h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Glad to see this surface again. It was most interesting and needed to be aired to a wider audience.

Websailor

Pinn, I was reading this and wondering why on earth it isn't already Approved, then I read the last bit. I'm annoyed as I think it's perfectly fair comment, and I hardly think the USA as a whole are going to come marching in and demand that you apologise for accurate observations.

My only complaint is that you're writing about the Deepwater Horizon incident as if everyone will remember it in several years. A simple hint as to what happened when you first mention it would be a good idea, imho.

Good suggestion, Alex. I added a footnote.

The last paragraph which has caused so much fuss has been progressively softened and is now (surely) much less contentious than it was originally.

The trouble is, I'm not sure anyone (including the Eds) has actually noticed the changes.

This is an interesting article. Hopefully the eds will get to it soon. I hope everthing just is not on standstill till ownership of h2g2 (or H2G2) gets resolved.

I think the Eds are tackling the bugs in the new version of h2g2. They've not selected anything this week as far as I know.

Firstly, thanks for the footnote about Deepwater Horizon. I hadn't heard it called by that name before (at least, not often enough that it stuck).

I've read the PR thread, but as much of it was about a paragraph that I never got to read I ended up skipping quite a bit of it. Apologies if I echo someone else.

I have a lot of things to say, so I'll start by saying what others have said - it is a splendid, informative piece of writing about a disaster that should be better known.
I ask a lot of questions below and I don't want it to look like I'm trying to get at you in any way. I like this a lot and think what you are trying to say is important, which is why I'm wasting my lunch break typing this.

---------------

I think what bothers me about the last paragraph is that is *only* a paragraph. It feels like the whole Entry before it was just leading up to this revelation, which is now going to be explored in more depth... but then isn't. You've grabbed my attention and I want to know more about these regulations which people have broken, other disasters that have occured and what we can do to make sure these things never happen again.

At the moment it feels like a finger point at the USA based on an isolated example, which of course it isn't. It's using one example to highlight a far wider problem than just Lake Peigneur.

Unfortuantely to change it to the way my brain wants it to be requires a stupid amount of research and wouldn't be about Lake Paigneur, it would be a Entry about disasters that have occured through deliberate mis-management and cost-cutting, which is a different topic.

I am also surprised that the USA has been singled out as the bad guy here. I'm betting that most large companies have similar records and they are being ignored. By only naming one country it infers that the USA is the only country that does this, and that isn't true (at least, I'm pretty sure it isn't).

---------

Another theme I would be interested to read about is that you point out how at the time [of Lake Paigneur] the oil companies were not hounded, yet they are now. Is this now a good thing, a sign that people are starting to take this seriously?

Should this be a story of progress that has been make, starting with the poor record of Lake Paigneur up to the responsibility that BP have been forced to shoulder after Deepwater Horizon? Or perhaps highlighting how little change has been made since the two disasters, despite other disasters and procedures put in place to prevent such thing occuring.

Again, essentially I'm encouraging you to write a completely different Entry to what you have written here.

I agree that the final paragraph is the most important part of the Entry. In this case, I would want it to be more than a paragraph tacked on the end of a (very good) historical piece.

I think this article needs to decide what it is - is it a historical piece about the negligence at Lake Paigneur, or is this about the wider issue of corporate responsibility?
If it's the former, remove the final paragraph and let the rest stand beautifully by itself. If it's the latter, that final paragraph needs to be expanded and become the focus of the Entry. If you were able to tackle a subject of that magnitude I promise I will read and review it and do what I can to get it into the Guide.

I hope this all makes sense.

Thanks Vip

Perfect sense. In conventional Edited Guide thinking, your last paragraph is exactly right. The Entry's own last paragraph is either superfluous to a narrow piece on the Lake Peigneur incident, or it's part of a different and very extensive Entry, in which (crucially) it would of course need to be justified by the facts of Deepwater Horizon, plus in all probability a well-referenced and wide-ranging critique of the general credulity of the American populace.

The piece wasn't written for the Edited Guide though. I've almost never written for the Edited Guide (and when I have, out of some kind of misplaceed sympathy for the poor old sick dinosaur, I've written rubbish). Here I just did what I usually do when I get an itch. I write.

In this case the itch was recurrence of old anger about a particular nation's tendency to habitually blame its own crassness on outsiders. Deepwater Horizon was the current example, but it stood for that much wider idea. A recollection of a fouled lake came into my mind, and before I'd really thought about it I was writing an allegorical essay.

As has been said above, I won't remove that paragraph, and I think I also have to declare that I'm done with softening it now. As has also been realised and pointed out by some of those who've read it, the whole point of the piece is crystallised in that paragraph - so why should I remove it?

The strict application of the Guidelines is very pertinent now, as we contemplate a new home for our community and with it a redefinition of the ethos of our central project. I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm going to say that, if this Entry is unacceptable as it stands, then h2g2 is going to die.

Justification? Well, I have to be a little arrogant-sounding I'm afraid. This particular Entry would stand up without the offending paragraph, as a straight, factual piece about an event. But that's only because I'm one of a small percentage of Researchers who are gifted writers, and I know how to compel you to embellish a story yourself, and add your own indignance about the stupid people who could desecrate nature in this way, and the even more stupid people who could let them do it.

Very little of the Edited Guide would be worth reading if we took out the opinion and the first-person view. Think about it. The only distinct proposition we've got is that we're a site of first-person-view essayists. The only trouble is that a bunch of idiots who used to work for a company that no longer wants to host our community wrote a set of Guidelines that blurred the proposition, and then an abysmal coven of anal, low-numbered pedants established an interpretation of those Guidelines, and set out on the literary equivalent of a pogrom that continues to this day, and that has so far only just failed to wring the soul out of the Guide.

Tell you what. If you actually want my not-insignificant flipper at the service of the future h2g2, you can f-ing well pick this Entry pronto. This Seal is going to War, to fight for the Guide we need.

Pin

Pin, this Entry was picked by the Scouts on October 29th last year. It has been subject to the approval of the Eds since then.

I really wanted to be able to read the ending you first wrote, way back then as I agreed entirely with the way you had played it out. However, I guess the Eds are in the hands of the BBC.

I just want to say - not so eloquently as you - that I am dismayed at the situation with this Entry, and it not being selected has been a big factor in my being less than active on h2g2 over the last few months. I really lost heart with the site since then.

Lanzababy

If it helps, it was picked months ago. I don't know why it hasn't been accepted - perhaps they were waiting for a concensus in this thread first.

In which case, given your last post, I wish to state that I think this Entry complete and good to go to the Editors.

Thanks

We're in a bind, aren't we? We're having to be deferent to the Eds, while at the same time we're being held back by the strictures of the BBC.

"Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC."


I would like to see the above statement being taken at face value. It appears on every single page of h2g2 - old and new. What would the world come to if no-one can express a view? What is the point in the statement if we cannot allude to anything politically controversial?

From Writing-Guidelines, which I am reasonably familiar with having copy-edited it a while ago:

>>>

Write in Your Own Style

Write in your own words, in a style that you're comfortable with. Each of the following entries has a completely different style, making H2G2 a varied and fascinating place to be.

[...]

Try to Make your Entry Balanced

H2G2 is a great place to get things off your chest, but for Approved Entries we're looking for balanced writing rather than subjective rants. We're looking for Entries that show both sides of the argument, especially on potentially contentious topics.
<<<

So, this entry should follow Pinn's own style, which undoubtedly should include some fair comment. It should also be balanced - I cannot see how this could be nicer to the USA, as there is little that is contentious here now. However, there is balance to be had in the admission that, as per 'An Inspector Calls', we are all the guilty party. Few westernised countries can claim innocence, and this ought to be communicated lest we forget our own responsibilities. For one thing, how many green sites do we pave over to create 'exciting new developments', while good housing lies empty? This country itself is hardly an image of environmental friendliness, even if it may not be in the same league as our American cousins.

Hi all. This Entry, as Tufty points out, still needs to have more balance before we could consider it for Approval.

"In its recent history, the United States of America has exhibited some traits that the rest of the world quietly deplores, and the fate of Lake Peigneur exemplifies them."

and

"If reckless oilmen had been properly admonished in 1980, then the Deepwater Horizon rig would be operating safely to this day."

Both of these statements are pure opinion presented as fact, and need to be balanced out. The facts really do speak for themselves, and readers should be trusted to draw their own conclusions. Tufty is quite right, most nations are culpable for these kind of environmental lapses, although perhaps not quite on the same scale as America. An acknowledgement of this would help to nudge this Entry in the right direction. This is a good Entry but, as we've said from the start, it is too subjective to be accepted as it stands now.

OK. I'll withdraw it.

<> is an interesting proposition. Opinion it surely is. Deeming it (or indeed any of this) to be fact is your arbitrary prescription. I make no claim of the kind.

A word of advice, if I may be so bold: You really needn't use so many words when you write Entries off from now on. Things have gone too far here for anything you say to persuade. Some people didn't need to read what you said above because they agree whole-heartedly with your position, while the rest still think you're wrong. Nobody is going to change sides in the little time left to us.

And you have better things to do than talk to the animals, or so I'm told.

Oh yeah. Thanks to everyone who said good things.

Pin

Such a shame


lil

I look forward to seeing this, Orgreave and others in the Edited Guide very very soon.

Since this is no longer in Peer Review, I might as well suggest a rewrite of the offending part - not that anyone seems to want to see this enter the guide .

"The fate of Lake Peigneur exemplifies the actions of many Western countries, the United States of America among them, who seem to value profit above all else. The environment should never be treated so carelessly, nor should the political insignificance of a community should never inhibit assistance to its afflicted populace. Yet such events occur to this day. If only those reckless oilmen had been properly admonished in 1980, we may not have needed to watch history repeat itself."

"...not that anyone seems to want to see this enter the guide."

I seriously hope that was a mis-type, Tufty. My experience on this thread was quite the reverse. We just have problems getting past the 'opinion' criteria of the current Guide, that's all. That's not the same as not wanting it to go in.

We've had a ruling on those criteria, and either it will go on to be one of the fine pieces in the UnderGuide, or it will remain as an outstanding addition to the non-Edited Guide. I hope it is the former as it deserves some Front Page time.

It really should be in the Edited Guide - it damn well fits all the other criteria, and it would make a perfect addition. It just feels, as Pinn describes, that everyone is polarised and either doesn't want the opinion bit in the Edited Guide, or won't see it be changed in order for it to enter the Edited Guide. I'm frustrated by this dichotomy and the uncompromising nature of events.