This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump 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.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
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)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
