Talk:Riki Ott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References/Sources[edit]

PER WP:GNG

Significant coverage[edit]

http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV192.html 4 sentences
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/01/us/exxon-valdez-the-spill-the-cleanup-and-the-charges.html 1 sentence
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19940913&slug=1930342 2 sentences
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Business-will-speak-louder-now-thanks-to-Supreme-894314.php Editoral and it only has 2 quotes from Riki Ott WP:V#SELF

Sources[edit]

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/24/20_years_after_exxon_valdez_oil Interview: WP:V#SELF
http://grist.org/article/ott/full/ Interview WP:V#SELF (puff piece)
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4245/our_town_vs_exxon/ WP:V#SELF
http://www.btlonline.org/2011/seg/111104bf-btl-ott.html WP:V#SELF

Independent of the subject[edit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/an-open-letter-to-us-epa_b_697376.html WP:V#SELF
http://www.ultimatecivics.org/index.php/contact/riki-ott-bio WP:V#SELF (This is her website)
PeterWesco (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riki Ott is widely known as an oil pollution expert[edit]

I have removed the "widely known" and added a few more references for support. Here are a few more:


On second thought, I can't support my deletion of the phrase "widely known" from the intro, after this research. It's actually more difficult to find Riki Ott referenced any way other than as "oil spill expert" or similar term. I'll be reverting my edit to reflect the sources above. petrarchan47tc 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

marine toxicology expert != oil spill expert. "expert" != oil spill expert. Amazon is not a WP:RS. Grist and SierraClub are POV sources with stated goals of advancing an environmental agenda. Have you discovered any peer reviewed journals of true experts referring to her as an expert? McClatchy and WKRG are valid sources for "marine toxicology expert" - which could hold more water because of her education, occupation, etc. PeterWesco (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to look at the evidence in context and in total. Context: "widely known". What makes something or someone widely known these days? I would argue, as sad as it may be, that CNN makes a thing more widely known than a scientific journal. The "widely known" claim simply refers to the fact that she appeared countless times in media during the BP oil spill in the context of oil and corexit pollution/health effects, as the expert. It's not hard to believe she would be thought of as an expert, how many study oil spill pollution experts do you know of? Particularly those who specialize in Corexit/oil spills?
Even had Riki Ott not been specifically labeled "oil spill expert" by CNN, it could be deduced looking back at the prolific interviews by reputable sources, and their subject matter.
It is far beyond the scope of Wiki editors to be second-guessing what "Sanjay Gupta's producers" were thinking - if Gupta mouthed the words, that's good enough for Wikipedia. The truth is, if you were watching news coverage during the BP oil spill, you would come away with the idea that Riki Ott was an oil spill pollution expert. There were experts who covered other factors of the disaster, but for health and environmental impacts, Riki Ott was the go-to for three solid months. Her claims and reputation have never been challenged, to my knowledge.
Also, a look at the evidence in total. My response above is to your edit summary: "Oil Pollution Expert" - Sanjay Gupta's producers called her this. No other source can be find that states this. There are many sources, and the fact that some or most of those come from environmental organizations makes sense because, looking at the intro for Ott, she is an environmentalist. If she were ONLY interviewed by wacky enviro groups, that would be a different story and I would not argue the "widely known" phrase be included.
If this phrasing proves too problematic for whatever reason, another option is a rewording that would state something like, Ott appeared many times (in media) during the oil disaster to discuss health effects of oil spills; and is referred to as an "oil pollution expert" by CNN and numerous environmental groups/journals. Just a thought. petrarchan47tc 22:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Dispersant[edit]

Is there any doubt that dispersant was used, and which type it was? If not we should re-cast that sentence. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

No, and I'm surprised that anyone would be questioning this. Hundreds of sources name the dispersant as Corexit. Please read the articles and the sourcing. Gandydancer (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is "that sentence"? petrarchan47tc 21:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of source[edit]

Putting aside the fact for the moment that we should refrain from using sources like Truthout whenever possible, nowhere in this article does Ott say BP needs to pay for relocation. To continue to restore the line and source when it doesn't claim what's said is simply incorrect. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a disingenuous post here, why didn't you mention the other change you are insisting upon? "Ott criticized BP for using Corexit to disperse the oil, which she alleges are toxic to humans." What does this addition have to do with relocation payments? Why are you making changes that veer farther from the truth? Corexit, by the way, is not plural. If you want to remove the statement you are complaining about, do so - but don't include editorializing about a subject with which you seem very unfamiliar. It does not help the wiki one bit, petrarchan47tc 19:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an argument in favor of what's there, of using bad sources, and for misusing a source, or no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thatgor, you are not answering my question. Please be clear and deal with one matter at a time. If you have a problem with the relocation matter as you claim, deal with that. If you have a problem with a specific source and a claim made based upon it, please bring the claim and source here so we can see what your issues are. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 20:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claim was clear from the start, and you have no defense for your edits it appears, so I'm putting them back. If you want to use a bad source like Truthout, explain why before adding it back. If you want to misquote a living person, explain why before adding it back. Please note that you've already reverted this three times in the last day. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thargor, if this is the way you want to spend your time, following me from the Monsanto articles, I am not going to play. Just enjoy. The encyclopedia belongs to those with the most time and aggressive personalities, from what I can see. I give up. Do what you want. petrarchan47tc 23:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, this is not about you. I found this article via the Truthout link, and I edited the other article you're complaining about back in March. If you have a good argument for the edits, I'd love to hear them. So far, it doesn't appear you've even looked at the change I've made, just been upset that we've been in conflict elsewhere. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Truthout is RS - you have no right to be removing it from Wikipedia. You removed even the mention of it at Dahr Jamail, changing his biography so that his work for Truthout was excluded. And, believe it or not, I truly don't want to give you one more second of my time. That is the reason I am not going to tangle with you about this, and not due to any doubt on my part that this article has been stable for nine months for a very good reason, and that there was absolutely no problem with the article before your arrival. I do hope some other editor cares enough to deal with you over this, but I'm not the one. petrarchan47tc 03:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very poor source that should be avoided whenever possible. I'm glad to discuss Dahr Jamail at that article, where perhaps we can get to the bottom of the change I made. I won't hold my breath, however. As you don't care to defend your edits further, I'm more than happy to move on. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was most assuredly NOT the conclusion of the recent RS noticeboard for Truthout. You are bringing your personal opinion here and trying to edit based on it. Truthout is RS. You will remember, the conclusion was that with proper attribution, using Truthout as a source is fine. But again, do what you want. petrarchan47tc 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been a recent discussion about truthout at large, simply the use of it in regards to the BP spill article, and one with limited input. This isn't personal opinion, sorry. Are we done with the problems with this article? I will only respond further to issues about this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thargor Orlando, if you wanted to demonstrate good faith in editing this article, you might go seek out other sources discussing Ott's claims about the Gulf and evacuations therefrom. When you make the same edit four times—despite objections from an experienced editor who's been working on this page since its inception—you come across like you're just trying to make trouble. Incivility aside, you have no grounds to argue that a report from Rose Aguilar in Truthout is unreliable. Both Aguilar and Truthout are well established in the world of journalism, and your accusation of unreliability seems to reflect nothing more than your personal bias. groupuscule (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we misquote Ott in an article about Ott? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:groupuscule, I am still awaiting an answer to this question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You're dodging the issue. Your behavior here has been rude and inappropriate. (2) Perhaps you noticed that I just edited the article to use a direct quotation from Ott, rendering moot your hostile & leading question. groupuscule (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except you then put in conspiratorial speculation and attributed it to Al Jazeera, and ignored the issues with Truthout. Why is the Truthout inclusion so necessary for you? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You're dodging the issue. Your behavior here is rude and inappropriate. (2) Ott chose to do this interview to Aguilar and Truthout. The interview is an important source regarding Ott's views at that moment. The issue is not why I think we should include it, but why on earth we would exclude it? Do you doubt that this is an accurate quotation? If you feel that the source you added (which I retained out of respect) is now being mis-used, you may remove it, write a clarification in the footnote, attach it to another sentence, or take some other productive action to improve the article. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The interview provides nothing that cannot be found in other, better sources. The source is being misused, and I will remove it from the Al Jazeera portion. I will also remove the Truthout claim as an inappropriate source on a BLP until you can justify why it's necessary. You can call this rude if you'd like, but you've accused me of bad faith and that I'm "trying to make trouble." Whatever personal issues you have with me are irrelevant to this article. Deal with the issue in play here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a verifiable interview and summarized it neutrally. Is this okay? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A YouTube video of the same interview? (But now no mention of evacuations?) You're a trip. groupuscule (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I listened to most of it and didn't catch the point about evacuations that was quoted in the unreliable Truthout article. If you listen to it and hear it, I am more than okay with attributing it to the YouTube interview as a compromise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This behavior is outrageous, but unlike Thargor Orlando I will respect 3RR and wait for others to chime in. groupuscule (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Truthout is not a Reliable Source. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Riki_Ott&oldid=1207791517"