Talk:United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

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.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

United States

	United States portal 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment: Climate change

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please add the reactions from the "many who support it". sikander (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-paris-climate-deal-agreement-poll-support-popularity-americans-states-a7765626.html

Video

I am currently migrating this video using video2commons. Once it's done, it should be visible here:

President Trump Makes a Statement Regarding the Paris Accord. From Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wE7MO1uSw

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)[reply]

Thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-paris-climate-deal-agreement-poll-support-popularity-americans-states-a7765626.html

[1]