Talk:Betelgeuse incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Betelgeuse incident is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to the fire service around the world. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project.
This article is part of WikiProject Irish Maritime, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of Maritime, seafaring and inland waterways articles associated with the island of Ireland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


Good articles Betelgeuse incident has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 <ref name="???"/> ; 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)

[edit] 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 [1]. 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) [2]. 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 [3]; the 7 February 1979 [4] used the term ‘Whiddy Island Disaster’, as did the written questions of 21 February 1980 [5]; the debate of 26 November 1980[6].

Indeed the third reference which you use is entitled: ‘Dáil Éireann – Volume 312 – 06 March, 1979 Whiddy Island Disaster: Motion.’ [7]

The article A Benthic Survey of Inner Bantry Bay (1999) by the Marine Institute, Dublin [8] 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 [9] has in these articles [10] and [11] 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) [12] 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 [13]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 {{logo}} 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/t/Talk%7EBetelgeuse_incident_c407.html"