Talk:Dakota Access Pipeline protests/Archive 1

What should be in this article and its sources
Should this article be the headquarters for all of this, with a teeny summary section and a main in Standing Rock Indian Reservation, Bakken pipeline, and ReZpect Our Water?

Should ReZpect Our Water be a section within this article and not exist as a standalone? Best wishes and thanks again. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned that some information is being left out or inaccurately reported. I can get to it a little later. The Sacred Stone Camp was started in April by LaDonna Brave Bull Allard. It's on her land. It wasn't started by the band.Indigenous girl (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

As I continue to read through the article I'm noticing that it's pretty much been destroyed with inaccurate information. Is it possible to lock it for clean up? The original ReZpect Our Water article was much more on point. Is this part of the UMASS project? If so why wasn't there a courtesy notice? Indigenous girl (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What this is now
As this is where the merge discussion took place, I decided to save this talk page even though it has only been in existence for 24 hours or so. The old talk page for this article is still archived at the redirect. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 22:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Where this article came from
This was originally just the sections about the protests at Standing Rock Indian Reservation and Bakken pipeline copy pasted here. That content remains at those articles but should be stripped away to deter expansion there. New info should land here. Content at those two articles plus content at ReZpect Our Water makes coverage of this notable subject shared by three articles, now four. There is plenty of unique and duplicate content at the those other three articles. Please help get this sorted out. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For now I think that the best thing to do would be to rename the ReZpect article to the name being used for this one, or whatever name we agree on. Gandydancer (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, see below. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal
As has spent much of the summer doing the research, sourcing and writing for this article and all the ones that use content from it, I am making the above proposal formal, that we: Rename ReZpect Our Water to Dakota Access Pipeline protests, and use the Rezpect article as the base for incorporating any new content (such as what has been added to the DAPp article over the last 22 hrs since its creation). The Rezpect article is more comprehensive, and that was the name most-sourced when the news coverage began. But now the Dakota Access name is thoroughly-sourced and has become more prominent. I think the actual ReZpect group can be a subsection in that article, and we can try to fit as much as possible in one place unless it needs to be moved out into its own main article for space reasons. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC) ETA See Beagel's summation below. That's the order in which we should do this. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 18:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as formalizer of proposal. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Indigenous girl (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First merge the current Dakota Access Pipeline protests article into ReZpect Our Water, then rename ReZpect Our Water into Dakota Access Pipeline protests. After that, summarize the merged article and replace the corresponding sections in the Bakken pipeline and Standing Rock Indian Reservation articles with that summary to avoid duplication and potential POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * YES - This is a clearer summation of the order in which this all needs to happen. Thank you. I wanted to get this in hand before any more damage was done and was proceeding before sufficiently caffeined. This is what I meant to say. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 18:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support ...first merge the current Dakota Access Pipeline protests article into ReZpect Our Water etc... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I had initially stayed out of editing these articles in case admin actions were needed. But looking now.... wow. There is a ton of misinformation that has been added recently. Gandydancer's original is very good and accurate. I'm going to go ahead and start gutting the inaccuracies in preparation for the merge. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Ack. , are you up to slashing and burning this thing? I just realized I don't have time right now, and you're most on top of this. This thing is riddled with inaccuracies. I would be fine on just blanking it and doing the page move, but I'd like you to look it over first and see if there's anything worth merging into ReZpect. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments

I commented below under Anna Frodesiak apology. This is not up to Wikipedia standards. The fact that the camp timeline and founding wasn't even right doesn't show due diligence. This needs fixing asap. I'm unable to slash and burn at the moment and slash and burn won't help if you look at the way the current article is structured. It would require a rewrite. Gandydancer already did the work. Can we just retitle and move pertinent info? With all of the disinformation out there Wikipedia doesn't need to be adding to it. Heck there wasn't even any mention of the issues surrounding Neil Young's lyric changes for crying out loud with the mention of the song he wrote. If your going to add content it needs to be unbiased. There were indigenous people who were exteremely offended by his use of squaw. He changed the lyrics.Indigenous girl (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes! Let's boldly zap this article at once then move ReZpect to this name. Then lets get the sources of this i.e. pipeline and reservation out of those articles and replace that content with a summary. Heck, a simple sentence and main would be better than wrong content, correct? Also, are there any other names for this movement? Do we need a bunch of redirects? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much to all! Perhaps the sooner the better to rename the "Rez" article?  Gandydancer (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you had to watch all your work damaged. Hope we've got it in hand now. I'm done for the day. Feel free to improve, and to slash and burn on the sections at the other pages that should have short summations with links here, rather than all the inaccuracies. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 22:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Celebrities
I'd like to request that, unless it's a major part of the actions, lawsuits and coverage, if people want to write about celebrities involved in this effort, that they go to those celebrities' articles and add a mention there, linking to this article for more information. That way, you fulfill that person's wish to signal-boost for this issue, and you bring more of that person's fans here to read this article, rather than risk making too much of this article about them. The involvement of famous people does bring attention, but they are not more important than the regular people who actually live there and who will have to live with the results of this. Thank you. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 20:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies again
I am sorry to have caused all this fuss. Again, it stems from my not inspecting the ResZpect article due to a nasty ISP issue. Had I viewed it, I never would have started the protest article. I saw the links to ResZpect but thought it must be some small organization. I had never seen it in the news despite never missing a DemocracyNow! ever, ever.

On the upside, this one-article-in-three-places thing is getting sorted out, and it needed to be. On the downside, and the only collateral damage (because the reservation and pipeline articles and ResZpect were never touched), are these discussions and the work dear BrillLyle put in copy editing this article. But I must bear the brunt. BrillLyle, I am in your debt and service. Please task me. I hereby owe you at least two hours of leg work. You want an article sourced, just say. Cleanup? I'm there. Emailing people for images? I'm on it. Again, my apologies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This article has been entirely white washed. Gandydancer wrote an article that was extremely well researched. What is here is inaccurate at best, at worst it removes pertinent individuals and actions from the movement and the timeline is spotty. At this point I'm for blanking the entire article. I can see no way to go in an fix it.Indigenous girl (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll take one more look, but at this point I'm not seeing anything worth saving. I'm going ahead and dealing with it. For the next... hour? I'm going to have both in edit-mode as I fix this. I'd ask someone who messed it up to, but it's clear this needs attention from one of us who knows the material. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 20:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ThanksCorbieVreccan.Indigenous girl (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see your message and responded to the when? tag with a ref. I'll leave the page alone.  ^^  SashiRolls (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * CorbieVreccan, am I the "someone who messed it up"? You do realize, of course, that all I did was copy paste the sections at Standing Rock Indian Reservation and Bakken pipeline to a single page. I didn't actually write any of the content. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, the info there was wrong. Thanks for the apology. Still editing. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 20:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the editing, CorbieVreccan. I know that's the valuable bit. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Anna Frodesiak In randomly cutting and pasting you left out some really important information that led the article to be inaccurate and neglected to search for anything established. I realize it wasn't your intent to create more work for others and I appreciate your apology however cutting and pasting without doing research created a huge messIndigenous girl (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You've got a good point there, Indigenous girl. I really do feel terrible about this. I've always been a stickler for conservation of community resources, and I know what I have done has cost a lot of time and keystrokes and sorting out. Again, I am sorry. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've known Anna for a long time and she's the best. I don't see how you can regret anything Anna considering how great the article has turned out to be.  I LOVE all the new input.  I LOVE the new lead.  It's an honor to work with such great editors and really makes me proud to be a Wikipedia editor.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, Gandydancer. I feel the same way about you. You are really wonderful. And I've been just wrecked about the whole thing and you made me feel a whole lot better. I was really on the verge of tears for a while back there. I'm so pleased that things turned out well. And special thanks to CorbieVreccan for coming to the rescue. I will certainly handle things differently in the future. Now, let's hope those page hits get up to where they deserve. Does anyone see it up top at google when entering Dakota Access Pipeline protests? Best wishes to all. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Anna, your mistake was perfectly human and I can imagine doing the same thing myself.  Also, keep in mind that those of us who are familiar with the movement should have rectified the situation some time ago and none of this would have happened.  Plus, you made it clear right from the start that your "bold" edit may have needed some more work.  You quickly saw your mistake and others quickly stepped in to fix the situation in a bold manner and I complement that (especially those who have publicly praised my work, and how often does that happen around this place? :) )  Gandydancer (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Gandydancer. Thank you so much for the kind words. Well, as what has come out of it is a nice article, a potential increase in page visits, and your fine writing being praised, then that is wonderful to me. I guess every cloud has a silver lining. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Quote
I think the most powerful quote from Ms. Allard is the interview where she talks about how quickly all the water on the reservation will be undrinkable. But I need to remember which interview that's in. The previous blockquote... without all the stuff contextualizing the prophecy, I think it's best we stick to archaeology and history rather than praying against the black snake. Without knowing the full story and symbolism, which I don't really want to try to explain on Wikipedia, it might be confusing to people and too metaphysical for the topic. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 01:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture section from pipeline article
I was in a rush to remove this from the pipeline article and moved it here for consideration and discussion. I'm going to go ahead and do a few things with it as time permits... Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Repeating what I said on the Bakken page, I think the best thing is to go to the bios of the celebrities and add a mention of their involvement there. That way their support is used to send their fans here, rather than crassly using the issue as a career boost. Which, I would hope, would be their preference if they're really in this. :) - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 01:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I've had a change to look through this and I can't see anything I'm interested in adding to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Protest in popular culture
In August and September 2016, protests have taken place in several parts of the country, including Salt Lake City, Portland, Seattle, Washington D.C., and demonstrations in Europe, Japan and New Zealand have taken place.

The Episcopal Church (United States) took a stance in support of the protests, after their presiding bishop Michael Curry (bishop) released a statement "It's my hope that the federal government, working with the various (tribal) nations who are affected by the pipeline, and working with the company involved, can come to a reasonable resolution, one that honors the need for energy but that does so in ways that protect the environment that God has given all of us and that respects sacred burial grounds of the native, indigenous people that live there." Bishop Curry visited Standing Rock September 24 – 25, 2016 for further support of the Native American tribal voices.

American celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Pharrell Williams, Jane O'Meara Sanders, Ben Affleck, Ray Fisher (actor), Gal Gadot, Jason Momoa, Ezra Miller, Susan Sarandon, Riley Keough, and Shailene Woodley have also voiced their opposition to the construction of the pipeline.

On September 13, The Daily Show aired a segment in which comedian Hasan Minhaj interviewed Native American protesters.

On September 15, the comedy podcast Politically Re-Active dealt with #DAPL by speaking with filmmaker Benalex Dupris.

On September 21, American actress Shailene Woodley was interviewed alongside Bernie Sanders on NBC's Late Night with Seth Meyers. After Meyers asked Woodley a question about the Millenial generation on the issue, Woodley responded that with today's internet and technology, young people are able to investigate for themselves, and hold any government/politician accountable. A few weeks after the interview, Woodley filmed a 2-hour live video of the protests at the pipeline. According to Woodley, the protestors were asked to vacate the site by officials, and her group abided. When Woodley returned to her RV, she was greeted by police, who immediately singled out and arrested her. Woodley said to her live audience "So everybody knows we were going to our vehicle, which they had all surrounded and waiting for me with giant guns and a giant truck behind them just so they could arrest me. I hope you're watching mainstream media.... it's because I'm well known. It's because I have 40,000 people watching." Woodley was released from jail on October 13, on charges of Criminal Tresspass. By then, her live video had reached 4.4 million views, and the attention of many other celebrities.

Multiple issues
Came here and noticed the line:

Tribal peoples are outraged that the Bakken pipeline bulldozers have already destroyed the graves of their ancestors and relatives, as well as irreplaceable, unique, historic, sacred sites. 

This is not cool for a number of reasons. Neither source actually reports the destruction as fact; they attribute it to Tribal officials and activists. Neither source is WP:RS and the second is a self-published YouTube video on a blog. The language is overly emotive ("irreplaceable, unique, historic, sacred") and the attribution ("Tribal peoples are outraged") is puffery.

I fixed this one particular line but there seem to be more problems in this article. Protestors are described largely in their own flowery, self-promoting language ("cultural preservation and spiritual resistance"); at one point a completely crazy legal rationale claiming that Indian activists are entitled to seize land under eminent domain according to their interpretation of treaty rights is presented without comment as if it might be plausible. There is an overly long blockquote from what is basically an impassioned speech by a protestor. There is no discussion at all of the economic value of oil extraction & pipelines and basically no discussion of pipeline safety other than references to oil spills and activists' fears. There is no comparison of the safety of pipelines with the safety of the railway tanker cars currently being used to transport oil.

Part of the problem may be that the slow MSM uptake on this story has made it more difficult to cover without relying on the activists themselves and sympathetic left-wing sources. Still, there should be at least local newspaper stuff, and ultimately if it's not in reliable sources it shouldn't be here. TiC (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a number of WP:Neutrality issues. It could be due in part to the sources.KD 14:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdowns1453 (talk • contribs)

Request for more images
I've written to rezpectourwater.com asking if they have images, and for the email to be passed on to those who are on site taking photos. Let's hope some come in. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Fort Laramie treaty
Our article says "Citing eminent domain,[22] the Native American protesters have declared that the land rightly belongs to them under the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851), which established the Great Sioux Reservation", which is cited to this source.

Wasn't it the 1868 Fort Laramie treaty that established the Great Sioux Reservation (that article appears to have that correct)? And it was that treaty which covered the land in question (Standing Rock). The 1851 Treaty covered mostly South Dakota and in particular the Black Hills.

I have no idea what the Indigenous Rising website/project is or whether this source is reliable. I see that this cites claims by the protesters so that part may be factual. It could also be the case that Standing Rock and the land around it, at the time of 1851 treaty wasn't in dispute so it wasn't the focus of the treaty. Still, the part about the Great Sioux Reservation being established by the 1851 treaty is incorrect and also not in the source. So at best there's a bit of synthesis going on here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no map?
A map of the region showing the proposed pipeline path would be helpful for those of us not familiar the area. Kevink707 (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

A bit confusing first sentence in lead
I think this part of the lead "...also known by hashtags such as NoDAPL" would read a bit better as "...commonly abbreviated as NoDAPL" or "...commonly abbreviated as NoDAPL in media coverage" --there may be readers that come across this article that don't know what a hashtag is. Thoughts? -Melodyschamble (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not sure...I see that "hashtag" is wikilinked. I'll see what others think... Gandydancer (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Summarizing this article for the protest section in the Bakken pipeline article
There is a proposal which concerns also this article. To keep the discussion in one place, please discuss it there. Beagel (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree = • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 17:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree Hmmm, no disagreements...perhaps I'll go ahead and do it?...  Gandydancer (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, I thought that was already the plan. To summarize this for the section there, as well as at the Standing Rock article. Though I'd prefer the summation at Standing Rock be done by someone from the WP:Indigenous team who can keep an eye out for cultural issues. I can't do it this week, but if no one gets to it by next week, I can do it later. Or someone can be bold and those of us who are busy can do cleanup, as long as you can excuse some potentially grumpy edit summaries. ;) - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 20:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Keystone XL comparison
If a comparison to the Keystone XL pipeline is going to remain, it needs to be accurate and backed up by the sources. The New Yorker reference currently provided has this to say about the comparison: "Their foe, most directly, is the federal government, in particular the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has approved a path for the pipeline across the Missouri under a “fast track” option called Permit 12. That’s one reason the Dakota Access Pipeline, as it’s known, hasn’t received the attention that, say, the Keystone XL Pipeline did, even though the pipe is about the same length." This does not support an assertion that the two pipelines have "almost identical" routes - in fact, Dakota Access is several hundred miles east of Keystone XL, avoiding the particularly environmentally sensitive routing through the Sand Hills of Nebraska. (Dakota Access doesn't even pass through Nebraska at all, so the differences are much more than "the addition of land in Iowa".)

As best I can tell, the only thing in common between the two pipelines is their purpose: to transport crude oil from the Bakken Formation to the rest of the US pipeline network. Secondary to this, there has been opposition to both pipelines from a climate change perspective, but in neither case was climate change the primary justification for opposition. Keystone XL passed through extensive environmentally-sensitive wetlands overlying the recharge area for the Ogalalla Aquifer, which posed a risk of catastrophic regional groundwater contamination in the event of a spill. Dakota Access instead passes through illegally-expropriated Sioux land and sensitive archaeological sites; a spill would threaten the portion of the Missouri River used as a drinking water supply for the Standing Rock Reservation.

I think the best way to address this is to simply avoid making comparisons to Keystone XL, as including one would seem to require inappropriate levels of synthesis. 121.98.124.75 (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have pulled the sentence from the article's opening lede paragraph, per your observation and reasoning. Good catch! Jus  da  fax   22:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? The comparison is apt and it is sourced. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 23:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. I read it carefully and didn't see the relationship between the New Yorker article and the statement. The IP above made an excellent case, I found. Jus  da  fax   02:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Page hits
Something to click once in a while:


 * |ReZpect_our_Water Page hits for Dakota Access Pipeline protests and ReZpect our Water. (Unclick the silly "Logarithmic scale" option.)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm pleased to say this all this fine writing is now getting more views. It just got 2,335 visits yesterday compared to 25 or so ReZpect our Water used to get. However, it does not appear at 1st position page one of a Google search like other Wikipedia articles. So, will that happen? How to make that happen? Will a bunch of redirects help? Considering the importance of this article, shouldn't it be getting more than 5,000 visits a day at some point and be 1st spot at Google? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nearly 7,000 hits yesterday. Yay! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * IMHO, our goal as Wikipedians is neither hits nor Google ratings. Our goal is to document for history what is being written and recorded about these protests and the movement that surrounds them. In my opinion the reliable coverage that is coming directly out of the protests as they play out should be the top Google results. This is a rapidly developing news event, the coverage of which has been badly hurt by systemic bias, both in mainstream media and at times, here on the 'pedia. Given the mainstream news blackout, and the tendency of the mainstream coverage to at times uncritically report misinformation that has been disproven by actual footage of events, it is even more appropriate for social media livestreams to get more attention than this WP article. Our role here is to continue to document and source this breaking news story, and try to provide a stable overview as well as a resource for those who want to research the topic in more depth. To keep posting about page hits and strategies for promotion is, in my opinion, inappropriate. We need to be here as editors, not advocates. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 20:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User:CorbieVreccan, referring to posting here about where this googles "inappropriate" is a stretch. There are a lot of grossly inappropriate thing in this world, and a lot of people on this planet to direct your disapproval to. Complaining about the above should be at the bottom of your list.


 * You talk of poor and biased media coverage while not caring if this balanced and comprehensive article gets visited? That doesn't make sense to me. Not one bit. If there is a choice of article name that gets more visitors, or a redirect to be made that does that, we care and do it. Documenting history that nobody reads has no value.


 * You say we need to be here as editors, not advocates. I am here as an editor too. But I, like all editors, care to see articles that shed light "seen" especially ones like this (which got 16,000 views yesterday, up from last week's 25 visits). You should too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Anna Frodesiak wrote, "while not caring if this balanced and comprehensive article gets visited" I am not sure where you found this straw man in my concerns about the ongoing issues of systemic bias on WP, specifically regarding anything that deals with Indigenous issues. I am also unclear where you got the idea that I don't care about this article, given what I've done to try to rescue and maintain it. I am not here to waste time debating with you. I am concerned that advocacy and promotion of articles one has worked on does not serve the project as a whole, and assuming WP is a better source than Indigenous ones does not serve Indigenous peoples. I am very concerned that you think WP users are always the best people to represent in every situation, no matter their level of experience, or lack thereof, in the field being written about. Again, I don't want a debate. I don't have time to go into this any further. I just wanted to go on record about this as you keep updating this section. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 00:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will not continue this thread to continue this time-wasting debate or for any other reason. Thank you and happy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Fail
This article is seriously unbalanced in its coverage. Currently there is almost no discussion of the "other side's" position in this dispute. I have attached a tag to reflect this problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ad Orientem, I certainly can understand your position, but we must find acceptable RS to add other POVs to the article. I have followed this incident quite closely and have attempted to add all POVs as they have been reported.  If you can find RS to show that the article is biased, please present any/all sources that you have been able to find.  In the meantime I have removed the tag.  Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove tags w/o consensus that the problem has been resolved. Irrespective of RS sourcing issues the article is grossly unbalanced and until that is corrected that tag needs to remain in place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I will leave it stand. Again, please provide some RS that we are ignoring.  Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am looking for some additional sources. Has anyone looked at the websites of the entities behind the pipeline? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gandydancer and reccomend that the NPOV tag be pulled. Those who feel the article is unbalanced should feel free to edit. Jus  da  fax   20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So you believe this article is balanced? That it fairly presents all sides in the dispute? Because if not then the tag needs to remain until that is corrected. While I am researching this as time permits, it is not encumbant on someone who notes a problem in an article to correct it, or we all get to just pretend the problem doesn't exist. And we don't use Wikipedia as a soap box or platform for posting thinly disguised op-ed pieces, which bluntly is what this looks like. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never seen this article before today, and am here via WP:ITN where I have edited many years. Full disclosure: I am in favor of making this article a featured part of ITN. I make no representations about what I believe about "balance" but I do strongly feel that one editor who claims bias, and tags an article, should be responsible to explain their tag fully when requested, especially on a hot-button topic. That said, how exactly is the article a "thinly disguised op-ed piece?" Where exactly is the unbalance found? Are statements untrue, or unsourced? Are the reference sources unreliable? Is there undue weight? If so, how, and where? A drive-by tag, followed by disclaimers that they are "researching as time permits" is unacceptable, in my view. Is there anyone else who would like a say in this matter? A true consensus is more than one editor saying an article "feels" like POV-pushing. You are making one of the most serious claims in Wikipedia. With all due respect, it is now on you to back up your accusations.  Jus  da  fax   21:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In its current condition this article substantially presents only one side of a dispute. It gives almost no weight to the promoters and backers of the pipeline. When you present only one side of a story or dispute, that is a form of de-facto editorializing. And yes that is an NPOV fail. Further I tagged it after a number of other editors at ITN made the same observations. As I understand your argument there appears to be no legitimate use of the POV tag as the editor affixing it needs to correct the deficiencies, obviating the need for the tag, and if not, then the tag should be removed because they didn't fix the problem. All of which said, I have found a number of sources that present a more balanced view or in some cases present the views of the pipeline/corporate interests..., , , ,.


 * Some of the above sources are primary or affiliated sources and need to be approached with some caution. However I believe they are reliable in so far as they are accurately presenting the opinions of whomever they represent. In that context they can be used just as sources affiliated with the protesters can be cited. One possible exception is #4 which I am concerned about not because I think they are making things up but because it is an obvious front for the pipeline interests and they are not aboveboard about that. But there are numerous links in that source that I have not had a chance to explore yet, some of which go to mainstream media outlets. There is actually quite a bit that is out there and I am somewhat surprised at the one sided nature of the article given the plethora of sources. Now however it is time for some supper and the World Series is on tonight (Go Cubs!). So I will return to this tomorrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks for your reply. In the meantime, I have removed the material objected to in the section just below, which clearly was erroneously sourced. And we certainly agree on our sports, though I fear that if the Cubs win Game 7, we will be visited by a Giant Meteor. Jus  da  fax   22:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that driveby NPOV tagging without substantial effort to improve is disruptive. As addressed below, and other sources are findable when I have more time, this is a return of KXL, with a lot of the identical concerns, threats and players. The comparison is important and apt and shouldn't be buried. I think KXL belongs in the lede as it's really a huge, if under-reported, part of why this fight is so intense and has involved so many quiet deals and broken laws. I don't know if the plan to break the laws and pay the fines later has been sufficiently documented in WP:RS sources, but it's a huge part of this story. Also, covering a protest movement will always seem "biased" to those who think protest movements shouldn't exist. This happens on every article about social movements that deal with civil rights or other contentious issues. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 00:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * NPOVN Discussion Notice I have opened a discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard concerning this article. Interested editors can find the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WP's Sioux page
Hello all. I've removed the most of the text from the Sioux page, under the Protest of the Dakota Access pipeline section, and replaced it with a link to this article. I also recycled some of the text and put it in this article. There's more that can be added to, just check out the Sioux article's diff page. Cheers Mannydantyla (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorting this out
So sorry to start it in this jumbled form with so much redundant content. I have no idea where to begin sorting this out. Please help.

Maybe a timeline would be a good way to handle things. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * is this part of the UMASS editathon?Indigenous girl (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, Indigenous girl. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. I'm sorry, Indigenous girl. My brain read that as "This is part of the UMASS editathon." Dear, oh dear. Maybe I'm getting to old for this. My apologies. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. No worries. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Winter Camp confrontation
This is a very sensitive situation and we need to be very careful about what we report and what sources we are using. I have replaced the information with the report done by a Seattle reporter on the PBS Newshour to avoid claims that the article is biased. That said, her report is excellent and IMO better than information about a horse that according to one report was shot dead right under the rider, according to another report needed to later be put down, and I'm sure that there are further reports that say no horses were injured... Gandydancer (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A drive-by comment: there's at least one phone video circulating of a fellow riding a horse with bleeding gashes, and the rider claims the horse was shot with rubber bullets. Given the location of the injuries (upper forearm) it's possible. But that said, I concur that sticking with solid sources like NPR is the best approach.   Montanabw (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly my hackles raised up when I read the list of editors that wrote this article off as a biased report of the movement; I can only guess that the incidents that have been happening are so outrageous that it is assumed that we are cherry picking and exaggerating the worst of them.  That is far from accurate, as I know because I've been following this closely right from the start.  Actually, if we included everything that might well belong in the article we'd mention the child and the horse that were bit by dogs in the first violent confrontation, for example, and there is plenty more.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. A lot of misinformation, on both sides. We must be careful. Also, Gandydancer, you removed this text that I added (and I'm not upset or trying to start an edit war or anything) - "Later the same day, a DAPL security guard from Knightsbridge Risk Management, armed with an assault rifle, was caught trying to infiltrate the protesters." - and you said that the source I cited did not back this up. You are correct! I used the wrong source by mistake. This is the source I meant to cite: http://lastrealindians.com/eyewitnesses-dispute-police-claims-of-shots-fired-by-water-protectors/


 * Should I add it back in with the correct source? Mannydantyla (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Mannydantyla, I'm sure that they have attempted to infiltrate the protesters as this is such a common tactic used to sway public opinion. Frankly there's an awful lot of stuff that I have found to be outrageous that I'd like to include but if every small incident goes into this article it begins to sound like an attack piece, and rightly so IMO.  BTW I note that the site you offer, Last Real Indians, should have a WP article.  We have one on its founder.  Also BTW, I noted some time back that his wife was arrested and strip searched, which I put in this article some weeks ago.


 * I wonder if that website would be an appropriate See Also addition?  Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * LRI is related to the American Indian Movement (basically it's second-gen AIMsters). I'd look at the AIM article and Chase Iron Eyes's article and consider spinning off from one of those if you want to write about it. Or maybe and just leave it as a section in Chase's article. A co-founder left last spring and I think it's mostly Chase running it now. Also people who've worked on the AIM articles (there's a template, too) would have a lot to contribute if the group is notable on it's own (which I'm not sure it is). I would not add the LRI website as a See Also or external link to the Pipeline Protests unless we also add about two dozen or more other orgs and sites that also have official presences at the actions. And that would be excessive. LRI actually is less involved in this that many other groups that are more sourceable in third party, RS sources. The LRI site is more of a blog, and I would not consider it WP:RS at this point in time. However, the DAPL worker, Kyle whats his name, with the gun and red bandana, they did find his DAPL ID on him. Democracy Now has footage of it. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Yes, I'd just put it as a section in Chase Iron Eyes for now. But add the names of co-founders as there are issues around the split and who is and isn't getting credit for their work. We want to make sure that is covered fairly if it is covered at all. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One thing to be super careful of, indeed, is to avoid laundry listing of groups and imbalance... I wonder if creating something like "List of organizations opposing DAPL" would be a useful idea?  Montanabw (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Police request for assistance section
As the movement grows and the article grows along with it, I feel that this section is no longer appropriate. I would have like to keep it without the heading or Facebook quote, but could not find a place to put it. Any ideas/thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Morton County Sheriff requested police from surrounding areas to assist in regulating the protests near the pipeline. The Dane County Sheriff's office of Wisconsin sent 10 deputies to aid the local police, but they were recalled a few days later due to opposition from the Dane County residents and county officials.

Dane County Supervisor John Hendrick posted an open letter to Sherrif Mahoney: "'We are disturbed that Dane County is contributing to this disproportionate law enforcement response, apparently justified by misrepresentations about the nature and actions of those gathered to express opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline... This deployment is the first time in anyone's memory that the County has entered into a dispute in another state many miles from Wisconsin. This is a troublesome precedent. We urge you to reverse this action immediately.'"


 * I think that (preferably without the long quote from FB) it could go in "movement support" near mention of the cities that have passed resolutions of support, no? It still seems notable to me.SashiRolls (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think its notable too. I'll try putting it where you suggest. Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Weirdly Edited Image
Why is the main image on the article so heavily edited, with sepia tones? Image comment has editorial content? Reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercster (talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's what was uploaded. No idea beyond that.   Montanabw (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree we should replace it as soon as a better one is available. It looks like someone tried to make a cellphone snapshot look like an Edward Curtis daguerreotype. A straightforward photo would be more NPOV. still getting some photo permissions or should I get on it? -  Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL, I am such a dope. I just love the photo...though I know it's not right...  Well, let's face it, it is VERY effective in an artistic way...  :)  Gandydancer (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, who's to say it's "not right"? (I'd like to keep it.) Gandydancer (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not right. Obvious POV.  Change image. Mercster (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the picture change. It was particularly disturbing. Making it look like a Curtis photo may have been pretty but we don't need to be past tensed any more than we already are. Lets try and keep the systemic bias out of the article please and not turn it into a wild west fantasy. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for changed image, much better now. Mercster (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. I just moved up the one of the lockdown. :) Still working on getting permissions for more. Some of the ones on flickr are not actually cc the people who posted them. People are making screen shots of videos, then claiming limited copyright. I'm not sure how we should handle the situation. If someone who's an admin on commons, or with more experience with image licensing could help with this, I'd appreciate it. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 23:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * About my removing the images, yes it sure was an accident. I don't have time right now to figure out what I did, but thanks for fixing it Corbie.  Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Amy Goodman's arrest
Would there be any disagreement about cutting this info by about half? Gandydancer (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the long quotes should probably be paraphrased. An interesting claim was made here that the switch from "trespass" to "riot" charges (in general, not just for Goodman) was made to increase bail receipts for Morton County. SashiRolls (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I support this as Word Press's word limit will soon be reached I believe, as it appears this conflict is not ending any time soon! However, I'll let someone else do this. Mannydantyla (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'd better quit cutting. Restore as needed!SashiRolls (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Gosh, not by me! (I'd have removed a tad more :))  Anyway, nice work.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Happy to help, I may remove a few more bytes later, because a bit more could go. I thought of you today seeing the picture of the day (FCAB railway crossing the Carcote salt flat, northern Chile) at the commons. I wonder if there is going to be an RS talking about pipelines (whether Keystone or Bakken) and the commons soon...    SashiRolls (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't this on the front page?
Just curious, but every day I notice the lack of anything related to NoDAPL in the "Ongoing:" blurb beneath the current events like the Cubs' WS win. This has been major news for months. The fact that most news outlets aren't running stories on it is confusing, but Wikipedia should definitely NOT follow their lead. There are more "ongoing" news events than Mosul. Honestly, WTF? Avalyn (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It may be procedural, have you made a blurb for WP:ITN yet Avalyn? ^^
 * and more generally, what would that blurb say? SashiRolls (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, it has been considered but seemingly has been judged as too biased to be a WP:ITN item. So then an editor delivered it to the NPOV Noticeboard but failed to actually do anything there, either.(See "NPOV Fail" above)  So, it just sits...  PREjudice?  Perhaps.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Maybe Tim Kaine's saying that the Obama administration is working hard on it / watching it very closely would be enough to convince folks that it's an important matter?  Cf.    It might be good to write a blurb as it seems last time (Oct. 31st) there was none and this was used as a reason to reject the proposal. SashiRolls (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to actually nominate this, I've had 3 or 4 ITN articles, and I can at least tweak it so it isn't a quick fail due to bad formatting, let me know; the example posted here will be kicked back just for bad formatting and a too-long blurb without proper linking. If the guidelines and unwritten rules are a problem, ping me and I'll come back and thak a hack at it.  Montanabw (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources that disagree
When two sources disagree, and both are "reliable enough", what do we do? Never ran into it before now. 24.21.141.46 (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As Wikipedians, and especially in an era of fake news sites, we have a duty to Identify Reliable Sources. In a political conflict, or a conflict with high stakes issues such as drinking water, territory, and multibillion dollar investments, there will be agendas expressed through sources that may in more "normal" situations be evaluated as equally credible, or equally WP:RS. However. I strongly advise Wikipedians to watch the raw footage livestreamed of the events that these sources are reporting on. While we cannot write our interpretations of this footage, I believe that being fully informed is necessary to evaluate the relative credibility of the sources that are reporting on what we are also witnessing.
 * I will say as someone who has watched the livestreams as events on Nov 20 were taking place, for example, that press releases initially issued by the Morton County Sheriff's Dept describing the use of the water cannons do not match what is clearly visible in the footage. Even though the Dept have now retracted or amended some of their statements, there are news outlets we usually regard as credible that appear to have simply run with those heavily biased, highly inaccurate press releases as their sole source, without sending any reporters to the scene, without seeking interviews with the injured, and without even viewing the abundant footage that is available online. We must take all of this into account when evaluating sources. We do not owe "equal weight" to fringe theories, propaganda, or retracted disinformation, no matter how high-profile the news outlet that repeated it. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 21:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Unclear interpretation
There are a couple of items that I find to be difficult interpretations of the cited text, or I find inconsistencies with the sources being used.

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a limited review of the route and issued a finding of no significant impact. They have not conducted an area-wide full environmental impact assessment.[5] “

This item is cited from the Seattle Times. The actual text of the article reads as follows: “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District issued a finding of no significant impact after a limited review that included no environmental-impact statement, a more comprehensive review the tribe and its advocates are insisting on.”

I read the Seattle Times article to mean that an environmental-impact statement was not included in their findings. It does not mean that they have not conducted an area-wide full environmental impact assessment. In fact, as USACE’s responsibility is to conduct environmental impact studies for watersheds that they are responsible for, I find it difficult to believe that an environmental survey wouldn’t be conducted. I do not know what an “area-wide full environmental impact assessment” would be, but my guess is that it is an assessment which is broader in scope then the environmental concerns of the waterways themselves. Which is what USACE is looking at.

Following this is the following statement: “In March and April 2016 the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation asked the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a formal Environmental Impact Assessment and issue an Environmental Impact Statement. In July, however, the Army Corps of Engineers approved the water crossing permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline under a "fast track" option, and construction of the disputed section of pipeline continued.”

The source for this statement is “Common Dreams”, which is an arguably liberal media source (as is evidence by their slogan “Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community). I do not see this as a legitimate news source for this content.

A reputable source would be the source document from the DoI or from the EPA that show the actual correspondence from these government agencies. The lettering from the EPA indicates that a draft environmental assessment was produced and submitted to the EPA, in keeping with the Nationwide Permit 12 requirements.

The way that the content of the letters is presented is misleading from the article that is currently referenced. I would argue that the explicit bias in the article is attempting to create a specific image of those individuals responsible for building the pipeline. This same tone (and the same information) is repeated throughout the wiki page.

The last citation in that paragraph (#75) goes to the wrong citation, I think. A better citation would be the USACE statement on their website.

In the Background section, there is another reference to citation #6, the “Common Dreams” site. This one reads: “Using the Nationwide Permit 12 process that treats the pipeline as a series of small construction sites, the pipeline was granted an exemption from the environmental review required by the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.[6] “

Except that isn’t what a Nationwide Permit does. According to the 2017 Nationwide Permits Federal Register Notice, the following is a requirement for the Nationwide Permit (NWP): “National Environmental Policy Act Compliance We have prepared a draft decision document for each proposed NWP. Each draft decision document contains an environmental assessment (EA). The EA includes the public interest review described in 33 CFR 320.4(b)”

The information about the NWP 12 is misleading, and does not accurately reflect the process that the engineers would have had to go through for their process. In truth, a lot of the information as it appears on the wiki page currently is misleading, and provides a slanted view of the topic. Zombi.Don (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I just read the EPA article you mentioned above and the EPA letter confirms the Common Dreams article: "We recommend that the Draft EA be revised to assess potential impacts to drinking water and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, as described in more detail below. Based on our improved understanding of the project setting, we also recommend addressing additional concerns regarding environmental justice and emergency response actions to spills/leaks. Based on the importance of these concerns and the new information that would supplement the December 2015 Draft EA, we recommend the USACE prepare a revised Draft EA and provide a second public comment period."  So I'm confused as to why you are saying that an article is unreliable for a claim that you show to be correct by providing the EPA (& DOI) primary sources which show the secondary source (CD) was correct?  SashiRolls (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wondered as well. Sashi, I note that the CD piece is from Bill Moyers, certainly a very well-respected journalist, but certainly a progressive as well.  Do you think that we should attempt to improve on that ref?  Also, what would you think about including those primary sources in a See also section?  Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Opps, I meant to say "External links" section. They should be in the pipeline article as well and, reading that article just now, we really should include more info on this topic in that article, IMO.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think we should perhaps also include this document with the curious title page (which differs in name from the actual document omitting the part about the waiver or Reduction of Procedures and Time Schedules...):


 * There's a lot of confusion in the above criticism. An "environmental assessment" is not the same thing as an "environmental impact statement." Compare definitions under 40 CFR 1508. . An environmental assessment report (EA) is a comparatively brief document, usually used to justify not preparing a full environmental impact statement because the proposed action will not have any significant environmental impact. But a full environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared when the proposal may have significant environmental impacts. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C). Because they are far simpler documents to prepare, agencies often try to get by with just an EA, arguing that the particular EA is the functional equivalent of an EIS. But the courts have generally rejected such arguments. E.g., Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1984) ("When an EA is the functional equivalent of an EIS, it is subject to the same procedures"). Marbux (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What USACE did to get around doing a full assessment was to chop the area up into small sections that don't require a "full" assessment. This shouldn't surprise anyone who have followed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies through the years.  With the other gov't agencies certainly now between a rock and a hard place in the decision, it is very interesting to watch how this plays out.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed construction?
The first sentence of this article says: The Dakota Access Pipeline protests, also known by hashtags such as #NoDAPL, are a grassroots movement that began in the spring of 2016 in reaction to the proposed construction of Energy Transfer Partners' Dakota Access Pipeline. It seems strange as for that time most of the pipeline was already built. If the construction has started, it is not 'proposed' any more. Or if it means that the protests started as a reaction to the proposed route in the certain area where construction had not started for that time, this sentence should be specified accordingly. Beagel (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From the Dakota Access Pipeline page, I learned that DAPL only filed in December 2015 for 23 condemnations against 140 holdouts.  A January 1, 2016 article in the Bismarck Tribune contains the words:  "Energy Transfer Partners plans to build the 1,200-mile pipeline starting in Stanley through North Dakota, continuing through South Dakota and Iowa and terminating in Illinois." which would suggest that not that much was likely done before spring of 2016?   SashiRolls (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton & Trump
I removed discussion of Trump's ownership of stock / Warren's beliefs as to what a Trump presidency would lead to happen for the pipeline, because I don't think this is pertinent (here). There's nothing about "protest" in it. The protests at Clinton headquarters in the Bronx in late October might have been more pertinent for a while, but nobody has added that back for the historical record yet. SashiRolls (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)