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.
First, is it a free image? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I own the rights and I am ready to distribute it for free.Visual Philosopher (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it cannot. Provide secondary sources for these statements, instead. Zezen (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree this should not be used, The wording in this image appears to me to fall outside the parameters of WP:NPOV. I understand the sentiment, but I don't think it can be used in a Wikipedia article ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
If there are some more basic sets of facts that are not widely disputed, and we would like to make a graphic to illustrate them alongside the prose, I think I could do something along these lines. Infographics could be used to lay out the pro vs con arguments contained in the legal briefs in State of Washington v. Trump -- not every argument every guy on the Internet thought up, but the only the verifiable, discrete set of arguments found in the case.
There are also other sets of data, such as numbers of individuals living in each state from the 7 nations, or who are refugees from any nation, which we could illustrate. The 2010 Census has been cited as a source for graphics like this I've seen, but I wasn't able to locate where exactly. We also have at least estimated numbers for how many people were held and were turned back on the first day, how many had visas revoked, how many had visas restored, and how many entered the US from between January 27 through today. Finally, I think a timeline very similar to the one below the infobox in Volkswagen emissions scandal would assist everyone who wants to follow this series of events. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
agree that it should not be included.G1729 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Change "Federal Response" subsection to "Executive Branch Response"?
Would it make sense to change the subsection "Federal Response" subsection to "Executive Branch Response"? Because the federal courts are taking actions against the executive branch of the federal government on some of this I find the title confusing. If people feel something like "Federal Executive Branch Response" would be inaccurate for the content of the section, I don't want to change it, but I think we've currently got kind of a muddled topic-statement as one part of the federal government (judiciary) is adjudicating another part of the federal government (executive).G1729 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Multiple maintenance tags
@Volunteer Marek: and others, I'm sure you're aware that the normal and most effective methods of dispute resolution do not include "Tag bomb the article." Because tags do nothing to resolve content disputes. As explained in Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, the purpose of maintenance tags is to draw attention to an article that otherwise might not be getting attention. They are not there to warn readers that the article might be inaccurate, with the exception of the current event tag already in place, as explained in the Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles guideline. POV or cleanup tags are there to "encourage editors to solve problems", but as the edit history shows, there are already a great many editors working to improve this article. Encouragement is not required. Using tags as a bargaining tool or other form of leverage to win your side of the content dispute is recognized as abusive.
The issue is that these editors do not all agree. That calls for the usual methods of Dispute resolution, and patience. It takes longer to achieve consensus on neutrality than a single news cycle, and there's no way any developing news story can achieve neutrality in the timeframe of breaking news. We have an appropriate tag for that; repetitively adding more tags isn't helping.
If you really think that not enough editors are working on this, there are processes like RfCs or simply inviting participation at a WikiProject talk page, to bring in more. Otherwise, keep talking it out. That's how Wikipedia is made. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
"They are not there to warn readers" - ahem: "Add template messages to inform readers and editors of specific problems" .Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
If we're going to use tags, would it make sense to use the This Page Has Multiple Issues tag? (I am new at this sort of thing and honestly do not know the answer; though I'm making the suggestion, I don't have an opinion on it.) G1729 (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, that would be better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek:, your edit warring is growing disruptive. You are mired in a content dispute, and out of frustration you're tag bombing, because you want a bunch of tags to give you leverage against editors you disagree with. You should take a step back, and a deep breath, and focus on how you're going to compromise with other editors. Accept the fact that you are unlikely to get everything you want. Work on what you'll settle for. This maintenance tag tantrum doesn't get you any closer to resolving anything. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I've added tags to the article which reflect its current state. There are POV problems. There are problems with unreliable sources. There is over reliance on primary sources. How about *you* "take a step back"? How about *you* "take a deep breath"? How about *you* stop edit warring and removing relevant tags. How about *you* stop throwing temper tantrums? Oh and finally, how about you stop being a condescending "discussing editors not content" personal-attack-making... jerk? Maybe then your comments will contribute to resolving disputes rather than needlessly inflaming them.
There are obvious problems here and the discussion is on going. You can remove if and when the disputes are resolved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure why you're linking to WP:TM in your edit summary, as if it justified the removal of tags - that's just a list of templates. Presumably it's because previously you linked to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup and completely misrepresented it, so ... needed something else (though equally irrelevant) the second time around.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The article is getting plenty of attention and I agree that the multiple tags are superfluous. I thus removed the tags: link. Lead has been specifically trimmed down, and it adequate length for the article.
The article seems neutral to me. What are the POV problems?K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
As of this writing the article is heavily lopsided towards opponents. It does not present a neutral point of view. For example, in the article regarding lawsuits we took a neutral stance and showed both opinions in favor and against. Furthermore, the way the article is structured is biased towards opponents: oppositions are mentioned first instead of stating that the order received both opposition and support to then mention both points of views. I agree with @Volunteer Marek that the {{POV}} tag should remain in place. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the article being "heavily lopsided"; "widespread condemnation & chaos" is what the sources say. Which sources present coverage that is in favor of the ban? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
'Widespread' by itself is a subjective term. What constitutes something to be widespread? That 1M people are against it? Or is it 162M+1 (more than half the population of the United States)? Or is it 125.5+1 (more than half the number of voters in the U.S.)? Furthermore, what do public opinion says about the order? Is public opinion consistent? Or did different polls showed both support and opposition? If some polls showed more support than opposition, how can we say that the order suffered "widespread condemnation"? What do we do when other polls show the contrary? This is why we always stick to WP:NPOV and present both points of view. Here's a source that answers your question: "Two surveys suggest the executive order restricting travel and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries has more supporters than opponents." What do we do then? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The lead addresses this topic as follows: "Public opinion was divided, with initial national polls yielding inconsistent results." I don't believe there's anything preventing anybody in adding sources about public opinions polls. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
We should all continue to work hard to move this article closer to the ideal of neutrality; never assume it's good enough because 99 times out of 100, we have far to go. As a developing news story, we will always be playing catch up. But I don't think the standard of neutrality that Ahnoneemoos asks for is achievable. Wikipedia does not define neutrality based on public opinion, or any kind of polls. It's based on sources, and on the prominence of a point of view. Major points of view are given more weight than fringe points of view. If there is too much space devoted to opposition arguments that are of low prominence, those can be identified and reduced. But if the space required to summarize all major opposition views is somewhat greater than the supporting views, we can't put our thumb on the scale to make them equal. We can't balance it with filler, and we can't delete points of view that are clearly of major importance.
Keep in mind also that the office of the President of the United states is in itself of immense prominence. There is little risk that the White House's arguments will fail to be published or noticed. It isn't as if Wikipedia has to scour the globe for facts to support it, lest the world totally fail to notice what the President has to say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should not base NPOV on opinion polls- if that is what we're talking about here. And I don't think polls are useful within an article. Placing these in an article I think is too much of grey area for the purposes of Wikipedia. I would not consider polls to be a reliable source. We should only go by what is said in WP:RS regarding events and circumstances. I hope this makes sense. ---Steve Quinn (talk)
Journalist commentary
If this guy is not an a former prosecutor or someone with expertise, I'm not sure why his opinion on the subject matters:
Journalist Gregg Jarrett of Fox News applauded the removal, saying that Yates had "committed an egregious violation of ethical standards and a serious breach of her duties" and "deserved to get canned."[216]
(If there are additional prosecutor opinions speaking out against Yates, I'm fine with including them. Currently there is but one Jack Goldsmith quotation on that front. I'm agnostic about whether Yates did the 'right' thing ethically or morally or whatever.)G1729 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Concur that this opinion was undue. I removed it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Impact seems the wrong place for Bowling Green Massacre
Wasn't the so-called Bowling Green Massacre comment a reaction by the Trump spokeswoman in response to the judge's order? It doesn't seem to me like a direct impact of the order itself.G1729 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure, but it seems more like it would be more pertinent under response than impact to me. Hollth (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I originally added it to the response section. An editor removed it under the pretext that that was the "wrong section". I put it the impact section. It was removed again ... with an edit summary I don't even understand. It's basically being removed per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed it from the 'impact' section, because a reaction to a question in an interview is clearly NOT an 'impact' of the EO. It also isn't a 'response' to the EO. The place for this content would be in Conway's article and BG Massacre article. CatapultTalks (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It also belongs in this article as it's obviously relevant. The info is quite short too. There's no good reason for removing it. You've also violated 1RR when removing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe it should stay out; it looked off-topic in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It's about a statement that Trump's Counselor made to justify the Order which was widely report upon by multiple sources. How is that off-topic? And it's not like it's more than two or three sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Biased title
This title is biased and politically extreme, in fact Islamophobic/xenophobic in the way it brands all citizens of several Muslim countries as "Foreign Terrorists". I propose that we move it to a more descriptive and neutral title based on how this is covered in reliable sources which have widely referred to it as a ban on Muslims (e.g. [1]), e.g. Ban on Muslims by Donald Trump or Persecution of Muslims by Donald Trump (today a mosque was burned to the ground as well, so this is more than just a travel ban[2]). --Tataral (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The title is a bit propagandish, so I'm open on alternative titles if they make sense, but calling it a "Ban on Muslims" is a lot more problematic. Critics can call the executive order that, and the even some of the media use that (between quotation marks) for brevity - but it is not (fortunately) a blanket ban on Muslim and it didn't even mention Islam or Muslims by name, so as an encyclopedia we should not go there. HaEr48 (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The story that has received coverage in reliable sources is the ban on Muslims rather than the title of the document which initiated the ban. In addition, the title is strongly biased/misleading (by falsely implying that all citizens of various countries are "terrorists") and openly racist/extreme. In such cases Wikipedia often uses descriptive article titles. --Tataral (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Definitely the words "executive order" should be in the title. The current title is "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" which is the name of the executive order, but we need to include that it's an executive order. The word "immigration" or "travel" should be included too. Maybe something like "January 2017 executive order limiting travel to the United States from certain countries".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to use italic title to clarify that it's the original title and not Wikipedia endorsing calling the affected people "terrorists"? HaEr48 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There was a discussion at the top of this talk about using the executive order's number as the title once it's published, which I think most of Obama's orders were also named as on Wikipedia. So once that happens, should it be changed to just "Executive Order 12345" (using the order's actual number though)? Seagull123 Φ 16:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I think we should use such an uninformative title only if we can't reach consensus about a more informative title. I have proposed "January 2017 executive order limiting travel to the United States from certain countries".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The title of the executive order is intentionally propagandistic and offensive; that's DJ's signature style. Is that a reason for us to call it something different in WP? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
A better reason is that it's not very informative.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
>The title of the executive order is intentionally propagandistic and offensive; that's DJ's signature style. Is that a reason for us to call it something different in WP? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
This isn't how wikipedia works. Do that on twitter, not here.Thesuperblackninja (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at List of United States federal executive orders 13489–13764 (the Obama presidency), the precedent seems to be to use the number as the title, which I think is the most neutral way to go about it. In lieu of that number actually showing up, which presumably it will at some point in the near future, I don't think that the current title is inappropriate, as it is for now the most official and precise way to refer to the subject. C628 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Use the number as title; other titles people seacrh for (like the current one) can be redirects. --GerritCUTEDH 17:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree completely, it's just that the number doesn't seem to be publicly available right now. C628 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
We use the title Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" instead of "Public law 111–148". And where the official name of a statute is not concise and informative, we use our own language, such as the "Civil Rights Act of 1964" instead of "An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes" or "Public law 88-352". I don't see why executive orders should be treated differently from statutes, in this regard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
In both of those cases the legislation explicitly noted that the legislation could be cited as "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" an "Civil Rights Act of 1964," they aren't names we made up on our own. C628 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Executive Orders are treated differently from public laws on Wikipedia. For example, Executive Order 9066 (paving the way for sending Japanese Americans to internment camps), Executive Order 13491 (full name of Order is Executive Order 13491 - Ensuring Lawful Interrogations), and Executive Order 13526 (outlining how Classified National Security Information is handled). It is a disservice to break from that precedent here. Knope7 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The thing is we don't know the number yet. HaEr48 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Besides, titling this article based on the executive order number provides zero context as to what the order is about, so it's not ideal for article titles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The current name does not indicate it is an Executive Order. It sounds like a vague policy statement, and it happens to be one that is contradicted by facts (the terrorist acts that have been cited as the underlying reason for the Order were not perpetrated from immigrants from the effected countries). If we want to stop naming articles after the executive order number, than that should be a policy decision applied to other Orders as well. Knope7 (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, name like "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" provide little context about what it is about either. Once we have the number, it's better to continue the precedent, I think. HaEr48 (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the Court Orders are referring to this Executive Order by its date. That is also a possibility, IMO. It is closer to our naming convention than the current name. Knope7 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Uh, it seems that we have no problems with the name "Affordable Care Act" which is anything but. And why is that? Because that's the name of the act - so that's what people call it. Similarly, this article should carry the exact same title as the headline title of the executive order itself. Nothing more, nothing less. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
We should use the name that most reliable secondary sources use.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Which I think would be either "Trump's Muslim Ban" or "Trump's Executive Order on Immigration".Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
to quote UserMarek - "Trump's Muslim Ban" - sorry, Muslims are not banned. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
How are reliable sources referring to it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
"Trump's Muslim Ban" gets 31.1 million hits on Google. "#MuslimBan" was #1 trending on twitter. Reliable sources are using it [3][4], [5], [6]. In fact, it's become such a standard name for this executive order that Trump is complaining about it [7], [8], [9]. Now, I don't necessarily think that this article should be titled "Trump's Muslim Ban" but that title would actually make a lot more sense, from the point of view of what reliable sources say, than the Orwellian double speak title of "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek: Most commonly they don't refer to it by a specific name at all, usually being ambiguous and just saying something like "Trump signed an executive order that...". Several news outlets have published transcripts (NY Times, LA Times), where they refer to it by the full title, though there aren't any other official names to call it by besides the full title. In most cases of using the full title it didn't have "Executive Order" as a prefix, as is currently being used on Wikipedia. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. It is not a Muslim ban, its a ban on citizens of these countries ( who could be Christian or Jewish ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.120 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If it's usually considered a ban on Muslims by reliable sources, then we have established that it is is in fact a ban on Muslims for Wikipedia's purposes. Whether the far-right fringe considers it a ban on Muslims is immaterial; it is the opinion in the majority of reliable sources that counts. We have a saying in old Czechoslovakia that Trump supporters will need to learn: Reliable sources trump Trump. --Tataral (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
suggest changing subsection "Federal court challenges" to "Various Challenges in Federal Court"
"Various" suggests it's not necessarily a complete catalogue of federal court challenges. Challenges in Federal Court makes clear it's not the Federal Court being challenged, which can happen in cases like these that are (arguably) about executive power. (See, e.g., Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia.)G1729 (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
im not sure
what does the box saying "status:not yet in force" at the bottom of the picture description mean?
the order was effective January 27th.
L.S. inc. (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree - taking into account the various rulings against it (or at least parts of it), I think "Not fully in force" is probably a better description of its status. I'll change it now, but if anyone feels a different status should be used, then we may need to hear the case for different status descriptions. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sasuke Sarutobi: Earlier I think the infobox may've said 'not yet fully in force' (emphasis added). see my agreement with Dennis Bratland below. I think the phrase "yet fully" phrase is even more intractable to determine the meaning of that just 'yet'...so we should just delete the infobox. below.G1729 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dennis Bratland: Agreed. My understanding is that EOs typically have no force at all besides (maybe) the power to make an agency submit reports. Presidential power over immigration is a potential exception not a rule due to the statute referenced in this EO but in the case of this EO, that power didn't need to be exercised through form of an executive order (could've been a proclamation etc). Plus it's intractable to figure out what "in force" actually means (the order grants discretionary power to other agencies of the executive below the president and various parts of the executive branch have changed interpretations of what the order means multiple times after it was announced). As y'all have already suggested "yet" is incorrect here since the EO apparently had some force for a little while and then was enjoined at least temporarily by that court in Washington, among others. G1729 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@G1729 and Dennis Bratland: I've replied further up, but basically, I think more than just blanking the status, we need to be looking at using a different infobox to help enforce the important distinction between EOs and legislation. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The number of the Nobel laureates
This article mentions 40, the source mentions 40 in the text, but 51 in the title. Should it be 40 or 51?--Adûnâi (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
51 was on the self-published petition site (today: 62), apparently already fixed here with a reliable source for 40, as opposed to dewiki. –193.96.224.20 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
improve cite?
The article under reactions says
"Several other Republican senators offered more muted criticism.[128]"...
This appears to refer to this in the cited new york times article:
"A handful of other Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Senator Susan Collins of Maine, also offered criticism, though more cautious, on Saturday."
? Or do we mean this stuff, some of which does not seem more muted to me (note in particular Michael McCaul):
"Bob Corker of Tennessee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that while he supported stronger screening, the order had been “poorly implemented,” especially for green card holders. “The administration should immediately make appropriate revisions, and it is my hope that following a thorough review and implementation of security enhancements that many of these programs will be improved and reinstated,” Mr. Corker said.
"Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, likewise said the order was “overly broad” and that the blanket travel ban “goes too far.” Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee seemed to echo those criticisms, adding that “while not explicitly a religious test, it comes close to one, which is inconsistent with our American character.”
"Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, went further, questioning the hastiness of the order’s rollout and calling for a re-evaluation of the White House’s unilateral effort. “In my view, we ought to all take a deep breath and come up with something that makes sense for our national security and again for this notion that America has always been a welcoming home for refugees and immigrants,” Mr. Portman said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
"Similar concerns were voiced by some Republicans in the House. Most prominent among them was Representative Michael McCaul, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, who said that “it was clear” that adjustments were needed to the order, but defended it in principle. Representative Will Hurd of Texas, a former undercover C.I.A. officer, called the measure “the ultimate display of mistrust” that would “erode our allies’ willingness to fight with us” and put Americans at risk."
Currently the paragraphs in that section seem structured into a narrative of Democrat vs. Republican instead of Critical of the order vs. Supportive of the order. (and even were we to assiduously support with citation (by filling in the quote field?) shouldn't the "more muted criticism"-statement, shouldn't be in the paragraph that's critical of the order? Maybe I'm misreading this stuff... I would value others' opinions on the topic. Thanks!G1729 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
maybe show trump cited to info from the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest re 380 terrorism cases
Sean Hannity, who later explicitly endorsed Trump[1], called the 31 August Speech a "comprehensive immigration policy" and summarized the part about suspending visas as follows:
6. Suspend The Issuance Of Visas To Areas Where Adequate Screening Cannot Occur
Excerpt: "According to data provided by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, and the national interest between 9/11 and the end of 2014, at least 380 foreign born individuals were convicted in terror cases inside the United States. And even right now the largest number of people are under investigation for exactly this that we've ever had in the history of our country."
"Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to begin a comprehensive review of these cases in order to develop a list of regions and countries from which immigration must be suspended until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put in place."
[2]
The Aug 31, 2016 immigration speech was billed by the Trump campaign as important and supplying details. (Pence's words.)[3]
Breitbart (which I'm sure was a source of information for some people who agreed with Trump's immigration policies) also highlighted the number 380+Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.
This seems like a significant moment for the plank of the Trump platform on suspending visas (eventually carried out, at least partially through this exec order) that belongs in the background section.
Not really sure why Sean Hannity warrants mentioning in particular. TimothyJosephWood 19:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Thx for the replymaybe i shouldn't've led with Hannity. I was trying to say this was an important speech for the Trump Campaign on immigration that provided new and additional detail, including on this immigration policy toward geographic areas. Because the speech also focused on other immigration policies that were at the time more controversial (perhaps because potentially affecting a larger political base, those who care about Latin American immigration?), only sources that thoroughly documented or summarized the entire/overall plan will likely trace the development of this prong of Trump's immigration policy in this level of detail. This was the speech he made the same day after visiting with the Prime Minister of Mexico (which got some of his voters' attention, and then he came out with a pretty hard-line immigration speech immediately after the visit to Mexico). I suppose you wouldn't prefer citing to Breitbart? I'm fine leaving all this out; it's just a suggestion.G1729 (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Tourism not effected?
Perhaps not many people from these countries travel to the US. But many citizens from friendly countries like Germany will stay away from the US because they feel very unsafe under such a despotic government. The figures will be counted later. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hard to show, I disliked to be fingerprinted—before any authority in Germany will have done this, it's still voluntary in passports—years ago. –193.96.224.20 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a source that say citizens from "friendly countries like Germany will stay away from the US". If not, it doesn't in any way impact the sourced statement you are quoting. CatapultTalks (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the passage in question. The source was not The Economist but their travel blog, a post from an anonymous "correspondent", using statistics hidden behind a pay wall in order to speculate about what the impact might be. TimothyJosephWood 19:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Blogs from reputed sources are considered reliable. See WP:RSSELF exceptions. Gulliver isn't an anonymous "correspondent". they are website's recognized correspondents for "Gulliver" - the travel section of Economist. Also how about WP:PAYWALL for something being behind a paywall? CatapultTalks (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Our correspondents inform and entertain business travellers with news and views to help them make the most of life on the road. Definitely sounds like the epitome of strict editorial standards. Nothing to indicate whether the writer is in fact a professional journalists or professional in the field per RSSELF, and if there's something there indicating their rigorous standards for anonymous contributors, I'm not seeing it. TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that they are "correspondents" rather than guests or readers should be enought to establish that they are professional in that field. If you doubt that, I guess it pretty much applies to all blogs from all websites. CatapultTalks (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
And oh look, a wild source appears saying exactly the opposite of the flimsy travel blog, and citing actual expert opinion. TimothyJosephWood 20:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The Economist blog also quotes an expert, an analyst from a travel research firm. However let me attempt a reword of this statement based on both these sources and include the fact that there could be a reputational impact even if not "direct". Both sources seem to agree that "it’s a limited universe of people directly affected"CatapultTalks (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree there may be too much reliance on primary sources in this article. I think each of these could be removed and replaced by at least a couple of secondary sources. Also, I am thinking this is something that could be focused on as we go along. I don't see any reason for linking to and showcasing elected officials' websites. Usually their content is skewed toward a subjective view, which Wikipedia indirectly ends up promoting via linked sourcing (please see WP:PROMO).
By relying too much on primary sources, it seems we move away from content policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. What seems to be happening is some editors are relying on a "loophole" that judiciously allows for primary sources usage once notability has been established. But in reality, such usage usually occurs within defined conditions. I don't think the intent behind content policies is to use primary sources when secondary sources are available. I think other productive editors will agree.
Indeed, for example, WP:V seems to emphasize use of reliable sources. And self-published sources are considered useful only when the person is considered an expert in the field, and this should be demonstrated by having their work "in the relevant field...previously...published by reliable third-party publications." So again, this circles back to the need for secondary sources, i.e., "reliable third-party publications."---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I do think the intent behind the policy is sometimes to use primary sources when secondary sources are available. For example, the secondary source may show notability while the primary source supplies accurate quotation. "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sourcesG1729 (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
could you provide specific instances of concern to address?G1729 (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The text "On 13 June, Trump proposed to suspend immigration from "areas of the world" with a history of terrorism, a change from his previous proposal to suspend Muslim immigration to the U.S; the campaign did not announce the details of the plan at the time, but Jeff Sessions, an advisor to Trump campaign on immigration" is sourced to "DonaldJTrump.com", via Breitbart (not RS).
The text "As a candidate, Trump's "Contract with the American Voter" pledged to suspend immigration from "terror-prone regions".[21][22]" is sourced to "DonaldJTrump.com".
The text "On February 3, in response to Judge Robart's ruling temporarily blocking the executive order nationwide, the Justice Department asked for an emergency stay to honor President Trump's executive action on immigration admissions, according to a statement released by the White House's Office of the Press Secretary." is sourced to Washington Examiner, not a reliable source.
The text "ates's successor, acting Attorney General Dana J. Boente, issued guidance to Justice Department employees on the evening of January 30 stating that the Office of Legal Counsel "found the Executive Order both lawful on its face and properly drafted."[214]" is sourced to a primary source.
The text "Not all responders were supportive of Yates, however. Journalist Gregg Jarrett of Fox News applauded the removal, saying that Yates had "committed an egregious violation of ethical standards and a serious breach of her duties" and "deserved to get canned."[212]" includes unneeded editorializing and is sourced to an opinion piece from Fox News. Since this concerns Yates, a living person, opinion pieces (especially from a biased source such as this one) violate BLP.
The quote after the text "In their statement, they said:" needs to be summarized and paraphrased.
The text " Speaker of the House Paul Ryan saying that Trump was "right to make sure we are doing everything possible to know exactly who is entering our country" while noting that he supported the refugee resettlement program" is sourced to a primary source.
Basically, an encyclopedia article is not a collection of press releases. Even if these are from government officials.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. but some context is necessary, since this began with political promises.G1729 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel.Cardenas, K.e.coffman, and Cariboukid:: noticed y'all were doing some recent edits and wanted to see whether y'all wanted to weigh in on or assist fixing any of the above issues. Thanks!G1729 (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree linking to primary sources that are political pages is bad, when good secondary sources are available. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
G1729 please stop parsing other editor's talk page posts. This is disruptive editing. Also, this is an old trick used by disruptive editors. This is designed to disrupt another editor's post. And I suspect you know this. In any case, I understand you want to get your point of view across, but this is not the way to do it. I am going to request that you shift all of your comments that parse Volunteer Marek's comments to an area outside of Marek's comments. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Steve Quinn: I honestly do not know what you are talking about because this article is the first one on which I have much experience interacting with other users, certainly on a page with many editors at once, but I will google about what parsing is and try to do what you request. Apologies to all who I've offended. Were any of my comments replying to your requests for edits or citations helpful? I was trying to help out. Sincerely. G1729 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You did this same thing to me a day or two ago, and I left a note in the edit history. Here is the link for that: [10]. Here is the note I left "Move comment that interrupts my post and place it below my post - this behavior can be construed as disruptive editing - please do not split my posts with other editor's comments". So now an editor (me) has to waste time discussing this issue, instead of carrying on with normal editing. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I was trying to comply with point number 3 in the wikipedia:idnentation guidelines you sent me (looking at the examples in step 3 and thinking reply in-line by topic, but each line in that example was signed).... Ok, I've moved my comments below: hopefully this helps:
actually most of that statement was sourced to new york times, but another user inserted the (advisor to the trump campaign part) which is what the Breitbart stuff is sourced to into the middle of the sentence and someone sanctioned me so I can't make the edit to extract that part from the sentence. Pertinently, the nytimes article says he's an advisor on that issue (even more relevant!) and the Trump campaign (what you're calling primary source/citation not containing the info it should support) called Sessions an influential advisor, which in my opinion is a perfectly appropriate use of a "primary source". Does that make sense? Would you mind extracting the primary-sourced stuff into a separate, accurate sentence and making sure all the nytimes-sourced stuff stays intact?G1729 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This, again, seems to me a perfectly acceptable primary source. If you look at news coverage around the time the draft order was leaked and people were expecting the full order, plenty of news outlets adopt that term.
G1729 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is the Washington Examiner not a reliable source of what Trump administration officials say? I will try to find another source for the information, which I'm pretty sure is not hard...G1729 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Update to Wash Examiner point:I've added an LA Times source and made slight changes to what I hope is more neutral language than stuff like "honor". If you want to remove the Washington Examiner cite, I have no objections.G1729 (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I tried changing this statement, which I originally added in response to a semi-protected edit request, to "According to the DOJ, ____" and someone deleted it, and I am not able to do anything once someone has deleted stuff. If you would like to add that attributive preface, I would be grateful.G1729 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I made a separate post seeing if people want to delete it and someone already has.G1729 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't remember what this is about while I'm in the edit window...UPDATE: I looked... this is the prosecutors' statement. I agree it could be shorter, but don't want to be the one to do it. I also feel like "reactions" section becomes less important than the legal challenges section with time...G1729 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Correction; I thought it should be deleted for different reasons, made a post about it and, someone already deleted it. I expect she (and anyone who takes on the job of Attorney General) is a public figure and therefore an exception to living person stuff, required to have thick skin under New York Times v. Sullivan, but I am not a lawyer.G1729 (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I will try to find a secondary source. There is a reuters or similary compilation of reactions from both sides of the aisle. I don't know what is appropriate/newsworthy to include.G1729 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The CIA's DCI Testimony Before the Joint Inquiry into Terrorist Attacks Against the United States from 2002 has been cited and re-inserted to support the claim that the EO does not target the countries from which the 9/11 hijackers originated. However, that source predates the EO by 14 years, so interpreting it and citing it here seems questionable under WP:SYNTH. Fortunately, that claim is already supported by citations to the NYT and NPR explicitly discussing the EO. Do other editors think the CIA document is appropriate to include (to prove the NYT isn't lying, maybe), or not? FourViolas (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the NYT is lying. I was just trying to be careful and a bit redundant as it's a hot button. Leave it out. ;) --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Executive order explains that the Office of the Federal Register is responsible for publishing it. So far as I can see this hasn't happened, presumably because before Trump signed it they had gone home for the weekend. Any transcript in the media should be treated with skepticism in case it is part of the "long-running war with the media," Thincat (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I overlooked that. The page I linked to does have items dated Jan. 28. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Good question. I don't know the legalities of it, and whether there is a tradition of publishing it. For Congress (laws) if I remember correctly there is a constitutional provision that laws need to be published in the Government Gazette for them to take effect. However, EO power in this case comes from President's constitutional power as commander in chief. Effectively he commands the CBP, and he could presumably issue the order in secret if he wanted to. What makes it "real" I guess is if and how the CBP actually implement it. Greenbe (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Unique Executive Order?
AFAIK, this is the first time an EO has been signed with such stagecraft. What are the details about the medal and venue? kencf0618 (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a great question. It doesn't appear to be the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor and there is no other U.S. government medal that contains the word "valor." From the published proclomations and EOs I can't find any evidence that a new medal has been ordered into existence this week, either. BlueSalix (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
James Mattis was sworn in on the same day in the Pentagon, and the photos have the same background: [11][12]. I assume Trump signed the order in the same event. If we have sources about the signing venue and event, we could add that in the article. HaEr48 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I concur. It's a point about theatrics, but how this administration manages its stagecraft and optics is worthy of Wikipedia. kencf0618 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Refugees from Australian detention centres
Australia has a considerable number of refugees and asylum seekers from Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Somalia, currently being held on Manus Island (PNG) and Nauru. For those unfamiliar with the situation, these are people who tried to come to Australia by boat, but were intercepted and sent for processing on Manus and Nauru. For political reasons, the government is determined not to let those found to be genuine refugees (which is most of them) come to Australia, and fairly recently a deal was struck with US whereby Australia would take refugees approaching the US (Haitian, for example, IIRC) and the US would take the mostly Muslim refugees presently on Manus and Nauru. Interestingly, since signing the executive order, Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull and US President Donald Trump have had a discussion and the US will be honouring the agreement. This means that the US will be taking refugees from countries covered by the executive order, though how that will happen is unclear. If the order ends after 120 days then there will simply be a delay, and there will be no issue if a constitutional challenge to the order is successful... but if it stays in force over a longer period, how the agreement with Australia will turn out is an interesting question. The centre on Manus Island has already been declared unconstitutionally established and ordered closed by the PNG Supreme Court, so there is already a ticking clock for the Australian government to find a solution. EdChem (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
This is interesting. I think this deserves a place in this article. At least a sentence or two. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi folks, just a friendly head's up - I noticed the section below and I'm wondering if this indicates a missing half-sentence or a misplaced period. Can someone who has been reviewing or editing check this out? There's a lot going on in this article and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Happy editing. Ok I'm reading it again (it's late) and I'm leaning towards it's just likely an errant period. Anyway, regards :)
See here:
Between 2015 and 2016, the seven countries listed in the executive order were placed on the list of "countries of special concern" by the Obama administration., which meant that any person who has visited these countries after 1 March 2011 is ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program.
Curdigirl (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Remove yellow "Status: Not fully in force" tag
Without a definition of "force" with respect to executive orders generally, I don't think it makes sense to have a yellow "Status: Not fully in force" tag. Executive orders do not inherently have any "force" or power as a layperson glancing at the top of the article might understand it as a general matter. The president's exercise of executive power through this particular executive order is due authority granted to him by the Congress in specific statute(s) (i.e. ability to do this comes from a law Congress passed); executive 'order' is simply the form by which he exercised that authority... he could've issued something labeled a proclamation or whatnot.
Anyway I think the yellow flag confuses more than it clarifies, but if you could point me to other executive orders using the yellow tag (I presume for such tags, red = not in force (E.g., rescinded or struck down by congress), yellow = partial, green = "fully in force"—whatever that could possible mean in an order that gives explicitly cedes discretion to multifarious parts of government many of which can never be verified). Because I think it's impossible to make the distinction between green/yellow and doubt (but am willing to examine contrary evidence of) wide application/usefulness of such color-coded tags to other executive orders, I think it should be removed from this one.G1729 (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The last paragraph of Executive order#Legal_conflicts states that a part of the EO was stayed by a federal court, and Darweesh v. Trump states that the court granted a temporary emergency stay halting parts of the order. IANAL, but not fully could be temporarily covered. –2A03:2267:0:0:E425:DC3:89BA:B84F (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I would agree that "not fully in force" is perhaps the most accurate status descriptor if one is used, as State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Wash.) has (from what I've read so far) only covered things like the direction to Homeland Security and Immigration to overrule otherwise-valid visas, etc. I'll also cite IANAL, but I can't see parts of the EO that relate to Trump's instructions for certain departments to prepare recommendations for him as being challenged on the same grounds of constitutionality - I'd think those sorts of directions are such that he certainly has executive power to instruct upon. And it may be so that other EOs don't use the status field, but given that this EO seems in itself fairly exceptional anyway in that it seems to be trying to be a piece of legislation as well, I'd argue that it is nonetheless relevant. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Feedback required: Folks, I noticed what the problem is: the status is hard coded on the template. Please discuss which status you would like to use and I will gladly modify the template's code accordingly. I added a new status: "halted" and gave it a red background color. Please voice your opinion about this change. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be a side effect of the kluge of using Template:Infobox legislation for an executive order. The "status" makes sense in the context of how laws are made, and enforced, repealed, struck town, etc, but executive orders are not laws, and they function differently. We have dozens of articles about executive orders, and none of the ones I checked, for Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, or Obama use this infobox. Yet now it's being used on every Trump executive order infobox. How did that come about? It's not at all reasonable to all of a sudden start treating Trump's executive orders as laws, when we've never made that mistake before. Shoehorning executive orders into the legislation infobox is probably not too harmful for the moment, but we need to get an appropriate replacement soon, with appropriate fields. If readers learn nothing else from any of these EO articles, they should at least not come away thinking an EO is a law. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point but like you said, there's no harm in using that infobox. The only issue was that we were using the field 'enacted_by' rather than 'signed_by.' I made the appropriate corrections and the infobox now reflects this distinction. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering if perhaps we may simply require a separate infobox for EOs; Trump has already used a number of them, and indicated that he intends to use more, so now - while there are still only a few pages on EOs - may be an appopriate time to create and rollout a separate, more appropriate template to maintain the distinction between EOs and actual legislation. Unless there is already another appropriate template that others are aware of, in which case we should look at using that. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Few dispute that using {{Infobox criminal}} or {{Infobox terrorist organization}} incorrectly is harmful. Even if you carefully populate the fields with data that isn't wrong, or skip inapplicable fields, you have set a precedent that influences editors. I would also like someone to tell me why we only use this kluge with Trump. What's up with that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I have created an initial mock-up of an infobox for Executive Orders at User:Sasuke Sarutobi/Template:Infobox Executive Order. This is the bare bones right now (just a few title fields, president name and date signed, and a link to the Federal Register when the number is entered), so I am open to any further suggested fields. It is essentially built from the U.S. legislation infobox, mainly because it is also a U.S. government document in the same general way as either a piece of legislation or a Supreme Court ruling. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The "Nicknames" list can get real long, real soon and a contention point. I agree with Dennis Bratland, if we haven't used an infobox for EOs before, we shouldn't now unless there is a different parameter or process for an EO starting this administration CatapultTalks (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Excellent; I was about to do the same thing. I would make it applicable to all US Presidential acts, including Presidential proclamations, Presidential memoranda, Presidential directives (a type of EO), Presidential Determinations, Signing statements, and maybe pardons, although pardons might be different enough in nature that they shouldn't be included. Not that we have any articles about pardons, since the article is usually about the person pardoned, or the crime. A field for Type could indicate which of these it is, and the name could be changed to Infobox:Presidential act if it were to cover both EOs and Proclamations and so on.
Many of these acts have both an image of the document (e.g. File:Emancipation proclamation typeset signed.jpg) and an official photo of the president signing the document. So we'd typically want fields for both images. I would write in the documentation that since the image of the signing is so generic and conveys little information, we'd prefer a lead photo that illustrated the purpose or effects of the act, conveying information about the act, rather than what the President looks like holding a pen. But we should make do with the signing ceremony photo if that's all we have. I'd also reduce the size of the Seal, since it doesn't really add information and should ceded screen space to more information-rich content. I'd add fields for Related legislation, Administered by, and Scope (such as a directive that only affects the Navy, or NASA, or is universal/nationwide). A signing statement would always be tied to a specific piece of legislation. Many Presidents begin their terms with EOs that nullify EOs by previous Presidents, so there could be a field for that, Superseded by perhaps. This could also be used for court actions that partially or fully reverse an EO. Or proclamation, directive, etc.
CatapultTalks, I didn't mean to imply I object to infoboxes on EOs. I only object to using what is a seriously incorrect infobox, because the diference between a law and an EO is really important. But an appropriate infobox is good, and we should add it to all the other EO articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@CatapultTalks and Dennis Bratland: Thank you, I'll look at amending it. Is there a generic name that categorises all the different types of document, like "U.S. Executive document" or something? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
US state map of refugees admitted to the US for fiscal year 2017, from dates October 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017. Detail given for 7 nations in Executive Order 13769, other nationalities grouped and shown in gray. Pies show number from each nation, size shows total for each state.Arrivals by State and Nationality as of January 31, 2017(Microsoft Excel), US Department of State, January 31, 2017
I added a tree map showing proportion of refugees admitted form the 7 nations out of all refugees for FY2017 (October 1, 2016-Januar 31, 2017) from State Department's PRC site. At right is an alternative version of the same data. I think the state map is more decorative, but I don't think it as informative to place emphasis on where refugees are settled at the expense of clearly seeing their overall numbers. I'll probably update these by adding the number of refugees written on the graphic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:Current
I think we're pretty safe to go ahead and remove this. The template is not designed to be used for more than a day anyway. I think we're in pretty safe territory where the article is just at the more-or-less "regular Wikipedia level of risk" for being out of date, and no longer at a state where we are going to have reversals of massive chunks of information from one minute to the next because the initial reports were wrong. Most everything from here on out should be fairly ordinary adding new information as it becomes available. TimothyJosephWood 20:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This is one of the "occasionally longer" cases. This issue has major twists and turns on a daily basis. Once some kind of minimally clear outcome is known with a modicum of certainty, it would move out of the breaking news category. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Inaccurate reference based on draft
The section "Restrictions by previous administration" refers, in its 2nd paragraph, to a politifact article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#cite_note-25 ) which quotes from a draft of the executive order. The quoted text, which is reproduced in the current text of this article: "countries designated pursuant to Division O, Title II, Section 203 of the 2016 consolidated Appropriations Act", does not occur in the text of the Executive order published by the Office of the Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/01/2017-02281/protecting-the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united-states). In its place is "countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)". To make things more complicated, the reference to the countries in question in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2015-title8/html/USCODE-2015-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1187.htm ) is not explicit: the Secretary of State or Secretary of Homeland Security can add to the list at any time. This makes the Executive order remarkably open ended in its scope. The word "listed", in the first paragraph is, I think mis-leading (though widely used in this context). I would recommend changing "listed in the executive order" to "currently affected by the executive order", though the suspension of the order may make this wording inappropriate to. For the 2nd paragraph, I think it would be better to remove the politifact reference and use the text of the Executive order directly. I'm not sure, however, how best to represent the complex series of references to other documents and processes which leads to the eventual identification of the 7 countries. I hope that more experienced contributors can make sense out of this. Mnjuckes (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Assuming its accurate, (which is something @Mnjuckes: calls into question above) I'm glad someone posted that top part of the background section about which parts of the order refer to existing things in government (although at least some of it could also go in the provisions of the order section). But I think the Sean Spicer paragraph might be best moved to the Reactions section because it's an after-the-fact /post hoc justification/rationalization. (The Stephen Miller quotation on Fox News is post hoc, too, but consistent with what was said on the campaign trail and the numbers given in the paragraph above. That said, I'd be fine with moving them both to reactions.) Curious what others think... this is the part that I think seems more like a reaction than "background":
Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer has cited these restrictions as evidence that the executive order is merely an expansion of the previous administration's policies.[24] However, according to the fact-checkers at Politifact, New York Times and Washington Post, Obama's restrictions cannot be compared to this executive order because they were in response to a credible threat, and were not a blanket ban on all individuals from those countries.[25][27][28] These fact-checking articles concluded that the Trump administration's claims about the Obama administration were misleading and false.[25][27][28]
Are dual citizens (of, say, Canada and Iran) affected by the ban? If you search "trump dual citizen" on Google News, you get a variety of equally reliable sources saying yes and no. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 11:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm also trying to figure this out. The executive order uses the term "aliens from" rather than clearly referring to citizenship or place of birth. Is there some standard interpretation of what "aliens from" means? Jacław (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that dual citizens are affected. According to this report in The Guardian, the Australian government has updated its travel information / warning relating to the US to include that those affected by the executive order should contact a US consulate or embassy and states that "No exceptions will be made for government officials or ADF members who are dual citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria or Sudan." EdChem (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I saw something referencing travel from Vancouver Canada that it the ban is based on what passport you present when you board the plane and enter not the country of birth (or presumably other passports). But unclear if that source was accurate, it didn't seem that detailed to me. It is totally unclear from reading the order itself. Sorry I don't have the link I saw it last night and didn't think of Wikipedia until today. Really hard to figure out what is actually going on, downside of too much news I guess? Greenbe (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
And then I just saw something moments ago contradicting what I just said above ... anyone born in or holding passport from one of the seven countries is barred (seems to be). Seems like white house is speaking but can't find primary source. Wikpedians please try to find direct sources on how CBP is actually implementing this, regardless of the theories of what the EO or judicial orders do or don't mean.Greenbe (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
And this goes into the confusion more seems like there were multiple contradicting interpretations and statements [[13]Greenbe (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
An exception is made for British dual citizens, under the conditions that they travel on their British passport for the journey and have not been to one of the restricted countries on any leg of their journey.[1]Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
This edit request to Executive Order 13769 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Under the section heading "Development of the Order," following the sentence "Yates’s successor, acting Attorney General Dana J. Boente, issued guidance to Justice Department employees on the evening of January 30 stating that the Office of Legal Counsel “found the Executive Order both lawful on its face and properly drafted.”[53]," add the following:
On February 2, in response to a FOIA request from the New York Times, the Justice Department released a memorandum dated February 27 and signed by Curtis E. Gannon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, that briefly summarized the terms of the Executive Order and concluded, without any stated analysis, that "The proposed Order is approved with respect to form and legality."
could you change the link to one that is not behind a paywall so I could read the memo to evaluate your suggested edit? (Currently, I think your suggestions of wording at "briefly" and "without any stated analysis" might be controversial as POV and worthy of deletion because it appears to be a 9-page memo, but because I cannot read the memo at the link to evaluate whether the summar[y] is brief or whether there is analysis, I can't form a judgment on those points.) Thanks! G1729 (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
edit: having now looked at the document, I don't see anything wrong with the proposed edit but am still unwilling to make it myself because I am not a lawyer and "analysis" would seem to imply legal analysis. That said, I could not detect any legal analysis going on; just summary and conclusion. You might also add something about the third page of the document also being a note that similarly concludes without any stated analysis "The proposed Order is approved with respect to form and legality." For those interested, Of the nine pages, the last six are the executive order itself. There is also a memorandum that barely spans to the second page, followed by a 1 page note to The President, The Whitehouse.G1729 (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
It's also the wrong section. An evaluation after the order is not development of the order. Hollth (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I proposed this edit because of the administration's reliance (e.g. in Boente's rescission of Yate's order) on the OLC "analysis." We don't know what legal analysis the OLC may have conducted as part of it's review of the Executive Order; what we do know is that no analysis is set forth in the OLC letter (which is now included in the entry). Typically one would expect the OLC to set forth its legal reasoning and cite supporting authorities (see, for instance, the 14 page opinion titled "Application of the Anti-Nepotism Statute to a
Presidential Appointment in the White House Office" [14] addressing the appointment of Jared Kushner to a position in the White House). Regarding where to put the information: OLC review is supposed to be part of the development of an executive order; the reliance on the order is part of the "Executive Branch Response." Given the current structure of the page, I suggest modifying the fifth sentence of the second paragraph under "Executive Branch Response" to read as follows (and delete the fifth paragraph from which some of the language is taken):
He replaced her with Dana J. Boente, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia,[213] who immediately issued guidance to Justice Department employees stating that the Office of Legal Counsel "found the Executive Order both lawful on its face and properly drafted."[218] On February 2, in response to a FOIA request from the New York Times, the Justice Department released a memorandum dated February 27 and signed by Curtis E. Gannon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, that briefly summarized the terms of the Executive Order and concluded, without any stated analysis, that "The proposed Order is approved with respect to form and legality."
108.254.149.20 (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Use ISIL v. ISIS?
ISIL or ISIS are currently used interchangeably throughout this article for the same entity. I suggest ISIL as de facto standard for this article, to be used instead of ISIS when/where possible. This suggestion is for consistency in use, and to reduce confusion potential against their respectively named WP main articles: search result for ISIL is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, while search result for ISIS is an ancient Egyptian goddess of health, marriage, and wisdom. Cariboukid (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I concur, the article should use consistently "ISIL", with an initial AKA statement referencing ISIS or Daesh. As an alternative, consistently using "Daesh" (spelling?) could work too. A media bandwagon effect produced many references to "ISIS" or even "Isis", and a few to "IS," but Isis is an Egyptian goddess and a proper name, and "IS" is a verb.TVC 15 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I think ISIS is the way several sources, especially in the US context, refer to the org as. I suggest we keep it that way. The fact that this will be in CAPS, in my opinion, should be enough to distinguish it from Isis the egyptian goddess.CatapultTalks (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Can't use Daesh for neutrality reasons. ISIS seems to be the most common, I'd go with that. Hollth (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
UAE
At present, the article claims "the United Arab Emirates became the first Muslim-majority nation to back the order". However, the actual quotes from the UAE foreign minister are decidedly lukewarm: "The United States has taken a decision that is within the American sovereign decision. [...] There are attempts to give the impression that this decision is directed against a particular religion, but what proves this talk to be incorrect first is what the U.S. administration itself says ... that this decision is not directed at a certain religion." It's not as critical as the other responses, but it's not really backing it (and our sources are divided here. Haaretz says the UAE is "backing it", but Reuters just that it is a "more measure[d] reaction". Is there a better way to phrase this? Smurrayinchester 08:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks undue to me anyway. Personally, I'd remove it. If not removed, stick to the facts; 'The UAE said it's the right of the US to deal with immigration'. Hollth (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Your suggested statement is covered by now two good references. Haaretz reports that the UAE foreign minister said that the US administration said… is not a "proof", but could be notable as unusual allies. –2A03:2267:0:0:71CB:90DF:9A72:D6D2 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
edits re statements during the campaign
if we expanded the quoted stuff about Libya/Syria a bit, we would have some in-campaign "evidence" trump used to support the policy (in which he appears to quote info from that senate subcommittee on immigrgation etc. that is challenged by Cato institute). However, others have not wanted to include such material b/c it is primary source. (see other discussions in the talk thread.) Again, I think all the Spicer stuff re continuity with Obama policy should probably be deleted because it's just post-hoc political justification.
Evidence was widely reported including in reliable sources. I've added an example [15] to address a concern discussed above.TVC 15 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is the Patriot Act on the See Also list?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, I just don't understand its immediate relevance to this topic.G1729 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah...hyperbole isn't going to get anyone anywhere. And for the record, the see also probably should be removed if no one can come up with a non-politically motivated reason why we should include that as opposed to any other legislation. TimothyJosephWood 18:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Timothyjosephwood about removal. I'm open to keeping it but the exec order seems to rely on 50s- and/or 60s-era legislation mostly. I'm sure many exec branch powers tracing that follow from relationship to words starting with "terror" can be traced to the Patriot Act and that kind of stuff may have been tangentially related to how some of the countries not explicitly mentioned in the order were designated, but this exec order seems to me pretty unrelated to the Patriot Act in any articulable way from what I've seen so far.G1729 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
What difference does it make if it is in the See Also section? I didn't put it there, but why care? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, it does seem to be tangentially related, as has been stated. According to WP:ALSO, there is nothing wrong with this. "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Does this go against someone's prescribed list for the "See also" section of this article? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this seems to be almost directly related because the full title of the Patriot Act is:
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". In fact with that title it sounds familiar - like a certain Executive order. I think it is right on topic - although that is not a requirement in the See Also section. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Right on. So pretty much any post-9/11 anti-terrorism legislation or regulation works for see also by that criteria. Makes sense to me.G1729 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
question regarding link used in change of "without evidence" to widely reported evidence of terrorists (fact checking judge robart)
This link is present in the wikipedia article (due to this edit: [16]):
The judge asked question in hearing video at 37:53 and follows up with the question after the DOJ atty fails to answer the first time; the article excerpts the second question without the context of the first. The article mistakes the question the judge asks as the number of arrests instead of the number of arrests of those who made attacks and then portrays his statement as inaccurate. I think we should take down the article. the judge was arguably repeating his prior question (in abbreviated form), which the DOJ lawyer had not answered (he said "Let me walk you back a little bit"), and then attempting to answer it himself in accord with the record ("as best I can tell"). It may be a valid link for the information cited, but if there's a better source of that information that does not promote this stuff about the judge (which is arguably incomplete/inaccurate), it might be better to use the source unrelated to that stuff. The judge also made the statement with the caveat, "as best I can tell"; his emphasis was on the fact that the lawyer had not made the argument "x number of people from the 7 countries have been arrested". In legal argument, if you don't make the argument, a point may be formally conceded. So the judge was arguably saying, that's an important argument to make, and the government is not making it, so there's no evidence I can use from you to decide the legal question in your favor. This came up in the hearing on appeal with the 9th Cir. in which the appellate courts asked if information about purported arrests of Somali terrorists was in the lower-court record (i.e., if the info was told to Judge Robart) so that the appellate court could rely on the info... and the appellate judges did not get an affirmative response from the DOJ; instead they got an excuse that DOJ was moving very fast (b/c getting sued everywhere). See generally the concept of judicial evidentiary admission: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1554&context=plrG1729 (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE: we could avoid this issue of the AP article (arguably) baselessly impugning the judge by replacing it with the primary source for its claims (i.e. the paper's author and statistic are what's quoted in the AP article), which can be found at the following link at pages 2, which says |quote="Few of these individuals (9 of 46, or 20 percent) had family backgrounds from the seven countries reportedly designated by the Trump administration for temporary immigration bans. Since 9/11, only 23 percent of Muslim-Americans involved with violent extremist plots had family backgrounds in these seven countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somali, Sudan, Syria, Yemen). There have been no fatalities in the United States caused by extremists with family backgrounds in these countries."
https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2017/01/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Involvement_in_Violent_Extremism_2016.pdf
05:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE2: Transcript of video giving full context for my assertions in pargraph 1:
JUDGE: The rationale for section 3 [of the executive order] is invoking 9/11. And my question to you is have there been terrorist attacks in the United States by refugees or other immigrants from the seven countries listed since 9/11.
DOJ: Your honor I don’t know the specific details of attacks or planned attacks. I will point out first of all that the rationale of the order was not only for 9/11 it was to protect the United States from the potential for terrorism. I will also note that the seven countries listed in the order are the same seven countries that were already subject to other restrictions in obtaining visas that Congress put in place both by naming countries (Syria and Iraq) and that the prior administration put in place by designating that terrorism is likely to occur or the specific factors are whether the presence in a particular countries increases the likelihood that a person in a particular country or that an area is a safe haven for terrorists—
JUDGE: Well let me walk you back then. You’re from the Department of Justice? If I understand correctly.
DOJ:Yes
JUDGE: So you’re aware of law enforcement. How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11?
DOJ: Your honor I don’t have that information. I’m from the civil division if that helps get me off the hook any. (laughs.)
JUDGE: Let me tell you—the answer to that it’s none as best I can tell. So I mean you’re here arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals from these countries and there’s no support for that.
DOJ: [gives legal argument re Presidential power not able to be second-guessed by courts in this context]
JUDGE: Well, I can say understand all that from your papers and you’ve very forcefully presented your argument. But I’m also asked to look and determine if the order is “rationally based” [a legal standard]. And “rationally based” to me implies to some extent that I have to find it grounded in facts as opposed to fiction.(39:33)—G1729 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Since the section is about statements during the campaign, I have updated with two reliable source links that had already been published prior to the campaign. There have been many reports, for years, on this topic. As for the court hearing, it is conceivable the attorneys didn't anticipate the question, but there have certainly been widely reported examples both in federal court (e.g. the Bowling Green case[17]) and cases that didn't go to court (e.g. the Somali refugee who used a car and knife to run over and stab 11 people in Ohio, before getting killed by police [18]). The Ohio attack occurred after the campaign so I have not added it to that section, even though it did add yet more evidence that the campaign statement had been accurate.TVC 15 (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thx for updating w/an alternative source!G1729 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Bias?
Isn't it bias to mention that the countries are predominately Muslim, and the line The order does not mention Islam, but the countries are predominantly Muslim? If the Executive Order doesn't mention Islam or Muslims, why would that be included in the description? 24.94.251.79 (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
No as Trump has made numerous statements in the past about banning muslim countries and prioritizing Christian immigrants. While it's not directly mentioned in the executive order, it's not that subtle. Similar to how Jim Crow Laws didn't directly state that black people were inferior and that they deserve less rights. GeekInParadise (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Why wouldn't that just be relegated towards comments and quotations on the executive order not the article itself? There's been other obvious things on Wikipedia that doesn't mention it, I figured it was to remain unbias. 24.94.251.79 (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources which have pointed out that the countries selected are predominantly Muslim and it has been a significant part of the way the Order has been covered and understood. We should follow the reliable sources. Knope7 (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There are also dozens of Muslim countries which are unaffected. Countries which were picked are at war or otherwise considered unstable by this administration. I have removed the "predominately Muslim" phrasing in the lead pending consensus here. — JFGtalk 06:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
So? The wording that you removed didn't say that all predominantly Muslim countries were banned - it just said that the banned countries are predominantly Muslim. This is accurate and relevant to Trump's campaign promise of banning Muslims - and RSes pointed this out. So I think they should stay. Also, I don't think it's a good form to delete referenced content and then demand a consensus for putting it back. If you think it should be removed, establish consensus first before removing. HaEr48 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
All mainstream sources are pointing out in headlines or first sentences that the affected countries are Muslim-majority: BBC, WSJ, NYT. I'm restoring "predominantly Muslim" with these citations. FourViolas (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
... and they are all countries where Trump has no investments.[19][20]Thincat (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I concur that this article is biased, and have tagged it accordingly. This is mainly evident in the selection of facts being presented. It's as if someone were "commenting" on each aspect of the executive order by alleging that it is baseless or contradictory. The page currently reads as being very partisan. Wwallacee (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Wwallacee (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Wwallacee: Which parts of the article do you think are biased? Could you be more precise? What do you think should be done about the "bias"? This will help in the discussion. Seagull123 Φ 12:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the article en totale is biased, however, we don't need to say "predominantly Muslim" in the lede in the same way it would be deceptive to use the government's wording of "terror prone" countries. We should split the difference and just say "from seven Middle East and African countries." The contextual background of Trump's past comments is better contained in the body rather than trying to force-cram it into the lede. Both the terms "terror prone countries" and "predominantly Muslim countries" are framing devices we should avoid. When sourcing RS we also need to be conscious we are composing in encyclopedic, not journalistic, style. This may require minor editorial adjustments in terminology and composition style. BlueSalix (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree with BlueSalix about changing the lede to "from seven Middle East and African countries." Other mentions of "Muslim predominant", or "Muslim ban" should be only in the main article with good WP:RS (of which there are a few). Seagull123 Φ 16:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of what Trump may have said about banning Muslims, this ban is not based on religion, it does not come even close to banning all Muslims. Are we really that surprised at which countries have been listed? With the exception of Iran, all are in a state of war and instability. Is this order as irrational as the media likes to make out? Danrok (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The bias I see is in phrases from partisan talking points, like describing the order as "banning travel" or the list of "seven predominantly Muslum countries". Both are are factually inaccurate, and seem to be sourced from journalistic sources with questionable neutrality. For exampke, the executive order only mentions Syria. State Department provisional revocation of some visas Documents disclosed in court show that On January 27, 2017 the honorable Edward J. Ramotowski, deputy assistant secretary of state for visa services, signed a one page directive provisionally revoking some visas issued to nationals of seven countries. (Ramotowski has had a long career with State for years before Mr. Trump was even a candidate.) Those countries had already been designated countries or areas of concern by the congress and/or under previous administrations[1], and were not specifically called out in the executive order, or otherwise specified by Trump administration appointees.[2][3]Burt Harris (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I am new to the Wikipedia community, but one thing is immediately clear: the TEXT of the order (which is what this article is about) does not mention the words "Islam" or "Muslim". Neither does the order mention ANY specific countries.
Section 3(b) states that DHS and DNI will make the determinations. The executive order orders does not make any lists itself. However, comments on the order should have a separate section.
You can CTRL+F the text of the order to find out if any of these countries or words appear. It's not bias, it's willful blindness. Abekhan2 (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Statements such as "He has said, without evidence, that terrorists are using the U.S. refugee resettlement program to enter the country"
are designed to convey emotion rather than relay fact. In this specific case, it may be worth having a section regarding the controversy over the data Donald Trump used to make his order, but simply injecting "without evidence" comes across as trialing him in the public does not help Wikipedia maintain an NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B21C:CC5C:35B5:E6CC:AC7D:C49D (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The sentence reflects the source accurately:
Trump has long argued that terrorists are taking advantage of the U.S. refugee resettlement program to enter the country, despite a lack of supporting evidence.
I'm not sure there's any more neutral way to convey the same information, and we shouldn't be looking to expand the article with even more sections chronicling disputes unless it is clearly necessary to convey a conflict in the predominant views of reliable sources. Seggens (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
2600:100C:B21C:CC5C:35B5:E6CC:AC7D:C49D There can be no clearer declaration than "without evidence". There is no evidence that gives credence to what he says. There is no controversy; no new section is needed. Buster Seven Talk 07:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The statement itself is false, because there is widely reported and reliably sourced evidence. For example, ABC [21] and AP [22], among many others.TVC 15 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, the phrase "without presenting evidence" seems misleading, because candidates giving a campaign speech don't generally present newspaper clippings or screenprints as footnotes littering the speech. Evidence had already been presented in major media, and was likely well known among the audience.TVC 15 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Since the article is about the executive order, and not the controversy surrounding it, the only evidence is the text of the order itself.
No countries are specifically mentioned in the order except Syria. And neither the words "Muslim" nor "Islam" appear in the order. The order DOES direct DHS and DNI to determine which countries the order should be applicable to. Abekhan2 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
For what do we add the {{Partisan}} tag in this article? The article mainly cites from mainstream media. Are we saying that they are all partisan? HaEr48 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@HaEr48: The editor who added the tag put their comments about the article at the bottom of the Bias? section above. Seagull123 Φ 16:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It was about saying "Muslim-majority" in the lead? That phrasing was removed, I guess now the tag loses its reason? HaEr48 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that the tag was appropriate in the first place, seeing as the editor who added it (@Wwallacee:) seemed to be more concerned with the overall neutrality of the article, and presented no evidence that any references used were biased or otherwise improper. C628 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There should be a separate section for mainstream media criticisms and sources. Otherwise this article is about the executive order itself. Therefore there is only one main source: the text of the executive order
The text of the executive order does not mention any of the "seven countries" except Syria. Neither do the words "Muslim" or "Islam" appear in the text. The text does not even name any specific religions.
Section 3(b) of the order directs DHS and DNI to make a determination of which countries the order is applicable to. The order itself does not list any countries. In fact, it only mentions the Syrian refugee program. Abekhan2 (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
primary source issue; should quotation be attributed to press secretary spicer?
Currently first sentence of background section reads: "Between 2015 and 2016, the seven countries listed in the executive order were placed on the list of "countries of concern" by the Obama administration.[3]" This might make it seem like an article is being quoted, but the article appears to be directly quoting Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary. Is there a better source for "countries of concern" being a designation of the Obama administration and if not can we directly attribute the quotation to Spicer?G1729 (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
my fault; article links to primary source (gvt press release dated to the Obama administration), which I'll add. Sorry for the false alarm...G1729 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Summary of Reuters-Ipsos Poll Results Inaccurate?
@Steve Quinn, Dennis Bratland, K.e.coffman, Ahnoneemoos, TimothyJosephWood, Callmemirela, Icarosaurvus, FallingGravity, Sasuke Sarutobi, and Neutrality: I'm pinging y'all b/c you'd weighed in on opinion polling previously in this article and I don't know much about the topic. There is a sentence in this Wikipedia article (Executive Order 13769) citing to a Washington Post article summarizing results of several polls that says:"For example, according to two separate Gallup and Reuters–Ipsos polls, about 40% of Americans supported the order and another approximately 50% opposed it; however, a Rasmussen Report poll found that 57% supported the order and 33% opposed it.[146]" (emphasis added). My understanding was that's not what the article said. The article indicates, in addition to the Rasmussen poll, White House Press Secretary Sean "Spicer also pointed to a poll from Reuters and its pollster, Ipsos. He highlighted a related detail, but the Reuters-Ipsos poll got a lot of press earlier this week for the results of a question similar to Rasmussen's. About half the country agreed with the president's policy—a plurality of respondents." My understanding is the Wikipedia article is correct in its assessment of the Gallup and Rasmussen polls results, but not Reuters-Ipsos. The Washington Post article suggests what matters is how the question is phrased, which makes me think maybe it's not worth including poll results in the Wikipedia article. G1729 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm removed the sentence. For the record I would omit details of individual polls in this main article, at least the initial ones. (Maybe polls later down the line can be included.) Neutralitytalk 20:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Trump faced 'much' criticism for the executive order
I hereby formally dispute the statement that "Trump received much criticism for the executive order." In particular, I do not dispute the claim that Trump received criticism, but instead I dispute the qualifier that he received much criticism.
We have sufficient evidence to prove that a Congressional minority criticized Trump virtually unanimously. But this minority is just that, a minority. We also have evidence that thousands of protesters criticized Trump. Furthermore, we have evidence that public opinion is divided and that different opinion polls show different leanings. If public opinion polls are contradictory, how can we conclude that Trump received "much" criticism?
The fundamental question is, how do we establish what "much" means in this context? Is it a "large amount" of criticism? If so, what would that large amount constitute?
I have no objections to rephrase that sentence to any of the following:
Trump received criticism for the executive order.
Trump received much criticism from the Democratic Party for the executive order.
I don't have a strong opinion about the adjective 'much'; agree that it's vague, which is itself potentially problematic, but so is "for the executive order" (which part of the order? what specifically about the order is being criticized?). I don't feel that saying 'much' denotes greater than 50% disapproval of the order, nor do I think that >50% should be the criteria for relevancy on the point. I think "reactions" generally are not as important as the weight they're given in wikipedia articles like this one (even though most reactions were siphoned off of the main article and into the "reactions to..."-article). your analysis above seems focused on domestic reactions in defining "much"; that may be what the President should do in assigning weight to critics (after all the system assumes he should be first and foremost accountable to his fellow voting citizens), but I think for purpose of the wikipedia article, criticism beyond the domestic reactions should be included. from a glance at the reactions to... article, the executive order seems widely criticized internationally by virtually all those who take a viewpoint (this wouldn't include question-dodging responses like Theresa May who was visiting Trump the day it was signed, or the UAE) except by far right parties/groups and ISIS. I think focus on whether a 'congressional minority' criticized the order is misleading because again, the default is to say nothing (either positive or negative) about any given policy/EO. Congress is a bicameral legislature, and (I think?) over half the Senate has criticized the order in at least some form, even though the GOP/Trump's party has a narrow majority in the senate. Many of the GOP Congresspeople who supported Trump on the basic policy still criticized the EO's implementation. Here are some GOP senator reactions:
Sen. Susan Collins: "The worldwide refugee ban set forth in the executive order is overly broad and implementing it will be immediately problematic." Sen. Jeff Flake: "It's unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry." Sen. Ben Sasse: "If we send a signal to the Middle East that the U.S. sees all Muslims as jihadis, the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims and that this is America versus one religion. Our generational fight against jihadism requires wisdom." Sen. Rob Portman: "This was an extreme vetting program that wasn't properly vetted." Sen. Cory Gardner: "I urge the Administration to take the appropriate steps to fix this overly broad executive order." Sen. Bob Corker: "[T]his executive order has been poorly implemented, especially with respect to green card holders." Sen. Lindsey Graham: "Such a hasty process risks harmful results.... And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children." (in a statement with John McCain) Sen. Lamar Alexander: "This vetting proposal itself needed more vetting."
But again, I don't really care about that particular adjective.
The second suggestion (to add "from the Democratic Party") is simply incorrect, as G1729 explained immediately above).
As to the first suggestion (to eliminate the word "much"), I think the word "much" is amply supported by the sources, for example, Professor Robert M. Chesney ("much-criticized"; see here); the Associated Press ("In the face of widespread criticism"; see here); Reuters ("Trump aides call travel ban success despite broad criticism"; see here); Politico ("his much-criticized executive order restricting travel"; see here); New York Times ("The order drew sharp and widespread condemnation"; see here); U.S. News & World Report ("one of Trump's most closely watched and widely criticized executive actions"; see here). Neutralitytalk 23:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide any other sources in addition to Politico that use the adjective 'much' when referring to the criticism? Chesney's can't be counted because it comes from his blog. There is a difference between widespread (pertaining to physical area), broad (pertaining to different matters within the order), widely (pertaining to physical area or interval of time), and much (quantity). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Huh? In context, "widespread," "broadly," "widely," and "much" all mean the same thing — i.e., the criticism came from many quarters. This is not a contentious point. (Also, Chesney's post was not on "his blog"; it is from an academic blog published by the Lawfare Institute in conjunction with the Brookings Institution, not a personal blog). Neutralitytalk 01:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This semantic lawyering of an undisputed fact is not helpful. The paragraphs describing the large quantity of criticism are well sourced. There's no reason to keep this up unless Ahnoneemoos can cite sources that contradict the obvious fact that there was much criticism. If anything, it's an understatement; the reaction to this one executive order is likely to be considered to be of unprecedented historic proportions. Any of these adjectives Neutrality has offered are fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
1) There is no such thing as "formally dispute" and it requires no "herebys" to come to the talk page and spit out what is bugging you.
2) This is an outrageous quantity of talking expended over the triviality of a single adjective. Ahnoneemoos has tagged this phrase twice, without once attempting to simply delete the word "much" and see if that is accepted, or writing a new version. "Trump received much criticism from the Democratic Party for the executive order" is inaccurate because it ignores the criticism from non-Democrats, as well as internationally. Keep in mind that any sentence here should be a summary of the section that follows. If the section lists critics from Democrats, fellow Republicans, and the international community, then that's what the summary should say.
3) If Ahnoneemoos is still unhappy, delete the introductory sentenced entirely. The sheer size of the reactions section, and the need to spawn a whole separate article to fully catalog the opposition, speaks for itself. It isn't vital to summarize what is right there in front of you. There are far more important things to debate than to much or not much. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just made a start at Sidd Bikkannavar, a US born Muslim NASA employee who was detained coming into the US and forced to unlock his (NASA property) cellphone due to the ban. Of note, he never traveled to any country covered by the ban--seems his only "crime" was being born a Muslim. Pandeist (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Taken out of context in the article and put in the context of this wikipedia article, aren't the last sentences of the wikipedia article citing a politico article about a lawfare (brookings institution) reaction to the 9th cir. objectively false? Currently it reads as though the 9th cir. didn't bother to cite the statute on which the order is based. But the 9th cir.'s opinion does cite the INA on page 4. See https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf It might not be the part of the INA that the commentators had preferred be cited, but I just don't think this kind of speculative info (including the President's reactions amplifying the commentators) belong in the article. If we include those, do we include the reactions to the reactions of the President? It all seems ancillary to what matters. If the President indicates the government will challenge a ruling, that makes sense to include. But his critiques strike me as irrelevant (unless he has the exec branch ignore court orders or something that matters in how gvt power is used).G1729 (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The page 4 cite you are referring to is the court itself referring to the EO citing INA. The issue seems to be that the court's opinion or judgement doesn't cite the statute. Irrespective of that, there has to be primary sources saying that the court has cited INA. CatapultTalks (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually think the lawfare blogpost quoted by the politico article cited in this wikipedia article may be referring to a more specific part of the statute (1182(f) to be precise) that the blogpost's author thought the 9th cir. should've addressed; so when wikipedia drops that statement into the wikipedia article without proper context (which statute?), it appears as though there was some larger omission by the 9th Cir. such as not mentioning the INA, which there was not.... there are arguably plenty of other parts of the INA referenced by the executive order besides 1182(f) that need not be covered to arrive at the 9th cir.s ruling (it's not a tiny statute)... I don't understand the relevance of the court not citing it? The lawfare article is written by an editor of the lawfare blog. Is he even a lawyer? Why does his opinion on what should be cited by the 9th cir. even matter besides the fact that it was amplified by Trump? G1729 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Have most of G1729's questions been answered in the edits? The text of the EO at 3(c) (the first of the challenged sections) bases its power on 8 USC 1182(f) and the government has referred to that provision in its briefs (and I assume both oral arguments) but the 9th Circuit panel did not refer to it citing case law built on direct Constitutional rights instead. That's "this statute" as references Wittes of Lawfare blog. In my layman's opinion, the government was remiss as the text of 8 USC 1182(f) requires the president to "find" that allowing a class of aliens entry "would" be detrimental, which I read as requiring a reviewable fact-based finding that letting those aliens in would be a _net_ liability. The absence of facts seems like there was no rational decision making at all that considered the aliens as people, some of whom case law says have Constitutional rights. 24.6.25.154 (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
So I think these concerns were partially addressed by edits to the part about the lawfare article in that a footnote citing the particular statutory subsection 1182(f) was added and some of the bio of the author of the lawfare blogpost were added. I still think it's undue to include that particular reaction just because the President amplified it (there have been plenty of other reactions; who knows which will be influential critiques or accurate and relevant assessments of how the supreme court will rule if it ever does), but I defer to others/consensus on that. I also think it still reads in a way that, unless the reader mouses over that footnote/clicks through to the reference, it still looks like "the statute" omitted by the 9th cir. could be the entire INA, but whatever.G1729 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Responding to whether it made sense for the 9th cir. to omit 1182(f), I looked at it some more and I think the above user's comments about rational basis standard may be relevant; although the [federal] government cited 1182(f), the government presented no evidence on the factual basis for the threat the president was evaluating on the questions of how many terrorist attacks or arrests of nationals from those countries occurred after sept. 11... (gvt mentioned Somali-origin terrorism charges to the 9th cir. panel in response to questioning but acknowledged it couldn't introduce that as evidence it could rely on for its arguments at that juncture b/c had already failed to do so at the lower court); my understanding was the federal gvt's position was that the factual basis for such a decision by the President was unreviewable by the courts, which could've motivated the courts not to arrive at 1182(f) because the gvt hadn't given them basis to evaluate 1182(f); instead the judges took on the threshold issue of whether they're allowed to review, which they felt they were. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the government was remiss"—do you mean remiss with respect to the executive branch action, or remiss in making the argument to the district or appellate court? Anyway, all this is my non-lawyer assessment, we could probably find secondary sources supporting some of these points and countering the lawfare article, but I think the entire discussion gets undue weight by inclusion in the wikipedia article.G1729 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. I believe the White House was remiss in introducing into the lower court an outline of how they came to "find" that allowing entry of aliens from those seven countries would be a net (and net is important according to Scalia) detriment to the United States. (In Michigan v. EPA (2015) he penned the majority opinion and said the EPA had to look not just at the benefits of removing mercury, but the costs as well to know if the regulation is appropriate. The same reasoning means you can't assemble a bunch of potential downsides without balancing them against demonstrated upsides when finding a class of aliens to be a detriment.) The lack of such a ready briefing for a decision that was made less than a month ago seems to speak to the fact that they did not weight the pros and cons of admitting aliens to the US at all, but are just catering to prejudice. The sterile pointing at a list compiled by Obama does not enlighten the court of what the pros and cons are thought to be. But, I am not an immigration (or any other type of) lawyer and don't know of any case law about 8 USC 1182(f). 24.6.25.154 (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Italics or quotation marks?
I just have a minor style/formatting question. In the lead sentence, the title "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" is in both italics and quotation marks. As I understand it, titles are usually in either italics or quotation marks or neither, but they are generally never in both italics and quotation marks, so which one should we use? MOS:TITLE doesn't say anything about presidential executive orders in particular, but I'm inclined to say this falls under Legal or constitutional documents and would therefore require neither italics nor quotations marks per MOS:TITLE#Neither. Mz7 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree it should be treated as a legal document and have changed it - only bolded, no quotes or italics. |→ Spaullyτ 07:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Commas
Hi all. This is a really good article - especially when you consider the difficulty in keeping neutral and the ever-changing subject.
Just a friendly note as I seem to be endlessly removing commas from the text and I am not usually known for copyediting the grammar in articles. In particular the manual of style does not support: On January 29, so-and-so did this.
Generally text is more readable where commas, in particular nested commas, are avoided. I am also probably getting some of my changes wrong so feel free to adjust, but please consider whether all those commas are really needed! BW |→ Spaullyτ 07:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
please replace cite #1 as follows because the whitehouse version of the executive order is inaccurate and different from the federal register version
<ref name="auto">Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States. Executive Office of the President. {{Federal Register|82|8977}}–8982. Published: Feburary 1, 2017.</ref>
Could someone please replace the first citation in the article (i.e., the cite to the exec order itself) with the above code for the reference shown in (this footnote)[1] instead of the link to the vsn on the White House's website? I'm not allowed to I don't think b/c I'm subject to discretionary sanctions on this article and I'd previously posted a link to the federal register as the first citation. As of today, an article in USA Today has documented that the version of the executive order on the White House's website is inaccurate, so I think using the federal register version is in order. I've tried to make the reference more descriptive than merely using the federal register template, although the above reference incorporates that. Pinging y'all b/c you've been really helpful on this article in the past. Sorry to bug you with this.G1729 (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
References
^Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States. Executive Office of the President. 82 FR8977–8982. Published: Feburary 1, 2017.
What do you mean by you not being allowed to? I don't understand..CatapultTalks (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi @G1729:. I made the change as it seems very reasonable. But any sanctions apply to the article, not any individual editor, surely? If someone reverts my change I will leave alone and await consensus (I think 1RR is a fair one to apply to any article, except where vandalism/unconstructive editing is the reason). BW |→ Spaullyτ 07:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Bolding this in the lead has already been discussed at length and there is currently no consensus for this change. Stop reinserting it.
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've never filed an WP:AE complaint, and I would very much like for things to stay that way. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't realize this was such a contentious addition. HelgaStick (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
As a general rule, reverting anything more than once is to be avoided anywhere on Wikipedia, but on articles covered by discretionary sanctions, it is formally prohibited. TimothyJosephWood 16:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Source for countries
Hello. The lead says "Further, the order suspended the entry of foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — for 90 days after which an updated list will be made." Two people on this talk page have said that no countries except Syria are mentioned in the order. I agree with them. So where in the world did Homeland Security and others get their list of seven countries? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The order says "The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence" are responsible for figuring out what information they need and then a list is to be submitted within 30 days. Nowhere in this order does it say that President Trump identified seven countries. I believe your lead needs rewriting, so I edited it. (re-edit) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Pretty grateful
Thanks to the administrators and editors who have produced an article on a topic that is well-referenced, not based on blogs and committed to the five pillars. I couldn't find information anywhere else that I read because all commentators and news sources (western news is a commercial product) were pretty fuzzy about the details and references. A breath of fresh air. Best Regards,
I would hope that nobody would make the mistake of creating a new article five minutes after the new order is announced. Not that it's helpful to even say so, per WP:BEANS. I would hope they would wait a week, or two. A month would be glorious. Why can't they go over to WikiNews for the first few weeks? All the stuff an editor creates over there can be copied over here, with a few mostly stylistic changes, when the time is ripe for a Wikipedia article.
Naming any of these by order number is a pretty clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME, but we're forced into it because consensus on the true common name is so passionately divided. Which passions would cool if we waited as long as possible before creating an article.
I think intending to change the title violates WP:CRYSTAL. If a new order is published, a new section at the bottom of this article can be added on that order. If the content there grows to a significant quantity, it will probably spawn a new article. Only if the content on the hypothetical new order is significant enough to form a large portion of this article, yet not so large as to require a separate article, would the title Executive Orders 13768 and 137XX" be appropriate.
Which means: we have no idea what is going to happen, or how it will play out. A great place to write about day-to-day events is WikiNews. The longer you wait to stuff it into Wikipedia, the better your perspective, and the less likely you'll have to do it over and over and over as consensus changes. Wait. Be patient. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thx for that advice and links to wikipedia policies, all of which sound sensible. Rest assured I will not be edit-warring over (or even editing) the title; was just trying to avoid a round-two on that front.G1729 (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
sorry i was not aware of this WP:BEANS stuff. Is it ok for me to delete this entire post?G1729 (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't. That would only incite more controversy. Just let it go. Always let it go. Wikipedia: "Where We Let It go". Nobody has ever actually given me a clear definition of "encyclopedic", but I think "things see from a distance" isn't bad. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
more sage advice. will follow. (can't help but say Wikipedians are way more more relentlessly devoted to facts than most people I know who "let it go", but I like it in this context!) thx!!!G1729 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Feedback required: Folks, I noticed what the problem is: the status is hard coded on the template. Please discuss which status you would like to use and I will gladly modify the template's code accordingly. I added a new status: "halted" and gave it a red background color. Please voice your opinion about this change. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
–2A03:2267:0:0:11BF:D33:A455:84C6 (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
