Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 11

Frustrating and so disheartening...
It is so disheartening... The splits done by a drive-by editor on Dec. 19 have been sitting there without a main article summary till now and this morning I spent four hours to attempt it. I did say in my summary that I was still working on it, and to further frustrate my edits I kept getting "Please try later" messages as I attempted to post. But now, after all this time, it is suddenly such an emergency that Beagle feels the need to jump right in and work on this section as well. I want everybody, including BP and its supporting editors, to get a fair shake here. But with every edit I find myself coming closer to the "Fuck it" stage where one gives in and moves on to other articles that are not so heavily biased to one POV. Gandydancer (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I really can't understand your complain. That was good faith edit from my side to help to trim this section, particularly taking account your edit summary "may still need some tweaks...)". And I really understand that you finished with this section as you moved to other sections.  I invite everybody to look my edits and decide if there is any bias or not.  However, I would like to thank you that you started this summarizing process. Beagel (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW I have been called a lot of things but never a BP editor! And FYI, when I was trying to post earlier this week I too was getting countless repeated "Try later" messages. Don't know if it's all WP or just related to this article. I have still not gotten a straight answer as to what you (Gandydancer) think the POV bias is. My goal from the get-go has been to keep it objective, factual, relevant, understandable, and accessible.--Popsup (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. What is it that I said that you keep referring to?  Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you are feeling this way. My two cents, it is impossible to understand how removing the mention of the 11 dead men is NPOV or reasonable at all. So perhaps people are grasping at straws trying to understand it.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: First, I'm not taking sides on the hot-buttons. As always, name-calling is not helpful. It is clear that there are strong feelings all around and that so far the differences aren't getting resolved. This implies that a different approach might help. I suggest less editing and more dialog to develop a plan for this important article.

One approach might be a way to get the discussion to focus on the big picture of the article, rather than the disagreements on specific points. The article has now reached 19k words, which is a sign that it needs to refocus on its main points and move details elsewhere in the family of articles on this topic, which number something around 13. I'd suggest setting an overall target of reducing the word count by half. Next look at the TOC and see if any topics can be handled entirely elsewhere. Then assign an approximate word count for each remaining section and subsection that makes the overall number work. Create separate topics on the talk page for any remaining points of contention and work them out there. Then return to editing.

Editing WP is supposed to be fun and stimulating, not ulcerating. Good luck. Lfstevens (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my angry rant--all it does is to create drama as I have done here. I try to remember to never post while angry but forget from time to time.  Nevertheless, I did work long and hard on that split and was still working on it when the changes started.  It did make me angry when it has been sitting there for a month and the minute I did it the ink wasn't even dry and my work was completely rearranged.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC on content split without consensus
The Environmental section of this article was split, leaving nothing but a link to a new article created without discussion or consensus just prior to the holidays, December 23, 2012. The editor responsible promised a summary which never manifested, and he is now blocked for a month over a separate issue. Should the editor's edits on December 23rd and subsequent related edits be reverted until a consensus on the split and summary to be left here are achieved?  petrarchan47  t  c   21:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional comments: Regarding concerns about article length, we had agreed to split the "Investigations" section. Maybe con-sensed splits should take precedence?  petrarchan47  t  c   23:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:POVFORK, in case it might be of relevance, the court cases and possible prior settlement by BP over the Gulf spill are coming up within the next month.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We have already begun talking about splitting this article per WP:TOOLONG, we have agreed on splitting the Investigations section. We are in disagreement about splitting the Environmental section (see talk sections above). Splitting the environmental section from an oil spill article, let alone from this particular one, is not as simple as it may seem. Why is an oil spill a big deal in the first place? I would argue: the toxic effects. This spill is the largest of its kind in history, and used Corexit, which made the spill 52X more toxic, in a way and to a degree never done before. The effects will be massive and ongoing. Fish populations fell 4 years after the Exxon Valdez. To ask us to summarize the environmental effects in a paragraph on this article seems ridiculous and short-sighted to me. Yes, there should at some point be a separate article for this, but the environmental ramifications should also be a good portion of this main article. This is the last section that should be considered for a split and replaced by small summary. For matter of size alone, the agreed-on section and other less important sections should be considered first. Additionally, the environmental section on this page can be tidied up and updated (and probably shortened). The editors have been talking about the need to clean this page up for awhile, but to suggest starting with splitting possibly the most damning section in the article gives me pause.  petrarchan47  t  c   01:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Technical comment. Relevant sections were this issue was discussed are this and this. Beagel (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - while I agree it was done without consensus, I can see where an editor might have considered consensus was there by default for an article with long-standing (unchallenged) too-long tags that suggest/encourage splits of this kind. Nonetheless, I understand Petrarchan47's concerns and I understand the basis for this RFC. Ironically, the split itself was considered (by some) to itself be too large and it was subsequently split (though the split was merged back in after AFD). I suppose my position would be to support the "primary" split but oppose any further split until it can be properly justified. Obviously, though, the initial split needs to be done properly with main tags and summaries and we should probably ask the original author to come back and fix that part of his work (I understand his block was fairly technical and I'm not sure it will be indef). Stalwart 111  22:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - The user is currently blocked. This fork might have also been a violation of the original block.  Something to check out, as one might consider this a WP:POVFORK  PeterWesco (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Main article is rather big. Hence, I would actually support slit, except that one must provide an adequate summary (a paragraph or two) in main article after the split, which was not done. I think the split is rather obvious in this case, and Alan Liefting certainly acted in a good faith per WP:BOLD to improve it. If there is any serious disagreement about it, one could gradually edit out content in main article (since we have both) to reduce content forking. But I do not see any serious problem with having some degree of content overlap (as it is right now) either. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Holy crap, this article is excessively long. I would support split per WP:TOOLONG and WP:SIZERULE, so Alan's actions is not just acting in good faith, but actually following the guidelines. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I support the split, in principle. There should be a summary here, but the split off article is not mature enough to provide one.  For example
 * The problems with crabs are almost certainly due to dispersants stripping the waxy protection from their shells, and not mutations.
 * The long term results are obviously not known, but most of the reporting focussed on the first couple of months, so there is little balance
 * At least some citations are pretty poor (see my comments on the talk page), and there is at least some scientific coverage which could be used to improve this (I would suspect a lot).
 * Until the split off article is mature, the "summary" would have to be a little mealy mouthed.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Partial retraction of the above. It seems I stumbled into the less well written parts of the split off article. The main section "Impact" seems much better written and sourced.  Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Comment I am extremely unhappy about the recent changes to the article which have taken place without any discussion what so ever. Right before Christmas, when some of us were unable to keep a close watch over the articles that are important to us, the Reactions and Investigations sections were also split off.  I was not even aware of it till this moment.  This is the sort of thing, especially when one feels that they are spending endless wasted hours at other articles as well, that causes some people to eventually throw in the towel and say they've had enough. I'm feeling very discouraged right now. Gandydancer (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge the material in question back into this Article. As long as the split was without consensus, we may as well, especially since this Article is only moderately long. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note, even after the split this is the 126th longest article in Wikipedia. List here. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Comment We have a very similar problem with the few of us who edit / keep an eye on the Chernobyl Disaster. In principle a split to a seperate Environmental Impact article makes a lot of sense. However this is only given that a good summary can be written that is both short, succinct & clear and assuages the fear that a split-off will 'hide' important info moving the article towards NPOV. If there is a continuing abscence of this summary, merging back makes sense. -- Cooper 42 (Talk)(Contr) 05:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that a merge-back only makes sense if the main article section becomes/remains unacceptable, but (a) the importance of enviro consequences means that the original section should not be overly "short and succinct," and (b) right now the new article has not so much deleted/hidden info as duplicated it. See my Comment below.--Popsup (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Split Thank you Beagle for inviting my comment and to the other commenters for participating! Post-split this article remains way too long. This and more splits should be done. WP is for readers, not editors. E.g., this article is much longer than either Abraham Lincoln or World War II. Of course there should be a summary of split-off subjects, and of course, splits should be consensual, given the many controversies that surround this topic. Enough time has passed to allow for a model of WP's ultimate treatment to be prepared and applied. We should be able to put together a very stable "top of the tree" of moderate size. Lfstevens (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Split It's just too long.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you, Beagel, for inviting my comment and to the other commenters for participating. I was a principal early editor of this article. My comments:
 * I don't support relegating environmental impact to a separate article (and then possibly using that as rationale for repeatedly paring down the Ecology section of the main article). The #1 reason the spill was and remains newsworthy is the environmental impact, otherwise it's simply another tragically fatal tho visually sensational industrial accident. As the top US oil spill ever and arguably the worst US environmental disaster ever, the environmental aspect has to be a principal part of the main article about a spill. I agree that the split should not have occurred without consensus.


 * The existing Ecology section is about 3600 words. The separate Environmental Consequences article is about 3,000 words. That seems backwards. There's significant duplication between the section and the new article, yet there's also significant differing content, about 50%.
 * There's enough material to support a separate, more detailed and in-depth article on enviro impact; heck, that could and doubtless will be a book; I just don't think that a split was the way it should have been done. I note that the Explosion, the Containment efforts, and the Litigation are each already separate articles. As other commenters have noted, the new separate article is not yet mature; also two large portions of the new article consist of distracting lists which themselves arguably ought to be separate articles.
 * (excuse me for butting in) They were separate articles, they were proposed for deletion at the same time, by the same editor who split the Environmental section off and made a new article. I think they should be undeleted.  petrarchan47  t  c   04:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The main article is long in part because it was a top news story for months during an active period for Wikipedia. With some perspective from the passage of time, since I haven't looked at it in depth for a while, I can see this article has been gamed to some degree, unsurprising considering that almost from Day 1 of the spill there was cover-up and lying, that enormous litigation has been ongoing, and that vested interests in how this is viewed have enormous resources. Currently overly long and forest-for-trees, and prime candidates for editing, are Secs. 3 and 4, which do not have the same longlasting encyclopedic value in the main article as the environmental consequences, which already have their own separate article, and which serve by their placement here to delay the reader from reaching the Consequences section.
 * Considering all the above I don't support a merge-back at this time. I oppose even more a merge of the main section into the new separate article. I urge authors and editors of the separate article to improve that article. Good decisions have to be made on what info belongs in which article. I'll try to find time to help clean up this original article or find others who can.--Popsup (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wrong question? (Comment) I too wish to thank Beagel for helping publicize this. I think Popsup makes an excellent point, indeed a central one, when writing, "The #1 reason the spill was and remains newsworthy is the environmental impact" and that "As the top US oil spill ever and arguably the worst US environmental disaster ever, the environmental aspect has to be a principal part of the main article about a spill." (italic emphasis added)
 * Changes (if any) need to preserve the integrity of an in-depth detailed look at the environmental impacts.
 * Should this section be a large percent of the entire article? Yes, for the reasons Popsup points out.
 * Does this mean there can't be any legitimate questions about total length of the article, or that other articles can't exist with other/additional details? No. It would be a false either-or on our part; we can preserve a detailed section on the environmental damage, but also keep the total article within a certain length, and thereby, keeping the percent of the article that section takes up, would limit the size of that section.
 * Don't take me too literally; there's nothing wrong wish asking whether to have a split or undo a split, but I'm suggesting the main focus and main issues can be phrased in a series of questions the answer to which I hope we can agree should be "yes" to all:
 * Do we keep a sigfinicant proportion of this article as a section on environmental impacts? Yes.
 * Can we appreciate that given it's noteworthyness, this article can and shold be large, but also still put some limits on the total length,and concomitantly, some limits on the length of subsections, modulo modification if/as new and very important" information emerges? Yes.
 * Can we put less than 100% of what's known in that section, putting some parts in a separate article? Yes
 * I hope, and believe, that all these objectives (last three sub-bullets) can be achived and should be things we can all work together to make happen.Harel (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Article family - This spill is one of the largest and environmentally damaging man-made disasters in history. Because it occurred in the information age, there are a great many excellent sources for the many facets of the event and there is great interest in the readership about all these aspects. Therefore the amount of information we offer can be quite large without being undue. In order to cover all the ground necessary, we'll need multiple articles with at least one parent article such as this one.
 * Maintaining the quality of the parent article(s) should be our first priority.
 * While we can expect and should celebrate splitting off sections that become too large, I propose guidance to delay implementing splits until a good quality summary is available as an improvement to the parent article.
 * Take this as a !vote to return the article to it's pre-split state with conditional approval for the split.
 * (uninvolved RfCBot invitee)  Joja  lozzo  21:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this disaster has been ranked next to the dust bowl in terms of severity and it will still be years before we learn the full extent of the damage done. Any experienced editor knows that splitting can be done in such a way as to "flavor" the article one way or another.  For instance, we now know that BP knew right from the start that at least 62,000 barrels a day was spewing out as they were telling the coast guard 1000. And all that time, for many weeks, we were getting and putting this and that estimate into the article when they had a pretty good idea all along.  That information should be worked right into the article rather than  be considered unimportant and appear only in the split because it was discovered after the fact, etc. Considering that some editors now want to delete any mention of the deaths of 11 workers and the criminal charges related to their deaths from the lead, makes me, well, very nervous... Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are valid but I don't understand how they address the specific question before us here. At least I don't think your concerns can be considered arguments against splitting out any content since they can be addressed by managing how the splits are made, not whether they are made. Isn't it clear that some splitting is required? Joja  lozzo  14:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that there's is any question about more splitting since it's twice the acceptable length. I would suggest that every (including Volume and extent of oil spill) topic be split and that we continue to supply fairly long summaries as we have been doing.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Split. It is far too long. Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, in fact the split remains. But I do want to emphasize Harel's (and others') point: Do we keep a significant proportion of this article as a section on environmental impacts? Yes. Also, the split off article receives about 20 views per day, so what is moved there essentially will not be seen. And, at the same time this split occured, two related articles were proposed for deletion and instead ended up taped to the bottom of the new article (they are 'lists'). It's unreadable and looks awkward. Those articles can be reinstated with a simple request, and I think that should be done if we are going to seriously try to create a readable new article.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Splitting Health Effects section
I have tagged the "Health effects" section as, from what I'm reading, this will turn out to be a very large section/story. These effects are only beginning to be reported. But, I mean for the split to happen in keeping with Wiki guidelines and in communication with other editors. And just like with the "ecological" split, the remaining section should remain large (roughly the size it is now) even after the split, in relation to its importance.  petrarchan47  t  c   05:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Trying to once again get involved in this article, I looked at the "External links"  suggestions and found that Al Jazerra is doing a good job of follow-up, though I didn't read any of it yet...  Gandydancer (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Nation did a good job too. A large group of scientists converged in NOLA this month, and apparently human health effects were the top concern. I've referenced it in the article.  petrarchan47  t  c   08:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously "mad scientist" didn't see this talk page entry. I've left a note for him/her at their talk page asking them to undue the split of the health effects.  petrarchan47  t  c   20:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Rearrange sections, move tables, general editing per WP:TECHNICAL
Per WP:UPFRONT Ideas for dealing with moderately or highly technical subjects....Put the most understandable parts of the article up front....It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary.

We have editors who are 'in the field', but we need to edit this article with WP:TECHNICAL in mind. The lead section should be particularly understandable, but the advice to write one level down can be applied to the entire article, increasing the overall accessibility. I've begun by changing the amount of oil spilled to say clearly "XXX US gallons", rather than the more technical (previous) presentation. From WP:MTAA "Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation".

We likely need to take a look at the sections and see if some rearranging is in order. We do have highly technical sections on top. Also, tables should be considered for merge with spin-off articles and summarized here.  petrarchan47  t  c   08:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Spill Flow Rate really can't remain in the state it's in (including table) at the top of the article according to these guidelines. I've tagged it with the most relevant tag I could find, though it should refer to the section, not the entire article.  petrarchan47  t  c   07:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Barrier island plan
That's interesting, both I and Gandy agreed a summary could go in the "Barrier island plan" section, did we not? How then did we tie a bow on Beagle's addition of information to another section? This wasn't agreed to by anyone, I have updated the Barrier Island plan (it had into from summer 2010 but didn't include Dec 2010 presidential investigation findings). I restored the section and it has a decent summary now. I would appreciate waiting or responding to consensus before we "close discussion"s.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Conference in New Orleans
User:Petrarchan47 added the following paragraph:

''Over 1,000 scientists gathered in New Orleans in January 2013 to discuss the effects of the disaster. According to reporter Mark Schleifstein from the Times Picayune,'' Even two years after the spill, people are still dealing with a variety of mental health issues. And that seems to be the most significant problem that’s been discussed here. There also are reports of skin problems, people still having problems with breathing issues, coughing, those kinds of things...and headaches. A much larger study of people who worked in cleaning up the spill, which The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has started, they have found biomarkers two years after the spill that are matching the oil from the BP well, still in the bodies of people who worked cleaning up the spill.

When summarizing, this paragraph was changed as following:

''Two years after the spill the study started by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found biomarkers that are matching the oil from the spill, in the bodies of cleanup workers. Other studies have reported a variety of mental health issues, skin problems, breathing issues, coughing, and headaches. }}''

Reasons for this were:
 * While the conference may have notability itself, it is not too significant in the overall context of the spill;
 * As it is presented in the health subsection it makes false impression that the conference was about the health issues related to the spill. In fact, it was about all consequences and health issues was only one small part of this;
 * The quote was removed as, first, it was a journalist and not an expert who was quoted; and the quote itself was not encyclopedic. Instead, all health issues said in the quote were listed in the changed paragraph.

I hope this explains the issue. Beagel (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm. Sounds all peachy until I see User:Beagle follows it up by removing Cowan's statement about never seeing the kind of mutations before that exist now. You said it added no information. I want to assume NPOV motivates these edits, but the justifications sometimes make no sense at all. We can't mention the biggest gathering of scientists since the spill in the health section, because the conference wasn't specifically about health effects? What guideline are you referring to when editing?    petrarchan47  t  c   06:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:SS, WP:DUE, WP:Not News, WP:PARAPHRASE. Beagel (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we really want to include the stuff from Riki Ott?
Not from great sources and claims seem well seriously out there. We don't really have the technology to genetically engineer oil eating organisms (not that there is any real need. Just pull them out of the bilges of the nearest oil tanker) and why would a Marine toxicologist/ Marine biologist be conducting autopsies on human beings? Humans are not exactly marine mammals. Unless someone can provide a good defence I'm going to pull it.©Geni 21:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please explain exactly what you plan to pull.  Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * basically every time the article lists a claim by Riki Ott.©Geni 00:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So your problem is with Riki Ott in general? Could you clarify your position please?   petrarchan47  t  c   06:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Geni, you need to do more research. Riki Ott is considered as reliable a source as any when it comes to oil spill aftermath and impacts on humans. Furthermore, BP admitted to using genetically engineered organisms. "Mike Utsler, Chief Operating Officer of BP's Gulf Coast Restoration, publicly told BBC reporters that "[t]here is a new form of microbiology that is attacking this (oil) plume and using it as a food source." Shortly after admitting this on camera, other BP officials abruptly interjected and ended the interview. watch.   petrarchan47  t  c   20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is he considered a reliable source (and "new form of microbiology" rules out GM. Our abilities in that area are limited to well established forms of microbiology)?©Geni 09:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Because he's Mike Utsler, Chief Operating Officer of BP's Gulf Coast Restoration.   petrarchan47  t  c   06:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was asking about Riki Ott.©Geni 20:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are no grounds for removing Riki Ott's words as they are well sourced. We don't do science here, we quote scientists from RS. I realize there are some court cases coming up. I hope this page won't come under attack for dubious reasons. Strange timing as these quotes have been in this article for well over a year.  petrarchan47  t  c   06:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Err the source is the huffington post which isn't a reliable source of scientific subjects. As for your insinuations you will withdraw them. I've been editing since 2004 across a range of subjects (actually I was vaguely flicking through this page because it involves Tharos).©Geni 20:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is Riki Ott, the go-to scientist for oil spill toxicity. Do an internet search with her name, followed by CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Al Jazeera, Democracy Now to see that I am correct. I do withdraw my claim that you are trying to scrub the article for nefarious reasons.


 * Consensus needs to be made here on the talk page for removal of Riki Ott "stuff". If anyone has RS quotations stating that her position is incorrect, those can be added to the article of to this argument for removal. But arguments made by Wikipedia editors don't trump RS.   petrarchan47  t  c   06:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You got consensus to keep it in? In any case WP:FRINGE applies. No disrespect to the various scientists that BP employs but the claim that they have managed to out-pace the rest of the GM field to that extent is seriously out there. The claim of human deaths beyond the explosion is again enough of a fringe theory and is going to need to backed by more than one quote from one lets face it campaigner.©Geni 20:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain your accusation of "campaigner". You would be wise to hide any bias you have if you want to be taken seriously. As for the human death claims beyond those from the explosion, you are right. We do need to create a new section dealing with this. Al Jazeera has covered the issue, and Democracy Now mentioned it; I will get to adding this soon.   petrarchan47  t  c   03:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This might have to do with location. In the States, Riki Ott was the go-to scientist for mainstream media (cable news networks) regarding the oil spill. She was also the main scientist in the award winning documentary about Exxon Valdez spill, Black Tide, which showed in the US on the History Channel. Here is a transcript of Ott being interviewed on prime time news on MSNBC, as an example (watch the interview on YouTube by searching "BP coverup of sick humans and dead animals". Her words are considered reliable because she is widely respected and seen as an oil spill expert. If you feel to add the phrase "According to Ott" before any statements in the article that you have problems with, feel free. But her quotations stay.   petrarchan47  t  c   06:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's more "stuff" from Riki Ott being interviewed on CNN by Sanjay Gupta. Just use your favorite search engine and enter "Riki Ott oil spill expert" and you will see that in America, it is an accepted title for Ott. On that basis alone, her words are considered RS by Wikipedia standards.   petrarchan47  t  c   06:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * being a TV talking head doesn't mean as much as you seem to think. In any case being an expert on oil spills would not make you an expert on what would be beyond cutting edge GM tech or put you in a position where you would be involved with autopsies.©Geni 23:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Geni, please stop the edit warring and take this to the proper noticeboard where Riki Ott's reliability as a source can be determined in a more responsible way.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is usual to discuss things on an article's talk page. Noticeboards are for those cases where agreement is impossible. Since you have ceased to defend your position I can only assume you no longer hold it.©Geni 04:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You could also assume personal issues kept me from Wikipedia, not that I suddenly changed my mind.   petrarchan47  t  c   18:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I could but its been more than 2 weeks now and your ownership issues are getting annoying.©Geni 05:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What is annoying is your bias against Riki Ott. I have very little patience given your comments about her and responses to me. Also putting words in my mouth and expecting me to argue them? I have little time for this. I never said Huff Post is a great source for science or anything else, what I said was that Riki Ott of and by herself, on her own merits, is RS (regardless of where her words are printed). She was a "talking head" on every major news cast for months after the spill because she is the number one source for oil spill related toxicity issues. She was consulted on autopsies both human and animal because of her expertise. There was and is a very small number of independent specialists working in the Gulf on post-spill related issues. And Riki Ott is at the head of that group. Your response to my attempt at educating you as to who Riki Ott is, was what prompted me to suggest you take this to the proper noticeboard to determine whether Ott qualifies as RS. I'm not going to spend time arguing with you when you show such a high level of bias and contempt for facts presented. If you are really following the Wiki guidelines for NPOV editing, you will do a search yourself to find out who Riki Ott is and why she is heavily quoted in this article. If you have a personal bias against her you should excuse yourself as it is not possible for you to edit in an unbiased way.   petrarchan47  t  c   01:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know who they are. A long standing environmental campaigner (on her website she describes herself as an Author, Activist and Public Speaker). Nothing wrong with that of course but it isn't itself a qualification. The claim that she is "number one source for oil spill related toxicity issues" is unlikely. Phd focused on invertebrates (and heavy metals rather than oil). At the same time we have people who specialize in toxicology in mammals and even humans. Riki Ott's heavy campaign schedule means that it is unlikely that she would be able to fit in the level of cross training require to come close to matching such people. Of course such people don't make for interesting news programs.©Geni 08:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Geni, are you saying that oil eating microbes have never been genetically engineered?  petrarchan47  t  c   02:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess so: "We don't really have the technology to genetically engineer oil eating organisms" ~ Geni.
 * So how do you explain this: Prof. Chakrabarty genetically engineered a new species of Pseudomonas bacteria ("the oil-eating bacteria") in 1971...?   petrarchan47  t  c   04:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes strictly speaking we do have the ability to put together bacteria with more copies of existing genes. The problem is that in this case the claim is that they have been successfully deployed in an ocean environment on a scale where they come into non trivial contact with people. This either requires deployment on a massive scale (which would be noticed simply getting your hands on enough fermenters would probably disrupt the brewing industry to a significant extent) or that that the think is significantly fit to out compete the existing oil eating bacteria which is unlikely to put it mildly.©Geni 08:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Geni, I would have more respect for you if you would just admit you were wrong rather than wriggle around saying "Yes strictly speaking...". That's interesting info Petrarchan and something I was not aware of.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine I admit we do. That however just moves the problem on one step.©Geni 13:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Riki Ott is not only a reliable source, but indeed the number one expert in the world on Corexit/oil spills and related toxicity. It matters not whether we editors understand or agree with what she has stated, that's not a requirement for addition to the article. Anything Ott has said is fair game for this article. In fact, she should be highlighted. CNN's Dr Sanjay Gupta: "GUPTA (voice-over): Riki Ott is a PhD oil pollution expert".  petrarchan47  t  c   21:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Number one expert? Well that should be fairly easy to check. I don't alas have JSTOR or WOK access these days so I'll have to fall back on pubmed which does include papers on oil pollution. 3153 for the most obvious search term. (Ott[Author]) AND oil produces nothing (nor does (Deepwater Horizon) AND ott[Author]). Rather odd no?
 * Secondly looking at her website she lists herself as an author activist and public speaker. Which is fair enough but not really a qualification
 * Looking in more detail we see a lot of campaigning, 4 years working as a fisherman (fair enough but keeping up with a field under those conditions is near impossible) and maybe 2-3 things that count as scientific publications post PhD.
 * you've also got to consider the media landscape. Journalists tend to stick with people they already have phone numbers for. So multiple appearances mean nothing. And alternatives are limited. Once you've weeded out all the experts who work for the oil companies, or won't talk to the media for some other reason or just don't perform well on TV you are left with rather a small number of people most of whom will either basically read out the FDA and EPA publications on the subject or tell you that the short term risk is "respiratory, eye, and skin symptoms; headache; nausea; dizziness; and tiredness or fatigue" but it isn't going to kill you in the short term (okey in fairness that comes from a paper published in 2011 ). Neither of which makes for good viewing figures so instead we get Riki Ott.©Geni 00:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, experts in oil spill toxicity are rare, and experts in Corexit toxicity far more so. If Riki Ott was ill informed, that would have come to light by now. Instead you will find no one has ever questioned her and her reputation remains stellar. She is the go-to toxicologist for cable news, which is quite sufficient for Wikipedia standards.   petrarchan47  t  c   01:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't wikipedia takes rather a dim view of science by popular media. In any case (Corexit) AND ott[Author] thows up nothing (Corexit alone throws up 90 papers). There have also been 25 papers published since the start of 2011 including the Wise Laboratory of Environmental and Genetic Toxicology review (even if I personally don't trust it very much).©Geni 01:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I came across this talk page by searching for "Riki Ott" - I would caution to closely look at Riki Ott and the sources used.  Especially the CNN transcript pasted above.    There are two entries in the transcript for her and just because Sanjay Gupta referred to her as an "oil pollution expert" does not mean she is one.   There is NO other mention in any source (reliable or un-reliable) that states she is an "oil pollution expert".    PeterWesco (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what search engine you are using? I'm actually having a tough time finding Riki Ott referenced as anything other than an expert. I've shared many of those on the talk page of Riki Ott. Thanks.   petrarchan47  t  c   22:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the issue, as I noted in my response on Talk:Riki Ott,is that there is a difference between using POV organization sources and WP:RS and interpreting the use of word "expert" to mean expert at everything.  We can only use the information that reliable sources provide, we can't assume what words mean, or adjust those words to advance something in another article.  We would not be having this discussion if there was just a few articles from top-shelf reliable sources.   We are having this discussion because it is difficult to find WP:RS that add to Ott's WP:GNG.    As noted on her talk page, sources of any reliability and depth are hard to find. PeterWesco (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've responded to you there.   petrarchan47  t  c   20:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we have had resolved these issues? Beagel (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Volume and extent of oil spill - hopes of a split....
I have condensed this section down with hopes of splitting it off. All in all, I decided to just ignore the plumes information... Please read and see what you think. I hope I didn't make too many really stupid mistakes - it is so hard to work on these old articles once the adrenalin is no longer available...

==Volume and extent of oil spill==

An oil leak was discovered on the afternoon of 22 April when a large oil slick began to spread at the former rig site. According to the Flow Rate Technical Group, in the initial period after the spill began, 62,000 barrels of oil (2.6 million gallons) per day were leaking from the well and the total leak amounted to about 4.9 Moilbbl of oil, exceeding the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest ever to originate in U.S.-controlled waters and the 1979 Ixtoc I oil spill as the largest spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP has challenged this calculation saying that it is overestimated and that it includes over 810000 oilbbl of oil which was collected before it could enter the Gulf waters. However, emails discovered in 2012 show that while BP had made public estimates of 1,000 to 5,000 barrels per day, they privately were estimating the flow at 62,000 barrels (2.6 million gallons) per day, the same figure arrived at by the Flow Rate Technical Group.

Journalists attempting to document the impact of the oil spill were repeatedly refused access to public areas, and photojournalists were prevented from flying over areas of the gulf to document the scope of the disaster. Scientists also complained about prevention of access to information controlled by BP and government sources.

The wellhead was capped on 15 July 2010, and by 30 July, the surface oil appeared to have dissipated with an unknown amount remaining below the surface.[37]  According to a 2010 NOAA report, about half of the oil leaked into the Gulf remained on or below the Gulf's surface[40], but some scientists  called the NOAA estimates "ludicrous" and suggested that as much as 75% was still unaccounted for.[41]  In January 2011, an oil spill commissioner reported that tar balls continued to wash up, oil sheen trails were seen in the wake of fishing boats, wetlands marsh grass remaind fouled and dying, and crude oil remained offshore in deep water and in fine silts and sands onshore.[59] In May 2011, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality extended the state of emergency related to the oil spill.[60] In April 2012, oil was found dotting 200 miles of Louisiana's coast.[61]  In 2013, some scientists at the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference said that as much as one-third of the oil may have been mixed with deep ocean sediments was dragged to the bottom of the ocean floor, where it risks causing damage to ecosystems and commercial fisheries.[83]

And BTW, this "Timeline..." thing will need some adjustment... Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This proposal seems fine if all relevant information will be moved from here to "Timeline ..." article. I also agree that the "Timeline ..." article needs some work. However, I think that maybe we should keep the "Progression of oil spill flow rate estimates" table in this article. Beagel (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Beagle, but I'm wondering why you think we need to keep the table. To me it seems like it takes up space with very little important information in the long view of the spill. Gandydancer (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The table gives a good overview how the understandings what happened developed during the crisis and in the form of the table it gives better overview than in the form of the plain text (and takes actually less size). But you have a point that in the long-term perspective it gives a few added-value to this article, so if you find some more suitable article were to move it I agree with your proposal. Beagel (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The table is unnecessary in the main article, it takes up much space and really offers nothing to the average reader. It's important to those close to the industry only. The summary of this section could be one small paragraph. The table was important at the time, but we can now present this information in a condensed form with new information added.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Volume and extent
An oil leak was discovered on the afternoon of 22 April when a large oil slick began to spread at the former rig site. While BP authorities gave their best estimate of a flow rate of 1,000 and later 5,000 barrels per day, according to the Flow Rate Technical Group, 62,000 barrels (2.6 million gallons) per day was a more realistic figure. The total estimated volume of leaked oil approximated 4.9 Moilbbl, exceeding the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest ever to originate in U.S.-controlled waters and the 1979 Ixtoc I oil spill as the largest spill in the Gulf. As of January 2013 BP continued challenged this figure, saying that the government had overestimated the volume and that it their figured includes over 810000 oilbbl of oil that was collected or burned before it could enter the Gulf waters. However, emails show that BP's internal estimates matched those of the Flow Rate Technical Group.

The oil slick extended from X to Y to Z, covering an area of N.

Two weeks after the wellhead was capped on 15 July, the surface oil appeared to have dissipated, while an unknown amount remained below the surface.[37] Estimates of the residual ranged from a 2010 NOAA report that claimed about half of the oil remained on or below the surface[40] to independent estimates of up to 75%.[41] As of January 2011, tar balls, oil sheen trails, fouled wetlands marsh grass and coastal sands were still evident. Subsurface oil remained offshore and in fine silts.[59] In May 2011, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality extended their state of emergency declaration.[60] In April 2012, oil was found dotting 200 miles of Louisiana's coast.[61] '''In September, a new slick was seen about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast. Oil was observed to be leaking from the containment dome and in October BP reported that they had plugged the leaks'''. In 2013, some scientists at the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference said that as much as one-third of the oil may have mixed with deep ocean sediments, where it risks damage to ecosystems and commercial fisheries.[83]


 * I went for less commentary, while keeping the facts. The stuff about the aftermath arguably belongs in a different section, possibly called "Aftermath". Also I'd say the TOC should be cut to two levels among many other compactions. Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lfstevens. Yes I see that I missed, "The oil slick extended from X to Y to Z, covering an area of N."  I thought that "Aftermath" fit, but we'll see what others think... Maybe I'm a little brain dead right now, but what does TOC mean? Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad. Table of Contents.
 * Going for "less commentary" is a really good key to cutting down the length of this article, I'm discovering.  petrarchan47  t  c   03:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Noting the "citation needed" tag for the 62,000 figure, that is part of the Kurt Mix emails that will be released this month. There is another figure of 82,000 from a local outlet also:  Gandydancer (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion for extent of area that the oil reached:
 * By early June 2010, oil had washed up on 125 miles (201 km) of Louisiana's coast and along Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama barrier island coastlines. Oil sludge appeared in the Intracoastal Waterway and on Pensacola Beach and the Gulf Islands National Seashore. In late June, oil had reached Gulf Park Estates, its first appearance in Mississippi. In July, tar balls reached Grand Isle and the shores of Lake Pontchartrain. By September a new wave of oil suddenly coated 16 miles (26 km) of Louisiana coastline and marshes west of the Mississippi River in Plaquemines Parish.  In October, weathered oil reached Texas.  As of July 2011, about 491 miles (790 kilometers) of coastline in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida were contaminated by oil and a  total of 1,074 miles had been oiled since the spill began.

I think I should add a line re more recent reports of oil - I think it washed up during the last hurricane. Also, perhaps it should be mentioned that it may still be not completely plugged? Gandydancer (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Edited the extent text. Any info on the southernmost extent?If the oil is appearing in new places, say so. Otherwise, put it somewhere else along with any other unresolved problems.


 * No, it seems that the ocean currents did not carry oil south. There was some worry for Cuba at one point, which would have been a disaster because their waters, at least compared to much of the rest of the world, are pristine. BTW, I will bold anything new added. Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I contacted a friend for help with this, here is her response:


 * SKYTRUTH has been monitoring the spill area, and has this reporting page showing all of these and reports from 2011.


 * Here are NRC reports from the USCG on the skytruth email alert list too. Once you are on this map, click on the top right link SOURCE: which is the NRC listing for the actual reports. It only shows the orange dots on the map for the recent reports from the last few weeks, but you can verify through this means if you don't have time to download them from the USCG NRC site.   petrarchan47  t  c   23:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Volume and extent


An oil leak was discovered on 22 April when a large oil slick began to spread at the former rig site. While BP authorities gave their best estimate of a flow rate of 1,000 and later 5,000 barrels per day, according to the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), 62,000 barrels (2.6 million gallons) per day was a more realistic figure. The total estimated volume of leaked oil approximated 4.9 Moilbbl, making it the largest accidental oil spill in history. BP challenges this figure, saying that the government overestimated the volume, however emails released in 2013 show that BP's internal estimates matched those of FRTG. BP also argues that government figures do not reflect oil that was collected or burned before it could enter the Gulf waters.

By early June 2010, oil had washed up on 125 miles (201 km) of Louisiana's coast and along Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama barrier island coastlines. Oil sludge appeared in the Intracoastal Waterway and on Pensacola Beach and the Gulf Islands National Seashore. In late June, oil reached Gulf Park Estates, its first appearance in Mississippi. In July, tar balls reached Grand Isle and the shores of Lake Pontchartrain. In September a new wave of oil suddenly coated 16 miles (26 km) of Louisiana coastline and marshes west of the Mississippi River in Plaquemines Parish. In October, weathered oil reached Texas. As of July 2011, about 491 miles (790 kilometers) of coastline in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida were contaminated by oil and a total of 1,074 miles had been oiled since the spill began. Concerns were raised about the appearance of underwater, horizontally-extended plumes of dissolved oil. Researchers concluded that deep plumes of dissolved oil and gas would likely remain confined to the northern Gulf of Mexico and that the peak impact on dissolved oxygen would be delayed and long lasting.

Two weeks after the wellhead was capped on 15 July, the surface oil appeared to have dissipated, while an unknown amount of subsurface oil remained. Estimates of the residual ranged from a 2010 NOAA report that claimed about half of the oil remained below the surface[40] to independent estimates of up to 75%. As of January 2011, tar balls, oil sheen trails, fouled wetlands marsh grass and coastal sands were still evident. Subsurface oil remained offshore and in fine silts. In April 2012, oil was found dotting 200 miles of Louisiana's coast. In September, a new slick was seen about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast. Oil was observed to be leaking from the containment dome. In October BP reported that they had plugged the leaks. In 2013, some scientists at the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference said that as much as one-third of the oil may have mixed with deep ocean sediments, where it risks damage to ecosystems and commercial fisheries.

Have at it! Gandydancer (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I've got all the refs in order. As one can see, in one spot they seem to be quite numerous!  After the split I will take the time to go through them and try to delete some.  I don't know how to do a split - anybody want to do it? Gandydancer (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Since nobody seems to be able or willing to do the mechanical part of the split, I have asked an editor that I have previously worked with for assist. Gandydancer (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I split the section into Volume and extent of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and added the above-drafted summary to the article. As the draft text was in separated parts, I hope I did not miss anything or did any mistake. You are welcome to correct if something is incorrect. Beagel (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not realised that the final draft was in the separate section. I changed accordingly the body text and also combined these two sections at the talk page to avoid further misunderstandings. Beagel (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I split also the 'Recurrent or continued leakage' into the same article as it was about the oil flow and repeated some things already described there. Summaries in the 'Volume and extent of oil spill' and 'Efforts to stem the flow of oil' were updated accordingly. Beagel (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you did not use the final draft as shown above. I worked on it for several days and another editor copy edited it and I then I asked for help since I don't know how to make splits.  I also mentioned it below in a following thread.  As you know, after I grumbled when I made the last summary and you immediately made broad changes, we had decided to present drafts before going ahead with split summaries.  I would much prefer the final draft that everyone apparently agreed on, since there were no objections.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually the current version is based on the text drafted by you. As I said, at the beginning I made just a mistake due to the fact that the draft was presented in the two different sections which even did not follow each other (this is not a case anymore as I combined these sections). After discovering my mistake I made changes to make the text to correspond to your final draft. I also fixed the order of references which for some reasons was mixed in the final draft. Later today I discovered that we had also under the 'Efforts to stem the flow of oil' section one recently updated subsection which dealt with later oil slicks. As it was just about the same topic as the final draft and we already had a consensus to split it off, I did not think we have to discuss it separately and just integrated to the current text. However, if yoy think there is any problem with the current text, please let knew about this and lets fix it. As you diid a grrate job to draft this section, maybe you will take a care also the 'Efforts to protect the coastline and marine environment' which is the last large section which is still not split-off. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why you moved my talk page entry for the proposed text--why would a brand new section, especially one that is hard to miss what with a picture included, be hard to find? At first you said you used my final summary and now you say you "based" your summary on mine--why not just use mine.  I'm really sick of all this arguing.  I'm going to go ahead and change the article to the wording I used. Gandydancer (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There arfe 20+ sections, there were two sections having almost identical names, both including drafts, and they were separated by another section, so it was just a mistake that I picked the wrong draft. To avoid that kind mistakes it is always better to edit a single draft instead of creating multiply drafts which are only slightly different. It is also better to keep the same draft n thr single section instead of several sections. As I said, if there is any problem lets discuss it. Unfortunately, I do not understand what the problem is, as also I don't understand why you removed mentioning Exxon Valdez and Ixtoc I. Could you please explain what exactly the problem is? Beagel (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure I can explain it. When something is the best or the worst, the biggest or the smallest, etc. that's what you say.  You don't say, "Texas is larger than Minnesota and California" if you mean that Texas is the biggest state in the US.  In the same way you don't say, "The Deepwater Horizon spill exceeded the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest ever to originate in U.S.-controlled waters and the 1979 Ixtoc I oil spill as the largest spill in the Gulf", when you mean that it is the largest ever accidental oil spill. Unless of course you want to mislead people to think that there may be other spills outside of the Gulf and US controlled water (which compared to the rest of the seas and oceans is quite small) where even larger spills have occurred.  And that is exactly the problem here. Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lede
I think this is too long. I suggest demoting (to detail sections):


 * the estimate of daily flow


 * In the summer of 2010, scientists reported immense underwater plumes of dissolved oil[17] in addition to an 80-square-mile (210 km2) "kill zone" surrounding the blown well.[18] By July 2011, roughly 491 miles (790 km) of coastline in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida remained contaminated by oil.[19] Tar balls continued to wash up along the Gulf coast two years after the spill began.[20] Researchers found that oil on the bottom of the seafloor does not seem to be degrading[21] and that as much as one-third of the released oil may remain in gulf.[22] NOAA stated that dolphins and whales were dying at twice the normal rate in 2011.[23] Scientists in 2012 reported finding "alarming numbers" of mutated crab, shrimp and fish resulting from chemicals released during the spill.[24] Corexit made the oil 52 times more toxic and allowed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to more deeply penetrate beaches and possibly groundwater, according to a 2012 study.[25][26]


 * Replace with: "Damage continued after the well was capped, including contaminated coastlines,doubled mortality rates among whales and dolphins and much higher mutation rates. As of 2013(?) Up to one-third of the oil remained.


 * In January 2011 the White House oil spill commission released its final report on the causes of the spill. They blamed BP and its partners for making a series of cost-cutting decisions and the lack of a system to ensure well safety. They also concluded that the spill was not an isolated incident caused by "rogue industry or government officials", but that "The root causes are systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur".[27] After its own internal probe, BP admitted that it made mistakes which led to the spill.[28] In June 2010 BP set up a $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the spill.[29][30]


 * In September 2011, the U.S. government published its final investigative report on the accident.[31] In essence, that report states that the main cause was the defective cement job, and put most of the fault for the spill with BP, also faulting Deepwater Horizon operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.[31][32] The first spill-related arrest was in April 2012; an engineer was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting 300 text messages showing BP knew the flow rate was three times higher than initial claims by the company, and knew that "Top Kill" was unlikely to succeed, but claimed otherwise.[33][34][35] Charges have been filed also against three other BP employees for obstruction of justice, lying to federal investigators, withholding information from Congress, ignoring abnormally high pressure readings and manslaughter.[36][37] On 14 November 2012, BP agreed to plead guilty and pay a record breaking $4.525 billion in fines and other payments for a criminal settlement. It also plead guilty to 11 counts of seaman's manslaughter related to the Deepwater explosion and fire.[38][39] BP faces payouts to thousands of fishermen, businesses and others harmed by the spill as well as fines under the Clean Water Act, which could reach $21 billion. Estimates of the total amount of penalties that BP may be required to pay have reached as high as $90 billion.[40] In November 2012 the EPA announced that BP will be temporarily banned from seeking new contracts with the US government because of the company's "lack of business integrity" during the disaster.[41]


 * Replace with: The final investigative report[31] stated that the main cause was defective cement. It faulted BP, well operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.[31][32] Four people were indicted, variously for obstruction of justice, perjury, withholding information from Congress, negligence and manslaughter.[36][37] On 14 November 2012, BP pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a record-breaking $4.525 billion in fines and other payments. It also pleaded guilty to 11 counts of seaman's manslaughter.[38][39] BP agree to compensate thousands of fishermen, businesses and others harmed by the spill as well as paying fines under the Clean Water Act, potentially reaching $21 billion. Estimates of total  penalties on BP reached as high as $90 billion.[40] In November 2012 the EPA announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government because of its "lack of business integrity" during the disaster.[41]


 * Support. It needs some trimming concerning excessive facts in the lead more suitable in the body text. Beagel (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * After waiting for more than a day and getting only support for this change, I made it. P had edited this page during the period and I think it is fair to presume that P was aware of the proposal. The change survived for some five minutes before P reverted it. I await P's explanation for first not commenting and then reverting without commenting. Lfstevens (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You didn't see my comment below, apparently. I'll repost it: "The idea to whittle down the ecology section in the Intro to 2 lines, while the economic effects receive 9 is an example of the problem I am having with the editing of late. The economic effects on BP and the Gulf are a part of the story, but the whole reason BP is getting such huge fines for this spill is because of what it is doing to the environment. So I am truly baffled as to why anyone would suggest it only deserves a mere mention in the Lede, and 5 tiny paragraphs in the body. I think people are failing to remember the forest, whilst focusing on cutting trees. petrarchan47tc 06:05, 11 February 2013"


 * No, I didn't see it because you didn't put it next to the proposal! I'm happy to further reduce the economics section, too, because even these revisions leave the lede too long. My proposal was not to delete the material from the article, but to put it below in the relevant section. Five minutes was not enough time to complete that task. Lfstevens (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll add to that that you do not have consensus to change the tense to past, not until the leakage stops. Also the unprecedented use of Corexit, and some of its effects should be inthe Lede. BP broke records with its novel use in terms of volume and underwater. So this was not only the largest of its type oil spill, but the same can be said for Corexit, which since it made the toxicity multiple times worse, is a very, very important aspect to this story. You will be hard pressed to find an article about the effects of this spill that doesn't mention Corexit use front and center.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not fighting the tense fight. I'm happy to leave it as present. Are you in agreement with any part of the change? Lfstevens (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This 2-lines versus 9-lines is a very bizarre calculation? Could you please clarify how you get these figures as one could see that there are quite more information about environmental impacts (together with Corexit impact) while none about economic impact (if you don't consider fines and charges as economic impact). However, I think that counting lines is exactly what could be described as "failing to remember the forest, whilst focusing on cutting trees". The important thing is that the lead should summarize all important aspects in the article and it does. Beagel (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, I disagree with the shortening of the ecological section in the lede. It is tiny and offers no actual information. It is not acceptable to say that this information will be in the body, since this section in the body is also being cut and cut and cut. Also, most people do not read beyonf the Lede so it needs to have actual information. I can work on a smaller paragraph for the lede. I am not in disagreement with any other of your suggestions for the Lede.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the difficulties in communication, please be explicit about what you regard as "environmental" and "economic". Lfstevens (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * With regard to the Intro, the second paragraph is what I'm referring to by "environmental". I was using "economic" to refer to information about fines, including the court cases that determine them.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll provide your proposal for that paragraph. Correct, me but I think you said you're fine with the other changes, except for the tense. Lfstevens (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is misleading as fines and court cases are legal consequences and not so much economic consequences (at least in common sense). Also, most of this information about legal issues was added into the lead by two editors, one of them being you (e.g. in April 2012). This is some way confusing. Beagel (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I will indeed provide a proposal for the paragraph, but I need a few days. I have an incredibly busy week and weekend ahead. We've waited a couple years for this to take place, I think we can wait another week. By the way, didn't we agree to always provide proposals here for summaries? Beagle made and entered the summaries for both the ecology and health effects sections without ever asking other editors how they liked her versions. They are a good start, but they were never consensed and I would like to know why the rules don't seem to apply across the board here?  petrarchan47  t  c   00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * These sections as some others were split-off by other editor (again not by me) and empty sections were left here. In these circumstances when having empty sections it was more rational to add summaries directly to there. Do you prefer still to have empty sections instead of summaries? Is there any problem which can't be fixed? What exactly the problem with these summaries? Beagel (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Calm down. First and foremost, we all agreed to seek consensus on the talk page first for any summaries, and that this would be done prior to splitting the sections away (as per the Wiki guidelines). RE-read the RfC - this was widely consensed and still the guidelines aren't being followed on this page. It's like the Wild West.  petrarchan47  t  c   05:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So no problem with the content of these summaries then. Again, it was not me who split-off these sections, just fixing the issue with empty sections, so maybe we could stop these attacks now. Beagel (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Background
Both subsections of the Background sections seem to be correct summaries of the main articles and probably no changes are needed.Beagel(talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Did minor copyedits here. Q: It refers to BP as the "operator" of the well. If so, what is the word to describe Transocean's role? Lfstevens (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Transocean was the owner and operator of the rig (Deepwater Horizon). BP was the operator of the well (Macondo). Beagel (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Volume and extent of oil spill
Although it says that the main article for this section is Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, it seems to be incorrect. At the same time, this is one of the core aspects of this spill so I don't think we should split it off. However, I see some possibilities to trim the text little bit, e.g. official estimates of the spill rate are repeated in the body text and in the table, probably it is enough to have it only in the table format and to have in the body text only the most important (probably final) estimates; Underwater oil plumes subsections seems to need some more systematic approach which probably helps to make some reductions.Beagel (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to stem the flow of oil
Seems that this section was split-off and summarized adequately, no further significant reduction is expected.Beagel (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to protect the coastline and marine environments
Very large section. It is understandable that this is again one of core issues, but it would help if to split-off into new article and to summarize here. Of course, it needs some re-writing as right now it largely lists different news reports. Groping and combining similar issues would help to reduce the size. Particularly lengthy is the Dispersal subsection with its sub-subsections. Maybe we need a separate article about dispersals used during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, particularly concerning the controversy about their use.Beagel (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Consequences
Needs some rewriting as right now it lists a lot of media speculations mainly from 2010 and almost misses longer term consequences. Specific areas of consequences should be discussed more in details in the specific articles while summaries here should concentrate to most important aspects. The ecology subsection is discussed above, but in general, by my understanding it needs to be better summarize the reports from 2010 and add more fresh information from recent reports. However, its overall size should be reduced and as there is very big overlapping with the split-off article, there is also potential POVFORK issue (it is not an issue yet but may become). Also fisheries, economic issues and health impact need some rewriting which should lead also to some trimming of the text. Spill response fund should be split-off as proposed above.Beagel (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Reactions
Probably needs some fresh look but I don't see any possibilities for significant reduction.Beagel (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement "ublic opinion polls in the U.S. were generally critical of the way the President Obama and the federal government handled the disaster" needs clarification. What were they critical about? Not closing the well faster? Not pounding BP enough? Etc. Also need a cite for the BP investors. Lfstevens (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal issues
Needs a lot of work, including potential change of the title. However, no possibilities for significant reduction. Vice versa, we still miss the summary of the Investigation subsection.Beagel (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC) --- These are just my preliminary comments and I am quite sure there are additional/different proposals for improvements and reduction. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * An even more core aspect of the spill is the environmental consequences. So by your reasoning you should not have supported that. I cannot deal with the inconsistencies in the arguments presented by you anymore Beagle. I don't know what rule book we are playing by anymore. === petrarchan47  t  c  === 19:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any comment about the content of these proposals? Beagel (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the idea to whittle down the ecology section in the Intro to 2 lines, while the economic effects receive 9 is an example of the problem I am having with the editing of late. The economic effects on BP and the Gulf are a part of the story, but the whole reason BP is getting such huge fines for this spill is because of what it is doing to the environment. So I am truly baffled as to why anyone would suggest it only deserves a mere mention in the Lede, and 5 tiny paragraphs in the body. I think people are failing to remember the forest, whilst focusing on cutting trees.  petrarchan47  t  c   06:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Trimming the health effects section down to a few tiny paragraphs is equally confusing. According to the most recent conference to discuss the effects of the spill, the scientists said that the number one concern between them was the health effects. I quoted from that conference, as it is the most up to date and condensed form of info I could find. But this was removed today by Beagle because "In this section we should deal with the health issues not with conferences (and the conference was about all consequences not only health issue". You see, we can use any random argument to remove info, but let's not. Let's add information to the important parts, and split and whittle the more technical parts, like the court cases, the spill rate, economic effects. In my opinion, the effects on the land and mammals should take up 1/3 of this article. They didn't call it the US's number one largest ecological disaster for nothing! So why do we only have a small subsection about these effects (running contrary to what many suggested in the RfC on this very subject).   petrarchan47  t  c   06:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But Beagle has decided how things will go here. Nice to know.  petrarchan47  t  c   06:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Another decision by Beagle: the reader does NOT need to know that Jim Cowan, professor of oceanography and coastal science at Louisiana State University, who has handled Gulf seafood for over 20 years, says he has never seen the kind of deformities in the Gulf that he is seeing since the spill. This quotation from Al Jazeera " LSU's Dr Jim Cowan said he had never before seen anything like the deformities " was removed by Beagle because "It's emotional and adds no information", according to Beagle. No information at all.  petrarchan47  t  c   06:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Recurrent or continued leakage
I am restoring this section which was changed from Recurrent or continued leakage

Oil at or near the site of the spill following well closure has suggested to some that there is continued or recurrent leakage. NBC Nightly News reported the slick on March 22, 2011.[175] In August 2011, oil and oil sheen covering several square miles of water were again reported surfacing not far from BP’s Macondo well.[176][177] Scientific analysis confirmed that the oil is a chemical match for Macondo 252.[178][179] The USCG said the oil was too dispersed to recover and posed no threat to the coastline.[180]

In March 2012, "persistent oil seep"[181] near the Macondo well was again reported.[7] More sightings in October 2012 prompted another investigation into the source of the continued oil seepage.[182][183] The USCG again found the oil was a chemical match for Macondo, and sent a Notice of Federal Interest to BP and Transocean which warned they may be held financially responsible for clean-up related to the new oil.[184] Congressman Ed Markey called on BP to come up with a plan to "remove all remaining oil from the dome and any other wreckage". He repeated his request for the release of underwater ROV footage taken during the sheen investigation, which the USCG had promised but failed to provide.[185]

The USCG suggested the sheen "could be residual oil associated with wreckage and/or debris left on the seabed" like the riser pipe, but said that no one yet knows its origin for sure. Marcia McNutt, director of the U.S. Geological Survey, calculated that if the riser pipe was full of oil, it could hold at most 1,000 barrels (160 m3) because it's open on both ends. She said it's unlikely to hold the amount of oil being observed.[186]

Commenting on the ongoing leakage, oceanographer Ian MacDonald said, "it’s possible that the wreckage in 2010 somehow opened up a new fault on the seafloor".[187] In May 2010, BP admitted they had "discovered things that were broken in the sub-surface" during the 'top kill' effort. Environmental groups share MacDonald's concern, fearing that the drilling of relief wells or the original well failure may have fractured the sea floor, allowing oil to escape.[188]

In January 2013, the sheen grew to more than seven-miles long and one-mile wide according to aerial observations made by former NASA physicist Bonnie Schumaker, who observed "patches of rainbow and weathered mousse" in the sheen.[189] Samples of the sheen on several occasions "have consistently found the presence of alpha olefiens, which is a chemical bond signature of a man-made chemical you would not find in pure crude form."[187]

to

''In April 2012, oil was found dotting 200 miles (320 km) of Louisiana's coast.[81] This has suggested to some that there is continued or recurrent leakage. Oil was observed to be leaking from the containment dome. In October BP reported that they had plugged the leaks.[82''

by Beagle. I would like to know why.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

From this news report, "Oil was observed to be leaking from the containment dome. In October BP reported that they had plugged the leaks" was the summary added to this article.

Here is what the source says: "In September, a new oil sheen was spotted about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast. Tests confirmed the oil came from the infamous Macondo well underneath the Deepwater Horizon. BP's underwater vehicle observed oil seeping from the well's containment dome and, after a remote operation, declared the leaks plugged on October 23. The company and the Coast Guard said it wasn't feasible to clean up the slick, and that it didn't pose a risk to the shoreline. But more oil continues to surface. Slicks and sheens of varying sizes and shapes have been documented by satellite photos, as well as aerial video recorded by the non-profit environmental group "On Wings of Care." It's suspected that an unknown amount of oil trapped in the containment dome, and in the wreckage and equipment from 2010, could be seeping out. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., helped lead the original investigation of BP after the Deepwater Horizon exploded, and says it's deja vu: BP is not turning over videos and information requested by Congress. "My concern is that substantial amounts of oil could still be leaking from the wreckage," Markey told CBS News."   petrarchan47  t  c   21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Editors, what do you think of edits like this? I am the only one concerned that this page is being scrubbed weeks prior the big court case in NOLA at the end of this month? BP has used this very wiki article in the past in their court case (see top of this page for link). Now we have the health and ecology sections moved to separate articles, with tiny summaries left here, done hastily by someone who never had any involvement in either of those sections, never to help add info or otherwise, who is still trying to cut them further and further for bogus reasons.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to put the fact straight, these split-offs you are referring were made by the editor specifically invited to do that by user:Gandudancer. Do you accuse that editor? Beagel (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * MadSci has nothing to do with this problem. The copy that you added re continuing oil was extremely misleading and is far from adequate...to say the least. I don't have time right now, and I still have not read all the information here, but is my impression that another section may be the best way to handle this recent information. Gandydancer (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Petrochan47 wrote: "Now we have the health and ecology sections moved to separate articles, with tiny summaries left here, done hastily by someone who never had any involvement in either of those sections, never to help add info or otherwise, who is still trying to cut them further and further for bogus reasons." Please look the edit history who moved health and ecology sections into separate articles. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My problem is not with you, it is with the whittling down to one sentence an important, well-sourced section and poorly summarizing the one reference remaining in this article by simply quoting BP's "nothing to see here" statement.   petrarchan47  t  c   01:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This subsection was incorrectly placed. It actually talk about oil discovered in 2011–2012, which was also made by the 'Volume and extent of oil spill' section. It is logical to combine information about the same thing into the same section. As there was a consensus to split-off the Volume and extent of oil spill' section, I moved this subsection into the ' Volume and extent of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill‎' article as a separate section without any change, and it was also summarized into 'Volume and extent of oil spill' and 'Efforts to stem the flow of oil' sections of this article. So, nothing was removed. Beagel (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a link how it was moved to This is a link how it was summarised in this article. As you see, nothing was removed, nothing was changed. I hope this will end false accusations. Beagel (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that because you moved it to another article, that you did not remove it from this article? Unacceptable. This is called hiding information. Please reread the RfC we had about splitting - there is evidence some of these splits are WP:POVSPLIT at this point, and it's getting worse by the day.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First, splitt-off without changing text and removal are quite different things. Second, this subsection was incorrectly placed. It was placed under 'closure' section although it was about spill event already described in the other section. As there was a consensus to split-off that other section, it was logical to combine the information and move that subsection here. However, the basic points were summarized in this article. Beagel (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring, Beagle. I will do a RfC on this content remaining in this article the moment I have time. Until then, please leave it.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Everybody who looks to the recent edits could make his/her own decision who is engaged in the edit-warring and works against consensus. Beagel (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am slowly working through these talk page edits. Beagle your reduction of the recent oil sightings, etc. to (in bold): In April 2012, oil was found dotting 200 miles (320 km) of Louisiana's coast.[81] This has suggested to some that there is continued or recurrent leakage. Oil was observed to be leaking from the containment dome. In October BP reported that they had plugged the leaks.[82] In 2013, some scientists at the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference said that as much as one-third of the oil may have mixed with deep ocean sediments, where it risks damage to ecosystems and commercial fisheries.[83] is, IMO, a blatant attempt to distort and hide information, starting with your statement, "This has suggested to some that there is continued or recurrent leakage" that you pulled straight out of the blue.  And, I might add, quite a head-jerker to any experienced editor to see another experienced editor say "some", and you know what I mean.  Of course I'm going to question your motives when you want to include a lengthy table of amounts of oil that were being estimated when it was later known that BP was lying through their teeth and knew all along that the flow was much greater than they'd 'fess up to and now want to pare present sightings (and other facts) down to next to nothing. Gandydancer (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To add: When you state, "Later today I discovered that we had also under the 'Efforts to stem the flow of oil' section one recently updated subsection which dealt with later oil slicks. As it was just about the same topic as the final draft and we already had a consensus to split it off, I did not think we have to discuss it separately and just integrated to the current text."  Who could accept such a statement as genuine?  If you can't see how odd it is to not only leave the information as "BP said its no longer leaking" when that is not what the sources report and then to suggest that we editors will not object because we already agreed to a split...I'm not even going to try to convince you of otherwise. Gandydancer (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GandyDancer, may I ask you to look what happened before making accusations. The sentence "This has suggested to some that there is continued or recurrent leakage." was added to the new summarized "Volume and extent of oil spill" from the "Recurrent or continued leakage" subsection where the very first sentence says: "Oil at or near the site of the spill following well closure has suggested to some that there is continued or recurrent leakage." As you see, I only replaced words "Oil at or near the site of the spill following well closure" with word "It" as the oil in the site was already mentioned in the previous sentences. I am not the author of this, but if you are interested, it is always possible to check the edit history to learn who added this sentence, but it's not me. I agree, this seemed also to me problematic but I was aware that if necessary, other active editors at the page will find better wording.


 * The oil discovered in the area in 2011-2012 and leak from the dome was already mentioned in the 'Volume and extent of oil spill' section and also the draft prepared by you said: "In September, a new slick was seen about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast. Oil was observed to be leaking from the containment dome. In October BP reported that they had plugged the leaks." So, at one moment there were two sections talking about the same topic. Merging them seemed at the moment logical and non-controversial move. And as one of them was already summarized and other needed clearly trimming (as it is said also later by other editors here) that was what I did. I do not understand what I attempt to "distort and hide". Maybe it is time to end these baseless accusations and cooperate to bring this article up to the highest encyclopaedic level. Beagel (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

split off

 * Please see also the section above.

This subsection was split-off without any changes to Volume and extent of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill‎ as a separate section. This is a link how it was moved to This is a link how it was summarised in this article. The split based on the consensus to split-off 'Volume and extent of oil spill' section. Although the subsection mentioned in the title is under the different section, it deals with the same subject (oil slicks in 2011-2012). Therefore this split was seen as uncontroversial. However, it was reverted by other editor with edit sumamry: "This section removed without consensus and 'summarized' by one single sentence?! NOT happening." Therefore, broader understanding is needed. Beagel (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There was never ever a talk page entry discussing condesation nor splitting of the 4 small paragraph section on continued leakage. Per WP:POVSPLIT The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors. There is no reason to move or condense this very small section which discusses a well sourced bit of important, relevant information. I still haven't heard a good reason to remove this information from this article.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * These very same facts were split-off as a part of another section and there was consensus for that. The issue s that this subsection was placed misleadingly and therefore was not the part of original split-off. However, the issue was summarized into relevant subsections in this article. Taking account the fact that this is an umbrella article for all aspects of the spill, using 5 paragraphs for saying what could be said by three sentences is WP:UNDUE. Beagel (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please be patient, I'll get an RfC for this and get other opinions as soon as I have a moment.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I opened the section for split discussion and the maintenance tag means that all interested editors are invited to discuss. This is easier and faster way to build consensus. If you would like start RfC, well, that is your right, of couse. However, that does not give you an indulgence to remove maintenance tags or making baseless accusations. Beagel (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was told that one needs consensus to put a tag on an article. Was I mislead? (There are a LOT of rules here.)  petrarchan47  t  c   23:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Although my time avaialble for involvement has been much more limited recently, Beagel and Petrarchan47, I've seen you both make valid points in the past. I urge you both to seek common ground. From my own reading, there may be significant room for this. On the one hand, I think there is more than three sentences' worth of important material; on the other hand, I do think several parts I see could be put in a separate more detailed article, while keeping a more concise version here. The quotes by specific individuals, for example. I am not saying all quotes should be moved to another article, but some of them might be, and others trimmed down, with the fuller version in the article linked to. So there is definite room for trimming. The third and fourth paragraphs can be combined and at least somewhat trimmed down, with fuller details in the separate article. In addition to those in the other paragraphs, Congressman Markey's comments could be shorterend by at least a few words, and also, condensing two sentences to one, as well (5 words "He repeated his request for " could be 3-word "and again requested" in combined single sentence, something like Congressman Ed Markey called on BP to come up with a plan to "remove all remaining oil from the dome and any other wreckage," and again requested the release of underwater ROV footage from the sheen investigation, which USCG had promised but hasn't provided"

On the other hand, this seems to be a valid and important subsection that should be more than a few sentences long. For example as new information comes out, it is valid to add to this section, even if in a more concise fashion; the Jan 2013 update belongs there just as much as the March 2012 info. Over the coming months and years perhaps, a possibly growing set updated readings, but in condensed format, would appear in this subsection, while the details could be in the separate article (which would have fuller quotes, more analysis etc) Meanwhile, the big issues (on what date, how much found, what size, linked how strongly to orgiinal spill, and hopefully, some ultimate resolution) would stay in this subsection here. How does this sound?

I would encourage us all to start with the parts we agree with in points other persons are making, and then add what we think may need correction or modification. Hope this helps. (and thanks again for tip on my talk page of more active changes proposed..but with τ including 51(!) articles, how many (even long-time interested contributers) can spare the time to look at even a small subset of these? Not I, alas. So I chime in, here, in the main article, contributing my thoughts on this split-related issue, but sadly can't come close to keeping up with the rest...) Harel (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How rare, I agree with everything you said! As for the split-off articles, you are very representative of the average reader, in that exceedingly few will go to those other articles. Indeed, few read past the Intro. That is why sending off good information to other articles is so concerning for me. Especially given the fact that BP's biggest court case is in a little over a week's time, and that BP has in the past actually referred to this article in their court case. These facts should have us all on alert, in my opinion.   petrarchan47  t  c   01:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So rare, you're like the fragrance of blossoms fair
 * Sweet as a breath of air fresh with the morning dew
 * So rare, you're like the sparkle of old champagne
 * Orchids in cellophane couldn't compare to you
 * Oh wait, lost my mind for just a moment. Yes Harel is a rare breath of blossoms fair, etc., around here.  Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Harel, I agree that 2013 updates should be added in this article (in which section, this is a separate issue). I also agree that we should avoid overquotations and wordiness—per size issues as also per encyclopeic style. I think that the proper place for the information from this subsection in question is the 'Volume and extent of oil spill' section and not the 'Efforts to stem the flow of oil' section. The information related to the latest oil sightings was already added to the summary of that section (see the draft at Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill, which was added to the article). Therefore, that seemed a good idea to summarize the information about new oil slicks there. I have nothing against if the more detailed information per your comments above will be added to the 'Volume and extent of oil spill' sections. If the oil is still flowing, it belongs to the section which talks about the oil flow and not to the section which talks about efforts to stem the flow as there is no that kind of efforts at the moment. Beagel (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree that having a so large number of separate articles is making hard to have a full overview of all details. Splitting them off versus keeping the full information here with low readability is/was a real devil's choice. However, all important things should be summarized here in balanced and encyclopedic way, no doubt about this. It also shows once more how important is to avoid wordiness and to present the facts instead of emotions. Also, not all 51 articles in the category:Deepwater Horizon oil spill are not equally important for the full overview of the spill. To increase the visibility of the articles corresponding to the sections of this article, the template:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series was introduced (on the right top of the page or immediatly under the relevant infobox). I think that we should concentrate on the articles listed in that template. Beagel (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A few points:


 * Consensus is not unanimity. If most editors want to go one way and an objector is unable to change their minds, consensus should rule. Otherwise, we have gridlock. The article as it stands does not represent consensus. It represents a snapshot in a war.


 * The size of this subject convinces me to give up on putting so much in one article. Although tremendous progress has been made, this article remains comparable in size to World War II, a much bigger topic. It is 4x the size of Exxon Valdez oil spill. Is the goal to get people to read as much as possible (serving the interests of editors) or to provide a convenient and logical way to satisfy reader's curiosity about the subject (serving the reader)? I think WP is pretty clear that reader interests trump. We don't cram as much into the lede as possible. Instead we try to satisfy the least interested reader. We don't make the article as detailed as possible. We satisfy the readers who, having read the lede, want to dig a little deeper. The other articles are there for those who have a strong interest in some particular aspect of the story.


 * This edit warring has got to stop. I would not have made my changes to the lede had Petrarchan47 put comments next to the proposal instead of at the end of the larger section. I would have done as we have with the V&E bit, i.e., hashed it out here. Nevertheless, reverting was not the right response. Instead it was to get my attention and work things out. I don't want to escalate, but the situation is out of control.


 * Note that I continue to make what I believe to be "content-free" copyedits. If I offend someone by doing so, please let me know and we'll work it out. It's time to stop the madness.


 * My reading of POVSPLIT is that splits shouldn't be used to allow two editors to disagree on facts, using different articles. I don't think that's the case here. Instead, we have an argument over level of detail and/or placement within an article. We also have accusations of bad faith. We have consensus that the article is too long. The question is what to cut and how. I think the TOC is part of the problem. I will propose an alternative TOC that provides a better place to put the ongoing spill info.


 * In the meantime, here is my condensation of the above section (edit away!) I took out a couple of cited facts that seemed tangential to me, but that's what condensation is all about. I would have no trouble with killing the Markey demand.


 * Oil slicks were reported in March[175] and August 2011[176][177], in March[181][7] and October 2012[182][183] and in January 2013, when the sheen grew to more than seven-miles long and one-mile wide according to former NASA physicist Bonnie Schumaker, who observed "patches of rainbow and weathered mousse".[189]


 * Repeated scientific analyses confirmed that the sheen was a chemical match for Macondo 252.[178][179] The USCG initially said the oil was too dispersed to recover and posed no threat to the coastline,[180] but later warned BP and Transocean that they might be held financially responsible for cleaning up the new oil.[184] USGS director Marcia McNutt stated that the riser pipe could hold at most 1,000 barrels (160 m3) because it is open on both ends, making it unlikely to hold the amount of oil being observed.[186] USCG has so far failed to release promised underwater ROV footage of the sheen investigation. Congressman Ed Markey called on BP to come up with a plan to "remove all remaining oil from the dome and any other wreckage".[185]


 * Oceanographer Ian MacDonald said, "it’s possible that the wreckage in 2010 somehow opened up a new fault on the seafloor".[187] In May 2010, BP admitted they had "discovered things that were broken in the sub-surface" during the 'top kill' effort.


 * Lfstevens (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I smell fresh air and it smells sooo good! My impression of "Mr. Stevens" has been that s/he is a darn good copy editor who is somehow able to rise above any bias that s/he may have.  You do good work, "Mr. Stevens". Gandydancer (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's excellent. I wouldn't consider leaving Markey out, though. He was the Congressman who forced BP to release the underwater footage in the first place in 2010. Now he's asking for independent ROV footage of the seafloor, not just the well and wreckage, since that's the one other possible source. Neither the USCG nor BP is commenting on the sea floor status. In other words, his part of the story is large and will probably continue with more of his calls for transparency.  petrarchan47  t  c   08:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was trying to give you a chance to enhance your credibility by letting you call for something to be removed. If you are unwilling to highlight anything for deletion, you show yourself as unwilling to join the consensus project to shrink this piece. It's not too late. Lfstevens (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are these comments coming from? It has been my impression that we are all doing our best here and this sort of criticism from Lfstevens certainly  does not help us to move forward. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My frustration is showing. Sorry for that. Lfstevens (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to condense it even more I would leave out this: when the sheen grew to more than seven-miles long and one-mile wide according to former NASA physicist Bonnie Schumaker, who observed "patches of rainbow and weathered mousse".[189] 

That would leave it to read like this:


 * Oil slicks were reported in March[175] and August 2011[176][177], in March[181][7] and October 2012[182][183] and January 2013.  Repeated scientific analyses confirmed that the sheen was a chemical match for Macondo 252.[178][179] The USCG initially said the oil was too dispersed to recover and posed no threat...

I would not want to leave Markey out. He is at the top of the list of the VIPs that have spoken out for the truth about the spill. BTW, hasn't Markey asked the Coast Guard and/or BP to release footage that they took when looking for the source of the leaks? I'd like to see a mention of that as even more important than that he'd like to see them clean up the remainder of the oil in the busted machinery still down there.
 * I'm fine with leaving him in here, but he is referred to in several other places in the text. I don't think we're giving his activities short shrift.Lfstevens (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the summary mention that BP said that they had secured any leaks in the repair last October? Info here: I think I would like to see a few more dates scattered about as well to help follow the sequence of what's been going on. Gandydancer (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All ideas are welcome! Lfstevens (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Information about 2011–2012 as also the BP's statement that they had plugged the leaks is mentioned in the 'Volume and extent of oil spill' section. That information there and the 'Recurrent or continued leakage' subsection should be merged as they are about the same event. It should be either in one or another section, although I personally think that it better fits to the 'Volume and extent of oil spill' section (if necessary, as a separate subsection). Beagel (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's there because you reduced it to two or three sentences and moved it there. I don't think it fits there.  Once it was confirmed that the leaking oil matched and the well was still leaking it should be in a separate section.  The Volume and extent is now a done deal, so as to speak. Gandydancer (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your statement is incorrect. Yes, I moved some information there because the summary text there already included information about the latest leaks (please see draft above). That summary already said: "In September, a new slick was seen about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast. Oil was observed to be leaking from the containment dome. In October BP reported that they had plugged the leaks." One could see that, again, that the information was not drafted by me and was already in two separate sections before I made the latest edits. Second, if the oil is leaking, the 'Volume and extend' section is very relevant. The current section 'Efforts to stem the flow of oil' is misleading for this subsection because there is no any efforts related the well anymore (or at least this is a picture provided by the media outlets). If you think it should be in the separate subsection, it is practical and I don't have anything against this if there is a support for this idea, but in this case lets put the 'Recurrent or continued leakage' subsection under the 'Volume and extend' section as more logical. Beagel (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Enhance my credibility? How have I lost credibility exactly? I spent last weekend - the entire weekend - on this article, all in an attempt to trim as much as possible without leaving out data (as well as updating since this article really stopped being updated in 2011). That is extremely frustrating to find out that there are personal agendas going on here, like I am being tested? My comment is that the proposal is excellent and I am slammed? I'm out. Enjoy.  petrarchan47  t  c   07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion you have every reason to be angry.  Lfstevens' remarks are a total mystery to me.  S/he asked for an opinion not a request for suggestions to pare it down further.  We both had the same reaction: We liked it and we wanted to keep Markey.  So I guess s/he could have said to me as well, "...you show yourself as unwilling to join the consensus project to shrink this piece. It's not too late." I know how much time you have spent on this article and it really is, IMO, a slap in the face to have a fellow editor treat another editor like a naughty school child.  I would have been very angry too.  I hope you reconsider leaving the discussion.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wrote inappropriately. I apologize. I would certainly understand if you want nothing more to do with this, as it is has been fraught for a long time. If other editors would like to see the back of me instead, that's fine too. Lfstevens (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that one of us has to go and I don't understand where you are getting that idea. I am hoping that Petrarchan will take some time to lick his wounds and return and we can get this thing wrapped up. Gandydancer (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Reading Beagle's comments above I now realize Lfstevens is correct and that Markey's request is moot for this section and removed Markey. I also transferred a little info from the oil extent section to keep it all in one place. Gandydancer (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gandydancer. Beagel (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)