Talk:One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Full text link?

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)

[1]. This may be what you are looking for. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Is "One Big Beautiful Bill" really its name??

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

Yes. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

AI and elections

Needs to be included. [2]. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Criticism in lead

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

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)

NPOV

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

House Passes Trump's Tax Bill, Overcoming Last-Minute ...The New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com › U.S. › Politics

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)

Lead reversion

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)

"Voting by Democratic Representatives" section is misleading

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, 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)

The material was clearly sourced, with multiple references. If you attempt to engage in such wanton deception on a talk page or article again, you will be reported to the admins for fraud. Shameful. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 21:49, 30 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)

It’s not relevant how you or anyone would describe it. Bring some sources if you want to justify the claim that republicans would have changed their votes if democrats hadn’t been too dead to vote. Since we both know you don’t have any sources and are engaging in armchair hypotheticals not present in any reliable sources, why are we discussing this? The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You are speculating. The material was very well sourced, the issue has been discussed in many sources (if you don’t read about the article topic you shouldn’t write about it, your ignorance is showing) and will be returned to the article. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Why the personal attacks? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpqelqpvpeqo

"The five Republicans who voted against the measure in the procedural vote said they would continue to withhold support unless Speaker Mike Johnson agreed to further cut Medicaid, a healthcare programme for lower-income Americans."

"Democrats, who overwhelmingly oppose the bill, have been urging the reconsideration of Medicaid cuts and spending cuts to the Affordable care Act which offers millions of Americans subsidised health insurance."

The 5 republicans who abstained or voted no were at polar opposite reasons vs the democrats. They wanted more cuts, not less. It stands to reason that they likely would have voted yes if there was a real risk that the Democrats could have sunk the bill.

Also, I never said that the section should be removed. I said it was misleading. You're acting incredibly aggressive for some reason, is everything ok? Tofflenheim (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

How are the republicans who abstained or voted against relevant to the well sourced discussion of democrat deaths ? There is no basis beyond your own speculation that the no republicans votes would have changed if not for Connolly et Al’s deaths. It is not mentioned in the sources from which that section was drawn; hence your connecting it to republican no votes is SYNTH and not worth discussing. There has been significant coverage of the angle that democrats lost the vote due to its members dying in office—the provided sources discuss a major Democratic Party “reckoning” over this matter. You have not provided any reasons of any kind for removing this information. Have a wonderful day. Your opinion that it is “misleading” is your idiosyncratic personal view and lacks any sourced basis— do you have a sourced basis for calling the references on which that section is based is misleading? Or did you just make it up full cloth as personal analysis? That’s what I thought. R u ok bro?? Thanks for your condescending, reference free analysis. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

As for your irrelevant and unrelated BBC source it doesn’t say anything about dead democrats. It is also not about the final vote, making its relevance questionable. Hence your connection is synth and your own personal speculation. You may of course add material based on that reference if you like, but you cannot synthesize it with other sources that it draws no connection to, and I hope you understand the topic better before adding material. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is this: I brought sources that stated democrats lost the vote due to deaths and described major democratic internal backlash over this. You brought no sources and nothing beyond your own speculations on “what if?” Can you describe the policy basis for caring about an editors unsourced speculations and hypotheticals? No? Then stop. You are unequivocally wrong here. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Still waiting on those sources that say the analysis in the cited sources is “misleading”… or was this just your idiosyncratic personal view of no relevance to anyone? Curious minds want to know! The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

First of all, it's unhinged to wait 45 minutes and reply to yourself with more aggro insults and passive aggressive talk.

I'll reply to the contents:

The section itself is misleading and perhaps should be reworked. No one is denying that the vote margin was +1 vote and that 3 democrats died. This still sidesteps the context that 5 republicans made protest votes for reasons that are in complete opposite versus the democrats reasons for voting no. This is well documented:

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

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2025/05/22/one-big-beautiful-bill-act-massie-davidson-only-republican-no-votes/83787026007/

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-republicans-voted-against-trump-big-beautiful-bill-2075522

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-vote-trump-tax-bill/

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/22/house-republicans-pass-big-beautiful-bill-after-weeks-of-division-00364691

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/05/22/congress/garbarino-schweikert-missed-vote-00364709

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-republicans-set-pre-dawn-votes-get-trump-tax-bill-over-finish-line-2025-05-22/

"With a narrow 220-212 majority, House Speaker Mike Johnson could not afford to lose more than a handful of votes from his side, and he made several last-minute changes to satisfy various Republican factions." -- politicians know their margins, and protest votes are accounted for. It's not a coincidence when bills pass by one vote.

The section should be expanded to show that these protest votes existed and that there is not a guarantee that if the 3 democratic reps had not died that it would not have passed, which is the current wording. In the last link source, two absentee votes were missed *by accident*. Tofflenheim (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

where in the cited passage does it discuss democratic deaths? it doesn’t. Hence you’re engaging in synth and speculation. The point of an encyclopedia is your claims are backed in sources. You can’t just connect things because you think they are connected. Zero of those sources say “the democrats didn’t lose the vote due to death.” Just take your L and move on. You’re embarrassing yourself The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm just gonna put this here, from your OWN source (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/1-vote-victory-trumps-big-bill-inflames-democratic-clash-aging-leaders-rcna208613)

'Two Republicans missed the vote early Thursday — and if they had voted, three additional Democratic “no” votes could have fought it to a tie, blocking the bill, at least at that moment. The GOP would have had to win the votes of one member who voted “present” or flip one of the two who voted “no” on the bill.

Hogg speculated that Republicans would probably “have figured out a way to pass it if it failed” due to a tie vote. But he said that’s no excuse for Democrats to make their task easier.

“It is undeniable, though, that with less Democratic members it gives Trump greater ability to pass what he wants through Congress. And this never had to happen,” Hogg said, adding that it is “unacceptable” when Democrats spend tens of millions of dollars to win swing districts but do “nothing to get sick, older members to step down, and then we lose seats because of it.”'

I'm curious to see what insult you're going to bring to the table next. I guess all those accusations of me "not reading" and "not understanding" now all apply to you don't they? Wouldn't it have been easier if you didn't come out extremely aggro and took some time to read before you started hurling insults? Tofflenheim (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m not going to repeat myself again. Read your sources before posting or opining about them there is no factual basis for the claim “republicans would have voted differently if not for democrat deaths” that is speculation and if you think that your musings and hypotheses belong in an article you don’t understand what an encyclopedia is. Just take the L. There are multiple articles that are cited for the statement 3 democrats missed the vote due to death, and democrats lost by 1 vote. These sources describe a democratic revoking over this. There are no sources for the claim republicans would have voted differently if democrats hadn’t died. None. Again you cite to irrelevant material whose relevance and factual nature exists purely within the confines of your mind. Read better and understood more. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Two Republicans missed the vote early Thursday — and if they had voted, three additional Democratic “no” votes could have fought it to a tie, blocking the bill, at least at that moment. The GOP would have had to win the votes of one member who voted “present” or flip one of the two who voted “no” on the bill.

Hogg speculated that Republicans would probably “have figured out a way to pass it if it failed” due to a tie vote. But he said that’s no excuse for Democrats to make their task easier.

In simple terms, what is your interpretation of these sentences from your own source? (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/1-vote-victory-trumps-big-bill-inflames-democratic-clash-aging-leaders-rcna208613) Tofflenheim (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

How many times do I have to repeat myself ? It is non encyclopedic speculation - what exactly do you take the article to be saying? It’s about democrats having internal criticism and backlash over losing a vote by 1 with 3 members and democrats saying “this shows we need to stop running candidates who are nearly dead” the article is not saying republicans would have voted differently no one can possibly know that The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

so you are saying:

Hogg speculated that Republicans would probably “have figured out a way to pass it if it failed” due to a tie vote. But he said that’s no excuse for Democrats to make their task easier.

does not imply that even democrats believe that republicans would have found a way to vote differently and pass the bill?

just to be clear. Tofflenheim (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

“Even democrats” do you even understand what the included material is trying to say? It is criticism of the Democratic Party for running candidates who are old, infirm, and nearly dead. It is a fact that democrats lost the vote by 1 and 3 members missed the vote due to being dead. “Republicans would have voted differently” is a speculative claim without any referential basis . Why would anyone choose this hill to die on? I have never seen such a pointless discussion because you cannot just take your L The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The wiki page currently reads:

If any had been alive and voted the party line, the tie vote would have sent the bill back to committee.

This is apparently sourced from the nbcnews article.

The same article also says Hogg speculated that Republicans would probably “have figured out a way to pass it if it failed” due to a tie vote. But he said that’s no excuse for Democrats to make their task easier.

These are both hypothetical speculations. What is your logical reasoning to claim that one is completely based in fact but the other is completely speculative with no referential basis? Tofflenheim (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

All we really need to say is the fact that democrats lost the vote by 1 and 3 democrats are dead and the further fact that this led to a democratic reckoning about running nearly dead candidates. We don’t need any speculation The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not how the section reads now, do you agree? I repeat:

The wiki page currently reads:

If any had been alive and voted the party line, the tie vote would have sent the bill back to committee. Tofflenheim (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Article is very partisan and one sided

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)

Agree but in opposite direction. I’ve never seen an article so shamelessly run propaganda for the sitting administration, serving as their mouthpiece and cheerleader. Nor have I ever seen editors cry so much about Congressional Budget Office estimates being put in to the article, and calling them “partisan”, instead demanding that the description of the bill should come from Trump himself rather than experts and reliable sources. Sad! You are explicitly here to promote a conservative agenda, perhaps even on a paid basis. It is not the article’s fault that the reliable sources state all state the objective fact the bill removes health coverage from tens of millions of people. The poor who will lose their health coverage don’t have money to pay fake editors to promote their viewpoint; alas the oligarch class who stands to make billions off this bill has plenty of money to pay fake editors to astroturf this and other articles on Wikipedia. Indeed, musk and other oligarchs have explicitly made their intention to destroy Wikipedia from the inside very clear. Wikipedia’s scandalous pro conservative bias must end now. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Final Bringer of Truth: Accusing other editors of being paid to edit without evidence is an aspersion and completely unacceptable. Please don't do that again. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

What would rather it say? Everything mentioned in the article is in the bill. If it appears unfavorable, it may be because parts of the bill are very unpopular. Perhaps mentioning the child tax credit and border control in the lede would make it appear more favorable, if that should even be a priority, although those are not commonly mentioned parts of the bill. Catboy69 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead conflict and potential dispute

@The Final Bringer of Truth:

In this [3] edit, you informed an editor to seek consensus on the talk page and undid the change undoing your changes. They would like to know why you have been repeatedly reverting changes to the lead and removing the {{POV}} tag without discussing the changes with other editors. It is probably beneficial to start a discussion on the content of the article and reach consensus through discussion instead of repeatedly reverting other editors’ edits with little explanation. Please respond to this comment and explain your rationale for your changes so that other editors can agree on them. It’s important that any dispute that occurs be resolved in a WP:CIVIL manner.

Thank you for responding and considering this issue. 206.57.166.53 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is NPOV in the article? What particular passages? What particular passages are unsourced? I didn’t get any answers when I asked so I removed the reasoning-free tags, which are a case of “I don’t like it.” Please explain where you think the article lacks neutrality, with evidence, reasoning, and references. I’m literally the only one adding references to the article and I’m being wikilawyered to death by editors who don’t seem to know that sources exist. Thank you. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Final Bringer of Truth:

In the interest of resolving this dispute, I would like to point out a few things. This is very long, but I ask that you carefully consider the following points:

1. The NPOV concerns are already under discussion above, under the discussion aptly titled “NPOV.” The edits you made portray the bill in a very critical way; while it’s OK to have your opinion (I oppose the bill as well) the article on Wikipedia should just describe the bill and not take a position for or against it. The material you added is fine, and it’s well-sourced, but it has some rather pointed language that I don’t think is appropriate for an encyclopedic tone. Certain edits may not be the best, but Wikipedia is constantly improving and your concerns about bias in the article can be addressed without having to engage in edit warring. Please do not remove the {{POV}} template from the page without discussion on this talk page. I am requesting that you or another editor re-add it as I do not want to risk violating WP:3RR. Speaking of NPOV,

2. The article should contain at least some mention of the support for the bill from Republican Party officials and outside groups; it currently contains none, which is why the NPOV discussion was started in the first place. Examples of support for the bill can be found here: [4][5][6]. For more of these, look through the articles on whitehouse.gov and you will find a whole lot of external links to more sources; if that bothers you, search for “support for big beautiful bill” on Google or Bing or some other search engine and pick the best results. If they appear unreliable for factual information, remember that they should only be cited as opinions. We should at the very least acknowledge the other side without necessarily expressing support for the bill, as there are certainly groups that support it, just as there were groups that supported the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. By the way, I read the articles on the White House website not because I agree with their content, but because I have a desire to remain politically informed.

3. You have re-added material to the lead and undone the contributions of other editors at least 7 times ([7] [8][9][10][11][12][13], given that you stated that the IP editor was you editing logged out), including 3 in the last 24 hours, many times without commenting on the talk page. I hope you are aware that you may be blocked if you continue to revert other editors’ changes. Please discuss with other editors when you disagree with their contributions before reverting and follow BRD. If that confuses you or if you haven’t read WP:FOLLOWBRD, I politely suggest that you take a quick look.

4. Another editor added the sourcing tag [14] while mentioning the “huge number of available sources.” You yourself listed a whole lot of them in the NPOV discussion. Why not add more of them to the article? That’s why the {{refimprove}} tag was added.

5. The editor that most recently reverted your changes should not have reverted your edits earlier without posting here on the talk page. That you have acknowledged correctly. However, I ask you to please follow the same process and avoid repeatedly undoing the work of other editors if you believe they are biased or incorrect.

Thank you for your contributions, but please remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia and not to “right great wrongs” and fight against Trump. I don’t like the president either, and I do believe he is abusing his powers, but Wikipedia is not a good place to express our viewpoint or build resistance. People are already doing enough of that in the United States.

By the way, this is the same person who originally added this topic, started the NPOV discussion, and rewrote the lead a few days ago, under a different IP; if I contribute this much, I should probably make an account, right? I am disclosing my identity here as to not deceive you that more people are engaging in discussion or overriding your contributions than you think. However, I did not remove the citations from the statement you re-added to the lead; they got mixed up when the content was transferred to its own subsection. The content was not removed from the page entirely, and its removal from the lead did not constitute vandalism. If you disagree with it, post on the talk page. (See above discussion.) I politely ask that you refrain from making personal attacks and just focus on building an encyclopedia.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long comment; I hope that it clears up a few things. 2601:402:680:1270:30A6:2A1:A98C:1C7B (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

All those words and you didn’t answer even one of my questions. List some passages you think are not neutral and explain why. I’m not reading if you want to gish gallop and say a bunch of irrelevant words without answering what precisely you are claiming is non neutral. Until you will name the supposedly offending passages, and supply some reasons and sources, there is nothing to discuss. This is an encyclopedia. Not feelings land. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll answer the questions.

1. The sections that appear to be non-neutral are the lead and the "Reception" sections, though the "Reception" section being non-neutral is not caused by your edits; it's due to the lack of coverage of the supporting side. I raised that issue when there was no "Reception" section at all and the lead was only a couple sentences long.
2. The edits you made to the lead appear to be non-neutral because they use phrases like "strip health insurance" (I would prefer something more like "lose health insurance coverage") and "drastically cuts spending" (I would prefer "significantly reduces/cuts spending"). These words (the ones in bold) are emotionally charged and portray the bill in a largely negative way; the content is fine, and it should stay in the lead, but I would prefer less loaded terms for describing the spending cuts. Reasoning: WP:IMPARTIAL
3. Here is a quote from a source that sets a good example: "It includes extended tax cuts, added requirements for federal benefits eligibility, and an increase to the national debt ceiling - all major sticking points that were agreed upon by a 215-214 vote in the House on Thursday morning." [15]
4. The other section that appears to be non-neutral is the Reception section because it has zero content about any supporters of the bill, only criticism. I gave a couple sources above. If you require quotes, I will provide them. I invite you to assist in adding more coverage of both sides of the controversy. A sentence along the lines of "While the bill has seen support from a variety of groups, including (examples), it has also faced opposition and criticism from a wide range of groups as well." Nice and simple, mentions both sides, and sticks to the facts without taking a side.

I apologize if my earlier post did not answer your questions. If you have further questions please reach out and discuss with other editors. 2601:402:680:1270:64C3:6971:984D:3602 (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I just made some of these changes to the lead that I described. I also changed "vast majority of tax cuts going to the highest income earners" to "the tax cuts disproportionally benefit the highest income earners." It says the same thing but in a more neutral way. 2601:402:680:1270:64C3:6971:984D:3602 (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Those wording changes seem fine to me. I don’t see many people talking positively about the bill but if you find something go ahead. I still don’t think the article fails neutrality for lacking those sources I think it’s a factor of coverage being largely negative, but whatever I’m not going to war about the tag it doesn’t affect article content The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree; coverage of the bill is largely negative, so any positive support must be WP:DUE (have due weight). The proportion of sources that cover the bill determines the proportion of coverage in the article, so if most are negative, the article necessarily has to be mostly negative in the Reception section, since all content must be verifiable. This doesn't fully compromise the neutrality of the article as a whole (like you said), so it's probably fine for now until editors can add more stuff to the Reception section. My concerns over NPOV were largely addressed in the discussion we just had, so I don't see the need to re-add the tag.

Thank you for participating in this discussion. It's late at night where I am and I'm going to bed so I'd say this discussion is closed for now. 2601:402:680:1270:64C3:6971:984D:3602 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

"Bill Act"

Do we have any good sources on the terminological mess of this thing's title? Would "Schoolhouse Rock -- I'm Just a Bill" be a good start? It's even infecting the wikivoice text, with silliness like'proposed bill'. Nope, it is a Bill, with is in effect a formally proposed Act. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@109.255.211.6

I deleted "proposed". We'll see if anyone reverts. Seananony (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The unusual use of terminology is derived from the "short title" section of the bill itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, but it's still a bill at present, not an act, and we should describe it as s such, and flip it when it's passed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Discrepancy on millions to lose insurance?

I get that different sources will have different estimates, but the first paragraph after the quick facts says "tens of millions of Americans projected to lose coverage" and later in the same paragraph it says "The bill would strip health insurance from nearly 14 million Americans." Are these both referring to the same thing? Could someone who's more familiar with the bill clean this up? Seananony (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Seananony: I think I resolved it, I used the "lower" number of 14 million because it's sourced, and removed the duplication later in the lead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez

Looks good to me. Hopefully, no one freaks out over the change. Seananony (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

There are two estimates depending on how you count- it’s either 13.7 million or 8.6 million depending on what is attributed to the bill. 13.7 million would lose coverage within 10 years, but some of that may be attributable to other policy changes, according to this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-yes-13-7m-220400809.html The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we then simply say 'millions' in the lead, and then give both these estimates in the body? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Starting over on "Voting by Democratic Representatives" section

Little kerfuffle above is resolved that left a wasteland of infighting. That user is now indeffed so let's try again.

Section currently reads: The narrow passage of the bill led to internal backlash and division in the Democratic Party, which lost the vote due to three elderly Democratic representatives (Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, age 77; Sylvester Turner of Texas, age 70; and Gerry Connolly of Virginia, age 75) having died in the first five months of 2025. Connolly died the day before the vote after being diagnosed with cancer a month earlier. If any had been alive and voted the party line, the tie vote would have sent the bill back to committee.

I take issue with the last sentence. It's conjecture which is fine, but leaves out context from the same source (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/1-vote-victory-trumps-big-bill-inflames-democratic-clash-aging-leaders-rcna208613) Two Republicans missed the vote early Thursday — and if they had voted, three additional Democratic “no” votes could have fought it to a tie, blocking the bill, at least at that moment. The GOP would have had to win the votes of one member who voted “present” or flip one of the two who voted “no” on the bill. Hogg speculated that Republicans would probably “have figured out a way to pass it if it failed” due to a tie vote. But he said that’s no excuse for Democrats to make their task easier. “It is undeniable, though, that with less Democratic members it gives Trump greater ability to pass what he wants through Congress. And this never had to happen,” Hogg said, adding that it is “unacceptable” when Democrats spend tens of millions of dollars to win swing districts but do “nothing to get sick, older members to step down, and then we lose seats because of it.”

At least some mention should be made of the 5 abstaining republican votes that could have changed the hypothetical (2 missed vote, 3 protest vote). Tofflenheim (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Relevance of subsection in "Background" section

I'm not sure that the subsection "Technological and Scientific" is relevant to the topic of the article. This article is about the bill and its legislative history, so a subsection about the AI boom seems unwarranted, especially since the provision banning AI regulation is very likely to be struck out or "Byrded" in the Senate. Altogether, an entire section of background for one provision in a 1000-page bill seems unwarranted. Links to articles about AI most likely provide more than enough background for understanding the proposed moratorium. Any thoughts? I'm posting here instead of boldly removing the section because an edit like that requires more discussion than that provided in edit summaries. 206.57.166.53 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@FavourNSpice and Esolo5002:

FavourNSpice, you have restored the section that is referenced above, reverting another editor (Esolo5002) who removed it for being irrelevant to the main topic of the article. Please explain why this content should be included in the article if it is only partially relevant to the main subject of the article--the actual bill. This is an article about a piece of legislation, not the AI boom; it's probably better to keep that information in separate articles to avoid excessively bloating this one. That provision, while important, is only one of many in a more than 1000-page bill. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL notwithstanding, many news sources I've seen say the provision is likely to be struck out due to the Byrd Rule. All in all, the content about AI that you added seems to be WP:UNDUE. You also stated that the removal of the content was "vandalism" without clearly explaining why. Please start a discussion here so that there isn't another edit war on this page about removal of content. (It already went through one; see above.) 2601:402:680:1270:1449:C1:1B29:3004 (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the section in question. If it should be included please explain why here. 2601:402:680:1270:1449:C1:1B29:3004 (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I have removed everything about AI from the lede. As you mentioned, it is likely tp be changed in the final bill. If someone wants to move it or expand in the reception, I am not opposed. It just doesn't belong in the lede. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Joseph Stiglitz + 5 other Nobel Prize winner in economics

an excerpt (translated by googe): (SRF: how would you describe the BB Act in one sentence?)

Joseph Stiglitz: Outrageous. It exacerbates inequality and social division – one of the main problems facing the United States. It deprives vulnerable groups of access to healthcare. Life expectancy is already declining, and the health disparities between rich and poor are enormous. This law exacerbates this. Now, when consolidation is needed, the law further increases the debt – not for forward-looking investments, but for tax breaks for the super-rich. The national debt will also rise. How dangerous is that? That's dangerous. During the pandemic, the deficit was necessary to keep society running. But now, when consolidation is needed, the law further increases the debt – not for forward-looking investments, but for tax breaks for the super-rich. This doesn't strengthen growth, but leads to more polarization and jeopardizes the US's ability to repay existing debt. The administration argues that the tariffs Trump imposed would raise revenue and offset the deficit. This argument doesn't convince anyone who looks at the numbers. Tariffs could, at best, only minimally reduce the deficit. In many cases, the US government has already had to back down because other countries responded with counter-tariffs. That's what happened with China, and I expect it will be similar with Europe.

SRF: If these policies harm many people, why do so many, especially the economically disadvantaged, still support Donald Trump?

This is the result of decades of dashed expectations. Since Carter, it was promised that neoliberal policies would bring growth and shared prosperity. In reality, the economy grew more slowly, and almost all the profits went to the top. This generated anger and disappointment, which were further fueled by social media and disinformation. Many people live in an information environment so distorted that they can hardly distinguish between truth and lies – partly due to deliberate misleading tactics by the Trump administration.

It's not a nice law, it's a dangerous one.

source: https://www.srf.ch/news/wirtschaft/offener-brief-an-den-us-senat-joseph-stiglitz-die-big-beautiful-bill-ist-empoerend 88.152.28.33 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This would be excellent material for the "Reception" section. I would suggest adding it there. 2601:402:680:1270:2CE4:24EF:16B:6BD4 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Layperson's explanation of the 215–214–1 vote

Is there are way to briefly explain how bills get passed within this article? As a non-politically aware person, I see the "215–214–1 vote" and that looks like 215 supported, 214 opposed and one abstained (the Speaker?). But United States House of Representatives says there are 435 voting members with a 218 majority. So five members didn't vote and could have changed the outcome? This may be a more general US politics question, but I imagine other readers of this article are as confused as I am. Commander Keane (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Some of your confusion is answered deep in the article (I just reverted a change to the article that made some very odd changes, which may have made this information hard to find).

"On the morning of May 22, 2025, the United States House of Representatives voted 215–214–1, primarily along party lines, to pass the bill.[53] Fiscal conservative Republicans Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson broke from their party to vote against the bill, while Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris of Maryland voted present."

For a variety of reasons, some Representatives simply don't vote on every bill. Off the top of my head two Republicans missed the vote because they were asleep. Some seats are vacant due to deaths and the way special elections work in the United States.

Hopefully that cleared up some confusion. Esolo5002 (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the tally is traditionally presented with only the 'active abstentions' included, i.e. Those turning up to say so in terms. There's also the matter of three of the elected Representatives being deceased at present, so the current actual maximum threshold for a majority is 217, as opposed to the notional one set out in legislation determining the number of voting seats. Of course for purposes of passage, what matters is a majority of those casting a vote, subject to it being quorate. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

SALT deduction cap: clarification

@Too-Rye-Ay:

In this edit, an IP editor pointed out that the SALT deduction cap was originally imposed as a time-limited provision under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and that the current version of the bill "imposes a new cap to replace an expiring limit" (quote from their edit summary). The original wording of the article implied an increase from $10,000 to $40,000. This is true, but it also replaces an expiring limit; absent further action from Congress, there would be no SALT deduction cap starting 2026. The IP editor made a slight wording change to clarify this detail. When you made changes to the lead, you restored a similar wording to the original form of that sentence that focuses more directly on the increase in value for the cap. I am proposing that the sentence read as the other IP suggested; instead of the sentence reading that the bill will "increase... from $10,000 to $40,000", it should read as "extend... by imposing a new limit of $40,000". The bill "extends" the SALT cap and simultaneously "increases" it. I opted to post here instead of making the change on the page directly in case there is any disagreement over the wording of the sentence. 2601:402:680:1270:D67:D09:68E9:E159 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

2601:402:680:1270:D67:D09:68E9:E159, I tweaked the language a bit in response to your concern. Please let me know if you are OK with it. Thanks. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks good now; thanks for making all those fixes to this article. 2601:402:680:1270:D67:D09:68E9:E159 (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)