Talk:Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have a great deal of well sourced information for this article from publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian and The Financial Times. I will provide links for verification purposes to the originally published articles in almost all cases. Only in the event that an article has been removed from the original publishers website, will I fall back on a link to the Royaldutchshellplc.com website which I co-own. It is an entirely non-commercial website with no subscription charges or advertising. It will take me about 48 hours to develop this article. Johnadonovan 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a very pedestrian job that I am doing, but I will go back over it in due course and hopefully improve readability. I still have a great deal of properly sourced information to add. If in the meantime anyone better qualified decides to step in to improve or amend the article to meet required standards, please do so. Johnadonovan 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Will add more sourced information over the Easter Holiday. Johnadonovan 20:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Will be adding more information on Tuesday 10 April 2007. Johnadonovan 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I do agree that this is a separate subject worthy of its own entry. PaddyBriggs 08:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced?

This article seems just a touch unbalanced, not to mention badly structured. Comments? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference sources

I do not understand the statement heading "This article does not cite any references or sources". In fact there are numerous verification links throughout the article. Johnadonovan (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Within the next few days I hope to have the time to update this article and will provide only sourced material and will include Shell's responses to any cited allegations. Johnadonovan (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that the article is appallingly unbalanced William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I note and will bear in mind what you say. The problem is that I can only include whatever response Shell gives when asked for comment by news organisations. When Channel 4 News broadcast on 1 February a 7 minute package on this subject as the number one news item, Shell declined an invitation to appear. They did however supply two statements and I will include them in their entirety. I supplied the Shell documents featured in the package. It is obviously an important subject as people’s lives are at risk. I completely understand that in view of my background circumstances, anything I post will receive appropriate extra scrutiny and editing to ensure the end product is in accordance with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Johnadonovan (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually you've quite largely addressed my concerns by adding the Piper Alpha info, which puts things into perspective. The article, BTW, focusses entirely on North Sea operations, whereas Shell is worldwide William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the header stating that a better introduction was required as this has been carried out. I have also removed the header saying there are no references as this is simply untrue and unfairly damages the credibility of the whole article. I do not know how to insert a header stating that more reference sources are required. Perhaps someone will kindy insert as appropriate. I will add more non North Sea material to the article as it becomes available. Johnadonovan (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Have now added what I believe is the proper header seeking more reference sources. Johnadonovan (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)