Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

Mueller investigation

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)

I gave a shot at rephrasing the sentence in the lead:[1] not mentioning Mueller by name, but linking to the dedicated article about his investigation. It's still a bit long for the lead, though. — JFG ^talk 18:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The article needs more inputed in the article. We should mention him by name per WP:WEIGHT.Casprings (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to stick to the official portrait?

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's convention to use the free official portrait as the infobox image. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If he’s grinning, people say the grin is goofy. If he’s frowning, people say he should be grinning. It’s useful to have a standard answer, like we just use the official portrait. Otherwise we’ll still be debating the image when Barron Trump or Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky is president. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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

I don't think Gorsuch belongs in the lead

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)

I agree that it would be better to leave “Neil Gorsuch” out of the lead, but still say he successfully nominated a Supreme Court Justice. It’s a life position, and the Court now occupies a bigger role in American life than courts do in the vast majority of other countries (e.g. the people of Ireland legalized gay marriage by voting on it whereas it was done by judicial decision in the U.S.). But we needn’t name Gorsuch in the lead, because it’s too much detail, and anyway the whole reason they wear black robes is to symbolize that individual personalities aren’t supposed to matter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The judgement of whether to include it should not be based upon the the role being bigger compared to other countries but the notability of Trump in appointing him. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. In an administration bereft of achievements, the appointment is quite important. Trump himself has touted it as being one of great accomplishments. You can see this CNN article where it is talked about as possibly greatest achievment till april, and nothing much has happened since. Galobtter (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The nomination of Neil Gorsuch was a particularly controversial and widely-covered story, which has lasting impact on the balance of the US Supreme Court; this is why it belongs in the lead section. However we should certainly review the contents of this paragraph, which is meant to summarize the key issues of Trump's presidency so far. The one-off missile strike in Syria in response to a chemical attack did not develop into a bigger story, and should imho be removed. — JFG ^talk 18:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"Lasting impact"? We don't know that yet, that's WP:CRYSTALBALLing. He has served for a couple of months, less than most of Trump's cabinet members who have far more power (e.g. Tillerson who directs US foreign policy and has some 70,000 people working directly for him, compared to the handful of assistants a judge gets), and hasn't done anything noteworthy. The appointment of a judge is not, in itself, an "achievement" any more than the appointment of his cabinet, or his other statutory duties. The fact that he would even see this as an "achievement" merely demonstrates his lack of actual achievements, but still, Gorsuch doesn't deserve to be the only appointee mentioned in the lead (among many who are far more influential and whose appointments were also widely discussed in RS). --Tataral (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: Please note that I did not call the Gorsuch appointment an "achievement", either in the article or in this discussion. We certainly cannot guess what his lasting impact will be, if any; however most sources reporting on this appointment did mention that it would surely have an impact, especially as the last Obama Supreme Court nominee had been filibusted by the GOP-controlled Senate, paving the way for a more conservative Justice. We go by sources… — JFG ^talk 22:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal of Gorsuch from the lede. In a biography of Trump's entire life, the appointment isn't especially noteworthy. We do not mention the two justices appointed by Obama in the lede of Barack Obama. The noteworthy aspect of Gorsuch's appointment came prior to Trump's election, when Republicans employed extraordinary measures to prevent Obama from appointing Garland - nothing to do with Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the proposal above (at the start of this thread) is that we stop mentioning “Gorsuch by name” in the lead, and I support that. But I also support mentioning in the lead that he successfully nominated an (unnamed) Supreme Court Justice, for the reasons I already gave. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not a significant achievement in his life. It's fine in the body, but not in the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It is correct that the proposal was to remove just the name, not necessarily the fact that he had appointed a judge. If Trump really considers this appointment his life's work, I don't really care that much if we mention that he appointed a judge without naming him (although I personally would consider that silly, I don't find it worth the effort to oppose it). In that context the key issue appears to be the appointment of a judge in itself, not the specific person who was appointed. --Tataral (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose removing it, or removing Gorsuch's name (what does that accomplish?). Leave it in the lede, as is. This is his only major legislative accomplishment, and possibly the single most lasting effect of his presidency. It's an eight-word sentence, there's room for it. We manage to find room for 20 words about his travel ban, which is nowhere near as significant or long-lasting. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Like I said above, RSes are talking about it being his most significant accomplishment. I don't really see a way to reword it either to save words while removing Gorsuch's name. Galobtter (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. Personally, I don’t think appointing a justice is an accomplishment since a president is handed the opportunity and such appointments have an 80% approval rate. But, what I personally think is irrelevant. If RS say it’s an accomplishment, and there are so few accomplishments, it belongs in the lead. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose removing Gorsuch from lede. Widely cited by RS as the only thing POTUS has given his backers in the first 9+ months of his presidency. And a significant number of his voters were driven by the single issue of court appointments. (As many editors here know.) SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. Given the power of the Supreme Court and how a single justice can be the difference in how a case is decided, appointing a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most important things that modern presidents do. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal. This is a no-brainer. Supreme Court appointments aren't mentioned in the lead for neither Barack Obama, George W. Bush, nor Bill Clinton. Fixed245 (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

And the fact that Trump has accomplished little doesn't mean that we should elevate otherwise pedestrian accomplishments to the lead. It means that we should let his list of actions speak for themselves, without embellishment. Fixed245 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

New Wikilink redirect

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)

The first one doesn't make sense, as you'd expect the link for "Paris Agreement" to go to the Paris agreement article. The second one seems ok, but the body also may need to add that. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 08:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)