This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Energy C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Energy portal news

Sbmeirow (talk · contribs) consolidated multiple "sources" added by the same editor editing under multiple IP addresses. I see no reason why that consolidation should be reversed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His/her edit meets 3 of the subpoints under which other's comments should be edited. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been excessive quoting from articles in this talk section, almost to the point of becoming spam, thus is why I cleaned it up and merged all the article links into one section. The alternatives would have been deleting it. I don't have anything against helpful links to articles, but excessive quoting from those articles is another thing. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various contributors were deleted in this consolidation. Here are some editors of this new grouping: Special:Contributions/99.190.85.111, Special:Contributions/99.19.45.160, Special:Contributions/99.190.80.41, Special:Contributions/99.190.83.89. If I get more time I look for more. 99.181.152.94 (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any any proof that these are different editors, not just the single editor using dynamic IP or using different computers? All these IP addresses are from the same area and by edits pattern this is clear WP:DUCK case. Using different accounts or IP addresses to create impression that these are different editors is actually a violation of WP:SOCK. Beagel (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree with Beagel.
2. I might have made some minor mistakes during the merge because there was so much stuff to merge and cleanup, but I sure wasn't picking on specific IP addresses....its not like I favored one set of hot numbers over another set of ugly numbers.
3. This is suppose to be the discussion page, NOT the "post a link and long quotes to support your view that you can't get in the article" page.
4. Since most of the IP posts had large quotes of text from the links, and most people don't do this type of thing, then my guesses are: either one person was doing posting from multiple computers, or a group of people were ganging up to do it. Either way it is a big red flag.
5. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why people were protesting this pipeline in Topeka, Kansas on September 26, 2011, because I thought there was ONLY one pipeline segment that ran through Kansas. The pipeline was buried in Kansas LAST YEAR (2010) and completed to Cushing, Oklahoma in February 2011. My confusion is why are they whining in Kansas when the pipeline is already completed through the state? They aren't digging another pipeline in Kansas, right? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Keystone Pipeline System document. It doesn't state anything about building a 2nd pipeline through Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article had a bunch of mistakes because it was written back in 2008. I correct some mistakes and split the routing into phases to match the TransCanada PDF document. I added a Cushing infobox and renamed the pipelines to match the TransCanada PDF document. The article needs MORE fixing to match the phases and cleanup of old or out-of-date information. Please help! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Sbmeirow, I have some aerial photos of the construction phase of this pipeline, near and north of Augusta, KS. Some display the open trench with white limestone just below the prairie surface. Homebuilding (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything about where the money to build this thing is coming from. Does anyone know? 24.214.238.86 (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TransCanada. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire first paragraph in the "Support" section seems to be irrelevant/silly. Just because somebody wrote an article mentioning the pipeline doesn't mean that the article should be referenced here. Frankly, it seems to detract from the support argument. Mcdruid (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war accusing the latest set of edits to this talk page to be spam or vandalism is lame. This was already hashed out at WP:ANI in this discussion and I suggest that the discussion there be re-opened if further accusations of vandalism or spam are used. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I promised not to raise this issue again; however, as it was already raised by User:Orange Suede Sofa with a reference to the specific AN/I discussion, I think that I have a right to comment this. Notwithstanding comments by two admins, the clarification or amendments of talk page guidelines was not done, so I will repeat my request to amend the relevant policies for saying that adding links to the talk page without clarification how they are relevant to the topic or how they could be used for improvement of the article is a legitimate action. I think that clarity about how to use talk pages vis-a-vis with addition of external links, will help to avoid similar conflicts in the future.

By my understanding reactions of admins based on assumption that if somebody added news sources about the article's topic (well not always even about the subject, but just mentioning it), it is always helpful and "you might find useful to add to the page". I would like to say that usually that is true and I am thankful to all editors bringing up new bits of information what will help to improve the article; however, I still have some doubts about this case. Like in case of this article (Keystone Pipeline), in several cases the relevant information was added to the article already before IP user added his/her links to the talk page. Maybe not the same exact source as provided by IP user, but so far if the text contains the fact supported by reliable sources you don't need to add all available sources. Particularly interesting case was with the Energias de Portugal article where the fact that China Three Gorges Corporation will buy a stake in the company was added to the article 2 days before IP user added link to the talk page. He/she was keen to have the specific link to The Wall Street Journal notwithstanding the fact the content of WSJ is limited by subscription and free source was already added to article. I hate to say this but it may be interpreted as arrogance and disrespect to fellow editors.

There are also cases when a number of sources added to the talk page, which are about relevant topics, but belongs to some other articles as they are not about the topic of article. I think that [1] and [2] are good example of this as we we have other articles dealing primary with these issues.

I think that these added links would be more helpful if they are more critically valued by the adding editor. I also think that it would be more suitable and user-friendly if new sources will be added to the existing section rather than creating every time a new section, particularly if the sections titles does not hint what is the main relevance of them, but just saying 'source' or 'resource'. I hope that IP user will agree with merging all these sources into one section rather than having five short sections as we have now. By my opinion the current stage of the talk page disrupts the reading of it, so I kindly ask the IP user to merge these sections himself/herself.

I would also suggest to avoid making threats and to discuss, including all involved parties. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one sided and not a single proponent is quoted on the main page. Should we have not have sources who say that their will be no environmental impact and the jobs created. Julie Louis Dryfeyss might as well dictated this page.Basil rock (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Controversies section should reflect both—opponents and proponents—arguments in balanced way. If you think that any important argument presented during the debate is missing, you are welcome to add this. Beagel (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, if you think it's one-sided, then added text (with references) for the other side. I primarily care about the facts and cutting down on the spam. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the this is too one sided. Too much bias against it. Even those against it should not be using Wikipedia to push a desired outcome but to give accurate unbiased information, so readers can form their own bias. Wikipedia as a whole looses credibility when not giving readers enough information to do that. I am going to flag this article until it has enough information, both positive and negative, in for each reader to develop a well informed opinion. As it stands the reader sees a one sided article that leaves the reader uninformed of the other side of the coin, so to speak.Kentcurtis (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While reading this article, I noticed that the latest developments with regards to President Obama's decision on the permit application for Keystone XL and the planned House committee hearing haven't been added. Based on some news pieces from the last few days, I've put together a couple of paragraphs that I think could be added to bring the article up to date. While I've made an addition to "Keystone XL", I'd also like to add some information to "Political issues" but want to run this by other editors first. One of the sources I've used is a National Review article written by an expert from The Heritage Foundation and I work at Heritage, so I want to flag this in case it's an issue and offer these changes here first (see below). If you agree these help, please feel free to use them. I'd also welcome any constructive suggestions for how to offer resources in future. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2012, President Obama rejected the application for the Keystone XL Pipeline, stating that the deadline for the decision set by congressional Republicans had "prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact". This decision was criticized by Republicans and industry groups, who argued that it was wholly political and demonstrated that Obama was not interested in the pipeline's potential to create employment.^[1][2] Critics stated that the permit application had been denied in order to cater to special interest groups, and had been proceeding with bipartisan support prior to interest from environmental activists.^[3][4]

With this edit I removed the following sentence from the article:

Upon completion, the Keystone Pipeline System would provide 5 percent of the current U.S. petroleum consumption needs and represent 9 percent of U.S. petroleum imports.

The sentence was cited to a newspaper story, which would be fine, except the line in question comes straight from a press release (or the like) from the National Association of Manufacturers, an organization that very much has a dog in this fight. The Augusta Gazette just dumped this statement into their story without vetting it, apparently. As such we are basically using a (quite biased) primary source rather than a secondary source, as the editor who originally added it probably presumed.

If there are neutral third-party sources that back up these numbers then by all means re-add them, but given the contentiousness of these issues we shouldn't rely on partisans on either side for data about how much petroleum the pipeline would provide. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph reported a news story that the US was recently a significant exporter of oil-based fuels (i.e., selected petroleum distillates) and presented this as an argument against the "energy security" case for the pipeline (in fact, the text passage said the data lead "many" to question this case, but did not identify who the "many" were, and the cited source made no such connection). I am 100% agnostic about the merits of the pipeline per se. This particular passage, however, gives the impression of very likely having been based on a misunderstanding. Reading the source in detail confirms that the US continues to be in massive deficit for crude oil -- in amounts that substantially exceed the quantities of certain refined products exported. I've deleted the passage in question. Nandt1 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...at this point consists exclusively of official pro-pipeline resources (plus one "social media study"). I'm restoring a link that was summarily removed with the edit summary "Remove Activist website. BRD" since as currently constituted the section is flagrantly one-sided. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "Please do not use WP for environmental activism. Politicaly movtivated agenda driven editing on WP is bad enough the way it is. Arzel (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

Cornell University is a prestigious institution and the study is relevant to the issues raised.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC) As per explanation for reverting, the Cornell Study is a legitimate, verifiable, reliable source. Better to counter with research supporting alternative perspectives and let reader decide what to believe.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone read that Cornell Labor Institute paper? It is unintentionally hilarious! It asserts, among other things, that the Keystone pipeline will not create as many jobs as advertised because...of the massive job destroying effects of global warming caused by the pipeline. It is a classic! It is so out there. I was worried that a jobs assessment research project would be better done by a Business School or Economics Department that specializes in such things, but I realize now that a Labor Institute that trains labor negotiators and sociologists is really the place where serious non-biased press releases should come from. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same report? The document I'm looking at doesn't start talking about productivity loss due to environmental damage until page 28 (of 40 total); the section dealing with carbon emissions constitutes pp. 30-32 (and p. 31 is 50% photo). More troubling is the possible use of substandard materials, leading to more spills which cost money to clean up (to the extent they can be cleaned up). Most of the report is in fact concerned with (among other things) misreported budget spend, allegations as to the short-lived nature of the construction jobs to be created, and pointing out that the steel to be used in the pipeline will be manfactured in, and imported from, India and South Korea. How this constitutes hilarity, intentional or otherwise, is beyond me. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 05:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we are reading the same report. It is a joke. Let's start at the executive summary (at the beginning). It asserts, with no evidence, that all construction of the pipeline within Canada will use Canadian contractors and material. That is demonstrably untrue. The biggest pipeline contractors in the world are US companies they can and do construct pipelines for Transcanada. Transcanada had already inked contracts with several. ILR reduces the budget and jobs number by 23% with that mistake alone. They talk about major deaths in pipeline explosions in 2010 and attribute over a billion in likely costs ( and hence opportunity cost related job losses). That is amazing because those deaths and explosions are related to natural gas pipelines not oil pipelines. They don't mention that, why? I could go on endlessly, almost every assertion is POV and misleading. This was a shoddy report. I am not deleting it because I think it is noteworthy. I emphatically don't view it as reliable in any meaningful sense. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the report is cited five different times in the article, that level of shoddiness (if what you've said here is true) deserves refutation. If one of the more economically-based critiques of the pipeline is that divorced from the reality of the issue, that needs to be pointed out, with refs. You seem to have those, so go ahead and put them in. I'm happy to help out with that as well, if you point me to them. Thanks. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 05:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know where the steel for the pipe will come from? Does anybody know where the pipe will be manufactured? There are all sorts of claims about how many jobs will be created. But will they be American jobs? Korean jobs? Chinese jobs? Vasa2 (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that information in an article I read. I think it was in the paper by the Cornell institute. it had a discussion of related issues.Smm201`0 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me why this section was deleted? It was sourced.

The section read: "...because of its routing over hundreds of miles of Sand Hills which lies atop the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. In a report (2011-11-10) on the Keystone Pipeline Project Presidential Permit Review Process, the U. S. State Department rejected TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline (Hardisty-Baker-Steele City) proposal. "[G]iven the concentration of concerns regarding the environmental sensitivities of the current proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the Department has determined it needs to undertake an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes in Nebraska [...] The comments were consistent with the information in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) about the unique combination of characteristics in the Sand Hills (which includes a high concentration of wetlands of special concern, a sensitive ecosystem, and extensive areas of very shallow groundwater) and provided additional context and information about those characteristics. The concern about the proposed route’s impact on the Sand Hills of Nebraska [. . .] increased significantly over time, and has resulted in the Nebraska legislature convening a special session to consider the issue.""Smm201`0 (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the section was not deleted. This particular section deals with technical description of the pipeline. All information concerning the Sand Hills issue is already included in the article's Controversy section (Environmental issues subsection), so your addition was just a duplication of the existing information. Therefore they were removed from this particular subsection, but the information is still exists in the environmental issues subsection. Also, nobody deleted the references you added—these references were just moved to the relevant subsection. Beagel (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on not having a bias with this issue! No suggestions are comming to mind, but is there an actual link to the TransCanada's Pipeline Permit Application that can be provided for users to actually view this application entails? Once again, great job.