Talk:Executive Order 13792

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Mid-importance).

Law

	Law portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]