Talk:Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration/Archives/2020/February

Tremendous right-wing bias in article
Must this article be a propaganda piece for the Trump administration? Must the article be ritualistically cleaned of any suggestion that Trump knowingly intends to destroy the conditions for the continuation of human life? Trump knows very well the consequences of his actions. Do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia Logic (talk • contribs)


 * You can't make statements like "Trump knowingly intends to destroy the conditions for the continuation of human life". Pretty sure that goes against BLP. LanHikari64 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * what if such claims are prefaced with “according to critics”? This sounds like a compromise everyone can get behind.Encyclopedia Logic (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You cannot use wording like that unless it is an actual quote from a reliable source, and the statement is sourced in your edit. LanHikari64 (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you need to follow what the RSs state and use those as your cites, avoiding wp:OR. X1\ (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

add pushback, Scientific American example?
Some points: X1\ (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A Proposed EPA Regulation Would Endanger the Public’s Health; Under a new rule, the agency would be prevented from using crucial studies that include confidential information by Andrew Rosenberg Scientific American February 1, 2020
 * It applies to all the science used by the agency.
 * It requires endless, pointless reanalysis.
 * It upends the value placed on studies.
 * It is a political change made to achieve political goals.

pushback on emissions rule changes, add?
X1\ (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/trumps-clean-car-rollback-is-riddled-with-math-errors-clouding-its-legal-future/574249