Talk:Cosco Busan oil spill

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jguzma38. Peer reviewers: AnthonyAcevedo62682.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

How many dead birds?

It is not an estimated 20,000 birds dead. Please check your facts on the link you provided. The official count/estimate is closer to 2,000.

The facts have been checked on the link that was provided, and the estimate is 20,000 with the official count closer to 2,000. I hope that helps clear up the confusion. The article(here on wikipedia) only says the word "estimate" thus the 20,000 number is the only one said. Maybe we should included both numbers into the article to offer neutral point of view on the subject?

As a side, on February 4, 2008 IP address 12.191.116.131 had the same problem; '20,000 is an ESTIMATED number NOT confirmed. 2,000 are CONFIRMED dead, don't mislead.'. Loonymonkey responded with this: 'It said "estimated." The text is from the cited source. If you have another reliable source, it's welcome but don't editorialize.'. R00m c (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Should this page have a more descriptive name? This isn't the only oil spill ever to happen in the San Francisco Bay and sadly, I doubt it will be the last. Nate 08:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the year "2007" is what distinguishes it from the others. Hopefully, there won't be another one this year. --Loonymonkey 17:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking 'San Francisco Bay Oil Spills', since it already documents two spills. Alf —Preceding comment was added at 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I created a new page called Cosco Busan oil spill, shifted all the content across and redirected this page. Everybody calls the spill the Cosco Busan oil spill, and this title is also consistent with the title of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynfredw (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Current event tag

• The editor that removed the current event tag is correct. The tag isn't appropriate for this article anymore. While the oil spill (and its repercussions) is indeed still a "current event" the tag is only intended for events that are rapidly unfolding in the short term. As per Template_talk:Current the tag is "designed for short-term use as a warning for editors and readers if an event was occurring right that very second (or very, very recently). It was not intended for general use over the span of weeks or months for a long-term, ongoing event that would experience little editing during the event..." --Loonymonkey 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Move?

• Everybody in the Bay Area calls the spill the Cosco Busan oil spill, rather than the 2007 San Francisco Bay oil spill, so I created this page and shifted content across and redirected 2007 San Francisco Bay oil spill to this page. Additionally, this change consistent with the title of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. _{16:50, 19 June 2009 User:Wynfredw}

Suggest a page for the "Cosco Busan Oil Spill - 2007 San Francisco" and a separate page for the vessel itself; and the vessel page would link to the spill page for discussion of the spill. And a separate page for the Hanjin Venezia - the new name for the vessel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.225.241.162 (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• COSCO Busan oil spill → Cosco Busan oil spill
• Cosco Busan oil spill → COSCO Busan oil spill

– Correct rendering of ship's name is "Cosco", as per all official cited references Davidships (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I got in a mess trying to do this. Also COSCO busan oil spill could be deleted as don't need a redirect from uncapitalised "busan".

Uhm, this seems somehow needlessly confusing. If the proposal is to move COSCO Busan oil spill to Cosco Busan oil spill, per MOS:CAPS and as evidenced by the caplitalization of Cosco Busan (now Hanjin Venezia), then yes I support that. ENeville (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

VTS San Francisco Involvement.

I'm a former Traffic Controller, and I worked at VTS San Francisco a couple of years before the incident. I know that it is standard practice at the VTS *not* to call the pilot on the radio, once he or she has started the line-up for one of the bridge spans. This is because, it's felt that the pilot at this time will be focusing all of his or her attention on a safe passage through the span. But, VTS *did* in fact call the pilot as he was starting to move toward the bridge, showing their level of concern for what they were seeing on their monitors. The article makes it sound as if they did nothing.

As a side-note, at the time of the incident, the VTS was empowered only to *advise* a pilot on anything to do with navigational safety; they didn't have the power to *direct* any pilot. Wandering1 (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

First, don't expect Wikipedia to be very accurate. It rarely is. Second, what you say happened is irrelevant by Wikipedia policy, even if you were there; if you can find an official report backing up what you say, that might make a difference. And of course, there remains the factor that even if VLS did everything they normally would, the fact that the ship hit the bridge anyway might suggest that their policies aren't the wisest. "We warned him that he might hit the bridge, but then stayed silent as he finally closed in and did so, because that's our policy" doesn't really help sway public opinion in favor of the VLS..45Colt 07:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Prescription pharmaceuticals?

WHAT "prescription pharmaceuticals"? That's kind of significant, I think. There are plenty of pretty benign drugs out there that one could claim caused an accident, and probably convict someone on that basis, even when there is no actual proof the drugs were what caused the accident. Many types of drugs can potentially cause cognitive problems, but what proof did they have that his actually did? Did they just convict him on these charges because they MIGHT have caused the accident, or did they actually have good reason to believe that they did? Anyway, it kind of makes a difference if he was popping Valiums or Oxycontins before he went to work that day, or if he was just taking Zoloft or something like that, which many lawyers could probably use to effectively get you convicted, especially when the politicians and authorities are desperately looking for someone to scapegoat and burn at the stake to appease the voters and other politicians..45Colt 07:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cosco Busan oil spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531090148/http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/prisoners_of_the__i_cosco_busan__i_/Content?oid=986934 to http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/prisoners_of_the__i_cosco_busan__i_/Content?oid=986934
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507000044/http://sanfrancisco.about.com/od/sanfranciscomaps/ig/San-Francisco-Icon-Maps/sanfranciscooilspillmap.htm to http://sanfrancisco.about.com/od/sanfranciscomaps/ig/San-Francisco-Icon-Maps/sanfranciscooilspillmap.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106061243/http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.asp?NID=468 to http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.asp?NID=468
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221050412/http://www.uscgsanfrancisco.com/go/doc/823/182066/ to http://www.uscgsanfrancisco.com/go/doc/823/182066/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)