Talk:Gulf War oil spill

message: "The spill did little long-term damage. About half the oil evaporated, a million barrels were recovered and 2 million to 3 million barrels washed ashore, mainly in Saudi Arabia."
A cursory glance at actual research on this subject (I couldn't find the UNESCO report mentioned in the NYT article) suggests that this is a gloss at best.  Perhaps we can add something more neutral here (like "Experts disagree about the lasting environmental impact of this oil spill.") and then direct people to some actual research on the subject in the footnotes.  (e.g. http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_III/Geographie/phygeo/downloads/barthcoast.pdf  or 161.252.8.203:8000/localfiles/kisr/isd/isdpub/013.pdf )  As it stands, "The spill did little long-term damage" is a ridiculous statement.  However, even though I couldn't find any support for this claim, I wil settle for something neutral followed by links to legitimate research.  And I would suggest that, in the future, a six sentence article from the NYT with no references is not sufficient backing for such a dramatic claim...   
thanks -- 
BloodyBlackPudding  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.170.80.131 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I too found this hard to believe.  450 million tons of oil and "little harm was done"?  Toby Douglass (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You're off by a factor of around 10^3.  No-one knows the exact amount but 450,000 tonnes is probably close.   And a lot of harm was done although it may be true that relatively little long-term damage was done.  The Arabian/Persian Gulf has been subjected to numerous natural oil seepages for millennia or longer - that's where all the Saudi oil is as well as Kuwait and Iraq and most of Iran's - and there is a measure of natural recovery.Cross Reference (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV of Enviornmental Claims 

message: If one looks at oil spill, 5 inches would be much much thicker than the scale they use on that page.  --Shanedidona (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All the references backing up statements from the Lakeview Gusher spill are offline, so I for one can't compare them to the sources for this spill. But I will assume good faith and assume the Gusher spill is the larger. I'll reword this article accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 5 inches thick?

message: This would be much better if there was a gallery of photos relating to the spill and maybe the chart shown here. If I have time I will try to do this myself, but life is pretty busy right now.
-timothymh, who is definitely not a bunny. Or a hippopotamus.I <3 Wikipedia! 22:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: This article calls the Gulf War oil spill the "largest oil spill in history," while the article on oil spills lists the Lakeview Gusher as the largest. Which is correct? -- 71.126.248.149 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All the references backing up statements from the Lakeview Gusher spill are offline, so I for one can't compare them to the sources for this spill. But I will assume good faith and assume the Gusher spill is the larger. I'll reword this article accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest oil spill? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gulf War oil spill. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609023739/http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_III/Geographie/phygeo/downloads/barthcoast.pdf to http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_III/Geographie/phygeo/downloads/barthcoast.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hi, I am soon planning on posting extensive edits on this article. I am going to add new sections to the article touching on the spill's background, the spill itself, the clean-up efforts on the spill, and finally on the political and economic impacts of the spill. Much of The Spill section is going to contain information that is currently in the Lead and environmental impacts sections of the article that I feel would fit better in its own section. The other new sections will have new information about the spill in order to fill content gaps in the article and to more extensively cover the spill. I also plan to rewrite some of the environmental impacts section in order to reduce the amount of block quotes used in the article and will add more information about research studies done on the spill. Finally, I am going to rewrite some of the Lead to reflect the new information I am adding, and I will add some images to flesh out the article. Feel free to see annotations on the sources I will be using here. Ees129 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming Edits 

message: The Gulf War oil spill was caused by allied forces bombing docked Iraqi oil tankers. The whole 'deliberate oil spill' story was simply cover for that. History is written by Washington. This is why Wikipedia is totally unreliable regarding anything regarding warfare.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.148.151.252 (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The oil spill was caused by allied bombing.