Talk:Chris Wright

@Jasper Chu: you have reinstated this role multiple times after multiple reverts. I agree with @Therequiembellishere: that this role does not belong in the infobox. You should not continue to reinstate the role in the infobox without finding consensus here. Czarking0 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Basic information to add to this article (in order to help make it more properly encyclopedic): Wright's net worth. ~2026-90336-1 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's update this article by mentioning Wright's trip to an oil-producing region of Venezuela (where he was greeted by Delcy Rodriguez) on February 12, 2026. Source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/12/americas/venezuela-oil-wright-rodriguez-latam-intl ~2026-90336-1 (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cannolorosa and I were going back and forth on my talk page about how Wright’s X post about solar panels should be presented. Creating this page to continue the discussions and so other editors can jump in. Be-Plants (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, let's discuss the sentence in the lead that we've been going back and forth on. Be-Plants (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Here are my proposed changes:

The current sentence in the lead only cites sources referring to a single action (the DOE Climate Report). Yet it states:

As secretary, he has overseen numerous actions by the Trump administration to undermine the United States response to climate change.

I would like to add additional sources (e.g. CNBC, Reuters) in order to demonstrate the "numerous" statement. This was originally suggested by Cannolorosa, who then reverted the edit when I executed it.

My second suggested edit is to restore the content:

In September 2025, Wright wrote on social media platform X that solar power cannot meet global energy demands and that covering the entire planet in solar panels would only provide 20% of demand. The statement was characterised by New Scientist as "wildly and embarrassingly wrong" as covering only 0.3% of land would be required to provide 100% of global energy demand.

Cannolorosa originally replaced the New Scientist quote with an interpretation of Wright's statement made by fossil fuel activist Alex Epstein in a post on X. Cannolorosa then removed the sourced commentary altogether, changing to this:

In September 2025, Wright wrote on social media platform X that ”Even if you wrapped the entire planet in a solar panel, you would only be producing 20% of global energy. One of the biggest mistakes politicians can make is equating the ELECTRICITY with ENERGY!” Currently, electricity makes up 20% of the global energy demand; Solar panels are only capable of producing electricity.

In my view, this is WP:SYNTH. It is unattributed explanatory framing, pulling from various sources to craft a defense of Wright's statement. It is also opinionated and misleading. Electricity is indeed a form of energy and most energy uses can be electrified. "Solar panels are only capable of producing electricity" makes it sounds as if they cannot produce energy. I want to be clear that I'm not implying this was added to intentionally mislead; I just think the wording is misleading synthesis presenting opinions in wikivoice.

I am unaware of any reliable sources that supported Wright's statement, but if there are, we could also add that as a counterweight to the New Scientist's view.

Anyways, I would love input from other editors and I hope we can reach a consensus text here, @Cannolorosa. Let me know where you stand (and feel free to tell me I'm wrong!). Be-Plants (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The new scientist article did mention the information about the electricity and energy Cannolorosa (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you read that Cannolorosa (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I’ve read all of the articles we’ve been discussing. I don't see anywhere in the New Scientist article the statement that “electricity makes up 20% of energy demand and solar panels only make electricity.” In fact, the article directly contradicts Wright’s post, stating that “for practical purposes, yes you can equate electricity with energy.” Also, if New Scientist was the source for the text you added, it should be cited directly (it isn't cited right now). Could we also address the other issues I raised? Is it alright if I add additional sources to support the climate statement in the lead? Be-Plants (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

what is playing when you plan on having before you had it and how it shows what you plan on adding, as well as the specific wording you plan on using Cannolorosa (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure I fully understand your question. Are you asking me to provide the exact wording I’m proposing or indicate which previous version I’m referring to? If so, I’m happy to do that. Be-Plants (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, I’ve requested a third opinion to help us resolve the outstanding sourcing and wording questions. Looking forward to additional input. Be-Plants (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The phrase "actions by the Trump administration to undermine the United States response to climate change" is an odd one. As the President, he has broad authority to set the policy of administrative agencies. The President and Congress have a joint role in defining what the "US response to climate change" is. He doesn't undermine the United States' policies; he determines them. He may undermine the prior Administration's policies, but there aren't some external set of administrative polices that he is "undermining".

This phrasing is peculiar, if not biased. A better, more neutral, description would say something like "shifting or altering the United States' response. Bravelake (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. How about, "...actions by the Trump administration to rollback climate change mitigation policies"? Be-Plants (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I changed it to, "actions by the Trump Administration that have been criticized by numerous climate scientists as harmful to the United States' position on climate change"

Is that acceptable for you? Bravelake (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

That works. I’m wondering, though, whether it might be clearer to briefly describe the actions in the lead (e.g., "rolling back mitigation policies"), and then move discussion of scientists' criticism to the body. My concern is that the current phrasing in the lead focuses on the reaction rather than the actions themselves and is a bit vague on what "the U.S. position" refers to. What do you think? Be-Plants (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The listed sources are about scientists' reactions to the policies, though. I think the body does a decent job of discussing those actions, and the hyperlink to the administration's article provides deeper context for those interested. I'd leave the lead as it as, and if you think the body needs more concrete information, add it there.

I already have a pretty cynical view of how the media and Wikipedia covers this particular topic, leaving no room for counter-arguments/perspectives. The job of this Wikipedia article isn't to assert that Trump's EPA is bad and to condemn it for failing to meet the expectations of certain climate activists/scholars. It is to neutrally report how his EPA has been covered in reliable sources. Bravelake (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Just to be sure I understand: do you think wording such as “overseeing rollbacks of climate mitigation policies” would be neutral if directly supported by the cited sources ("rollback" being the most common term used by reliable sources)? I agree that the current sources cited are all about the DOE report and therefore don't support the broader statement. I was planning on adding sources to support the statement, since Chris Wright's tenure has been marked by broader climate rollbacks (several of which are noted & cited in the body) of which the DOE report was only one part. Be-Plants (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be a fair way to describe it, yes. Bravelake (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I just added the tweaked wording and sources. What do you think? Be-Plants (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

WP follows the sources. If the sources do a bad job then WP should too. Czarking0 (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It also also been praised by many others. None of the lead content should hinge on a single source Czarking0 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This at least is a good starting place Czarking0 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both, @Bravelake and @Czarking0 for your help with the lead. If you’re willing, I’d also appreciate your thoughts on the sourcing and wording discussion above regarding Wright’s comments on solar power and electricity. Specifically, I’m hoping to ensure the article reflects the cited sources accurately without introducing synthesis. What do you think? Be-Plants (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Is this wording dispute regarding the lead? It would also be good to make clear what the proposal is. I support your most recent edit Czarking0 (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The lead wording was the first part to the dispute, which I think we've resolved now.

The second dispute was over this content:

In September 2025, Wright wrote on social media platform X that solar power cannot meet global energy demands and that covering the entire planet in solar panels would only provide 20% of demand. The statement was characterised by New Scientist as "wildly and embarrassingly wrong" as covering only 0.3% of land would be required to provide 100% of global energy demand.

Cannolorosa originally replaced the New Scientist quote with an interpretation of Wright's statement made by fossil fuel activist Alex Epstein in a post on X. Cannolorosa then removed the sourced commentary altogether, changing to this:

In September 2025, Wright wrote on social media platform X that ”Even if you wrapped the entire planet in a solar panel, you would only be producing 20% of global energy. One of the biggest mistakes politicians can make is equating the ELECTRICITY with ENERGY!” Currently, electricity makes up 20% of the global energy demand; Solar panels are only capable of producing electricity.

In my view, this is WP:SYNTH. It is unattributed explanatory framing, pulling from various sources to craft a defense of Wright's statement. It is also opinionated and misleading. Electricity is indeed a form of energy and most energy uses can be electrified. "Solar panels are only capable of producing electricity" makes it sounds as if they cannot produce energy. I want to be clear that I'm not implying this was added to intentionally mislead; I just think the wording is misleading synthesis presenting opinions in wikivoice.

So my suggestion is to restore the orginial wording, perhaps quoting a more informative part of the New Scientist article than just "wildly and embarrassingly wrong." I am unaware of any reliable sources that supported Wright's statement, but if there are, we can add that as a counterweight to the New Scientist's view. How does that sound? I can draft a text if that works.

Be-Plants (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there a source other than New Scientist. If only one niche source is covering a social media post of a US Secretary then I am not inclined to believe any mention of it is due for inclusion Czarking0 (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The post was also covered in The Cool Down (the reliability of which I don't know) and in Heatmap News. I don't know WP's guidelines about notability, so I'll leave it up to you whether we should simply remove the content. Be-Plants (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I posit that the lead phrasing in this version is sufficient. If anyone takes issue with it I suggest that they emphasize what in the body is not well represented in the lead. If you disagree on what should be claimed from sources the body is probably a better place to dispute that as more context can be added and lead should follow body. Czarking0 (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I've removed this from 3rdOpinion as it seems this dispute is being solved. If not, I'd like someone to provide a summary of it if possible. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)