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

Entry: The Lake Peigneur Disaster - A73988914
Author: Pinniped - U183682

Another Entry that was rejected in its original form by the Guide Editors, this one in 2010. The problem was the last paragraph, which I’ve altered. (An assertion that previously appeared there, though attributed, came from a subsequently-discredited source, so I admit that the Editors were ultimately justified in asking me to rescind it). I’ve retained the original indignance though (I feel strongly about this outrage) and the remaining comments are arguably more valid than ever.
I hope this will be OK for the EG now.

Pin

Post #106 (the third last) in the old PR thread below the Entry summarises the impasse last time. The Ed’s wanted two statements removed. The second one (about the Deep Water Horizon disaster being a result of failures to prosecute earlier offences) is now discredited and so I have removed it. The first one is still there, and I guess it’s a question of whether you judge that the first sentence of the last paragraph expresses an opinion or (as I believe) qualifies as a fact.

Well described indeed...

I see Dmitri commented on the original Peer Review thread, so I don't expect this Entry will have too much trouble getting through into the Edited Guide.

Unfortunately the link to the movie clips is broken, but your descriptions are vivid so I could imagine the scene...

This is an interesting and clear description of an industrial disaster that seems to have been forgotten. Yes, we should be indignant that these things are forgotten or covered up.

You need to replace the movie clip but otherwise, this is fine.

Is that the same final paragraph that caused concern before? Seems fine to me. F18699907?thread=7745874

It is also very topical despite being a few years old - at the moment there is a growing concern with climate change. Extinction Rebellion, the Children's Strike and people like Sir David Attenborough are helping the world realise that if you're not part of the solution and are still complacent, then you're part of the problem.

<BB<

I agree: this entry looks fine, and it's an important addition to the Guide.

If possible, it would be good to replace the link with another visual, so that readers could see the lake.

Hi All
Of my fairly extensive collection of EG rejection slips, this one was probably the most easily fixed.
The offending paragraph in its original form had two assertions that were unacceptable to the Eds of its day.
One was that the Deepwater Horizon disaster would have been prevented if previous offences that were on the record as being committed by the operators had been prosecuted. Though I got that from a reputable source (an American Petroleum Institute journal), the statement was later rescinded after a correspondent pointed out that the offences had in fact been prosecuted some time previously (to no avail, disaster-wise). So I was wrong, and that part of the offending paragraph has now gone.
The other problematical part, about the rest of the world quietly deploring some American behaviour, is still there and it ain’t going anywhere. I guess I could be persuaded to remove the “quietly”. I have a feeling though, that the contention Will be more readily accepted as fact these days than it used to be.
There is a YouTube clip on the disaster but it’s long at 8 minutes+. It’s excerpts from a History Channel program on the incident - very comprehensive.
As a general point, are borderline opinion pieces more acceptable these days? You can have a few more of them if so.

Here’s that YouTube clip:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p_iZr2-Coqc

Pin

That's an amazing video. If you could introduce it in a brief separate paragraph at the end? It's informative and adds visuals.

I have zero problem with our taking a point of view on these things. As long as we stay on the sunny side of international internet law and can back up what we say with good references, we're not the BBC and don't have to answer to anybody's parliament or congress.

I also think the world is right to deplore bad ecological citizenship, wherever they find it - quietly or otherwise. We need to call these things out.

Hi Dmitri
I just put the YouTube clip in place of the broken one, with no other changes.
That OK?

Sure.

I think it's a great Entry. A terrible story and at the same time like out of a cartoon.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Congratulations

Congratulations!