Jump to content

Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jason.Wester (talk | contribs) at 05:53, 17 February 2018 (→‎Tax Cuts: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50k

Trump re-election committee

@PackMecEng: - The text in my edit is supported by reference 16 [1]. I didn't duplicate the footnote. I'd appreciate it if you could review that source and reinstate my text, which accurately represents the source and gives background and context for the historic early announcement. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is supported by that source in the sentence after the text you added. We would either have to add that ref to the first sentence or rewrite it to have the info in the second sentence. That is why I specified the text added was not supported by the refs in that sentence. Which would you rather do? PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be OK with removing the second sentence entirely or else I would be OK copying the reference to the first sentence as well. What do you think is better? SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine killing the second sentence to make way for your addition and just moving the ref up to the first. Want me to make the change or would you rather? PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of it thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans PackMecEng (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Lock

Although the article is pending changes protected it does not have any indication on the main article and is missing a pp template. EstablishedCalculus 05:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added and extended Coffee's protection, expiring next month, another three years because of obvious reasons. --NeilN talk to me 05:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tariffs on solar panel imports

Reading a Bloomberg source cited about tariffs on solar panel imports, I adjusted the text[2] to better represent the source's contents. Bloomberg cites a number of industry experts, who express balanced views about the tariffs, some of them even praising the decision. The article text was only focusing on the potential negative consequences. @Snooganssnoogans: I disagree with your revert. Let's open the discussion to other editors. — JFG talk 02:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit introduced false balance and OR. The Bloomberg source was clear in its description that this harmed the solar energy industry, which is overwhelmingly involved in installations, but also included some speculation by investors that it would be good for the small industry of American manufacturers (less than 1% of all solar jobs are in the manufacturing of panels). The Bloomberg source did not acknowledge that the tariffs would or be likely to improve outcomes for those in solar panel manufacturing. And they were correct to. Research shows that past tariffs of this kind had no effect on the industries that they were meant to protect[3]. The NYT source is even clearer than the Bloomberg source: "Energy experts say it is unlikely that the tariffs will create more than a small number of American solar manufacturing jobs... Solar manufacturing now represents just a fraction of the overall jobs that have developed around the solar industry. More than 260,000 Americans are employed in the sector, but fewer than 2,000 of those employed in the United States are manufacturing solar cells and modules, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NY Times source focuses on criticism, and I left that part alone. The Bloomberg source is much more nuanced, please read it again. Here are all reactions quoted by the source:
  • “We are inclined to view it as posing greater trade risk for all types of energy.
  • Arizona-based manufacturer stands to gain as costs for competing, foreign panels rise.
  • The Solar Energy Industries Association projected 23,000 job losses this year.
  • The duties are lower than the 35 percent rate the U.S. International Trade Commission recommended in October.
  • I don’t believe this decision will reverse the solar expansion in the U.S.
  • Despite higher anticipated costs, American solar installers including Vivint Solar Inc. and Sunrun Inc. jumped in after-hours trading.
  • The tariffs are “exactly what the solar industry asked for behind closed doors.”
  • The duties won’t be entirely devastating for the U.S. solar industry.
  • They will likely prove insufficient in magnitude and duration to attract many new factories.
  • Suniva thanked Trump for “holding China and its proxies accountable”.
  • SolarWorld said it “appreciates the hard work of” Trump and is “hopeful” the tariffs will be enough to rebuild solar manufacturing in the U.S.
  • Sunrun said that while the decision lifts “a cloud of uncertainty,” it runs counter to “consumers, bipartisan elected officials, many military personnel, and the 99 percent of American solar workers whom this tariff will harm in the coming years.”
  • Rooftop solar installer Sunnova Energy Corp. said the tariffs will not deter the industry.
  • China’s JinkoSolar Holding Co. said the tariffs were “better than expected”.
  • “recklessly irresponsible and a thinly veiled attack on clean energy.”
  • The Solar Energy Industries Association warned the tariffs will delay or kill billions of dollars of solar investments.
Really, the reactions are mixed, and focusing only on the negative impact is POV. — JFG talk 03:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what individual investors think or the dealings of one particular company is irrelevant and undue. Investors are not economists, and whether or not something increases the stock of one firm does not belong on a crowded Wikipedia page such as this one. Why you are pushing for some protectionist pseudoscience and false balance is beyond me. It's at least not consistent with the Bloomberg source or the far better and comprehensive NYT source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "pushing for pseudoscience" (where the hell did you get that idea?), not even false balance, just balance. I was casually reading this article, the sentence looked one-sided, so I read the sources and discovered (even to my surprise) that reactions were mixed. It's POV to cherry-pick only negative reactions in our coverage. — JFG talk 12:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "reaction" in the existing version of Wikipedia article. What some random solar panel installers, investors and manufacturers are saying is of zero encyclopedic interest and value. The article describes NYT's and Bloomberg's descriptions, not the random reactions that are included in those articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we trust journalists at NY Times and Bloomberg to do their job, and Bloomberg did take the trouble of publishing mixed reactions from many sources. Not for us Wikipedians to judge whether reaction X is more valuable than reaction Y. — JFG talk 13:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't cover any reaction. You are asking that we make an exception to this and cover what some random investors are speculating just to present WP:FALSEBALANCE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We cover what RS cover. If a RS provides diverse opinions (which, as I wrote earlier, I was even surprised to read), we must reflect that in our summary: that's all I did. If you still disagree, we could take this to WP:NPOVN. — JFG talk 13:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have literally never covered what random-ass individuals say to newspapers. Should we go ahead and add this white supremacist's theories on racism[4] as a rebuttal to all the research cited on Discrimination based on skin color? How about when RS talk to some diners in a West Virginia coaltown and they start talking nonsense about climate change - should we add that to the Climate change article? Why not? Apparently, we just cite random-ass opinions printed in newspapers. Unless, your position is just to do this when it suits your political biases... as is now the case when we should go out of our way to cite an investor's uninformed take on the economics of trade, so that Wikipedia can promote protectionist pseudoscience. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: (i) what a RS reports in its own words and descriptions is valid for inclusion (e.g. Bloomberg calling the action a blow to the renewables industry), (ii) experts on a given topic cited in RS on that topic are valid for inclusion (e.g. energy and trade experts describing the likely effects of an action related to trade and economics), (iii) non-experts talking trash (e.g. an investor speculating, the owner of a company saying something) is not valid for inclusion. Was this ever in doubt? It's especially egregious when a RS covers #1-#3 and Wikipedia editors want to insert #3 into text as a false balance to #1 and #2. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be vigilant to prevent cherrypicking to create false "neutrality" that ends up making Wikipedia an adjunct of the White House Press Office. The intention and the effect of this tarriff is to harm the US solar economy. Period. The overwhelming RS discussion of this gives detailed explanations of the complex mechanisms of this and its origins in the lobbying efforts of fossil fuels interests. I support Snoog's revert of the POV version. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New reporting on payments to Melania's friend

This needs to go in the article, I think. Inaugural Committee payments. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Cuts

I would argue that the statement in paragraph 2 that addresses the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 omits the fact that 80-90% of taxpayers will receive a tax cut. I feel that the current statement is biased in that it focuses on corporate and estate tax cuts while minimalizing personal tax cuts:

" In December 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut corporate and estate taxes, and increased some income taxes while cutting others"

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=826103061"