Talk:Dakota Access Pipeline/Archive 1

Image error?
It seems as though the image for this article did not fully render. I'm not sure what the person who linked the image was trying to accomplish. A full resolution photo would vastly improve it and fix the mistake.

I personally would use an different image like this: http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/8/9/173432-13445546624487526-Michael-Fitzsimmons.png (I don't know the copyright status).

Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently it has been fixed! Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of map of Bakken pipeline
,, and , I just wanted to make it clear to all of you, that worked towards deleting the pipeline map, just at a time that the discussion about the pipeline is heating up.


 * Dual Freq mentioned copyright, but didnt respond to my |reply, he also refused to ping me, refused to discuss and did not make a map to replace it /improve the now imageless article.
 * He knows the image is important and right now subject of a discussion as part of the Standing Rock Protests.
 * He also |added excessively detailed content on the source of the facts that I added for balance against the one-sided claim (by a dubious source) that the protests were violent.

To me it is suspicious, that someone is editing here with an agenda solely supporting Energy Transfer Partners, that otherwise has done nothing to develop the article since 2015.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the personal attack questioning my editing. I have over 10 years on Wikipedia and Commons and I know how both work very well. You should examine your own biases before accusing others. You uploaded a copyrighted image to Commons and provided an incorrect license. I nominated it for deletion and it was deleted by an admin who pointed out that you made no case demonstrating it was properly licensed. You can't just take images from the Internet and call them "Public Domain" and put them on Commons. Please do not continue to upload copyrighted works to Commons. Please read c:Commons:Licensing and ask questions there if you do not understand. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And FYI, you just called the Sheriff of Morton County, ND a dubious source. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The sheriff is more like a biased source. I will take a look at all of this and be sure that we are in line with policies and guidelines. There is no real question that people on both sides are going to be editing this article rather heavily over the next few months.    Montanabw (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Dual Freq, Please read WP:BIAS and ask questions at the wp:teahouse 10 years or not, if you do not understand. Questioning someone's editing is no personal attack. However you did now attack me personally with generalizing accusations "you cant just upload images ..". These are out of place here. Any discussion of the ONE IMAGE (not images) which you questioned, put up for deletion, successfully deleted and have not replaced, (to really do a service to this article), would have belonged on the commons page (where you didnt respond) before the deletion of the pipeline map, but not on this talkpage. Your accusations show you are angry and not level headed. I had shown you, that I understand very well and I made a case for the image being in the public domain. Furthermore, since the route shown on the map is now disputed we (not Dual Freq, I know) could even argue fair use.Wuerzele (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You uploaded copyrighted material to commons and it was deleted by an admin there. Blame yourself not me. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bakken pipeline map.jpg. You had nearly 7 days to state your case that that copyrighted image was public domain. You chose to shoot the messenger instead. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Bare URL's
PLease everyone, do not reference with bare links. I just converted a bunch, but there aRE still many left to do.--Wuerzele (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

New Dakota Access Pipeline protests article
I've boldly started Dakota Access Pipeline protests from sections at Standing Rock Indian Reservation and Bakken pipeline. Those sections were independently growing and contained large amounts of redundant content. A standalone was needed.

Please help reduce the sections in those source articles to summaries and add a main. And please help sort out the new article.

If this standalone article already exists, please say. I could not find it.

If you think this was a bad idea, please let me know and I can just delete it as sole contributor.

Cheers,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote here, one thing that seems to be very much needed is to strip down the section about the protests in this article and Standing Rock Indian Reservation (and possibly ReZpect Our Water), as there is no sense in having the main content about the protests at three different places. This will bring balance back to Bakken pipeline and Standing Rock Indian Reservation as well as deter others from adding good content to it when that content ought to be at the main article.

Oh, also, I just modified the sections at this article and am not sure it was a good idea. Thoughts? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture section
I don't think it's appropriate for this article. It could be put in the protest article with some trimming. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Cut it. If the people are notable, I'd add a note to their articles that they have supported the protests, and people can then go to the protest article to read about it. The point is for them to raise awareness about the issue, not for the issue to boost their careers. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Protest in popular culture is also protests, so we should merge these two subsections after cutting. Beagel (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * At any rate, it sure does not fit this article and the sooner it's gone the better. It makes the article appear to be less than professional..., IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Which sites?
I don't mean to come off crass but when I try to get facts about this event, I constantly see comments like "(the pipeline) would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance to the Tribe." Which sites precisely, and how would they be impacted, specifically? Wish this was covered here and, as others have suggested, this article badly requires a map! Thanks. 75.165.45.196 (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The maps are copyrighted and can't be directly used. Highly detailed maps are linked in the external links section located at http://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/resources/project-maps.html . Feel free to create a free to use map using non-copyrighted materials and free to use (ie. not google / bing maps) base-map. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Protests section
The most resent addition to the protests section says: The seven dog handlers working with Frost Kennels of Ohio under private security firm Silverton were unlicensed and not operating legally according to North Dakota state requirements. As we have Dakota Access Pipeline protests, I have doubts if this really belongs here. And I even not sure if this belongs to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests article. Also, this section here still needs to be a summary of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests article. Beagel (talk)

As we have more specific article about protests, Dakota Access Pipeline protests, and this section here should be a summary of that article. I propose to replace this section here with the lead of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests article. Per WP:LEAD The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. If necessary, the lead should be edited, of course, before copying here. Without this, the information about protest will be continued to be added in two different places which is a risk to create WP:POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody had disagreed...this needs to be fixed--I will try but will need to delete my work if the refs do not turn out correctly. Gandydancer (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved Fuortu (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Bakken pipeline → Dakota Access Pipeline – It seems that the official name Dakota Access Pipeline is currently also the common name for this pipeline project. While at the beginning when this project was proposed it was dubbed as the Bakken pipeline, more recent sources use usually the name Dakota Access Pipeline, sometimes also Dakota pipeline or North Dakota pipeline. The problem with names Dakota pipeline and North Dakota pipeline, like with the name Bakken pipeline, is that these names may be ambiguous. Renaming this article into Dakota Access Pipeline is supported also by the fact that the article about protests against this pipeline project is named Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Beagel (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 *  Comment Support - When they defeated an earlier proposed route in Iowa or Omaha they were calling it Bakken. But now they're digging in Iowa again and calling it Dakota Access. It's basically the same route and players as the defeated KXL, with the name and strategy changed, but I need to look into how the naming has worked in the interim with Bakken. If The sourcing is now leaning towards Dakota Access, sure, let's go for that. ETA: Let's just make sure we include that it's gone through these name changes and I think we're good to go. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. It's clear RSs overwhelmingly use DAP as the common name. Stickee (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Particularly with the rise of protests about this, the DAPL protests article, and two court rulings, it is time to use the name that is most common among RSs.Parkwells (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – A simple search shows far more results for "Dakota Access Pipeline" than "Bakken pipeline," and even without taking note of the search results, the former is simply a far more commonly referenced name. Dustin  ( talk ) 07:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Fitnr 23:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support because Energy Transfer company uses Dakota Access Pipeline name on its website. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 11:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.energytransfer.com/ops_copp.aspx
 * http://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/
 * http://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/docs-dapl/08092016/DAPL_FactSheet33-8_09_16.pdf


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: "Dakota Access Pipeline" conforms to WP:COMMONNAME. There's really no reason not to change it. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 18:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Today (November 2) has been one week from the start of this voting. Unless we have a last minute rush to not do it, then I thinks it's time to "rename" the article. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 10:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Areas of Improvement
Iowa seems overrepresented relative to other three affected states; could benefit from more information on ND, SD, and IL. It is relevant to note that in the "Route: North Dakota" section, the pipeline was routed away from white-majority city of Bismarck to Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and private land on the edge of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe reservation. "Federal Agencies Permission" section is missing info. about the ACE permit to drill underneath the Missouri river near the town of Cannonball, ND. This has been a significant source of the Sioux opposition which has brought this particular pipeline into public interest. Also, considering reorganization of Concerns and DAPL Protests into Risks (sub. land disturbance, oil leaks) and Sources of Opposition (sub. eminent domain, Meskwaki, Standing Rock Sioux). -- Masonthurmond (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article needs some work. I would guess that for most of us finding the time to do the research and editing can be difficult.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

History section
This article is missing the standard History section which is usually the first section immediately after the lead. I propose to create it and move there all information about the history if this project. Beagel (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The history section doesn't have to be at the top of a article, for Keystone Pipeline it is further down, and that article was edited had a mountain of editors. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 16:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Re delete of recent edit (last para of N. D. protest section)
I have moved this info to the talk page:


 * In late October as construction toward the Missouri continued, water protectors established a Treaty Camp in its path, so called because while outside of any reservation borders it was still within unceded lands from the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851) between the U.S. federal government and the Oceti Sakowin. Energy Transfer Partners' private security, along with police from multiple police departments (including several out of state) and the North Dakota National Guard moved in with military equipment and riot gear to remove the people and destroy the camp.[80] On the same day, indigenous youth again visited the east coast, this time occupying Hillary Clinton's campaign headquarters in New York City.[81] That evening, the campaign issued it's first statement on the pipeline[82], which was immediately panned as saying nothing.[83]

The editors of this article have agreed to try as much as possible to include the major part of the North Dakota protest info in a separate article. Note this "warning": ''NOTE: This section should be as short as possible to get the point across. This section is NOT a dumping ground for protest information, instead all such information should be added to the protest article.'' Furthermore, terms such as "water protectors" are not encyclopedic, along with several other problems with this recent addition. An update was deleted with this addition that will need to be added to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added the last paragraph from the protest article per earlier agreement. Gandydancer (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In the News
Given Tim Kaine's addressing this for the Clinton campaign (http://fusion.net/story/367167/tim-kaine-rerouting-the-dakota-access-pipeline-is-the-right-thing-to-do/) and the DNB beginning to reconsider its investment (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/dakota-access-bank-dnb-1.3841739), this page, along with the Dakota Access Pipeline protests page seem like good candidates for WP:ITN. Anyone want to write up a blurb? ps: am asking for help because I've never done this, and a previous Oct. 31st effort failed due to alleged bias on the protest page. I say we put both pages up there to get both sides. SashiRolls (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've commented on this at the protest article. I can probably help get a proposal up that will meet the basic standards of ITN.   Montanabw (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Pipeline Map?
It's simply amazing this article does not include a map. However controversial the topic, a map is an absolute minimum requirement and the absence of one risks disgracing the whole Wikipedia project. Paulhummerman (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and make a map, but don't copy or trace a map off the internet and be sure to use a free base-map like File:BlankMap-USA-Midwest.svg. File:Keystone-pipeline-route.png is an example of one way you can create a free map for wikipedia to use. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello all - I had a month ago created a map using fully open data. To find out more about this, click on the about page for the map: . I created a version that displays everything more clearly. If you have any questions, please write them here. NittyG (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating the map. You should add your full name to commons, so your name will be attributed when some other website uses your map.  For tips, look at the internal details of a couple of media that I create in the past.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bakken_map_osm_basemap.png
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Truck_Hauling_36-inch_Pipe_To_Build_Keystone_XL_Pipeline.jpg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MMC-SD-miniSD-microSD-Color-Numbers-Names.gif

This map may well be of interest: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-nodapl-map_us_581a0623e4b014443087af35 SashiRolls (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

federal approval
″As of August 2016 the pipeline had federal approval″ for what? Under the river, it's entire length, or the president likes the project, or a federal permit was issued. What does "federal approval" mean?--Hoffmansk 20:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs)
 * Reworded per:. No overall federal approval was required. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Campaign financing
How information about the ETP CEO donation belongs to this article? It implies there is a direct link between the donations and the pipeline but this is just original research which does not supported by sources. ETP is a large company with a lot of businesses and projects. Adding this information into the article about the certain project is WP:SYNTH the best, in the bad case it is WP:SOAP and WP:POV. Beagel (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources suggesting this link: SashiRolls (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No, they not. They suggesting indirect link that Energy Transfer Partners' CEO funding the campaign and Energy Transfer Partners is the company behind of the DAPL. This is indirect link and as such the information does not belong in this article. The sources do not say that the campaign was funded because of the DAPL project. Beagel (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's progress, you seem to agree that the secondary sources do in fact make a link between Warren's campaign contributions and the Dakota Access Pipeline. :) So, if it's synth or soap or pov, it's the Guardian and Time 's synth or soap or pov.  But we'll have to wait and see what sort of consensus emerges. SashiRolls (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, they make indirect link saying that Warren is CEO of ETP and that ETP is the company building the DAPL. However, they don't say that Warren contributed because of DAPL. Without this direct claim this information is fine at Warren's article and campaign funding articles but not in the ETP article and particularly not in this article.   The main difference between the articles in Wikipedia and in the newspapers is that article's here should be encyclopedic (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, right) which is different from the way how news stories are reported. Beagel (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Once more, these sources does not say that the contribution was made because of the pipeline. If you will find that kind of reliable source, you are welcome to include it. Indirect link is not enough. If you will find an article saying that X prefers to wear suits tailored by Hugo Bosch and the same article says that Hugo Boss used to design Nazi uniforms, do you create a section in the article Nazi uniforms about people wearing suits by Hugo Boss? I don't think so. Beagel (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Two users have reinstated this particular information when you & one other user have removed it. I'm not quite sure what Bosch has to do with a Guardian article titled "Dakota Access pipeline company and Donald Trump have close financial ties". Since you are edit warring to remove this information, I will let others decide whether you are correct to do so, rather than engage in what I suspect may be a fruitless discussion. I would also like to know why you think the overall pipeline safety record in the US over the last twenty years not germane to this page. (Cf. your deletion here).SashiRolls (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Does the Guardian article says that ETP and Trump have close financial ties because of DAPL? No, it does not. So the analogy with the example I gave is obvious. As your another question, should we add this overall safety record of existing pipelines across the country to all articles about the oil pipelines n the United States? If not, why particularly here and not in the other articles? Right now this information is in the article which deals exactly with the overall safety issues. Beagel (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, you've successfully deleted an interesting article about the project which also talks about the joint venture with Carlos Slim for a US-Mexico pipeline opposed by Texas ranchers. Citizens United equated campaign financing with an expression of free speech, but apparently this free speech is not citable and should remain under the radar... SashiRolls (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * WTF you are talking about??? Beagel (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hm... well it is admittedly a reasonably subtle argument (since the financing we know about was direct), so:
 * from Citizens United v FEC: Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
 * campaign contributions by citizens or associations of citizens are free, political speech.
 * The Guardian and Time reported on the free, political speech made by the CEO of Energy Transfer Partners by giving over 6 million dollars to either Perry or Trump in articles about the Dakota Access Pipeline, the subject of this Wikipedia entry.
 * In Wikipedia entries, we document what RS say about issues in articles like the ones cited above. SashiRolls (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia entries, we document what RS say about issues in articles like the ones cited above.
 * That not entirely correct. In Wikipedia we are creating an encyclopedia based on verified information from reliable sources. That does not mean that everything written by reliable sources should be included the specific article. Wikipedia is not a depository of news stories. Beagel (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

What exactly has the Governor of Texas to do with this pipeline as this pipeline does not cross Texas? It may be related to ETP other projects but in that case it should be in the relevant articles, not here. Beagel (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, the Guardian mentions the donations to Perry (TX governor from 2000-2015) in its article on the Dakota Pipeline, since it was Perry who the CEO of ETP wanted to see as President. This is a historically significant fact worth mention.  Who knows, maybe Warren will regret having backed the wrong horse out of the gate.  SashiRolls (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll stop investing time in improving your prose (I understand English may not be your first language, that's ok... everyone can contribute... but when infelicities and errors are corrected, realize, it takes time...) Why are you so worried about Perry being in this article, incidentally?  SashiRolls (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The answer is very easy: I am worried about mentioning Perry as you have not provide any explanation how the donation by Warren to Perry is relevant to this pipeline project. It may be related to the ETP business interests, but, if so, it is related to other projects, not DAPL. Once again, the source should make a direct link between the donation and the pipeline project. Being mentioned in the same article is not enough. Beagel (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That was certainly uncalled for Sashi. I've known Beagel for a very long time and we've always been on the opposite side of the fence.  But he is, IMO, a good writer and someone who is possible to work things out with.  I'd say that I respect him even though we seldom agree on anything.  That's pretty rare around this place...  Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, maybe I'm confusing users. If I've misspoken, |Beagel, I apologize, I just don't understand why we want to replace a simple, concise section, with a paragraph full of passive voice and roundabout constructions...  SashiRolls (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Apologies accepted and I am sorry if my edits made a wrong impression. I hope that after the last changes the issue is resolved. Beagel (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the current text remains misleading since Trump has not been reported to have sold his stock in Philips 66 : "Notwithstanding the sale of his shares, Trump is still indirectly linked to project Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren contributed $100,000 to the Trump Victory Fund."  (I do not understand why you want to split all these different minor contributions up ( $100,000 | $300 | $2,700 ) but don't want to include his significant campaign contributions.)  Also, Warren is wikilinked higher up I believe, no?  (maybe not, but I know he was already mentioned when this info was in the original section).  SashiRolls (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is how donations to Trump are reported by Reuters (see reference in the text). I am more than happy to include Warren's major campaign contribution if you could provide the link between these contributions and the pipeline project. In the case of donations to the Trump's campaign, sources are mentioning indirect link (donations may create a conflict of interests if Trump has to make any decision concerning this pipeline). Information about the Warren's contribution to the Trump campaign is relevant the context that Trump may be in the position that he as President has to make a decision about the pipeline. However, what kind of link there is between Perry and the pipeline? What kind of decision about this pipeline will be made by Perry? Beagel (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As you wish, from a historical, encyclopedic point of view, it would seem that Warren's closer links are with the Texas governor. I agree, from a "going forward" perspective, the links with Trump may be more important.  Both have their place in a paperless encyclopedia.  SashiRolls (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, links between Warren and Perry may be worth to be included in an encyclopedia (not really studied it to say for sure), probably in Kelcy Warren and Rick Perry articles, maybe also somewhere else. To be included here, the direct link to the pipeline project should be demonstrated for inclusion. Beagel (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Iowa
The Iowa subsection under the Route section needs to be reorganized. The current subsection is not actually about the route but about the timeline, protests etc. I propose to reorganize it by moving most of information, particularly timeline subsection, into proposed history section, some of it to Concerns and Protest section. Beagel (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I made some restructuring but that text still needs some work. It should be cleaned up by removing outdated information (e.g. the pipeline needed to be approved by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR)[31] to obtain local-impact permits for air quality, water discharge, stormwater, flood plain and sovereign lands, as the pipeline runs through state parks or public lakes.[8] The Army Co rps of Engineers needed to issue a permit, because the pipeline routes through watersheds, and the Corps was not expected to block the project. These things are probably already done.), some expansion about the whole history of the pipeline, as also some rewriting and removing minor details. Any thoughts? Beagel (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've finally read through the timeline in history. It reads like a(n interesting) bullet list; does such a thing exist in Wikipedia articles? could we just add:
 * In Oct
 * In Nov
 * ... etc. ? SashiRolls (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If it is not a special article in the form of a list, prose is preferred in articles, particularly if all other sections are in the form of prose. It is also overdetailed and some information raises questions (e.g. In February 2015, it planned to file applications with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Does that means that it only planned or it was applied? If it was applied, it should say when.). Beagel (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced this move was ideal, unless other stuff gets folded in (from the other states), but it would be best to have just the most important bits. Which do you think are the most important?  Regarding your question, the wikitext is accurate. SashiRolls (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ownership
Both of the following sentences head a section in the text. I wonder if they can be simultaneously true?


 * Dakota Access, LLC, a fully owned subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners LP (ETP), a master limited partnership based in Dallas, Texas, owns 75% of the pipeline, while Houston-based Phillips 66 owns a 25% stake.


 * The pipeline project costs $3.7 billion, of which $2.5 billion was financed by loans while the rest of the capital was raised by the sale of a 36.8% stake in the pipeline to Enbridge and Marathon Petroleum.

So does Enbridge now own 36,8%? Phillips 66 25% and ETP 38,2%, or is it more complicated? Is getting out the calculator worse OR than this contradiction in the current article?

Puzzled. See the refs in the article (first lines of "ownership" & "financing", respectively) in particular the latter. SashiRolls (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It is more complicated but the Ownership section describes precisely what the structure is and what it will be. I changed in the Finance section the past tense to "would be" as the sale is not completed yet. Beagel (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I see now, I gather Enbridge Marathon are more owner-operators than owner-builders? In any case, I think I understand better why I was confused. Thanks for your help.  SashiRolls (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Warren Buffett
Anon user re-added information about Warren Buffet donation to Hillary Clinton. This does not belong here for the reason that the direct link to the DAPL project is not shown. All but one source does not mention the DAPL. The only source mentioning it is CounterPunch!. CounterPunch! (or more precisely, the journalist Michael J. Sainato) claims that the reason why Democratic Party leaders are silent about the project is likely because the Dakota Access Pipeline is being funded by some of the most prolific donors to the Democratic Party. By using the word 'likely' it is a clear that this is not a fact but a claim, speculation, point of view. Per WP:NPOV It is ok to include significant point of views about the subject, however Sainato is not a notable person to have his POV included. For inclusion, this claim should be made by some notable person relevant to the subject.

Additional problem is that the current addition qualifies as WP:SYNTH as used sources with an exception of CounterPunch! says nothing about the DAPL and therefore should not be used in this article for making link between donations and the project. In the case of CounterPunch!, I am not sure if it satisfies WP:RS.

In addition, as Clinton was not elected, she does not have the power to make any decision on the pipeline and therefore it is not clear why this kind of speculation should be included.

Taking account all above-mentioned arguments, I remove this again. Please re-add only if any reliable and notable source makes a direct link between the donations and the pipeline project. Beagel (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The information cited doesn't have anything to do with the author's speculation regarding Democrats' silence on the issue. That's just the main gist of the CounterPunch article. But also in the article is a statement of fact that Buffett has a financial stake in the pipeline by way of his holding company's investment in Phillips 66. Phillips' link to the pipeline is already established elsewhere in the article.


 * As to the lack of relevance because Clinton did not win the election, this is not the point. Relevant to the section entitled Political Ties, I reiterate that I included it in the paragraph that cites Trump's indirect tie because it demonstrates the extent to which both major party candidates had received money and active campaigning from people with a financial stake in the pipeline. Any speculation as to what that means is the readers alone.


 * I am re-adding without the direct link you request because the paragraph is about campaign contributions, i.e. indirect links. If you want to remove it, you should likewise remove this: "Trump is also indirectly linked to the project because Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren contributed $103,000 to the Trump campaign. Trump has not taken a position on the project."


 * That would be a shame, however, because they both add context to the story of the project. 20:03, 3 December 2016‎ 92.225.87.210


 * If you say that the only indirect link (speculation) between the contribution and the project is not important, there is no other links between them whatever and therefore this information does not belong to this article. If you say that the Buffett stake in Phillips 66 and his contribution are link to the pipeline, please provide a source providing a direct link about this. This is synthesis and original research which does not belong in Wikipedia. As about the Warren contribution to Trump, I am also still not convinced this belongs in this article (please see the discussion above) but at least that link is better provided by more reliable sources. I hope you agree that Reuters is more notable source than CounterPunch! But if you think it does not belong here, you can go forward and remove it (but probably some other editors with different POV will complain about this). Beagel (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally see no problem citing to the author whatsoever: it's a good article stating the obvious (concerning Chuck Schumer).  The links the author gives to primary data on the stock ownership of Sunoco Logistics Partners LP (SXL) are quite nice.  Buffett's rising ownerniship (15%) in Phillips 66 (presumably to cover the loss when his Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation stops carrying oil) is pretty notable and widely reported as well.  Not sure I agree with you Beagel concerning the young Michael J. Sainato, he seems to be making quite a name for himself.  And the Buffett story is interesting without any politics...  in any case, I learned something from the article, so thanks for trying to add it, anon. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You think that Sainato is notable enough for inclusion his point of view? Really? If the issue is so obvious, certainly there is no problem to find some reliable sources (not CounterPunch! or any other radical/partizan/etc site) providing direct link between Buffett's investment and donations, and the project. This has been asked several times. If supported by that kind of sources, there is no problem for adding this information. However, right now the addition is a clear OR supported only by POV of author who "seems to be making quite a name for himself." Beagel (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)