Talk:ReZpect Our Water

Re red links...

I have put the treaty information Citing the 1851 Treaty of Traverse de Sioux and 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, two treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate that recognize the Sioux's national sovereignty,in red because that info is out there--it will just take a bit of time to tease it out of what we've got. I work on this article as time permits because I feel it is so important. I welcome any edits to what I've done as I know it is far from perfect. I still hope to add a bit about the "village" that has continued to grow...and a few other bits of information...as time permits. This info is all quite new to me and I have been spending a fair amount of time reading up on it... Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Red links fixed, didn't want to cause an edit conflict earlier. Thanks for your work! SashiRolls (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Sometimes my work is choppy because my internet connection jumps off and on and I lose my work....so I sometimes press the "save" button before I'm quite ready. Gandydancer (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Possibly stripping down the protest bits

I wrote here and at Talk:Bakken pipeline: One thing that seems essential is to strip down the section about the protests in this article and Standing Rock Indian Reservation (and possibly ReZpect Our Water), as there is no sense in having the main content about the protests at three different places. This will bring balance back to Bakken pipeline and Standing Rock Indian Reservation as well as deter others from adding good content to it when that content ought to be at the main article. Thoughts? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

And what about even moving all this content to a section within Dakota Access Pipeline protests and redirecting this page there? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It would have been helpful to have discussed this first IMO. I put quite a bit of work into this article. Gandydancer (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I oppose that idea Anna Frodesiak. The three articles are about three different things: a reservation, a pipeline and a movement. It would be wisest in my view to add content to the appropriate articles accordingly, even if there may be some inevitable overlap. SashiRolls (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SashiRolls, I agree. I had planned to do a name change on this one. Perhaps if I would have done it sooner we would not be in this fix... Now I'm not sure what to do. I have been watching all three of these articles and have been meaning to do some work on the reservation article. I know that there's repetition om the pipeline one but I thought I'd just let it ride for awhile. National coverage just keeps growing--we have no idea how far this is going to go. Gandydancer (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer and SashiRolls. I'm sorry I did not discuss this first. I think I've come in like a bull in a china shop. My apologies.

I know there are three separate things. The trouble is that the reservation article and pipeline article are each being used as the main place for information about the movement. Some sort of move of the content there to a main article seemed inevitable. If that main article is ReZpect Our Water, fine by me. BrillLyle, I am sorry that I've cost you a lot of copyediting. I should have inspected ReZpect Our Water to see that it really does headquarter content about this movement. Is there a way to combine ReZpect Our Water and the protest article? And what about the name? This subject is widely know in the media as the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Again, I am sorry for causing this trouble. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

And this is not only about repetition and overlap. I'm also concerned that valuable content about the protests/movement is and has been landing in the reservation and pipeline articles, never appearing anywhere else. Earlier renaming of this article could have prevented this. With due respect to the editors of those articles, I do not think those sections at the reservation and pipeline articles should have been allowed to develop so much. Take for example content about Facebook which exists only at the reservation and pipeline articles. The same goes for content about Bill McKibben as well as protest staging matters regarding David and Brenda Meyer. I found those just from a quick comparison. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have been perhaps too simplistic in my response Anna Frodesiak, I do see the problem because I too had a little trouble finding the page at first. It's just frustrating that the media choose to rename the movement and so everyone feels compelled to follow the media's lead. It's true that exonyms are more common than endonyms for several generations (How long did it take to rename Bohemia and Burma for example? ^^). I do realize that making that point doesn't help solve the problem created by this new page. Integrating the content here and adding a redirect page called "Dakota Pipeline Protests" might have been the most respectful to those prote[c/s]ting, but I suppose most people would search first by "Dakota pipeline"... SashiRolls (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi SashiRolls. Indeed, the media's change in name certainly threw a wrench in the works. But I guess we have to go with the flow. You know, I searched high and low for a protest article before starting Dakota Access Pipeline protests. I'm stunned that nobody made a bunch of redirects to ReZpect. It was hard to find and people visiting pipeline and reservation articles would easily miss seeing ReZpect as the headquarters for the protest content. I did, and looking at the page hits, many others did too! I mean, this is a big thing in the media and ReZpect is getting 100 hits a day?? A shame all that good content going unviewed for so long. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

May I request we centralize discussion? I have formalized Gandy's proposal for a rename/resorting of the content at: Talk:Dakota Access Pipeline protests#Proposal. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)