Talk:One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Interested readers may want to check the source and it's hard to figure out. I could not find it. 205.166.145.253 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/rules.house.gov/files/documents/2025_budget_rec_rh_xml.pdf]. This may be what you are looking for. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Seriously. 2605:8D80:1390:284E:2CD1:E959:242D:27E1 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1 Yes]. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Needs to be included. [https://campaignlegal.org/update/these-hidden-provisions-budget-bill-undermine-our-democracy]. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't even mention what the Big Beautiful Bill is about. Only leftie talking points. Not surprising considering Trump Derangement Syndrome runs rampant on Wikipedia. 2601:589:5184:8A0:DDBC:7BC8:457D:556 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead currently reads (without the WP:REFBOMB):

{{tqb|Critics of the bill note that it is the largest upward transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in human history and have nicknamed the bill The Reverse Robin Hood Bill.}}

The wording seems a bit too objective ("note" goes against WP:SAID when referring to someone's comment), and this sentence in the lead has no corresponding content in the body, which might make it WP:UNDUE. I haven't reviewed the many citations, but there might be a way to expand on it in the body to demonstrate its relevance for the lead – until then, it probably shouldn't be in the lead right now. Since there has been a good amount of edit-warring over that sentence, I figure it is best to start a discussion over it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I removed the content and put it in a new section titled "Opposition," but someone went ahead and restored it. I do not want to edit war and would like to know why the content was restored to the opening section, especially since it is now duplicated in the "Opposition" section. 2601:402:680:1270:41B5:256F:5070:746A (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:: As I explained, leads are supposed to summarize the article content. They are inherently supposed to be duplicative. (Indeed, if there is material in the lead that is NOT mentioned elsewhere in the article, that is reason to remove it from the lead.) Here, since we have a section on criticism, it is appropriate to have a sentence in the lead that states the criticisms of the bill. Additionally, leads are supposed to mention all significant controversies related to the article topic. Also, I moved the criticism sentence to the end of th e end of the lead, since someone had objected it to being the 2nd paragraph. Hopefully this works for everyone now. 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the explanation. I agree with the new placement and the changes you made; they have further increased clarity and neutrality. I already feel that the lead is much better now than where it was a few hours ago. I apologize if there was any conflict that occurred and I am thankful that this dispute was resolved quickly and in a civil manner.

:::Thank you.

:::(This is the same person that asked the initial question, my phone dynamically assigned a new IP) 2601:402:680:1270:A07C:8F1A:3F10:8F97 (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for the suggestion. I have changed “note” to “argue.” I hope this works. 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

As has been mentioned before, this article appears to violate WP:NPOV, especially considering that the lead from the second sentence onward is largely a criticism (see above topics for more details). At first glance, this article is largely worded against passage of the bill and has very little coverage of sources promoting its passage.

I am not advocating for passage of this bill (in fact, I oppose it), but the article would benefit from more sources and coverage of the bill’s supporters, perhaps adding a “Reception” section with subheadings for Support and Opposition to ensure both sides receive adequate coverage. There should be a discussion started to improve this article’s objectivity and add more coverage from supporters and Republican Party officials, but not so much as to give undue balance. A list of reliable sources that cover support for the bill would greatly improve any discussion. Currently, the article appears to take a side rather than explain each side, and so a discussion is likely warranted on possible improvement. 2601:402:680:1270:A07C:8F1A:3F10:8F97 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Agree, but in the opposite direction. The article is far too uncritical given the actual reception of the Big Beautiful Bill in nearly all reliable sources. The article does not even mention criticism of the bill in the lead... Why are we running propaganda for the Trump/Musk administration? A properly written lead MUST (not may, but MUST) mention all significant controversies related to the article topic in the lead. This article spectacularly fails, and reads like an advertising brochure for the bill released by Project 2025 and Tesla. 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Generally speaking, the lead has to summarize the body. While I would agree that the controversy over the bill is probably notable enough to go in the lead, the best way to establish that is to first expand the reception section with relevant coverage (ideally from experts in high-quality sources; given the bill's impact, such coverage shouldn't be hard to find); then we can summarize it in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Let me crack open an egg of knowledge, here’s coverage

::::https://www.vox.com/donald-trump/413370/trump-house-big-beautiful-bill-megabill-explained

::::https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-devastating-harms-of-house-republicans-big-beautiful-bill-by-state-and-congressional-district/

::::https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/as-house-gop-grinds-ahead-new-cbo-report-says-trumps-big-tax-cuts-bill-will-add-to-deficit

::::https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf

::::https://itep.org/analysis-of-tax-provisions-in-house-reconciliation-bill/

::::https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ugly-democrats-slam-trump-megabill-hurting-low-income/story?id=122078571

::::https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/25/senate-tax-bill-spending-cuts/

::::https://taxfoundation.org/blog/one-big-beautiful-bill-pros-cons/

::::https://www.crfb.org/blogs/breaking-down-one-big-beautiful-bill

::::https://www.npr.org/2025/05/21/nx-s1-5406392/trump-republicans-tax-bill-reconciliation-medicaid

::::https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-trump-big-beautiful-bill-2076287

::::https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2025/05/23/analysis-upwards-of-80k-utahns-could-lose-health-insurance-under-big-beautiful-bill/

::::https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/24/trump-tax-bill-analysis

::::https://www.wpr.org/news/ron-johnson-gop-opposition-big-beautiful-bill-wisconsin

::::https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5316274-house-gop-big-beautiful-bill-risks/

::::https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-critics-big-beautiful-bill-190713487.html

::::https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/us-news-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-is-here-who-are-the-top-gainers-and-losers-check-details/articleshow/121359131.cms?from=mdr

::::https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/05/what-they-are-saying-one-big-beautiful-bill-clears-house/

::::https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-dumps-trumps-big-030350221.html

::::https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-big-beautiful-bill-redistributes-wealth-from-the-poor-to-the-rich/

::::https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-senator-resistance-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-stop/story?id=122179072

::::https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/25/big-beautiful-bill-midterms-trump/

::::https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2025-05-23-ten-sneaky-sleeper-provisions-trumps-big-beautiful-bill/

::::https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/05/read-big-beautiful-bill-1100-pages/682933/

::::https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0eqpz23l9jo

::::https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-big-beautiful-bill-house.html

::::https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2025/05/21/winners-losers-trump-big-tax-bill/83744635007/

::::https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-05-21/big-beautiful-bill-congress-budget-mike-johnson-donald-trump

::::https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/22/economy/trump-tax-bill-debt-deficit

::::https://www.wsj.com/politics/why-trumps-one-big-beautiful-bill-is-bad-for-democracy-f6ba4023?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

::::https://www.selc.org/press-release/trumps-federal-tax-bill-undermines-critical-environmental-protections-economic-progress-in-the-south/

::::https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/23/big-beautiful-bill-congress-economy-medicaid-00367245

::::https://www.aol.com/why-big-beautiful-bill-reads-212812531.html

::::[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/us/politics/trump-bill-house-vote-passes.html House Passes Trump's Tax Bill, Overcoming Last-Minute ...The New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com › U.S. › Politics]

::::[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/us/politics/trump-bill-house-vote-passes.html House Passes Trump's Tax Bill, Overcoming Last-Minute ...The New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com › U.S. › Politics] The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"Why are we running propaganda for the Trump/Musk administration?"

:::Here you go stating misinformation. It's the Trump-Vance Administration. Elon Musk's role is that of a Special Government Employee whose term is ending tomorrow. It isn't propaganda, its ensuring this article isn't some politically motivated hit piece all because some editors can't put aside their personal beliefs. And judging by your comment, it seems you're doing some of it as well. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I am always shocked when I discover out in the wild an individual unable to recognize humor. As for the substance of my remarks, you failed to refute or even give any evidence against anything I said. The article is hardly a “hit piece” — it reads like government propaganda and a White House brochure for the bill. If you can’t be critical about what sources have to say about themselves, you have no business editing here or opining on the internet. Grow up. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Yeatglazer,

I would like to know why you reverted my edit removing a duplicated sentence in the lead paragraph. This duplication (starting at "It extends the major provisions...") probably happened when I had to resolve an edit conflict earlier, and so I removed it as the same sentence appears twice in the first paragraph.

If there is a reason why you object to the removal of this duplicated content, please reply to this topic.

Thank you for your consideration. 2601:402:680:1270:38B5:50CB:DF7F:6BD5 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Clarification: The duplicated sentence was added through one of my edits and removing it therefore constitutes a self-revert. 2601:402:680:1270:A07C:8F1A:3F10:8F97 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The bill had a couple of abstentions and protest votes that led to the small margin of victory (I believe 5 total between these two categories) so it seems unlikely that even if all 3 democrats had not died that it would not have passed, since its very possible those 5 abstention/protests would not all have voted that way if there was a risk. Tofflenheim (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I moved the text, which was unsourced, from the lead to the criticism section. What do you think, {{U|Tofflenheim}}? Bearian (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::The content was located in two places, one unsourced, so I WP:BOLDly removed it from the unsourced location in "Reception"; it is now only located under the "Voting by Democratic Representatives" section and not in the criticism section since the material is about voting and not about reception of the bill in general. If this doesn't work feel free to change it back 2601:402:680:1270:DCCA:9D7D:D096:2AE6 (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Not sure if things got mixed up in the process of editing two different sections of texts, but the part I pointed out hasn't addressed the issue I've pointed out still. Just an fyi. Tofflenheim (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would describe Harris’s present vote as a protest, but I’m not sure the same could be said about Davidson and especially about Massie. Nothing indicates either of those two were particularly soft no’s. I would argue the deaths of the Democratic representatives is still somewhat notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's impossible to really know but point taken. I still think the context is important regardless Tofflenheim (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I've never seen an article so politically one sided. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain neutrality, but this entire article feels like a hit piece. Just because you don't like President Trump doesn't mean you have to interject yoru politics into Wikipedia. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)