This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clean Water Rule article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Two topics are very hard to distinguish from each other, and any future efforts to complete the WOTUS page (currently flagged for inadequate coverage) is likely to copy the content and structure of this page. Attempts to redirect here were perceived as vandalism and reversed by Yoshi24517. He appears to be using a bot that aggressively labels legitimate actions as vandalism.
We are currently addressing the need for more sources and explanation of the implications of the Clean Water Rule, as well as recent developments, by adding sections on the history, controversies and future of the rule. SemiTalia (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)SemiTalia[reply]
Update has been completed. Wikibeanie (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Could editors working on this interesting article please please note MOS:REFPUNCT, which reminds us that references go AFTER punctuation? It should go Text, Punctuation, Ref, Space with only minor exceptions which are listed there. Thanks and best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Thank you for pointing that out. We will go through and correct all our citation formattting. Wikibeanie (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article indeed has neutrality issues, but I really don't think ditchtherule.fb.org can be considered "neutral". I also don't think it's in the public domain. The work by the Army Corps of Engineers on the other hand, as the work of an employee of the federal government that was created in the course of his duties, should indeed be in the public domain. What we'd really need, though, are texts written by third parties, not images by organizations either involved in the Clean Water Rule or lobbying against it. Huon (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Showing both sides of an issue is important as long as it is clear they are points of view on the rule. But I understand if it isn't necessarily right for the media on wikipedia. I am still not sure how to insert the work by the Army Corps of Engineers, since it is not already in the commons, any suggestions? SemiTalia (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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): SemiTalia,
Wikibeanie, Gqueen123, Avina.david. Peer reviewers: Joeyespm163ac, Sbrink1.
