Talk:Coastal GasLink pipeline

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Indigenous peoples of North America Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: British Columbia Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

Updating article class?

This might not be a start-quality article anymore. Also, it probably should be added to the appropriate Indigenous peoples in Canada portals or projects. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Augmenting one side at the expense of consequences to others?

Alaney2k, I am going to restore the "Consequences" section, because otherwise the article comes across very strongly as focusing on the reasons for and extent of opposition while dismissing the effects of the blockade upon non-reservation people. (For example, you completely buried the layoffs.) In parallel, I am also going to back-divide the supporting protests between rail protests and all other protests. Generally speaking, "Rail disruptions" really should be about what is done to rail service specifically; and thus would not include non rail-related protests or layoffs.

I did not check editing history in sufficient detail to know who exactly overhauled the "Opponents and proponents" section. That overhaul is not NPOV at all, not with only one voice being cited as being in favour of the pipeline and two dense paragraphs against. I will later restore something closer to what I wrote earlier (one paragraph pro, one paragraph anti, one paragraph focusing on the sovereignty question). Incidentally, no matter what the conflict, it is customary in neutral writing to list the pro side first, then the anti. Doing so does not indicate that either side has more weight or value. In contrast, opposing custom automatically shifts a writing bias to the opposing side.

For now, I am not going to touch the way you expanded and changed the "Negotiations" section, although that kind of quoting and detail really does belong in a newspaper, not an encyclopaedia. I am also leaving alone the way you moved the partial ending of the blockade, although I personally do think that it belongs under "Negotiations" because it is part of resolution, if only as a gesture of good faith. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@66.11.171.90: It is poor article style to have single-paragraph sections. I don't consider that to be "burying" some text. I consider putting that together with related material. Honestly, I feel like you have a POV here. If you feel like the article is non-neutral, put the tag at the top of the page and we can discuss it. Another thing was using the 'Protests' heading. The Protests heading is used as an anchor from other articles. So it is needed. I added the paragraph about the chief from the other nation. There was not something there. The article is not finished and has several editors, so I would appreciate it if you did not single me out. I am not trying to push anything. Alaney2k (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speaking as a supporter, and also someone who was planning to take a train to Vancouver next week, the "Consequences" section is material. Also,speaking as someone who does not have enough time or knowledge to fix this, the Wetsu'wet'en page mentions this controversy not at all. And yes, this pageshould be categorized ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 00:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Late getting back, in significant part because I was one of those heavily affected by the train stoppage. Also, it has been a crazy catch-up week. I hope to be back to these two articles sometime during next week. I singled you out, Alaney2k, because I checked the history first to see who did which edits. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Proposal for Pipeline Protests

This has been implemented (2020 Canadian pipeline and railway protests) so closing this section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Although there is a lot of development in regards to protests surrounding the Coastal GasLink Pipeline (ie: arrests, rail blockades, etc), I suggest that we move the majority of these details to a separate article as this article main focus should be more on the Coastal GasLink Pipeline project itself (i.e. history, planning, construction, etc) rather than mainly on the consequential protests across Canada. Therefore, I propose that section Protests be split into a separate page called Protests of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline or something similar. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. RehmanK786 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ought to wait until the situation is more stable before making any such decisions. Once we can see it all in retrospect it will be easier to trim and combine information. In my opinion the pipeline itself would not be notable if not for the controversy surrounding its construction, so it's all integral to the article. I do think though that we could largely combine the "rail blockades" and "solidarity protests" sections, there's some duplication there and no real reason for them to be separate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, but a lot of the fine details could be moved to a Timeline article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support this has developed into a significant political and social movement with more than enough cited content to start a new article. Article should however be entitled 2020 Canadian pipeline protests given the protests have become nation-wide and have taken on more of a universal anti-pipeline theme. TrailBlzr (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, but the movement expanded even beyond pipelines, to indigenous issues such as land rights and reconciliation. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 05:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Rename Maybe we should just rename this article. I agree with Ivanvector. Not much content available for the actual pipeline. I mean we're not going to write sections describing the compressor stations, right? Maybe there is some content for the Kitimat refinery (itself a many-billions project) and we could bundle that and split out the protests. However, again the protests need the context of the pipeline project. Maybe we can start some articles in Draft: space and see how it shakes out? Alaney2k (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support timeline article I do think we should do that. It goes back and forth between blockades and protests and politicians' (incl. chiefs) comments. Alaney2k (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only under 2020 Canadian pipeline protests (or broader yet) as per TrailBlzr. This particular pipeline shouldn't be a coat-hanger for a whole issue, and it's looking more and more like that is or could be the case. With the CBC headlines today I am sensing a fairly broad-titled article. Outriggr (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I started writing this in reply to Alaney2k but it's really a general comment. The content we have here which is about the pipeline and not about the controversy and protests is already described in as much detail as we need in the TC Energy article (scroll down to "Natural gas pipelines" and see "projects under development" near the end of the section). This article already is a separate article on the controversy and protests. Maybe we should just retitle it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I am neither for nor against the timeline proposal. If in fact the article is reaching some limit on size I suppose it may be a solution to that problem. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft articles for split

I have created Draft:Coastal GasLink Pipeline and Draft:2020 Canadian pipeline protests for editors to examine. Alaney2k (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaney2k: I think you should merge the draft timeline into this draft and go ahead and publish it at 2020 Canadian pipeline protests over the redirect. There's more than enough sources on both to warrant an article. TrailBlzr (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I understand. We always keep 'Timeline of' articles separate, in parallel. Alaney2k (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do not always keep timelines in separate articles. See 2019 Canadian federal election#Timeline. The information in the draft timeline can easily be incorporated in main draft article. TrailBlzr (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that would work if it was not a long list. Alaney2k (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline article

@Ivanvector: I have started the Draft:Timeline of the 2020 Canadian pipeline protests article. Of course, everyone welcome to edit it. Lots to add! Alaney2k (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to main space: Timeline of the 2020 Canadian pipeline protests Alaney2k (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- and of course its been moved to Timeline of the 2020 Canadian pipeline and railway protests Alaney2k (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly useful for this part of the project: https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/a-timeline-on-rail-disruptions-by-anti-pipeline-protesters-across-canada-1.24082663

Disagree about lede deletion

I believe it is notable what Trudeau had to say, and if not in the lede, then where would it go? Oppen to suggestions, but he is neither a proponent nor an opponent, right? Scheer is an asshole, but he is still head of the PC, no? Someone else added the sentence about Miller, which does seem like spin, and, for instance, who is Miller exactly? Lacks context. In short, I think the Trudeau and Scheer quotes should remain, though I am not against them being moved elsewhere or summarized. It is, after all, a national issue at this point, and there should be mention of the national government's response, especially given the lengthy quotes from other people Elinruby (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they should be elsewhere and presented neutrally, that's all. Material in the lede is supposed to summarize material in the body (MOS:LEAD). I'm not generally against including it somewhere, but if we're saying that this article is about the pipeline and we're going to make a separate article about the controversies, then Trudeau and Scheer sniping at each other is off-topic here. The way that the meeting between Miller and the Mohawk was presented seemed to suggest that the only metric for success was the blockade being removed, and not, say, the RCMP and CGL respecting the Wet'suwet'en eviction order, or all of the activists being arrested, or whatever; it's too narrow is all, and there was not a source for that point of view. The meeting is relevant of course, but we need to revisit how we present it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has added Trudeau's comments further down, and I am mostly fine with that. I added Scheer for balance, but I agree his comments weren't substantive, whereas Trudeau at least stated a policy. I may refine those sentences a little - his statement is in Wikivoice and should be a quote, unless what he is saying is blindingly obvious, which it isn't at least to me. I don't know anything about the stuff about Miller. Someone else added that and I am still not clear who he even is. Elinruby (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to do with a pipeline

This article has almost nothing to do with a pipeline, and everything to do with politics and obstruction. At best, it's mis-titled. Where can we find some real information?

200.68.170.12 (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC) baden k.[reply]