Talk:Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump/Archive 1

Archive 1

change wording to identify Trump's assertions about infrastructure as assertions, not truths

Hey, the current wording in the lede of this article gives me pause. It now starts out "The infrastructure policy of Donald Trump is one of the priorities of his administration. He considers the modernization of American infrastructure as an extension of his career as a real estate developer and a concrete item to add to his legacy as President.[2] He also views infrastructure investments as a tool ...". Well, I think what is true is probably that Donald Trump and/or his campaign or whoever have asserted that infrastructure investment is a priority, and perhaps that it has been asserted to be among the top 3? 5? priorities for the Trump administration. I am not sure but I think that there have been zero infrastructure programs actually started or expanded under this administration, so there is room to be skeptical about true priorities vs. stated ones. It could be explained that Trump blames whomever for confounding implementation or whatever, but it probably does need to be said that initiatives have foundered. And Wikipedia's own voice should not be used to assert, as true, some of this stuff. Honestly i don't know if we can really say anything like "Trump's view is X", we should maybe only say things like "Trump on [a given date] and other occasions has asserted that he believes X". Any comments? Otherwise I may myself edit this article along these lines soon, and/or I invite others to do so. --Doncram (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

We are only reporting what he says and what he is trying to do. Moreover, if you read the whole article, you would realize that not all of his initiatives have faltered. And we do report on his failed attempts at a comprehensive infrastructure funding package. Nerd271 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Then it should be more clear in the very beginning of the article, that what is asserted is what he says. Maybe the current first sentence "The infrastructure policy ... is one of the priorities of his administration" is so vague that it is automatically true. Because it could be the lowest priority even. Or maybe it is nonsensical or ungrammatical and should be dropped. Can "policy", per se, be a priority? It doesn't say what Trump's infrastructure policy is, or even really suggest there is something tangible like having a goal of 8 zillion dollars to be spent on developing highways or whatever. I wonder, is the goal merely to have a policy, any policy, about infrastructure? --Doncram (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That's what he said, as reported by sources. If it is vague, than perhaps because it is his plan itself is vague (or overly broad). I only report what I read. Nerd271 (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-infrastructure, non-Trump stuff

There's a lot here, it seems to me, that is not about infrastructure as I would assume infrastructure is defined, and/or is not about Trump's policy or policies. Generally I would think "policy on infrastructure" would mainly be about public, governmental investment in infrastructure such as highways. Not-specifically-related stuff should be pared down. I am concerned that this looks like an ad hoc collection, violating wp:OR.

For example, the current article includes: "In January 2018, the Interior Department announced plans to allow drilling in nearly all U.S. waters. This would be the largest expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing ever proposed, and includes regions that were long off-limits to development and more than 100 million acres in the Arctic and the Eastern Seaboard, regions that President Obama had placed under a drilling moratorium.[43]" I don't know, that drilling for oil is infrastructure at all. Or whether allowing drilling is part of anything Trump wanted....the statement doesn't exclude the possibility that the Interior Department just came out with a conclusion from some review process started earlier, and/or was not even of interest to Trump.

For another example, the article includes: "In late May 2019, the Department of Energy rebranded natural gas as "molecules of freedom" which it sought to export worldwide. The announcement was made during the expansion of a facility in Quintana Island, Texas, that produces liquefied natural gas. This expansion is expected to bring 3,000 jobs to the area.[32]". How is that about (public) infrastructure at all? How is that about anything Trump has advocated for in any policy statement? We should not assume that every action of the vast U.S. Federal government is a reflection of Trump's policy.

E.g. there have been many public leaks of info that I think Trump usually hates (although sometimes the "leaks" turn out to be approved disclosures by officials requesting (for Trump) that the disclosure be "off the record); you would not say that it is Trump's policy to encourage leaks, just because some of "his" officials (whether appointed by him or not) have leaked info. Or I am sure that some innocent people have been killed by U.S. military, and I am sure we should not infer from that that Trump's policy goal is to kill innocent people, right?

For another example: "Representative Peter DeFazio, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, stated that the United States needs to spend at least $2 trillion on its infrastructure, including 140,000 bridges and 40% of highways that are in a state of poor repair.[17] According to a 2019 report from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), four out of ten structures need to be rehabilitated. In particular, 47,000 bridges are "structurally deficient," meaning they need to be renovated but are still safe to cross. That number is down 7,000 from 2017, but only because the Federal Road Administration changed its standards on what it means for a bridge to be deficient.[18]" That says nothing about what Trump's policy is. And isn't the chair of any House committee a Democrat now (in fact DeFazio is a Democrat). Sounds like the editor(s) of this article think that more infrastructure investment would be good, and this article sort of seems like an essay in support of that. Or am I being too harsh? But I really don't think that statement says anything about Republicans' or Trump's policies. --Doncram (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

If you check the definition of infrastructure from Merriam-Webster, I think what we have here is generally suitable. Regarding the oil pipelines, you need them to move oil the way you need railways and highways to move goods and people. Also see infrastructure-based development. That seems to be what his strategy is. If you think there is some overlap between this and economic policy of Donald Trump, you are correct. That's the point. As for the bit about DeFazio, it is in the background section. It is an attempt to bring in some context. Why do some people want to spend a lot of money on U.S. infrastructure? It also tells us that upgrading American infrastructure is not a partisan issue; funding such a scheme is. This is also stated, with a source, in the article.

I suppose I could change the title of this page to 'Infrastructure policy of the Donald Trump administration' since, after all, it is not one person doing everything. Nerd271 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

add "Trump Rule Would Exclude Climate Change in Infrastructure Planning" ?

• Trump Rule Would Exclude Climate Change in Infrastructure Planning Jan 3 NYT

such as climate change denial and not climate change mitigation? In relation to environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration? X1\ (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

More, regarding effects of global warming planning:

• Trump Administration Moves to Limit Climate Reviews for Federal Projects; The changes would underestimate the true contributions to global warming of fossil fuel infrastructure and other projects E&E News on January 9, 2020 via Scientific American
• + NBC, NYT, WaPo ...

X1\ (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: Thanks for the reading materials and edit suggestions. I'm a bit busy right now. I will return some time this weekend. Best wishes, Nerd271 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC).

Nerd271, thank you for the response. This is from PBS NewsHour: Trump seeks to relax environmental regulation of some infrastructure projects on YouTube also from January 9, 2020. X1\ (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@X1\:  Done With regards to the PBS link, I thought this one is better because it includes both the video and the transcript. Some of our readers may not have fast Internet access. Nerd271 (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Nerd271, the transcript is a great addition! X1\ (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

POV phrasing, inappropriate use of sources, SYNTH/OR, inclusion of pull quotes at the beginning of article, off-topic info

I am challenging a wide array of inappropriate material in this article:

1. A laudatory Trump epigraph at the top of the article, ahead of the lead section - not appropriate under policy.
2. Inappropriate use of primary sources (e.g., citations to an executive order).
3. Off-topic material - Inclusion of a huge array of material that is off-topic -- i.e., that is about the 1970s oil crisis, is about the Paris Agreement/climate change mitigation, or about Obama. This does not relate to "infrastructure" and the source material does not make the connection. This Iss traightforward WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.
4. Inappropriate use of dated sources - a lot of speculative material from 2017 (e.g., "In addition, the Trump administration seeks to export American know-how in coal, natural gas, and new nuclear reactor technology" cited to a mid-2017 source) - this article should primarily focus on what the administration has done, not forward-looking statements of intent.
5. POV phrasing not supported by broad sources - e.g., a first sentence saying that infrastructure "is one of the priorities of his administration" - This is contradicted by recent sources; i.e., as of Feb. 2020, "President Donald Trump seems to have abandoned any suggestions of a big-spending, big-vision infrastructure plan."

I see that Doncram, and possibly others, have raised similar concerns in the past, although I think the issues here are more extensive and broader than those that have been flagged in the past.

I am also concerned that actually substantive, updated content in the introduction (which I added when attempting to address the topic above) was deleted without explanation. (Indeed, an attempt to tackle some of the worst examples of the problems above was met with a summary reversion, which is totally improper.) --Neutrality^talk 15:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, let me address those concerns point-by-point.

1. He is actually referring to a concept known as infrastructure-based development, which has a long history and is currently being employed rather frequently in many countries. I really do not think it is laudatory at all. It simply explains his vision. Whether or not he can achieve it is a different story altogether.
2. There are some primary sources used here, but they are a minority compared to the rest.
3. Sources mention that Trump's energy policies resemble those of his predecessors since the 1970s. So some historical background is in order.
4. Fair point. But one could talk about both aspirations and achievements. We are after all talking about policies, and policies have goals and realities.
5. Another fair point. But keep in mind that the situation is developing. And people in Washington have resumed talks about a possible infrastructure package.

Nerd271 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Epigrams are not our usual style in articles. We can make some points in text, but not in pull quotes. As to historical analogies, those can be made briefly, without lengthy discussion about the 1970s. The first thing to do should be to remove material cited to sources that make no mention of Trump. I assume you have no objection to that?

Also: lead sections summarize the body of the article. Lots of material in the lead section is not reflected in the body at all — that content should be moved to the body of the article. Neutrality^talk 16:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

1. It's just a quote, though. It is neither highly inappropriate nor deeply controversial. Historical context is crucial. Moreover, I think that bit is rather concise and flows smoothly into the present. Some readers will wonder why sources say his energy policies resemble those of his predecessors since the 1970s. It answers their question without becoming an article on its own.
2. That's not a bad suggestion. I rearranged the article and updated the introduction.

Nerd271 (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• The quotes add little or no value to the reader. To the extent paraphrases or brief direct quotation is valuable, they can be worked into the text of the art

icle.

Also, the "energy independence" part of the article — and other material, including the material on the 1970s oil crisis, climate change, etc. — remains off-topic. Energy policy is the topic of other articles, including Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration and Energy policy of the United States. I haven't seen the sources cited describe these topics as "infrastructure," so inclusion in this article is WP:OR. Neutrality^talk 18:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

1. It summarizes his vision and is located in the appropriate section. But I suppose I can try to incorporate it into the main body.
2. Infrastructure does not have to mean just public works. It can also mean the basic framework needed for a country to function. Understandably, there will be some overlap. Historical context should stay, as long as it does not take too much space and connects smoothly with its designated section.

Nerd271 (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

On #2 - historical content can only stay if the sources themselves (not Wikipedia editors) make a connection to Trump's infrastructure policy. I haven't seen the sources do so. This, that is [WP:OR]]/WP:SYNTH 101. Neutrality^talk 18:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You are applying WP:OR in overly rigid manner. Sources mention energy policies since the 1970s, so it makes sense to briefly talk about it. Nerd271 (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No, Policy is very clear on this. WP:OR: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Trump is one of the most covered people on the planet. Let me repeat my question: Which sources cited actually describe the energy and climate change policies (including the 1970s comparison) as "infrastructure"? Neutrality^talk 18:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This source said his policies resembles those of his predecessors from the '70s'. Only some background information is provided to contextualize the topic; no conclusion is drawn. Since the Green Power Plan concerns energy, which is part of infrastructure, it should be mentioned. Part of the dispute over the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement concerns energy, so it is relevant as well. But it should not be the central focus, and it is not. Nerd271 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the CNBC article describing his energy policy as infrastructure. Nor do any of the source cited seem to describe the Paris Agreement stuff as an infrastructure issue.

How about this as a compromise/alternative? We cut the sources that make no mention of Trump and infrastructure. In return, we can add to the article some content that explains that the infrastructure negotiations with Congress have included proposed investments in the electric grid. That issue (unlike the other issues) has been discussed by sources specifically in the infrastructure context. Neutrality^talk 19:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Energy is part of infrastructure. If it makes sense to talk about the power grid, it makes sense to talk about oil and natural gas. Where do you think a good chunk of the electricity comes from? Energy must be conserved. The Climate deal pertains to energy, more so the Clean Power Plan, and so should be mentioned. Again, they should not be the main focus, and they aren't. I would love to include information on the power grid here; it would be a fine addition to what we already have. Nerd271 (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• If "Energy is part of infrastructure" then the source material will reflect that. Otherwise it's WP:OR. Show me the source material that describes Trump's energy/climate change policies as "infrastructure policy." Neutrality^talk 19:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are applying WP:OR too rigidly. It is enough to use the dictionary definition. If it makes sense to talk about the power grid, and it definitely does, it makes sense to talk about energy. The power grid is a part of the basic framework needed for a (modern) country to function, and without sources of energy, electricity cannot be generated. Nerd271 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not sufficient. We follow the source material here, not editors' conceptions of what "infrastructure" means. There are thousand of articles that explicitly discuss Trump and infrastructure, so I see absolutely no reason why we need to dip into source material that (1) doesn't mention Trump and (2) doesn't mention infrastructure. Neutrality^talk 19:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not my conception of what 'infrastructure' means. It is a dictionary definition. Nerd271 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If a given policy (be it the Paris Agreement or something else) is "infrastructure," it will be described as such in the source material. The source material does not do this. That's a classic, classic, WP:OR issue. Neutrality^talk 19:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Just because something is not explicitly there does not mean it is not there and cannot be understood to be there. Again, I am not using my own personal definition of infrastructure. Incidentally, I ran into something that incorporates "climate resiliency" as part of infrastructure. Keep in mind that infrastructure is a rather broad category. Nerd271 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• That's not consistent with our OR policy. Does anybody else support your view on this? Neutrality^talk 20:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's see. We have articles from The Hill, Politico, and Phys.org that explicitly use the phrase "energy infrastructure." Nerd271 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS / WP:OR - please self-revert

Copying this from Nerd271's user talk page to the article talk page, since he/she prefers to discuss here

Nerd271, please self-revert your edit to Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump. Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." I have disputed this and other content on the article talk page, explaining in detail why this excessive "background information" that constitutes original research/synthesis. No consensus exists to include it. Per ONUS, I request that you self-revert. Neutrality^talk 22:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping it here. I am willing to address any specific questions you have. With regards to background information, we should report what happened, what somebody did, why they did it, and when they did it. The paragraph you attempted to "trim" pertains to the said categories. People and events do not exist in a vacuum. As long as we are careful not to turn what should be a paragraph into a treatise, it should be fine. In this case, people need to know what geomagnetic storms are and how they pose a threat to the power grid. Nerd271 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That was not an answer to my request. My request was clear: please self-revert per ONUS. Will you do so, in compliance with our policy? I am happy to continue discussing, but it is not acceptable to restore challenged content without consensus, as ONUS makes clear. Neutrality^talk 22:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That was an answer to your question why such and such was included. If you attempt to remove information that already exists and someone else opposes you, it is your responsibility to seek consensus on the talk page. It makes no sense to voice your objections to the status quo, change it, and demand that a consensus be reached to put it back. You are the one making the claim that such and such should not be included, it is therefore your responsibility to provide the reasoning. Given your incorrect application of the policy, I will decline your request. Nerd271 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that is the opposite of the policy. WP:ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." The fact that you disagree with others or think they are "incorrectly applying" the policy does not allow you to ignore ONUS. I'm asking you again to self-revert, per our clear site policy. Neutrality^talk 22:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds illogical given the standards for the "burden of proof" lying on those making the claim. Regardless, there is only you disagreeing. Perhaps we should file a formal request for comments? Nerd271 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense that the user supporting content would bear the burden. I would be open to an RfC (but that of course does not eliminate your obligations under ONUS not to restore dispute material). Did you have a specific question in mind? Neutrality^talk 22:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No, you are the one making the claim that XYZ should not be included, it is therefore your responsibility. If you have a specific piece of information you would like removed, you can ask a question here for file a formal Request for Comments. Nerd271 (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• That's the complete opposite of what ONUS says. I understand that you were the original creator of the article and contributed most of the text, but you don't own the article and you still have to follow policy, including the policy that says the burden is on you to gain consensus for disputed content, not the other way around. To clarify, this is your position as I understand it: (1) You believe that content can be included in this article even if it does not refer to Trump and does not refer to infrastructure; (2) You believe content on the Paris Agreement, climate change, tariffs and trade policy, and the hacking of the African Union (AU) headquarters can be included in this article, even though there are other articles where such content is far better suited; (3) You believe it's appropriate to create notes to scientific and technical details like "Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction." Neutrality^talk 22:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not an entire accurate representation of my position. Obviously, I do not own this article. If I wanted to, I would not put it here for all to read and make useful edits as they see fit. (1) I think it makes sense to include background information, as long as it does not take up too much space. Such information is need for a better understanding of this topic. We should not be writing superficial articles. (2) Given that energy in general and renewable energy in particular are related to climate change, mentioning the Green Power Act and the Paris Climate Agreement is appropriate. Given the link between infrastructure and economic development and Trump's trade policy, explaining the rationale behind his tariffs on solar panels makes sense. Moreover, energy is part of a nation's infrastructure, as explained above. Cybersecurity incidents are the reasons why Huawei is controversial. Brief details should be included. (3) Because Faraday's law is decidedly a technical topic, I added the link to it as a note rather than as a part of the main body. Nerd271 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs are editorializing and original research

I just recently came across this article and was surprised at the amount of original research and editorializing in the opening paragraphs. For example:

• The opening line, "While there have been no major infrastructure spending packages yet, some individual policies and projects have advanced piecemeal, especially in rural areas" does not provide an appropriate summary of the article, but instead suggests there's something notable about the lack of major infrastructure projects. Maybe that's important, but a source would need to suggest that. And it certainly doesn't need to be the opening line. It reads like a critique.
• The next line's parenthetical mention of "catering" is another example of potentially-biased framing. If there have been accusations of catering, then cite them. This parenthetical appears to be a POV.
• The next paragraph editorializes with generalizations about Republican vs Democratic approaches to infrastructure investment. This isn't sourced, and isn't relevant to the article, let alone needed in the opening section. Go find an article on the History of infrastructure policy in the United States if you want to expound on this.
• Pointing out that "'Infrastructure' is a rather broad term that means different things to different people" is an obvious and unneeded observation, which can be better served by just linking to Infrastructure within the opening.
• And articles should avoid being self-reflective in stating "This article focuses exclusively on", and the distinction provided between "hard" and "soft" infrastructure appears arbitrary and editorializing. If it is notable that Trump's infrastructure policy has focused on one or the other, then find a citation that supports that claim.

As a result, I was bold and trimmed the intro to be more encyclopedic. This was swiftly reverted by Nerd271 (talk · contribs) with the note "Restoring good contents." I disagree, and want to get other opinions. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me address your concerns one by one.

1. I can swap the opening line with the one right after.

2. I'm pretty sure my use of the verb 'to cater' is appropriate. Moreover, this is a summary of the current contents of the article. If you read the full article carefully, you would probably come to the conclusion that is is not a bad summary.

3. This is similar to the point above. The introduction summarizes the article and as such does not always need to be sourced.

4. This is one of the reasons why a major spending package has not advanced. This is elaborated upon in the article. Recentism is ill-advised. Some context is needed.

5. This is to avoid confusion and to limit the scope of the article. The distinction is not arbitrary. Fire departments are public services (soft infrastructure) but train stations are public works (hard infrastructure). The two classes of infrastructure are not identical.

Nerd271 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Briefly, I don't think the opening needs to focus so much on commenting on whether Trump's infrastructure policy has been successful or typical. The way it reads now is very much "there isn't really much of an infrastructure policy" commentary. Maybe create a section about that concern specifically, if there are sources to point to. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. But once again, the article as a whole does point to the fact that no major infrastructure packages have passed, though individual projects have received funding. No where in the introduction does it say anything about "success" or "failure," just a summary of the article in its current state. Nerd271 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The earlier version literally opened with the word "While" which is rarely used neutrally. It has already been changed to open with a more declarative sentence about the nature of T's policy, and that is a small improvement. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Topic of article

I see a lot of content about Trump's generic Mercantilist narratives, but very little about any proposed policy or legislation relating to infrastructure investment. I suggest we trim the off-topic content. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)