Talk:Dakota Access Pipeline/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

informational hearings?

What are "informational hearings"? I realise that this article is written in American English, but "informational hearings" is not good English, even American English.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Climate impacts of Dakota Access Pipeline

Climate change impacts of the Dakota Access Pipeline would be significant and cannot be ignored. In the current version of Wikipedia's Dakota Access Pipeline article, climate is not mentioned at all. Scientists say, however, that in order to meet the objectives set out in the Paris Accords, not one new fossil fuel pipeline may be built. Climate impacts must not be segmented in discussion -- in other words they must include impacts from increased extraction, impacts from pipeline construction and operation (the entire Bakken Pipeline Project, to Patoka IL and on to Texas refineries), impacts from likely pipeline incidents, impacts during processing and further transportation of refined products, and impacts from end use. Here is a great place to start reporting on climate impacts:

http://priceofoil.org/2016/09/12/the-dakota-access-pipeline-will-lock-in-the-emissions-of-30-coal-plants/

Price of Oil, "The Dakota Access Pipeline Would Lock In the Emissions of 30 Coal Plants," September 12th 2016

Any pipeline carrying Bakken Shale crude oil would facilitate increased fracking in the Bakken Shale play, where climate impacts are enormous. For example, 100% of the methane that comes up with the Bakken Shale crude oil is simply burned -- flared. The flares are so enormous they can be seen from outer space.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/north-dakota-gas-flaring-doubles-pumping-co2-into-air-17212

Climate Central: "North Dakota Gas Flaring Doubles, Pumping CO2 Into Air"

Thank you for adding in a section on climate impacts asap! Iris Marie Bloom IrisMarie (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

executive order?

On 1/24/2017, the president issued Presidential Memos, not an Executive Orders. A Presidential Memo does not carry the same rule of law as an Executive Order. Please verify and correct if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.137.200 (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

According to USA Today presidential memoranda and executive orders carry the same legal weight. They are slightly different but similar enough to be mixed up, as both Trump and The Washington Post have done (that is, refer to a presidential memorandum as an executive order). clpo13(talk) 00:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Video

Heres a video to migrate if anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfLCfmYDYlc Victor Grigas (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Citations

The discussion of Trump's memorandum has links to two news articles, but no link to the actual text of the memorandum. Should there be a citation referencing the actual text?

The Democracy Now article that is used as reference 26 appears biased to me. The article title references how the investors are funding attacks on protesters. Along with highlighting a biased claim in its title the actual article does not mention anything to back up the claim. The pertinent information in the article can likely be found elsewhere and I am of the mind it probably should be. JarrodE (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

With respect to your first point, I think using the news articles is good, given Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources. I think interpreting the primary text ourselves would also constitute original research.
I also think the Democracy Now! source is okay, if not ideal. I wasn't able to easily find a more impartial source, and I think since the content page has the "One activist group claimed" disclaimer it's okay. Tracemarsing (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Tracemarsing: "Democracy Now! source is okay, if not ideal". Our restrictions on using primary sources can be confusing and hard to understand; they were written to cover a very broad number of situations. It does not always work out very well and I have sometimes included them in the source as a secondary ref. Gandydancer (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
You think "Democracy Now!" is okay because you are against the pipeline and that source is on your side. This is one of many reasons why Wikipedia is NEVER a useful source for ANY controversial subject. It is ALWAYS manipulated by axe-grinders. 73.239.55.87 (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the title or tone of Democracy Now! source, it is used in this article only to provide a reference to the list of institutions financing the loan to the pipeline project. As I understand, nobody doubts the reliability of the list, the issue is just the tone of the source. However, as I said, if you can find more neutral reliable source providing the same list, you are welcome to propose it and we can replace it in this article. Beagel (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@JarrodE: Primary sources may be useful for direct quotes but secondary and tertiary sources should be preferred in other cases as it already has been mentioned above. For further information, please see WP:PRIMARY. In this particular case, I think there is nothing wrong to add the reference to the actual text if references to the secondary sources remain. In the case of the Democracy Now article, I have nothing against to replace it if you can propose better source which provides the same information about financing. Beagel (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding updated information to the article

I plan to add some current topics on the Dakota Access Pipeline. Topics resulting from rejecting tribal quest for a halt, and the recent actions signed and ordered by President Trump. Here is my bibliography of sources I plan to use for information.

DiChristopher, Tom. "Trump signs executive order on Keystone XL, Dakota Access." CNBC

Brady, Heather. "4 key impacts on Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipepline." National Geographic

Mapes, Lynda. "Judge rejects tribes' bid to halt Dakota Access Pipeline" The Seattle Times. S.RenteriaT (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Great article and I am glad someone chose it to update as it is an important current event. In this regard, I believe that the proposed bill to forgive motorists who "accidentally" hit protesters should be included under the protest section along with a brief description of the protests centered along highway routes. Including up to date information would make this page more complete. Also under the protests section, the dog attacks were reported on by democracy now (a reputable news source) not just youtube and social media in case you want to include the link: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/4/dakota_access_pipeline_company_attacks_native Danwiggy (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Danwiggy: Please be aware that there is a more specific article about protests against this pipeline project (Dakota Access Pipeline protests) and all information about protests should go there and only summary of that specific article should be included here (please see WP:SS). Beagel (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Address who is against and who is for the Pipeline in the Purpose section

In the Purpose section you say that there are people who argue for the pipeline and those who are against it. Try giving examples of who is exactly for it and who might be against it.

Luis Espinoza~ 2/22/17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis3367 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Luis3367: Maybe the Purpose section is not the best placement for this. What about creating a separate section about opponents and proponents? Beagel (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

POL 150C2 Peer Review

This page does a good job of covering the important issues surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline, and does not seem biased either way.

Within the Concerns section, I do have a concern with the Tribal section. I suggest that this should be called "Native Nations" as tribe is less specific and does not point to the fact that these are sovereign peoples that are opposing the pipeline being built in their sovereign land and affecting their water supplies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliandra s (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Calliandra s: Sounds logical. It will make it also more neutral. Beagel (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing by POL 150 C2 students

Dear students. It is great to see you here. However, there are some things I would like to ask you to be aware before adding your comments. First, when adding any new comment at the talk page, please do not forget to sign your comment by adding ~~~~ after your comment. This will create an automatic signature and time stamp of your comment. Second, please do not add your assignment's templates inside of other templates as it has happened continously. I also wonder if we need nine separate templates for POL 150 C2; maybe we can list all editors and reviewers in one single template? Beagel (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer review POL 150 C2

This is a peer review section that is an assignment within the University of Arizona course "POL 150 C2"

There isn't a shortage of information here, so you should be safe just focusing on adding any current developments (past few months and Trump presidency) regarding the pipeline. I did notice that some sentences were short, and some of these look like they could be combined. Overall, I think this article is already decently sized and fairly well written, but some changes to sentence structure and checking for typos (I thought I found at least one) wouldn't hurt. Bcambri95 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am also a student in POL 150C and I would like to add that there should be something noted that the true timeline of events started to shift once 1. Veterans came in to protest and protect protesters and 2. Society saw protesters being hosed down with water in the winter, demonstrating the terrible conditions and grave situation along with maltreatment. I believe there should be more mention of what really changed the course of events in support of halting the construction further. This of course, was before President Trump signed an executive order permitting the continued construction.https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/veterans-north-dakota-standing-rock.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizona12! (talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 February 2017r (UTC)

@Bcambri95: You wrote in your guidelines that "... you should be safe just focusing on adding any current developments (past few months and Trump presidency) regarding the pipeline". Actually, this is something you should NOT to focus because avoiding recentism (please see WP:RECENT) is an important part of neutrality (please see WP:NPOV) which is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia. Of course, information should be updated, but not focusing on the recent events. Please be also aware that there is a more specific article about protests against this pipeline project (Dakota Access Pipeline protests) and all information about protests should go there and only summary of that specific article should be included here (please see WP:SS). Any help with fixing grammar and typos, and with copy-editing in general is most welcome, of course. Beagel (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Beagel: I did not recall those resources on neutrality. However, I was just thinking about reporting what has been done recently, not actually taking a stance on it. Would choosing your language carefully not make it OK to report on recent events on Wikipedia? If there is an article about protests, then I get why that information doesn't need to be here. I'm just wondering about this for Wikipedia contributions in general. Bcambri95 (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It is ok to write about current events if these events are notable, supported by reliable sources and it is written in neutral and encyclopedic way. It is also ok to update articles with the recent events, taking account the due weight (please see WP:DUE). However, it is not ok to focus on recent events as it may create undue weight of these events compared to the whole scope of the topic. WP:DUE and WP:RECENT are sources explaining this more detailed way. Beagel (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This article has a lot of great information, but some of the sections need to be a little more structured. The description section seems to be very specific, and it becomes a little redundant as the rest of the article progresses. Try to keep the discussion section more broad and overarching. There is also a lot of financial information in the description section that should be moved to the financial section. The environmental concerns, disturbance of land, eminent domain, and tribal opposition sections have a lot of overlap between them; try to make the sections more defined, or combine them. The planning and construction sections also run into one another and need to be more defined or combined into one big section. In general, try to make the information under the subheadings more specific to the subheading. Overall, lots of good information! --Haricotsverts23 (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Haricotsverts23: What you mean by "The description section seems to be very specific, and it becomes a little redundant as the rest of the article progresses"? A pipeline is a technical thing and the Description (or sometimes named as Technical description") is (or should be) an integral part of every article about pipeline projects. What concerns the financing, ther eis no overlapping as the information in the Description section is about costs and in the Financing section about financing sources. I fully agree that the environmental concerns needs to be more structural and probably needs to be partly rewritten. What concerns Planning and Construction, they are both subsections of the History section and these titles were introduce only to split one big section into smaller subsections. I agree this is not the perfect solution and if you can advice what is the better structure for the History section, please elaborate your ideas. Beagel (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
To add: Reading the Concerns section, I can see how Disturbance of land" could fit into the Environmental section, but the others (tribal, eminent domain, and political) seem quite different and I see no way...and no reason either... to combine them or cut much if anything out. Gandydancer (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Pol 150 Peer Review

This is a really good article and there is plenty of information available. I would agree with most of the other reviews on the edits you should make, especially the one about adding any new information that is recently happening. I would add that in the purpose section you can expand in a bit more detail. For example you say that these people argue that this is what the pipeline is supposed to do but is there any other research that supports or contradicts those theories.Fparra247 (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Fparra247

The Youth that Contributed

How do we feel about adding more information on the Facebook check-ins and how certain youth were involved in the phenomenon?

[1]

  1. ^ ELBEIN, SAUL. "The Youth Group That Launched a Movement at Standing Rock". nytimes.com. The New York Times. Retrieved 15 February 2017.

Courtbnt (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


If anywhere, it belongs to Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Beagel (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree... It's been hard to work any of this stuff in as it has generated little good RS. Please bring this up at the protest article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


We're thinking about looking into recent mandates made regarding the DAP, would that be worth investigating and adding? Other things we might change include minor grammar and spelling errors of which there aren't many!

Rlvenkat (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ogallala Aquifer

I cannot find any mention of the Ogallala Aquifer in this article. COULDHAVETOLDMESOONER (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

COULDHAVETOLDMESOONER, thats because the Ogallala Aquifer is not en route of the Bakken pipeline but the Keystone pipeline.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Archaeology in relation to the tribal opposition

I'm planning on adding a section into this article about the archaeological sites in the zone of the pipe, and some of the work and survey's that have been conducted. Is there anything I need to do before proceeding? Bones&stones (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC) bones&stones

No, Bones&stones. Welcome to WP!--Wuerzele (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dakota Access Pipeline. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Extensive article changes

Numerous changes have been made to this longstanding article. For example adding "As police started to arrest protesters for trespassing, a handful of activists on horseback charged at the security workers. Sheriff's deputy Jon Moll claimed that "you run a 1,000-pound animal at a 200-pound person, that's a deadly threat." Now this is totally made up as are many of the others, perhaps most of them. This is not acceptable. I have reverted the edits and please bring any further changes to talk for discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Increased levels of crime

The 'Violence against Native people' section includes unverified claims. The first sentence of this section says: "The encroachment of the DAPL pipeline on the Standing Rock and other Indigenous communities has increased levels of crime in the affected areas." There are to reference to prove, this claim; however, none of them actually does. The article from The Guardian says that "Native tribal leaders have also repeatedly argued that oil booms in states like North Dakota have had dire consequences for indigenous women due to the influx of highly paid oil workers living in so-called “man camps”. Law enforcement officials have found that the temporary camps can lead to upticks in human trafficking, assault, rape and drug crimes." It says in general that the temporary camps can lead to upticks in crimes. I believe, it is true also with DAPL, but we need a source saying that that has happened. At the moment, the linkage is OR. The same applies to the study by Victoria Sweet which does not mention DAPL once. True, it mention Williston, North Dakota, which is the Bakken extraction site, but again, not about construction of the pipeline. Therefore, also the lasrtt sentence of this section "In North Dakota, the Man Camps created a structural threat when the oil fields brought hundreds of men to these areas and the crime rate went up 7.2%." is not directly related to the pipeline as it talks about oil fields, not pipelines.

Also the next sentence "Rather than providing promised jobs, the pipeline companies set up camps for their own, itinerant workers that they move from site to site, (aka "Man Camps"), which bring high levels of sex-trafficking, drug and alcohol-related crimes, and other sexual violence against women and two-spirit people." is problematic (OR) has it does not link directly it with DAPL.

I believe there are sources which can provide direct link between construction of DAPL and the crime rate. Beagel (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Masonthurmond, Bigshane17. Peer reviewers: Masonthurmond, Bigshane17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:41, 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 in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Danwiggy, Calliandra s.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:41, 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 in Winter 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S.RenteriaT, Sivandiaz, Tkrepps. Peer reviewers: Luis3367, Bruton-Sarah, Haricotsverts23, Arizona12!, Codybonnet.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:41, 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 in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shannanelson, Courtbnt, Rlvenkat, Carterrobinson. Peer reviewers: Npsanchez, Bcambri95, Ellensivertson, Anapandrade, JarrodE, Fparra247.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:41, 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 in Spring 2017. 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) 13:41, 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 in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ColorRunner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:41, 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 in Fall 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cjalejandre.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dakota_Access_Pipeline/Archive_2&oldid=1078572884"