Talk:United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Difference between revisions
Pretty sure discretionary sanctions apply to this topic/article, revert if I'm wrong |
|||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
:You mean the leader of the country where people critical of Islam or the government can get prosecuted for "hate speech"? That should be the leader of the "free world"? So yes I agree with the original poster that this article is full of leftist bias. [[User:Romanov loyalist|Romanov loyalist]] ([[User talk:Romanov loyalist|talk]]) 14:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC) |
:You mean the leader of the country where people critical of Islam or the government can get prosecuted for "hate speech"? That should be the leader of the "free world"? So yes I agree with the original poster that this article is full of leftist bias. [[User:Romanov loyalist|Romanov loyalist]] ([[User talk:Romanov loyalist|talk]]) 14:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
I agree that this article is very lacking in neutral tone. There is no section, at all, for the trump administration's reasoning behind this decision. |
|||
The only time their reasoning is mentioned is a brief sentance in the announcement section, which immediately contains an opposing opinion to dismiss it. |
|||
This is followed by a long "Reactions" section which serves no purpose except to farther heap on negative opinions. The majority of the article is author opinion, carefully phrased to look like facts. This needs rewriting |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/82.69.100.180|82.69.100.180]] ([[User talk:82.69.100.180|talk]]) 15:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:13, 2 June 2017
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Effects
We need to ensure balance in the Effects section. I don't know exactly what the source says as it is paywalled — I don't doubt for a second that some official somewhere who expressed some concern but in view of the fact that 194 countries representing 81% of the total greenhouse emissions are still in the agreement, someone needs to provide a cogent explanation why the removal of one country would put the accords in danger.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Reactions section needs balance
We need some balance in the reactions. While there are, without question, a number of notable political and business figures who are disappointed by the decision, there are many who support it. As of this writing, seven people are quoted in every one of them as opposed. As an aside, in many cases they evince cluelessness about the rationale of the underlying image but I suppose that's not our job to fix. However, one would hope we could find some reactions from people who have a clue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, this article is purposely ignoring commentators and groups that support President Trump's decision. NPOV applies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 3:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Great. Find some, source them and put them into the article. Britmax (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please add the reactions from the "many who support it". sikander (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed Republican support from lead
I have removed "However, Trump received support from most Republicans." from the lead. This appears to balance the lead but is not referred to or sourced in the body of the article. Britmax (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Well he is in in fact receiving support from most republicans so you just removed facts. That's counter productive. PayneAckerson (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you can find anything in the main body referring to this on the day I removed it please point it out. I couldn't. Britmax (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- The support is coming from elected Republicans officials, so far, despite the fact that a majority of Republican voters support the Paris Agreement.[1]Fconaway (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Video
I am currently migrating this video using video2commons. Once it's done, it should be visible here:
I only say this because I have to get to bed and the video is about 33 minutes long so I expect the rendering to take a few hours. Victor Grigas (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is incredibly biased
I'm not a supporter of his actions and I don't have a right-wing bias either, but this article reads too biased even for me. If I wanted to read current events with a bias then I'm quite sure I could pick up any news outlet out there.
I particularly think that the line saying that Angela Merkel is the "leader of the free world" is a bit too biased. I think someone needs to write the article in the fact-based manner, leaving the information on controversy to its own subheading. Lankandude2017 (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
If not Angela Merkel, then who? What country in the "free" world has been most predominant in, say, the past 10 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.212 (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- You mean the leader of the country where people critical of Islam or the government can get prosecuted for "hate speech"? That should be the leader of the "free world"? So yes I agree with the original poster that this article is full of leftist bias. Romanov loyalist (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this article is very lacking in neutral tone. There is no section, at all, for the trump administration's reasoning behind this decision. The only time their reasoning is mentioned is a brief sentance in the announcement section, which immediately contains an opposing opinion to dismiss it. This is followed by a long "Reactions" section which serves no purpose except to farther heap on negative opinions. The majority of the article is author opinion, carefully phrased to look like facts. This needs rewriting 82.69.100.180 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Unassessed organization articles
- Unknown-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- Unassessed Environment articles
- Unknown-importance Environment articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles