Talk:Norilsk oil spill

Attribution

The initial text in this article has been derived from the text in this version of the Nornickel article, of which the main contributor is Andrew Davidson. DieRadfahrerin (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill into 2020 Norilsk oil spill. The content in the two articles are duplicates. Alcea setosa (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Climate change reference removed but...

It looks like they've got their cinch because of the corrosion and failed maintenance to blame. B137 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Norilsk oil spill → Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill – Hi all, I'd like to propose a renaming of this article to "Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill." After seeing that an article of that title was merged into this current one, I'd essentially like to make the argument for the reverse.

Looking at a variety of English language sources, the spill is not given a consistent name. I'm seeing it referred to as an "Arctic Circle oil spill" (BBC), "fuel spill in Norilsk" (Tass Russian News Agency), "fuel spill in Siberian river" (CGTN), "diesel spill in the Arctic city of Norilsk" (Energy Voice), “diesel fuel spill” (WWF), ”Siberian fuel spill” (SP Global), ”oil spill from the Norilsk Nickel mine” (NPR), etc. My point is, it's not consistent. It is certainly not called "Norilsk oil spill" consistently enough to warrant that being the article title because of popular use. And although many of these sources mention the geographic location as a way of contextualizing the phrase "diesel fuel spill," they do so briefly and unceremoniously. I must also assume that these sources are rather US/Euro-centric, or at least written for an audience who is not familiar with NTEK or the larger Nornickel. I don't see that as a justification for contextualizing the spill in terms of its geographic region, rather than its cause.

In addition, press coverage focuses on NTEK/Nornickel's handling of the spill and the Emergencies Ministry’s criminal investigation as much as (if not more) than the environmental impact to the Norilsk region. (Ex: BBC, Meduza, Bloomberg, WSJ, The Moscow Times, CNN, Bellona). The current content in the article reflects this popular narrative about the spill, how NTEK could have avoided it, and Nornickel's subsequent handling of cleanup. The article title should also represent that.

Not to mention, the magnitude/impact (and therefore notability) of this event is unique. It's the largest accident in the Arctic Circle region ever and possibly the largest environmental fine in Russian history. Apparently it’s in line with the top 10 spills in human history. It seems logical then that the article follow the naming convention of the Exxon Valdez oil spill article, an event to which many sources are drawing comparisons, or articles like Murphy Oil USA refinery spill and Taylor oil spill—titling the page after the company responsible, rather than the geographic region of the damage. -- Cassiville (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with the proposal. I would make a few points in response to the above:

1. The event is consistently called "Norilsk oil spill" (>15,000 Google search hits) and easily satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. The proposed "Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill" gets only six hits and is a conflict with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. The phrase "Taimyr Energy Company" by itself gets only 5,000 hits.
2. It's not the largest accident in the Arctic Circle region - that 'honour' goes to the far larger Komi oil pipeline spill.
3. Its magnitude is not unique, in fact it's not particularly large - see List of oil spills - where it's 59th on that incomplete list.
4. The use of a geographic identifier is very common on Wikipedia - see List of oil spills - examples include Jebel al-Zayt oil spill, Greenpoint oil spill, Xingang Port oil spill, etc.
5. The naming of the Exxon Valdez spill article is due to a convention of naming marine spills after the ship involved.
6. Taimyr Energy Company (NTEC) is the power generating division of Norilsk Nickel - Norilsk Nickel is the direct parent and controller. Using a convoluted name such as "Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK)" is just obfuscation that disguises the incident's location and the responsible party, see WP:NATURALNESS. John beta (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response to the proposal John beta. You make some solid points that I agree with. Out of curiosity, what tool do you use to measure Google search hits? I'd like to see how popular the term 'Nornickel' is in the results. Though, with the data you presented, I doubt that it would be more than 'Norilsk'. I would like to have that tool at my disposal for the future though anyway. Cassiville (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A few more thoughts... If there are comparable hits for the term ‘Nornickel’ I would ask us to keep this discussion open to perhaps consider that as the article name (‘Nornickel oil spill’), because you’re right, re: your sixth point. Without seeing that number, I’m not so sure that most people will be more familiar with the geographic location rather than the Nornickel company name. Many of the articles about the subject reinforce a Western perspective that assumes the audience is not much familiar with the company or the area. It goes without saying that the article has a lot of influence about how this event is remembered and referenced. If sources aren’t consistent in their naming and if “Nornickel oil spill” and “Norilsk oil spill” receive comparable Google search hits, then I still think there’s an argument to be made here for naming it for the company responsible. Again, that is very much a part of the narrative in the sources I’m seeing. Cassiville (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I doubt "Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company" is a very familiar or memorable company name for most readers. Also, as far as I know, Wikipedia never puts both a name and its parenthesized abbreviation in the title of an article. Using the geographic location seems more straightforward, as with Chernobyl disaster and Bhopal disaster. We have "Bhopal disaster", not "Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) gassing tragedy". — BarrelProof (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.