Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 12

TOC
I propose we limit the toc to 2 levels. Lfstevens (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems rational particularly after finishing splits. Beagel (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I appreciate the sentiment to bring order, but it seems arbitrary and even counterintuitive. For an article we all agree is long, a more detailed TOC is appropriate. The goal is to make it easier for the reader seeking info to quickly find that info. A TOC serves that function. Going to the beginning of a section where a subheaded section is offscreen won't reveal to the reader that that subsection even exists. Popsup (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose we restructure the article according to this TOC. Only 2 levels would be displayed, although the more detailed subheads would remain in the text.


 * 1 Background


 * 1.1 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig


 * 1.2 Explosion


 * 2 Volume and extent


 * 3 Well closure


 * 3.1 Short-term closure


 * (delete) 3.2 Considerations of explosives


 * 3.3 Permanent closure


 * 3.4 Later leaks


 * 4 Efforts to protect coastal and marine environments


 * 4.1 Containment


 * 4.1.1 Louisiana barrier island plan


 * 4.2 Dispersal


 * 4.2.1 Corexit


 * 4.2.2 Application


 * 4.2.3 Environmental controversy (move Earthjustice review from 4.2.1 to this section) (move this whole section to Aftermath/Environment?)


 * 4.2.4 Long-term effects


 * 4.3 Removal


 * 4.3.1 Disposition


 * 4.3.2 Oil eating microbes


 * 5 Aftermath


 * 5.1 Environment


 * 5.2 Health


 * 5.3 Economy


 * 5.4 Offshore drilling


 * 5.5 Investigations


 * 5.6 Response fund


 * 5.7 Litigation and settlements


 * 6 Reactions


 * 6.1 United States
 * 6.2 United Kingdom
 * 6.3 International offers of assistance


 * 8 See also


 * 9 References


 * 10 External links


 * 10.1 State agency websites


 * 10.2 Media


 * 10.3 Maps


 * 10.4 Images


 * 10.5 Animations and graphics

My comments concerning this new proposal:
 * There was previous proposal to limit the TOC to 2 levels. I still think that this is a good idea. Actually the issue with 3rd level headings is only with the 'Efforts to protect coastal and marine environments' but there is a discussion to split it off and certainly the summary could be limited to 2 levels. The exact structure of this section is better to discuss when we already have a draft of the summary.
 * I still propose to display only 2 levels. The subsections would remain in the text. Updated the proposal to make that clear. Lfstevens (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that the 3rd level subsections are needed? Right know it is the case only with the 'Efforts to protect the coastline and marine environments' section. However, it is the only large section which is not split-off and summarized here. Probably after sumamrizing we don't need the 3rd level. Beagel (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly not. Either way, I'll display two levels only. Lfstevens (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * At this proposal also 6.3.1 United Kingdom s a third level. I think we should move it after the US reaction as a 2nd level heading and rename 'International reactions' to 'Other international reactions'. Reason for this is that although multinational company, BP was considered during the crisis as a British company, there were tensions between the US and UK and therefore UK reactions are little bit more than just another international reactions.


 * Fine. Also, renamed International to better reflect the content. Lfstevens (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 3.4 Later leaks should be moved to '2.2. Later leaks'. The current '2 Volume and extent' would form a subsection '2.1. Original leaks' and information in it about 2011–2012 oil slicks should be moved into '2.2. Later leaks'. It has been explained in other sections why *Latest leaks' fits better in the '2 Volume and extent' section but shortly repeating. If its parent section is named '3 Well closure'. This was a certain operation within defined time period. After that, no operations/works/etc concerning the well are not done and not going on. There are suspicions that the well may still leak but it is not confirmed. As of December 2012, it is established that "new oil" is definitely from the same origin as oil of original leak. However, beside of leak from the well there are also other options such as oil from the wrecked riser pipe, oil from the abandoned dome (the dome which was originally used to capture the well but which did not worked properly and was moved beside of the well still filled with oil. It was reported that the dome leaked previously; BP announced in October that leak from the dome is closured), or from the fractured sea bed damaged during wreckage of the drill or during capture operations. However, it the oil is still leaking from the well, it is very relevant to the 'Volume and extent'.


 * I dithered over 3.4 vs somewhere in 5, because there is no information about v&e for the later stuff and because the leaks are post-"closure". Lfstevens (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Beagel (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please consider the alternative proposal below? Also, the V&E section still includes the following information:
 * In August 2011 and later several times in 2012, oil slicks at the well area as also off the Louisiana coast were reported.     In April 2012, oil was still found along as much as 200 mi of Louisiana coastline and tar balls continued to wash up on the barrier islands.  In October 2012, oil was observed to be leaking from the failed containment dome, now abandoned about 1500 ft from the main well.  BP reported that they had plugged the leaks.   In December 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard conducted a subsea survey; however no oil coming from the wells or the wreckage was found and its source remains unknown.  I addition, white, milky substance observed seeping from the wreckage which according to BP and the Coast Guard is "not oil and it's not harmful." 
 * Could you please merge it with the Recurrent or continued leakage? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I also propose to rename the second section '2. Oil flow'. Beagel (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As usual Lfstevens is good at organizing and has planned out a good TOC. However, I still disagree with Beagle re placement of the new leaks information.  He speaks as though it is still possible that it is coming from the dome, though my understanding is that the dome was a rather smallish structure not large enough to hold a great deal of oil; or coming from the riser pipe, though I understand that it was decided there's been too much oil for that possibility either.  So without film to prove it, for now it seems that we must accept the most likely possibility: new oil is leaking from somewhere, though for now there seems no way to actually measure it.  For that reason it makes no sense to me to put it in the "measurement" section.  It makes more sense to leave it where it is rather than reading first that oil is leaking and farther down the page to read that the well is sealed, when it seems quite likely that it's leaking. Also, I would not like to see the heading changed to "Oil flow". Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If there will be two separate subsections (one for 2010 flow and another for 2011– till now flow) under the same section there is no confusion between them and it also makes it more clear that the amount applies to the original spill. Right now this is not clear when reading the text. If you still think that the 'fresh oil' should follow the section about closure, the alternative could be rearrange current two sections in this way that the first new section (lets call it original spill - the exact title could be agreed later) will include subsections 'Volume and extent' (including information by 2010; 2011-2012 information should be moved to the current spill section), 'Short-term closure'; and 'Permanent closure'. Second section 'Later leaks' (as proposed by Lfstevens but I am flexible about this title if there will be any other proposal), will include information from the current 'Recurrent or continued leakage' and 2011-2012 information from the current 'Volume and extent of oil spill'. At the moment I do not see need for subsections there but if the oil appearance will continue, there may be that kind of need in the future.


 * As of my thoughts about the origin of the new oil, I actually did not write any personal thought. I only listed different speculations which were reported by media sources. Videos which were released on 28 December 2012, but they show no leakage whatever: not from the dome, not from the well. This is confusing but the only conclusion at the moment is that nobody knows for sure from where the oil is coming. Also, this is not relevant in this issue of the TOC but there is a logical contradiction: if there is too much oil to originate from the dome or riser pipe, the announcement by Congressman Ed Markey by calling BP to "remove all remaining oil from the dome and any other wreckage" is irrelevant in this context. His request to release footages is also out of date as this was done on 28 December 2012 (see the link above). So, the issue is unclear and notwithstanding what we may think, we should follow what is reported by reliable sources and not do make our own speculations. Beagel (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to protect the coastline and marine environments section
Petrarchan, would you have the time and the interest to work with me on getting this section split off? Recent improvements have energized me and I am hoping that we can make this article into something we can all be proud of rather than the giant monstrosity that it has been. Though, I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that it was not well written at the time, just that now we are ready to condense into something more readable. Gandydancer (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This entire article will benefit by the addition of new information. It's easier to tell a story in hindsight. It was written blow-by-blow as the spill happened, which is one reason it's so darn long. There are really good, usable articles coming out right now that do a good job of summarizing aspects of this spill. I am planning to dedicate a good amount of time this month to really get this article into shape, and surely that will mean some splitting. I have my head in other areas right now, though, but am happy to help you when I'm free.  petrarchan47  t  c   00:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I have yet to even read the whole section...  Perhaps I will read it and leave a note on your talk page about how we want to go about it? Gandydancer (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest keeping all discussion of this article on this page. Less confusing. Lfstevens (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope it does not seem that I am interested in anything done behind other editor's backs.  After doing a few splits one learns that it is very time-consuming--though maybe that's just me and others are able to do it more rapidly. I meant only to ask Petrarchan how s/he would like to divide the task. But of course, our conversation can as well be done here.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispersal/Corexit
That subsection and its sub-subsection need some trimming. Right now it is full of facts which not necessarily needed here (e.g. reporting how many Corexit was used by 12 July or 30 July, while the important fact in this context is how many dispersals was used in total over the full period). When we are removing various data about spill volume and leaving only the total figure, it is not logical to keep thta kind of information about Corexit here. Also some information provided in the controversies subsection suits probably better in the Corexit article(s) and not necessarily here. Beagel (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Lfstevens (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the first part of your comment. But this is unclear: "some information provided in the controversies subsection suits probably better in the Corexit article(s) and not necessarily here" - define "some" specifically please. Also, is there more than one Corexit article?  petrarchan47  t  c   07:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad. I saw titles Corexit EC9527A and Corexit EC9500A and did not realise that these are only redirects to the Corexit article. So, the answer is that there is only Corexit article which is the main article for this dispersal. As of example of "some", I meant e.g. detailed discussion about general hazard of Corexit as this hazard is not the Deepwater Horizon spill specific. Of course, it should be mentioned here that there are concerns about toxicity and carcinogenicity of Corexit but more detailed discussion belongs to the Corexit article. Beagel (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you meant that it needs trimming, I agree.  petrarchan47  t  c   08:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that Corexit should be split rather than cut back. It is a story in and of itself and is of historical interest since there is continued controversy surrounding its use.  If it were split, very little would need to remain in this article. As I said above, this whole section re containment, etc., the useless booms, etc., needs to be split anyway. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please specify if you mean it should be split into a new article or into the Corexit article? If into a new article there probably would be some overlapping with the environmental impact's article. If to the Corexit article, that article is already includes some information similar to that in this article. In that case also some information probably should be added to the timeline ... article. Beagel (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that it went without saying that when I asked Petrarchan if he wanted to help with splitting that section I meant the entire section since that is, as far as I know, what is usually meant and how it is usually done. If you, Petrarchan or anybody else believes that Corexit should have its own article apart from the section that we plan to split, I would agree with that as it is very long.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Corexit has its own article, which includes some information about the BP spill controversy. The subject does warrant its own page, ie, "Corexit use during the DWH spill" or similar. This has been the number one controversy, or at least in the top few, since the very beginning of the spill. (This might not be so apparent to folks living outside of the US.) So it should, like the environmental section, be included here in detail as well as expanded in its own article.  petrarchan47  t  c   03:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I get it now. I forgot that someone did a Corexit article and that Beagle was referring to that.  IMO this stuff has been sitting here for months and there is no reason to go ahead and delete any of it until we have a chance to think of the Corexit material as it applies to this article, to the split article, and to a possible article related to its use in the Gulf spill.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 Support  - This article is over 100 kB, therefore, I support splitting off this section and leaving a suitable summary. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as drafted. I don't oppose a split per se of this section, leaving a smaller summary. The containment effort is of course relevant to the spill and has to be discussed some in the main article, and the many details make a worthwhile separate story and provide lessons learned should, God forbid, something analogous occur. However the draft I've read somehow drops much of the Corexit text, like luggage getting mysteriously lost enroute. Altho perhaps as Lfstevens has suggested in his/her proposed TOC, some of the Corexit discussion belongs in an enviro aftermath section? If the relevant material on the Corexit controversy is (a) preserved and (b) made easy to find then I'd drop my principal objection to this split. Popsup (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you please specify which information about Corexit is missing in the draft summary? It is expected that all interested editors would contribute to the draft, so please re-add it there. Also please feel free to move information about the Corexit impact to the environmental impact section. At the same time, information about Corexit properties and impacts which are not specific to this spill but have more general nature should be addressed in the Corexit article. I also agree that the more detailed story with lessons learned, based on the current section, should be created and it should govern all response activities and mechanisms. Maybe also some existing articles such as Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and Unified Command (Deepwater Horizon oil spill), or parts of them, should be merged into that new article? Beagel (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Article clean up: splits, merges, summaries etc.
Hi, I am Amadscientist, a member of a number of WikiProjects including WikiProject Merge. I was aksed if I was willing to lend a helping hand here with the proposed content moves and wanted to make a quick note to let editors know that I will be beginning this work from the tags and consensus. Is there any current tag on the article for "merge", "split" or other that is objected to or is there a pretty good consensus that we can to begin clean up?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For now all we need is to add the above "Volume and extent" section to the article and and move that section to its own article. The summary has been copy edited and the editors here have no objections to it as written. The main article still needs more work and we are aware of that and are working on doing more splitting to make it more readable. Thanks for the help! Gandydancer (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the mosh pit! There have been many disputes, but we seem to be making progress by hashing things out here before editing. Most importantly, there appears to be a consensus that much splitting/condensing is in order. Good luck and thanks! Lfstevens (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have completed the splits and merge per policy with proper attribution etc. I will return later today to begin adding small summeries of the sections that have been removed and address the last of the tags. I will look further to the other sections mentioned and any further needs for splits. I believe the article is still too long but if there are objections to any content removal I won't remove anything not agreed on.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It would seem that at some point during the recent splitting/summarizing effort something happened to the references section. I can't seem to figure out exactly what happened so I thought I would let you guys know here. Philpill691 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * During splits a large part of text was removed from this article but references said in the references section. I think that before removing unused referenced it would be better to wait until summaries are added back as most likely summaries will use the same references. When the summaries are back, I will remove unused references. Beagel (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Madscientist, did you notice that I have the summary prepared for the Volume and extent section? It is above, here on this page.  I see that you split several other sections.  I'm not sure how that's going to work because we had decided to discuss the splits before actually doing them.  What do the other editors think?    No offense to you MadSci as I'm sure that you would do a very good job on the summaries, but there has been a little differing of opinions here. Gandydancer (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not see your prepared summary, but did not make any attempt last night to add any additional content after I recieved a message on my talk page about the splits. Unfortunately the post made some innacurate accusations (including one that stated I was refusing to communicate with editors) Let me be clear, nothing I did was controversial. All the content removed, split or merged, already had a tag placed on them. Tags are considered content and if everyone was in agreement with the tags being there, they must be some sort of agreement that the article needed the work.


 * As I said on my talkpage. This subject has a great deal of information. We should be attempting to organise and improve all the related articles and create a navigation template like: "This article is part of a series on Deepwater Horizon oil spill". If there objections to the splits and they are reverted I will not fight it.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that your idea for a "This is part..." is a really creative and good idea. I'm all for it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Lfstevens (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Should we have a Category for this series of pieces? Lfstevens (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Amadscientist (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The references should be fixed later tonight when the bots make their rounds. I believe it may have been a timing thing with the bot that rescued all the references and added them to the new pages. I don't touch the references, but just moving them causes the red error message to appear, they can be removed by hand but there is a bot for that. Give it another night and if they are still there tomorrow I will help.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As the editor who originally collected many disparate pieces of the article and organized them into the Volume and Extent subsection -- at some considerable labor since there was in fact a real cover-up ongoing in April-May 2010 about the volume and extent of the spill -- and since I had made some contributions both to the article and to the Talk on 15-20 January 2013, I am (1) surprised that I was not even notified before this section was split off, (2) surprised and disappointed that in the process references were lost, and (3) in disagreement with the statement on 8 Feb that "the editors here" were in agreement about this split. As I state elsewhere, I think removing "volume and extent" from an oil spill article is like removing discussion of "flames and burning" from a forest fire article. Popsup (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Past tense
Is it time for "is" to become "was"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's still leaking.  petrarchan47  t  c   07:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Although there are suspicions that the well is still leaking, there is also no definite proof for it. If we are talking about spill in the narrow sense meaning flow of oil from the well, the answer to your question is probably "was". If we are talking about the consequences, e.g. environmental impact, it is still "is". Beagel (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Maybe we should err on the side of some sort of "proof it's not leaking", and wait for the environmental impact to reach the "looks like it's really all behind us" stage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna! Any possibility you might stick around for awhile?  About the leaks, surface oil has been spotted about four times and BP said they fixed it but are unwilling to let anyone see the film they took.  To which Senator Markey said, "Liar, liar pants on fire" to them, and so on.  :-)  Though I think the last sighting is since they supposedly made repairs.  There was a suggestion that it was old oil in the pipe, which would have held about 1000 gallons (if my memory is correct), but it seems that what has been evident exceeds that amount.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anna. Whether it's oil from a new rupture at the site or residual oil from collapsed pipes, oil from natural causes, or even from the relief well, I don't think there's any debate that it's not the gusher from the original wellhead, and that the main event is perceived as past tense. So "was" is the correct grammar at this point and I made this change while preserving, in the intro, the cautionary sentence that there may still be a leak. I previously added some text about possible continuing or renewed leakage. If it comes to light that the well cap has failed, or that there is a leak significant enough to be called a spill that is a continuation of the original, we can change it back, or add a "Phase II" or "Deepwater spill redux" section as needed. As some other editors note, this is not stone. Thank you for bringing this up because I noticed it separately. Popsup (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to protect the coastline and marine environments section — draft
Notice: the draft itself is placed here
 * We're almost done! I suppose that we need to wrap up the final section or the article does not read very well.  I know that Petrarchan has strong feelings about Corexit but s/he can always edit his/her suggestions in later even after it is shrunk.  In fact, that of course goes for the entire article--it is not now carved in stone.  Does anyone have time?  I could start on some of the sections...  Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As that section is quite long and quite complex, the proper summary definitely needs some extensive work and collaboration. As the talk page is still very long and hard to navigate, I propose to create a separate subpage for drafting, e.g. Deepwater Horizon oil spill/draft. That subpage should be used only for a single draft (not several drafts) and we should use from starting the wikicode (that means write like editing the article). It would be easier afterwards to move it to the article's page and will avoid later problems with incorrectly placed references etc. Comments about the draft should be added of course here at the talk page in the relevant section (maybe also to start a new talk page section for this?) Beagel (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure! Though I'm giving a warning that I may not "get it" right away--so please make the instructions quite easy to follow.  I'm not dumb, but I actually learned to type on an old black Underwood... Gandydancer (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. Just click in this link to start a draft. This is a empty space, except I will only add there a references section there to make easier to see and follow the references. Otherwise, it is waiting you to start the draft. While copying text from the existing section it would be better to do from the edit mode, that mean together with all formattings like links, references etc. For references, if there is a reference after a sentence in form e.g. or or something similar, just copy it as it is. Most likely it will show first red messages at the references section at the draft page but don't worry – I myself or some other editor will add relevant references there in the references section. For comments concerning the draft I created here below my post a special subsection. So we sill comment at the talk page but create and develop the draft at the draft page. As I understand you volunteered to draft the summary, I think that it would be better that other editors will make their changes only after you indicate the draft is ready for editing. The only exception will be the references section per above. If any clarification is needed, please ask. Beagel (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd only recommend that merges take place section by section, to keep the divergence from the published version from becoming problematic. Lfstevens (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My feelings about doing that summary soured right off the bat and there has been a lot of water under the bridge since I asked for help to do it. In short, I am not interested in being the sole editor responsible to condense that section. Gandydancer (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misunderstood you. However, I made the very first draft of the summary. It still needs a lot of work so any contribution is welcome. Beagel (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually you didn't misunderstand as I only said it now. At any rate, thanks for doing this "thankless" work--it is slow-going and no fun in my experience.  You are to be commended. Gandydancer (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments concerning the summary draft
I find the first paragraph fine. The second one which speaks of the booms needs a little updating of the wording and as far as I'm concerned (if there is a push to shorten even more) could be shortened and not include the length of boom used, since they never really did much good. Or leave it as is, is fine with me as well. Barrier island plan--great.

For now I'm going to skip down to Oil eating microbes. The first para seems almost like new material... Could you give the ref for this statement please: Dispersants are said to facilitate the digestion of the oil by microbes. For now, Gandydancer (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This sentence is from the current text in the second paragraph of Method and extent of use subsection and was originally added on 2 September 2010‎ by user:Gautier lebon. I though that this sentence will better fit in the Microbes subsection. There was only one reference for the whole paragraph so I don't knew if it applies to the whole text or only to the second part of this paragraph. The reference is solid but unfortunately it is not online reference. If we can't verify it or find a new reference saying this, it would be better to remove it. The reference is: Beagel (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I found this as well:  It is one of the refs but needed a subscription but I found this free one.  I'm reading it now. Gandydancer (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I like Removal and Oil eating microbes. That leaves only Dispersants... Gandydancer (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Were you thinking to move the so-called "Oil budget" elsewhere? It does not really fit here and I'm guessing that's why you ignored it? Gandydancer (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes and that was a reason why I did not included it in the summary draft. However, after some considerations I did not find any logical place and it is not long enough for a separate section. Therefore I did summarize it as a second paragraph of the draft. However, I am not sure if this is the best solution. Beagel (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I was thinking maybe the amount and extent section, though I had a hard time thinking where it might fit best as well.  I did think that the last para could go here with little change.  Perhaps.  I have had a busy day with other articles, etc., that I work on, or play on as the case may be.  Some goddamn Englishman decided to delete everything about what we Americans consider "muffins" to be when we are referring to "English muffins"...  :-)  Anyway, I do have to play a little or I would go crazy here.  I am worried that I'm going to have problems with Corexit since there is so much reduced to so little...  I think it's going to need a new section if the article length can handle it.  The more I read about it the more I believe that we must give it an amount of copy comparable to what has been published--and that is a fairly large amount.  I wish Petrarchan would help out because s/he has read extensively on it and I consider him an "expert". Gandydancer (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that wasn't so bad at all! I think you did good work with the Corexit section.  I really do admire people that can do such a great job of summarizing and copy editing.  Thanks a lot Beagle. Gandydancer (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The draft as the current section is missing information about cleanup of beaches and marshes. Try to find and add it a little bit later. Beagel (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Section heading
The section heading is long and not easy to use. Maybe we could use some more simple heading, e.g. 'Spill response'? In this case, also the future split-off article should be named correspondingly. Beagel (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Feels a little too broad. How about "Containment, dispersal and collection" or something? Lfstevens (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I like Lfsteven's idea. Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Containment and remediation"? Beagel (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "Containment, collection and use of dispersants"? Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready to pull the trigger? Lfstevens (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No more splits
With the benefit of some distance but the disadvantage of time, and in response to messages, I'm taking another look at this article and believe that it needs major work, but in two different directions. I agree that it has portions that are too long. These distract from what should be the main informative thrust. But at the same time, it has gotten sliced up and split off without consensus, and the cumulative effect has been non-neutral.
 * The splits that have been done were consensual, but not unanimous. The article as it was, had even less consensus. Lfstevens (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of taking someone's comment and splitting it up into tiny parts so it can't be read as a whole as you have done here. Popsup (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's bear in mind what this article is about and what people looking to it are looking for. The main thrust should be what spilled, and what the effect of that was. It's not an article about the rig. It's not an article about dispersant. When people years from now are coming to this article about the spill they will mainly want to know what the nature of the disaster was, how it played out, its impact, and what caused it. The first, direct "cause" here is arguably better addressed under the Explosion article -- but the adequacy or inadequacy of the response subsequently contributed, and belong in this article.
 * Agree. Lfstevens (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There was little reason to split off "Volume and extent" -- that is a core part of an article about an oil spill. You don't split off "volume and extent" of a forest fire from an article about a forest fire. When you split off both the Explosion (cause) and most of the discussion about effect, you've gutted an article about a disaster. It's like cutting off both the head and the tail. And some of what is now in the separate Volume and Extent article includes material that made the original article a better, more readable, story.
 * Please be more specific. Lfstevens (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the same about environmental and health consequences (which probably should not be separate articles from each other, since they are interrelated, human health depends on the environment).
 * Again, I'd appreciate knowing what you think is missing. Lfstevens (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What I see now remaining in this article is a way-too-long introduction,
 * I rewrote and shortened the intro, but fell afoul of another editor's objections. I'd appreciate your comments on the unreverted change. Lfstevens (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

an over-long and overtechnical emphasis on containment efforts, an overly-long discussion of dispersants (which as a separate controversy can indeed have their own article),


 * Please see the proposed rewrite of that section, Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/draft Lfstevens (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

a hurried-over discussion of the spill itself,


 * Specifics please. Lfstevens (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

too long to get to the consequences, and some duplication of what has been split off. If it was long before, it now seems disjointed.


 * Agree, but the revisions are still a WIP. E.g., see proposed reorged TOC above. Lfstevens (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

And it seems to me that there is a POV to the splits and edits in that, overall, the effect seems to be to delay the reader in getting to the stuff they are really looking for, and to bury or scatter the spill's origin's and impacts. If there was good faith in all the splits I'd expect the other articles to be mentioned in the "See also" as is customary.


 * In addition to a template? I have no problem with that. Lfstevens (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, the split for "Volume and extent" has resulted in making every single one of the 100+ references inn that section unreadable. So the splits have been done without necessary care.


 * Thanks for catching that. Lfstevens (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A good indexing to an article is a softer and effective way of addressing some length issues. Further improvement of the article can be accomplished through referencing splits by prose in the intro, not just in a sidebar. So I am calling for a moratorium on any further splits, and for re-examination of the splits that have been done. The split-off template should be removed from the top of the article.Popsup (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This article has had a very troubled period with violent disagreements among the various editors. While attempting to reestablish consensus, I clumsily alienated one of the parties, who has not returned. I'm sure we'd all appreciate your continuing critical eye and suggestions. Lfstevens (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course help is always appreciated but one really must do the time-consuming work of going through the talk pages and giving feedback as discussion is going on rather than step in at the 11th hour and give a list of complaints. Please excuse my harsh words but I feel I need to be quite blunt.  I'd suggest that Beagle go ahead and carry out the split that we have agreed on since with all the other splits done it makes the article very awkward and hard to read indeed.  Once that's done I'd be more than happy to once again bring up the shrinking of the lead and then, perhaps a look at the over-all organization, and finally content in the different sections.  As I said earlier, nothing here is carved in stone and any section can be improved once we get this final split out of the way. Who knows, perhaps Petrarchan will return and continue to help--as I remember s/he said he was having a very busy week and would not have much time until the weekend.  Every one of us is guilty of a lack of courtesy from time to time when tempers run short or we're in a bad mood. Gandydancer (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that I forfeited right to edit because I didn't babysit an article and weighs in, in real time, on what's been called "violent" disagreement by Lfstevens. The time I put in on this originally, I could quantify in terms of significant lost income, if I had to. I left it in decent shape and as with many other articles trusted in the general good faith of other editors. I came back -- at invitation of contributors to the page -- to find the article a victim of some argument and passion, some overloading of facts and inappropriate placements, but also some clearly non-consensual MAJOR changes, that have themselves resulted in another dozen articles that, themselves, generally now need cleanup, with many lacking fundamentals such as a lead. I have no idea what's meant by "11th hour," since the disaster was 2-1/2 years ago. The multiple splits make it really difficult, without having multiple huge monitors with multiple windows open, even to compare what is in which article. A lot more work has been created for both readers and editors. Group wordsmithing of proposed text in an offline article is not appropriate and should not be necessary. I'd say the original article suffered from spill but has had too much dispersant applied :) Popsup (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is definitely not the end of the work with this article. In addition what was said by Gandydancer above, there is also need to work with references. First, they need to be verified. Second, there is a number of dead links which should be replaced. Third, most of them are links to the news stories. There is nothing wrong with news but right now there are more scientific articles available about the so we should look if some news (particularly these ones published by tabloids) could be replaced with more scientific sources. Last thing with references is that they have to be formatted using the same style. But this could wait until other issues are done. I even started to believe that one day this article would become WP:GA or even WP:FA but there is a long way to go.


 * Meanwhile, could you, Popsup, look at the draft of the last split prepared here. I don't think that after this is done there is any need for further splits. Beagel (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I did read that and do back off my absolutism about no more splits :) However see my comments at Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill The Corexit controversy info has to go somewhere intact and findable. I'm not seeing that in the proposed split. Some of that may be in the Corexit or dispersants article(s). Some may go as Lfstevens suggests in his proposed TOC into the enviro aftermath section. There probably should also be an "unanswered questions" section.


 * Note this Talk page may itself be longer than the article. Much as I luv the company of other wikipedians I would prefer to Edit than Talk given limited time on this earth. Popsup (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I share your sentiment, once you've had your hard work reverted a couple of times (not by me), you may decide to rethink. Lfstevens (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sidebars
I propose deleting the Infobox or, alternatively, eliminating the "series" navigation box in favor of restoring a comprehensive "See also" set of links.

Currently there are two right-side boxes, the Infobox and the "series" template now known as a Navigation Template. The navigation template replaces what would otherwise be a list of nearly a dozen articles in the See also section and/or preceding the Introduction. All well and good except, with the large Infobox located top right per WP guidelines, the navigation template and its tiny font are shoved down out of sight on the initial screen, and anyone using the index to navigate to a particular section will miss the Navigation template completely.

The Navigation template takes on extra significance here because of all the splits that have been made. Splitting off content and then making it hard to follow that split by virtue of an awkwardly-located, box-score-font-sized navigation box has the effect of hiding content. I'll assume/hope that that was not the intent.

By contrast, the Infobox has no content not easily found within the main article. It arguably functions as a disinfobox.

I'd say simply flip the location of the two boxes, but WP guidelines indicate an infobox trumps, location-wise, if one is warranted. So my view is that the infobox here, if we follow guidelines, is less than useful. Meanwhile, to make the navbox useful, it needs to be elevated up front. Popsup (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to protect the coastline and marine environments section--moving forward
Popsup, have you found time to read Beagle's proposal yet? It is disruptive to insist on input and then once again drop out of the ongoing discussion thus putting the brakes on the progress we were making. You said you don't like to use the talk page, well who does? If Popsup refuses to engage in discussion I suggest we go ahead and make the changes as planned. As Beagle noted, there is plenty of tidy up work to do if she/he wants to help with the article rather than spend time on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Lfstevens (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As there is no response nor proposals over one week I am going forward with a proposed split. If something important is missing after split-off you are welcome to re-add it. Beagel (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Beagel, your good work is much appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary study added...
I wonder if the following primary study is appropriate for the article:

''A Department of Defense study [178] used several fish species as bioindicators of ecosystem condition one year after the oil spill. This study found that the body condition of black drum and red drum in the oil spill area was slightly reduced one year after the oil spill, suggesting a slight reduction of food resources of these species. However, the body condition of spotted seatrout in the study area was 99.4% of the expected condition for the region, suggesting the oil spill had no negative impact on the body condition of this species or the abundance of its food sources. An interesting result of this study was the finding that increased harvest pressure on oysters and crabs in the Calcasieu Estuary that remained open to fishing likely had a comparable or bigger larger on the body condition of the three species studied than the presence of oil and dispersants in the study area.''

IMO it certainly should not be in the article as is since we have attempted to get the article down to a more readable length, but I question its inclusion at all. By now they must have done hundreds of studies and I can't see any reason to add this primary study report that seems to have nothing very major to say. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems best to wait for some review articles. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll remove it until review articles are available.  petrarchan47  t  c   16:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for picking up on that Petrarchan. Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With pleasure.  petrarchan47  t  c   17:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am hoping that you still have your old hardhat and have replaced the batteries in your bullshit detector and are ready to get back to work? Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it's certainly a pleasant environment here today - more so than ever before. Thank you for hanging in there. I seriously don't know how you do it, but you do it well.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this study is important in the interests in maintaining a neutral point of view. How many of the other studies cited report findings of only minor environmental impacts in the species studied?  Is it encyclopedic to only include studies that have findings of "major" environmental impact.  I would also contend that this study is important in that it points out that the concentrated fishing pressure created by the fisheries closures had a bigger impact on certain species than the oil spill itself. Even if this particular study is excluded, maintaining a NPOV requires the inclusion of studies reporting little or no impact on the species that were not greatly impacted.  Support.and.Defend (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We choose studies based on whether they meet RS. This one doesn't, and that is the only reason it was removed. In something like the largest environmental disaster in the US, one including this amount of PAH's which are unquestioningly toxic, you can't seriously complain that we haven't been fair with our presentation of science since they all show damage to the environment. This is what we expect from oil spills, but especially from one of this magnitude that mixed the crude with Corexit. Corexit increased the toxicity of the crude by 52 times - let that sink in for a second.  petrarchan47  t  c   03:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

More studies
Anon user recently added following two paragraphs into the 'Health' section:


 * Growing concerns regarding the latent effects of exposure, prompted the National Institute of Health (NIH) to launch a 10 year longitudinal study to track health outcomes associated with the cleanup. The principal goal of the Gulf Long-term Follow up Study (GuLF STUDY) is to identify links between response workers’ physical and mental health symptoms and exposure to oil and dispersants used in the cleanup. Presently, response workers, volunteers and controls not involved in the cleanup are being actively recruited to participate. The case-control study will commence with an initial in-home visit, during which vitals will be recorded and specimens collected. Participants will then be asked to complete subsequent questionnaires every 2 years to track changes in their health. The information collected in this study will provide invaluable insight into the effects of exposures to oil and cleanup dispersants at an unprecedented level. Additionally, the study’s findings may be used to help influence policy decisions on healthcare and health services in the affected region. 


 * However, the interpretation of the outcomes from observational epidemiologic studies, such as the GuLF STUDY, is subject to limitations. First, these study designs do not have rigorous control over external variables that may influence the results; and therefore, they can only provide limited information regarding cause. In fact in a comment to the AFP, BP suggested that many of the health problems suffered by response workers did not deviate significantly from those expected among a workforce of similar size under normal conditions. Another limitation of epidemiologic studies is that it is often difficult to directly measure exposures. For instance, health outcomes for response workers are likely to vary substantially based on the concentration of exposure and method of absorption. Many worked in different areas at different times of the cleanup, so their exposure would have fluctuated making it hard to assign a level of exposure to a particular outcome. Additionally, because exposure pathways differed depending on a worker’s task, establishing an outcome related dose also presents a challenge. Also no initial baseline measures were collected from workers before they were exposed, which makes it difficult to assess the impact of exposure. This isn’t to say there is no value in the information these studies provide, one just needs to exercise prudence in drawing specific conclusions from the results.

I think that this information is relevant (although probably needing some copyediting) but maybe too long and detailed for this article. Should we move this into the Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article? Beagel (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not see any real problem with this except perhaps its length. The NIH is a respectable body that you would hope will be able to correctly interpret the results of the study and also be aware of its limitations.  The statement makes no undue claims. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was concerned about lenght. Beagel (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How about:


 * The NIH have launched a 10-year study into health outcomes associated with the cleanup, the principal goal of which is to identify links between response workers’ physical and mental health symptoms and exposure to oil and dispersants used. The study will collect information and samples from those involved in the cleanup and a control group of people not involved over period of 10 years. The study’s findings will be used to influence policy on healthcare and health services in the affected region.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comparison with Ixtoc spill
I have added a range of volume comparison figures compared with Ixtoc based on List_of_oil_spills. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

These figures are based on the total spills. Do we have any figures for the oil released after recovery in both cases? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

too much detail
Here is the insanely too long thing I generated tonight, and then edited down to avoid WP:UNDUE. I do not think this belongs in the article. I just wanted to show my homework, as it were. What I mean when I wrote above that I wanted to read a lot to try to get the whole story and not just tell a slice of it, that leaves the reader and, from my selfish perspective, me, with part of the story, and a slanted one at that. If you don't understand the context in law and history for a company becoming the "responsible party" and taking the lead in organizing the response, you cannot understand what happened. The crisisblogger article was actually really helpful, as were the two wikipedia articles linked to in the first paragraph. Along with the many articles on the actual problems. One thing I haven't figured out yet is how and why the problems died down. I suspect it has to do with the joint force getting its act together better.

On May 18, 2010, McClatchy Newspapers reported that BP has been designated the lead "Responsible Party" under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (one of key pieces of legislation under which oil spill governance in the United States is determined), which meant the BP was not only legal liable for costs of cleaning up the spill, but that it had operational authority in coordinating the response to the spill.

In the first few weeks after the explosion, "BP kept a tight lid on images of the oil leaking into the gulf" and the first video images were released May 12, and further video images were released by members of Congress who had been given access to them by BP. Journalists sought access to the oil spill and surrounding areas, and in late May and June reports emerged that journalists in particular were being blocked from the spill zone, on the ground, in boats on the water, and from the air, including areas that were open to the public, by local and federal authorities who explicitly cited BP's authority.

On May 18th, a CBS news crew was trying to film a beach from a boat was a boat of BP contractors with 2 Coast Guard officers onboard blocked their access and threatened them with arrest. The CBS crew was told by the contractors: “This is BP’s rules, not ours.” The Coast Guard, in response to CBS's inquiry, said that they were "looking into it." The Coast Guard later posted a notice on the official deepwaterhorizonresponse.com website (defunct as of 2013) which said: Media Access to Impacted Areas: Can the media access any of the impacted areas? Tonight CBS Evening News reported they were denied access to oiled shoreline by a civilian vessel that had clean-up workers contracted by BP, as well as Coast Guard personnel on board. CBS News video taped the exchange during which time one of the contractors told them (on tape) that " ... this is BP's rules not ours."

Neither BP nor the U.S. Coast Guard, who are responding to the spill, have any rules in place that would prohibit media access to impacted areas and we were disappointed to hear of this incident. In fact, media has been actively embedded and allowed to cover response efforts since this response began, with more than 400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date. Just today 16 members of the press observed clean-up operations on a vessel out of Venice, La.

The only time anyone would be asked to move from an area would be if there were safety concerns, or they were interfering with response operations. This did occur off South Pass Monday which may have caused the confusion reported by CBS today.

The entities involved in the Deepwater Horizon/BP Response have already reiterated these media access guidelines to personnel involved in the response and hope it prevents any future confusion.

Rob Wyman Lieutenant Commander, USCG Deepwater Horizon Unified Command Joint Information Center, Robert, LA

On May 24th, Mother Jones documented the way that local police and county sheriffs in Louisiana followed BP's instructions to prevent journalists from reaching public beaches on the grounds of safety, although the beaches were being used at that time by the public.

On May 25th, Newsweek broke the story that an aircraft charter service had been denied permission to fly a scheduled passenger, on the basis that the passenger was a member of the media. The same report documented the experience of a journalist who was on a boat with local officials which was stopped by a Coast Guard vessel, the crew of which asked whether there were journalists on board, and which turned the boat back when the answer was affirmative, and the experiences of other journalists who reported that captains of charter boats working for BP under contract, had been told by BP that speaking with the press could cost them their contracts. The report also quoted a reporter who said, "There are times when the Coast Guard has been great, and others where it seems like they’re interfering with our ability to have access.”

On June 2 the New York Daily News published a report that its reporter and a photographer were forced off a public beach by "cops who said they were taking orders from BP." In an interview with the New York Times, Lysiak said, "For the police to tell me I needed to sign paperwork with BP to go to a public beach?" It's just irrational."

On June 3 the Washington Post published a report that a reporter was blocked from access to a public beach local police.

NPR's "On the Media" reported on these issues on June 4. During that show, Lieutenant Commander Chris O’Neill, the chief of media relations for the United States Coast Guard, said "Well, sure, there’s not unlimited access, and that would be, frankly, unsafe and unproductive. Flight restrictions are in place for a number of reasons, and one of the primary reasons was for the protection of the wildlife. There’s also a matter of deconflicting airspace, so, so there have to be constraints." and later: "I can actually absolutely assure you that the U.S. Coast Guard and the federal government are the ones setting media policy for the Deepwater Horizon response. I think these incidents that have been reported are isolated. They're unfortunate. They're regrettable. It leaves a bad taste in everybody’s mouth, and it’s certainly not the outcome we want. And I think the more than 500 or so media embeds and the coverage that the international community and the national community are seeing in the media of the event shows that we have a very proactive policy and are working very, very hard to embed as many media as possible."

The New York Times reported on June 9, 2010 the stories above, and also on a new incident in which Senator Bill Nelson had planned a trip to the region and intended to include journalists in his group, which the Coast Guard had agreed to, but that Homeland Security cancelled the trip the evening before it was to take place, with the reason given that journalists were included in the group.

Authorities and BP generally responded by indicating that there were no policies restricting journalists: "'Neither BP nor the U.S. Coast Guard, who are responding to the spill, have any rules in place that would prohibit media access to impacted areas and we were disappointed to hear of this incident,' said Rob Wyman, a lieutenant commander for the Coast Guard, in a statement responding to the CBS episode (in which a TV crew filmed a boat with BP contractors and 2 coast guard officers blocking them from a beach). 'In fact, media has been actively embedded and allowed to cover response efforts since this response began, with more than 400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date.'" Additionally, the message in response was that BP and the authorities wanted "to provide access to the story while maintaining the proper safety parameters."

The New York Times report on the issue concluded by saying: "Media access in disaster situations is always an issue. But the situation in the gulf is especially nettlesome because journalists have to depend on the government and BP to gain access to so much of the affected area. Michael Oreskes, senior managing editor at the Associated Press, likened the situation to reporters being embedded with the military in Afghanistan. 'There is a continued effort to keep control over the access,' Mr. Oreskes said. 'And even in places where the government is cooperating with us to provide access, it’s still a problem because it’s still access obtained through the government.'"


 * Nice job on putting together the text and the additional sources. I agree that this would be way too long. The section in the article at present fails to reflect some of what you have here, and what we had yesterday, which is that reporters and photo journalists were singled out in being denied access. There is a hint of this in one sentence but this is way too important of an aspect of the story to be glossed over. The current text is a bit sanitized so it makes for safe bedtime reading for the children. The Cousteau example illustrates my point, as do others provided in the sources cited:
 * The U.S. Coast Guard stopped Jean-Michel Cousteau's boat and allowed it to proceed only after the Coast Guard was assured that no journalists were present onboard. In another example, a CBS News crew was threatened with arrest and denied access to the oil-covered beaches of the spill area. The CBS crew was told by the authorities: “this is BP’s rules, not ours,” when trying to film the area.  Some members of Congress have also been critical of the denial of access to members of the press. --NYCJosh (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You violate WP:AGF when you characterize my edits as "sanitizing" and as "bedtime reading for children." and your sarcasm is unwelcome. I very carefully and explictly made it clear that there were incidents of journalists being singled out in late May and June, and provided a boatload of references for that. It is not "hinted at" - it is there in black and white. You are going to have a hard time winning consensus to include the level of detail you want under WP:UNDUE and your confrontational style is not making an ally out of me (who got your original post undeleted).   btw, were you even aware of OPA? 16:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC) (signed late, my apologies Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC))


 * I've been around the Wikipedia block enough times to know what to expect when an editor accuses another editor of not assuming good faith. The tortuous new version that is much longer than the initial edit and then complains that the initial edit was too detailed?  I would support a return to the NYCJosh version. Gandydancer (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Poster at 16:49, please sign your comment. The "sanitized" refers to the effect of the revisions. It wasn't a comment on the intention of the editor, whoever you are.
 * The current expanded version of the section runs 462 words. Of that there is part of a sentence that refers to the singling out of journalists for exclusion: "in late May and June reports emerged that journalists in particular were being blocked from the spill zone, on the ground, in boats on the water, and from the air, including areas that were open to the public." It's not the clearest sentence to begin with, it is buried in a 462 word section, and the voice is passive (discouraged by WP). Who "blocked?" Also, unless the reader reads carefully, "open to the public" is easily lost, and thus has no clue what the major point of several of the articles cited is. It is also unclear what it means.
 * The section is much longer, yet the essential themes of several of the sources is all but lost (see my previous paragraph). I would echo Gandydancer's point. Given the fascinating questions this raises, some of the original wording and the original examples would be of benefit to the reader trying to make sense of what happended. BTW, yes I do know what the OPA is, thanks for asking.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not agree. Characterizing my edits as "sanitizing" means I am trying to keep bad news about BP out, in bad faith.  What you call "tortuous", I call providing context.  Clearly I thought this content was important enough to include in the article -- as I noted, I got the original post undeleted so we could work on it. As I wrote above, I do not enjoy this kind of discussion - too much harsh confrontation.  I don't think you care about what I was trying to accomplish - I don't think you assumed good faith - you assumed I was "sanitizing."  Making "bedtime reading for children."  So I don't intend to work on this anymore - the editors who are here can do as they please. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing content
I have started editing the content to make it more concise and neutral. I will do it slowly so that we can discuss edits. I think 'Access restriction' is a completely neutral and factual title. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all who added sources and text to the Access section. I made each paragraph more succinct, so now the section is closer to where it should be in terms of length in an article of this type. Also, in the second paragraph I changed one sentence to active voice (preferred by WP) and to make it shorter and clearer, and I added a sentence about members of Congress voicing criticism. I changed the heading so the controversy that is at the heart of why this paragraph is noteworthy is highlighted by the heading.
 * The first paragraph should be moved further down into the section. The reader encountering the Oil Pollution Act so early on will be scratching his/her head trying to figure out the relevance. Everyone agree?NYCJosh (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Restriction of press access
The section on this seems to be based on two news reports including one dead link. I find it hard to believe that BP or even the US Coastguard were able to prevent all private aircraft from flying over the large areas of the Gulf of Mexico. This would be an operation comparable to a wartime no-fly zone. We need much better sources to say what we say.

My guess would be that we have gross exaggeration of sensible safety policies adopted to prevent a rush of light aircraft all going over the area to take a look at the same time.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the section. There is one press report of few photographers being denied access by the local Sheriff to the beach.

Then there is a ludicrous claim that flights over a huge part of the Gulf of Mexico were prohibited. This would require FAA restrictions (for the parts in US airspace), which would be very well and publicly documented, like this for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Martin....  I would call 20,000 square miles "big", if not huge, wouldn't you? http://www.1af.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123213296   and for tfrs see here https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Jun/ZHU_0-8596_ZJX_0-8595.pdf and here https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Aug/100804_GOMEX_91.137_ZHU_0-6925.pdf   And no, I don't think airspace restrictions would make the mainstream press.  But yes it is well document.   Did you do a search to verify?  I just did (search term "deep water horizon flight restriction"), and in about thirty seconds found the links above.   I know it is frustrating dealing with people who want to slather nastiness all over the place but there are better ways... I took an initial pass over this and was going to do more... and was going to do more research to see how widespread problems were. I agree that this may not deserve its own section but don't know yet.  And the cited sources several examples of authorities blocking access (CBS crew, cousteau, examples of pilots and boat captains, and the funny story at the beach)  and some examples of local authorities explicitly referring press to BP.    The truth is probably not as negative, in whole cloth, as the original poster made it, but as mentioned there was at least four examples, and clearly a lot of frustration on the part of the press.  From my perspective, deleting the content is unnecessarily aggressive as is the the "tone" here. Would you please undelete so that we can work this into good content and let it find a home where ever it belongs in the article?   If you think stronger sources are needed then please tag this, if you don't have time to find them yourself.  Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is unreasonable aggressive to remove material that is not properly sourced, neither is it up to me, or any editor, to find supporting sources.


 * As a sign of good faith I will restore the deleted section but I can see no way that it can remain in its present for in a reputable encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That is very decent of you.  Will try to work on this tonight after work, to honor your gesture with promptitude! Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Deleting wholesale a well sourced section is hardly worthy of an editor working in gf. Even if Martin found a source that contradicted these, wholesale deletion would hardly have been justified per WP rules.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So where to start
How about the beginning, where we have, 'In May of 2010, Newsweek reported that BP and government officials were cooperating to restrict and control journalists' access to photograph and document the spill'.

What actually happened was, much as I suggested above, that BP and US government agencies worked together to ensure the safety of all aircraft and ships; those involved in dealing with the disaster and others. There is no suggestion in any of the sources you show that this was a media blackout, it was just the normal process of preventing sightseers and passers by from interfering with, or being harmed by, disaster control operations. To put this under a heading of 'Restriction of press access' is a misrepresentation of the facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Martin, when you say "what actually happened was"--how do you know what happened? Were you there? If you have other RS that refute any of these facts, let's see them.
 * Actually, the sources do quite explicitly suggest that this was an attempted "media blackout" (although I am not sure that particular term is used). The sources (three, not two) also are clear that there was an attempt at restriction of the press. Quite clear. --NYCJosh (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Josh, the problem with the section and the sources, is that they are one perspective on a larger situation. Surely you can acknowledge that there is a legitimate need for a certain amount of "crowd control" at any accident scene, right? Yellow tape and all that.  The sources you provided (more on that a minute) don't address those larger issues at all, in any reasonable way.   It is not useful to readers to provide a distorted view of the big story - we want to provide as complete a story as possible.   With the stub of information you provided, I don't know if the people discussed in the articles have a legitimate point, or if they are whining about reasonable restrictions.  I also don't know what the restrictions actually were, from any source that is just trying to describe them, without an ax to grind.  No context.    With respect to your sources...there were three, but one of them is very poor - the video from the CBS crew does not play and the page looks very unprofessional.. I have no idea what it is.   The Mother Jones article...  not the greatest source.  You may have noticed that there are people of different political stripes on this page, and it is clear that Mother Jones is a left-wing publication - -it will not be easily accepted as reliable by people who are not left wing.  I urge you to make it your goal in creating content in Wikipedia - especially for controversial articles - that the content you post can 'stick' - that people from any side of the issue can look at it and say "yep -- that is said in a neutral way, is important, and is well sourced".   If you give people who don't like the actual content a reason to get rid of it, they often will.  So whenever I begin to formulate content that I think will be difficult for one side to accept, I try to make sure that the actual source I bring to wikipedia for it, is a source that I believe that side in particular is likely to find very reliable and that the "other side" will of course also find reliable.  Strategic.  Do you see what I mean?  You cannot sing to the choir on wikipedia - you gotta sing to the whole world. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding context and more sources is a good idea. I agree that the "seed" content I added doesn't allow the reader to glimpse the extent of the restrictions. Having said that, it would be violating WP rules to fail to take journalists at RS publications at their word, for example, when the journalists report that the restrictions far exceeded reasonable crowd control and, in fact, were about controling the information and the photos seen by the public. We should not be spinning the source; instead we present the RS as fact (except in cases of RS conflict, for example).
 * While Mother Jones may tend to focus on issues important to "progressives" and the like, this doesn't negate the fact that Mother Jones is a RS per WP rules. When its reporters present info as fact, WP editors can rely on it, and should not spin it, water it down, or speculate about what might have "motivated" the reporter to write the article. --NYCJosh (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By popular demand, I added another link for the CBS News crew article (penultimate footnote of the section).--NYCJosh (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are confrontational ways to edit in wikipedia, and there are community building ways. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

How about we change the heading to:'Exclusion of non-essential aircraft and shipping from the area'?

We could then write something like:

BP worked closely with US government agencies to prevent any unnecessary danger to ships and aircraft from the spill itself and from aircraft and vessels involved in containment and cleanup operations. Aircraft and ships not involved in such operations were excluded from the area. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Martin, that sounds like a wonderful attempt to water down the facts alleged in the three sources to the point that the main points of the three articles are no longer recognizable. If you have other RSs that refute, lets see them. Until then, per WP rules, the sources cited are all we "know" about this important issue.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They are nothing of the sort. The sources cited (one seems to be a dead link anyway) are wild allegations of journalists. The crazy thing is this: what do you think that the dark secret was that the journalists were not to see.  There there were flames, that oil was pouring out everywhere, there frantic efforts were being made to stop the flow of oil and contain the spill?  I can assure you that BP would have loved to have kept the spill completely secret but the only way they could have done that was by not releasing any oil.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin, when you write stuff like "the sources cited..are wild allegations of journalists" you are demonstrating you don't know enough about WP rules to make judgements as an editor about what does and doesn't belong in the article. I mean no personal disrespect. We have no right having that kind of derisive attitude when discussing facts reported in an RS. Cataloguing your cavalier, dismissive comments to RSs just in this section further underscores this point.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I know plenty about the WP rules of reliable sources and an alleged and rather unclear converstation in 'Mother Jones' is not one.  One of the other sources says the exact opposite of what our article suggests.  The source quotes  Rob Wyman, Lieutenant Commander with the U.S. Coast Guard as saying ' “Neither BP nor the U.S. Coast Guard, who are responding to the spill, have any rules in place that would prohibit media access to impacted areas and we were disappointed to hear of this incident. The only time anyone would be asked to move from an area would be if there were safety concerns, or they were interfering with response operations”.  Is that not perfectly clear?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote of an official denying an official policy of prohibiting access and expressing disappointment over the incidents of prohibiting just such access is fair. It's something like "whom are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes." Seriously, a govt denial doesn't make the reports go away.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That is getting there! However I think it would be useful to make explicit reference that some members of the press experienced restrictions aimed at the press. Whether this was intentional by BP at some point (it is widely acknowledged that their early PR efforts were ham fisted) or by local authorities who were lying, confused, or even corrupt, I have no idea.  I haven't read enough yet.  But I found the newsweek report well as the mother jones article to be reasonably reliable reports of what members of the press experienced. And yes it is clear from the sources I found this morning that there was a big need to coordinate access to the airspace (lots of risk to manage! and hopefully manage well :))  Generally what I have found from my parallel work at the Monsanto page is that it is best to openly address this sort of thing in the article, in a way that represents the whole picture. Just deleting stuff generally results in a lot of bad feeling and lots of long, unhappy-all-around arguments on Talk.  Lots of time wasted, and what is worse, the true and complete  - and much more interesting - story doesn't get told - content doesn't get generated -  for everybody to see, with great sources backing it up. See what I mean?  This "press blackout" thing is out there so we may as well tell it openly, and contextualize it, so the whole story is told, not a one-sided version of it one way or the other. The world is gray not black or white.   I don't edit this way this because I love Monsanto or BP -- I do it because I don't like bullshit no matter who is generating it and I want to get the article to be accurate and that readers who come looking for information (especially about something controversial), actually get good information. And because wikipedia is a community effort, where ideally we work together, even with people who see the world very differently. Reasonably good content is not generated instantly nor born perfect, but over a few days it can get to a reasonable place.. sorry to go on and on;  have to get back to work!! Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with presenting everything we can find on a subject in an article like this to achieve a kind of balance. That is not how WP should work.  We should present the facts as given by reliable sources.


 * There was no more of a press blackout that there is for any major disaster in which life may be in danger. At the time of the exclusion, people were working furiously on sea and in the air to stop the flow and contain the spill.  Ships and aircraft were manoeuvring in the area and oil and other chemicals were everywhere.  The last thing you need in circumstances like that is a sightseer or journo swanning in to take a look.


 * As I say above, what was there to cover up anyway? It was an unmitigated disaster for all concerned which could hardly have been any worse.  The press blackout is nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Where I have been getting to, is that there were obviously decisions taken by both national and local authorities to restrict access, which makes complete sense with regard to public safety etc. The article currently has nothing about that.  The story about the press fits within that story.   How it fits will become more clear once the broader story is stated.  I assume you that you know little to nothing of the actual facts in the broader story of access restriction (I don't, at this point - that is what I intend to do tonight), so it is unclear to me how you can make such very very strong judgements.  With regard to the Newsweek story -- do you think the reporter who wrote the Newsweek story, and the people he talked to, are blatantly lying?  If so, that seems unreasonable.  Like I said to me the world is grey.  It seems likely to me that there were legitimate access restrictions -- and there may have been some efforts to specifically limit the press at some point in time.  I don't know yet.  Do you actually know the facts? Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding "what was there to cover up?" This is where Martin invites us to speculate, and comes to the conclusion that there was nothing to cover up. This conclusion then gives him license, he feels, to dismiss RS-backed facts. Martin, WP doesn't work this way.
 * In any event, any one who is interested in BP's motive to restrict photo and press access, need do no more than read the bloody sources cited. In previous major disasters (e.g Exxon Valdes), photos of beaches covered by oil, and birds and other animals covered by oil dying before the cameras, etc. caused a stir and an outcry. So BP attempted to contain the damage.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Josh you are also speculating, unfortunately. As this is your "seed" content it would be great if you could help with contextualizing it, in the article. Can you study up on the larger issue of access restriction generally and add some content? Thanks 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Speculating, how? Thanks, if I have the time, I might take you up on that.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are speculating that BP, the US Coast Guard and the FAA conspired to restrict access by journalists to photograph and document the spill. What is your source for that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am "speculating" based on the headline "BP's Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill: Photographers say BP and government officials are preventing them from documenting the impact of the Deepwater Horizon disaster." And based on the first sentence, which reads in part: "news photographers are complaining that their efforts to document the slow-motion disaster in the Gulf of Mexico are being thwarted by local and federal officials—working with BP—who are blocking access to the sites where the effects of the spill are most visible." Martin, respectfully, your unfounded accusations are wasting our time and space here, and I am starting to question your qualifications for this job.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I do not think Newsweek were lying but we say, 'Newsweek reported that BP and government officials were cooperating to restrict and control journalists' access to photograph and document the spill'. The facts are that journalists were unable to photograph and document the spill. The reasons for this, given by the sources that you kindly supplied, are for safety.  The implication of the wording that we use is that BP and government officials cooperated with the intention of restricting access, including airspace restrictions, in order to prevent journalists from photographing and documenting the spill. That is a very strong and remarkable claim.  I could understand that BP might not want pictures of photos of 'beaches covered by oil, and birds and other animals covered by oil dying before the cameras', but the article suggests that the US Coast Guard and the FAA at conspired with them to prevent this.  Do you believe that? Why would three disparate organisations conspire together to hide the facts? Where is our source for that?  On the other hand I can believe that a local Sheriff might not want journalists or sightseers to be able to wander freely on a beach where cleanup workers are doing their jobs.  He carries the can if they get harmed in any way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I added another source (NY Times) and added a better link for the CBS News report. Also, added reference to criticism by members of Congress. --NYCJosh (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Standard safety procedure
Flight and other access restrictions are standard safety procedures implemented also in smaller industrial accidents cases. Recently it happened with 2013 Mayflower oil spill (only for a week in this case), and, surprise-surprise, some journalists blamed that this was just an attempt to cover-up the true damage. So, if included, the information should say what restrictions, by who, implemented when and cancelled when, were enforced. Having this information, it may be added that some journalists complained that these restrictions were implemented for "media black-out". However, reporting this as a fact is incorrect. The current title is also POV as restrictions were for all outside persons, including media, not for media only as implies the current title.

The current section is also too small and too specific to be a separate sections. It could suit in the section such as 'Response to the spill' but unfortunately during the editing process more specific section headings were preferred. Maybe to the 'Explosion' section but it also not the best place for the information about restrictions. Beagel (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources cited in the section amply support the notion that members of the press were singled out for exclusion. Perhaps you wrote this before you had a chance to read what, for example, the Newsweek and the NY Times sources say?
 * If you have a better place for this info, tell us.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Closing a previous discussion
I am responding to a call on WP:AN to close the discussion at.

The question was whether the environmental impact of the spill should be split into a new article.

In the months since the question was raised, extensive editing has developed Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into a full-size proper article. There is no logic in turning back the clock. To stuff all of that article into this main article would be WP:TOOLONG.

Therefore, I am closing the discussion as "maintain status quo." Chutznik (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-encyclopaedic statements
There are several statements which are non-encyclopaedic or needs better verification. These are:


 * Statement that Fishermen say they've never seen deformities like these, as does Louisiana State University's Dr Jim Cowan, who has 20 years' experience working with red snapper. It may be true Dr. Jim Cowan is an expert on this field; however, the statement itself is non-encyclopaedic, emotional and instead of providing encyclopaedic facts it just creates emotional background. Tony1's redundancy applies here: if this sentence will be removed, the article contains the same amount of information as right now. That mean, this sentence does not have any added value as it does not include any additional facts and therefore it does not belong here.

Beagel (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Dr. Riki Ott "people are already dying from this". This is a very serious statement. If there are death caused by the spill impact, there should be no problem to name at least two of them confirmed by a statement of authorities or peer reviewed studies published in science journals. So far I was not able to find that kind of sources. After this discussion I have some doubts about correctness of Ott's statements on this topic, so more reliable sources are needed or the statement should be removed. Without confirmation from the official and or scientific sources, this statement is non-encyclopaedic.


 * Statement 1) I'm sorry it makes you emotional Beagle, but this statement comes from Al Jazeera's article Gulf seafood deformities alarm scientists. It's very much an encyclopedic fact that this has never been seen before. People are going to think you're being nitpicky out of spite, frankly.


 * Statement 2) "These people have been poisoned and they are dying" again, from Al Jazeera BP dispersants 'causing sickness'. There is no reason we can't quote this. Wikipeda favors sources such as these over a scientific primary source (not that I have found one). So it stays.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and insert "according to Al Jazeera" before both statements. But didn't you yourself write and insert this section? Makes it hard to take these complaints seriously.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In this context it is not important from which sources it comes. It is not an issue here if Al Jazeera is RS or not. The issue is that these statements are non-encyclopaedic as described above and therefore does not belong here. It is ok for media to report that kind of tjings; however, it does not mean that everything which is in media should be added to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and Wikipedians are not journalists. And right know this is a journalism, not encyclopaedic text. Beagel (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: Answering your question: no, I did not. What I did was summarizing split-off texts where these statements were already added, originally about dr. Cowan by this and information about dr. Ott was added sometimes back in 2011. Beagel (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the DOJ:  Oil spills are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems and can cause long-term effects years later even if the oil remains in the environment for a relatively short period of time. That oil remained in the environment for a very long period of time.  It has not gone yet. Gandydancer (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's correct. However, saying "people dying" implies that there should be deaths caused by the spill. This is different from "known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems". If there are deaths, it should be not so hard to find confirmation of these deaths. However, I failed to find that kind of information. So, if this information confirming deaths (persons by names not allegations) the information should be updated accordingly. Otherwise, it should be removed. Beagel (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Beagle, for native English speakers, "people are dying" is not synonymous with "deaths have occurred". You could take your concerns up to Al Jazeera but as long as its printed in RS it's fine here. Since you made the summary in question (without any talk page discussion) and entered it into the article you've relinquished your rights to complain about any of it.   petrarchan47  t  c   08:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Once more, it may be a figure of speech but it is not encyclopaedic. One could say that this is even pov-language as it implies that there may be actual deaths. As I said, it does not matter if it published by RS or not because not everything published by RS does not belong to the article. There is a big difference between the encyclopaedia and media outlets. The second part of your comment is irrelevant (and just for the record—incorrect) for discussing if the mentioned statement is encyclopedic or not. Therefore, I would ask you to remove it. Please comment on content, not on the contributor. Beagel (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not true that, "as its printed in RS it's fine here". That is exactly what Beagel' initial comment about.  The quoted additions are blatantly unencylopedic.  That does not meant that they are untrue or that they are not verified by a reliable source, in means that they are not suitable or suitably worded for inclusion in an encyclopedia.


 * It is not easy to define what 'encyclopedic' means, but is seems that some people have a better idea of its meaning than others. If we need to try to analyse the term so that everybody understands it then that is what we must do.  Who wants to start the discussion? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedic/unencyclopedic
Is there really any problem in seeing the difference in tone between these two statements:

1) Oil spills are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems and can cause long-term effects years later even if the oil remains in the environment for a relatively short period of time.

2) These people have been poisoned and they are dying

The first states facts in a clear and unemotional manner, the second looks like a tabloid headline. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

@Petrarchan can you really see no difference between the two examples above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement one reads better, but omits crucial info that is contained in statement two: 1. the "long-term harm" includes fatalities; and 2. petrochemicals are poisonous to humans. (We're assuming, of course, that both statement one and two are supported by RS, etc:--your question was only about tone and "encyclopedic" effect.) --NYCJosh (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There remains no justification for removing the two Al Jazeera references. Wiki guidelines would say to fix the problematic wording, since the articles themselves meet RS.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ping  petrarchan47  t  c   01:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that removing sources is very bad form and may in some cases constitute vandalism. Facts supported by a source should be included, unless a second source contradicts or clarifies.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Right. Al Jazeera has three articles which refer to this issue. The information was secure in this article for well over a year until the court cases began. Editors from the BP page suddenly pull some teamwork here to remove this information and RS.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I'll add them back.  petrarchan47  t  c   06:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you pleaser explain what you mean by "I'll add them [references?] back" and provide a draft of the text? It sounds as a backdoor attempt to put back the unencyclopedic text and pov language and, as such, I oppose this. Also, the claim that two references were removed is incorrect. This article is still is used as a reference for the article and it is cited three times. As for this article, that is true that is is not used yet. However, there is an later article by the same author and the same agency, which largely repeats the information with some later updates. However, if you think that the missing article should be added as a reference in addition to the later one, I will do it. Beagel (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 3 Al Jazeera articles (1, 2, 3) which mention specifically human deaths related to the Gulf spill. I took what I considered to be a safe route and simply quoted Al Jazeera ("These people are sick and they are dying") rather than trying to summarize it myself. However, wiki guidelines say that you don't remove a well-sourced claim, as you did with the help of a fellow editor. I am not sure how to summarize this content so I guess I will take it to a noticeboard. I find it strange that you would request a draft from me, when you were asked to allow editors to review drafts for summaries of, for instance, the Ecology and Health sections, you failed to provide them and the opportunity to discuss, you simply added them to the article. I will repeat: the quotation you are now complaining about was included word-for-word in the summaries you added. A week prior, you made a statement regarding the BP drafts to the effect of 'I stand behind every single edit I make, every claim and reference'.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Could I ask you very last time to not make personal attacks by incorrect accusations. The issue of summarizing sections which were split by another editor (not me) has been described several times and this is not the place to discuss this again. If needed, I am more than happy to discuss this (and other false accusations) at the relevant noticeboard. As for these articles by Al Jazeera, the first two mention the death of Merrick Vallian which is according to his friend was due to swimming at Fort Walton Beach, Florida, in July 2010 and cleaning up oil in Grand Isle, Louisiana.  Both of these articles provide claims but no information what was the official cause of death or any conformation of these claims. It should be included if there are autopsy or other examination results or official statement providing link between the oil spill and this death. Not every heart attack is caused by Corexit. As for the last article, it mention dying said by two persons. A registered nurse Trisha Springstead of Brooksville, Florida says that "These people have been poisoned and they are dying". Another quote is from Riki Ott who says: "People are already dying from this".  As you stated above, ""people are dying" is not synonymous with "deaths have occurred"". So again, there is no factual proof of deaths. While news agencies may use a figure of speech, Wikipeadia's text should be encyclopaedic. Beagel (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Beagle, but this information was in the article for 2 years, with you active on this page all the while, and went into the summary you submitted. I absolutely cannot take your words seriously. Your reason for complaining is not what you say, otherwise we would have heard from you about this long, long ago.  petrarchan47  t  c   05:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, Beagle, that my comment hurt your feelings. I will add the version you approved of and leave the mention of Al Jazeera out.  petrarchan47  t  c   06:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you clarifying what removal of references you mean. As these references were put after quoting Riki Ott they were checked per WP:V. However, these two references do not say anything about Riki Ott, not talking about providing the quote. As they did not verify the quote, they were removed. That edit based on WP:V only and it did not deal with other issues, such as style, tone etc. As the edit was about the very concrete issue it is not an approval of any version or any other text outside of the scope of that edit. The Riki Ott's quote as such is a different thing as here the problem is not WP:V but being non-encyclopaedic as described above. Also, all these effects described in that news story are included and that news is already used as a reference for this article. Therefore, your reasoning for re-adding this by saying that the version was approved by me is incorrect and I will remove it per reasons which were provided already back in March (please see above). Beagel (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I assume that people are talking about the "are dying" comments in this version. In the context cited in the article, those are not "figures of speech." That's just simply not the case. The quotes are clearly warranted and nothing approaching a coherent argument, much less one based on Wikipedia policy, has been presented to oppose their introduction. Coretheapple (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Selective reporting
On looking through the cited sources I noticed that this fact had not been included in the article, "according to the FDA and NOAA, it is as safe now as it was before the accident." Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)