This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Donald Trump This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

• " Trump signs order to begin rolling back Wall Street regulations", The Washington Post, February 3.
• " Trump Moves to Roll Back Obama-Era Financial Regulations", The New York Times, February 3.
• " With A Stroke Of The Pen, Donald Trump Aims To Wave Goodbye To The Dodd Frank Act", Forbes, February 3.
• " Trump ignites political fight over U.S. banking law reforms", Reuters, February 3.
• " Trump Begins to Chip Away at Banking Regulations", The Atlantic, February 3.
• " Trump orders Dodd-Frank review in effort to roll back financial regulation", The Guardian, February 4.
• " Expectations of Donald Trump dismantling Dodd-Frank send banking shares higher", The Independent, February 4.

– Philip Terry Graham 02:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I feel I wasn't clear and was a little grumpy in my edit summary, so I apologize for that. I took out two cites in the "Background" section that date to 2010, during the debate over the Dodd-Frank Act's enactment.

• This one from Harvey Pitt (July 2010)
• This one from Viral Acharya

Point 1 - I removed the Pitt and Acharya cites because these cites date from 2010, when the Act was passed. It doesn't match up with the text in the background section, which mostly focuses on post-enactment history/analysis (as it should, given that we now have six years of data and the subject of this article in a 2017 E.O.). There's a copious amount of post-2010 sources both on (1) the economic impact of Dodd-Frank and (2) the political battle over Dodd-Frank's future, and I think we should try to use those.

(If we're looking for economic perspectives, I would try some of the following:

• Ask an Economist: Did Dodd-Frank Stabilize the Financial Sector, U.S. News & World Report (July 21, 2015) - interview with Michael Barr
• U.S. Financial Regulation, Five Years After Dodd-Frank: C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics: A Conversation With Dan Tarullo, Council on Foreign Relations - conversation with Dan Tarullo
• Banking From Financial Crisis to Dodd-Frank: Five Years On, How Much Has Changed? - Working paper by Gerald Epstein & Juan Antonio Montecino, Political Economy Research Institute (July 21, 2015)

Point 2 - In any case, I don't think the message of the Acharya cite was adequately reflected in the text. Acharya's piece lays out a pretty nuanced and sophisticated point about the Act's positive aspects and what he views as key omissions. That doesn't match up with the text that "both economic progressives and conservatives that respectively argue that the act does not do enough to address the issues which caused the Great Recession and that the act goes too far in terms of government intervention in the private financial sector." I also am not really inclined to use "economic progressive/conservative" language because of its lack of clarity in this context.

Point 3 - Additionally, I don't think criticism of Dodd-Frank from the more progressive angle (i.e., that it didn't go far enough) belongs here at this article's background section. It certainly belongs at the article on Dodd-Frank article, but this Executive Order had nothing to do with the pro-regulatory criticisms; rather, it is coming from the opposite point of view, the anti-regulatory criticisms. I think inclusion in the "Background" section here needlessly muddies the waters on this. Neutrality ^talk 20:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply