Talk:Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration/Archives/2017/April

Feedback - GSI

Nice work! Good structuring and great content. I appreciate the neutral language. Since this is such a HUGE topic, I would "scaffold" a bit more and keep adding in sections. You don't necessarily need to expand on them beyond a sentence or two if you do not wish to, but it is good to include those sections so other wikipedians can expand on them. Don't be afraid to link to other articles more! GAA8423 (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - GSI

Thorough content! This is a huge, controversial topic and I think you covered it well. Suggestion:

-Keep in mind that you are writing from a wiki editor perspective. No need to use "we" or any form of subjective language. In the BLM section, you have: "When we look deeper into stream and wetland protections such as the Clean Water Rule (issued by the EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers in 2015), we see that the rule cleared up miscommunications surrounding the federal government’s jurisdiction to protect small streams and wetlands from pollution"

Nice work!GAA8423 (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Made-up information?

"Pruitt: '...The climate is changing, and human activity ... impacts that change. The ability to measure with precision the degree ... of that impact [is] subject to continuing debate..." — Dennis and Mooney, "Trump Nominees Share a Climate-Change Line: Humans Contribute but We Don't Know How Much."

"Pruitt [has] advertised [his] doubt that human activity has a significant impact on climate change." — Wikipedia.

This information has failed verification. "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up." (WP:V.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed it per WP:BLP which applies to whole article. If it doesn't check out, remove immediately. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. (And a lot of the information in this article needs to be checked out.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom rulings and discretionary sanctions also apply (I've added respective template to #top of talk). Thus, all contributions must be carefully scrutinized and we must all exercise exceptional caution regarding content.

Instructors' imposition of hard deadlines for novice student-contributors to push content into Main, which fall under ArbCom review, may not have been the best idea -- particularly with that course page of theirs... I would very humbly suggest moving article back to Wedsatoms' user-space until it is has been hammered out a little more... -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP applies to information on user pages too; better the students just remove any material they suspect could be biased or unfair to Trump. They could then check out the whitehouse.gov and greatagain.gov sites; find out what the administration itself says its policy is; and take it from there. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Those two websites are sanitized, pro-Trump primary sources that should only be used as a last resort. Editors should be using secondary sources from mainstream media outlets whenever possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Very true. But do consider that reliable sources aren't required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. In your opinion, which would be a more reliable pro-Trump source for the students to consult: Fox News or WhiteHouse.gov? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Neither would be sufficient on their own. Both would need to be verified with additional secondary reliable sources, but for different reasons. Also, whitehouse.gov references would need to include archive urls, because they are subject to change and/or deletion seemingly on a whim. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(←) Since subject of article is ostensibly policy of the Administration, Executive branch policy documents are the definitive source for official policy positions and should be used liberally. For example, articles for U.S.' policy on Space frequently cite NASA; Visa predominantly cites State Dept., DHS (with its fiefdoms) and the Fish and Wildlife Service. -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That is unacceptable. Primary sources may only be used when (a) secondary sources are unavailable, and/or (b) the content in question is non controversial and/or undisputed. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable and the preferred source of official governmental information. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Primary sources are only appropriate for non-controversial and/or undisputed and easily verifiable facts. The Trump administration is using WhiteHouse.gov to promote an agenda, and this is magnified to a greater extent by the completely unusable greatagain.gov. The protection from this is to use secondary sources wherever possible. This is all covered in WP:RS, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Both Dsprc's and Scjessey's points are valid. The material at WhiteHouse.gov may be used to support statements about what the Trump Administration says its policies are. More at WP:SELFSOURCE. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Systemic bias?

The Appointments section includes this possibly random observation:

Perdue's appointment also introduced controversies as Trump's cabinet officially became first [sic] without any Latino cabinet members since 1988.

Compare with the data available at "The Cabinet", January 4, 2017. "Department of the Interior, Secretary Sally Jewell; Department of Agriculture, Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack; Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Gina McCarthy."

Question: What is the total number of Latinx appointees in the Trump administration and the second Obama administration whose duties included advising on environmental policy issues? Answer: 0.

Exercise: Determine statistically whether the UC–B Environmental Justice class or instructor may have a significant systemic bias of some kind and, if so, how they could still uphold WP:BALASP policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This paragraph was recently added by one of the students. I think it is a bit of a stretch to include Secretary of Agriculture under environmental policy, but I'll accept it. However, that last sentence is not only tendentious but outdated [1] and I will remove it. As for your own rather tendentious "exercise", it seems obvious that a class on "environmental justice" will have a certain viewpoint, and that matter is already under discussion at ANI. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand deleting that sentence if it was outdated, I was using the information from a Washington Post article that I read. On the other hand, I think it is necessary to include Secretary of Agriculture in environmental policy. Agriculture is a very large polluter when it comes to groundwater, and agriculture uses up a ton of water and energy throughout its means of production, thereby having a significant impact on the environment.Isabelangelo (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree and I have left it in - with a few very minor modifications. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hidden edits

Why were a large amount of edits on and before April 15, hidden? They don't appear to be slanderous or hate speech. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Blatant copyright violations from the Washington Post and National Geographic. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Domestic Energy Policy Section Concerns

Keystone and DAPL

@TonyBallioni:

Would you mind explaining why sections of the Keystone and DAPL section were deleted? Specifically I cited oppositions from groups who claim the construction of the two pipelines are instances of "environmental racism". I feel that deleting these sections silences a large majority of the opposition, who bring up these concerns often with regards to the location of the two pipelines. I can find several sources to back up this claim.Isabelangelo (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I removed it with this edit. The edit was made because some of the language was over the top ([t]he act ignited a fresh wave of outrage from those opposing the pipelines). I removed the Obama and outside criticism sections because it was a bit too close to a coatrack for my taste. This article is about the policy positions of the Trump administration, not the administration of Barack Obama. You could mention Obama briefly as it relates to Trump (ex. was signed by Trump, reversing earlier decisions by the Barack Obama administration). The fact that groups outside the United States government opposed Keystone XL would be best described in the Keystone XL article. If Obama cited them specifically in his decision to block it, then it would be appropriate to mention it here in relation to Trump's reversal of Obama policies.

As an aside, to ping you need to sign the post and use the template at the same time, otherwise I won't get a notification TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand now removing the section talking about the Obama administration. However, I feel that the sentence about the general opposition from indigenous members of the surrounding community is still relevant. Would you be friendly to me putting this sentence back?

The article already mentions the objections of members of indigenous communities to the extent and weight the New York Times covered it in relation to DAPL. The source about Keystone XL and indigenous communities was from an activist group, and the NYT did not mention it as a factor there as far as I can see. Most coverage of the issue was in regards to climate change, and adding additional issues and weighting them beyond the independent reliable source coverage would be inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

America First Energy Plan

@MelanieN:

I think it is necessary to talk about budget cuts under the "environmental protection" subsection here, because they are a significant part of his policy. If we reach consensus, I would like to re-add a sentence talking about programs being cut in the area where the page discusses his "refocusing on clean air and water".Isabelangelo (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole "America First Energy Plan" section needs a lot of work. As pointed out above, right now it is just spouting the White House line about how great the plan will be. I think we should add more about what the plan actually proposes, instead of just what its benefits would be. And I think we should get put it into a more standard format, get rid of the stars* and just use regular paragraphs. Do you want to work on that? Or should I take a stab at it? I wouldn't have time to until tomorrow at the earliest, so if you want to work on that, it's all yours. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure what you are referring to, about re-adding a sentence about budget cuts. Was there something there, that I cut? I see that there already is a whole multi-paragraph section about budget cuts; are you wanting to put it somewhere else too? --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Program budget cuts" section

Somebody please take a look at the "Program budget cuts" section. It is confusing or possibly internally contradictory. In one paragraph it says 31% cut was announced on March 15. In the next paragraph it says a 20% cut was announced on March 3. Were those two separate budgets? Did one supersede the other? This needs to be made clearer. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

20% was a typo I'm guessing, WaPo also claimed 30%. I've removed that sentence anyway in the interest of concision— it just repeated the information that was already in the first paragraph once fixed to be accurate. I also updated it to make it clear that this was a proposed budget that had not been enacted, considering that Congress is in control of the money and the source made it clear it would have to pass Congress. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Nonpartisanship

This information is false:

Trump ... once called climate change a Chinese "hoax".

This information is correct:

Clinton accused Trump of saying climate change was a "hoax".

This information is correct and authoritative, and relates directly to the article subject:

Trump said the current "concept" of global warming is one that China created.

See WP:BLPTONE. "Articles should document in a nonpartisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC) 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

From Environmental Justice Section 105: "[His] agenda has been explicitly anti-environmental, sexist, and racist... Students will ... create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment ... expected to unfold..."

Before you write, try to reflect on what your subject is saying. He may not mean what you think he does. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump did call climate change a Chinese hoax. The Tweet you cite is also his opinion, and does not contradict the "hoax" statement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Trump did indeed refer to climate change as a "hoax". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Many thanks for finding a source for that claim! --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, thank you for helping us refine this article. I have some thoughts regarding the Trump and Climate Change section. The section was totally reworked and some key info (verified with credible secondary sources) deleted under the claim that Donald Trump did not call climate change a Chinese "hoax". We have since all agreed this info is true and I am still left wondering why other key information was deleted from this section with no explanation. Here are the deleted sentences:

"Trump has historically outwardly denied the existence of climate change. He once called climate change a Chinese "hoax" designed to ruin the American economy but has since amended his views. [53][54] The Trump Administration has deleted all climate change information on the white house website which signals Trump's intent to follow through on his promise to remove all of President Obama's climate change policies [55]. On March 16, 2017, The President eliminated the Global Climate Change Initiative and funding for the Green Climate Fund effectively halting all American aid to the UN climate change programs and all of NASA's missions to study the climate.[56] "

All of this information is factual, cited using credible sources, and incredibly relevant to this page. Deleting this information feels out of place and a little negligent. Here is what replaced this information:

"Trump believes that global warming and cooling occur naturally.[46] In 2016, when Hillary Clinton accused him of saying that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, Trump denied the accusation.[47][47] In 2014 and 2015, however, he did call climate change a "hoax".[48][49] "

These new sentences completely omit the information on the elimination of the Global Climate Change Initiative, funding for the Green Climate Fund (and it's implications for the UN climate change programs), NASA's climate science research, and the climate change information from the white house website. Why was this decision made? I want to integrate this information back in but would like to hold a conversation about it first. Thank you for your contributions and your advice. Wedsatoms (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I removed it in the interest of concision. The information looks like it is covered in the third paragraph of that section already, and it flows better there too. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni Thank you. I will make an effort to limit redundancies within my contributions! I may try and flesh out that third paragraph of that section to include deleted pieces a little more thoroughly. Wedsatoms (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)wedsatoms

@Wedsatoms: No, your key information had not been "verified with ... secondary sources". Here's what your attributed secondary source had said:

Trump has repeatedly questioned the science of climate change and as recently as 2012 called it a myth created by China. . . .

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

"Concept", not "hoax".

Also, a relevant edit summary had said, "(tag for Failed Verification)" -- and you have yet to acknowledge that the information unquestionably did fail verification. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla Thank you for the correction. Although Trump has called climate change a hoax as @scjessey noted, I see my mistake of using the word "hoax" when describing the tweet referring to the "concept" that the Chinese invented climate change. I should have noted that these two tweets were separate incidents with different words describing similar sentiments. This is a learning process for us and we are working hard to become better writers and contributors. Wedsatoms (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)wedsatoms

Use of known urban legend

On April 17 an assigned student editor wrote:

Here are the deleted sentences:

"... The Trump Administration has deleted all climate change information on the white house website which signals Trump's intent to follow through on his promise to remove all of President Obama's climate change policies [55]..."

... This information is factual, cited using credible sources, and incredibly relevant to this page. Deleting this information feels ... a little negligent.

An elementary-level search turns up this result: "Did Donald Trump Remove the Terms 'LGBT' and 'Climate Change' from the White House Web Site?", Urban Legends Reference, Snopes, January 20, 2017:

While the U.S. presidency transitioned from Barack Obama to Donald Trump, rumors swirled that the latter removed the term ... "climate change" from the White House web site.

WHAT'S FALSE

The majority of content on WhiteHouse.gov was transferred to ObamaWhiteHouse.gov on Inauguration Day, and the term ... "climate change" w[as] not specifically removed by Donald Trump.

ORIGIN

As Donald Trump was sworn in ... many people noticed some considerable changes to the official White House web site ... such as the seeming removal of the term ... “climate change”...

On 17 January 2017, WhiteHouse.gov issued an announcement explaining the digital transition that would take place on Inauguration Day.

The student and the assigned peer reviewers may not be bothering to check their facts. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing/copyright

Just as an FYI, earwig is picking up some close paraphrasing in the first pre-move version [2] and a bit too close for comfort in the current one as well [3]. I also suspect some that Earwig is missing in America First Energy Plan. Anyone who is helping with the cleanup should be aware. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! I would love to help with this- do you know how I can find out which sections need to be fixed for close paraphrasing?Isabelangelo (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed them. The issue was Bureau of Land Management had three sentences copied from the Washington Post, and National Park Service a similar amount from National Geographic. One of our administrators here who is an expert in how copyright law relates to Wikipedia did what was called a revision deletion. Basically, because when you hit save on Wikipedia, you are releasing the content as a free license, which means that people can and do reuse it in publications, some of them commercial. It opens the Wikimedia Foundation up to lawsuits, so we have to remove all access to the content (and anything else that was published in the revisions it was present).

My concern with America First Energy Plan was that it still reads to me like something that was copied or very closely adjusted from another source. The tool we use to find violations here isn't picking anything up, nor is my manual Google spot testing. That being said, the reason I was suspicious was because it actually has somewhat the opposite problem of the rest of the article: it reads somewhat like the talking points you might get from someone who supported Trump. This isn't good either. I think at some point I rewrote portions of it, but it could still use a bit more of an evening out in my opinion, even if it is just to match the voice of Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know that earwig is picking up some close paraphrasing! We appreciate it. When you removed several sentences from the National Parks section, we found that most of the sentences taken out were about the concerns of marginalized groups.

Now, the National Parks section is left only with the fact that Trump is calling for more drilling in national parks, but with no information on the effect on marginalized groups-- including Native Americans, Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, and women. Previously, we wanted to express these groups' concerns, and especially on how they were integrated into the national park system for almost a decade. With major changes regarding the increase of drilling in national parks, these marginalized groups will definitely be affected. How can we add back into the article the effects on marginalized groups? We would love to work with you to include information on marginalized groups, instead of brushing it aside. Thanks so much!

Chenashley (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chenashley:I don't recall everything in that section off the top of my head, but from my memory it discussed Trump's personal investments in a way that would have added undue emphasis in an article about his administration that in my view did not go well with our policy on writing about living people. I believe you when you say that there was information about indigenous people there, but I just reviewed the National Geographic article it was sourced to again, and the only mention I found was standing rock. If you can find reliable sources that discuss indigenous reaction to his national parks policy, we might be able to include it in a balanced way depending on the weight that is appropriate looking at the totality of the sources. MelanieN is normally very good at the weighting of criticism compared to description of policy, so I'm asking her to weigh in here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the America First Energy Plan, that section was created from several different sources, so I am having difficulty moving forward with how to improve it if you were not picking anything up with the tools you used. Isabelangelo (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelangelo (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In terms of evening out the America First Energy Plan, do you have any recommendations? I actually put together the section, and did my best to summarize information I found. I think the current section is a compilation of facts supporting Trump's policy along with information about his policy, however there are other studies with different data and perspectives. I originally had a criticism section that was removed (justifiably), and I have to rewrite it to meet the Wikipedia:Crystal Ball guidelines, be less speculative, and also have a neutral tone. Do you think a criticism section will help even out this section? Hbonilla2 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hbonilla2: My first recommendation would be to rewrite it in concise prose rather than bullet points. Once you have it that way, you can work on presenting what the policy is based on reliable independent sources (think NYT and WaPo), and then see if a limited criticism component can be added that follows our neutrality policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In general I don't like separate "Criticism" sections. I prefer to have everything - the proposal, the possible effects, predicted benefits and drawbacks - in a single integrated section. For a given proposal it would usually consist of from one to three paragraphs. If it has enough material and sourcing for three paragraphs it should probably be a section or subsection of its own. If it is briefer than that it can be included as a paragraph in a larger section.

As I said somewhere else, right now the America First Energy Plan looks like it all came from the Trump White House. We need some independent analysis for balance. BTW I believe that "plan" appeared on the White House website the very day of his inauguration - and on the same day the "Climate change" page disappeared from the White House website.[4] I don't know if we can use that but it seems symbolic somehow.

Another thing we might want to try to fix in this article: right now it tends to have information about a single topic scattered in several places throughout the article. It's best if we can get it all in one place. I imagine that may have happened because the article was in sections written by multiple people, each of whom might have had something to say about (say) budget cuts. That's a good way to start, but now we might look for ways to integrate the article into a more seamless whole.

BTW I am delighted that so many of you are here on the talk page, talking and making suggestions and asking questions. This is EXACTLY how Wikipedia is supposed to work. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:@TonyBallioni: and for anyone else: I have revised the "America First Energy Plan" section currently in my user page. I'd really like some feedback before I move it onto the main space. Thank you! Hbonilla2 (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice work, Hbonilla2. You've gotten rid of the starred-paragraph format, which is always ugly, and your additions have given more balance to the section. I would make just one suggestion: the transition from the first to the second paragraph is awkward. I'd suggest you combine them into a single paragraph, with an intro something like this:

Trump unveiled what he calls the America First Energy Plan soon after his inauguration. It calls for significant deregulation, claiming that "America has been held back by burdensome regulations on [its] energy industry".[1] America currently has 264 billion barrels..."

And a technical issue: some references are cited more than once in the ref list. They should be combined into a single citation link, as was done with reference 1 (which is the same as reference 10; 10 should be combined into this link). 4 and 6 are also the same reference. If you don't know how to combine them, ask and I'll explain.

I think you should go ahead and put this into the article in place of the current section. People may tweak a word here and there (for example "However" is always tricky and can be considered POV in some circumstances) but it's still a big improvement over what is there now. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I would trim the second paragraph a bit (or break it up). Either way, I agree with Melanie that its fine to go to mainspace now. Changes can be made once its there. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, that's not your sandbox; it's your user page. Your user page is User:Hbonilla2; your sandbox is User:Hbonilla2/Sandbox. It was all right to do it there, but after you add it to the article, you should probably move it to your sandbox. If you look at the very top of any page when you are logged in, you will see links to your user page, your talk page, and your sandbox. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone! I'll make some minor adjustments to reflect your suggestions, and move it into main space. Also thanks MelanieN, I'll go ahead and change my original statement to say user page, sorry for the mix up. Hbonilla2 (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Good, Hbonilla2! On rereading it I did rearrange that large paragraph a little - putting all the stuff about coal together in one paragraph, and the claim about increased employment due to deregulation in a separate paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

New information

Important new information that came out in the past few days: when the new administration asked manufacturers what regulations they would propose to be rolled back or trimmed, environmental regs were the top of the list. [5] That article also links to a video interview with a former environmental justice employee at the EPA, about how Trump proposals would "target the most vulnerable". That is a viewpoint that contributors here have been eager to include more of in the article, although it would be better if we could find a written source rather than a video. --MelanieN (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that these UC–B students would hesitate to use "most vulnerable" as a factor. It's hard to measure quantitatively, and they're trying to become more scientific. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If the RS reference uses it, we can use it. I have deliberately not added this new information to the article because I am hoping one of our student editors will try their hand at it. I think the information about the industries being asked for their suggestions, and environmental regs being the top of the list, could go in the lede in a sentence. I haven't looked at the video myself so I'm not sure what use we can make of it or where, but it sounds like something we should use. To the student editors: if you want advice or help on how to add this, propose your wording here on the talk page, and get advice and consensus before adding it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Some (though not all) UC–B scholars would hesitate to trust a former Trump or Obama employee's assessment of Obama's or Trump's policy proposals, given the likelihood of systemic bias. Separately, we should make the students aware that WP:V has been amended to read: "Verifiability ... is not a reason for inclusion." --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's not jump to conclusions about what administration this guy worked for. In fact, he worked for the agency for 24 years, having helped to create the environmental justice office within the EPA during the George H. W. Bush administration, and continuing with it through the Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama administrations.[6] He quit the agency upon Trump's election. I think he would be a fair critic to cite, if we can find a good source. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I myself would hesitate to trust a former Trump or Bush employee's assessment of Bush's or Trump's policy proposals, given that Trump and the Bush family had a known adversarial political relationship. Ditto Trump and the Clinton family. As far as I'm aware, they all hated him. (Perhaps understandably.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added a sentence about the industry input to the lede section. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for adding to the lede section- I think it looks really good. I think we should talk a little bit more in detail about this in the "prgoram budget cuts" section. I will draft a sentence and post it here to get consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Isabelangelo (talk • contribs) Isabelangelo (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice work, ‎Isabelangelo. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

PopularResistance.Org

PopularResistance.Org is a self-avowed advocacy group. See the Reliable Sources Checklist for help on whether to use an advocacy group as a source.

How does the author make a living? If he's a professor at an established university ... he has an incentive to avoid outright mendacity, since that'll get you fired. Newspaper reporter, same thing. But other entities might encourage mendacity if it supports their mission.

To illustrate this point: The author titles his article, "How Environmental Contamination Targets People of Color". Would a reputable scholar or reporter have also investigated whether such contamination targets people by class more than by color? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The site is a self-avowed advocacy group but the information they are citing actually comes from a study done by the NDRC. There have been studies showing disparities by "class", but specifically in the study I am referring to is about racial disparities.Isabelangelo (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Natural Resources Defense Council is also an advocacy group. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Isabelangelo: Thank you very much for replying! Do you think you can find out which correlation is stronger: color or class?

:@Dsprc: Both correlations are very strong, which is why I have edited the statement, but studies show that race correlations are much stronger (see source 46, "Environmental Justice" section 3.1 "Race versus Class" for comprehensive description). I have also updated the article to include this source which is a scholarly source rather than a self-avowed advocacy group.Isabelangelo (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that you and your colleagues have made an invaluable contribution to the encyclopedia. What Dsprc and I are doing now is called "cleanup". It can be a stressful process (especially for newcomers) but also a rewarding one. Don't let us intimidate you! --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. This has been brought up on the main Donald Trump talk page, so you're probably going to see more people coming here. I've helped other members of your class with cleanup at Draft:Environmental impacts of the War on Drugs, and really appreciate all of your work. I've done some major cleanup of Trump policy articles at Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, and tend to be bold in rewriting based on that. It's not a critique of your writing as much that Wikipedia has a very distinct style so sometimes things will come out looking different than when they came in. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, Thank you for the feedback. If you don't mind, would you let us know when you make changes to the page, or tell us what needs to be "cleaned up" so that we can all work together on it? We are interested in collaborating with you during this process. Isabelangelo (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the copyright issues have been cleaned up, any further changes you should be able to see in the article history page by comparing revisions. I am normally pretty good at including descriptive edit summaries, but if those aren't enough, you can reach out to me on my talk page or here. If you want an idea of what a Trump admin policy article that is as far as I know compliant with Wikipedia policy is, you can look at Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. MelanieN and I worked on that one a few weeks ago by adjusting text from an article about Trump the person and adding additional information.

The general rule we used there was to not overdo the criticism (see WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK), but report the facts of the policy and any relevant reaction. Another good rule of thumb for this type of article is to try to separate Trump the person from Trump the office. The fact that Trump received energy subsidies personally might be warranted as criticism in his article, but I personally don't think belongs in this article since we are reporting on his government. There are cases where personal issues might be warranted here, but if in doubt, ask. We have a very strict policy on writing about living people and it applies in all articles, not just the main biography. Anyway, please feel free to reach out. I am more than happy to give feedback or help. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni thank you for the feedback on overdoing criticism. I think I have been in the mindset of trying to create a balanced article by providing both the "pro" and "against" sides, often adding information on criticism to try and create a fuller picture of the topic. The energy subsidies example is particularly helpful (I wrote the original section on climate change). I am used to writing essays in the vein of a news article instead of one created for an encyclopedia. There is definitely a learning curve and you and @MelanieN are getting me on the right track! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wedsatoms (talk • contribs) 05:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Related article

There should be a summary at Environmental policy of the United States. prokaryotes (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)