This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | → | Archive 75 |
the Justice Department appointed Comey's predecessor Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's interference in the presidential election, potential links between Russia and Trump campaign associates, and any related matters.
- This sentence on Mueller's investigation is quite long and prominent. Yet this is hardly even mentioned in the body. Mueller's name isn't even mentioned elsewhere! Reckon this should be shortened to the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to investigate Russia's interference in the presidential election, potential links between Russia and Trump campaign associates, and any related matters.
and some more information on the investigation added to the dismissal of Comey section since this is one of the most important matters related to his administration.
Galobtter (
talk) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The old one seemed way better to me; he looks lunatic (hey, just saying!) with that goofy grin portrait. 2.51.17.85 ( talk) 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems very odd to mention Gorsuch by name in the lead section. The President appoints scores of people, his cabinet to start with, and many other influential civil servants such as Directors of the FBI, the CIA and so on and so forth. No cabinet member, not even the most senior such as Rex Tillerson, and no other appointees either, are mentioned by name in the lead section. In the entire world the position of judge, even on the country's supreme court, would be seen as junior to the entire cabinet and 99% of the world would regard it as a routine appointment of a civil servant. I don't think Gorsuch is regarded as more influential in the US than other Trump appointees such as Tillerson and other cabinet members either. -- Tataral ( talk) 12:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the redirect in the lead for the Paris Agreement go to United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement? I also suggest adding the 2017 United States–Saudi Arabia arms deal to the lead on foreign policy. It is a highly notable event in foreign policy, and just as notable as the partial undoing of the Cuban Thaw.
As I'm a new account, I can not change it. Anyone mind updating it, seems like a no brainer! DoDoDoDoDoDo ( talk) 03:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is this not brought up? AHC300 ( talk) 12:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit. It’s true that polling better among your own party is normal for a president, but it’s very abnormal for there to be such a huge disparity between the parties regarding an incumbent president. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
How in the world is this important enough to be in the lead paragraph about his accomplishments? It's not an official policy, it was a statement made at one speech, and it almost never appears in any other lists of presidential action. It should be removed.
Also, his recent rise in conservative politics was driven largely by his role as the most prominent voice in the debunked Birther conspiracy theory. There should be a sentence on that, after "he long expressed interest in politics". Fixed245 ( talk) 22:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
asking Muslim leaders to drive out extremistsshould be removed from the lead. His views on birther should be in another discussion I think, so that we don't go off topic. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Trump just retweeted a white nationalist conspiracy theorist website and doesn't believe his own access Hollywood tape. Why is he not labeled this? AHC300 ( talk) 13:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources seem to refer to him in as such, or some variation of that term-
Hoponpop69 ( talk) 19:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Note Category:American conspiracy theorists includes this page currently. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
To answer the original question posed, is the Pope a Catholic? Hoponpop69 ( talk) 17:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be the standard for everyone else post-Weinstein. It's not like the publicity or the detail isn't there. We could say, as the last sentence of the campaign paragraph, "[T]rump has also been the subject of numerous sexual misconduct allegations, many of which arose during the campaign." Nick845 ( talk) 07:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
There’s currently a court case involving Summer Zervos. If Pres. Trump is held liable in that case, it should probably go in the lead. There’s no rush to predict that verdict though. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Support adding to the lede. Has a huge about of coverage and cultural ramifications are huge. Casprings ( talk) 16:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
In 1998, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for matters related to a scandal that involved White House employee Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in 1999 and proceeded to complete his term in office.There may be problems with the lede, but adding this would not improve it. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The points that have been made look like the following: A) litigation isn't final yet (well, that's true for everyone who's been recently accused so far, and the proposed sentence doesn't mention the legal side anyway); B) "innocent until proven guilty" (see above); C) he hasn't admitted wrongdoing (except he has - Access Hollywood tape - and the allegations are substantial and detailed; regardless, the same is true for Clarence Thomas, even Weinstein, etc.); D) this had little effect on his reputation (how do we know? The majority of the country did not vote for him or actively dislikes him, and it could certainly be in part due to these allegations. I assume polling would show that a substantial portion of Americans are aware of this and find that it colors their perception of him); (E) not important enough relative to coverage in the article (could easily say the same about all of the policy accomplishments listed); F) the allegations only arose recently (but they concern conduct that goes back for decades). Overall, I don't see how a single sentence is any way undue, biased, or inconsistent with the broad treatment given to figures in similar positions.
Still, if there continues to be a consensus (even one seemingly dominated by Trump sympathizers), I won't press the case. I do think there's one obvious edit that can be made: moving the sub-section on the allegations from the section on the campaign to the section on his personal life. That would be a much more appropriate place; current placement conveys the misimpression that this was a run-of-the-mill political attack, limited to conduct that arose during the campaign. That in itself is biased. Nick845 ( talk) 05:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there a consensus to include this in the infobox? We don't have "Chairman of the Board of Clinton Foundation" in Bill Clinton's infobox, so I see no reason to include a similar entry here. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 22:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Why is Trump not labeled a writer in the lead? Is it because that falls under his works as a businessman and politician? No need for any "support" or "oppose" comments, I am more interested in the reasons rather than in pushing for its inclusion in the lead. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 04:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the opening sentence of the article be changed to something along the lines of what I have written in the heading of this section. Although I understand that his role as the POTUS is probably the part of that sentence which is the most pertinent to his role in modern society, I would argue that since being President is a title, it's not what should appear as what he is. If you take a look at every other article for Presidents of the United States, they almost all read "... was/is a politician who served as the Nth President of the United States." For formatting purposes and for the purpose of consistency, I would argue that it would make sense to change it to say that he is a politician along with being a businessman and television personality.
As for his role as a businessman, he has not relinquished his role as owner of the Trump Organization and it still operates, therefore it would stand to reason that he could reasonably be considered an active businessman. Regarding him being a television personality, although that's not something that he could still be considered as currently pursuing, he still was once a television personality, just as Ronald Reagan was once an actor, and in Trump's case, I believe it would be correct to call him a television personality while omitting any specification that he no longer does it. Lastly, in terms of him being a politician, though he himself has distanced himself from the term, technically, whether or not he denies it, by definition, since he holds political office, he is a politician. Ergo, I think it would be reasonable to put that in the first sentence as opposed to simply that he is the President and following it up with what he once was, for formatting reasons and for logic reasons.
Benmite ( talk) 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see fascist, racist, white nationalist, Nazi, neoliberal, far-right, extremist. Seems Trump's Wikipedia page is depicting Trump in a positive light. AHC300 ( talk) 16:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Above all of your suggestions, conspiracy theorist should be added to that section- /info/en/?search=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_69#Is_Trump_a_conspiracy_theorist?. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 16:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Adding any of those terms to describe Trume would be ridiculous. I'm not going to address all of them, but let's look at one. "Nazi" is a slang term for a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Unless you can produce a RS that say Trump was a member of that party at some point, then "Nazi" is out. Rreagan007 ( talk) 05:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Personal Details, change "New York City" to "Richmond Hill, New York". Donald Trump was born in Jamaica Hospital in the borough of Queens. There is no such city as "New York City". There is New York which is the city designation for the borough of Manhattan. But Richmond Hill is the city designation for the portion of Queens where Trump was born. The zip code for the city of Richmond Hill is 11418. 207.237.81.84 ( talk) 06:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@
Josve05a,
Galobtter, and
Bastun: The arbitration remedies read Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
I suggest that any discussion happens here.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk) 11:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I complained about the same thing at the Village Pump, here, in October. That was when somebody did the same thing to Barack Obama, "archiving" 392 perfectly good references, and increasing the size of that already too-large article by 22%. I got nowhere. The people who think this is worth doing - or who like using the toy - don't care what it does to the size or readability of the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
So there's clear consensus not to archive; while we'll simultaneously never achieve consensus to not archive. OK... Size is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not paper, and right now it's only 112k. Some (many) of the links will rot over time. Being prepared in advance is no hindrance to anyone (or if it is, nobody has explained why) and will be a net benefit to the reader over time. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
We mention his books in the lead and series of donald trump templates etc - yet there's not even a sentence on his books in the body. Per MOS we should try to harmonize the lead and body, so I'm thinking that a few sentences on the book for a section should be added somewhere.. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Some paragraphs from the lead of Bibliography of Trump would be useful as a base, and it could be added to a writing and media career section.. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Implemented I created a short section on his books and removed it from the lead. The section on his books can be expanded. I'm not 100% about having the writing with the media, but I'm not sure where else to put it. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Listing this "award" among his organizational recognitions is irrelevant and stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.55.169 ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Creating another section so my proposal is more visible; I don't see the point of that section. The collar doesn't seem that important as numerous people get it etc. All the important stuff is mentioned earlier in the body. Is the gaming hall of fame important? Nah. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Done It's a bit short, but it's undue here and there's enough coverage for a separate article. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I created Donald Trump#Investigations to organize the sections related to the Russia stuff etc into one section, instead of having things dumped in #Early Actions. However I can't really think of a good section title nor am I really happy with the section as it is now. Improvements definitely needed. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So I combined the sections on russia in the campaign, since they're all related in that the campaign ties are being investigated as part of russia's interference and his disbelief of any of the Russia stuff is part of why his interactions with russia have been so scrutinized. However a lot of stuff, while related to his campaign, are occurring/being investigated during his presidency and would fit more chronologically there, e.g Comey's testimony is reported there but also in the #Investigations section. Thinking of combining into one #Russia section in the presidency section..especially with Flynn etc Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Here [6]. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Didn't we have multiple lengthy discussion on this topic already? Also not sure an opinion column would be the best choice either. PackMecEng ( talk) 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
No. This is not science or analysis; it is opinion. I might almost call it, fake science. No reputable journal would look twice at a "study" like this. In the first place, she compares two totally different things - the self-reported frequency and motivation of lying in the case of her study subjects, vs. an external tally and evaluation of the truth or falsity of his statements in the case of Trump. In the second place, she defines a lie thus: “A lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone.” She then admits, "In the case of Trump’s claims, though, it is possible to ascertain only whether they were false or misleading, and not what the president’s intentions were." In other words, she has no valid measurement of Trump's lies (by her own definition), only of his false statements. We should stick with our current language: Falsehoods, yes. Lies, no. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
In the info box, under preceded by president it says "Barimpack Obama". Vinhan23 ( talk) 05:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Preceded by Barimpack Obama" to "Preceded by Barack Obama" OkAdamOkAdam ( talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald J. Trump Signature Collection. — JFG talk 00:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The political positions section seems redundant with the domestic and foreign policy sections, which describe his past positions and campaign promises in more detail. Thoughts on removing it/merging it in with them? Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To add more info about Donald trump. 420meme ( talk) 21:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In his analysis of Donald Trump's electoral victory, sociologist Paul Joosse shows how Donald Trump's charismatic status was strengthened during the campaign through his rhetorical references to a variety of "folk devils;" namely Muslims and Mexican immigrants. [1] CMaterial ( talk) 06:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Sociologist Paul Joosse studied Trump's campaign rhetoric and found that Trump's charisma grew out of the moral panics he stoked about a variety of "folk devils;" namely Muslims and Mexican immigrants. [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. —
MRD2014
Happy Holidays! 01:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)It's notable because it isn't an "opinion floating around"--it is a peer-reviewed study based on 672 pages of collected data from transcripts of all the GOP debates, the debates with Clinton, as well as 20 speeches from campaign rallies. This material was coded using NVivo software to generate the findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMaterial ( talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This revert [7] removes information sourced from secondary reporting on official documents. The edit summary claims that the RS citation is "dubious" while Trump's own notoriously inflated claims apparently are not?? What? This is gratuitous removal of well-sourced article content and should be reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 04:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit to the lead. It changed “he...responded to North Korean nuclear weapons and missile advancements” to “he...escalated rhetoric with North Korea”. The US response has not been rhetoric alone, but also included increased economic sanctions, plus military show of force, so just saying rhetoric is misleading. And the escalation on the US side has corresponded to escalating missile and nuclear tests on the NK side, so it’s inaccurate to suggest that the escalation is from the US side. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The word "pressured" is vague and weaselly. We can convey much more of the meaning of our sources by saying, "He mocked and threatened..." which is (1) what they report that he did and (2) what differentiates Pres. Trump's approach from the approaches of his various predecessors. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
"there are so many forms of pressure (economic, rhetorical, military, etc.)"is the reason why, when a simple concise lede-worthy characterization is available, we should use the more meaningful "mocked and threatened" which will not strain our servers as it uses only a handful more bits. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
which includes many forms- your words, and you're using that to justify weasel text to save 76 bits of data on the server? C'mon. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The mocking is more on Kim Jong-un than north korea; pressure seems reasonable considering his efforts with China. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is running around in circles, chasing its own tail (so much for dog analogies). If any of the editors involved would like to suggest a particularly insightful change of wording, they are free to open an RfC. — JFG talk 23:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
[he] pressured North Korea over the acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program, is good enough. Other proposal are either too long for the lede or focusing only on the rhetorical pressure. This article's body and the linked articles about the NoKo situation have all that readers may wish to learn. — JFG talk 00:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Presidency of Donald Trump says "In August Trump significantly escalated his rhetoric against North Korea, saying that further provocation against the U.S. will be met with "fire and fury like the world has never seen". [1] It also mentions ineffectual requests to China and Tillerson's apparent attempt at diplomacy. In light of this, with respect to Trump himself for this bio article, the following language seems appropriate and is amply justified per the discussion above.
"He escalated his rhetoric against North Korea, threatening to destroy it."
This seems consistent both with the Presidency article and with the comments in this thread. I will wait a bit before inserting it. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Following recent developments, the lede sentence about the travel ban was changed by several editors, including myself. As the new text has now been stable for a while, could we possibly formally obtain consensus to amend item #23?
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after legal challenges.
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges.
The new text concisely reflects the current situation, after the Supreme Court allowed full implementation of the third version of the travel ban, as defined in Presidential Proclamation 9645 (linked from the text as well).
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with amending consensus wording #23 as described. — JFG talk 10:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after multiple court orders blocked implementation, the Supreme Court allowed a revised version of the ban to go into effect in December 2017.") ~ Awilley ( talk) 04:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
He ordered a travel ban on certain Muslim countries, which only came into effect after several changes due to legal challenges.— JFG talk 11:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
He ordered a travel ban on certain Muslim countries, which came into effect after several changes due to legal challenges.I'd support that. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Shorter proposal, from suggestions above:
He ordered a travel ban on certain Muslim countries, which came into effect after several changes due to legal challenges.
Agree? Disagree? — JFG talk 12:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
He ordered a travel ban for certain Muslim-majority countries("for" seems the correct preposition looking at this article.) Galobtter ( pingó mió) JFG IMHO "for certain Muslim-majority countries" is clearer and has better grammar than "on certain Muslim countries". If you agree you can just change the proposal. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Changing to weak, see my comment in discussion - while some of what Scjessey says is a little much, his general idea that the later travel bans had less coverage seems correct. This is better than the current version though, so weak agree. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The legal challenges aren't over - the supreme court still has to hear them. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 10:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
First off, let's deal with the essence of this bit and why it's noteworthy. It's a key campaign tag "Muslim Ban". Well the courts blocked a ban based on religion and so for the better part of a year, RS tell us, we have the Administration doing anything it takes to avoid having the whole kaboodle quashed. The central point is not that this is a security policy that was tweaked to get it humming. Reporting describes it as a propaganda ploy that nearly resulted in humiliation for the Administration and is being rejiggered to avoid that outcome. WP cannot adopt political talking-points as factual description. If we insist on cleanup here, we could say "he ordered a "travel ban" that was blocked by the courts for its unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion and which is under ongoing judicial review." Or something. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his latest travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries to go into full effect even as legal challenges continue in lower courts.- which uses allowing instead of ruling, which I'd say is more accurate. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 04:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Neither version really covers it. It does need to be in the lede, it is one of his signature issues. But there is so much that needs to be said about this, it's hard to fit into a sentence. We need to retain "Muslim-majority" even though the final ban included a couple of non-Muslim-majority countries (in an obvious bid to get past the religious-discrimination issue). We need to say there were multiple court challenges, multiple court orders blocking it, and multiple revisions. I think we should indicate that it took a full year before they finally came up with a version the Court would accept. How about something like this: He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after multiple court orders blocked implementation, the Supreme Court allowed a revised version of the ban to go into effect in December 2017.
--
MelanieN (
talk) 18:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, what about He ordered a controversial travel ban for several Muslim-majority countries.
, which is like what
Scjessey is saying. I do get that the later travel bans haven't received nearly as much coverage. Represent the challenges, protests using "controversy". RS call it controversial too, and "after months of controversy" etc.
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 16:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC) The only problem is being misleading, in that the original did not go through. So IDK
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 16:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
There´s a disagreement about if Conways controversies should be mentioned in the lead of her article at the thread ""sitting inappropriately on the Oval Office couch" in the Lead" on Talk:Kellyanne Conway. If anyone is interested, some more opinions couldn´t hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I want to edit this page to fix up a couple of errors on his family. I also found some spelling and grammar mistakes I think I should fix up to make this page look better.
Thanks. Djdjdd ( talk) 04:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
fix spelling of "helo"and someone else with the permission will edit it. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 05:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This is Trump's only major piece of legislation that he managed to get passed through Congress in his first year. This should be in the lede, yet it isn't even mentioned in the body of the article. Rreagan007 ( talk) 19:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
i would like to sugest a citation needed please, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.136.26 ( talk) 20:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Could we please not weasel-up this article with sentences that lack a subject and digress into labyrinthine passive-voice excursions?
DA
NYET
SPECIFICO
talk 23:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
But at any rate, it's not a good idea to write in the passive voice in an encyclopedia.- You have provided exactly zero support for such a blanket statement, and it is contrary to the information I linked above. Even if you were a recognized writing expert, and I'm not aware that's the case, your opinion would be one of many varying opinions among recognized writing experts. I reserve the right to use passive voice when it seems more natural to my ear, improves flow, and so on, and I encourage other editors to do the same. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
There has been intensive media scrutiny of Trump's relationship to Russiato the more palatable
Trump's connections to Russia were intensely scrutinized by the media. [11] Passive voice can be just as clear as active voice, depending on what the writer wants to emphasize. In this sentence, I felt that the key element was Trump's connections to Russia, not "the media", leading to a passive turn of phrase. — JFG talk 12:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, I don't think it's accurate to say in the lead that he has been "unsuccessful" in repealing the ACA. He just got a significant part of it repealed, namely the individual mandate. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | → | Archive 75 |
the Justice Department appointed Comey's predecessor Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's interference in the presidential election, potential links between Russia and Trump campaign associates, and any related matters.
- This sentence on Mueller's investigation is quite long and prominent. Yet this is hardly even mentioned in the body. Mueller's name isn't even mentioned elsewhere! Reckon this should be shortened to the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to investigate Russia's interference in the presidential election, potential links between Russia and Trump campaign associates, and any related matters.
and some more information on the investigation added to the dismissal of Comey section since this is one of the most important matters related to his administration.
Galobtter (
talk) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The old one seemed way better to me; he looks lunatic (hey, just saying!) with that goofy grin portrait. 2.51.17.85 ( talk) 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems very odd to mention Gorsuch by name in the lead section. The President appoints scores of people, his cabinet to start with, and many other influential civil servants such as Directors of the FBI, the CIA and so on and so forth. No cabinet member, not even the most senior such as Rex Tillerson, and no other appointees either, are mentioned by name in the lead section. In the entire world the position of judge, even on the country's supreme court, would be seen as junior to the entire cabinet and 99% of the world would regard it as a routine appointment of a civil servant. I don't think Gorsuch is regarded as more influential in the US than other Trump appointees such as Tillerson and other cabinet members either. -- Tataral ( talk) 12:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the redirect in the lead for the Paris Agreement go to United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement? I also suggest adding the 2017 United States–Saudi Arabia arms deal to the lead on foreign policy. It is a highly notable event in foreign policy, and just as notable as the partial undoing of the Cuban Thaw.
As I'm a new account, I can not change it. Anyone mind updating it, seems like a no brainer! DoDoDoDoDoDo ( talk) 03:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is this not brought up? AHC300 ( talk) 12:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit. It’s true that polling better among your own party is normal for a president, but it’s very abnormal for there to be such a huge disparity between the parties regarding an incumbent president. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
How in the world is this important enough to be in the lead paragraph about his accomplishments? It's not an official policy, it was a statement made at one speech, and it almost never appears in any other lists of presidential action. It should be removed.
Also, his recent rise in conservative politics was driven largely by his role as the most prominent voice in the debunked Birther conspiracy theory. There should be a sentence on that, after "he long expressed interest in politics". Fixed245 ( talk) 22:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
asking Muslim leaders to drive out extremistsshould be removed from the lead. His views on birther should be in another discussion I think, so that we don't go off topic. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Trump just retweeted a white nationalist conspiracy theorist website and doesn't believe his own access Hollywood tape. Why is he not labeled this? AHC300 ( talk) 13:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources seem to refer to him in as such, or some variation of that term-
Hoponpop69 ( talk) 19:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Note Category:American conspiracy theorists includes this page currently. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
To answer the original question posed, is the Pope a Catholic? Hoponpop69 ( talk) 17:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be the standard for everyone else post-Weinstein. It's not like the publicity or the detail isn't there. We could say, as the last sentence of the campaign paragraph, "[T]rump has also been the subject of numerous sexual misconduct allegations, many of which arose during the campaign." Nick845 ( talk) 07:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
There’s currently a court case involving Summer Zervos. If Pres. Trump is held liable in that case, it should probably go in the lead. There’s no rush to predict that verdict though. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Support adding to the lede. Has a huge about of coverage and cultural ramifications are huge. Casprings ( talk) 16:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
In 1998, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for matters related to a scandal that involved White House employee Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in 1999 and proceeded to complete his term in office.There may be problems with the lede, but adding this would not improve it. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The points that have been made look like the following: A) litigation isn't final yet (well, that's true for everyone who's been recently accused so far, and the proposed sentence doesn't mention the legal side anyway); B) "innocent until proven guilty" (see above); C) he hasn't admitted wrongdoing (except he has - Access Hollywood tape - and the allegations are substantial and detailed; regardless, the same is true for Clarence Thomas, even Weinstein, etc.); D) this had little effect on his reputation (how do we know? The majority of the country did not vote for him or actively dislikes him, and it could certainly be in part due to these allegations. I assume polling would show that a substantial portion of Americans are aware of this and find that it colors their perception of him); (E) not important enough relative to coverage in the article (could easily say the same about all of the policy accomplishments listed); F) the allegations only arose recently (but they concern conduct that goes back for decades). Overall, I don't see how a single sentence is any way undue, biased, or inconsistent with the broad treatment given to figures in similar positions.
Still, if there continues to be a consensus (even one seemingly dominated by Trump sympathizers), I won't press the case. I do think there's one obvious edit that can be made: moving the sub-section on the allegations from the section on the campaign to the section on his personal life. That would be a much more appropriate place; current placement conveys the misimpression that this was a run-of-the-mill political attack, limited to conduct that arose during the campaign. That in itself is biased. Nick845 ( talk) 05:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there a consensus to include this in the infobox? We don't have "Chairman of the Board of Clinton Foundation" in Bill Clinton's infobox, so I see no reason to include a similar entry here. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 22:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Why is Trump not labeled a writer in the lead? Is it because that falls under his works as a businessman and politician? No need for any "support" or "oppose" comments, I am more interested in the reasons rather than in pushing for its inclusion in the lead. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 04:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the opening sentence of the article be changed to something along the lines of what I have written in the heading of this section. Although I understand that his role as the POTUS is probably the part of that sentence which is the most pertinent to his role in modern society, I would argue that since being President is a title, it's not what should appear as what he is. If you take a look at every other article for Presidents of the United States, they almost all read "... was/is a politician who served as the Nth President of the United States." For formatting purposes and for the purpose of consistency, I would argue that it would make sense to change it to say that he is a politician along with being a businessman and television personality.
As for his role as a businessman, he has not relinquished his role as owner of the Trump Organization and it still operates, therefore it would stand to reason that he could reasonably be considered an active businessman. Regarding him being a television personality, although that's not something that he could still be considered as currently pursuing, he still was once a television personality, just as Ronald Reagan was once an actor, and in Trump's case, I believe it would be correct to call him a television personality while omitting any specification that he no longer does it. Lastly, in terms of him being a politician, though he himself has distanced himself from the term, technically, whether or not he denies it, by definition, since he holds political office, he is a politician. Ergo, I think it would be reasonable to put that in the first sentence as opposed to simply that he is the President and following it up with what he once was, for formatting reasons and for logic reasons.
Benmite ( talk) 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see fascist, racist, white nationalist, Nazi, neoliberal, far-right, extremist. Seems Trump's Wikipedia page is depicting Trump in a positive light. AHC300 ( talk) 16:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Above all of your suggestions, conspiracy theorist should be added to that section- /info/en/?search=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_69#Is_Trump_a_conspiracy_theorist?. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 16:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Adding any of those terms to describe Trume would be ridiculous. I'm not going to address all of them, but let's look at one. "Nazi" is a slang term for a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Unless you can produce a RS that say Trump was a member of that party at some point, then "Nazi" is out. Rreagan007 ( talk) 05:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Personal Details, change "New York City" to "Richmond Hill, New York". Donald Trump was born in Jamaica Hospital in the borough of Queens. There is no such city as "New York City". There is New York which is the city designation for the borough of Manhattan. But Richmond Hill is the city designation for the portion of Queens where Trump was born. The zip code for the city of Richmond Hill is 11418. 207.237.81.84 ( talk) 06:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@
Josve05a,
Galobtter, and
Bastun: The arbitration remedies read Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
I suggest that any discussion happens here.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk) 11:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I complained about the same thing at the Village Pump, here, in October. That was when somebody did the same thing to Barack Obama, "archiving" 392 perfectly good references, and increasing the size of that already too-large article by 22%. I got nowhere. The people who think this is worth doing - or who like using the toy - don't care what it does to the size or readability of the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
So there's clear consensus not to archive; while we'll simultaneously never achieve consensus to not archive. OK... Size is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not paper, and right now it's only 112k. Some (many) of the links will rot over time. Being prepared in advance is no hindrance to anyone (or if it is, nobody has explained why) and will be a net benefit to the reader over time. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
We mention his books in the lead and series of donald trump templates etc - yet there's not even a sentence on his books in the body. Per MOS we should try to harmonize the lead and body, so I'm thinking that a few sentences on the book for a section should be added somewhere.. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Some paragraphs from the lead of Bibliography of Trump would be useful as a base, and it could be added to a writing and media career section.. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Implemented I created a short section on his books and removed it from the lead. The section on his books can be expanded. I'm not 100% about having the writing with the media, but I'm not sure where else to put it. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Listing this "award" among his organizational recognitions is irrelevant and stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.55.169 ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Creating another section so my proposal is more visible; I don't see the point of that section. The collar doesn't seem that important as numerous people get it etc. All the important stuff is mentioned earlier in the body. Is the gaming hall of fame important? Nah. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Done It's a bit short, but it's undue here and there's enough coverage for a separate article. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I created Donald Trump#Investigations to organize the sections related to the Russia stuff etc into one section, instead of having things dumped in #Early Actions. However I can't really think of a good section title nor am I really happy with the section as it is now. Improvements definitely needed. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So I combined the sections on russia in the campaign, since they're all related in that the campaign ties are being investigated as part of russia's interference and his disbelief of any of the Russia stuff is part of why his interactions with russia have been so scrutinized. However a lot of stuff, while related to his campaign, are occurring/being investigated during his presidency and would fit more chronologically there, e.g Comey's testimony is reported there but also in the #Investigations section. Thinking of combining into one #Russia section in the presidency section..especially with Flynn etc Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Here [6]. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Didn't we have multiple lengthy discussion on this topic already? Also not sure an opinion column would be the best choice either. PackMecEng ( talk) 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
No. This is not science or analysis; it is opinion. I might almost call it, fake science. No reputable journal would look twice at a "study" like this. In the first place, she compares two totally different things - the self-reported frequency and motivation of lying in the case of her study subjects, vs. an external tally and evaluation of the truth or falsity of his statements in the case of Trump. In the second place, she defines a lie thus: “A lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone.” She then admits, "In the case of Trump’s claims, though, it is possible to ascertain only whether they were false or misleading, and not what the president’s intentions were." In other words, she has no valid measurement of Trump's lies (by her own definition), only of his false statements. We should stick with our current language: Falsehoods, yes. Lies, no. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
In the info box, under preceded by president it says "Barimpack Obama". Vinhan23 ( talk) 05:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Preceded by Barimpack Obama" to "Preceded by Barack Obama" OkAdamOkAdam ( talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald J. Trump Signature Collection. — JFG talk 00:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The political positions section seems redundant with the domestic and foreign policy sections, which describe his past positions and campaign promises in more detail. Thoughts on removing it/merging it in with them? Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To add more info about Donald trump. 420meme ( talk) 21:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In his analysis of Donald Trump's electoral victory, sociologist Paul Joosse shows how Donald Trump's charismatic status was strengthened during the campaign through his rhetorical references to a variety of "folk devils;" namely Muslims and Mexican immigrants. [1] CMaterial ( talk) 06:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Sociologist Paul Joosse studied Trump's campaign rhetoric and found that Trump's charisma grew out of the moral panics he stoked about a variety of "folk devils;" namely Muslims and Mexican immigrants. [1]
Sources
|
---|
|
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. —
MRD2014
Happy Holidays! 01:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)It's notable because it isn't an "opinion floating around"--it is a peer-reviewed study based on 672 pages of collected data from transcripts of all the GOP debates, the debates with Clinton, as well as 20 speeches from campaign rallies. This material was coded using NVivo software to generate the findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMaterial ( talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This revert [7] removes information sourced from secondary reporting on official documents. The edit summary claims that the RS citation is "dubious" while Trump's own notoriously inflated claims apparently are not?? What? This is gratuitous removal of well-sourced article content and should be reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 04:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit to the lead. It changed “he...responded to North Korean nuclear weapons and missile advancements” to “he...escalated rhetoric with North Korea”. The US response has not been rhetoric alone, but also included increased economic sanctions, plus military show of force, so just saying rhetoric is misleading. And the escalation on the US side has corresponded to escalating missile and nuclear tests on the NK side, so it’s inaccurate to suggest that the escalation is from the US side. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The word "pressured" is vague and weaselly. We can convey much more of the meaning of our sources by saying, "He mocked and threatened..." which is (1) what they report that he did and (2) what differentiates Pres. Trump's approach from the approaches of his various predecessors. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
"there are so many forms of pressure (economic, rhetorical, military, etc.)"is the reason why, when a simple concise lede-worthy characterization is available, we should use the more meaningful "mocked and threatened" which will not strain our servers as it uses only a handful more bits. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
which includes many forms- your words, and you're using that to justify weasel text to save 76 bits of data on the server? C'mon. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The mocking is more on Kim Jong-un than north korea; pressure seems reasonable considering his efforts with China. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is running around in circles, chasing its own tail (so much for dog analogies). If any of the editors involved would like to suggest a particularly insightful change of wording, they are free to open an RfC. — JFG talk 23:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
[he] pressured North Korea over the acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program, is good enough. Other proposal are either too long for the lede or focusing only on the rhetorical pressure. This article's body and the linked articles about the NoKo situation have all that readers may wish to learn. — JFG talk 00:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Presidency of Donald Trump says "In August Trump significantly escalated his rhetoric against North Korea, saying that further provocation against the U.S. will be met with "fire and fury like the world has never seen". [1] It also mentions ineffectual requests to China and Tillerson's apparent attempt at diplomacy. In light of this, with respect to Trump himself for this bio article, the following language seems appropriate and is amply justified per the discussion above.
"He escalated his rhetoric against North Korea, threatening to destroy it."
This seems consistent both with the Presidency article and with the comments in this thread. I will wait a bit before inserting it. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Following recent developments, the lede sentence about the travel ban was changed by several editors, including myself. As the new text has now been stable for a while, could we possibly formally obtain consensus to amend item #23?
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after legal challenges.
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges.
The new text concisely reflects the current situation, after the Supreme Court allowed full implementation of the third version of the travel ban, as defined in Presidential Proclamation 9645 (linked from the text as well).
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with amending consensus wording #23 as described. — JFG talk 10:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after multiple court orders blocked implementation, the Supreme Court allowed a revised version of the ban to go into effect in December 2017.") ~ Awilley ( talk) 04:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
He ordered a travel ban on certain Muslim countries, which only came into effect after several changes due to legal challenges.— JFG talk 11:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
He ordered a travel ban on certain Muslim countries, which came into effect after several changes due to legal challenges.I'd support that. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Shorter proposal, from suggestions above:
He ordered a travel ban on certain Muslim countries, which came into effect after several changes due to legal challenges.
Agree? Disagree? — JFG talk 12:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
He ordered a travel ban for certain Muslim-majority countries("for" seems the correct preposition looking at this article.) Galobtter ( pingó mió) JFG IMHO "for certain Muslim-majority countries" is clearer and has better grammar than "on certain Muslim countries". If you agree you can just change the proposal. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Changing to weak, see my comment in discussion - while some of what Scjessey says is a little much, his general idea that the later travel bans had less coverage seems correct. This is better than the current version though, so weak agree. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The legal challenges aren't over - the supreme court still has to hear them. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 10:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
First off, let's deal with the essence of this bit and why it's noteworthy. It's a key campaign tag "Muslim Ban". Well the courts blocked a ban based on religion and so for the better part of a year, RS tell us, we have the Administration doing anything it takes to avoid having the whole kaboodle quashed. The central point is not that this is a security policy that was tweaked to get it humming. Reporting describes it as a propaganda ploy that nearly resulted in humiliation for the Administration and is being rejiggered to avoid that outcome. WP cannot adopt political talking-points as factual description. If we insist on cleanup here, we could say "he ordered a "travel ban" that was blocked by the courts for its unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion and which is under ongoing judicial review." Or something. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his latest travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries to go into full effect even as legal challenges continue in lower courts.- which uses allowing instead of ruling, which I'd say is more accurate. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 04:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Neither version really covers it. It does need to be in the lede, it is one of his signature issues. But there is so much that needs to be said about this, it's hard to fit into a sentence. We need to retain "Muslim-majority" even though the final ban included a couple of non-Muslim-majority countries (in an obvious bid to get past the religious-discrimination issue). We need to say there were multiple court challenges, multiple court orders blocking it, and multiple revisions. I think we should indicate that it took a full year before they finally came up with a version the Court would accept. How about something like this: He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after multiple court orders blocked implementation, the Supreme Court allowed a revised version of the ban to go into effect in December 2017.
--
MelanieN (
talk) 18:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, what about He ordered a controversial travel ban for several Muslim-majority countries.
, which is like what
Scjessey is saying. I do get that the later travel bans haven't received nearly as much coverage. Represent the challenges, protests using "controversy". RS call it controversial too, and "after months of controversy" etc.
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 16:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC) The only problem is being misleading, in that the original did not go through. So IDK
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 16:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
There´s a disagreement about if Conways controversies should be mentioned in the lead of her article at the thread ""sitting inappropriately on the Oval Office couch" in the Lead" on Talk:Kellyanne Conway. If anyone is interested, some more opinions couldn´t hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I want to edit this page to fix up a couple of errors on his family. I also found some spelling and grammar mistakes I think I should fix up to make this page look better.
Thanks. Djdjdd ( talk) 04:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
fix spelling of "helo"and someone else with the permission will edit it. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 05:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This is Trump's only major piece of legislation that he managed to get passed through Congress in his first year. This should be in the lede, yet it isn't even mentioned in the body of the article. Rreagan007 ( talk) 19:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
i would like to sugest a citation needed please, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.136.26 ( talk) 20:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Could we please not weasel-up this article with sentences that lack a subject and digress into labyrinthine passive-voice excursions?
DA
NYET
SPECIFICO
talk 23:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
But at any rate, it's not a good idea to write in the passive voice in an encyclopedia.- You have provided exactly zero support for such a blanket statement, and it is contrary to the information I linked above. Even if you were a recognized writing expert, and I'm not aware that's the case, your opinion would be one of many varying opinions among recognized writing experts. I reserve the right to use passive voice when it seems more natural to my ear, improves flow, and so on, and I encourage other editors to do the same. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
There has been intensive media scrutiny of Trump's relationship to Russiato the more palatable
Trump's connections to Russia were intensely scrutinized by the media. [11] Passive voice can be just as clear as active voice, depending on what the writer wants to emphasize. In this sentence, I felt that the key element was Trump's connections to Russia, not "the media", leading to a passive turn of phrase. — JFG talk 12:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, I don't think it's accurate to say in the lead that he has been "unsuccessful" in repealing the ACA. He just got a significant part of it repealed, namely the individual mandate. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)