Talk:United States offshore drilling debate

About this page

This page was created based on a perceived need for separating the Offshore drilling article from the current US debate on it. For a discussion on the US issue, see Talk:Offshore drilling EverGreg (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased

Needs update to include BP spill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.13.120.77 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am just reading the page wrong but it seems somewhat biased. The argument for offshore drilling seems much more persuasive than the one against it. Shouldn't the two be relatively equal, or maybe on separate pages. It is possible that I am biased too, but regardless they both do need a significant amount of expansion. Drew2794 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not a good criterion for whether a page is biased. In debates, any given person will find one side more persuasive than the other. If that weren't true, no one would ever be persuaded of anything. It may be that the pro-drilling side simply has better arguments. It would be biased to say so, but it isn't biased simply to show both sides.

I haven't studied this particular issue enough to determine if this article is biased. I think it could use external links to advocacy groups on both sides of the debate. That would help editors in finding any relevant arguments missing from the article. —D. Monack ^talk 20:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was a mistake to list arguments for/against. A for-argument is presented and then clobbered by an against or vice versa. Instead, claims and facts should be sorted into the different sub-topics, like energy independence, effect on consumer fuel price and environmental issues. I think it's a lot easier for new facts to be added in the right place that way, and the article becomes less of a shouting match between two sides. EverGreg (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We already have the articles Offshore drilling, Offshore oil and gas in the United States, Offshore oil and gas in California, and Offshore drilling on the US Atlantic coast that do what you describe. This is an article about the "debate" and thus should list the arguments of each side. Whether or not this is a worthy topic for a Wikipedia article is debatable. —D. Monack ^talk 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There. It's less monolithic now, should be easier to refine for others. "what is bias?" is a difficult question, but I don't think the goal should be to always argue both sides so strongly that the reader is unable to make up his/her mind. Passionate arguments and convincing someone isn't the job of an encyclopedia. Rather one should give an overview of the debate so that a newcomer is familiarized with the common themes and the historical background to the story. And always, present facts where possible. EverGreg (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion?

Comments at the end of the previous topic allude to this. The article itself reads as biased to me and seems to contain a slant against offshore drilling. Of course others may disagree. Regardless, I do not see a place for what is essentially a discussion on an ongoing United States political debate in a Wikipedia article. As there are existing articles on the USA's offshore oil and gas fields and on the subject of offshore drilling I believe a brief paragraph (if that) on the current debate might be added to one of those articles and this one should be deleted. Turbine1 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. I don't see why a political issue such as this should not have its own wiki article. The economic and environmental issues are complex, and deserve more than a "brief paragraph" in some other article. I say this as the author of the articles Offshore oil and gas in the United States, Offshore oil and gas in California, Offshore oil and gas in the US Gulf of Mexico, and Offshore drilling on the US Atlantic coast. If this article is biased (and I would agree that it is), then the place to deal with that bias is right here. Improve it, don't delete it. Plazak (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Plazak -- if it's biased, let's improve the article. There are some interesting things going on right now, such as the compromise proposal by Plains (PXP) to drill the Tranquillon Ridge offshore of Santa Barbara County, a proposal which has been endorsed by numerous environmental groups -- since Plains is offering in exchange the decomissioning of 4,000 acres of the Lompoc Oil Field (I'll put up an article on this, and the issue, soon, if I can). The drilling debate has two sides and a middle, and everything can be covered here. Keep it, make it better. Just my two cents. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will offer another 2c worth and bow out of this one. Just an observation but it seems a little curious that the "debate" about US offshore drilling is considered as notable in its own right as is the subject of offshore drilling itself. In my personal opinion, the substantive political and legislative points and major public discussions could be placed in the "Offshore Oil and Gas in the United States" article and that would be a perfectly proper home for this material. Sure its a significant domestic political disagreement here in the USA, but does that imply that the "debate" should not be covered in the main subject article? In any case, If you were to edit out the unsubstantiated opinions and items of dubious lasting significance there is not a whole lot of meat left here. As it stands, this article feels to me like an extended newspaper article to me, rather than a true encyclopedia item. I will shut up and defer to the will of the community on this though. If someone feels up to fixing this article so it does not read like a slanted op-ed piece that would be worthwhile. Peace, Turbine1 (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The original motivation for this article was that the article(s) describing offshore drilling were being filled with political opinions during the last months of the US presidential election. I created this article to divert those edits into a more constructive overview of the debate. The idea is that an article about a debate can be factual in that it describe the main arguments and sub-topics of the debate. But this is a difficult genre, where you can cite both authorative sources such as the US dep. of energy and quote an opinionated politician or enviromentalist. At the same time, an encyclopedic article should not make use of rhetorical pathos even if this was dominant in the debate.

For instance, I think the "alternative investments argument" turned out nuanced and managed to take a step back from the debate, while the "oil spills argument" ends in something close to environmentalist-FUD. This may be one of the "unsubstantiated opinions" you mention. It's important in an article like this that we cite major players in the debate instead of building arguments ourselves. I may be guilty of the latter in that section.

You also mention "dubious lasting significance". I think this is one reason to keep it as a separate article. As an example, the 1984 US election article recount arguments and events that may have no bearing on today's politics whatsoever, but which influenced the outcome of that election. Similarly, there are many arguments in this article that will not stand the test of time and would be out of place in a "timeless" article about offshore drilling. But if they swayed people or legislators at one point, they were notable parts of the debate. EverGreg (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

EverGreg makes some compelling points. Motion withdrawn. Turbine1 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Background

The tone of the first portion of the background article is factual; the second half, however, seems to have a slight political bent to it, including accusations of fascism. The neutrality of the article is thrown into doubt when such aggressive rhetoric is utilized. I would argue that the section detracts from the discussion of the debate, and violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy pretty clearly. To correct it, the argument should be moved to a separate heading, where it can be used to illustrate the point of view of one side of the offshore drilling debate. It does not have a place in the background discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.128.214 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I agree that the 2nd half of the background section is highly non-neutral. I have made a first attempt at removing the non-neutral content. I felt that removal was appropriate, since there was no reference and no example was provided of a notable person who has expressed the opinions I removed. Also, some of the content, such as the accusation of fascism, is too strongly worded to be used even with a reference and with attribution to notable people. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)