Talk:Bhopal disaster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

January, 2009 - Is the article still POV?

It is very much POV. It is neither scientific nor an objective presentation of facts. The notes (1) and (2)used liberally throughout the article on Bhopal disaster says it all.--Omyooah (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Omyooah! Would you please be a little more clear? Which part is not scientific? I suppose you mean the now (2) and (3) refences? To write my book "The Bhopal Saga", I studied more than 200 references, many of which you find in the reference list. I studied material from UCC as well as from Indian authorities. When I started to work on this site, it was VERY POV and full of wrong "facts". I have cleared it up (paragraphs 1-5, a little bit of 10 + reference list) so now most of the facts concerning the leakage and the consequences are verified (some other people have added "references" that are not reliable, thus exaggerating the problems). So please, read some of the references and come back! Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article was very POV when I first saw it. Since that, many changes have been done, and, I think in September 2008, the POV-square disappeared. You can follow the discussion. Since that, the changes that are done are very small, and the content is just the same. But the POV-square came back on December 3. The reason is "Its easy to tell that the author feels the UCC was largely at fault". As far as I know, everyone who have studied the background material, agrees on this. I certainly do, as I show in my essay and in my book. You can find the essay and an article in the reference list. Before writing my book, I studied more than 200 references. Some of them are digitalised and can be reached from the reference list. If there are any references that I have missed, that shows that some other part is more responsible, I would be happy if you can add that to the reference list and write something about it in the text. This article should be as complete as possible.

The same day, the prose-square was added. We might have different preferences of how to make a page easy to read. I have used lists, because the amount of information is enormous - the same chapters in my book takes about 200 pages. Actually, every dot should be a paragraph of its own, with a headline of its own. But then the text would be flooded with headlines! Also, this makes it possible to keep the text very short, without any unneccessary words.

I would be happy to get some response to this. I am the main author up to "Union Carbide's defense". Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that its mentioned, there's nothing in particular I can point too, I'm sorry, I'm thinking I was really tired or something. I remember thinking that the "Aftermath of the leakage" section was very critical of Carbide and the Indian government, but at the now nothing stands out as a great example that I can cite. I think perhaps "Union Carbide's Defense" could be expanded? Either way, I think your right, this article isn't really POV and I'm not sure why I put that tag up. Pstanton 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

OK. The contents under "Aftermath" are just facts that are verified in the references.

If "Union Carbide's Defense" should be expanded, then everything else should be too. The information on the site is extremely comprehensive, and this must include Union Carbide's defense (that I did not write). Its important that the article does not get POV the other way round!

Actually, I think the paragraphs from "Union Carbide's defense" an onwards should be shortened and much more comprehensive. Some facts have to be checked.

About the lists: Its ok concerning to the rules of Wikipedia. So I would appreciate if you took away also that tag.

Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is mainly true

The Bhopal Gas Disaster is a story starting in the 1960s and still going on, that is around 50 years. It is impossible to describe all details in this website and answer all the questions below.

Before writing my book "The Bhopal Saga - causes and consequences of the world's largest industrial diaster", I studied more than 200 references. In this book, I have systematized all known facts between the 1960s and 2003, and I have tried to be as neutral as possible. As far as I can see, the contents of this article is according to the facts.

If you want more details, start with downloading my essay "Chemical industry and public health - Bhopal as an example". It covers the history from 1960s to 2000.

However, I have edit the page a bit, changed some texts, changed the order of the paragraphs.

About the amount of MIC in the tank: the figures varies from 36 to 61. I think 42 tonnes is the most probably amount (Source: Varadarajan, S.e.a., Report on scientific studies on the factors related to Bhopal Toxic Gas Leakage. 1985, Indian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research: New Delhi.)

Ingrid Eckerman 78.82.189.199 (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.189.199 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very flawed article

This article does not meet Wikipedia standards. In particular, there is no clear description of the actual event the article purports to discuss: 1)What exactly occured, in in what sequence? 2)What was the immediate response of the factory staff? 3)What happened with the civilian population in the immediate aftermath of the explosion (or leak?) 4)Was there ever a consensus as to what happened and why? If so (the article suggests there is) who came to that conclusion?

The article begins with a very cursory description of the accident, which barely if at all deals with the questions posed above. Surely the information exists to produce a much more detailed timeline of the explosion: Before, During, and After (possible section heads).216.162.196.10 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 I incline to agree with the above user. This article does not focus on the disaster itself but strays wildly from the subject at times. Deeper research should be done by Wikipedia to focus on the actual disaster and its causes.

How many tonnes?

Someone needs to get their facts straightened out. =/ In the first para, it's stated that 40 tonnes of MIC gas was leaked. Then in the 2nd para, it says 43 tonnes of MIC gas was released. However, in this site:

Clicky

It says, "It is presumed that between 20 and 30 tonnes of MIC were released during the hour that the leak took place." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.139.224 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The person obviously means an an approximate amount of 40 tonnes.-Theclassicalman 70.79.215.78 (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is also apparent that the article cites sources largely favoring local accounts and observations vs. Union Carbide. I'm not saying it's 100% biased, but there are definitely other reputable sources (as in not Union Carbide or local government) that may disagree with the 40 tonne figure. Objectivity is a serious issue that needs addressing in this article. aremisasling (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Point of View

This article is horribly biased. It ignores basically all views of Union Carbide and dismiss them basically as corporate propoganda. The editing was obviously done from a non-neutral point of view and only neutral sources should be used on an article like this. The neutral view is just as ugly for Union Carbide, however.

I agree with the user above. The background section reads like a Greenpeace pamphlet. It doesn't mention any of the numerous warnings that Union Carbide made to the plant. It doesn't mention that Union Carbide was not the controlling owner, the Government of India had control. It doesn't mention that Union Carbide was not allowed to hire their own employees, or make changes to the plant. Many warnings and breaches of the agreement were ignored by the Indian Government, and the Indian Government refused to release funds, refused to accept Union Carbide's help in immediate medical aid and money before motions for a lawsuit had even begun. Union Carbide suffered greatly from this risky venture, and certainly must bear some blame, but a great deal of the severity, and perhaps the likely cause of the incident was the Indian Government. This needs to be discussed. Saying things like it was preventable is conjecture, and the current article is full of it. Again, there is plenty of blame to go around, but blaming the minority owner over the majority owner seems blatantly biased. Nmjw 17:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I am unaware of the claims you made above. Can you give some credible sources for your claims? --Incman|वार्ता 06:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Incman. Here in India, everybody knows that it was UCIL to blame for, not the Govt. of India. Do you think that, in a working democracy(and that too, in India), the government can cheat the people and get away with it? All claims of UC are ignored because they are indeed corporate propaganda. How else do you explain Warren Anderson not appearing before the courts of India, if his company is indeed innocent? And why would he go into a luxurious life of hiding after the incident? And, about the Indian government operating the plant, who told you that big fat lie? Can you quote ANY credible source? If the Indian government is indeed to be blamed for, why didn't the UCIL file countersuits in Indian courts against the govt., to prove its innocence? And can you explain the tardy compensation that was paid to the survivors? What would they have paid had this happened in the US? The arguments raised by Nmjw do not seem at all credible, so removing the POV tag. Instead, the unsourced tag can remain. The article needs citations for better credibility. rohith 16:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is a horrible violation of NPOV. Concepts of functional democracy are not evidence (Germany voted in Hitler, Zimbabwe voted in Mugabe, and Serbia voted in Milosevic). And failure to appear in court is not evidence of guilt. It hasn't been for centuries mostly because of gross abuses of the priciple in the UK leading to executions of people who never actually even had a trial. Regardless of the body of evidence against UC, an article of this nature needs to express all side of the story, not just the one with the largest body of evidence. The ideal situation would be an article sourced entirely by external sources, but in absence of that it needs to include at least sources from both sides, which it does only superficially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aremisasling (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote the Master's thesis. I do not understand what you try to express above. Can you please explain it more clearly?Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading the article recently I've come to the conclusion that I was affected by the poor quality of the initial article and not thinking rationally. I had actually be regretting this particular comment for a while now. I do stand by the claims I make about the wikipedia article as many of the accusations made against UC aren't evidence of guilt by any modern legal standard (though there is plenty of evidence of guilt that DOES meet those standards, which your article covers). I know it's against policy to remove prior comments. But given the nature of my accusations against your article, I feel it important to remove at least that portion to avoid undue questioning of your work. I regret that I am unable to remove it from the history, and that I didn't do this sooner. My sincere apologies to you and your work. That was unjustified on my part and a violation of Wikipedia rules on civil comments.

Now given that I am leaving the remainder there I feel the need to state that I no longer feel this article is an NPOV violation, though it definitely was before I and others edited the early sections. That was not due to the articles cited, but the tone and apporach the early sections took. It was very much more of an editorial indictment than an encyclopedic article. There are a few scattered issues with it still, but not nearly the level there used to be. aremisasling (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, that explains why I did not understand your comment. And of course, I accept your appology. I agree with you, that this article was very bad when I first looked at it (I am not an experienced wikipedia editor). I just sighed and closed it - it felt like a huge job to do something about it, and to me, it is difficult to change texts that others have written. Anyhow, now I think it is quite OK. Although I have not gone into detail of the latter part.

And thank you for language corrections. It interesting - I often copy text out of my book, that is language checked already. And then it is changed again here ... We have different ways of expressing ourselves. As a non-native English speaker, my language is quite simple, compared e.g. with many Americans. On the other hand, its easy to understand also for other non-native English speakers. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Also added the Unbalanced tag, that would better address the concern of the user who added the POV tag. rohith 16:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Union Carbide's Bhopal.com site states that

The Bhopal plant was owned and operated by Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL), an Indian company in which Union Carbide Corporation held just over half the stock.

So much for allegations that the plant was being operated by the government. Removing the unbalanced tag, thus. rohith 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It would not matter if Union Carbide owned over half of the stock if it was not involved in day to day operations. Stock owners are protected by anything that happens to their company. It is called the Corporate Veil. Plus 60 percent of the people living outside of the UCIL factory were illegal and if the government had done their job and moved them, this disaster would have had 60 percent less fatalities and injuries.

The above statement is no excuse. The disaster happened, and 1 disaster is 1 disaster too many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.202.56 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Union Carbide Corporation owned 50.9% of UCIL, and did indeed retain day to day control over its management. This was in fact part of of Union Carbide's stated policy for its subsidiaries, and is attested by numerous Carbide documents obtained via the discovery process in US courts.

The factory was sited very near the city, instead of in the designated industrial zone. There were objections, but the Madhya Pradesh government's eagerness to oblige Carbide overrode them. In any case, thousands of deaths occurred in areas like the railway station (19th century) and the Chowk (built hundreds of years earlier). This debate shows that there is either a great deal of ignorance or a great deal of partisanship around the issue, or probably both.

Accident/Act of sabotage

Wiki/BBC say Bhopal was an accident but the Union Carbide website says it was an act of sabotage. Which is true?

Holden 27

Hmmm, who am I more incline to believe? The giant corporation who has a huge stake in disclaiming responsibility or a reputable independent news organization? Funkyj 20:04, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

DOW has now accepted responsibility, according to Reuters. -Wikibob | Talk 11:14, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

No. In a bulletin less than an hour later: [[1]]

TroelsArvin 12:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that was an elaborate hoax, it sure caught me! -Wikibob | Talk 12:10, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

According to all the 200 references I have read, the most likely reason to the leakage is that two workers cleaned the lines without using a slip bind. There is no evidence for sabotage, and UC also at one point admitteted there isn't. I Eckerman [2]

What are "slip-bind water isolation plates"? Bastie 23:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, In India the even is commonly referred to as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. When people talk about Unio Carbide and Bhopal, they call it the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, not the Bhopal Disaster. CAn you undo the name change?

Title notes

Moved this from Bhopal Disaster to Bhopal disaster to meet Manual of Style conventions. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 06:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Is this title really the best possible? Two reasons: it is not a tragedy in the classic sense of the term, but only in the popular (mis)conception of the meaning and it does promote a POV. There are those who might not characterize this as a tragedy, and since it's not really accurate anyway, I think it should be moved to Bhopal disaster or something. Unless it really is what the incident is frequently referred to as, which I don't think is true. Tokerboy 01:06 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

"Bhopal Disaster" would probably be better, though I think the above complaint comes about 30 years too late. For better or worse, "tragedy" now means "sad event" to most people. Tempshill 18:37, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nice work you're doing on this article, Tempshill. While you're at it, I think you should definitely move it across to Bhopal Disaster (7600 hits on Google) from Bhopal Tragedy (only 2600). Just in case you needed a push... –Hjr 19:16, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agrees. Wherever the blame lies, it is no doubt an industrial disaster, and should be categorised as such. chance 04:30, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

"Be bold", they said. So I was. Page moved. –User:Hajor 04:48, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dow Chemical Co accepts full responsibility

- Proof? - rernst 14:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Former content was:

According to Reuters [3], on the 3rd December 2004, Dow Chemical Co, in a major policy reversal, accepted full responsibility for the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India; a company spokesman, Jude Finisterra, was quoted as saying:

"Today I am very, very happy to announce that today, for the first time Dow is accepting full responsibility for the Bhopal catastrophe; this is a momentous occasion. We have a $12 billion plan to finally at long last fully compensate the victims including the 120,000 who may need medical care for their entire lives and to fully and swiftly remediate the Bhopal plant site. We have resolved to liquidate Union Carbide, this nightmare for the world and this headache for Dow and use the $12 billion to provide more than $500 per victim, which is all that they've seen."

This story is untrue, BBC released a statement later on 3 December 2004 that the statements are false and that there is no $12 billion dollar deal.

Witness Accounts

Moved "Witness Accounts" here for possible copyvio. This is apparently from [4]. That page says, "No part of this site should be used in any other media without prior permission."

We should consider whether

• A) We should use this text

>> (answer): No, firstly I did not take the text from "newindpress.com", but from blog archive of Bishwanath Ghosh [5]. Secondly, I already have the explicit permission from Bishwanath Ghosh himself to use his publication on Bhopal tragedy in Wikipedia (can be reached via bishwanath_g@yahoo.com)

• B) Such eyewitness accounts are appropriate in an encyclopedia article.

>> (answer): All information we have originates from human observation. If there is consensus among several observations of the same thing, meta narratives can be created to summarize and generalize the observations from detached viewpoint. Such meta narratives are supposed to be free from the influence of the original observer, but they too are composed by the same humans as the original observers; usually the closer to the original observation, the better. Still, I think that the neutral answer to the question whether eyewitness accounts are appropriate would be that they cannot stand in place of the encyclopedic meta narration ("objective description"), but they can serve the role of a "textual picture", as long as they are true and representative. If you have a reason to believe that the eyewitness account by Mr. Ghosh is misleading, say so. Before inserting this eyewitness account, the article didn't answer the question what the disaster was really like for the victims or what made it different from e.g. Chernobyl disaster apart from the difference in name. By inserting the witness account, I did not remedy the need for encyclopedic description, I only augmented the information value of the article. I welcome you or anyone else to make the encyclopedic description, rather than just pressing delete button over my contribution.

(my sig after text)

-- Writtenonsand 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) >> (answered by Kokot Kokotisko)

Death Toll?

How come the number of people killed is not listed on this page? That's a pretty important detail. LearningKnight 17:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The death toll I found seems accurate but I'm not sure if it is consistent with the other articles on wikipedia.raptor 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is very confusing on this score. First it says that about 3000 people died but maybe as many as 15000; the next paragraph says between 2500 and 5000 were killed; the next paragraph says the accident led to 20000 deaths.... It may well be that all of these numbers are somehow meaningful, but some clarification is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.83.135 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the numbers on this page are very confusing. Also, in the "History and after effects" section, it says "Approximately 20,000 to this date are believed to have died as a result; on average, roughly one person dies every day from the effects." I'm wondering who did the math on that. My calculations say that approximately 8508 days have passed since Dec. 3, 1984, so that's impossible. Obviously the average is going to change over a period of time anyway, so I don't see how that statement is helpful to anyone. Terlynn4 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

DowEthics.com

Hello, I am doing a project on Bhopal as an engineering failure for my Engineering Design class.

When I went to dowethics.com and clicked on the link for bhopal.com it popped up a window that tried to launch a denial of service attack on bhopal.com. I am unsure as of the legality of this action, but I thought that it should be brought to people's attention. Should a disclaimer be put next to the link?

HuckbeinMK3 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)HuckbeinMK3

OK... I am kind of new to editing so I hope I am doing everything right. Anyway is it just me or does this artical SERIOUSLY need to be brought into line with the NPOV policy? The thing reads like it was written by someone from "International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal". Also enough with the quotes from those people... The fact that one group (not to mention one with an agenda) seems to be regarded as the only reliable source for this artical is disturbing... I have come to expect more from Wikipedia :( Duncan St. Ives 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Section "Anti-Capitalist and Eco-Socialist Analysis"

I am removing the entire section "Anti-Capitalist and Eco-Socialist Analysis" as having no place in this article. It is not merely the fact some "American academic, psychoanalyst and eco-socialist" has no reason to be presented to the reader as any kind of authority on this matter; but this/his kind of propagandistic interpretation is profoundly at odds with the rest of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hi There (talk • contribs) 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC). Forgot to sign, sorry! Hi There 03:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

Not sure if this has been pointed out, but the title of the article 'Bhopal disaster' is rather ambiguous - what would happen if another disaster struck? Would it be named "Bhopal disaster II"? Perhaps appending a year to the title would be better? Sfacets 12:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the name is fine. When there's another world-class disaster in the small town of Bhopal, we can change it then. --Chetvorno 17:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This tragedy is better known as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. That would be a better name for this article.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I really do not see what you two are getting so excited about. I agree with Chetvorno, in that when and if another disaster happens, we can rename it. I highly doubt that another disaster will befall Bhopal. So seriously, it's not a big deal. -Kish225

POV

Following Duncan St. Ives' comment, there continues to be a lot of content on this page directly culled from the ICJB's website, and it has been edited into a sort of call-and-response, much directly pulled from the http://bhopal.net/bhopal.con/ The seemingly weak credibility of this site makes it a poor footnote, especially in the amount that it is used throughout the article: some of the content is out of date, and all is strongly POV. I feel like the ICJB's criticism should be kept primarily in the "Criticisms" section, instead of having them running throughout the article. Jemather 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cause of negative media

there has been little reference to the contributing factors to the negative publicity that this recieved other than the obvious......loss of life Reference should be made to the subsequent Chernobyl which once again highlighted the importance of industrial negligence.

Just a thought —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.227.222 (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

This is absurdly POV

Now look. I'm scarcely on the side of Union Carbide/Dow with regard to their failure to provide appropriate remediation for this disaster, but you have to be kidding me if you think this article is anything but a biased screed against UCC. This article is so biased it reads like something from a Greenpeace press release. When I read this it had the feel of a Loose Change-type conspiracy theory.

Some serious, serious work needs to go into this for it to have any credibility.137.14.10.22 15:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see problems with POV in this article at this time. I have seen plenty of articles on Wikipedia with POV issues, and this is not one of them. Please cite an example. - Cyborg Ninja 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

137.14.10.22 - Making a general claim is useless unless you can substantiate yourself. If the article is absurd to you, please make an effort to counter your position with actual documented research. It may feel false to you, however your accusation just as easily makes me believe you may work for or represent UCC. I myself generally believe the article, if for no other reason that its dissenters such as you give no alternative evidence. 69.113.166.150 (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)mjm

I'm going to put a general comment here about POV - a similar thing happened on another topic. Somebody from an anonymous account just cruised by and put a NPOV tag on it with some fairly vague, rude comments. Personally, I think that's about as useful as a broken umbrella. If anyone thinks any article has problems, THEN EDIT IT PROPERLY!!! Cruising around W.P. unloading on articles like some bad art critic is useless and a waste of everybody's time. If you are incapable of editing a topic, then at least have the decency to say why, what and how....Jjdon (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tags bother me. A lot. So, I went digging a bit. 137.14.10.22 has quite a few contributions, because it is a generic IP for the US Air force. Many complaints of vandalism on their talk page, too - for some reason the signature link doesn't work - search for 137.14.10.22. I think it's safe to say they are to be taken with a grain of salt. This is all in their history, of course. 24.240.17.81 put the NPOV tag in the article, and also is the one who sprinkled "citation needed" all over it. Very few contributions there, too. I'd say this article is being bombed more than there's really anything wrong with it. Read, from the NPOV page:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better.

I say delete the tag - I'll do it myself after awhile, unless anyone has anything useful to say in it's defense. Jjdon (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is pretty balanced. NPOV doesn't mean the facts go away in order to make all parties look equally good. Union Carbide's incompetence and negligence killed thousands of people and ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands more. If this had happened in the US, Union Carbide would have been dissolved years ago. From what I can tell, the article keeps a neutral tone and presents facts in a neutral manner. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

History and after-effects section

At present, the History and after-effects headline breaks the flow of text. According to the page's history, this section actually once contained quite a lot of material that 122.167.181.239 deleted (I did not find any explanation for this deletion). We should either put this material back, or (if it is incorrect, POV or whatever) remove the headline. As a non-expert on Bhopal, I would appreciate some advice here. --82.208.2.226 10:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

References: WP:RS?

This article draws very heavily on this site: http://bhopal.net/bhopal.con/faq.html. It seems to be a parody site of the official http://bhopal.com/. I read the FAQ there, and it doesn't list any sources. I am of the opinion that this site fails WP:RS, and references to it should be removed. Comments? --Rifleman 82 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that this complaint has surfaced on numerous occasions, I've gone ahead to clean it up. I'm dumping it here for reference, if anyone wants to salvage it. --Rifleman 82 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

* In the words of the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, “poorly trained personnel, rapid turnover, leaking valves, shoddy gauges and inadequate water spray protection were all identified as representing “a higher potential for a serious incident or more serious consequences if an incident should occur”".

• 11 of the 30 “major hazards” documented in a 1982 review occurred in the MIC and phosgene units.
• An employee was killed in 1981 by a phosgene leak.
• Soon after, 25 workers were injured after a pump seal failed.
• A previous leak of MIC had affected local communities outside the plant.
• The International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal suggests that “leaks were so frequent that the safety siren was turned off”.

The Carbide-sponsored Arthur D Little investigation has come under fire from the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, who are highly critical of paying a law firm “on a commercial wage to provide pseudo-scientific backing to [Carbide’s] utterly derided sabotage fairytale”. The Campaign also contends that proper safety procedures “would have anyway made employee sabotage impossible”.

The International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal asserts that “Carbide has never publicly named the alleged saboteur because it would invite a libel suit in which the facts of the disaster would have to be revealed”.

Countering this claim, the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal believes that “the isolation valve close to the water washing operation was closed but not leak proof”. These valves were “notoriously leaky”. This allowed pressure to increase, forcing water past the unprotected valve from which it “filled up to a height and then fell down into the open jumper line” before moving past the pressure valve that the company “admitted was leaking and into the tank”. The water got past the original process safety system via the jumper line.

In opposition to these statements, the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal notes that the company’s plant in Institute, West Virginia, “recorded several intrusions of water in 1984”. Instead, the Campaign believes that the Bhopal system was not designed to prevent such a leak in order “to save money” to the tune of “about $8 million according to Carbide’s 1973 capital budget plan”.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifleman 82 (talk • contribs) 02:26, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

This is classic POV- If you read the Little report, they clearly tested the valve, with Indian gov't oversite & the

lower pipes that should have also had water in them if the water came from 'flushing a pipe' or washing and the slips not
installed.  the fact that the tank was up a 10' (10 feet) rise should come into play as anyone who has played with water

pressure or owns even a 1 story house should know that water doesn't climb 10ft w/o significant pressue, so the whole 'backwash' theory is garbage. Just from an engineering standpoint alone. I think DOW has some liability here as a sucessor company, but this theory is pure trash and should be vetted as such. If you read the (finally released) notes from the plant, they had reported several employee related sabotage events in the previous several years. Each was dealt with and usually involved a very polite dismissal. In this case, given the culture and the uncertainty of WHICH employee actually hooked up the hose would be dangerous for UCC. Also, it was clearly stated in the notes that there was no water build up over 2 days as the article suggests, as this would have started a chemical reaction the previous day. Basic chemisty, MIC & Water do not mix.. They start an endothermic reaction and pressure builds.. Therefore, Tank610 couldn't have had water in it for 2 days as suggested here. This article is very flawed & so are alot of the comments. Where is teh clear unbiased LOGICAL analysis. Provide the facts and let the people decide. Quit making them slanted!

Mprewitt007 (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

good work

i know that this isnt relly to help the page but i wanted to say my school teacher used this page to teach my class about the bhopal disaster. So you must be doing a good job working on this page keep, it up :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.112.130 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is still overly POV!

The entire first section is POV and needs to be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.237.184.99 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen deficiency

The section on health effects contained a statement that since MIC and many of the byproduct gases were heavier than air, oxygen deficiency may have contributed to the adverse health effects of gas exposure. A simple calculation, made using conservative estimations and approximations, shows this was highly unlikely. A square 1 km on each side and 2 m deep contains 2 x 10⁶ m³ of air or 4.2 x 10⁵ m³ of oxygen. Reducing the oxygen concentration to 15%, the level where oxygen deficiency becomes noticeable, would have required approximately 8 x 10⁵ m³ of gases other than oxygen. If all the "diluent" gas had been carbon dioxide, this would have required almost 1,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide. (see gas laws) If 40 tonnes of MIC (mw 57) had been converted into CO₂, this would have produced about 62 tonnes of CO₂, less than 5% of what would be needed for oxygen deficiency to be a significant health factor. Any materials with a molecular weight higher than carbon dioxide would have required even more to lower the oxygen concentration to a point where it would be a problem. Someone had put in a link to Lake Nyos where a massive carbon dioxide eruption killed many people by asphyxiation. This eruption involved an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Silverchemist (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Thank you for this information! I am not a chemist, and I did not succeed to have my text in "The Bhopal Saga" reviewed by one. But I do not understand actually. The release happened at ground level as well as high up. There was a mixture of gases, and the concentrations were different at different heights. Lighter gases might have been trapped by heavier. Why should it not be possible that the oxygen concentration was below 15% in some places? --Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Chernobyl link in See also section

An editor has removed the internal link to the Chernobyl disaster twice. I have restored the link twice but did not place it there in the first place. I have no particular dog in this but a link to the Chernobyl disaster in the "see also" section seems entirely reasonable and appropriate for this article. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how. Aside from operator error, that incident has nothing in common with this one. That's why I keep removing it-- it is not relevant. Links to other gas-related disasters would be far more salient. Jtrainor (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find a wikipedia policy for use of "See also" sections, but in my experience using reference materials I find that a "See also" section tends to have pretty broad latitude for directing a reader who's research has brought them to one article, toward articles that may also have some interest. Somebody probably ought to write a policy WP:SeeAlso, clarifying what degree of connectedness is suitable for inclusion and exclusion. But for now, lets just go with a consensus of editors. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well dad gum it, there it is. WP:SEEALSO suggests adding text explaining the relevance if it may be unclear.

I can't see a connection between the two disasters beyond a connection inherent to ANY industrial disaster. Not everything is related to chernobyl. Even most nuclear incidents can't benefit from a link to Chernobyl because of the differences in the root causes, response and nature of the casualty. I'm removing the internal link. Protonk (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you might as well put any other randomly chosen man-made disaster in the "See Also" section if you're going to use Chernobyl. It doesn't really belong in this article. Ford MF (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Background section

That section is a wreck. I've removed about a half dozen highly POV sentences and tagged another half dozen uncited statements. The claims made in this section are contentious (UCC was incompetent, Cost cutting endangered safety, etc). They need to be cited inline with specific quotes from reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Soil contamination

Section "Ongoing contamination" and subection "Criticisms of Clean-up Operations" do not really belong in this article about the gas release on Dec. 3 1983. The soil and water contamination did not occur as a result of the chemical release on this date and so the cleanup of these materials is not really germane to this article. The contamination with lead, mercury and chlorinated organic chemicals would have occurred over a long time. Perhaps there should be a separate article on soil and water contamination at Bhopal. Silverchemist (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It probably doesn't merit enough for a fork. how would you feel about making a note in the first few sentences in the section that the contamination was not caused by the explosion but rather by long term release (also, do we have a source claiming this?) and moving the section to the end? Protonk (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good sugestion. Here is a reference: [6] Silverchemist (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Could probably use some more explanation but that was the best place I found to move it. Protonk (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

wording

"Apart from MIC the gas cloud may have contained phosgene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrous oxides and carbon dioxide, either produced in the storage tank or in the atmosphere. All these gases, except carbon dioxide, are toxic." Carbon dioxide is toxic and significant enough levels (around 8% i think). It is just less toxic than the others. How could this be reworded so as to be clearer? Goodnightmush^Talk 17:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a difficult case. The trouble is, nearly everything is toxic in sufficient concentrations, even oxygen. The current wording "All these gases, except carbon dioxide, are acutely toxic at levels well below 500 ppm" IMHO probably best conveys the situation if it were well sourced Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"The view of the Dow Chemical Company" section

I removed the section beginning "The following seems to be added to the article by The Dow Chemical Company...". I don't agree or disagree with the content, but its source should be unambiguously cited if it is to be used in the article. -- BryanD (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best to leave it out. It was added by User:Chickywow on the 20th, and is the only thing he has ever done on WP. He may never be seen again. Also when he added that section he deleted a lot of other material - mainly a section on "Equipment and safety regulations", which could easily be contrived as vandalism. I will see if it needs reverting back into the page  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That section was corrupted (by User:Chickywow) - including the deletion of a photo. I have restored the section back.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Overcitation

There were numerous instances in the article where <ref name="Eckerman2001" /> was cited adjacent to <ref name="Eckerman2004" />. I didn't see much point in this, which adds to the clutter in the article as well as in edit mode. Therefore, I have chosen to remove Eckerman 2001 where they both exist, on the grounds that the more up to date study is better. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

THE REASON WHY I ADDED DOUBLE REFERENCES in many places is that the 2001 version is uploaded on the net, you find it in the reference list and you can go directly into it and read what is behind the sentence. If you want to control in the 2004 and much longer version, you must buy the book. Ingrid Eckerman Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineck (talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bullets?

It seems like this article makes extensive use of facts in bullet lists. These could be better rearranged and presented as sentences and paragraphs? Darthveda (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was my first reaction when browsing the article. Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are far too many bullets in this article; it is difficult to read. Pianoman320 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I just need to finish something off and I'll get started on it. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 20:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

THE REASON WHY I USED BULLETS is that it is obvious that every sentence is just a few words about something that takes half a page in my book "The Bhopal Saga". People will start to ask questions and ask for more information if you change it to more fluent text.

  Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineck (talk • contribs) 09:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 

Massive overhaul

To be quite frank I think this article is a real mess. The whole thing is essentially bullet points, there is no real chronological layout of the article, with bits and bobs jumbled around everywhere, and I certainly don't think that this meets Wikipedia quality standards. Therefore I think it needs a good overhaul, and some segments should be revised, and if needs be, re-written. I think that maybe as this is so important it would be nice if one day this would be a featured article. I'm certainly up for overhauling it, anyone else interested? WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 20:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

THE PROBLEM IS that there are several authors who stress different factors, and that the article tries to tell a 25 year story, with many parallell "substories", that takes more than "The Bhopal Saga" to explan (283 pages, 200 references), and that readers question the content so new references has to be added all the time. BUT if you have better suggestions for the structure so please show it! You can start with reading my report from 2001, and then also read parts of my book "The Bhopal Saga". They are both in the reference list.

I have written most of the texts from "Summary" to "Environmental rehabilitation". I tried to keep the text short and neutral and as reliable as possible. Those who want to know more on each item can easily go into the references.

I agree that some of the references added later should be taken away, as they are not reliable.

Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Ingrid Eckerman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineck (talk • contribs) 10:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In Defense of Union Carbide

--Edwin (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I found the following piece of text from the textbook "Industrial hygiene management" by Jack T. Garrett, Lewis J. Cralley -1988. Page 113. It's Original Source is “Bhopal: The Fruit of Industrial Policy,” July 19, 1985 The Intellectual Activist, Vol. 4, No. 2 later excerpted by the WallStreet Journal on Dec. 3, 1986.

It says this:

The Indian government had its heavy hand on every aspect of the Bhopal plant, from its design and construction to its eventual operation. Initially, the facility merely imported raw pesticides, such as one called Sevin, and then diluted, packaged and shipped them. This was a relatively safe and simple operation. But, in accordance with industrial policy, Union Carbide was under constant pressure from the government to cut imports and reduce the loss of foreign exchange. To do this, Carbide was required by its state-issued operating license to transfer to the Bhopal facility the capability to manufacture the basic pesticides and, subsequently, even their ingredients. Everything was to be “Swadeshi.” i.e. “Indianized.” Even the chemical production processes used in Bhopal were developed by Indian researchers .

To produce Sevin, carbon tetrachloride is mixed with alpha-naphthol and a chemical known as methyl isocyanate, or MIC (the chemical that leaked in the accident). Liquid MIC is a highly unstable and volatile chemical, and a deadly toxin. . . . MIC was not required in Bhopal while the factory simply packaged Sevin, its final product. But the logic of “industrial self-sufficiency” and “technology transfer” required the manufacture of Sevin from scratch—and that meant dealing with its hazardous ingredients, including MIC.

So in 1971, the Union Carbide factory opened a small plant to manufacture alpha-naphthol, and began to import and store MIC—a chemical which never had to be in India in the first place, except to satisfy the Indian government.

In 1977, based upon projections of growing demand, the Bhopal factory began to increase its alpha-naphthol facilities dramatically. A new $2.5 million plant—designed, of course, by an Indian consulting firm—was built. Ten times larger than most similar plants, it at once displayed design problems of scale: equipment would not work or would turn out to be the wrong size. Ultimately, faced with an inoperable alpha-naphthol facility, the factory’s management decided to [open an MIC production facility in 1980].

What had begun as a Carbide subsidiary for packaging pesticides was now a government-directed business manufacturing and storing a deadly chemical in a technologically backward culture. Those were not business decisions. Those were political decisions.

One last element of government policy helped lay the groundwork for the pending disaster. The area around the plant had been deserted at the time Carbide moved in. But in 1975 the local government, in a re-zoning scheme, encouraged thousands of Indians to settle near the plant by giving them construction loans and other inducements. In effect, government first helped to make the plant unsafe, and then drew the people into the path of the coming gas cloud.

Add to all this the fact that after the plant was opened, the technologically trained Americans who built and ran it were sent packing and were replaced by under-educated locals—most of them friends, relatives, and cronies of local officials. They allowed operations to continue despite the fact that all five redundant safety systems had been broken for months. One of the incompetents let water from a hose leak for hours into one of the chemical tanks, which caused a dangerous reaction. The night-shift employees were all sipping tea in the lunch room while gauges indicating rising gas pressure in the tank went off the top of the scale—allowing a pipe to rupture and gush deadly gas into the sleeping community nearby.

Can anyone here help me add the above facts in?

--Edwin (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am kind of busy and new to wikipedia. So I was wondering if anyone could help me insert the above extract into the wikipedia article. I have already e-mailed to many editors of newspapers so it may show up in news too as the politically incorrect viewpoint.

My evaluation of the above facts (biased)

--Edwin (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the Bhopal disaster was not the result of American capitalism: no American capitalists were permitted to be present at or in control of the plant. The gas leak was instead the result of technology decisions and subsidies directed by politicians.

Thanks in advance guys, --Edwin (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is my resume if you need to contact me: http://sites.google.com/site/bernician/

-- I ADDED THE ARTICLE AS A REFERENCE. There is thousands of articles published during the years - I think it is nice to have some of the old ones also. Would it be possible that you upload the text somewhere so I could link to it? Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Thanks for adding it as a reference. Since one needs to pay to view the original article I have found 2 links with the original text as shown above.

1. Page 113 of Industrial hygiene management By Jack T. Garrett, Lewis J. Cralley, Lester V. Cralley
2. Another article by the author of the original article: Robert James Bidinotto
3. Original Article

Hope these links are enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louzer (talk • contribs) 23:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Judge is relying on Wikipedia rather than on prosecution evidence

The Judgment delivered by Hon'ble CJM Bhopal, titled "State of MP. v. Warren Anderson and others" has been criticised by many. I have found a new thing in this judgment. Para 22 (copied from Bhopal disaster page), 39-42 (from Methyl isocyanate page) has been copy pasted from Wikipedia. Congrats Wiki buddies.. The Indian Judiciary is giving reliance on Wikipedia.... what more can you expect, rather than reliance on prosecution evidence and reports, the judge is reffering to Wikipedia.

http://www.cbi.gov.in/whats_new/bhopalgas_judgement.pdf

-- Thanking you Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be overstating things. Both could be based on the original sources (I've not compared them directly.) And there are parts of paragraph 39 and 40, at least, that clearly are not quotes, at least from wikipedia. But perhaps someone with more access to the particulars could more carefully review this and point out if there are differences or telling similarities. Smkolins (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

However *if* this pans out I wonder about the rules that wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. I mean if the judge's records are shown to positively come from Wikipedia how do we handle using the judge's ruling as a citation? Growing pains! Smkolins (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

--~----IF YOU LOOK AT THE REFERENCES on methyl isocyanate, you will find e.g. the paper from UCC itself, together with other very old references. It is more likely that the author of the Wikipedia text and the judge copied information from the same source. The judge's text on acute health effects is more medical than the one in Wikipedia, and can be found in many references. GOOD that you gave us this reference, that I have now added to the list. It gives everyone the chance to read by themselves. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Response Section

All the sources are from Union Carbide's website, which seems to me makes that section bias and unreliable. Independent sources to back up those claims are needed.Mbr1983 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Contents matching the title

It seemed to me that this article and the discussion was more like online trial of Union Carbide, providing little information on the details of the disaster itself. IMHO, article on "Bhopal disaster" should write about the disaster and criminal details of Union Carbide responsibility should be discussed under "Bhopal disaster - Union Carbide responsibility". I tried to improve this by adding a nest egg for the info on actual details and timeline of this magnificent and instructive disaster.

--- And since this comment was written, several years ago, the site has been rewritten and lots of information and references have been added. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cite, please

The section "Overview of the disaster" mentions eleven "contributing factors", all of which are apparently officially denied by Union Carbide, in favor of a "disgruntled employee" scenario. What is the source for the list of contributing factors mentioned? - 24 November 2005

--- This is a very old comment. Since then, the site is rewritten. Lots of references are added. Everything is there. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

responsibility

Who ignored warnings? Who refused to pass them on to senior officials? Who was responsible? Names? Warren Anderson seems to be blamed, but who under him was obeying his orders?

--- There are lots of references where you can find more details. "The Bhopal Saga" is 270 pages. I suppose you do not want all that information in Wikipedia? You can read my essay "Chemical Industry and Public Health". Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Written in Neutral Tone

After reading the article it appears that large sections where written in an non-neutral tone. Although from what I can tell, the article is Factually accurate, it does not seem that the tone is. Does anyone else feel that this could be written in a tone neural way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcopley (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Seemed to me to be more like it was written by someone in India familiar with the incident, due to the prose and way the grammar is laid down. Definitely can be re-written to look less like a simple listing of facts. Plus it contains a number of terms unfamiliar in the West like "work-sheds". Coradon (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The article includes copious material from research by Dr. Ingrid Eckerman, username Ineck. The article was substantialy rewritten to conform to NPOV including expanding upon Union Carbide's assertion that the MIC release was caused by employee sabotage. Editors have been vigilent in removing inflammatory and unsubstantiated material associated with this tragedy. If you have time to rewrite sections of this article, please do so. Sandcherry (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting of Summary of Background and Causes Section

I believe that wording used in this section, especially "What we must focus on is the fact that those in power to make decisions that led to this disaster were all wealthy white Americans, or high-ranking non-Muslim Indian government officials, who never felt its effects. Certainly a case for distributive injustice." is something I believe is not up to par with wikipedia guidelines for writing articles. I am not doubting or denying any effects of this incident, just wanted to mention the style of writing.--قیصرانی (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the opinions and uncited material from this section. Sandcherry (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Information on controversies completely missing

Some of them are listed here http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?262256 I have no experience in editing Wikipedia, but the biggest tragedy of Bhopal is that the victims have been exploited and refused their due by both DOW and the Indian Government. This page makes no mention of that. There are ongoing cases related with DOW bribing officials and neglecting responsibility, state brutality against protesters, lack of relief and apathy from both DOW and Indian Govt. There is information that is factually incorrect and part of DOW fabrications that the treatment for cyanide did not work on the victims. There has been research that proved that it helped, and the suppression of these treatment because of implications of their success magnified the tragedy beyond necessary.

DOW bought Union Carbide and it is now wholly owned by DOW, but they claim that they cannot send the accused wanted in cases in India - they have no authority it seems. Sportsmen of Bhopal have recently decided to boycott the London Olympics because DOW is one of the sponsors.

This page literally ignores most of the culpability of both DOW and Indian government - which is exceedingly well documented and frankly reads like "paid media" that has plagued this tragedy and contributed to silencing victims and perpetrating its own injustice. Apologies if I have not followed any format I am supposed to. I have no experience with this editing, but these things needed said.

Update: Adding some resources: Original class action suits planned by Americal lawyers had reached up to 35 billion dollars as reported by The Montreal Gazette on the 17th December 1984 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8A0vAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rqUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3477,3280780&hl=en

Suits worth hundreds of billions of dollars were already filed when the Indian government decided to represent all victims http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gDlVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kJUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2975,50512&dq=bhopal&hl=en

Settlement for 470 million http://www.bhopal.com/~/media/Files/Bhopal/1989_Settlement.pdf

"There is presence of a cyanide pool in the body of survivors. How it reached there is the question" even while adding ambiguity to reports already published saying cyanide was the cause of death. Toledo Blade 12th Nov 1985 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Og1PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0QIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6886,2423143&dq=bhopal+cyanide&hl=en

More reports of cyanide. There was considerable pressure by UC to rubbish claims of cyanide to the extent of disrupting treatment of survivors. Speculated reason being that their product reacting inside the body to create cyanide would mean further bad business and compensation claims:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WBwhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JmMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6985,8167738&dq=bhopal+cyanide&hl=en Fairly explicit

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LyYuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=D88FAAAAIBAJ&pg=3139,8927887&dq=bhopal+cyanide&hl=en describes the initial acceptance of cyanide as a cause, later withdrawn, but no satisfactory alternative explanation.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6UkjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=o84FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5958,2282880&dq=bhopal+cyanide&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=G_ZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=i-EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4406,3333653&dq=bhopal+cyanide&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=t-5cAAAAIBAJ&sjid=A1oNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2661,220775&dq=bhopal+cyanide&hl=en

Have to go. Will return with references for allegations of bribing govt officials to lower compensation settlement and reduce liability.

In contrast, "5 Workers Injured by Dow Herbicide to Share $1.4 Million" http://articles.latimes.com/1985-06-09/local/me-9913_1_chemical-workers

"Under the "polluter pays" principle enshrined in both Indian and US law, Union Carbide is responsible for cleaning up the contamination and compensating the thousands whose lives have been ruined." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/india

Twenty five thousand people dead, 5 lakh affected and the accused only get two years in jail and bail on a bond of Rs 25,000? http://www.tehelka.com/story_main45.asp?filename=Ne260610coverstory.asp "US agencies hauled up Dow for paying $200,000 in bribes to Indian officials; India did absoutely nothing"

DOW and bribing Indian officials. Paid fine for it in US http://zeenews.india.com/news/state-news/union-carbide-continues-to-operate-in-india_632266.html

Union Carbide and James Hardie: lessons in politics and power http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/06globalsociety.html

--IVidyut (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

After reading through the article, I too feel that the article misses out on the culpability of UC and DOW. I've tried to address that by adding a couple of points based on some of the references given above. But, I feel that more needs to be done. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 19:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

The two images were removed from the Italian Wikipedia and the original uploader seems to have been blacklisted for copyright violations. Are we sure they are available? Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 March 2012

The section "Economic Rehabilitation" contains a series of dot points, the last of which currently states: "On June 24, the Union Cabinet of the Government of India approved a Rs1265cr aid package. It will be funded by Indian taxpayers through the government.[39]" No year is included in the reference, but the cited article [39] gives this as June 24 2010. The item should be amended to include the year, thus: "On June 24 2010, the Union Cabinet of the Government of India approved a Rs1265cr aid package. It will be funded by Indian taxpayers through the government.[39]" Thanks! Tony Troughton-Smith OzTones (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Dru of Id (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Worst disaster in the history of the world?

The case is definitely very severe, but do we have a source on it being the world's worst?

No, it is not the worst disaster in wold history. For that you would probably want to be looking at rivers flooding in china over the last couple centuries, or, depending on whether you want to call them "disasters" or not, WWI and II.

  As far as I understand, it is the world's largest INDUSTRIAL disaster - that depends on how 
  you define Tjernobyl. I Eckerman [7] Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2012

In the section 'Summary of background'(paragraph 2) please change 'northwesternly winds' to southeasternly winds. check 5:45 in this national geographic episode about the disaster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezdSkw4qtM0 174.119.29.78 (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  It would be nice if changes were not done before facts are checked. How could the gas spread  
  out over Old Bhopal if it came from southeast? No, it came from north, first spread a little  
  southeast, then changed in direction southwest. You find the most accurate information and 
  the best references (around 200) in The Bhopal Saga (ref no 5). Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes, further reading and external links

I would have preferred if everybody had followed the system that I initiated: footnotes with just author + year, then full reference under suitable headline. I would also like that all other kind of links are together under "External links". I made a list of content under "See also", in order to inform editors that their material might suit somewhere else. Is it possible to link the lines there to the headlines of the paragraphs? Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly then you are implying that all the citations be classified as Books and Reports, and External Links. Then by writing just author + year in the notes section more details must be elaborated in Further reading section or external links sections. Alok Bansal (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2012

The wiki article shows an immediate death toll, and then an estimated total death toll. While the estimate may or may not be accurate, it would only be 100% representative of the truth if the article specifically stated that the total cumulative death toll is still unknown as of today. "Link to India Times article." The article states there are 3 'official' tolls that are each claimed to be the real one, and there is no indication as to which one is the truthful one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvinatlan (talk • contribs) 19:05, August 3, 2012‎ (UTC)

Not done: Better to have an estimated toll than none at all. FloBo A boat that can float! 12:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't want to remove the estimate toll, just clarify that it may not be accurate as no one source can agree on a definite toll.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvinatlan (talk • contribs) 18:17, August 6, 2012‎ (UTC)

I missed this about the different official figures! - However, as long as you use (5) The Bhopal Saga as a reference, you must use the figures there. A reasonable estimation is 8,000 deaths within 1-2 weeks (you might find the chapter on Google books). The figure 8,000 since then is old - maybe it is 16,000 by now. People are getting older! And it is more difficult to be sure what is the cause of death. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have a better source, I'm leaving it how it is. Mdann52 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no better source. I added the article from India Times to the read more list. The text itself cannot be to detailed. Those who want to know more have to open all the links.Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-ordered according to content and time-line

Someone(s) has, a few years ago I think, moved pieces of text around so there was no sence. I have now tried to re-order it according to time-line as well as content. Hope no-one disorders it again! Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Bhopal disaster/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

First off, I have recently edited this article. I do not believe my edits are significant enough to make me a "major editor" to this article, which would prohibit me from being involved in an individual reassessment. However, if there are those who believe otherwise, I will withdraw from commenting, so that other uninvolved parties may review and decide.

My concerns with this article have to do primarily with writing style, and neutrality/objectivity.

It appears that the article is a mix of US English, British English, and Indian English (to the extent that I can make those distinctions). I admit that I am guilty of a few small edits in US English, when the article specifies British English and the talk page specifies Indian English. The larger problem, however, is that many sections of the article are not written as well as one might hope, in any form of English. A section-by-section edit might bring clarity and economy of expression to the article, if a seasoned editor cares to undertake that task. I believe there are also issues related to the way the chronology of events is laid out.

This is an emotional issue, with many facts still in dispute. There are both cultural and national interests that make fact finding all the harder. Under the best of circumstances, it would be difficult to present this article with neutrality and objectivity. Nonetheless, I believe we could do a better job, finding this article's neutral voice. It appears to lean in the direction of the Indian government/NGO perspective. While some of Union Carbide's positions and statements are presented, they are underweighted when one takes in the full breadth of the article.

There may also be a need for updating certain information, but my GOOD ARTICLE concerns are most related to the two issues stated above. Gulbenk (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was passed way to easily and I echo your concerns about NGOs as the major contributor to the article is directly affiliated, but I wont blame him anyways as this is a bit sensitive issue. Thanks Gulbenk for raising issues. I'm too much packed in real life and wont be back on Wiki till 10 November so it is my humble request to not to take any actions like delisting due to inactivity. I'll be sure to address the issues once I'm back in 20 days. Thanks again for taking time and bringing the issues up. Take care :) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Everyone should have adequate time and opportunity to comment. No decisions/action before mid November.Gulbenk (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Despite TSU saying he won't blame me for such an easy pass, I agree with the pass. This was my second GA and I did not quite understand the system. After this review, I learned the whole system behind GA nominations and now I never pass like I did here. So I take the responsibility for the easy pass. I would like to comment on the article regarding the concerns you raised, however I won't. Tomorrow I will work on the article regarding some concerns. Hey, if I passed to easily, I might as work on the article to make up for GA. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments John F. Lewis. No need to take a bullet for the team, we're all working together on this project. Look forward to your helpful edits. Gulbenk (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And just for clarification, John, when I said I won't blame him, I intended it for Ineck who has developed the article and unintentionally in a bit non-neutral manner (most probably because of his affiliation with the topic). And as far as American and British English goes, it does make a difference and an article wont be considered a Good article unless it is fixed so I have fixed it with the help of a wonderful script :) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 09:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there an Indian English script? Sandcherry (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Usually British English is accepted at Indian articles as difference of spellings is very rare and mostly in typical Indian words. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ineck appears to be a "her", rather than a "him". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this article meets the Good Article criteria notwithstanding the points raised by Gulbenk. The major concern is neutrality as it draws heavily on Dr. Ingrid Eckerman’s (user name Ineck) published research that could be perceived as biased. Revisions I and others have made over the past several years have generally eliminated uncited and biased material added by contributors other than Ineck and improved the readability of the article. The tone is critical of Union Carbide and the government of Madhya Pradesh which is not unreasonable considering their involvement in the tragedy. Of lesser, but still valid, concern is the hodgepodge of American and Indian English. Dr. Eckerman is from Sweden and obviously not a native Indian English speaker. Neither am I. Although the use of American English in an Indian English article is not correct, it does not seem to be a sufficient reason to withdraw GA status. In summary, while there is still a lot of room for improvement, I believe the article meets the GA criteria. Sandcherry (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Any more comments? Hope to conclude this reassessment in the next 10-14 days. Gulbenk (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be late. I'll be going on an overhaul on the article again and will be done by tonight (Indian Standard Time) and I'll give my comments. Thanks for all your patience and my apologies too for being late. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about adding some tags while the article was under GA reassessment. I should have commented here, first. Points to be considered:

• tagged "All-important" is clearly a WP:PEACOCK term.
• tagged That UCC submitted to Indian jurisdiction in agreeing to the Indian forum is not obvious. Hypothetically, UCC could have filed a motion in a US court that the US forum was not proper, and in an Indian court that the Indian courts did not have jurisdiction over UCC. A specific citation is needed. (I took a semester of law school recently — these things can happen.)
• Reference 5 (Eckerman 2005) is clearly not a reliable source for opinions and conclusions, per the review at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257585/ . I don't know about Eckerman 2001 and Eckerman 2006.

As for the tone, being critical of UCIL and the government of Madhya Pradesh is understandable; being critical of UCC is not, as there has been no evidence presented (in the article, or, apparently, in court) that they were at all responsible except possibly for not monitoring the actions of UCIL. I don't know if I'll have time for additional input, but, if I do, I'll comment here, rather than editing the article. Sorry for the unintentional disruption. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Observations and comments, from all quarters, are appreciated, and are an important part of this process. Edits that improve the article, or point to places that need improvement, are never disruptive. Gulbenk (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Eckerman (2005) has been used over 50 times as a source and I really cannot do much if it isn't reliable. I actually never worked on its referencing, so I'd give up there. Looking at the article, I too feel that I should have neutralized and it isn't completely neutral. I think that it is a bit tough to fix this up as my schools are starting and I'd be too busy to work anymore. I rushed the GA nom right after fixing MoS. I never took up for refs or neutrality which are the main issues here. I've learned it and have taken care of it in 5 of my GA noms at present. As far as this article goes, I won't oppose if it has been delisted as I too believe that it isn't up till GA level. I'd re-nom it in future when I'll have enough time for cleaning up this article. Right now, I'd support a delist. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you TheSpecialUser ^TSU. Your comments, I believe, reflect the majority opinion on this issue. I will finish up the formal reassessment process by the end of the month, and look forward to working with you (and with the others who commented here) on improving the article. Gulbenk (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The article meets GA criteria:

1. Well-written - after extensive editing including conversion to British English

2. Factually accurate and verifiable - includes numerous independent references

3. Broad in its coverage - addresses humanitarion, technical, political, legal, and other issues associated with the accident and aftermath

4. Neutral - balanced may be a better description which could be considered neutral

5. Stable - mostly stable for the last two years except for minor improvements and some random vandalism

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images - includes multiple images

Like many GAs, additional improvements are needed. However, these improvements do not warrant delisting in this case. Sandcherry (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

GAR Findings

A Good Article Reassessment was undertaken on October 25, 2012. On that date, notification of the GAR was sent to major contributors. A statement outlining the reasons for reassessment was posted to the GAR page, and that statement was transluded onto the article TALK page. Comments were solicited over a five week review period. Findings from that reassessment are as follows:

1.Well-written? - Efforts to conform the language of the article to one style (British English) appear successful. However, problems with presentation (notably the chronology of events) persist. As mentioned initially, a section-by-section edit might bring clarity and economy of expression to the article, if a seasoned editor cares to undertake that task. The article, as it stands now, is not well written.

2.Factually accurate and verifiable? - In the course of the reassessment it was stated that Reference 5 (Eckerman 2005) is not a reliable source for opinions and conclusions, per the review at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257585/, and that this particular reference has been used over 50 times as a source. Additional effort, reworking the referencing of this article, is indicated. The article can not be said to be factually accurate and verifiable.

3.Broad in its coverage? - The article addresses a broad number of issues.

4.Neutral? - The initial statement, outlining the reasons for reassessment, voiced a concern that the article appeared to lean in the direction of the NGO perspective. That concern was echoed by several editors. It also appears that Union Carbide/Dow Chemical positions and statements are underweighted. Discussion of UCIL autonomy in the operation of the plant, and the culpability of local managers is all but absent. Additional editing is required, if this article is to achieve neutrality and balance.

5.Stability? - This article has undergone substantial revision in the past, most notably in an effort to bring order to the chronology of events, and to implement general improvements. However, in the absence of edit warring and excessive vandalism it can be accepted as stable.

6.Illustrated? - The article includes six images, four of which are photos. Maps would enhance the article, but are not included. One photo, which appears to show the deteriorated remnants of the abandoned MIC plant is not labeled as such, nor dated. It holds the potential for misimpression, placed in the "Equipment and safety regulations" section, while the "Ongoing contamination" section would be more appropriate. Nonetheless, the article is illustrated.

Upon reassessment, this article does not achieve three of the six criteria required for the designation of Good Article. Gulbenk (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here... re: 2. Factually Accurate" I read the article reviewing Ingrid's book. The article pointed out two tiny errors, and took issue with some of Ingrid's claims, then went on to say "Eckerman’s biases against industry and government can be forgiven when compensation was delayed for years, a reliable health care infrastructure is still not in place, environmental laws are not enforced, and worker safety appears compromised by lapses in oversight". You can't just throw out Ingrid's whole book as a source, on the basis of a few phrases in one review. Unless you are Union Carbide looking to silence criticism. Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Am I reliable?

This was a very interesting discussion!  ;-) I would like to know what an "NGO perspective" is. Is it the opposite to "industry perspective"? or "government perspective"? or "victims' perspective"?

When I came into this article some years ago, it was terrible. It was mostly about The Yes Man and the current state of the legal affairs. I started to write down facts (pre-event phase, event phase, post-event phase). I used the format from my book with points, to make it very clear.

Other people wrote the legal chapters, and I did not bother about them. Other people added things with not reliable sources like TV programs, when I had much more reliable sources in my book. Also, much of what I had written was questionned, so I had to explain. I had to add more and more detailed texts and references (the ones I used in my book).

Someone from UCC added one paragraph (Union Carbide's defence). Others added lots of text about contamination.

I sorted all references in different groups. I was keen on adding references from UCC and very old references, like two reports from the Swedish defence and the ILO report, to make it possible for the readers to find out themselves.

YOUR PROBLEM, Gulbenk, as mine 10 years ago, is that so much is written about this disaster. It is difficult to see what is true and what is exaggerated. That's why I collected these 200 references and did my best to sort them out, structure the content, try to come as close to the truth as possible. I used different methods to analyse the whole process.

Your problem is that my book is the best if you want to get a review (history book) of what was actually the causes and consequences. Otherwise you will have to go back to the 200 documents. No, more, because now more old scientifical studies are published. Actually, I am supposed to be the "expert", and I was the one asked to write the Bhopal chapter in Elsevier's Encyclopedia of Environmental Health.

Another way of expressing it is that your problem is to show which parts in the text that are not true. Good luck! You will be busy for a year or two.

MY PROBLEM is that during the process to make it a GAR article, it lost so much! The format, with lots of sentences after the other instead of ... (what do you call it? dotted paragraphs?) makes it much more difficult to read, to get an overview of. The reference/read more list, the films, the music, the media response, different kind of reports, my presentations, my essay, etc etc etc, are all gone. Before, it was a living document. Now it is dead.

Why don't you try to find out what I have written in my book, and in what way?

If you go into my website you will find a link to my essay from 2001, a short version of my book. http://www.eckerman.nu/default.cfm?page=The%20Bhopal%20Saga

Read some of The Bhopal Saga at Google Book http://books.google.se/books?id=F4quv-lYCGEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ingrid+eckerman&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=zn6-ULXRE9GL4gSshIHQDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ingrid%20eckerman&f=false

In this presentation you find the problem tree that I used to analyse the process. http://www.lakareformiljon.org/images/stories/dokument/2009/bhopal_gas_tragedy_march_2008.pdf

Skip the idea to make it GAR. It is more important that the information (written by several authors) is appopriate - which I think it is now (I cannot guarantee the legal or contamination paragraphs though). It is more important to give the readers possibilities to go further with their own studies. This accident will always be questionned. You will never be able to write the article in such a way that no one will oppose or criticize (damn, how do you spell it??? I hate z and c in this terrible language.).

I have a lot of pictures, but I don´t know how to add them.

Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

-- My idea originally was to add lots of relevant references so everyone could go into it and search for more information from different sources. I was keen on adding all material I knew about from UC/Dow. Some of these references I had used myself in The Bhopal Saga. That's why I grouped the references in scientifical articles, reports and books, material from UC, music and films, etc. But during the big reformation 2012 all this was taken away. So now it seems like The Bhopal Saga is the main reference.

And I am reliable enough to be asked to write the chapter on Bhopal in Elseviers Encyclopedia on environment and health 20122. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444522726003597

If I find time, I will restore it to an earlier version that is more clear and neutral than this.

217.210.126.99 (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Help me with references!

I tried to add a reference with an abbreviation but did not succeed. It should be "Eckerman2013", no 6. How does it work??? Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Too much material?

They want us to clean up "Further reading". But so much is written on Bhopal. When I remade the article a few years ago, I tried to use only good sources, like research articles and official documents. But people kept on adding unreliable sources like TV-programs and articles in daily papers. They also questionned my reference "The Bhopal Saga", so I had to go into detail from where I got the information. And of course, those who were pro-UCC questionned the information (I think they could not believe it was true) and made changes of the text.

That's why I have continued to add material. It makes it possible for anyone to study this case her/himself, and to try to find out where the truth is. They can do the travel that I did. This is a better way in such a controversial subject.

Also, grouping references with other material in different categories, makes it easier to get an overview of existing material.

Cleaning up would definitely take some time.

Other opinions? What do you, unknown reader, think? Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

- I found the book "Set Phasers on Stun" to have a very informative chapter on Bhopal. JohnAugust (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bhopal disaster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: John F. Lewis (talk · contribs) 22:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

---

This looks all very good. But actually, it is not that good. When the article was shortened to suit the rules, "further reading" (originally "references") was eraded, without controlling that the text was moved to the citations. So now the citations are incomplete. I will see when I can find the time to redo this work. (Guess if I am irritated ...) Also, I don't know what were the criteria for the material that is left under "References". Why did he choose this and exclude a lot of important reports? What does he actually know about all this material? Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

-- OK. Where did they get the facts from? Should it be added as a reference? Does it complement the material that already is there? Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2014

Section 1.5 of the article, Safety Audits, begins "Safety audits weere done every year …" "weere" should be "were". Graphite Spear (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Eckerman reliable

No offense intended, Ingrid Eckerman, but I don't think any of your books and papers can be considered reliable for opinions and analysis (except as they report the analysis of others), but only for more-or-less undisputed facts. We (Wikipedia) may use biased sources, and it is probably impossible to find unbiased sources for this subject, but the responsibility of the Indian government is underweighted. It's clear that UCC didn't take control of the day-to-day operations, there are legitimate claims that UCIL was not allowed to control day-to-day operations, and there is no doubt that an extensive investigation was not performed or allowed by the Indian government. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right, Arthur Rubin. The responsibility of the Governments of India and Madhya Pradesh is not mentioned in this very short version of a complex chain of events. In The Bhopal Saga, my analysis shows that the main reasons to the MAGNITUDE of the disaster was negligence of the gov:s of India and MP and of Union Carbide Corporation.

For example, it was the MP gov that gave UCIL permission to move the planned MIC plant from south east of Bhopal to the existing plant area close to the railway station. The main winds are blowing from north west. Also, after the disaster, the governments did not do their best. I can add this kind of details, but then the article will become a book.

Yes, UCC was not allowed inside the plant area after the disaster. But that does not change what happened before 3rd dec 1984. Also, Indian authorities did some investigations.

UCIL of course led the day-to-day operations in it's own plant. UCC had also some influence.

Maybe I should change to the 2012 version of my text? That's where I tried to list a number of facts, and I think it was more neutral. There are several questions that can be disputed, and I think it is important to list these also. I am not really responsible for the text from UC defence and forward, except for activism and pollution. The UC defence chapter is probably written to someone close to Dow. I have not edited it.

If you want more background material, there are two books you should read: The Bhopal Saga, where I make citations out of 200 references, and The Bhopal Reader by Hanna et al, where different documents are copied. Of course you must complete this material with UCC's own (see references). The Kalelkar report however should be read parallell to TR Chouhans book and the Trade Union Report. These are the most important documents, and much of later writings and sayings are actually based on what is said in this material. (Kalelkar only talks about the direct immediate cause of the leakage - he sais nothing about what happened before.)

A better question would be: what texts and authors are reliable? (From my 200 references, I have chosen the ones that seems most reliable.)

Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, no offense intended, but WP:RS is a guideline describing what sources are reliable. I'm afraid neither you nor your publishers have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. (Nor does the Indian Government nor UC.) Perhaps some of your references do.... Some of the text in the article falls under WP:BLP, which would mean that the publisher has to have a reputation for fact-checking, and that the published work is not so obviously the author's opinion that there is nothing to fact-check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I managed to get rid of the "neutrality disputed" square

It was added in December 2012. Since then, there has been no discussion here. That must mean that the neutrality is not disputed. The same discussion went on some years earlier. Finally, it was decided the article was neutral enough.

What I have done: Complemented the reference to my book The Bhopal Saga with the original ones, that I used in the book. I have also reduced the amounts of references to The Bhopal Saga, which should have done when there were made major changes to layout in July 2012. Then I completed the references that became incomplete by that major change.

The paragraphs on UCC have other authors.

Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

See below. This was the (timely) response I posted to your inquiry at my Talk page. Your effort to circumvent discussion of the neutrality issue, by simply removing the tag, unilaterally, is not helpful. I have reinstated the tag, pending the review. Hopefully, others will contribute to the discussion.Gulbenk (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bhopal Disaster - neutral enough?

Hi, Gulbenk! I suppose it was you who added "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2012)" to the Bhopal disaster article. Would you be so kind and remove it? I asked you what is wrong in my book "The Bhopal Saga" (the encyclopedia of the Bhopal disaster), and you have still not answered. So how can you know the article is not neutral? Another important editor is UCC/Dow, and they seem to have nothing to say to the facts that I present. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ingrid Eckerman! The reasoning behind the neutrality banner was discussed during the GAR, but I am sorry that I did not respond directly to your question, as I should have. That was an oversight. The one authoritative review of "The Bhopal Saga" (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257585/) praises the work for its description of "long-term health effects documented in the exposed population and [for suggesting] what might be done to improve health care for the victims." But it also highlights unsupported assumptions, selective use of data, and factual errors. The review further notes that you, as the author of the work, manifest "biases against industry and government".

I fully acknowledge the significant amount of effort that you have put into this article. You have made 610 edits to the Bhopal Disaster, which represents 16.88% of all edits made to date. Your book, and other works, are cited as references 72 times in the article. You, more than anyone else, have shaped this article into its present form. That, unfortunately, also imprints the article with the biases noted in the review of your book.

I am encouraged that some examples of bias, and use of weasel words, have been reworked since the GAR. But more work remains. I had hoped that the neutrality banner would not just serve as a cautionary note to readers, but also serve to stimulate other editors to become involved in the article. And some have. There have been about 135 edits since the neutrality banner was added, but the majority (I believe) are yours.

I greatly admire your efforts to chronicle the cause and description of the release, and its terrible aftermath. Your passions and concern for the welfare of the victims is unquestioned. But it is precisely those passions which must be tempered, with objectivity and factual data, if we are to arrive at a reliable and neutral article.

I would be glad to review the article, again, to see what effect those 135 recent edits have had. I would hope that the article is indeed "neutral enough"... or at least moving in that direction. Give me until the end of the month. Gulbenk (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will not remove that tag again. But will you please look at the July 2012 version? There you find more references/further reading, that might help the article to be more neutral. For example, more of UCC's and Dow's material was listed, to make it easier for readers to find references from "the other side". My thought, having all this material here, was just to make it possible to readers to find out themselves. - I will see, maybe I will find time to add them again before you finish your revision.

Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

alexed1 here. Coming at this as a first-timer, with a bit of pro-industry bias, the article strikes me as very biased. I'm trying to add a little more neutrality. For example, as of this morning, the article doesn't mention anything about the $470m payment that UCC made, and it doesn't provide a link to the Arthur Little report. So I put mentions of that in.wmbsh (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request

Under immediate aftermath the first line reads "In the immediate aftermath, the plan was closed to outsiders (including UCC) by the Indian government, which subsequently failed to make data public contributed to the confusion." "Plan" should be "plant." Also "contributed" should be "contributing"

Dylancase8 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancase8 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Already done Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014

>> Reason for request: grammar/typo
In section 2.2.1 titled "Immediate Aftermath"
Text in question: "In the immediate aftermath, the plan was closed to outsiders..."
Corrected text: "In the immediate aftermath, the plant was closed to outsiders..."
Greend131 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Already done Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014

Some various typos and formatting:

There is a typo under "Cause of disaster" - "Underinvestment". In the second paragraph "beenhalved" should split into "been halved".

Under "Adequacy of Equipment and safety regulations", second paragraph "AS MIC is water soluble" should be changed to "As MIC is water soluble"

Under "The impossibility of the "Negligence" argument", first paragrapth "scientists alsosuggested that" should be changed to "scientists also suggested that"

In "Additional Union Carbide Actions" - "Tactical Response": "medical facilities in Bhopal.[55] >" should be changed to "medical facilities in Bhopal.[55]" Magnunor (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014

Two issues with the second sentence of the second paragraph. Verb tense for "causes" is incorrect, should be "caused. Also the abbreviation "MIC" is used without first being declared when "methyl isocyanate" is mentioned in the preceeding paragraph. 174.0.68.58 (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Done , and thanks for the eye Cannolis (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Lost theory

Sometime over the last month, the well-sourced theory (not necessarily that theory was well-sourced, but there were many sources that the theory was and still is actively held) that Indian government (not just local government) actions contributed to the alleged actions now listed under the "Corporate Negligence" theory, one claim being that the government prevented UCIL from hiring non-Indian employees for critical positions, ensuring that the employees were not adequately trained. Other claims include the minority owners of UCIL (the Indian goverment) having had significant influence on the underinvestment and implementation of "quick-and-dirty" fixes contrary to reasonable safety precautions. I don't want to reintroduce it, because I don't want to revert the restructuring of the article, and I cannot figure out how where to introduce it in the new structure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bhopal Plant was not working for two years when the accident happened. The article glosses over this fact. The plant workers who let in the water and started the reaction were cleaning tanks. They cleaned the wrong tank after cleaning a right tank. The workers were not aware of what they had done. The accident happened when no one was present about six hours later when all the workers had left. The leakage was because of the pressure exceeding the safe value and the 'safety' systems let the gasses out. There was no one present when the actual 'leak' occurred.

Union Carbide wanted to close the plant. The plant was not allowed to close down due government policies even though the plant was not viable and there was no chance of it restarting. The most affected were the poorest of the poor who were squatting on Govt land nearby. The handling of compensation was thoroughly mishandled. In the end the number of claimants exceeded the population of Bhopal City. Nobody was ever prosecuted for making a patently false claim. The whole case was taken over by well meaning NGOs. In the end the compensation was worthless to the real victims. It was all a question of being politically correct instead of taking necessary steps to help the real victims.

The Bhopal gas disaster is a case study of getting everything wrong from the stoppage of commercial operations of a chemical plant to the compensation the victims much after the tragedy. It a story of governments letting things slide rather than taking unpopular actions like investigating false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.5.172 (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

--Please read The Bhopal Saga, now found on the net. I studied many old original documents, and everything is reviewed in the book. Altogether 200 references. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Death toll

Twice in this article a bunch of numbers are thrown out about initial, subsequent and additional deaths from this disaster. This is not acceptable. There needs to be official sources and a singular estimated / confirmed from sources of total deaths, then a breakdown. This article needs to have a death-toll added that meets an acceptable guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Author (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There isn't an official figure; to be precise, the Indian Government "official" figure is generally considered wrong. We only have estimates, and the UCIL, government, and muckraker estimates are significantly different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course there are official figures. But they don't count unofficial deaths. When these are included, the figure lands around 8000 deaths during the first two weeks.Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

UCC

The un-introduced abbreviation UCC appeared, and even though I think I know what it means, I would like to know for sure. The university chess club thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.70.252 (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

- Union Carbide Corporation. Should be explained. 78.66.215.89 (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Union Carbide Position

It is worth noting that Union Carbide disputes the tank-washing theory. They argue that based on the physics of fluid dynamics and the size of washing hoses, as well as the testimony of workers, the water in the line could never have achieved the hydraulic head to overcome the 27-foot rise required to enter the tank. They also note that for the washing-water theory to be true, the lines would have had to contain several hundred pounds of residual water, and in fact contained very little water when examined by the Indian government. I would like to state that I am not choosing a side, and for those who are interested, this case study appears to be done by Union Carbide Corp.Engineerofstuff (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request

The "Pre-event" section consists mainly of a discussion of the synthetic method used by UCC, and contrasting this route with a supposedly safer method used by others.

• This material appears to be original research, as I see no reference to other synthesis methods in the cited sources, let alone statements that they are safer

• The suggestion that thee other route is safer is a complex issue involving a wide range of issues in addition to toxicity of the intermediates. Both routes use phosgene, whose toxicity exceeds that of methylisocyanate and which, like methylisocyanate, is a gas stored under pressure. Unlike methyisicyanate, phosgene is corrosive and would probably have a greater a priori likelihood of leaking. So long term storage of phosgene instead of methylisocyanate might not be a better solution.

I think you would need a pretty high quality source to support the statements made here, and currently there are no sources for this content at all.

2600:1010:B06C:3130:4634:BA77:9325:5D0F (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)