This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States offshore drilling debate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was created based on a perceived need for separating the Offshore drilling article from the current US debate on it. For a discussion on the US issue, see Talk:Offshore drilling EverGreg ( talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Needs update to include BP spill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.13.120.77 ( talk) 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I am just reading the page wrong but it seems somewhat biased. The argument for offshore drilling seems much more persuasive than the one against it. Shouldn't the two be relatively equal, or maybe on separate pages. It is possible that I am biased too, but regardless they both do need a significant amount of expansion.
Drew2794 (
talk) 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments at the end of the previous topic allude to this. The article itself reads as biased to me and seems to contain a slant against offshore drilling. Of course others may disagree. Regardless, I do not see a place for what is essentially a discussion on an ongoing United States political debate in a Wikipedia article. As there are existing articles on the USA's offshore oil and gas fields and on the subject of offshore drilling I believe a brief paragraph (if that) on the current debate might be added to one of those articles and this one should be deleted. Turbine1 ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will offer another 2c worth and bow out of this one. Just an observation but it seems a little curious that the "debate" about US offshore drilling is considered as notable in its own right as is the subject of offshore drilling itself. In my personal opinion, the substantive political and legislative points and major public discussions could be placed in the "Offshore Oil and Gas in the United States" article and that would be a perfectly proper home for this material. Sure its a significant domestic political disagreement here in the USA, but does that imply that the "debate" should not be covered in the main subject article? In any case, If you were to edit out the unsubstantiated opinions and items of dubious lasting significance there is not a whole lot of meat left here. As it stands, this article feels to me like an extended newspaper article to me, rather than a true encyclopedia item. I will shut up and defer to the will of the community on this though. If someone feels up to fixing this article so it does not read like a slanted op-ed piece that would be worthwhile. Peace, Turbine1 ( talk) 04:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The tone of the first portion of the background article is factual; the second half, however, seems to have a slight political bent to it, including accusations of fascism. The neutrality of the article is thrown into doubt when such aggressive rhetoric is utilized. I would argue that the section detracts from the discussion of the debate, and violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy pretty clearly. To correct it, the argument should be moved to a separate heading, where it can be used to illustrate the point of view of one side of the offshore drilling debate. It does not have a place in the background discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.128.214 ( talk) 20:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States offshore drilling debate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was created based on a perceived need for separating the Offshore drilling article from the current US debate on it. For a discussion on the US issue, see Talk:Offshore drilling EverGreg ( talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Needs update to include BP spill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.13.120.77 ( talk) 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I am just reading the page wrong but it seems somewhat biased. The argument for offshore drilling seems much more persuasive than the one against it. Shouldn't the two be relatively equal, or maybe on separate pages. It is possible that I am biased too, but regardless they both do need a significant amount of expansion.
Drew2794 (
talk) 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments at the end of the previous topic allude to this. The article itself reads as biased to me and seems to contain a slant against offshore drilling. Of course others may disagree. Regardless, I do not see a place for what is essentially a discussion on an ongoing United States political debate in a Wikipedia article. As there are existing articles on the USA's offshore oil and gas fields and on the subject of offshore drilling I believe a brief paragraph (if that) on the current debate might be added to one of those articles and this one should be deleted. Turbine1 ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will offer another 2c worth and bow out of this one. Just an observation but it seems a little curious that the "debate" about US offshore drilling is considered as notable in its own right as is the subject of offshore drilling itself. In my personal opinion, the substantive political and legislative points and major public discussions could be placed in the "Offshore Oil and Gas in the United States" article and that would be a perfectly proper home for this material. Sure its a significant domestic political disagreement here in the USA, but does that imply that the "debate" should not be covered in the main subject article? In any case, If you were to edit out the unsubstantiated opinions and items of dubious lasting significance there is not a whole lot of meat left here. As it stands, this article feels to me like an extended newspaper article to me, rather than a true encyclopedia item. I will shut up and defer to the will of the community on this though. If someone feels up to fixing this article so it does not read like a slanted op-ed piece that would be worthwhile. Peace, Turbine1 ( talk) 04:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The tone of the first portion of the background article is factual; the second half, however, seems to have a slight political bent to it, including accusations of fascism. The neutrality of the article is thrown into doubt when such aggressive rhetoric is utilized. I would argue that the section detracts from the discussion of the debate, and violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy pretty clearly. To correct it, the argument should be moved to a separate heading, where it can be used to illustrate the point of view of one side of the offshore drilling debate. It does not have a place in the background discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.128.214 ( talk) 20:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)