dokument/2009/bhopal_gas_tragedy_march_2008.pdf

Skip the idea to make it GAR. It is more important that the information (written by several authors) is appopriate - which I think it is now (I cannot guarantee the legal or contamination paragraphs though). It is more important to give the readers possibilities to go further with their own studies. This accident will always be questionned. You will never be able to write the article in such a way that no one will oppose or criticize (damn, how do you spell it??? I hate z and c in this terrible language.).

I have a lot of pictures, but I don´t know how to add them.

Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

-- My idea originally was to add lots of relevant references so everyone could go into it and search for more information from different sources. I was keen on adding all material I knew about from UC/Dow. Some of these references I had used myself in The Bhopal Saga. That's why I grouped the references in scientifical articles, reports and books, material from UC, music and films, etc. But during the big reformation 2012 all this was taken away. So now it seems like The Bhopal Saga is the main reference.

And I am reliable enough to be asked to write the chapter on Bhopal in Elseviers Encyclopedia on environment and health 20122. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444522726003597

If I find time, I will restore it to an earlier version that is more clear and neutral than this.

217.210.126.99 (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Help me with references!
I tried to add a reference with an abbreviation but did not succeed. It should be "Eckerman2013", no 6. How does it work??? Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)