Talk:Trump administration political interference with science agencies

Plan of approach

This is a draft of what I hope will become an article about political pressure on science and health agencies by the administration of Donald Trump. At this time I have been adding material without any organization, just so that I can get it into the article with proper attribution noting the article I copied it from. So far all of my material is about COVID-19 issues, which I am most familiar with. I think I will try to get that into shape before gathering material on any other subject. I am as yet undecided how much territory this article will cover: whether to limit it to health agencies, which I am familiar with, or try to include environmental issues as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I now have a fairly thorough article about interference with health agencies regarding COVID-19. User:Neutrality, please make any improvements or additions you like. I'd particularly like your opinion on the order of the sections.

You had suggested also reporting what was done to muzzle, control, or overrule the science agencies, particularly environmental ones. I'm not familiar with that area. We know that the administration has overturned many environmental regulations - probably hundreds. But is there also evidence of political meddling with the agencies themselves, as was done with the health agencies - trying to get them to say unscientific things, putting words in their mouth, censoring their reports? Or were they simply ignored and overridden? If there was political interference, should we hold up this article until we can add that as well, or should we launch this article as regarding health, and expand it later? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Well, a quick glance at the Columbia compilation shows that in addition to Trump's own statements denying climate change, there have been examples of interference, such as abolishing committees, or that false presentation by a former MIT prof. Not nearly as much as the health agencies, but still something. I'd like your opinion on whether to release this article now and later expand it, or put everything in now. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Notes of other possible sources

• Science Under Attack: How Trump Is Sidelining Researchers and Their Work
• The Trump administration is muzzling government scientists
• Leaders of the Union of Concerned Scientists (admittedly an advocacy group), in the Scientific American magazine just calls it The Trump Administration’s War on Science Agencies
• Columbia Law School has the Silencing Science Tracker: "It tracks government attempts to restrict or prohibit scientific research, education or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information, since the November 2016 election."

Suggestions copied from User:Neutrality's talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible titles

Possible titles, seemingly way too long:

• Political interference with federal health agencies by the Trump administration
• Political pressure on federal health agencies by the Trump administration
• Trump administration efforts to interfere with or silence federal government scientists
• Trump administration political pressure on federal health and science agencies

Probably starting with "Trump administration" is better than putting it at the end.

I wonder if there is a more concise way to say this? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree that we should try to start with "Trump administration." We could do Trump administration efforts to interfere with, pressure, or silence federal government scientists, perhaps? That is long, but also comprehensive. Neutrality^talk 19:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Way too long IMO. I've been thinking about it and I'm coming to like Trump administration political interference with science agencies. I think it's important to say "political", i.e., interference by political appointees. After all the agencies themselves are part of the Trump administration, they aren't interfering with themselves! And we can probably skip "federal" just for conciseness. I'd like to settle on a name because I would like to move this to mainspace fairly soon. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point on political interference - that's the key item. Your suggested name works for me: short and concise but descriptive. A few brain dump items for potential coverage -

• USDA Economic Research Service link
• NOAA and Weather Service link
• "Earlier this year, dozens of current and former EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service and Army Corps of Engineers employees filed a complaint with the EPA inspector general and scientific integrity officer requesting investigations into political interference during the process of repealing the Waters of the United States rule implemented during the Obama administration." link
• "EPA scientists found a toxic chemical damages fetal hearts. The Trump White House rewrote their assessment." (link)

--Neutrality^talk 22:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Great sources! and good info for the "environmental science" part of the article. Can you suggest any WP articles that already cover some of this material, so that I can pirate it with an "attribution" edit summary instead of having to research it de novo?

I still wonder about the organization if we cover science and health in one article. Should we have one huge Level 2 heading for all the health stuff, and another Level 2 heading for environmental stuff? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can suggest a few articles to plunder from: Economic Research Service (history section); Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy; Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration; and Wilbur Ross (esp. Wilbur_Ross#NOAA/Hurricane_Dorian_controversy) all have some useful content.

Health, environment, and other might be three good buckets. Neutrality^talk 00:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I needed! I will try to take the article live today. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Got the Agriculture meddling and the Dorian/NOAA thing. I found a little stuff for the EPA, but that "environmental policy" page is so enormous it may take me a while. I'm looking for instances of actual meddling with the science or overruling the scientists (as opposed to setting policy which is a normal administrative function). I'm going to go ahead and launch this page, but the environmental section is going to need expansion. That Columbia University "Silencing Science Tracker" will be a good source as time permits. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Once we use the terms "interference", "pressure", "silence", "politicize" and the like, we are engaged in POV-pushing. The fact is that the US Constitution gives the executive the executive the authority to run the agencies. It is up to Congress to establish the limits on how the executive does this. What we see these days (whether we like it or not) is push-back from those who do not like how the agencies have been pressured or interfered with in the past. SO I suggest the following as a NPOV title for this article: "Trump administration changes to science agency policies". This title will leave the article open to explain the changes and to grouse about how wonderful or evil the changes have been. – S. Rich (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The technical term in the academic literature is 'politicization' and has been established in the literature for some time; the classic example is the Nazis, but the Cold War is full of examples, too. All politicians politicize science; pushback from the scientific community depends on the extent to which the politicians politicize it. Johncdraper (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

While we have academic material about politization of science, we do NOT have peer-reviewed literature about what the Trump administration has done. That is a judgment for historians. Our concern here are much like that raised in Talk:Demagogue. We resolved that discussion by limiting the examples of demagogues to historical examples. I hope we can do the same here. – S. Rich (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Srich32977: So, if I build a reflist of academic and reliable sources right now which do refer to 'politicization of science' during the Trump administration, that would do it? Johncdraper (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The job of science agencies is to do science. The job of an administrator is to administrate. When administrators order science agencies to stop doing science and instead start lying to the public, that is, although it may be strictly legal, still interference by any meaning of the word. Go look at Talk:Grover Furr, where some users tried to argue that Stalin did commit any crimes because everything he did was legal - he was the boss after all, he decided what was legal and what was not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Important points (IMO): 1. Science organizations (labs, research, medical, academic, etc.) all have administrators. And the administrators don't just say "do your job" or "do science". They direct the work done by the scientists. 2. The "legality" of what they do is subject to the norms of the times. (For example, Edward Jenner experimented on James Phipps in a fashion that is illegal today.) 3. Politics is a major, major force in every aspect of life. And "politization" is now just a buzzword used to decry the impact of politics in life. 3.a. Politics will have a major impact on how the upcoming COVID-19 vaccines are developed, validated, approved, accepted, distributed, etc. E.g., versions of the vaccine now exist -- will they work? If they work, then how will the 6,000,000,000 to 12,000,000,000 doses be distributed? One person/group might think method X is best and another will advocate for method Y. Each will have (hopefully) rational, reasonable, workable arguments for their preference. But "politization of vaccine development and distribution" is a worthless and UN-encyclopedic title. (The same would be true if we wrote Trump administration political interference with COVID-19 vaccine distribution logistics.) Each of these points support an importance WP guideline: WP:NOTNEWS. – S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

1. So what? 2. So what? 3. So what?

You are changing the subject in every direction you found.

1. So what? Those administrators are saying "don't do science." "Don't do your job." "Stop being honest. Instead, lie." They do not use these words, but that is the gist. They are trying to stop science agencies from being science agencies. This goes far beyond the normal behaviour of administrators "directing the work." They are trying to direct the results.
2. So what? I did not argue that laws are set in stone, or even that laws are in any way relevant to the question at hand. To the contrary, I said they do not matter here. So why are you talking about something that does not matter?
3. So what? It seems as if you pick a word at random from my text - no, actually, from someone else's text - and explain what it is and what properties it has. So what - squared!

I repeat my actual point: you were wrong to say this is not interference. You had no counter to that, as everybody can see from your panicked jumping all over the map.

But you seem to have already dropped that line of reasoning, first muddying the water and then replacing the original reasoning by a suddenly magically emerging non-sequitur NOTNEWS. Like someone who does not have any good reason for his opinion and tries one bad reason after the other.

Why your new reason is also bad: Is has been known for a while that more and more Republicans are loons who support all types of crap you can read up in Wikipedia to find out they are crap, from creationism to climate change denial to conspiracy theories to birtherism to belief in the efficiency of torture, and it has been known for a while that what's-his-name, Combover Mussolini, is among the worst of them. Before he moved to the White House, scientists in government agencies squirreled away their data about climate change to save them from deletion. So, this is really, as you say, not news, and therefore not subject to WP:NOTNEWS.

I want to add that "Trump administration changes to science agency policies" has to be the most blatant misnomer since Orwell's Ministry of Truth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, presidents have the power to set policy. What is reported here is not changes in policy. It is cases of political appointees interfering with or obstructing the actual, stated mission of the agencies or the proper, assigned work of the scientists who work there. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

We follow the sources here. The sources state, very very clearly, that the administration has worked across many agencies to politicize science; interfere with, silence, or ignore scientists; and contradict, delay, hold up, or downplay scientific agencies' findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The objections I see above basically boil down to "I don't like it," unsubstantiated conclusions, or statements along the lines of "the administration has legal power to do what they do." None of this demonstrates anything improper about the article. Neutrality^talk 01:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hit piece

I hope this "article" is a joke. Polymath uk (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, it became rather serious when the US National Academies of Sciences and Medicine issued the first statement in their history condemning the politicization of science. It's an unprecedented intervention by senior representatives of the scientific community in the defence of the scientific process during the time of a pandemic. That's why I rated this page High for Sci Pol. Johncdraper (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Johncdraper. I'll add it to the Reactions section. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

POV fork

This looks pretty clearly like a WP:POVFORK. Is there any reason this shouldn't just be merged into the article(s) that describe Trump's policies and actions in certain areas? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not a fork; most of this information has not appeared anywhere else, and there really isn't an appropriate merge target. There is an enormous amount of reporting on this subject (the article currently contains about 75,000 bytes and more than 100 references) and it is a highly significant issue. If you feel the title is POV, let's talk about it; I would welcome your suggestions for a more neutral title that would still explain succinctly what the subject is. And if you feel there is an opposing viewpoint that could be presented (has there been reporting about cases where the administration DIDN'T interfere with science agencies?), let's talk about that. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This is neither a POV or an improper fork (and I note that no rationale has been raised in support of either claim). The political interference is related to Trump's policies and actions, and will have points of intersection, but this is also a topic onto itself, as a look at the references reveals. Neutrality^talk 01:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's not treat people as though they are fools by saying that this article isn't written with a negative point of view towards Donald Trump. It's not neutral to have an article that purposefully lists only bad things that someone does, just as it would be to only have an article that lists only good things, and there is really nowhere else on Wikipedia where this happens on a wide scale than in articles to do with Donald Trump.

This article should either have its content moved to the appropriate articles, or have its scoped changed to be broadly about science policy. There is much content here which is plainly not political interference. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't make content decisions (like inclusion or non-inclusion) based on whether something reflects well or badly on a person (WP:FALSEBALANCE). We make content decisions based on what the universe of reliable sources says about a topic. Neutrality^talk 15:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding There is much content here which is plainly not political interference. I read through the article looking for such content. I removed the NASA section because I could find no evidence that the threatened defunding of NASA's Earth Science division had actually taken place. If you would like to point out other specific content that you believe is not political interference, please specify and let's talk about it. Regarding "lists only bad things", I agree with Neutrality: we report what sources report; we can't distort the article to achieve a false balance. There basically just isn't much reporting out there that defends these actions or claims they aren't interference. One exception was Caputo's defense of his actions, after he left HHS, and his comments ARE included here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Neutrality: We don't make content decisions based on whether something reflects well or badly on a person. Yes, you are. Both of you are plainly doing this in creating this article. I'm not saying that there are any good things being missed. You're both competent editors and you both obviously knew that you were setting out to create an article intended to reflect negatively on the subject. There is nobody else for who Wikipedia has articles which are just lists of bad things that they've done, and there are obviously many notable people who have done bad things. The issue is certainly not that there are good things about Trump that are being left out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

RE: There is nobody else for who Wikipedia has articles which are just lists of bad things that they've done: Well, we do have Veracity of statements by Donald Trump and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape and Trump–Ukraine scandal. But it’s not just Trump. Check out Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Then there’s Hillary Clinton email controversy and Hillary Clinton cattle futures controversy. Let’s not forget George W. Bush military service controversy, Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations, Bill Clinton pardon controversy, Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies - well, you get the idea. Articles about a public figure that are about something negative are actually very common here. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC) P.S. In any case, this article is mostly not about things done by Trump personally; it's about things done by his administration. Hence the title; it says "Trump administration interference," not "Donald Trump political interference". And not just individual actions but a pattern of actions, widespread through many agencies, so unusual and noteworthy that it has been commented on by major nonpartisan sources like the National Institute of Sciences, the National Institute of Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine (a journal that has never before taken a political stand in its 200-year history). This is a real thing, and it needs an article. -- MelanieN (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN is entirely correct on all counts, and I would also ask that you please avoid the speculation on her or my motives or any other editors' motives. Neutrality^talk 19:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I have not made any speculation of motives here. I have no reason to believe that yours or MelanieN's motivations are bad.

MelanieN, those are mostly articles which detail one controversial event. My point is that we should avoid these kinds of articles and included the content in articles that discuss an entire topic, like Trump and science. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the title is problematic and unencyclopedic. For example, the section "Public briefings on the coronavirus pandemic" is unrelated to the title, and a WP:COATRACK for general criticism. When a leader is exercising his elected authority, that is not "political interference"; it's part of the job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Please remember to present both "sides"; the NYT source used in the article did.[1] I have added in the left out pieces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It would have to be written as something that mitigates the actions by the political administration, rather than simply criticism of the CDC or other agencies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not following. Feel free to remove the balance if I missed something; I just noticed that only one "side" of the article was presented (but it's still not "interference"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition, Sandy. This article is not written to whitewash any mistakes that the science agencies might have made or to pretend they are perfect. (However, I did have to remove one of the examples you gave of errors by the CDC leadership, since that was actually a case of political interference overruling them, as the source made plain.) I'd really like to include reports of any disagreement with or debunking of the claims of political interference, but there really haven't been any such reports. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on article renaming between Johncdraper & Srich32977

This is a copy/paste from a recent discussion on Srich32977's Talk. We may have determined the new article title, based on existing WP practices, and are now looking for any additional comments prior to a proposed name change to Science policy of the Trump administration. Discussion follows.

Trump administration political interference with science agencies

Would you be okay with this title: Trump administration politicization of science? Johncdraper (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: Nope. What is "politicization"? It implies something B-A-D. Scientific method itself is a process of dispute and debate. And the scientific process is not helped by injecting public opinion. Let's let the science stand on its own, without trying to bolster scientific results with non-scientific posturing. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically of this reference, but there are any others. I mean, I could build a whole reflist demonstrating this if need be. Still no good? Johncdraper (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: Great source – thanks! And it reinforces my point. Take DDT for example – "many of the health concerns of DDT have shifted away from science ... to emotionalism [paraphrased]." We would not create an article titled Politization of malaria control or President X administration political interference with malaria control efforts. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Something along the lines of science policy agenda? Johncdraper (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: There is only one item on Mr. Trump's agenda. "What? We Exclaim!" (Or "Who? We Exposit.") For a clearer answer we can look for articles on other presidents. Which of them are titled "President Q's policy agenda on RST"

@Srich32977: There is a long-established series of Foreign policy of the... administration, with the last iteration being Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. There is also a series of ... Policy of Donald Trump administration, e.g., Economic policy of Donald Trump administration. So, Science policy of the Trump administration would make sense, right? Johncdraper (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: I agree. It sets the stage for a NPOV exposition of what those policies are. And within the article the critics will have their say about how good or evil the policies have been. (So, let's cut & paste this discussion over to the article talk page. Then I think we could soon WP:BB and change the article title.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!Johncdraper (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your thoughtful discussion about this, Johncdraper and S. Rich! It actually might be a good idea to have an article here called Science policy of the Trump administration. You might consider writing one. However, this is not that article. This article is not about his policies with regard to science. It is about actions, mostly by political appointees in the administration rather than by Trump himself, which are not in pursuit of any stated policy; nobody has publicly stated a policy that "science actions must support the president's re-election" or "government scientists must publicly agree with whatever the president says". (Well, nobody but Caputo.) These actions are well documented and important, per Reliable Sources, but they are not about anything that could be regarded as "policy". So I oppose "science policy" as a title for this article; it doesn't match the content. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope we can agree that this article involves one issue: namely alleged or actual politicization of US national science agencies during the Trump administration. Terms like "influence", "agenda", "interference", "pressure", etc. are just rewordings of this issue. With this in mind please note that Wikipedia has but two articles with "politicization" in the title: Politicization and Politicization of science. Only one other article uses the term "political interference" in its title: Prohibition of Political Interference Act, 1968. Our article violates, blatantly, the WP:NPOVTITLE policy. We can correct this problem by re-titling it "Science policy of the Trump administration". Doing so will then require editors to present an NPOV description of the policy and leave room for critics to discuss particular aspects of the science policy. Also they can bring in Trump political activities in the Politicization of science as examples. – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

An article where this title would be appropriate is not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Srich32977 is absolutely correct here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: As I read your comment you say there are Trump Admin officials who are "going outside their lane" and pushing personal agendas rather than enforcing actual, existing, established governmental policy. (Whether this is correct does not matter.) Well, if there are "political appointees in the administration rather than by Trump himself" who are doing this then HOW does WP get involved in presenting this stuff? E.g., is this might be a topic in the news, but how does it become a topic for an encyclopedia? Actually your comment reinforces the fact that this article is (hopelessly) POV tainted. So, I propose the following: 1. We apply WP:TNT and start over. 2. We do so with a WP:BLAR to Politicization of science. Then another enterprising WP editor can rev-up a new article, namely Science policy of the Trump administration. That new article will then provide the platform to explain how rogue officials have perverted the proper focus of science. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

S. Rich, at first I thought your only objection was to the title of the article. You feel it is not neutral. You proposed “Science policy” but that does not describe it. (Although I agree that a “Science policy of the Trump administration” article would be good to have, and if you care to write it I will help.) I was going to suggest something like “Science agencies of the Trump administration,” although that doesn’t describe it either. I’m definitely willing to talk about the title, as long as it is a title that accurately reflects what the article is about.

But now you sound as if you want to eliminate the whole article. I will strongly fight any attempt to blow up or otherwise suppress this article. It is about a real, well documented, important pattern of activity by political appointees, and sometimes by Trump himself, to interfere with or change facts or silence the science agencies of the government. It is not a matter of a few “rogue officials” going “outside their lane”; it is an administration-wide pattern, so blatant that it has been called out by three of our most respected, non-partisan institutions that have never before commented on any political subject.[2][3] This is not just “a topic in the news”, it is a well documented pattern of government behavior.

As for “neutrality”, such as presenting information to debunk or disagree with this pattern - well, if you can find such sources we will include them. But basically we haven’t been able to present the “the other side” because there is no other side; that is, no one has denied the truth of any of the reports in this article. If they did, we would report it. But it’s the opposite: Caputo has affirmed his part in it,[4] Stephen Hahn has apologized for his part in it,[5] and the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce has confirmed it.[6]

You say the article is POV because it documents something negative, but so do all the other articles I Iisted above to show that documenting something negative about a public figure or a government institution is neither against the rules or unusual; we do it whenever Reliable Source reporting supports it. Your argument is sounding more and more like you just personally object to this topic. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact we already have an article that is perfectly on point. See Science policy of the United States. And it has a section titled "Science in political discourse". THIS is the article where recent political activities related to science agencies should be discussed. THIS is the article where we can relay the RS about the "real, well documented, important pattern of activity by political appointees, and sometimes by Trump himself, to interfere with or change facts or silence the science agencies of the government." And such material can also include counterarguments to the accusations of improper politicization. – S. Rich (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We also have an article called Politicization of science, and it has a subsection "Trump administration" that reports a few of these incidents. We could transfer the entire contents of this article there, but it would overwhelm the article so I don't advise it. A couple of incidents won't convey the main point that this is a pattern, but describing the pattern without the incidents would be inadequately sourced. About counterarguments, I would love to see the counterarguments so I can include them here; can you give me links to a few of them? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, the major problem here is the article title. E.g., "political interference" sets the stage for POV pushing and we violate WP policy by keeping it in the title. In other articles we known there has been politicization of science ever since humankind recognized that science was a process (or existed). In the Space Race Kennedy said "get a man on the moon first even if you have to use a slingshot!" (IOW, he was "interfering" with the space agency.) Sending John Glenn up in the space shuttle was done to bolster public support for the program. (Again, administration PR people were "interfering" with careful scientific and technological process.) Christa McAuliffe, who was not a pilot, astronaut, or scientist, lost her life because political aims (quite well-intentioned) over-rode safety concerns. You say "no one has denied the truth of any of the reports". But "the truth of the reports" is not the issue. Those politicians who are pushing their views on science topics are doing so because they were elected to do so. E.g., they are not interfering with the science agencies – they are doing their job, whether we like it or not. – S. Rich (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I totally disagree that that is their job, but WP:NOTFORUM. We are talking about the title. Would you accept Trump administration science agencies? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think what is being missed here is this actually isn't one topic. The content here that relates to the coronavirus pandemic should be moved to articles about Donald Trump and the pandemic, and content here that relates to climate change should be moved to articles about Donald Trump and the environment, and so on. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That would miss the whole point that this is not a collection of unrelated actions, it is a pattern. A pattern clear enough, and serious enough, to cause the National Academies to express alarm over it and the NEJM to break their 200-year silence on political matters. In other words, yes, it is one topic. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's simply irrelevant. The content that relates to the pandemic is much more about the pandemic than Trump's views on science. Suggesting that this is interference or that this is a concerning pattern is very much WP:POV and very clearly is siding with those scientific agencies over Trump administration political actors, which is completely inappropriate.

Merge all coronavirus content to Trump-coronavirus articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me try this approach. We have a List of federal agencies in the United States article. Given the massive complexity of the US government, this list is an ill-fated attempt to include everything in the USG. Please note the list has 1,400 "agencies" with MOS:LISTBULLETS. Well, how many of these agencies, offices, bureaus, activities, etc. are related to science? (I'll let you do the counting.) And how many of them have suffered from political interference? (Again, feel free to give us a count.) Back to our concern, WP's Donald Trump-related policy/articles include the following: Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump, Social policy of Donald Trump, Cannabis policy of the Donald Trump administration, Space policy of the Donald Trump administration, Immigration policy of Donald Trump, Trump administration family separation policy, Economic policy of Donald Trump, Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, and Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. Since we have these articles, would it be proper to create articles that have "Trump administration political interference with economic/space/environmental/infrastructure/immigration agencies"? Of course not! (These article titles now comply with WP policy.) If you will agree with me let's go with a variation of MelanieN's suggestion above. The title "Trump administration science agencies" incorrectly implies that different science agencies are uniquely his. However, Science policy of the Donald Trump administration works. Most importantly, the article title is NPOV. It is specific to "science". It pertains, indirectly, to federal science agencies. It is self-limiting to the 2016–202x timeframe. And it allows for editors to exposit on the Wicked, Weird, and Evil interference that Trump (and his minions) are inflicting upon the world and Wikipedia. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• The number of federal agencies is not particularly relevant to the title. I would certain oppose a rename for the reasons stated by MelanieN. This article is not principally about "science policy"; it is about the exhaustively well-documented interference/politicization of science that has occurred under the Trump administration. Neutrality^talk 17:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. “Look at all the other agencies” is irrelevant; this article is about interference with science agencies, not with every agency that exists in the federal government. If there has been political interference with HUD or NASA, it has not been reported. But the attempts to disrupt science have been widely reported and widely condemned - precisely because science is about facts, and attempts to suppress or misreport facts are widely considered unwise and dangerous. Nobody (but Caputo) has defended the practice; nobody else has claimed that it is the administration’s policy for laypeople to overrule the consensus of professional scientists.

You all keep saying the article is POV. It is not; it is all sourced to Neutral Reliable Sources. If I could find counter-sources, people supporting the actions, I would add them to the article for balance - but except for Caputo I have not found any. I have asked you all multiple times to suggest some sources for justifications or counterarguments so that they can be added to the article; no luck.

So let me get back to the main point here: the title. This article is about a real, well-documented, important topic, so merging bits of it here and there to separate articles is not an option. A couple of you don’t like “political interference” in the title, even though that is what it is about. “Science policy of Donald Trump” or “Science policy of the Donald Trump administration” would be a misnomer for this article. It would also violate the principle of “least astonishment”, because it’s not about science policy, not at all. BTW it’s also not about Donald Trump himself. In many cases there is no evidence that he personally had anything to do with the reported actions; they were carried out by his appointed administrators, and if they were carried out because of some “policy,” that policy is a well guarded secret. This is certainly not about “Trump's views on science” as Onetwothreeip suggested. IMO any title which includes the name “Donald Trump” would be unfair and POV. I (reluctantly) suggested “Trump administration science agencies” but would prefer to keep the current title. Or would “Trump administration political influence on science agencies” be OK with you? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The topic itself is POV, so it's not a matter of having some people who defend it and some people who oppose it. An actual balance would be good things that the Trump administration has done with these agencies, and the bad things it has done. The latter of which are abundantly documented in this article. This article isn't a topic, it's just a list of bad things. The content about the response to the pandemic belongs in articles relating to the response to the pandemic, and not in the same article about Donald Trump's denial of climate change, because they are not part of the same topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus against this move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Trump administration political interference with science agencies → ? – Per the discussions above editors disagree whether the present title complies with WP:NPOVTITLE. Some say RS undisputedly shows there is political interference, thus justifying the present title. Others say the article title itself is POV. Suggested new titles include Science policy of the Donald Trump administration; Trump administration science agencies; Trump administration changes to science agency policies; and Trump administration efforts to interfere with, pressure, or silence federal government scientists. – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Support. Having an article about this is definitely POV, so any title for this would likewise be. This isn't an actual topic, it's something that has appeared across a few topics. Instead of suggesting that these are bad things that Trump's administration is doing (which is what this article does), we should just present these as things they are doing among the other things they are doing in similar areas. It would probably be more appropriate to split this article and move them into the relevant articles that relate to these topics, such as the Trump-COVID articles for "interference" with health agencies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Where there are clear patterns that are recognized by independent, reliable sources, Wikipedia bases its content on what the reliable sources say. The article title 'Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections' is by no means neutral; it directly puts Russia as the culprit of large-scale election interference because that is what reliable sources say, even as Trump administration officials and allies have blamed Ukraine and otherwise denied interference even happened. Some will point to Wikipedia's "Other stuff exists" guideline whenever someone talks about a similar example, but I just don't see how "Trump administration political interference with science agencies" is somehow not neutral, yet the Russian interference page is kept like it is. But even if I disregard the Russian interference example, the whole point of this article is to establish and make it clear that the Trump administration has gone to unprecedented lengths in bending science agencies to their whim, as documented by reliable sources. That is by no means the same as a general political agenda; it is direct interference with political motivations. From my perspective, "Science policy of the Donald Trump administration" would actually be more biased towards normalization, as it inflates the idea that what's happening is just "standard procedure" just like any other potential "Science policy of the ... administration". Seeing "Interference with science agencies" in the "Part of a series" banner makes it clear this is not just a boring page about policies topical to any administration, but actually a clear pattern of political influence. (And P.S. If we're going down the road to normalizing Trump's actions by changing this article's title to "Science policy", I really hope I don't see "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations" changed in the future to "Sexual preferences of Donald Trump". Where there is a pattern, whether Russian interference, political interference on science, or sexual misconduct, Wikipedia should always follow reliable sources.) 84.202.77.79 (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The main argument for the "Russian interference" article titles is that the main report into the events titles it as interference. If it wasn't for that, it would undeniably have to be titled something more like "Russian involvement". All content on Wikipedia has to be WP:NEUTRAL, regardless of how much evidence there is for a particular view. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That is obvious whitewashing of the intrinsic conflict scientists, who need to be honest to do their job, will always have with any boss who is their very antithesis in that area. Trump's science policy is, as far as I can tell, "scientists are poopyheads, and Donald Trump is a very smart genius who knows everything better than they do." --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This is very much just a point-of-view argument here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That Trump is a liar is a fact. That his minions interfere in science agencies is a fact. The claim that these are not facts but just points of view, is an alternative fact, also called untruth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose move. This is not what this article is about. This article summarizes the extensive sourcing about the Trump administration's politicization of science and interference with federal science and health agencies. It is not about "science policy," nor do the sources frame it as such. The move proposal seems to be OR; we go by what the sources say, not by what we wish them to say. Neutrality^talk 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that the article is specifically about "politicization", which is decidedly not neutral. The proposed move would also change the scope of the article to a neutral position. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Support I agree with others that the current title accurately describes Trump science policy, as does the more commonly used phrase "Trump's war on science." But per NPOVTITLE, we should avoid a non-neutral title when "far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." There is no need for the article text to whitewash or normalize or underplay any facts. IMO, the facts will be all the more striking to readers if the title is encyclopedic and NPOV. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose (Disclosure: I created this article and have been maintaining it; there has also been productive input from others.) The proposed title is misleading; it does not describe what the article is actually about. (NOTE: At the time I wrote this, the proposed title was Science policy of the Donald Trump administration, but the nominator has removed that and is now simply suggesting a name change.) According to WP:Article titles, Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.. Political interference with science agencies by the Trump administration is a real and important phenomenon. It has been clearly identified as such by Reliable Sources[7][8][9][10][11] and by respected organizations that have never before made a political comment[12][13][14]. Actual instances of it have been documented and tallied by the Union of Concerned Scientists [15] and Columbia Law School [16]. Many of these sources refer to the subject as “attacks on science” rather than “political interference with science agencies,” but I prefer the "interference with science agencies" title as it is more precise and more neutral. This article should be called what it is actually about; the current title does that. As I have said before, an article about the Science policy of the Donald Trump administration could be very appropriate, but this is not that article, and calling it that would be deceptive. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Question: Would you object to changing the title to "Trump administration politicization of science agencies"? That is accurate and but less POV. It also has the merit of being shorter. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. That's been proposed in the past, but it was felt that "politicization" is actually more negative and POV than "political interference". I personally would be OK with either. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is about a pattern of behaviours across the administration, and not one particular topic to make an article about. Clearly the actions that Donald Trump made regarding the coronavirus pandemic should be paired with other such actions. This article is currently as POV as an article that listed where science agencies agreed with Trump would be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The idea that a "pattern of behaviors" can't also be a "particular topic" is a pretty weird notion. Neutrality^talk 22:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose move Current title is accurate and NPOV. "Science policy of the Donald Trump administration" is a misnomer. GPinkerton (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Current title complies with the reliable sources and NPOVTITLE does not mean what the supporters appear to want it to mean. Titles are first and foremost aids to readers to finding articles and not obscure them. The only alternative title that would work and be supported by RS is the even more POV War on Science or similar phrasing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose move It is interference, described as such by reliable sources. The "Neutral" in "Neutral Point of View" doesn't mean saying one good thing for every bad thing, or avoiding any possibility that the reader might infer that what the article describes is less than desirable. Phrasing like "political interference" is about as flat and emotionless as one can expect for an intrinsically charged topic. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"Interference" is a loaded term that indicates something bad happening and must be avoided. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't and no it mustn't. GPinkerton (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean, they literally named a class of drugs "interferons" because they interfere with viral replication.... XOR'easter (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per MelanieN. Reliable sources other than news media (for example Science[17][18]) have called it interference. And interference is pretty neutral.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose move. I am not convinced that this is the correct title for this article, or even that this article should exist in its current form, but all of the proposed titles are worse than what is here presently. For those who object to this article, I suggest considering WP:AfD perhaps developing the idea that the article might not be appropriately WP:CFORKed -- but I'd need to see good evidence of such to !vote "delete". jps (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - simply because no suitable renaming was proposed. I am thinking along the lines of Suppressed research in the Soviet Union, but we are not there yet. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rewriting of Trichloroethylene report - undue?

In the EPA section there is a paragraph about a report on the toxicity of TCE, prepared by the agency's scientists based on three years work. They submitted their draft report to the White House for approval. When the report was released, the draft had been completely rewritten by the White House to increase the permissible exposure level 500-fold. This paragraph has been tagged by S. Rich as "{{undue inline|reason=The concerns about TCE have been at issue for decades -- see TCE article and "junk science"|date=October 2020}}" I disagree with the "undue" assessment. The incident is a perfect example of what this article is about - the work of government scientists being overruled and rewritten for political reasons. Comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like the text gives due weight appropriately. XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this text is perfectly proper and appropriate weight. Neutrality^talk 22:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This tag has some nuance behind it. E.g, the political concerns regarding TCE go back 20+ years. (See the poorly referenced Trichloroethylene#Proposed U.S. federal regulation.) Where I live we have the California Proposition 65 list of chemicals which has included TCE (and other bad chemicals) since 1986. My concern is that pressure to ban or control or accept TCE has been around for decades. Moreover, that pressure from both sides is purely political. So, the sourcing for our paragraph is selective of recent political drama. When did the political interference occur over the decades? How does the present political pressure change things? Are we WP:CHERRYPICKING? Perhaps {{Too few opinions}} would be a better tag. The section might better say "In the long-lived TCE toxicity controversy the Trump administration has ... ." – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, this article isn't necessarily about who is right and who is wrong on a particular subject. It is about politicians overruling the conclusions of government scientists. And mind you, they didn't do it transparently, or say "we changed this recognizing that it is controversial", or present any evidence for why they chose to use their "risk assessment" rather than that in the draft. They just went ahead and reversed the work of the scientists and put out their own version as if it had come from the scientists. That's the kind of thing this article is about. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

AP report on Witkofsky and Moeller

This paragraph was removed with the rationale that it duplicates other information in the section and misrepresents the qualifications of one person. I don't quite follow how that applies, since it was summarizing this story about Nina Witkofsky and Chester Moeller, who weren't mentioned elsewhere in the article that I can find. It looks to be new information (Before Witkofsky and Moeller, the Trump administration had appointed others at CDC in Atlanta who were viewed by staff with some suspicion. But none of the predecessors’ roles was so clearly to report internal agency business up to Washington, according to officials who talked to The AP. Etc.) Anyway, it seems like the story can be used somewhere in the text, at least to supplement what's already there. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter: OK, thanks, I'll take another look. I thought it was talking about Caputo and Alexander. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, I apologize, I now see what it is about. I will restore the information and reference, but I think I will do it more in context with the appointment of Caputo. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think I wrote that before having coffee, so I'm definitely not committed to how or where I put it. XOR'easter (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. I put their appointments in the same paragraph as the appointments of Caputo and Alexander, so that I could put them and their similar, coordinated missions in context. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that works better than what I wrote; thanks! XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hahn and Azar

This looks like it might fit somewhere in this article: Infuriated by the FDA's defiance in a showdown over the Trump administration's standards for authorizing a coronavirus vaccine, health secretary Alex Azar has spent recent weeks openly plotting the ouster of FDA chief Stephen Hahn. Cancryn, Adam; Diamond, Dan (October 22, 2020). "An angry Azar floats plans to oust FDA's Hahn". Politico. Retrieved October 25, 2020. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't see this. I think we can can add it to the section about vaccine development. Right after Trump's unhappiness about FDA publishing the standards. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)