Talk:Executive Order 13792

The article is politically slanted
The article has some really good information and some good documentation but parts such as the Reaction section raise unbalanced controversy and thereby come off as a partisan political press release rather than educational material that would allow the reader to learn all sides of an issue. Surely there are people who want the National Monuments reviewed. Their reactions can be found online, but none of their reactions are included in the article. Either they should be added or the author should delete the statements of opponents.

In addition, it is much more respectful and less partisan to refer to the sitting President of the United States as "President Trump" or "the president" instead of just using his surname.

Finally, the Center for Biological Diversity is not a reliable and honest source of encyclopedic information. They were successfully sued for $600,000 for malicious defamation in 2005. The plaintiff was required to prove malicious intent to win. The lies were at such a level that it was the first time that the judge in the case had ever allowed a plaintiff to seek punitive damages. The guilty verdict was reached by a jury of 10 who had listened to some 21 witnesses.Backwardlook (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)