Wikipedia

Talk:Bhopal disaster/Archive 2

< Talk:Bhopal disaster
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Toddy1 in topic ptsd or not?
Archive 1 Archive 2

Proposed merge with Remember Bhopal Museum

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

related Shrikanthv (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - this proposal does not satisfy Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger: they are not on the same subject, but are discrete topics (one is on the disaster, while the other is a museum), there is no substantial overlap, there is enough coverage of the subject by sources that the article may be expanded, and a detailed understanding of the Bhopal disaster is not required for someone to understand the article on the museum. The number of articles in Category:World War II museums in the United Kingdom shows that it is very common for museums about events in the past may have separate articles. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - the article is about the museum, not the disaster, with separate categories and information.Jllm06 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - ditto.
    • It has earlier been suggested that the article "Bhopal disaster" should be divided into two or more articles because it's length. So I think it is unwise to merge these two articles. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merger. There will hardly be a paragraph mentioned in the main article about this museum. That can sit along with the two lines mentioned about the film. Also, the museum doesn't seem to have much notability outside the context of this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not feel that it is necessary to merge these two topics, as they are by and large unrelated. However, mentioning the article Remember Bhopal Museum in the original article as a subheading or just a hyperlink would be advisable.Doge272 (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's subject of its own article, no need to merge it, there is plenty of bit space to keep it two articles, it is a separate thing. ElectraGrrl (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Changes might not correspond to references

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I revised this page some years ago, adding as a main reference my book "The Bhopal Saga" (with 200 references, now available on the net). Since then, many "unneccesary" changes of the text is done. I cannot any longer guarantee that the changed texts are according to The Bhopal Saga. Also, new less reliable sources, like news paper articles and radio programmes, are added. The article probable needs a thorough revision again. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Anderson goes unpunished

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

This section is not objectively written. No matter how despicable Anderson may have been, Wikipedia is not the place to describe him as "a person who should have been tried for mass homicide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.157.192 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the opinions. Sandcherry (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe is there another way to include this dominant opinion? We could quote some other source of notable importance who has opinion on the person. < spanElectraGrrl (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not the dominant position. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It quite clearly is the dominant opinion and must be reflected in any supposedly comprehensive encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.17.165.108 (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Description of something as "Indianised"

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is clearly racist and needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.17.165.108 (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bhopal disaster. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See also the film by National Geographic, which is available on the Internet, that clearly debunks UCIL's sabotage story. 134.247.251.245 (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bhopal disaster. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Bhopal disaster. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the section "Long-term effects", subsection "Health Care" in the third to last sentence the word I propose that the word "till" that immediately precedes "2006" be changed to "until". Rchiwawa (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

death count/non-military-grade chemical agent

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The death count estimates of immediate,short,medium, and long-term victims of the chemical agent need to be reworked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.12.173 (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Impossibility of the "negligence" section lacks valid sources

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the sentence in particular, from the first paragraph: "None of these theoretical routes of entry were ever successfully demonstrated during tests by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and UCIL engineers.[59][61][68][71]" this cites four sources, one from UCC (which makes the claim, and is assumed biased). two of the sources available (61,68) have no mention of these tests at all. i don't have access to the book referenced. should these be used as sources? is there something im missing? are there any sources that verify the failure of these tests beyond UCC? great article, thanks for all the work you guys are doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumpy2121 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

———

I agree. Two sources aren't easily verifiable, and of the two that are, one is a dead link. I looked at the "REPORT ON SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ON THE FACTORS RELATED TOBHOPAL TOXIC GAS LEAKAGE", which seems to have been cited a few times from what a quick Google search turns up, but I'm curious about it as the document itself isn't associated to any institution.

I don't think any of the working sources mention CBI or UCIL tests (did I miss something?), including the report above, making the sentence you quoted from the Wiki article inaccurate in my opinion. I'm not sure "none [of those] routes of entry were ever successfully demonstrated" is a very honest statement considering we have no source relating to any attempts made to demonstrate them.

Either way the entire Impossibility of the "negligence" screams inaccuracy. "This water was diverted due to a combination of improper maintenance, leaking and clogging" is argued for in the very source cited (the report quoted above again) in the section, on pages 75 onward. Take page 80

Furthermore, it is likely that alkaline water could have backed up from the VGS accumulator into the RVVH and PVH under certain conditions. Indeed, several liters of alkaline water was drained from the RVVH/PVH lines in the MIC structure in May 1985, lending credence to such a possibility.

and the paragraphs surrounding that in the source.

I'd like to remove inaccuracies and rename this section "Union Carbide-commissioned analysis" for the second paragraph in it. Can someone make that edit? Ceci N'Est Pas Un Contributeur (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Addition to Popular Culture / Music list

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please add: 

Tim Finn - No Thunder, No Fire, No Rain

to the list of music references.

CJLAus (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Films - Uriyadi 2

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi since this article is protected , can someone add under films - about Uriyadi 2, a 2019 Indian Tamil-language film, which captures the events during MIC leakage, post it's leakage, the entire events leading up to the disaster in a gritty manner. It should be added in films as someone might want to see a real portrayal of the incident to get a picture. Thanks. Pinksleft (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Three people or one?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Toward the end of the "employee sabotage" section, this article mentions people named "S. P. Choudhary," "Chaudry," and "Chaudhary." Are these the same people? If so, then the spellings should be consistent. (The page is currently protected, so I can't make the edit.) 68.175.4.48 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Death toll re: Ingrid Eckerman's The Bhopal Saga

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I haven't done a lot of wikipedia-ing, so apologies if this is a bit messy.

Eckerman estimates in section 7.4.2: ('How Many Died?') that the '8,000 dead within the first days' is "probably an underestimate" and lists a series of factors supporting this. The text cites Morehouse et al (The Bhopal tragedy : what really happened and what it means for American workers and communities at risk, 1986), which in the foreword gives an estimate of 5.000-30.000 lives lost. However, the highest estimate given in this article is 16.000 (8.000 initially and 8.000 more later), which is attributed to Eckerman's text. However, the only concrete non-reference number that Eckerman gives is in reference to the 14.000 death cases that have been awarded. The "8000 immediate, 8000 later" estimate is a referenec to a citation from the Sambhavna Trust, not Eckerman's own estimate. I couldn't find the specific text referenced, but I did find this paper from the Sambhavna Trust, which states: "While official figuresreport over 5,000 deaths attributable to the exposure, a government agency,the Centre for Rehabilitation Studies, reported 2,165 deaths attributable to toxic exposure in 1997 alone. Unofficial, and more correct, estimates place the current death toll at over 20,000."

Eckerman's The Bhopal Saga does not give a specific, conclusive estimate in the text. They state that "Today, 14.000 death cases [...] have been awarded" in section 7.4.1, and goes on to list a range of estimates in the aforementioned section 7.4.2, from "In 1991, 3,928 deaths have been certified" to "Other estimations vary between 10,000 and 20,000", while at least one of the sources (Morehouse et al) lists the aforementioned range of five to thirty thousand. Meanwhile, in the article, the number given as the highest claimed estimate is 16.000. Is there a reason for this?

There's enough disagreement and controversy over estimating the death toll (both immediate and in total) that it could easily fill an entire section of its own. Jbkjbk2310 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Charges against UCC and UCIL employees UCC chairman and CEO Warren Anderson was arrested and released on bail by the Madhya Pradesh Police in Bhopal on 7 December 1984. Anderson was taken to UCC's house after which he was released six hours later on $2,100 bail and flown out on a government plane. These actions were allegedly taken under the direction of then chief secretary of the state, who was possibly instructed from the chief minister's office, who himself flew out of Bhopal immediately.[80][81][82] Later in 1987, the Indian government summoned Anderson, eight other executives and two company affiliates to appear in Indian court on homicide charges.[83] In response, Union Carbide said the company is not under Indian jurisdiction.[83]

In the above paragraph, change "the direction of then chief secretary of the state" to "the direction of the chief secretary of the state". That's all, Thank you. SP.RAMANATHAN (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: It was the previous secretary. Removing 'then' implies present which is incorrect. Run n Fly (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is a cite error in the article causes by duplication of the refname ":0". The error was caused by this addition to the end of the Background section.
All instances of name=":0" in the last two paragraphs of the section should be given a new refname to solve the issue.

Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done I believe it's now fixed. Thank you, IP!. —Sirdog (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC) (formally an IP)

The people are still suffer

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I feel very sad for them as I am Indian too 117.201.169.122 (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dallas831.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under the Section “Popular Culture,” add a reference to the podcast “They Knew Which Way to Run.” It is a limited podcast series that released in 2022 and tells the story of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and what it means to survive a disaster - with firsthand accounts from survivors of the tragedy. It has over 5000 listeners and was the subject of a TED talk (to be released later this year).

www.theyknewwhichwaytorun.com 2601:197:900:AAA0:7046:5B93:AC6B:AE59 (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not done for now: Doesn't appear to be notable enough yet, may be notable enough when the TED is released. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Following up to the semi-protected edit request on 21 July, 2022:

Under the Section “Popular Culture,” add a reference to the podcast “They Knew Which Way to Run.” It is a limited podcast series that released in 2022 and tells the story of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and what it means to survive a disaster - with firsthand accounts from survivors of the tragedy and present-day activists, including Sathu Sarangi and Rasheeda Bi. It has over 5000 listeners and was the subject of a TEDx Talk called “What Does It Mean to Survive a Disaster?” given by the podcast co-host and gas survivor’s daughter, Apoorva Dixit. The TEDx Talk has over 30K views.

www.theyknewwhichwaytorun.com

https://youtube.com/watch?v=KJmVxEaft8E&feature=share 2601:197:900:AAA0:AC46:80A1:73DE:2EE2 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There needs to be independent secondary sources to show that this is noteworthy. A talk by the podcaster is not independent, and does not demonstrate that this is notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the introductory paragraph (sentences 5 and 6), "Estimates vary on the death toll. The official immediate death toll was 2,259." feels repetitive to read. Proposed edit to "Estimates vary on the death toll, with the official number of immediate deaths being 2,259." Idosyncrasi (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It's about "tagging" acronyms for screen readers for visually impaired people.

In the introduction, Replace "(MIC)" with "MIC" to help screen readers read information more accurately to people with disabilities.

Many other acronyms make this article very difficult for people who are blind to understand because screen readers need the abbr tag to read the acronym correctly. (the abbr template would be helpfull) Koperlite (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I have done as asked except I have retained the parentheses, which would seem to be required for sighted readers. Is that acceptable? And is it necessary to use the template on every abbreviation throughout the article, or only on first instances? Captainllama (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  Already done RealAspects (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Precision of measurements

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A really trivial topic, but enough to generate a dispute between myself and User:Sandcherry:

Looking at the capacity figures for the MIC tanks I wondered how 68 000 litres related to the "30 tons" figure. I checked the density of MIC and calculated 68 000 litres capacity, density 0.92 g/mL and 50% capacity is 31 tonnes.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Methyl-Isocyanate#section=Density gives figures of 0.9230 at 27 C and 0.9599 at 20 C.

68 000 x 0.9230 x 0.50 = 31.38 tonnes (34.58 short tons or 30.88 long tons if you only have bathroom scales) 68 000 x 0.9599 x 0.50 = 32.64 tonnes (35.97 short tons or 32.11 long tons)

Sandcherry reckons that the 50% figure is approximate enough to round all these figures to "30 tons" and reverted my edit, twice, suggesting we take it to the talk page. So here we are. I'm not seeing any mention of 50% being single-digit precision (i.e. 0.5 vs 0.50) or of the 50% figure being "about" 50%. I took the 68 000 litre figure as implying two-digit precision (i.e. 68 cubic metres, not 68.0) so I went with two significant figures in my recalculation and quoted 31 tons in my minor revision. Maybe 31 tonnes would have been better still.

Ewen (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this issue to the talk page. There are two reasons favoring using "about 30 tons" for the volume. Firstly, an 18,000 gallon tank is not exactly 18,000 gallons. Secondly, the tank volume quoted is usually the nominal volume, not the working volume which is usually lower. UCC's use of 50% most likely refers to the working volume. Therefore, an estimate of ~30 tons is reasonable. Sandcherry (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
This sounds like original research? I'd say if we can acept "about 18 000 gallons" then "about 31 tonnes" is equally valid, and consistent. Ewen (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
No OR needed. The approximate volume of storage tanks and the difference between nominal and working capacities especially with underground storage tanks is well know in the chemical industry. About 30 tons is a reasonable estimate based on your calculations. No need to add unwarranted and perhaps erroneous precision to the estimate for the purpose of this article IMO. Sandcherry (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Death count.

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

the description de-emphasizes death toll by leaving general estimate of 16000 directly attributable deaths until end of introduction. The accident was horrific. I remember the news in the US which was not overly dramatic.

My suggestion is to add following immediately after "official death toll"

Well accepted estimates that include deaths over the following months that resulted directly from injuries sustained during the disaster put the direct death toll close to 16,000. 47.32.118.6 (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ptsd or not?

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

from the article : "Studied and reported long-term health effects are: (...) Psychological problems: Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (...) Missing or insufficient fields for research are (...) post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)" which one is it, as I guess studied and reported cant be missing and insufficient at the same time ? 84.215.194.129 (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The text of the paragraph about "Missing or insufficient fields" is below.
  • Missing or insufficient fields for research are female reproduction, chromosomal aberrations, cancer, immune deficiency, neurological sequelae, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and children born after the disaster. Late cases that might never be highlighted are respiratory insufficiency, cardiac insufficiency (cor pulmonale), cancer and tuberculosis. Bhopal now has high rates of birth defects and records a miscarriage rate 7x higher than the national average.[19]
I have read pages 122, 123, and 125 of the cited source (page 124 is not available on Google Books), and page 123 supports "Bhopal now has high rates of birth defects and records a miscarriage rate 7x higher than the national average." So I think that the rest of the paragraph should be deleted as unsourced.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
This January 2017 version has the statements from "Missing" to "tuberculosis." So it is clear that the "Bhopal now has high rates..." statement with its citation was added after that. The citation[1] for the paragraph afterwards in the January 2017 version does not support the "Missing ... tuberculosis." statements.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhopal_disaster/Archive_2&oldid=1214350719"