The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although the NG article refers to tar sands, the main article here in Wikipedia is called Oil sands and the main article about the source in Canada is called Athabasca oil sands. I there any reason why this article specifically uses the term "tar sands"? Beagel ( talk) 17:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
There was added clarification needed tag after words "approximately 12,000 barrels of oil" with the edit summary: "Not oil? per http://rt.com/usa/arkansas-spill-exxon-cleanup-244/ ... is clarification needed, excerpt "exempt from paying into the fund for its Pegasus pipeline, because it carries tar sands oil, not "conventional oil." The problem seems to be that the news story uses the general term "oil" as a synonym of petroleum (aka crude oil, conventional oil). That is correct that the oil transported by the pipeline was not conventional oil but oil produced from oil sands. This is a diluted bitumen or synthetic crude. However, it still falls under the general term oil and its chemical properties are similar to petroleum. It is also used to produced as refinery feedstock to produce the same products as from petroleum. Therefore the general term "oil" is correct in this context. Beagel ( talk) 18:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking into the naming conventions for events, I note that articles are usually named according to: 1) where the incident happened, and 2) what happened. The guideline states: "If these descriptors are not sufficient to identify the event unambiguously," the date of the incident should be added. This oil spill seems to fairly unambiguously named the "Mayflower oil spill" so I am proposing to rename it to that. Any comments or concerns? Sunray ( talk) 05:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Dilbit is not oil, it is not crude oil. There are many important distinctions, including,
And I would also add,
As an online encyclopedia, we need to strive for accuracy WP:V and also maintain a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. I am adding Controversial tag, to indicate my question about both Accuracy, and NPOV, and tagging the word "oil" as Disputed. Thanks.
-- Bill Huston (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see case here that supports the argument that the article is not neutral. Would you be able to briefly summarize the case for non-neutrality with reference to WP policies? Otherwise, the neutrality and factual accuracy tags will be removed. Sunray ( talk) 15:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2013 Mayflower oil spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Since its earliest revision, this article has included a citation to a fringe-theory website called disclose.tv.
@ Sunray: Since you added this citation to the article, can you find a more reliable source to replace it? Jarble ( talk) 00:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although the NG article refers to tar sands, the main article here in Wikipedia is called Oil sands and the main article about the source in Canada is called Athabasca oil sands. I there any reason why this article specifically uses the term "tar sands"? Beagel ( talk) 17:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
There was added clarification needed tag after words "approximately 12,000 barrels of oil" with the edit summary: "Not oil? per http://rt.com/usa/arkansas-spill-exxon-cleanup-244/ ... is clarification needed, excerpt "exempt from paying into the fund for its Pegasus pipeline, because it carries tar sands oil, not "conventional oil." The problem seems to be that the news story uses the general term "oil" as a synonym of petroleum (aka crude oil, conventional oil). That is correct that the oil transported by the pipeline was not conventional oil but oil produced from oil sands. This is a diluted bitumen or synthetic crude. However, it still falls under the general term oil and its chemical properties are similar to petroleum. It is also used to produced as refinery feedstock to produce the same products as from petroleum. Therefore the general term "oil" is correct in this context. Beagel ( talk) 18:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking into the naming conventions for events, I note that articles are usually named according to: 1) where the incident happened, and 2) what happened. The guideline states: "If these descriptors are not sufficient to identify the event unambiguously," the date of the incident should be added. This oil spill seems to fairly unambiguously named the "Mayflower oil spill" so I am proposing to rename it to that. Any comments or concerns? Sunray ( talk) 05:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Dilbit is not oil, it is not crude oil. There are many important distinctions, including,
And I would also add,
As an online encyclopedia, we need to strive for accuracy WP:V and also maintain a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. I am adding Controversial tag, to indicate my question about both Accuracy, and NPOV, and tagging the word "oil" as Disputed. Thanks.
-- Bill Huston (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see case here that supports the argument that the article is not neutral. Would you be able to briefly summarize the case for non-neutrality with reference to WP policies? Otherwise, the neutrality and factual accuracy tags will be removed. Sunray ( talk) 15:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2013 Mayflower oil spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Since its earliest revision, this article has included a citation to a fringe-theory website called disclose.tv.
@ Sunray: Since you added this citation to the article, can you find a more reliable source to replace it? Jarble ( talk) 00:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)