Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Can I Trust This Article?

How can I trust this article, if BP, Haliburton, the government & the REPs are so fucking ignorant to dump shit loads of oil into the Gulf of Mexico - how can I know they haven't tampered with this article? I like Wikipedia, 99% of the time, it's accurate, correct & neutral - but some of the more 'stir-up-the-shit' articles, I question it...

Follow the references, do the research, and see for yourself. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 03:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember this is a Discussion for improvement of the article not a forum (Darkspartan4121 (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Petroleum by-products found in Gulf seafood

This information appears to be outdated and misleading. Reading this section leads readers to believe seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is hazardous. New research has refuted this evidence.

Christine Patrick, spokesperson for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a statement last week saying they have opened up 4,123 square miles of federal water for the harvesting of Red Royal shrimp. Additionally, Patrick said, “Testing is showing that the seafood from all over the Gulf, all species, all from the water column are testing clean, not by a small margin -- by a huge margin.”

The NOAA consulted with the with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration before making the decision to open this waters. 

Stories on these reports can be found at these pages:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/02/noaa-reopens-gulf-waters-for-deep-water-shrimp-fishing/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/08/gulf-seafood-safe-eatfor/?test=latestnews

Seth Irby (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

IS or WAS

"But at Elmer's Island refuge, there are new tar balls coming ashore. Apparently, a mat of oil is in the subtidal zone just offshore and now it's coagulating again and creating a fresh supply of oil." [1]

Oil is still washing up and the human toll is just beginning to show - why do we call this oil spill a thing of the past? This was an earlier discussion which looks to have moved to archives... What are your thoughts? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WAS, however nowhere does it say that new information can't be added. I just added something the other day. Gandydancer (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am changing it back to IS until consensus is reached here. This is the change, almost 2 weeks ago. Gandy, where were you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will admit to a knee-jerk reaction when I said WAS. Anna, I know you have good judgement and when I saw your remark I put some more thought into the question. Here is how I am now looking at it: If I would happen to spill my coffee on the floor right now, I would continue to call it a "spill" until I cleaned it up. The Gulf oil is far from being cleaned up, so perhaps IS a spill is the proper way to refer to it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I might be leaning toward WAS. But what I think isn't important. I changed it back because agreement involving others is important. I think you are a good, conscientious editor. Our most important role here is to ensure jurisprudence, and not allow a sneaky swap with no edit summary. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"oil-related" deaths

The message box at the top of the article references 11 direct deaths and 2 "oil-related." The reference even states:

"The deaths reported Wednesday were not tied to the containment operation. The Coast Guard said the workers had been involved in cleanup operations did [sic] that their deaths did not appear to be work related."

This was a suicide and a "swimming" incident, no other detail given, obviously not "oil-related." My edits to remove these are getting reverted, what's up with that? 98.204.142.107 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I remember both of these incidents when they happened, and they were reported as related to the disaster... undisputed. The suicide was a man who made his living on his boat. It was widely reported on mainstream media. The swimming death was due to the chemicals in the oil/dispersant. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A boat captain committed suicide possibly due to loss of business but this was never proven, still not "oil-related." The swimming death was in a "swimming pool" as reported by Adm. Thad Allen NYTimes, nothing to do with oil or dispersants. 98.204.142.107 (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that info needs to be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• We have a source for the suicide that makes the connection to the spill. Quote: "...the 12th person to die from BP’s oil disaster...". The pool accident should go unless sourced appropriately.TMCk (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been estimated that at least 30 people committed suicide related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Should they be listed as deaths on the Exxon Valdez page as well? In this case, we are not even able to say for certain that the death is related - friends said he was "despondent", but no one had any idea that he had even planned suicide, thus no one knows for certain why he did it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

First, this is not the Exxon Valdez article. Secondly, we go by the sources; So unless there is another source that clearly refutes the one given there is not much room left.TMCk (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The source you're referring to (http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/aboutus/) is an activist's personal blog. It's obviously inaccurate and either way doesn't meet notability requirements, especially for a high-profile article like this one with revision control. 98.204.142.107 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the source and it could/should be replaced with this one (which btw counts 13 death total):"Wednesday's deaths mean that 13 people have now died in connection with the Deepwater Horizon accident." TMCk (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because you can find a reference for 2 deaths related to the spill does not mean that wikipedia needs to reflect info from a couple of sites when multiple good sources do not consider the suicide and some other death - we're not even sure how that person died - as part of the death toll. I have removed that information. Gandydancer (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In mainstream media, the suicide was always said to be due to the spill. This needs to be added back because it has good refs. If you are arguing that 'other sources' do not include these 2 deaths, please go ahead and share those sources - otherwise it's just your word against RS. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I do feel that it is appropriate to include in the article to show the fact that the incident caused untold grief for the people involved. I lived in Minnesota when the small farms were being lost to large corporate farming. It was heartbreaking and there were plenty of suicides. I live on the coast of Maine and I am well aware of what our local men and women are going through as they are losing their way of life as third or more generations as fishermen. If you want to say something like the suicide was reported as as the 13th death, that seems reasonable. But to call it a death in the same way that the men on the rig were deaths and list it with the deaths, that is IMO not appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This section and everything about it doesn't make sense

Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Moving_Forward Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree. This section does not make sense and should be removed. Beagel (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that it is quite worthwhile because it offers a good closure in that it states that neither the government nor the industry can insure future safety alone, but must work together in the future. I did go ahead and add it to the previous section where it seems to fit better. Please see what you think and change it if you still feel it is not appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Spill flow rate: "They Were Purposefully Trying to Deceive Everyone"

Ira Leifer has just come out with some new information you can see here. Would you all be able to help me figure out where in the article this would be included? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A synopses: Dr. Ira Liefer, a marine scientist at the University of Santa Barbara and a member of the initial oil-flow estimate team, says that “academic freedom is not being respected” and recalls how a lowball estimate became the backbone of the national spill narrative.

Mr. Liefer says, for example, that the team was denied quality video of the gushing well and was forced to work with BP-provided images that seemed to have been intentionally taped by pointing a camera at a high-quality computer screen. In fact, he could actually see the outlines of the screen. And when the team arrived at a spill rate of “19,000 barrels a day or higher,” the government press release conveniently omitted the “or higher” part. Leifer scrambled to call news outlets to correct his own estimate. Source 174.74.68.103 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually that info is not new. They made that complaint at the time they were doing an estimate and it may still be in some of the references. And that the government and BP were far too "friendly" was obvious If you go back through the talk pages you will find that some editors complained that some editors appeared to be trying to under-report the figures as well. It was said back then (on the talk page) that reparations would be based on the amount of oil that was released - something we all know now - and certainly there was an effort to use the lower figures here on wikipedia. I have no doubt that at least one or two editors had some sort of connection to the industry, but one can hardly come out and say that. Though don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that wikipedia policy was abused - we all have a right to push our point of view. Gandydancer (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you listen to the interview, there is some new information. The fact that Ira knew the exact type of ROV being used had HD cameras on them, yet BP lied and said they only this sh*tty tape, which it turns out was a video of a computer screen playing the tape. That is new information. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Did they lie? where is the proof that they had higher quality at that time, maybe that was the best quality they had available.

Having HD cameras does not mean that an HD feed was available. For instance on the Oceaneering site some of the video is high quality and some is fairly low quality - it could have been a low quality/HD data stream to their sh*tty system which they videod - lets face it having a base on land and feeding a data stream to it from sea would not necessarily always be high quality when it arrived.

Guys, if you say "I have no doubt that at least one or two of the editors had some sort..." then you have said it lol, saying "but one can hardly come out and say that" does not make the previous text invisible !

No, we do not have a right to push our point of view. We have a right to establish our point of view is notable, is not fringe and ensure it gets a mention in the correct proportion within the article. WP:WEIGHT

Lets try and stay WP:NPOV Chaosdruid (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, I do not need a sermon from you. It would not be appropriate to accuse another editor and I didn't. As for pushing a point of view, we all do that, but some people just won't admit it. If you prefer to call it "establish" that's fine too. I see that you have established your point of view that one would need "proof" that they had a higher quality tape. No, we don't - the only "proof" we need is a reference to show that a member of the study group said they did. It is not for you or me to decide who's telling the truth, all we may do is provide information with references. And, if you are calling this a "fringe" theory, you have clearly not followed this story. Leifer has been mentioned in dozens of articles and the Santa Barbara group can hardly be called fringe. Gandydancer (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And I do not need to remind you that you were not the only person in the discussion, nor that I was not actually directing that proof comment at you as you were not the one that said it? Perhaps also you missed where I said "is not fringe"

As for the proof comments you made, yes we do need proof if we are to say "they lied" - the point is that we can only say "this person said" or "that person claimed" and within the confines of WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.

A sermon? lets keep the discussions on content, not editors possible motives or OR about who lied. This talk page is to discuss the article content, it is not an off topic discussion page and a lot of the previous comments in this particular section are just that. Discussions about what editors motives may be is probably fine on users talk pages, and that is really where they should have been. As an experienced editor you should know that. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right Chaosdruid, you do not need to remind me that I am not the only person in the discussion nor that the proof comment was not directed at me. Why do you feel that I should comment only on an issue that was directed at my comments if it is related to what is or is not proper to add to the article? As for your advise, "yes we do need proof if we are to say "they lied" - the point is that we can only say "this person said" or "that person claimed", I believe that if you read my post you will see that that is exactly what I said. Regarding your fringe comments, in my experience when an editor uses a clickable "fringe" or "weight" I have assumed that they feel I need to educate myself re wikipedia's fringe or weight policy. If that was not your intent, I would suggest that some or most editors may see it as a suggestion that they need help with understanding proper policy. And finally, as for my feelings that some editors may have had a strong point of view because of some sort of relationship to the industry, as long as wikipedia policy was not abused, so what? If I happened to be a fisherman and felt that the spill had damaged my business I'd want to be sure that the article reflected the damage that had been done to my fishing grounds, and there certainly is no reason that I could not join in with the work of editing the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

174, I watched the video and I'd now agree that there is new information. Here was the old ref that was used: http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=2258 I remember that there were complaints re the quality of the video, but a quick google did not turn up with anything. It is interesting to see the position they were in. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Or alternatively you could have just said "Ah, you were directing all those comments and links to the IP editor"

It is true that there is new information, although the relevance is not clear to me due to the press release of the Plume Team:

• "On May 27, the Team issued an Interim Report that established an estimated range for the minimum possible spillage rate but did not issue an estimate for a possible maximum value because the quality and length of the video data could not support a reliable calculation. Instead, they requested, and received, more extensive videos from British Petroleum (BP)." [2]

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Page size and links

The page is getting a little large and bloated. At 17,000 words it seems a little excessive, it takes 19 screens to scroll down, at 1280x1024 resolution.

For example the section "Consequences" is massive, and has a "see also" to Economic_and_political_consequences_of_the_Deepwater_Horizon_disaster There is a vastly greater amount of detail on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill page (this one) than on the linked page. I suspect someone started to do the transfers but stopped.

Efforts to protect the coastline and marine environments - same, massive and with no "see also" or "main" page.

Volume and extent of oil spill- same again, massive and with a list of events as the only "main" which is not really accurate, should be "see also" as it is just a list of a series of events.

How about people try and get the linked pages to "main page"s and just leave a synopsis in each section on this one?

Chaosdruid (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these sections should be better summarized and more detailed information should be moved into specific articles. Beagel (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is very long and should be greatly shortened. I agree that Volume and extent and Efforts to protect the coastline and marine environments would be best linked. That should shorten the article considerably. However, I feel that the Consequences section be left on the main page for now since this section is likely to continue to be in the news. Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article is too large and should be split. I think that the Consequences section is the best place to start because it is the largest section and has the potential to keep growing. The Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster article isn't really a match for the consequences section, which is broader. Ecology and health do not fit under economic and political consequences, although I suppose one alternative would be to remove "economic and political" from the article's title. (By the way, I don't think that that article ever served as a spin-out from the DH oil spill article, but was just set up independently.)

I agree that the timeline article does not make an appropriate main article for the "volume and extent of oil spill" section. The timeline should include aspects of (just about) every section in the DH oil spill article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Opps, I made my post in haste and it does not make any sense at all. Ignore it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Reactions

The reactions sections right now contains only one sentence: "Reactions to the oil spill, from various officials and interested parties, ranged from blame and outrage at the damage caused by the spill, and spills in the past, to call for greater accountability on the part of the U.S. government and BP, including new legislation dealing with preventative security and cleanup improvements.Reactions to the oil spill, from various officials and interested parties, ranged from blame and outrage at the damage caused by the spill, and spills in the past, to call for greater accountability on the part of the U.S. government and BP, including new legislation dealing with preventative security and cleanup improvements." Although there is the main article named Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and this section should be just a summary of reactions, the current version provides only trivia without getting any reasonable summary of what the reactions are/were. By my understanding, there is no mean to keep this section as it currently is. I think that reactions are important part of the spill; however, in this case this summary has to provide little bit more detailed overview. Beagel (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Beagel, you write very well - could you come up with something? Gandydancer (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit filed against Ken Feinberg

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

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

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

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

• A possible oil slick appears and spreads near the Mississippi Delta off the coast of Grand Isle, Louisiana, suspected to be an oil spill from the Matterhorn Seastar oil rig near the Deepwater Horizon oil spill location or silt contamination from a nearby dredging operation. (Reuters) (Daily Mail) (Wall Street Journal) 99.181.155.81 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

BP managers, including Tony Hayward, could face manslaughter charges

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

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

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

According to Bloomberg, authorities are investigating BP managers who worked both on the rig and onshore to determine if they should be charged in connection with the workers' deaths. The investigation aims to determine whether decisions by BP managers to cut costs and increase speed on the project led to fatal safety sacrifices." [5] 72.213.42.1 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The data included a spreadsheet of claimants' names, Social Security numbers, phone numbers and addresses. But Thomas said the company doesn't have any evidence that claimants' personal information has been misused." [6] 72.213.42.1 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Needs work/follow-up

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

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

In reply to your tag:

This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, as needs restructuring. This has initial rants but no solid factual follow-up. For example, most initial predictions have proved exaggerated. Turtle nesting is UP, not down from the preceding year, including loggerheads, an endangered species. This needs scholarly follow-up so it may be linked from other articles. This is fairly early in accusations and the editors seem to have lost interest when nothing really came of all the dire predictions. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (April 2011)

I am one of the editors who have continued interest in this article, however I do not understand your reasons for tagging this section. Speaking of dire predictions and accusations does not explain at all what you feel needs to be changed. Please fully explain:

• I looked at Wikipedia standards and have no idea exactly where you feel this section does not comply. Please point them out rather than just point to the list.

• Which "initial rants" are you speaking of? Exactly what sort of "solid factual follow-up" are you looking for that is available for us to use?

• Please provide references that state that most initial predictions have proved exaggerated and that turtle nesting is UP, not down from the preceding year.

• What sort of "scholarly follow-up" works exist that we can enter in the article. Also, are you aware that NOAA has issued a gag order?

If you will be specific about your problems rather than just point at the entire section and provide some good references to back up your statements, I would be happy to improve the article. Gandydancer (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Whew. I will try. I appreciate that it may be difficult to do from a list. Easier to do as you "go along." Anyway....

"re-closed to shrimping" - what are shrimp totals for 2010 compared to 2009? Or quarter by quarter? Or something substantive other than the "expectation of failure."

There are 13 screens-worth of material related to the volume of oil. I can appreciate how this "evolved" but I would think it would be shortened. "A trillion barrels", "A quadrillion barrels" whatever. The meticulous blow by blow of figuring it out is not of much interest now. At least not at this level.

"shrimp/crab/oyster ranch"- how did this impact the harvest of crabs and oysters someplace?

"proliferation of the bacteria" - this is one of the first statements about the affects on people directly. But still at the insinuation phase with no statistics.

"34,000 birds have been counted". Must be dead birds, right? Early on, can only report dead fauna. But a follow-up needs comparison with previous years. Had to report dead fauna initially. What else could you do? But now, readers need more solid stuff. "20% fewer water fowl, 40% fewer fish near Mobile"; that sort of thing. But real stuff! Organizing it is a problem since it isn't altogether for the entire region. Only have snapshots, but have to start somewhere.

Like most "event" articles, this "just grew." My cursory suggestion would be to shorten the oil estimates down to three screens/pages summary (with fork), the attempt at clean-up to about the same.

Then concentrate on hard data to sustain a catastrophe or something short of one. It would be interesting and encyclopedic to leave in all the predictions of disaster. Then follow up with objective remarks either documenting that disaster, but also revealing where predictions were way too dire. Florida, for example, was hardly affected.

I was just looking for a place to put the loggerhead turtle info and looked like it would be a problem if I entered it. a) No real place for objective follow-up. b) loggerhead turtle info was on EAST coast of Florida as well as well coast, which of course was not affected by spill. Though it was predicted!

I will try to watch the talk page for a few days, then will go on to something else. Just a visitor here. Student7 (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. You placed the tag in the Ecology section. Did you mean to tag the entire article? Gandydancer (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The ecology section does need some work, but it might be in the opposite direction than the tag would suggest. Take a look at today's article from Bloomberg[7]:

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

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

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

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

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

See Also: Sea turtle deaths up along Gulf, joining dolphin trend - Confidential data due to BP inquiry frustrates some researchers seeking answers [8] 174.74.77.113 (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Look. I'm not going to argue with you. It's your article. Someone asked me for objective observations and I gave it to them.

There are three phases to an ecological disaster: 1) The disaster itself with all the foreboding anyone can give it. There really isn't any other information at that juncture. So "Professor Somebody at University of U is quoted as saying "It's going to be terrible."

2) Then the facts start rolling in. a Trillion birds died, whatever. Remember, birds die daily. Doubtless this disaster shortened their lives and collected their bodies for counting. But if 1,000 birds die in an area in a week normally, and 2,000 die during a disaster, that is only 1,000 more and not much in a population of (say) 100,000. Life is versatile. Individual life is fragile, but these are flocks.

3) This is the stage we are in now. It is the "recovery" or whatever, from the disaster. Yes "The affects will linger for generations." But one or two of those is enough. What is the bird count today? How did the shrimpers suffer economically? The disaster is in stage three, but the article is stuck in counting dead birds which was several months ago. It needs to be objective enough that good faith editors can insert cited figures that do not agree with the original predictions.

But it's your article. You can be stuck in whatever phase you like.

Bye. Student7 (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your post is an insult to Wikipedia and to the hard-working editors that have tried to present a good, non-biased, well-referenced article. It is easy enough to pop in puffed up with self-importance and say the article sucks and leave in a huff with a closing rant. If you actually did have any interest in improving this article you would have furnished answers to my initial post, which you have not done. I shall remove the tag. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Sick fish suggest oil spill still affecting Gulf"

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

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

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

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

Cowan said he hasn't seen anything like these fish in 25 years of studying the gulf, which persuades him that "it would be a pretty big coincidence if it wasn't associated with the oil spill." [9] 174.74.77.113 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this article really need a Popular Culture section?

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

No, I don't believe so. deleted.... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Due to the size and scope of the Oil Spill, as well as the shear amount of news coverage it received, we can't deny that it has nevertheless impacted popular culture in some way. But perhaps you're right, this might not be the best place for such a section, because the article is already very long. Does anyone think this could be a topic for a separate article (if one doesn't already exist)? Billertl (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Popular Culture" in a disaster article just doesn't seem right to me. There was only the one minor ref anyway. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems right to me. I think the article would be better with it. I disagree with you, but I'll let you have your way, since I don't have the patience to argue. I was just trying to make the article better, but I'll just forget it. Billertl (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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

The Removal section has a new paragraph (formerly in its own section called Collateral Damage) which needs reliable source(s) for verification. After I flagged the content as needing a citation, an improperly formatted reference was provided with just a quotation. There was no URL, title or any other publication information. I did a Google search for that quotation and found it was only used one place: in the middle of a blog posting([10]) at a site that's connected to UC Davis Veternary Medicine. This blog posting may or may not be a reliable source, but it turns out that's irrelevant, since the posting discusses a different spill and never mentions the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. See WP:SYNTH. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is vs. Was (Maybe it's time)

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

I agree that it's time to change is to was. The following sentence, "The impact of the spill continues even after the well has been capped." makes it clear that the impact is not over. Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletions reverted

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

Where are the edit buttons?

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