Talk:Dakota Access Pipeline protests/Archive 2

Neutrality of Article
I am probably opening a can of worms, but is there a reason this article fails present opposing viewpoints regarding the protests. There are a number of points that need to be addressed. Here are the ones that I see.

=== Ones I have been able to verify. ===

The water Intake that is currently under dispute (in Fort Yates ND) is scheduled to close at the end of the year.
Doing only a little research, I was able to trace this back to 2004. In 2002, there was a drought in North Dakota caused Missouri River to drop enough that the water intake at Fort Yates ran dry. This lead to a hearing before the committee on Indian affairs. And the eventual decision to close the intake and supply Fort Yates from Moobridge where the intake is much deeper. The next intakes are located 70 miles downstream in Mobridge, SD and Pierre, SD. This has been noted by several blogs and groups fighting for the pipeline.
 * This is a primary source and some blogs--none are usable. Look for well-known news sources that discuss this information.Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The article cites several examples of police militarization, but fails to note instances of vandalism by the protestors
The protesters have set fire to multiple vehicles, possibly damaging the backwater bridge. They have also blocked officials trying to inspect the bridge on multiple occasions. It is closed indefinately.

Protesters have vandalized multiple buildings including dumping oil on the state capitol.

Protesters have stolen livestock and hay from local ranchers.


 * These sources are usable. Gandydancer (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Unverified Statements
I have been unable to verify these statements, but there are several organizations supporting the pipeline. That have made the following statements in support of the pipeline.
 * The pipeline is on private property
 * Apart from the small section of federal land under and directly adjacent to Lake Oahe, of course. -- 120.18.9.150 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Near the protest site, the land is actually owned by the pipeline company itself, and North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has recently ruled their purchase of that land legal. -- 120.17.63.11 (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The pipeline runs along an existing easement of the Northern Barrier Pipeline, and High Transmission Utility Lines along the length of the disputed areas . If true, these areas have been excavated multiple times, and are unlikely to contain anything of cultural significance.
 * This would be supported by maps in the ACE report. -- 120.18.9.150 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The Army Core of Engineers consulted Native American Tribes hundreds of times regarding the pipeline route, including 7 attempts with the Standing Rock Sioux who refused to participate in the planning process
 * This would be supported by the ACE report and by the September 9, 2016 finding by Judge James E. Boasberg in Civil Action No. 16-1534 (JEB). -- 120.18.9.150 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Protester have threatened or attacked construction workers on the project.
 * The majority of the protesters who have been arrested are from out of state, and associated with outside groups.

In order to meet Wikipedia standards, some of these points need to be addressed. The protesters viewpoint on these points should also be presented. While some of these sources are biased in support of the pipeline, their viewpoint does need to be expressed, and verified or refuted as appropriate.

TwistedWeasel (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * will look through these more as time permits, but it should be noted that only link 6 can be used concerning protestors setting fire to cars (link 5 does not mention the fires or the bridge in this context (no mention of "fire" or "cars", and the one occurrence of the word bridge does not go into any detail), and 7 does not mention who set the fires or protestors blocking anyone from verifying the structural integrity of the bridge. To the contrary it suggests that the protesters have tried to remove the burnt-out cars which the DOT has decided not to do, because of their perception that the protestors would oppose them. Ref 6 does seem to be an ok link though for the protestors setting the fires.
 * similarly, there is no definite link to #NoDaPL protesters mentioned in the source cited concerning the oil splattered on the ground / wall at the state capitol. A better source would need to be found to make such a direct claim.  (Did some group claim responsibility?  Nobody was arrested for it, as far as I can tell from the article... maybe there's a better source?) Also, no mention of "multiple buildings" is made in the article (source 8 above) SashiRolls (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This editor has obviously put a great deal of time into this but apparently does not understand the strict sourcing that Wikipedia requires. Blogs are not acceptable, including the MAIN blog which was discussed at the WP help for sourcing a few days ago.  This editor needs to pare this list down to sources that we may use, IMO.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and there are also possible issues with OR and synth. OP, please take a look at WP:V and WP:OR. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that old primary source re the water intake site would seem good to a newbie. But it certainly is not acceptable.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * (Not the OP) This would seem to be a more appropriate source regarding the first point, the replacement of the water intake: 121.98.124.75 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the feedback. I do very little editing on Wikipedia, and knew that I don't have enough background to make these edits meet wikipedia guidelines. This is why I put them on the talk page as opposed to doing a major edit on the main page. However, I did want to get the conversation started on the need for wikipedia to present opposing viewpoints on this subject.


 * It is interesting living in Bismarck, because I get to see how this is presented from both a local and national media standpoint. The way this is portrayed from local media outlets (like the Bismarck Tribune) is completely different than national media outlets. Local media outlets have been much more critical of the protestors, much more concerned with the safety of the officers and people involved. This is part of why I looked up the article on wikipedia, because it usually does a good job of presenting a very neutral and fact based viewpoint on a subject. However, none of the counter arguments were even presented, much less confirmed or refuted on this page, or the DAPL main page.


 * If it helps some of these points come from local articles that I read months ago, but was unable to find when I was writing this post. I should have tracked them better, but at the time I wasn't planning on editing a wikipedia article.


 * I would also appreciate some guidance on sources like the main blog. I knew that a blog doesn't meet Wikipedia sourcing guidelines as a factual reference. My thought with providing these sources was that the viewpoints should be included, and the blog sourced. However, they should be encapsulated with statements like "advocates for the DAPL pipeline state that they attempted to consult with the Standing Rock Sioux on multiple occasions. However, this was (refuted, unable to be verified, etc.)" This raises the point, but also shows a lack of verifiability. I was getting this from the Neutral Point of View page on wikipedia. However, it was in the section on Religion and beliefs, so it may not apply. WP:RNPOV


 * I would appreciate any help to get some of these some of these viewpoints on the main page.
 * TwistedWeasel (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think the article is less than clear that the pipeline is on private property. It's true that blogs can be used as a source for statements by their authors, as opposed to statements of fact, as long as they are attributed. I would caution you to avoid WP:SYNTH. To get your points across I suggest you break this into small pieces, add them one at a time to the article with proper sourcing, and discuss here if you get reverted. Dropping a big chunk into the talk page all at once is less effective, as most of us don't have the time to wade through it all. Small chunks is better. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The longest quote in the article, and it is blocked as well, is from the pipeline company CEO and he clearly states that the pipeline is on private property. I will add that while Kendall states that blogs can be used, as a matter of fact that is generally not true.  Blogs from well-known journalists writing in large news sources are often acceptable when attributed to the writer.  TwistedWeasel, good for you that you are trying to do some editing, but it can take awhile to learn just what is acceptable to use as a source and what is not.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As a relative newbie, I am ready to stand corrected regarding items like the court documents filed by Dakota Access Pipeline, LLC and the US Army Corps of Engineers (that are linked to at the mwalliancenow blog) and the ACE report above. These are primary sources, which are good only for establishing  what a person / entity actually said (and moreover, according to policy, can only be cited for those claims which can be immediately verified by a non-specialist reader, which is not really the case for these documents (I've scanned the relevant portions of the first two carefully but the the ACE report is 1261 pages, a page number would be helpful...), and would have to say that I don't see an easily verifiable claim being made anywhere.  The Reuters article cited above seems to only support saying that Julie Fedorchak, ("head of North Dakota's Public Service Commission, which gave state approval to the pipeline") argues the move "reduces" the risk, whereas Archambault says it does not eliminate it (and suggests that the issue is larger than contamination of the water supply).  The EPA does not "speculate on how a leak could affect the new water system. 'Circumstances related to oil releases can vary significantly,' said EPA spokesman Richard Mylott."  Perhaps appropriate for the DAPL page, but not really here...  still, by all means, add that over there, the two pages should be complementary.  I don't want to go into all the annoying (and reductive) arguments about POV forks but there are good reasons, it seems to me, that these two pages exist, lets make them work together to paint an accurate picture...  SashiRolls (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a complete newbie to Wikipedia editing. I saw that someone was trying to make the article more neutral and searching for sources. The opinion of the judge that denied the injunction backs up a lot the unverified statements. It also shows severe weakness in the behavior of the tribe. I don't know if the judge's opinion and rulings can be used as sources. The injunction is here: http://mwalliancenow.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Document-39.pdf
 * Here are some quotes from it:
 * "Although the Tribe’s legal theory is not entirely clear, the Court believes" -> The tribe's legal arguments were so unclear that the judge had to guess.
 * "Plaintiff’s last point on the merits is that the Corps failed to offer it a reasonable opportunity to participate in the Section 106 process as to the narrow scope of the construction activity that the Corps did consider to be an effect of the permitted waterway activities. The factual proceedings recited in exhaustive detail in Section I.D., supra, tell a different story. The Corps has documented dozens of attempts to engage Standing Rock in consultations to identify historical resources at Lake Oahe and other PCN crossings. To the reader’s relief, the Court need not repeat them here. Suffice it to say that the Tribe largely refused to engage in consultations." -> The tribe claims that they weren't consulted to ensure that cultural artifacts weren't destroyed. Yet, it was the tribe who thwarted rather exhaustive efforts by pipeline company to consult them.
 * There are some pretty amazing quotes for how hard the tribe avoided being consulted:
 * "On the same day, the Tribe also canceled a meeting scheduled for November with Colonel Henderson, promising to meet with him instead “in a few months.” "
 * "But when the Corps timely arrived for the meeting, Tribal Chairman David Archambault told them that the conclave had started earlier than planned and had already ended."
 * "When the new meeting was finally held at the reservation on November 6, though, DAPL was taken off the agenda"
 * The judge's document is full of facts like that. This doesn't include the number of times that the tribe didn't respond to communication at all. There are numerous quotes how other tribes were happy about participating in cultural surveys.
 * The judge's document also lists instances when the tribe communicated, their concerns were addressed: "Through these conversations, Henderson committed the Corps to imposing several additional conditions on DAPL, such as double-walled piping, in response to tribal concerns about environmental safety." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.216.170 (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Candidate for "In the news" on WP main page
Yesterday I submitted this article as a candidate to be included in the "In the news" section on the main page, within the "Ongoing" list. It was opposed and denied. In_the_news/Candidates Additionally, an editor had this to say: "The article fails NPOV [Neutral Point Of View? I assume...]. When I attempted to raise concerns about the one sided nature of the article I was accused of disruptive editing and drive by tagging. Another editor noted that 'covering a protest movement will always seem "biased" to those who think protest movements shouldn't exist.' Anyways I took the hint and moved on (for which I was also abused). All of which said, this article has no business being anywhere on or near the main page in its current condition." Does anybody else agree with me that this is just another example of institutionalized bullshit in wikipedia? It just amazes me how uptight most of the editors are. Mannydantyla (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Made the quote greener for you. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh my, how have I missed all this just awful abuse of editors that disagree with the bias that they find in this article and being chased off the article after they "got the hint".  Please, saying "I don't agree" and "please provide reliable sources" is not abuse.  And it's not a hint to leave.  It is helping to construct a good article based on reliable sources. If anyone feels the article needs improvement, by all means improve it.  But please don't go sulking off and complain that you were not treated fairly. Gandydancer (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with you, however given that the request wasn't well formed (how do you protest a timeline? ^^), I'm afraid we can only note the false claims that those who opposed the ITN nomination made:  was simply factually wrong in saying that nothing notable has been added in the last week (and I don't know what he was referring to concerning FB, I don't see anything sourced to FB?), and , the avowed "reactionary" seems to have an axe to grind.  That said, I will reiterate that I think the two articles should be nominated together, and that care should be taken in crafting -- and defending -- the proposal.  Could work on it this weekend, if someone else wants to pitch in.  SashiRolls (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the version I reviewed before claiming me to be "simply factually wrong". The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Concerning FB, you're right, that stayed there for 24 hours, which is why I hadn't noticed it. However there were already citations from ABC, NBC, PBS and Democracy Now! after the 14th November on that version of the page.  It's OK, I can understand that you may not have looked into it that carefully, but "nothing before that appears to be reliably sourced post 14 November beyond conjecture." was indeed factually wrong, unless you mean "physically in front of it in the lead"... (I assumed you read the whole article though.) If you have suggestions for futher improvement, don't hesitate... SashiRolls (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not fair to our readers or to the ones that have put a lot of time into this article to tag it and then not follow through with help to correct the problems that the tagger may see. So, I'm removing the tag. If it is again tagged I would expect that the editor is ready to spend the time needed to adjust the article to their expectations. Experienced editors know how time-consuming editing is and it's discouraging to see our work criticized when that person is not willing to spend the needed time on the article. Gandydancer (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

[4] citation does not support sentence it follows
In the following passage from the introductory paragraph:

''In April, LaDonna Brave Bull Allard, a Standing Rock Sioux elder, established a camp as a center for cultural preservation and spiritual resistance to the pipeline. Over the summer the camp grew to thousands of people.[4] ''

The citation [4] does not appear to support the second sentence, "Over the summer the camp grew to thousands of people." I propose moving the citation to the end of the first sentence and adding a [citation needed] tag where the current [4] is.

This is my first attempt ever at contributing to Wikipedia so please forgive me if I'm doing it wrong ;)

2601:704:1:A762:6D58:4E6:E6E1:4CA2 (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You must not be doing it wrong, because someone (I think it might have been me) fixed this shortly after you posted. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Pipeline No Longer Going Over Water Source
A few news stories are coming out that the pipeline will no longer be allowed over the water source that was sought to be protected. Should we include this in the article? And where? New section, "Success of Protest"

Sources: http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/04/army-corps-denies-easement-and-blocks-the-dakota-access-pipeline/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/dakota-access-pipeline-decisionRedDarling (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems potentially a pivotal development that ought to be emphasized – and moved up to the lead-in – as apparently the federal government has decided in favor of the tribe. Probably worth ITN. Sca (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Citation Issues
Below is the sentence the citations follow. Citations [47] and [48] (shown as 1 and 2 in the below quote), do not belong in this section, but the section following it. Both are in the Security firm use of dogs and pepper spray against protestors section.

Energy Transfer bulldozers cut a two-mile (3200 m) long, 150-foot (45 m) wide path through the contested area.

In addition, those same sources the reporters in the video on reference [47] shows the reporters egging on the workers and making claims that were not supported by the evidence provided in that video. Source [48] is a site that only provides the viewpoint of the indians. Both sources are questionable at best, and entirely unreliable at worst.

(Digimaster002 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Misleading Information
In the following paragraph from the text (in the Security firm use of dogs and pepper spray against protestors section), the information provided shows that the dogs referred to in the paragraph had "blood on their muzzles"; however, looking at the provided evidence and the sources form the Citation [47] video show blood, not on its muzzle, but on its nose. The blood could not be in that location if it was due to an actual attack from the dogs, but it implies that the dogs were assaulted by protesters prior to any attacks from the dogs.

In addition, there is no evidence that the protesters were 'unarmed'. In fact, looking closely at the video in citation [47], some protesters were infact armed.

I would also like to bring forth another misleading part about this article. This article lacks any information that tells the side of other opposing the protests.

Full text of misleading paragraph below:

When unarmed protesters crossed the perimeter fence to stop the bulldozers, the guards used pepper spray and guard dogs to attack. At least six protesters were treated for dog bites, and an estimated 30 were pepper-sprayed before the guards and their dogs left the scene in trucks. A woman that had taken part in the incident stated, "The cops watched the whole thing from up on the hills. It felt like they were trying to provoke us into being violent when we’re peaceful."[48] The incident was filmed by Amy Goodman and a crew from Democracy Now![47][49] Footage shows several people with dog bites and a dog with blood on its muzzle.[48][50][51]

(Digimaster002 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Lead section
The introduction to the protests is too long and would lose a reader's attention. It should skim down to a fair amount of paragraphs, like four or three. The protests started this year, so I would recommend one or two paragraphs. --George Ho (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead is way too long. I took a stab at cutting it back. I expect I'll get reverted but we can use this as a starting point for discussion. If it does stand, the refs will need to be rescued. They should be moved out of the lead anyway. Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: I appreciate the removal of the tag "lead too long". However, despite the article's size length, the lead may contain less important events, especially since the protests have occurred for seven months, not even 60 years like the Cold War or other major events. Summarizing less important events would imply heavy emphasis and potentially not interest readers more. Events less important belong in the body article; events most important can be summarize in the introduction. If only most important key events can be summarized per MOS:LEAD, the section might contain one or two paragraphs. The second paragraph has too much information and can be either skimmed down or removed. The third and fourth paragraphs can be merged and then skimmed into emphasizing whatever is most important to the topic. George Ho (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the reaction of the Obama administration to the protests should not have been deleted from the lead. SashiRolls (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise the media blackout during the US Presidential election (prior to and after the viral DN! video) seems to be / have been a defining element of the topic).  SashiRolls (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I left out Obama because he hasn't actually done anything yet as far as I can tell.
 * Actually, I was referring more to the administration and the joint statement from the dept. of justice, the army, and the interior mentioned in the article . In fact this statement wasn't in the lead, but probably should have been.    SashiRolls (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything about a media blackout in the article. Can you point me to it? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, the title talks about the story being buried under Clinton/Trump coverage, and does not use the word blackout. The word blackout has been used in an op-ed by Nick Bernabe ("Why There’s a Media Blackout on the Native American Oil Pipeline Blockade" )writing in the Anti-media, whereas the reference you deleted, like NPR, only mentioned a lack of media coverage in three paragraphs.  I suppose a lack of coverage is always difficult to document in Wikipedia, of course, since it's hard to prove a negative and so sources will remain op-eds. ^^  SashiRolls (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for sources, I'm asking where that material lives in the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article. If it's not in the article, we can't summarize it. If you want to put that material back in to the article (not in the lead), we can look at it and decide whether a summary also belongs in the lead. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I misunderstood. I'll put that into the body and don't think it needs to be in the lead.  The joint statement on the other hand was a very important development, because it is what looks likely to lead to the contracts expiring on Warren.  SashiRolls (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a few things out of the lead, however I added the recent development, the statement extending the time for a final decision. At this point I really can't see how anything else could go and still present a good picture of the protest.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I notice the "POV section" tag placed above the lead section. I changed the tag to "POV lead" because balancing the lead is possibly your goal. I applaud lowering the intro to just three paragraphs. However, if the protest reaches April 2017, the lead would need changes. Of course, no one would rather wait that long and then try to neutralize the lead for general readers. That would result in two or three (same) paragraphs. George Ho (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * George, do you see any way to satisfy what some see as a need to balance the lead? At this point the federal gov't seems to be feeling that they are walking a very fine line and feel, or at least want to appear to feel, that the tribe's position should rightfully be considered.  So, they (IMO) trump everyone else and are used extensively in the lead.  But then you have the local gov't which have strongly opposed the protests--but nothing in the lead.  And then the company itself, which of course opposes the protests, but again nothing in the lead.  On the other hand you (and I assume others) express concerns re the length of the lead.  Your thoughts?  Gandydancer (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I realize that TwistedWeasel added the "POV section" tag and then was addressing article issues at below section. George Ho (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The tag was changed to just "POV", meaning the whole article. Well, if someone here thinks the lead must be skimmed down further and/or balanced, feel free to comment and/or be bold. Otherwise, the work is done for now. George Ho (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Peteforsyth and Jhydegray, can you explain the addition of more paragraphs in the introduction? Now the introduction has gotten longer than it was before. Shall we trim the introduction down to just one or two paragraphs, so others may add more in the lead future? George Ho (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * IMO the lead does need to be trimmed back. I was surprised to see the recent addition that was added without citation considering that it was not first put in the body.  I have been away from Wikipedia for a few days but hope to work on this article again soon.  IMO it needs some work...  Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's very much a work in progress! My reading of relevant news coverage strongly suggests the events around Thanksgiving and the decision by the Army Corps have been treated as substantial events, and should be included in the lead in some form. As is often the case with stories about evolving topics, I think a lot of the detail previously included in the lead section is now extraneous, and should be trimmed. I'd focus on trimming the first four paragraphs, especially the direct quote, which is more appropriate for the body. Also, I think there's more detail and some editorializing in the paragraph on Thanksgiving Day.
 * I'd be happy to take a crack at it myself, or leave it to others. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to address some of these issues -- I don't think I did anything too controversial -- but further work on tightening up and updating the lead would be helpful. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Opps... Well, as I said time has been short...I tried to do a quick fix last night but got an "error" signal when I did a preview and I just gave up.  Now I see that my edit did work after all when I check the article today.  At any rate, I do agree with the removal of the stuff that Peter deleted.  It's hard when it was obviously heartfelt, etc., but it did have to go.  As for the stuff I removed, it could go in the body somewhere.  I plan to do a little work with the article now that I have a little time.  I will need to do some reading to catch up.  Best editing to all!  Gandydancer (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what kind of error it was but if it is related to references, you can ping me for help. If I am around and have a little time, I can try to help fixing it. Beagel (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm worried that more paragraphs will be added in the lead. Why not trim the intro down to one or two paragraphs? George Ho (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I for one would be very unhappy to see this cut back to one or two paragraphs. You say "why not", I say "why", because to be worried about the future length is not a good reason, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs) 06:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that the latest edits by and  have improved the lead significantly. As per WP:LEAD, the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic and I am sure if that could be done by one or two paragraphs. At the same time, I am against adding any new information in the lead, particularly information not included in the body text. The lead should summarize the article and not to introduce any information which is not included elsewhere in the article. Of course, nothing I said is against further improving the lead, if necessary.  Beagel (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Its seems that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not about the protests but about the opposition to the pipeline more broadly. As such, this information in this section, including the Army Corps of Engineers delays decision subsections, suits better in Dakota Access Pipeline History and Tribal opposition sections. Same applies to the United Nations presentation section here which, again, suits better in the Tribal opposition section of the Dakota Access Pipeline article. These topics are are overlapping and therefore may create a potential POVFORK. Of course, here we need probably a section called Results or something like this to mention that Army Corps of Engineers delaid decision because of protests.

One option may be also to rename this article as Dakota Access Pipeline opposition to satisfy its broader scope than protests only. Beagel (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a good idea to me. I'm surprised that there has been no comment...  Gandydancer (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry Beagel I saw this and got busy with other stuff but I'm not sure I understand completely. Yes absolutely, our history section over there is overweighted to Iowa.  It would be a good idea to include some of this material there (and perhaps prune here if necessary), maybe it's the structure here that would be good as subpoints in history over there?  I'm not sure what exactly you're proposing to delete here though, if anything?  Will look at it in the next few days if nobody else does first and will read any more specific ideas.  But I'm overbooked at the moment, sorry, can't dig in.  SashiRolls (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , Thank you for your feedback. My proposal is that if this article here stays by its current name (and I think it is probably better to keep the current name instead of renaming it for more broader coverage), the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers section and the United Nations presentation section should be moved into Dakota Access Pipeline and merged there, partly in the History section and partly in the Tribal opposition section. In that case, the delay of decision by Army Corps of Engineers should be still shortly mentioned here in the Reactions section or somewhere else in this article as by my understanding they made this decision only because of the protests. Beagel (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would not agree to moving that information. IMO it's important to show that the gov't agencies that are involved have come out with some pretty strong support for the tribe.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh oh, I just added it over there. Is that a problem?  I see no need to delete anything here.  Is duplication a mistake, is copyright due to one article or the other?  Is redundancy an MOS violation? The history section still needs work over at DAPL I think.SashiRolls (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Entry slanted towards one side
I find the entry to be generally slanted and biased towards one side of the issue. Hardly, if any, counter-arguments or responses are given by the company building the pipeline or its supporters. The entry makes it appear as only one side has tended to resort to strong-arm tactics, while ignoring or seeming to lessen issues on the protesters' side (e. g., damaging/vandalizing equipment).Mwidunn (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)mwidunn
 * Indeed, I found the omission of the numerous arson fires used to damage the pipeline (ecoterrorism) mentioned in the main Dakota Access Pipeline article to be suspiciously indicative of bias. CitationKneaded (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide RS. Gandydancer (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017 Updates
There are a lot of new protests, actions and divestments happening in 2017 (some of them a response to the executive orders that were placed from Trump) that aren't on this page yet. One of the biggest divestments that has happened is Seattle divesting $3 billion dollars from Wells Fargo because of their investments in DAPL. http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/02/07/24855420/seattle-votes-to-divest-3-billion-from-wells-fargo-because-of-the-banks-dakota-access-pipeline-financing Amaninashofry (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Amanina, 2.21.17

New Executive Orders
Should we add new content that discusses the impact of President Trump's executive order that moves the Keystone XL andDakota Access Pipeline forward? H McCringleberry (talk)


 * Yes, I thin so. It seems to be (not unexpectedly) a whole new ball game now.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (LOL, not only do I "thin" so, I "think" so as well... :) )  Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't an executive order, but a presidential memorandum: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/24/presidential-memorandum-regarding-construction-dakota-access-pipeline Barbant (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

3 Brand New IP editors come in with knowledge of templates
I just made this restoration:. Three different IP editors who had never been on Wikipedia before came in with knowledge of templates and changed the protest into a "civil conflict", like it was battle. I do not support that characterization. They did not come here to discuss before reverting back. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculously one-sided to the point of satire.
HerbertMMarx (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Litter left by protestors
I added this to the article:

In February 2017, when protestors departed, they left behind enough litter to fill an estimated 250 garbage trucks.

Someone removed it and commented "And?"

Commenting "And?" is not a justification for removing notable, reliably sourced content.

The reason this is notable is because the protestors' entire stated justification for the protest is to protect the environment of the area in question. Therefore. leaving enough litter to fill 250 garbage trucks at the very environment that they claim to be protecting is notable.

71.182.243.118 (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There are lots of things wrong with that sentence. First,the protesters did not 'depart' in 'February 2017'. Second, the material - described as garbage and trash in the cited sources - was not 'litter'. Most of it - tents, sleeping bags, clothes, etc - were probably meant as donations made to the camp. The fact that they got buried in snow and ice was unforeseen by many of the visitors who were unfamiliar with the area and it's weather. Third, the estimate of 250 trucks is not a 'fact' but attributed in the second ref to one person who made a comment. Wikipedia, if it quotes this person, should similarly attribute it. Finally, there is much more to this trash story than is reported by these two very biased sources. Residents at the camps have been aware of this problem for months, and their viewpoints should be covered too. --Nigelj (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The fact that most of the litter consisted of "tents, sleeping bags, clothes, etc" that were "donated to the camp" is irrelevant. It's still litter.


 * I said the figure of 250 garbage trucks is an "estimation." It comes form a professional who hauls garbage for a living. 71.182.241.222 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 71.182.241.222 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I just added these other three sources - two affiliates of ABC, and the national Fox News:

71.182.241.222 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is some additional information on how and why the litter was left: http://thedailyhaze.com/morton-county-dumping-trash-standing-rock/ and  http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/10/standing-rock-trash/.  It should probably be included if mention of litter stays. ABF99 (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that if the news reporting on the garbage is included, then so should the above two mentioned by . --David Tornheim (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This should not be covered only in the lead of the article. Once proper balanced coverage had been written for the body of the article, it may be considered important enough to be summarised in the lead section. At the moment the lead is far too long. --Nigelj (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Massively overdetailed for the lead, yes. In the context of amount of coverage given to the subject overall, a (neutrally worded, reliably sourced) sentence might be warranted in the body both here and at Standing Rock Indian Reservation. The Forbes source is a hosted blog and shouldn't be considered reliable, and in general the sources presented by the IP don't appear to have made fact-checking a priority. VQuakr (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm the person who started this section, and I am now posting under my new account instead of an IP address.

Someone deleted the content and commented:

"it's UNDUE and it's a pretty blatant POV attempt to poison the well"

Actually, the exact opposite is true. It's highly notable, because the entire justification for the protest is to protect the environment. Thererfore, for them to actually harm the environment is very notable. Also, telling the truth is never "poisoning the well." Wikipedia is supposed to be about citing notable, reliably sourced content. To not include this information goes against everything that wikipedia stands for.

Lost in the woods at Pine Barrens (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Associate Press, an airtight, super highly reliable source, just reported:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/deadline-looms-dakota-access-pipeline-150744533.html

"More than 230 truckloads of debris have been hauled out as of Monday, according to the governor's office. Archambault said plans call for continuing the cleanup after Wednesday."

Lost in the woods at Pine Barrens (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/22/pipeline-protesters-set-fire-to-camp-before-clearing-out-oil-could-be-flowing-in-2-months.html

"What was once a bustling makeshift city is now a largely abandoned garbage pit. Teepees and yurts, thousands of sheets of plywood and tents, kerosene and propane stoves, diesel and gasoline generators, food, clothing, cars and mountains of human waste lie in what was once a pristine floodplain that abutted the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Nothing but bison and horses roamed here. Unless the debris is moved, state officials say it will wash into and contaminate the Missouri River. Already 250 loads of trash have been removed, but much more remains."

Lost in the woods at Pine Barrens (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/27/taxpayers-foot-1-million-bill-to-clean-up-dakota-pipeline-protest-area/

Taxpayers Foot $1M Bill to Clean Up Dakota Pipeline Protest Area

GH431121vc45 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Questioning edit reversion
The below text is part of a text that I recently restored into the wikipedia article. It was then taken down as a "POV Push". The way the text is worded does not appear to be bushing any Point of View, but rather, summarizing content found on news articles relating to the topic. I did check the sources and they do not appear to be blogs, but rather from a news site that is reliable

Private sanitation companies and volunteers were recruited to clear the acres of abandoned tents, teepees, hundreds of sheets of plywood, propane gas tanks, sleeping bags, blankets, canned food, supplies, and human fecal and sanitary waste littering the Oceti Sakowin camp, as well as to rescue the many abandoned animals, many with frostbite. The debris is expected to take weeks to clear, and many tents and campsites had to be burned to help remove the truckloads of debris that threatens to pollute the ground and nearby river when the spring thaw and flooding begins.

129.130.18.191 (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with removal because it is POV (lacking WP:NPOV). The insertion of the highly negative term "fecal matter" which is in neither article gives away bias.   The one article focuses on animals and says they may have wandered into the site.  A laundry list of every item left behind is WP:undo and not representative of what is in the articles.  The omission of the fact that the protesters themselves were doing cleanup shows further negative bias against the protesters.   Access Pipeline Protesters Clean Up As Deadline Looms.   --David Tornheim (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So, you are saying that the well-known fact that there was trash and dogs left behind should be excluded? That makes no sense...unless you are purposefully trying to force the article to be biased, the information on the cleanup must be included to keep article neutrality. Granted I do see where some parts need cleaning up, but that is what the EDIT function is for, not the undo. 129.130.18.194 (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I cannot find any mention of the Ogallala Aquifer in this article. COULDHAVETOLDMESOONER (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I cannot find any mention of the Ogallala Aquifer in this article. COULDHAVETOLDMESOONER (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

a reference for use here, if needed
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/03/standing-rock-documents-expose-inner-workings-of-surveillance-industrial-complex/

also: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/why-did-private-security-contractor-treat-standing-rock-protesters-jihadists and: https://www.democracynow.org/2017/6/2/as_oil_starts_to_flow_through https://www.revealnews.org/article/paramilitary-security-tracked-and-targeted-nodapl-activists-as-jihadists-docs-show/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snapdragon66 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. "Leaked documents and public records reveal a troubling fusion of private security, public law enforcement, and corporate money in the fight over the Dakota Access Pipeline."  Exactly correct and should be of concern to all of us who value our rapidly vanishing democracy.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

On the treaty claims
While I was researching a different topic(Minnesota Massacre) and I was reading the book "Over the earth I come" and towards the end it mentions a act which "annuls" any other treaty. Someone may be able to work this in somehow. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/37th-congress/session-3/c37s3ch37.pdf go down to "An Act for Relief..." TheGleaner (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review of Draft and Edits
This is obviously a very large and established article already, so I won't read all of the information to add specific edits, but I will go into what I think is most important to work on. While the amount of data and information is obviously great, I don't see a citation for the quote by Judith Bende in the "Protest" section, which should be added. The citation list is also very full and done very well. I did not see any errors there. The tone of the writing is also very good and seems like it fits the way that most other Wikipedia articles are written. Along with that, I feel like there should be further mention of the use of technology and Facebook Live, as well as celebrity engagement- besides Shailene Woodley since there were more as well- because that has been an important aspect of this movement. Overall a very strong article though. --Fleming.sammy (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

 * Lead: The lead section was lengthy, established the main purpose (maybe too detailed for a lead, but that might not be a negative)
 * Structure: The structure is well organized, every aspect of the issue seems to be covered, even online activism.
 * Balance: "Online activism" could use more information. I know Shaelene Woodley played a large role in the protest, physically and online.
 * Reliable sources: All links work, however there are some that are from websites that may not seem the most reliable.
 * Grammar/ Spelling: The grammar and spelling seem to be correct for the most part.

Ddzhangiryan (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
The leading section for introducing this topic is very well-written. The utilization of relevant hyperlinks and citations is also done well. I see a lot of different sub-sections explaining how the protests erupted, the background, and concurrent reactions. However, I think it would be useful to include a bit more on the social media aspect. The "online presence" section could definitely use a bit more expanding. There are definitely some relevant online platforms that could be included. For example, live-streaming on Facebook could potentially be its own sub-section under online presence. Since this movement really took off through a viral strategy on social media, more elaboration on this would bode well for the entire article.

Another interesting section to add could be "Pertinent Effects of Social Media Boom". With people "checking in" in solidarity with the protests and other live streaming footage, I'm sure many ordinary citizens felt mobilized by the entire movement. Overall, really informative article! Sonasena1 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
I found the Lead section to be very detailed and well-written, giving a solid overview of the topic. I don't believe anything more should be added here as it may be redundant or make the section to lengthy. I thought the article had a logical Structure, but that some sections could use improvement. The "police clear remaining protesters from camp" section is quite small and should either be lengthened or added to another section. Also, there could be more information on the "TigerSwan security firm" and the "Online presence" section doesn't adequately indicate the strength and support of the movement on social media. The Sources were reliable and plentiful. The Grammar/Spelling was accurate from what I could tell. Andrewmcfar (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
I think that you should link this page with the "Hashtag Activism" Wikipedia Page, adding a small paragraph on that page.

I also think you all should add a section in the Wikipedia titled "Social Media," talking about the hashtag specifically got many people engaged and mobilized. What you said in your presentation, including the history and impact of the hashtag on Twitter and Facebook, should be added here because it shows how many people got involved with the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth.guterson (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160909050159/http://standingrock.org/data/upfiles/media/Backgrounder%20DAPL%20SRST%20FINAL.pdf to http://standingrock.org/data/upfiles/media/Backgrounder%20DAPL%20SRST%20FINAL.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160807104201/http://standingrock.org/data/upfiles/media/Memo%20ISO%20Mtn%20for%20Preliminary%20Injunction_3.pdf to http://standingrock.org/data/upfiles/media/Memo%20ISO%20Mtn%20for%20Preliminary%20Injunction_3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161204235307/https://www.army.mil/article/179095/army_will_not_grant_easement_for_dakota_access_pipeline_crossing to https://www.army.mil/article/179095/army_will_not_grant_easement_for_dakota_access_pipeline_crossing
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161128050659/http://www.kezi.com/news/local/402355836.html to http://www.kezi.com/news/local/402355836.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Blatantly One-Sided
This article is a pristine example of political ax-grinding that characterizes a lot of what Wikipedia does. It is outrageously unbalanced, and highly unreliable. 2001:5B0:50D9:AEB8:61A0:D638:3A2C:5496 (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should develop your argument and express your apparent grieves a bit more to the point, because at the moment it might be hard for anyone to grasp what you are saying. Please don't forget that anyone can edit Wikipedia, and it would without any doubt be welcomed if you would add to the balance and unveil unreliabilities. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

Should Donald Trump really be described as "newly elected Lord and Savior, the Honorable Donald Trump "?
It seems that this line should probably be altered... it's not exactly objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.115.127 (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Thanks for fixing this, ! = paul2520 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Soldiers at the protest site?
Mention of soldiers at the site have been removed. Assuming that the National Guard are considered "soldiers", this site says that they were present. .

The Daily Beast made this comment: "Still, the presence of a missile launcher—even an unloaded one—will likely increase tensions between the Standing Rock protestors and authorities. Police in North Dakota have come under scrutiny for using violent, military-style tactics against peaceful, unarmed protestors." and they note that the missile launcher is in place because: "The drill pad the Avenger is “protecting” belongs to Dakota Access, LLC, the company building the nearly 1,200-mile-long pipeline meant to transport oil from North Dakota’s Bakken oil field to a storage facility in Illinois.", in other words a private corporation. 

And here: "North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple on Thursday activated part of the state National Guard to help back-up civilian law enforcement dealing with a protest in the south-central part of the state along the construction route.  About a dozen guardsmen are to be deployed to a traffic control checkpoint in the protest area, and another 100 members of the Guard would be on standby, ready to respond if needed. Local law enforcement officials reported "unlawful acts and aggressive actions" taken by some protesters.  Thoughts?  Gandydancer (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Bad linked study?
Reference 5, linked after the sentence about "ample scientific evidence", links to a study on the impact of hydraulic fracturing. Intended? Bad link? Whyme943 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Source 90 doesn't mention National Guard, no source for National Guard in October
Hello, I am trying to find a source for the National Guard having been deployed under Obama, and whether it was Obama or the State of North Dakota who deployed the National Guard, and source 90, from the Guardian, which is after the relevant sentence, does not mention the National Guard at all. Can someone find a source and cite it? Fort33dople (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Lead Section The lead section has plenty of well cited and relevant information, but this section in particular could be more concise. I think this paragraph in particular – "During the protest numerous high-profile activists and Congressional Democrats spoke out for the rights of the tribe. Bernie Sanders actively supported the movement [11][12] and President Obama spoke with tribal leaders and offered his support. Standing Rock Chairman David Archambault II, who was himself arrested and strip searched while protesting, gave numerous interviews explaining the tribe's positions; he also addressed the tribe's positions at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland." was thoroughly covered in the 'Security confrontations and harsh treatment of protesters', and does not seem crucial to the lead section. The introductory sentence sums up the topic well, but the lack of mentioning the Standing Rock tribe doesn't address the core group affected by and responsible for the movement – this tribe in particular is the reason for the protests and movement writ large, and by reading the first sentence, a reader should be able to identify that. This paragraph from the lead section – "Journalists, such as Amy Goodman, political figures such as Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, actress Shailene Woodley, and numerous members of the left-leaning media collective Unicorn Riot were arrested." – mentions the collective 'Unicorn Riot' whose presence in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests is not mentioned later in the article. I believe their involvement should be described further, or this phrase be omitted from the lead section entirely.

Content

The content on 'Standing Rock Sioux Tribe legal proceedings' should include the court's from ruling by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg that the DAPL will stay open until the environmental study is completed in May 2022. . Because this article discusses the environmental impact assessments, it would be relevant to include the recent updates to the legal proceedings regarding the studies. The #NoDAPL movement section should be elaborated on in terms of its response across social media platforms similarly to how other sections were considering its impact on the movement (and its inclusion in the introductory sentence). Social media reactions should be included in the Media Reactions or #NoDAPL section.

Overall Impressions

Overall, this article gives a robust description of the topic at hand. I find it odd that there isn't a section dedicated to the history, protest, and activism of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, considering that they don't have an independent article either. If this could be added, it would add to the explanation of who was at the core of the movement and the motivation for the mass protests – more of a description of the grievances of the tribes, etc. Vanuliarya (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Legendsofpaige.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TiairaHope.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: ColorRunner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: VictoriaR1997, Fleming.sammy, Ddzhangiryan, Andrewmcfar, Sonasena1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Political Communication
— Assignment last updated by Deparkozee (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Political Communication
— Assignment last updated by Gabycx (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental and Climate Justice
— Assignment last updated by Birdsofprey123 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)