Talk:Whiddy Island disaster

Photo request
This article would be enhanced by a photo of the memorial in the hilside graveyard, last paragraph of article. Also if there are photos from/of the incident itself even better. Gnangarra 15:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

''The only copyright-free photo of the incident I have been able to find is a low resolution 'thumbnail' taken from promotional lit for the salvage company. If anyone can find anything better, then feel free to replace my effort. Bob'' BScar23625 09:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag removed since photo provided--A Y Arktos\talk 09:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good article reviewing
Hi - I came here because this article has been nominated for review as a good article. I think a few more wikilinks are in order - particularly for dates, but also for places such as Bantry Bay. The reference links can be called on more than once using ; that might be useful in this case as there seem to be a few more statements crying out for references. Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 00:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

''AY. Thankyou for your comments. I have expanded the wikilinks and referencing. As an aside, I have drawn on my own personal memories of the incident in writing this article. I joined Gulf Oil shortly after the incident (see photographic evidence on the Gulf Oil Discussion page) and made several site visits between 1980 and 1985. This gives colour to the story background, and all the essentials are referenced. Bob'' BScar23625 07:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have found the article meets the criteria of a good article--A Y Arktos\talk 09:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * congrats on another GA Bob Gnangarra 10:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Heading 'Betelgeuse incident'
To be quite honest I have never heard to it being referred to as an 'incident'. In this country (Ireland),it has always been referred to as either the 'Betelgeuse Disaster' or the 'Whiddy Island Disaster'. Indeed the Report of the tribunal of inquiry is entitled 'Report on the Disaster at Whiddy Island, Banty, Co. Cork on 8th January, 1979'. Perhaps we could agree to a change?!
 * SInce its basically Bobs User:BScar23625 efforts that created and got this article to its current standard lets see what he thinks first Gnangarra 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

''Thankyou for the anonymous contribution. All I can say is that while I was working for Gulf Oil and later for the Commissioners of Irish Lights, it was known as "the Betelgeuse incident". Indeed, that term was used in pubs in Bantry. The term was a common usage. Feel free to e-mail me direct (my address is on my talk page) if you wish to discuss the matter. Bob'' BScar23625 17:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ps : there is a reference to "the Betelgeuse incident" in a speech by TD Mr Eamon Ryan to the Dáil on 14 October 2003, see para 5. I am sure I could find many similar references.
 * Sorry, I didn't realise I was logged as anonymous - I'm new to Wikipedia contributions!


 * I'm afraid I have to differ. I'm from Bantry, and as I said, 'incident' is not the word that we use.


 * If you care to check the following terms at the Oireachtas website see that:


 * 'Betelgeuse Incident' returns 3 documents (among which is Eamon Ryans T.D. speech)


 * 'Betelgeuse Disaster' returns 18 documents


 * 'Whiddy Island Disaster' returns 29 documents


 * I think you will find that the majority of irish publications would use these terms over 'incident'


 * Furthermore...and please don't think I'm having a go, but the article does contain a glaring inaccuracy in the first paragraph - the tanker was ballasting not discharging oil at the time of the explosion.(User:Clodius 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

''Clodius. Thanks for your comments. "The Betelgeuse incident" is the term that was widely used at the time. That was by people from Gulf, Total, CIL, and various Irish authorities. I haven't been to Bantry since 1985, so maybe things have moved on since my day?. Unloading 120,000 tonnes of cargo from a vessel is a tricky business. You have to maintain the evenness of the hull's buoyancy and this is usually done by filling ballast tanks as cargo is taken off. The unloading and ballasting are part of the same exercise, and usually go on simultaneously. But, unloading is the active part of the exercise and everyone knows what that means. So, can we live with the article as it is?. Bob'' BScar23625 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

''ps : I have had some further feedback on this. The term "incident" is widely used in martime affairs to refer to any event likely to give rise to an insurance claim or court case. This is so because the word incident is entirely neutral - it carries no implication of extent or blame. For example - see Exxon Valdez oil spill, where there is reference to the Exxon Valdez incident under the heading The Ship. Also see reference to the Exxon Valdez incident in para 2 of the USEPA report to the President (summary)''. ''Be assured that the term "Betelgeuse incident" was widely used in the early 1980s, and I think we should adhere to that and not move to modern (2006) usages. Bob'' BScar23625 08:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your succinct yet unnecessary explanation of the ballasting process.

The issue of ‘unloading’ or to use correct parlance ‘discharging’ was central to the cause of disaster. The fact (which I assume you are aware) that it was not discharging, evidenced the finding that the fire did not begin on the central platform of the jetty, which in turn alludes to the finding that it was the tankers owners, Total, and not Gulf Oil being held accountable for the accident as per the Costello Report. I feel that leaving the description as it is would be misleading. Unloading gives the impression that something was being removed from the vessel. The discharge of crude oil had ceased some time earlier to the commencement of ballasting. The ballasting programme was crucial to the hull failure on the Betelgeuse. (The initial explosion occurred in the permanent ballast tanks.)

Regarding usage of ‘incident’:

I have numerous contemporaneous newspaper clippings from the time of the accident, all of which describe the accident as either the ‘Betelgeuse Disaster or ‘Whiddy Island Disaster’. (Which if you wish I can scan and send to you?)

Moreover, if you had taken the time to search the Oireachtas website, you would see that the Dail Eireann debate records (which I hope you would agree are authoritative and indicative of contemporary usage) of the 6 February 1979 ; the 7 February 1979 used the term ‘Whiddy Island Disaster’, as did the written questions of 21 February 1980 ; the debate of 26 November 1980.

Indeed the third reference which you use is entitled: ‘Dáil Éireann – Volume 312 – 06 March, 1979 Whiddy Island Disaster: Motion.’

The article A Benthic Survey of Inner Bantry Bay (1999) by the Marine Institute, Dublin on page 16 cites two references to the 'Betelgeuse disaster' : ''Grainger, R.J.R., Duggan, C.B., Minchin, D., & O’Sullivan, D. 1980. Fisheries related investigations in Bantry Bay following the Betelgeuse disaster. ICES. CM 1980/E, 54'' and ''Grainger, R.J.R., Duggan, C.B., Minchin, D., & O’Sullivan, D. 1984. Investigations in Bantry Bay following the Betelgeuse oil tanker disaster. Irish Fisheries Investigations, Series B (Marine), 27: 1-24.'' Note should be made of the former article - published in the 1980 ICES Journal, which establishes contemporary international usage of the term 'Betelgeuse Disaster'.

The author of the 2004 Irish Examiner article which you reference at has in these articles  and  cited the accident as either the Betelgeuse/Whiddy Island Disaster

A recent authoritative reference can be found in the Law Reform Commission Report on Corporate Killing (2005) p.12 .33 The inquiry into the Whiddy Island disaster found that had, the ship been properly maintained and had the proper instruments been available to the captain, the disaster would not have occurred.

I fail to see the any issue with the neutrality of the word ‘disaster’; its wholly consistent with wikipedia's own interpretation.

I think I have established credible and consistent usage of either the ‘Betelgeuse Disaster’ and/or ‘Whiddy Island Disaster’ in preference to the ‘Betelgeuse incident’.

But I must admit at this stage that I'm at a loss to understand your reluctance to even contemplate change in this matter.(Clodius 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

''Clodius. Thankyou for your latest comments, which I studied with great interest. I have made some associated corrections to the main text. One comes to these things with a certain perspective - and it will always be "the Betelgeuse incident" to me.''

''To change the subject slightly. The final paragraph of the article contains reference to a "special service". Strictly, the event was a "special Mass". Is your main feeling about this either (A) that use of the word "service" is an error that should be corrected, or (B) that the writer is probably not a Catholic?. best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 07:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not responding sooner! I was on vacation.

I hope we can reach a compromise on the title. If this cannot be achieved, I will it ask for a requested move. Along these lines, I have made a revision to the opening paragraph.

Over the next few days (time permitting), I will make some more corrections/revisions to the text. Please feel free to correct me!

With reference to the 'special service' - I think some part of the ceremony was ecumenical. Perhaps the phrase 'commemorative mass and graveside ceremony' could be used?

Actually the following sentence & photo contains an error: A memorial sculpture, incorporating the ship's bell which was recovered from the wreck, has been erected in the hillside graveyard overlooking the terminal. - The graveyard is orientated to look over Bantry harbour, not Whiddy Island (Its on an east/west axis as it was the site of a Franciscan Abbey).Clodius 14:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

''Clodius. As regards the article title - I have no problem with you referring the matter to the "requested move" procedure. You and I come to this from different perspectives. If the majority of interested contributors prefer your perspective to mine, then that is fine by me. But, perhaps you are being just a little confrontational here?.''


 * I'm sorry if I sound confrontational, but as I have said, I don't know why you wish to keep the present title, which clearly isn't the most common description of the event.


 * Google Search:


 * 'Whiddy Island disaster' returns 255 results
 * 'Betelgeuse disaster' returns 558 results
 * 'Betelgeuse incident' returns 66 results


 * I outlined that the term 'Whiddy Island disaster' was/is the favoured term of the Irish government to describe the disaster.


 * Also I have referenced newspapers, an international journal and academic papers to support the fact that 'incident' is not commonly used to describe the event.


 * I don't know how else to persuade you! Clodius 15:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

''I welcome any textual changes you care to make. Obviously, you have certain insights on this that I lack.''


 * I want to make you aware that I consider this a work in progress. i.e. I am aware where I make changes, further revisions will have to be made to the text. Also, as you created the article - it's only fair that you should be aware that someone is going to make changes. Clodius 15:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

''I plan a visit to Bantry in the first week of August. If you care to meet me in order to discuss the matter in person, then please contact me direct (my e-mail address is on my User page). If you prefer not to meet me, then that is understood perfectly. best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 14:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is my hope that we can reach agreement by then. Clodius 15:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

''Clodius. You write :''

"... 'Whiddy Island disaster' was/is the favoured term of the Irish government to describe the disaster."

''Sure it was. But Gulf/Total executives commonly used the term "Betelgeuse incident". I said earlier that the latter term was used in pubs in Bantry in the early 1980s, but the people in pubs that I talked to were mostly GOTIRE employees. No matter. Your interest in the disaster/incident is appreciated. Bob'' BScar23625 18:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of fatalities
''Clodius. The opening para you have inserted reads :''

"The explosion and resulting fire claimed the lives 50 people (42 French nationals, 7 Irish nationals and 1 English national). Only 27 bodies were recovered. A further fatality occurred during the salvage operation with the lost of a Dutch diver."

''Are you sure that is correct?. Your figures are certainly inconsistent with those stated later in the article. I always thought that fatalities were :''

42 crew (all French nationals), 1 officer's wife (French national), 6 Irish terminal staff, 1 English terminal staff, 1 Dutch diver

''You may be right - but perhaps you would also correct the figures later in the article?. Minor point, I think you mean "loss" of a Dutch diver.''

Bob BScar23625 15:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, my figures are correct.


 * French
 * The crew (40)
 * The crewman's wife (1)
 * The Superintendent (1)


 * Irish
 * Terminal staff (6)
 * Pilot (1)


 * English
 * Cargo inspector (1)

And yes, 'loss' rather than 'lost'.

Clodius 15:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

''Clodius. I have accepted your figures as fact and made corresponding corrections to the main text. Perhaps you might insert some information about yourself on your User page?. Bob'' BScar23625

''ps. even if you prefer not to give your name, perhaps you would give some indication about your age and occupation?. Bob'' BScar23625 12:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll endeavour to get round to filling in the user page - age & occupation?! I didn't know that this was some sort of personals website!

On topic:

I revised the Incident. Hopefully I'll manage to get some photos on site this week. Clodius 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

''I look forward to seeing some contemporary photographs of the site. You can put them on the Discussion page if they don't all fit easily into the main text. Bob'' BScar23625 07:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Gulf Oil logo
 I have removed the Gulf Oil logo (Image:Gulf.png) twice from this article, and it has been restored both times. I have been asked on my talk page not to remove this image again without discussion on this talk page. So here is my reasoning for removing the logo.

I uploaded this logo to Wikipedia to replace an old ugly JPEG version which has since been deleted. By doing so, I had to make a claim that the use of this logo on Wikipedia qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. I am willing to make this claim for the use of the logo in the Gulf Oil article, but in this article it adds absolutely nothing and is being used purely for decoration. As such it fails point 8 of the Wikipedia fair-use policy, does not qualify as fair use in this article, and should be removed.

Those who want the logo to remain in this article need to make a good argument explaining why this logo actually adds anything significant to the article, rather than simply being a pretty picture to break up the flow of the text. —Bkell (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian

point 8 reads :


 * The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

''My contention is that the Betelgeuse incident was a significant event in the corporate history of Gulf Oil. The subject of the article is Gulf Oil. If the logo used were that of British Petroleum then I agree that such use, in this context, would be purely decorative. However, the Gulf logo and the content of the article contribute to one another.''

''If you are unconvinced by my argument, then you are welcome to initiate the relevant moderation procedure, and I will accept the outcome of that. But, please don't launch an edit war. best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The subject of this article is not Gulf Oil; the subject of this article is the Betelgeuse incident. Gulf Oil is the subject of the Gulf Oil article. Specifically, what information is conveyed by the Gulf Oil logo in this article that is not conveyed by the text? Why is it necessary that this article contain the Gulf Oil logo? —Bkell (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Gulf Oil as owner and operator of the facility, the corporation who decided that vessels of this size where be used for crude. Gulf oil was also the owner of the crude and their staff where responsible for the discharging of the vessel and some of the casualties where Gulf Oil employees. Gulf Oil was held partly responsible due to the lack of fire fighting facilities. By having the Logo in the section about the background it clearly identifies and associates the global corporation to the incident, which is disinctly necessary as the facilities where handed over to Irish governement who are readily recognised as the facilities owners. Gnangarra 05:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article text clearly specifies the role of Gulf Oil in this incident. The Gulf Oil logo does not convey any information about the role of Gulf Oil. Therefore, the logo does not significantly contribute to the article. —Bkell (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

''Brian. You seem to be adopting an extremely narrow interpretation of the manner in which an image can "convey information" about the subject of an article. Applied across Wikipedia, about 90% of Fair Use illustrations would fail the test that you have adopted. Please have a think about this point for a few days before taking the matter any further.''

''As an aside, thankyou for loading the improved version of the logo. I will take a look at the matter of .png image formats soon. Bob'' BScar23625 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do think that many images used on Wikipedia under a claim of "fair use" are basically copyright violations. But the issue at hand is this image in this article, so my views on other images are irrelevant.
 * Point 8 of the Wikipedia fair-use policy says this:
 * The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
 * Now, this image is not identifying the subject of this article, because the subject of this article is the Betelgeuse incident, not Gulf Oil. This image is not illustrating relevant points or sections within the text; it adds nothing that is not already conveyed by the text. (Note that "illustrate" here means "to clarify; to make clear by giving or by serving as an example or instance" and not simply "to decorate".) So what significant contribution is this image making? I see none. Therefore, I claim that the use of this image in this article violates point 8 of the Wikipedia fair-use policy, and hence should be removed.
 * Part of the reason I am so adamant about this particular instance is that, by uploading Image:Gulf.png and tagging it with the tag, I asserted my opinion that the use of the image in the Gulf Oil article met the criteria for fair use. I consider this to be a legal claim on my part, for which I accept legal responsibility, and I take it seriously. I was hesitant to make such a claim, because I am generally against the proliferation of "fair-use" images on Wikipedia, but I made it in this case partly to prove a point to another Wikipedian that a PNG version of the Gulf logo would be smaller and crisper than a JPEG version.
 * I am unwilling to make such a fair-use claim for the use of this logo in this article, but currently, as the logo is used in this article and as I am the one who made the fair-use claim on the image description page for Image:Gulf.png, it appears that I am making such a claim. I do not want to bear the responsibility for this claim. So if you or other editors feel that the use of this logo in this article qualifies as fair use, then please add a fair-use rationale to the image description page yourself, so that it is clear that I am not the one making the claim. —Bkell (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

''Brian. Thanks for your comment, and I now understand your concerns. I will add a relevant Fair Use rationale to the image page, thus "taking the matter on my head". I will do this in the next few hours. best wishes Bob'' BScar23625 06:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

''Gnangarra beat me to it. Thanks, Gnangarra. Bob'' BScar23625 10:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Image_talk:Gulf.png please add further comments there

Music
Vrac. I disagree with your views on the music. I think the music provides cultural context. What happened at Bantry in 1979 has to be seen against a background of life in south west Ireland. The first link is to a "clean" copy of the Bringin' Home the Oil song and the second is to an improvised remake of the Gulf advertisement that used the song. As the music is an established part of the article I have restored it. Please discuss here. regards Bob BScar23625 (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how a folk song is relevant to an encyclopedic article describing an oil tanker explosion. The song isn't about the explosion, is it?  This sentence seems particularly out of place:  "The construction and operation of the terminal transformed the economy of the Bantry area and appropriate songs were composed."  Appropriate songs?  It reads like a collision between an encyclopedia and MTV... (forgive me the sarcastic humor, its late where I live) Vrac (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vrac. Thanks for the fast response. The song is about the operation of the Bantry oil terminal and it includes reference to the Universe Ireland - which was the largest ship in the world in 1969 and was the first ship to unload at Bantry after the terminal opened. The disaster had a cultural context which the song throws some light on. Please have a think about it. Do any other editors have an opinion on this?. regards. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In my view the music section fails several WP standards. First, is it relevant?  See WP:Relevance.  The article is about an incident, the song does not relate to the incident, it was written ten years beforehand.  The "cultural context" argument doesn't have much weight, how did the "cultural context" influence the incident?  It's neither cause nor effect.  There were many movies that included the World Trade Center towers prior to 9/11, but what relation do they have to the event of 9/11?  None...


 * The other standard is WP:Notability. Do any sources establish a relationship between the song and the incident?  If not, it is not notable, and the rationale for including the song in the article is your opinion, which is WP:No Original Research.


 * At best, the music could be included in an article about the oil terminal or Bantry, but even then it falls into the category of trivia, see WP:TRIV.


 * As for being an established part of the article, just because no one has challenged it before does not mean it is ok to leave it there. Vrac (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vrac. Perhaps you are being a little harsh?. The music is linked to the incident through its very nature. Prior to 1967 the Bantry area was a remote backwater - with an economy based on small-scale farming, fishing and tourism. It had high unemployment and high emigration. Most young people had to leave the area to find work. In 1967 this world class industrial facility was planted in their midst. Note the words of the song "... we keep all Europe moving from our base in Bantry Bay". The oil terminal became a major feature of the area - as evidenced by song. This is one reason why it wasn't regulated properly which gave rise to the incident.

This article is on a few people's watchlists - so please leave it for a while and we will see what others think. Comment from others is invited. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So the song is relevant because it proves the oil terminal is a major feature which proves it wasn't regulated properly which caused the incident? Isn't that a huge stretch?  Do you have a citation to back that up?  Asside from the WP:No Original Research issue, is it possible you are feeling ownership WP:OWN of this article?  When I first saw the the music section, it appeared so out of place I thought it was vandalism. Vrac (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Vrac. You are entitled to an opinion. But the music is an established part of the article and contributed to its GA status. Leave it for a few days and let us see what other contributors think. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What I am expressing is more than opinion. I have cited 4 Wikipedia standards for removing the information:  WP:No Original Research, WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability and WP:Relevance.  You have not refuted any of my arguments.  If there is an opinion being expressed, it is yours by putting this irrelevant info in the article.  Although you are entitled to your opinion, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for publishing opinions.  See WP:NOT.  As for being an established part of an article, that is not a valid argument, nor is the article's past or present status as a good article, see WP:AADD. Vrac (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Vrac. I don't accept that the song is irrelevant. You and I differ on this, so be patient and let us see what other contributors think. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but just saying that you disagree is not sufficient, you need to provide some outside evidence to support your claims. Vrac (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vrac. Please do not reduce this to an edit war. If you can establish consensus support for your views among other interested editors then I will accept that. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC
See the above Music section of the talk page for history of the dispute.

Vrac. I think you are being far too impatient on this and are running foul of WP:FORUMSHOP. You should give it at least a week on this page before going to another forum. best wishes. Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by BScar23625 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC is how disputes are resolved. Please do not revert. RFC is not forum shopping, it is a way to mediate disputes. I suggest you read up on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrac (talk • contribs) 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Unless reliable sources have reported on a connection between the song and the incident, it would be original research to assert a connection. Since it is being used as an indication of cultural significance, reputable references should be provided regarding this cultural context. Report what those sources state, nothing more or less. Vassyana (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Vassyana. Thankyou for your comment. The song is about the operation of the Bantry oil terminal. Bantry Bay and shipping oil into it is referred to throughout. WP:NOR is a complete irrelevance. Your contribution is much appreciated, but may I ask what brought you to this page?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The full song lyric at the bottom of the article feels like a sudden swerve in the subject matter. It interrupts the preceding cohesion of the article. I wouldn't want the lyric in even if reliable sources reported a connection... I'd just want a brief note detailing what the source said about the song. Furthermore, there's no need at all for the youtube link. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been a week and a half since the RFC was opened, there might not be any more comments. The consensus seems to be to remove the information, shall I? Vrac (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove - no evidence or source showing relationship between song and incident. MilesAgain (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Government use of terminal, post incident
"The government used the terminal (after carrying out a limited refurbishment) to hold its strategic oil reserve, with loading and unloading carried out via a buoy. The terminal's main jetty was not rebuilt."

This is not entirely true. The unloading of the strategic oil reserve in 1990 as part of Ireland's preparations as the Gulf War proceeded, was done through the main jetty. This jetty, though badly damanged, has hastily repaired for the one-off unloading. It was incident free. This was the last time the jetty was used.

The buoy, called the Single Point Mooring (SPM), was installed in 1996 and its first ship arrived in 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjbutler201 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

''Rj. I never knew that. One of these days I will go back to Bantry to take a look at the terminal. Why don't you update this article and Whiddy Island with your point above?. You might also care to take a look at Bringin' Home the Oil. Are you having trouble uploading an image of the jetty?. best wishes. Bob''BScar23625 (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are need: Corrected coordinates: 51 41' 14"N 09 31' 53"W

—Nstrang (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Difference of 1" of longitude (~15 m) is trivial in this context. Deor (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In Fiction - "A Thunder of Crude" by Brian Callison
In 1986 Harper-Collins published the novel "A Thunder of Crude" by Brian Callison, it is a fictionalized version of the Whiddy Island disaster that relocates the events to Scotland. It might be worth mentioning in the main article. Opinions wanted. Graham1973 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)