Talk:2007 South Korea oil spill

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 7, 2010, December 7, 2011, December 7, 2014, and December 7, 2017.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

When was the last time Korea had an oil spill?

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Environmental disasters are to be handled in terms of timeline and geographical locationsChmyr (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I followed the format used in List of oil spills. None of the articles there have the date (well except for the 2007 San Fransico Bay oil spill which was moved but which someone didn't bother to fix the redirects for). Some times they use the location (usually not the country but the specific location like the sea or nearby land), other times they use the cause, the most noteable example being the Exxon Valdez oil spill but also including Prestige oil spill and Jiyeh power station oil spill (the bast majority of oil spills are not covered in seperate articles). I did not see any evidence that the sources have settled upon any name, most of them don't even call it by a name. Also the last time Korea has a major oil spill was in 1995. As oil spills happen all the time from what I've read, I'm pretty sure South Korea must have had many oils spills since then but they were all relatively minor. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

BTW, if you are going to make moves, it would be good if you can fix any double redirects Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the detailed article done by (talk)

The reasons why I changed the tile Hebei Spitrit oil spill to a new title of 2007 Korea oil spill are as follows:

Hebei Sprit is less known to readers than Korea oil spill. Mass media prefers to call it south korea oil spill rather than Hebei Spriti oil spill
Unlike Exxon Valedez oil spil, for which Exxon Valdez was solely responsible, the title Hebei Spirit oil spill may give an unintended connotation that the VLCC Hebei Spirit is exclusively accountable for this disaster.
The article I had started with the title of South Korea Oil Spill was moved to the article of Hebei Spirit oil spill you created later. Thank you for the good job, though.Chmyr (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Chmyr (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The most sensible solution would be to change the name back to 'Hebei Spirit oil spill' once the event is no longer current. Wikipedia's content should not be dictated by the trends of mass media, and I reject the notion that naming this article after the ship implies culpability. We're just establishing a link between the two, which only makes sense. As a compromise, might I suggest 'Hebei Spirit oil spill (2007)?' Other oil spill articles could always be edited to include a date in the title if deemed necessary. - Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.96.84 (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Somebody started this article ahead of Nil Einne

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Next time you completely delete an article of similar content initiated by somebody else to start a new article, you may need to leave a word of explanationChmyr (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell me what you're talking about? I did not delete any article. I did use the Guimaras oil spill article as a guide as I noted below before you made any comments (and also when starting this article) but I did not delete it. Indeed as I'm not an admin, I can't delete anything so I'm quite confused what you're talking about. Also could you please follow the normal wikipedia practice of adding discussions to the bottom? It get's confusing otherwise Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I used the Guimaras oil spill article as a quick guide. (permanent link) Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Stuff to do

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think I'm done for now, but some things which others may want to look into which I found confusing from what I read from the sources:

Responsibility and cause - it appears people are saying the barge captain may be responsible (so it will fall on the barge's insurance) but if the barge was being tugged I would presume it would predominantly be the tug captains fault for tugging in bad weather. I don't know much about maritime laws and stuff but I was under the impression tugs in ports are usually controlled by the port authorities.
Number of containers and precisely what was damaged and happened with the oil - I'm a bit confused since it seems that the were 5 containers, 3 of which were punctured. And from what I can tell the remaining oil from the 3 containers was pumped into the 2 intact ones. But this seems surprising to me since I would presume they wouldn't have that much free space. Perhaps I'm wrong or I've missed something. Also was the hull damaged or only the containers? And were the containers fixed or only the hull?
Size (area) of the oil spill - I've combined the largest figures I found for the current size of the oil spill since I've presumed smaller figures are outdated but in retrospect perhaps this wasn't the best idea.
Background and effects - some more info on the background of the area and the current known effects on the area particularly on the wildlife would be good
State of disaster - what area does the actual state of disaster cover? I think it's the Taean country but most sources weren't very clear (it doesn't seem to be the whole South Chungcheong province according to at least one source

Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

"May produce cancer" ?

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, I added in the introduction " Volunteers being encourage to manipulate products carefully". I think this comment is moraly need according to the French 1999 oil spill and following clean up. I explain the French story :

a oil spill came on French beach ;
sea side cities needed help to clean the beach ;
they then called for volunteers, hundreds came to give an hand ;
2 months later, French medias finaly widely repports that the oil products may produce Skin cancer O.o

See fr:Erika_(pétrolier) (and the shorter Erika (tanker) ?)

Accordingly, please keep a warning notice on this article introduction encouraging to don't put in contact with skin. And if you can, notice the Korean Wikipedia as well. 140.122.97.11 (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Volunteers being encourage to manipulate products carefully.. No doubt. But by whom and what kind of products? --Wetman (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm french, Help me to find better english words. 140.122.97.11 (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.122.97.4 (talk) Reply

I believe he is trying to say that handling oil may be toxic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.253.33 (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Article name?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

To me '2007 Korea oil spill' seems pretty ambiguous, even with 'korean' would be better but what about 'Hebei Spirit oil spill' instead? Aicchalmers (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

That was the original name, but Chymr objects, see the top post Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can't you guys at least add an "n" to "Korea"? --Howard the Duck 13:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Picture

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

this page really needs a picture. its hard to imagine the scale without one. --Chickenfeed9 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

yoo danlodady

If today is 10 December, how can there be information of the progress as of 13 December? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.196.7 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

what, you never heard of a time machine?? --Tom 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Request for reasons

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why are natural disasters to be dealt with in terms of timeline and geographical area, dear Chmyr? Sincerely, Dsnow75 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

dead link to prominent source

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The link to the "Clearing Oil Contamination to Take at Least Two Months" article seems to have gone dead, and I am having trouble finding an archived copy. Can anyone help? Forestgarden (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply