Talk:Executive Order 13769/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Campaign Promise Fulfilled

The lead mentions this: The order was widely seen as fulfilling Trump's campaign pledge for a "complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," known as his "Muslim ban," but the administration said the order was crafted to block likely terrorists, not Muslims.

This seems to be SYNTH. The only source which talks about this EO being a fulfillment of campaign promise is this source. There are no other reliable sources. Also no secondary sources in the body that quote the "administration" saying the order was crafted to block terrorists. CatapultTalks (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It was central to the arguments in Washington v. Trump -- the Washington Attorney General asserted that the campaign statements were evidence of the intent behind the executive order. The 9th Circuit court ruling addresses it. News and opinion stories widely connect the campaign statements with the executive order. [1][2][3][4][5]. Because this assumption is made by not just a specific group, but a spectrum of political, judicial, and media sources, the obvious adjective for the intro is "widespread". This article devotes a section to reviewing Trump's campaign statements on this subject precisely because the widespread belief that this executive order stems from those campaign statements. It's not WP:SYNTH or WP:COATRACK to tie the campaign statements with the executive order, because it's a central point of dispute.

It's a pretty uncontroversial fact that critics of the order say it's a fulfillment of his campaign pledges to target Muslim immigrants, and it's an uncontroversial fact that Trump and his supporters deny this, and instead say that the nations and groups were selected because of the likelihood that they would be terrorist infiltrators, and not because they were Muslim. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

None of the sources you quoted above seem to directly say that it was a "campaign promise fulfillment". They relate the EO to the campaign statements but don't widely describe it as a "campaign promise fulfillment". That's my point. Also the second part of the sentence - "..the administration said the order was crafted to block likely terrorists, not Muslims." - any reliable secondary sources? I don't see any in the article CatapultTalks (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So do you want to change it to say "was a consequence of the campaign promise" or "stemmed from the campaign promise"? "...resulted from the campaign promise"?

Second part? Look harder. It's copiously sourced. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read the articles cited right here or you're making assertions based on some other set of sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There is also the federal judge in Virginia who ruled it likely that religious discrimination was the point of the order in granting a preliminary injunction. She ruled in part based on Rudy G's widely reported commentary on fox news, which is featured in the development-of-the-article section. That statement is a Trump advisor—after the order was issued—telling the public that the executive order was created in response to Trump's request to find out the "right way to do it legally"—"it" being "the Muslim ban." The judge also relied on Trump's own statements during the campaign, though not, obviously, his statements after many people responded negatively to the order, when he denied it was a Muslim ban. I realize that a single person's opinion does not mean "widespread"/"widely reported"; however facts relied on in federal judges' opinions, particularly when deciding high-profile cases are (a) widely accepted (they are the foundation for the implementation of the law) and (b) widely reported; here, the judge just said "likely" (that's all that needs to be met to issue a preliminary injunction and it would be premature for her to go farther), but it seems obvious that many people took Rudy G. at his word/literally, and passed from thinking it was "likely" a Muslim ban to definitely a Muslim ban.G1729 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. It's understandable if anyone wants to rephrase or expand or revise the body of the article to fill in the various aspects of this, but in terms of an overview of the issue from 10,000 feet, the sentence in the into, give or take slightly different words, is accurate and consistent with the cited sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)G1729 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just adding a couple more sources/summaries.

The Boston Globe, anticipating the ban, a draft of which had already been leaked (as mentioned in the Wikipedia article):G1729 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

WASHINGTON — President Trump is poised to put a harsher and more isolationist stamp on US policy toward Muslims, with a temporary halt on America’s longstanding tradition of welcoming refugees from war torn countries….The policies, if they come to pass, would also make good on a Trump campaign promise to find ways to keep Muslims out of the country. In December 2015, then candidate Trump issued the following statement: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”G1729 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Portland Press Herald:

The order is widely seen as Trump’s effort to make good on a campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the U.S…G1729 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New York Times, though the expected release-date of the order was wrong, described the substance of the expected exec order as a delivery on the "terror prone" region campaign promise It went on: The plan is in line with a ban on Muslim immigrants that Mr. Trump proposed during his campaign, arguing that such a step was warranted given concerns about terrorism. He later said he wanted to impose “extreme vetting” of refugees from Syria and other countries where terrorism was rampant, although the Obama administration had already instituted strict screening procedures for Syrian refugees that were designed to weed out anyone who posed a danger.G1729 (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for these new sources. I don't see the same clearly stated in previously quoted sources CatapultTalks (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing! I didn't write much of the lede (maybe a reword or two) and have no problems with someone fiddling with it to make it more accurate or, if it seems misleading, less so, but I don't think that content should be wholesale deleted. Here's one more source, which I'm not sure gets cited in most contexts to show that pro-trump sources also interpreted the former Mayor of LA's calling it a muslim ban as a reference to the executive order on "terror prone regions". [6]G1729 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC) She wrote that after writing this[7], which is kind of interesting.G1729 (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I didn't remove it the second time, when Dennis Bratland wrote the lede, instead started this discussion CatapultTalks (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jasonanaggie:I undid a revision that characterized it as widely seen by judiciary because only that judge in VA ruled that it was likely religious think based on muslm ban. Other courts, like the one in Washington, that blocked the order did not arrive at the merits of the plaintiffs claims about religious grounds... i think those other courts used due process, e.g., something like the gvt was taking washington's rights away or its citizens rights away or whatever with the travel ban. Also the prelim injunction (Virginia ct in Aziz v. Trump) requires a higher threshold of evidence for the court to reach than the temporary restraining order (Washington v. Trump). I was just giving the example of a VA judge above because judge's opinions of facts used to make their decisions are frequently reported as facts. e.g., while someone is accused of a crime, papers report it as fact that they're accused but don't presume the person committed the crime, but once convicted by a court, it's taken as fact that they did it. in VA, the court thought it likely that religious discrimination motivated the order.G1729 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

questions re Legal challenges section

It says the Trump administration is appealing the TRO, but I'm not sure whether that's accurate at this point. At the time of the citation, the DOJ was appealing to the 9th Cir. but it lost there. It did not move immediately to further appeal to the Supreme Court. See e.g., [8] and [9].G1729 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the wikipedia article makes it seem as if multiple courts granted the TRO that applies nationwide, but I think only state of Washington granted a nation-wide TRO which was upheld by the 3-judge panel of the 9th Cir. court of appeals. (By contrast/for example: the preliminary injunction in VA (a) is not a TRO and (b) does not apply nationwide.)G1729 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Graphics

Three graphics have been added at some point (they sit at present in "Donald Trump's statements before signing Executive Order 13769" section, though that may be just for convenience). All three share the problem of being so small that even on a full screen size they are indecipherable, and take several clicks to reach a readable size. They mostly go into a degree of detail that is not helpful in understanding this article.

[10]a map of the middle east region (there is already an excellent simple map at the beginning of the article showing the locations of the targeted 7 countries), and captioned "Number of visas issued in 2016 shown by size, color breaks down type of visa)". This caption is misleading as the data does not cover all visas affected by the EO, only immigrant visas. The pie charts are very small in relation to the size of the map and so do not give any ready visual impression of the data; and the detail contained (breakdown of immigrant visas by administrative category) does not seem particularly relevant to the article as the EO does not make any differentiation. If any of this data is actually useful, a small table would be more effective and accessible.

[11]a chart apparently showing the numbers of refugees that were settled in each US state from each of the seven countries (well only five, as tiny blank boxes on the bottom right apparently indicate that there were no refugees at all Libya or Yemen). The writing is so small that it is readable in only the greatest size available, at which point only a small portion of the total is visible. The 4-month period chosen seems unrelated to the EO and, again, I am not sure how this chart is relevant to this article since the internal distribution of refugees is not mentioned in then EO.

[12]another map showing for most countries in the world the "number of visas issued by country in 2016, highlighting the 7 countries in the Order, in red". As the source is the same as chart [1], I assume that this also covers immigrant visas only, in which case the relative sizes of the discs is presumably the same in each chart. The numbers are not given, but presumably the size of each disc is proportional as there are many sizes - unfortunately the bottom-left scale is no help in estimating the numbers as it has only one size to cover 1-20,000 that are relevant globally, and none pertinent to the seven countries concerned and at least two sizes which are not reached by any country. Again, I wonder why all this disaggregated detail about the rest of the world is relevant to this article (interesting in passing that it shows that there was at least one immigrant to the US from every single independent country shown).

It will be interesting to see what other editors think. Davidships (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So "the food at this place is really terrible, and such small portions!" I don't think it's possible to give you both the extreme detail you ask for, while also giving you simplistic graphs that give up all their detail at the thumbnail level. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratlan: if the "you" above refers to me, you have completely misunderstood what I am saying. Firstly, I have not asked for "extreme detail", just the opposite. I think that the extreme detail in these three presentations is of little or no relevance to to understanding of the Executive Order article (some might well be useful in articles on US refugee dispersal, or on US visa policy). Secondly, I did not mention the thumbnail level - it is self evident that tables and graphs presented like this have to be opened), but they should be readable at full-screen. A small table showing the numbers of immigrant visas issued in 2016 for each of the 7, plus a global total for scale reference would, I think, give the useful level of detail. Unfortunately the clear locational map that was near the top of the article has now been removed (see comments in following section). Davidships (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not self evident to me that they have to be opened. Have you looked at MOS:IMGSIZE and WP:IMGSIZE? The size of your thumbnail depends on whether your Preferences are set to the default 220px image width, or some other number that suits whatever display you're using. When you view the page not logged in, with the default image width of 220, you can see the relative sizes of the number of immigrants from each country, and that the proportions of types of visas are quite different.

It depends on whether your device is displaying at 320x200 or 7680×4320 or something else. What display are you using, and what's your definition of full screen? And are you crertain this size is the standard we should be aiming for?

You haven't given any arguments for why we should limit the amount of information as you zoom in. What is bad about that? Clicking on the thumb reveals more information than the thumb. Clicking a second time enlarges the image, revealing even more information. Why is that bad? Note also that the number of clicks to get from enlarged to full image depends on whether you enable the media viewer in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Replace lead image?

Any problem with replacing the signing ceremony photo with File:Visas to 7 countries in immigration ban by type and number 2016.png?

{{Infobox U.S. Presidential Document}} is for use on large numbers of Executive Order, Memorandum, and Proclamation articles. As I suggested on the inbox documents, it's preferable to lead with an image that illustrates the subject of the order in some way, if possible, giving the reader specific information. The signing ceremony photo is acceptable, but not preferred, since there's one of these photos for every modern document, and they don't tell you much except what the President in question looks like holding a pen. If you look at a dozen Executive Order articles and they all have a signing photo, you haven't been given much enlightenment by the photos; they're just decoration. We already have the Presidential Seal at the top to convey some branding and identify the subject area, and they tend to blur into one.

A map doesn't convey the full scope of 13769, nor address the controversy, the legal disputes, the unique nature of Trump and his approach to terrorism and Islam, nor say anything about how the lives of immigrants are affected, or the feelings of Americans about refugees, immigration, and/or terrorism. But can one photo or chart contain all of that? So maybe we should settle for a map of the countries and some visa info, which covers a large part of what its about in a fairly neutral way. If you imagine a similar photo, map or graph on each of the other executive order articles, it can serve as a visual cue of the general subject matter.

The second infobox image, the document itself, is also rather generic, but the field is more intended for historical documents like the Emancipation Proclamation, rather than the typeset images of Federal Register pages. It also serves to elevate access to the link to the original document itself, for readers looking for that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

For the reasons given in the previous section, I don't find that map attractive. This former one was much better, though would benefit from having the countries named. It could also show the total number of of immigrant visas issued in 2016 for each of the 7, as an alternative to the table I suggested above - everything visible at one click. This is an article about this EO; the bigger subjects that you mention are better addressed by appropriate Wikilinks and 'See also'. Davidships (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a beauty contest. Attractiveness isn't our goal. The one you like might be a nice decoration, but it conveys little information beyond a 3rd grade geography refresher. If you click on it because you can't remember the name of the country next to Sudan and Libya, you'd be disappointed.

Your other "reasons" lack evidence. You say the data isn't relevant, but obviously when you're talking about restricting certain types of immigration, the obvious question is, what is being restricted? Stopping visas from Iraq means, mostly, stopping special visas, or translators for US forces and others working for the US government. Most Sudanese visas are from the diversity lottery, while in Yemen's case, it's either immigrants sponsoring family, either close relatives, or more distant ones. These basic facts are easily conveyed by the graph. How can this not be relevant? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

map graphic showing states' opposition to (support of?) the executive order

I'm not handy with images, but would it make sense to update the image regarding states' opposition to the order in light of the amicus brief filed with the 9th cir.? For example, I think many of the states that vowed to oppose the order simply signed on to the amicus brief opposing the order in Washington v. Trump. But North Carolina and Washington, D.C. were (I think) also on that brief and are not depicted on the map/image of states opposing the order. Might make sense to replace the states that "vowed to oppose" with states that made court filings opposing the order such as amicus briefs. See this amicus motion by PA-MA-NY-CA-CT-DE-IL-IA-ME-MD-NH-NM-NC-OR-RI-VT-VA-DC. There is also at least one state coming out in support of the exec order, which should probably be somehow shown on the map: Texas, as reported by Politico.G1729 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

State	Status
Minnesota	Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump
Washington	Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump
Hawaii	Hawaii v Trump
California	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Connecticut	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Delaware	amicus supporting WA v Trump
District of Columbia	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Illinois	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Iowa	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Maine	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Maryland	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Massachusetts	amicus supporting WA v Trump
New Hampshire	amicus supporting WA v Trump
New Mexico	amicus supporting WA v Trump
New York	amicus supporting WA v Trump
North Carolina	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Oregon	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Pennsylvania	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Rhode Island	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Vermont	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Virginia	amicus supporting WA v Trump
Texas	amicus opposing WA v Trump

So something like this? I'm not really thrilled with the whole thing but it's OK I guess. I don't mean to have the crosstab in the caption; I just stuck it there to show you what I used. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason for my misgivings is the way a map gives excess visual weight to states based on size. A table with stacked symbols is better because it displays each more equally. You don't see where each state is located, but we're not here to teach that. A simple Wikitable can do as well. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternate version

Awesome! Yeah, table with stacked symbols is fine with me. I don't have a format preference; I was more just giving people a heads up that the map displayed in the article was outdated for lack of NC+TX. If we want to wait till litigation outcomes clarify before replacing with a table or whatever, all that's fine with me. Also, we might want to change the caption slightly to supporting WA in WA v. Trump or some other clarifying mechanism to show which party they support. I'm not a lawyer, so if that's already clear maybe the caption is fine. Thanks!G1729 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Religion

The graphs have a lot of detail on country origin, but nothing on religion. The data and images at Pew Research could be used to show recent religious trends. There's neutrality questions, since there is disagreement over whether religion is the issue. The religious affiliation of the 7 countries, and of refugees, might be more relevant than the entire set of immigrants, shown at the Pew link. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

While there may be disagreement over whether religion is motivating the suspensions of immigration in the executive order, I'm pretty sure it should be non-controversial that the order wants to potentially make exceptions/ help out persecuted religious minorities because (I think?) that's explicitly written into the order, talked about by Trump on the day of the order before signing it, talked about by his advisors e.g. S. Miller afterward. Although Trump's interview on the point may have been used in evidence/mentioned in the establishment clause-based preliminary injunction opinion in the eastern district of VA, I think info on the EO's carving out exceptions for persecuted religious minorities could be presented in a way that doesn't take sides on whether preferring a persecuted religious minority somehow violates the establishment clause and/or is a good thing. I don't know where one would get the info on what the government is classifying as a persecuted religious minority for purpose of the order besides Trump administration officials' own comments (I was hoping instead for something more official/bureaucratic looking like a website listing the seven EO-countries and persecuted religious minorities therein as opposed to Trump/Miller interviews). Anyway, just throwing ideas out there... my two cents: I think something helpful could come from presentation of the data by country and/or religion. Sorry I'm no help on the actual implementation of any graphics.G1729 (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Re Persecuted religious minorities, the exec order says at Sec. 5(b): [officials implementing the order] to the extent permitted by law, [are directed] to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization..." (emphasis added)G1729 (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Censorship - Executive Order 13769

Please explain why you deleted the following content from the Executive Order 13769 article. The article is biased and the content was added to make it more balanced. There are good arguments for and against Executive Order 13769. Simply deleting arguments you don't agree with is inappropriate. It's better if reader are informed of both side of any dispute. I think the context of the Executive Order is relevant. WSDavitt (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The order was made in response to multiple terrorist attacks in the United States, Canada and western Europe during the past two decades and the perceived failure to adequately vet immigrants and refugees. These attacks include the September 11 Attacks, Boston marathon bombing, 2016 Nice attack, Charlie Hebdo shooting, 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa, November 2015 Paris attacks and 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. The order was made approximately 8 months after the Orlando nightclub shooting, the deadliest mass shooting in American history with 49 people killed and 53 wounded.

References

@WSDavitt: Because the order had nothing to do with those attacks. It would be best to continue this discussion on the article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Thanks for the response. You replied that you deleted the content "Because the order had nothing to do with those attacks." Please clarify: Which attacks does the order relate to? The purpose of the order is prevent terrorist attacks generally and was made in response to numerous attacks over the past 20 years. I mentioned specific attacks, among the many, to provide the context in which the order was made.

I think it is helpful to explain to readers the reason why the order was made. I don't believe the content should have been deleted as it is factually correct. The order expressly refers to terrorism and states "Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001".

I am concerned that the article is biased as it promotes only one side of the issue. By deleting content you are diminishing the information available to readers. WSDavitt (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The 9/11 attackers were primarily Saudis. The Orlando and San Bernardino attackers were American-born, the wife of the San Bernardino attack was Pakistani. The Boston marathon attackers were from Kyrgyzstan. The foreign attacks don't relate to United States domestic policy. There have been zero attacks in the United States conducted by natives of those seven countries. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Thank you for your response. I think you are addressing a different point. The content that you deleted does not state that there is a direct link between the specific terrorist attacks and the Executive Order. It merely notes the context in which the order was made; namely there have been numerous terror attacks in the US and other western countries.

Also, the content that you deleted does not suggest that the executive order is appropriate or will effectively target the perceived threat. It merely informs readers why the order was made.

Finally, I think its helpful for reader's to be reminded of some of the terror attacks. I was surprised that the Orlando attack was only 8 months ago. I thought more time had passed.

Again, the problem with deleting the content is that the article is biased and therefore less informative. WSDavitt (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide secondary sources that state those attacks are the purpose of the order? (I don't mean vague campaign statements that seem to connect with parts of the order, I mean specifically referencing the executive order.) It is not in the citation given, which is just to the order itself. The order makes specific reference to the september 11 attacks and the following general claim in its purpose section: "Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program."G1729 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

In the June 15, 2016 NYTimes, there is an article about the connection between the Orlando attack and Trump's immigration ban. WSDavitt (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/donald-trump-shooting-response.html?_r=0

It doesn't mention an/the executive order. But I did include an article from around the same time regarding the orlando attack in the background section and mention the orlando attack in the wikipedia article. Do you think something is missing? Trump's "immigration ban" was at that point something that was vague and remained to be filled in with more details according to his advisor on immigration (and frequent speaker at campaign rallies) jeff sessions. do you have stuff about the other attacks that specifically connects to the immigration ban and/or the exec order? G1729 (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Several of the terrorist attacks are mentioned in a speech Trump gave on or around August 15, 2016 published on Politico. See link below. It's not much of a stretch to link the speech on terrorism to the Executive order about terrorism that was made 6 months later. WSDavitt (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-terrorism-speech-227025

I had some of that speech (the Youngstown, OH speech) in the wikipedia article early on but it has been deleted; I'm not sure whether it was the same parts of the speech. Basically, just because the speech transcript is published somewhere, other editors don't want it in there unless it's been adequately covered in secondary sources. For example, his speech on Aug 31 talked about consulting with the DHS, DOJ, Dept. of State, but the only part we've got in the article is the part about Syria and Libya because that's what was in the secondary source. I don't agree with it if it seems like there's a direct connection to what's in the EO, but I understand that there has to be some principle to prevent people from violating NPOV / SYNTH, etc. Also, on the nytimes article ("Political Memo"), it's kind of like an opinion article (critical of Trump) so people may have objections to using it. I'd be ok with including some of what it quotes him saying about syrian refugees, which I hadn't seen in a secondary source that early on. I'm not sure the background section doesn't need more work, but I think many people think it's too long already.G1729 (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you be good with adding the following? (I didn't see the attacks mentioned in this particular secondary source on that speech): On August 15 in Youngstown OH, Trump vowed to have the departments of State and Homeland Security to identify regions of the world that remain hostile to the United States and where normal screening might not be sufficient to catch those who pose a threat with the goal of instituting a temporary ban on immigration and developing a new screening test. G1729 (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

References

@WSDavitt:Update: I've got an article from a reputable secondary source that I think justifies including the attacks mentioned in the Youngstown, OH speech in the background section. I'll write something up an include it in the background section. Thanks for the suggestion.G1729 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest adding the history of reports linking Muslim refugees and terrorism, and the fact the Order had broad support among Americans.[13][14] Context matters. Regardless of whether the Order says specifically it's because of attacks XYZ, the election and Order occur in a context where these attacks have been perpetrated/attempted,[15][16][17][18] and more seem likely. FBI said the refugee program may have imported "dozens" of terrorists.[19] In Syria, the Sunni Islamic State militias reportedly captured genuine passport stock and equipment, enabling them to print Syrian passports,[20], 20% of Syrians (almost certainly Sunnis) reportedly called the Islamic State a "positive influence" and 80% blamed America for what happened to their country.[21] The article suffers from WP:Wikilawyering and WP:ADVOCACY aimed at maximizing the POV of critics, making the order seem incomprehensible, when in fact it exists in a context of trying to address an actual problem and it has broad support. My attempts to add sources to the article got deleted by @Volunteer Marek.[22]TVC 15 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@TVC 15: Thanks for passing along these suggestions; I will have a look. My understanding is the poll numbers got deleted because they don't consistently show whether people support the order. Some polls show support, some don't and outcomes seem to depend on the wording of the polls' questions. I think the thread should be in the archives of this talk page if you want to have a look and further that discussion. I will have a look at the other stuff and probably attempt to include some of it. Thanks again.G1729 (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@TVC 15: Update: I added some of the terrorism-related incidents to background where they were invoked as justification/related to calls to suspend immigration by the Trump campaign. Hopefully that helps address the concerns you've raised. I couldn't read the full WSJ article on syrian passports because it was behind a paywall... from what I did read on the issue, I didn't see fake passports discussed as a reason for proposing a suspension of Syrian immigration, but I did include some other reasons Pence gave regarding Syrian immigration in the context of his campaign. I included some of Pence's comments on the incident in Bowling Green and some of Trump's comments regarding alleged terrorism incidents/attacks involving immigrants from Somalia and other places (some of which were not included in the seven countries) all in the specific context of proposed immigration suspension. Thanks again for the suggestions.G1729 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

no deaths statement

@James J. Lambden: at this diff you deleted the statement that No deaths had been caused by ppl from the countries in the ban claiming that it was contradicted by (what was then) the subsequent paragraph, which was about the 2016 Ohio State attacks. I think the issue was that you didn't realize that that attacker did not cause any deaths, but rather caused 11 injuries. Let me know if there was some other issue. (I believe I added the material in both paragraphs.) Moreover, it's not clear to me that authorities ever designated that a terrorism related incident perhaps because the attacker apparently self-radicalized, although that didn't stop authorities from labeling San Bernadino a terrorism attack. I think designating incidents as terrorism-or-not is somewhat subjective (Dylan Roof shooting was not designated terrorism for example even though it was overtly political violence); I'm not sure whether the quoted paper author required a designation of "terrorism" to classify something as extremism, but that classification would be up to the authorities, not him. Thanks. G1729 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You're entirely correct. That was my mistake. I was going to self-revert but I see you've re-added it. I have no objections. I agree the issue of classification is difficult – unless there's a specific need to address it in this instance I say better we avoid it. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted block quote to statute

@WSDavitt: I deleted your block quote to one of the statutory sections cited to in the executive order. other parts of the statute added in the 1960s arguably contradict that part of the statute. See e.g., this argument. Moreover, the statement you added implies the entire order relies on that particular section of the statute as authority and it's being presented outside the context of constitutional arguments that are at the heart of ongoing legal challenges... I think quoting the statutes at length is too much detail with undue focus on other parts of the statute, which taken together would be too much to include for the summary purpose of this article; it's just a primary source of legal authority (of which there are many) presented without context. I have included in the article material that explicitly references that part of the statute— 1182(f)— elsewhere in the order (e.g., in the development section), as (I think) have others (summarizing provisions/sections of the exec order), so people can always look up the statute based on references in the article if they like (perhaps that's what you did). Arguably it could be added, if based on secondary source importance, to the legal challenges article...G1729 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I undid my deletion because I forgot I already deleted something else within the last 24 hours. But I think that passage should be deleted b/c undue weight to that part of the statute and inaccurate in that the order does not cite only that statute for authority.G1729 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you have 1RR confused. 3RR involves reverting the same edits more than three times. 1RR is to restrict it to 1 revert only. Say User A decided to add content but it's not neutral. User B reverts them, but User A restores it. User B is prevented from reverting the content because of the 1RR restriction. User C reverts User A, but User A reverts them again. User A is violating the 1RR rule because they have reverted twice. I may be wrong. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

ok thanks for the clarification. I'm trying to be cautious and not step on anyone's toes. I will just be patient and perhaps others will agree with the deletion I'm suggesting here. Hopefully I haven't messed up too bad. Thanks!G1729 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The following content was deleted. The deletion is just censorship.

The order was made pursuant to paragraph (f) of Title 8 of the United States Code § 1182 which deals with inadmissible aliens. Paragraph (f) states:

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The Executive Order was made pursuant to § 1182. President Trump quoted the section in a speech in Melbourne Florida. See 25:39 [minutes:seconds] on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJiQ9MlK-e4

The reason to include the large block quote in this Wikipedia article is to avoid the accusation of "Original Research"

The court ruling is controversial. The inclusion of the block quote enables Wikipedia readers to read the statute themselves and determine if President Trump acted unlawfully.

This article continues to be biased as relevant content such as information about the motivations for the order (terrorism) and the statutory authority are being deleted. WSDavitt (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

References

@WSDavitt: Before you start refactoring talk pages and talking about censorship perhaps look at the edits to the article. I moved your block quote to the background section and started to give some more historical background to the story. Large quotes do not belong in the lead of an article. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  20:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@WSDavitt and Spaully: Even though implementation was challenged on constitutional grounds we don't paste all relevant parts of the Constitution into the order. The reason for not including the original statutory/constitutional material is not about "censorship" of a relevant viewpoint but rather that this is an encyclopedia article for which there is plenty of secondary source material that would summarize the arguments on either side without the danger that non-expert wikipedia editors might grant undue influence to or misapply a given section of statute, the Constitution, or another primary document a la this (satirical) Onion article. (I made sure to include links in the See also section to the 1952 and 1965 Acts.)G1729 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

For example, the "deletion" (restored by me, the person who deleted it, before @WSDavitt: accused the deletion of being "censorship" then moved by @Spaully: to another section) was of material focused on a particular statutory subsection that was among those quoted in the order. Apparently, in part due to response to my objections above, someone Spaully has (1) moved the content out of the lede and (2) added direct quotations from the (primary-sourced) 1965 statute based on arguments made by the Cato institute but without citing to the Cato institute.G1729 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

But I'm not aware of whether such arguments re the 1965 statue have even been made before a judge, perhaps because the focus of relevant legal challenge(s) (note this article doesn't go into detail on the many legal challenges) to the executive order up to this point may be more constitutional in nature than a legal dispute about how to correctly read portions of the statute (the fed gvt argues, constitution counsels deference to president where Congress grants authority, plaintiffs argue people's or states constitutional rights are violated by the order and even if courts owe the Executive some deference it's not complete deference. That's how it seems from news articles that the court proceedings I've watched/read anyway... I haven't noticed the Cato arguments being presented in Court based on the news I've seen coverage.) G1729 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Instead, my understanding of the Washington v. Trump case so far (the case is significant because it granted the TRO had a nation-wide impact of stopping parts of the order) is that the federal government argued courts cannot rule on whether the action contemplated by the statute was legal because Congress gave the president powers and that the Courts thought the plaintiff states were likely to succeed on the merits in part because Courts thought it at least had to determine whether the federal government's actions were a "reasonable" interpretation of the statute and the DOJ arguing for the federal government presented literally no factual basis for people from those countries presenting a threat. (Even if there was some evidence in the real world, the fed. government failed to present it when asked to do so by the judge, so he couldn't use such evidence in forming an opinion because it wasn't put on the table by being argued by either side; my understanding is the gvt's position was that the judge for constitutional reasons shouldn't look beyond the four corners of the order so such evidence of specific reasons for the order should've been irrelevant to the judge.) G1729 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Spaully: Sorry that I was apparently unclear: I did not raise the 1965 material to suggest it necessarily be included in the article (then I would've added it myself), I raised it as an example that without support from secondary sources, it's hard (even for legal experts) to know which part(s) of a long complicated act (the INA) that's been revised or modified by other laws at least 3 times over several decades is relevant, and near impossible for wikipedia editors to pass on the relevance of to an article whose topic is not the statute itself without support from secondary sources.G1729 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, as far as the legal challenges go, if we can get secondary sources that seem relevant on some of the above, it might make sense to include in the separate wikipedia article on legal challenges, but I think such points are probably unduly weighting detail which can add an arbitrary and/or editorializing weight in the article on the executive order. As far as background material goes, I think it is relevant to include the purported rationales for immigration restrictions that have direct connection to the order (or are purported to have them by the administration or other parties to the disputes), but undue to quote chunks of statute(s) if they're already referenced to anyway as candidate-Trump's and now the exec branch's view that that is the source of some of the authority in the order without support from secondary sources. The full version of one of statutes referenced to in the exec order (the INA) is long and revised at least 3 times over the course of several decades, which will probably make it complicated for even the legal experts on the Supreme Court to construe the meaning of (if they even chose to do so—they might stick to more constitutional arguments, which could cut either way or not pass on the question at all... again, such speculations are untethered from secondary sources)...so again, it seems prudent to wait for and provide context of secondary sources before deciding what's important by going to primary law. If others want to include the full block quote of 1182(f), could we at least pin down its relevance to the executive order with a secondary source (that both includes and justifies the relevance of the full block quote) since the Act itself obviously doesn't explicitly reference the executive order?G1729 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@G1729: My aim was to see if we could improve the scope of the background section with some more historical context as opposed to reverting which tends to just inflame tensions and maintain the status quo. My understanding is that there are secondary sources and court documents citing the 1965 act I included (they are in the legal challenges article) - I should have added these also. The quotes themselves may not be necessary I agree though in the background weight is not so important as in the lead. I feel the explicit reference to the 1952 act by Trump and the EO make it relevant and probably worthy of more explanation than a brief reference from a news article. See what you think, it's all progress (though I find WP is generally more of a meandering drunk than a sprinter!) |→ Spaully ^~talk~  09:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Spaully: Thanks for the reply... yeah, I'll defer to others on this. I feel like from what I've seen on the court challenges that have had an effect on the order's implementation, the Constitution has bee more relevant than the executive order itself under the letter of those laws (without looking beyond the order to other actions of Trump's/his administration), but I may not know enough about it to properly incorporate into Background. Anyway, there is a "Legal challenges" section (and "Legal challenges..." article) so things of relevance should get covered one way or another. Once all of the legal challenges are all resolved I reckon that what is relevant will all become more clear (if it's not already) and then we can adjust (if need be). Thanks for your reply.G1729 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Muslim Ban redirect

Seeing Executive order 13769 is both unequivocally and literally not a Muslim ban in the slightest (as about 85-90% of the world's Muslim population is unaffected), I don't know if having 'Muslim Ban' re-direct here is very appropriate, and reeks of partisanship. It'd be like if 'fake news' re-directed to CNN, which despite a millions of people believing that to be such, is also erroneous and inappropriate.

I Think the re-direct should be removed completely, because it isn't appropriate at all, and can be seen as endorsing a particular viewpoint (Because if such controversial wording takes you to this page, what sort of conclusions can be drawn from that?).

Stevo D (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed for deletion in January: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 30#Muslim ban.. The result was a snow keep based on it being a reasonable search term and based on numerous reliable sources. The term is used a number of times in the article itself. I don't think having a redirect is partisan as it is only noticed by users if they themselves specifically use or search for the term.

Further, the presence of a redirect is nothing to do with it actually being a Muslim ban but only whether it is a useful redirect to get people where they were intending to go. BW |→ Spaully ^~talk~  14:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Migration Policy Institute

I restored this citation:

• A 2015 report published by the Migration Policy Institute found that 784,000 refugees had resettled in the United States since September 11, 2001, with only 3 arrested for suspected terrorism.

References

Does the editor who removed it (diff) have sources that contradict this statement? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said see "TALK." You can see the discussion above. Please read the official WP warnings on editing this page, and revert your own edit.TVC 15 (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Although that report does not name its alleged three, perhaps disproving it will require listing more examples. Meanwhile, I am guessing that their three are the Bowling Green (Kentucky) two[23] plus Mohamed Osman Mohamud[24].TVC 15 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Adding Abdullatif Ali Aldosary[25][26] brings the total to four, already disproving the claimed three.TVC 15 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You are doing original research and synthesis. See WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The problem with this, and why it's against policy, is your "I am guessing that..." part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure the above is correct. Guardian states: "Of the 784,000 refugees resettled in the United States since 11 September 2001, just three have been arrested for planning terrorist activities, the report found."

Abdullatif Ali Aldosary was admitted in 1997, per the link provided. It is not clear when Mohamed Mohamud was admitted. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@TVC 15: please see above and consider self-reverting, as this was your 2nd revert on a page that is under 1RR restriction. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The warning says, "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." If either of us has crossed that line, then we both have, but you first, by reinstating challenged material. I will continue looking for more examples to disprove the report itself, but the claimed material would obviously make the WP article misleading by omitting refugees admitted prior to 2001 and arrests after 2015.TVC 15 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I would again refer you to the pre-existing and ongoing discussion above,[27] which you seem to have overlooked.TVC 15 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

From the quote: you must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article -- i.e. your removal of the citation has been challenged, yet you reinstated the removal: "total now disproved on Talk page, see sources linked there". The total has not yet been disproved, yet you broke 1RR. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone else added it. I challenged and removed it, referencing the discussing on the Talk page. You reinstated it, apparently without even seeing the discussion on the Talk page.TVC 15 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did see the discussion. It provided generalities and no specific suggestions. The course of events was: (1) you challenged and removed the citations; (2) I restored the citation; (3) you reinstated the material, without obtaining consensus on the talk page, which breaks 1RR. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

We agree on (1), we disagree on (2) and (3). You restored material that had been challenged, without seeking consensus. I deleted it, after proving it was at least misleading; you have pointed out the specific time window, which I have not yet disproved, but I'm working on it. Meanwhile, including it in the article would be definitely misleading, at best. For example, it omits the Somali who ran over and stabbed 11 people in a suicide attack,[28] because he wasn't arrested.TVC 15 (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I requested a WP:3O. Here are the diffs:

1. by TVC 15
2. by K.e.coffman
3. by VTC 15

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Your summary says it's about 1RR, and your listed diffs are only from today. The full sequence is as I described above. Someone else added the material. I challenged and removed it, referencing the discussing on the Talk page. You reinstated it, apparently without even seeing the discussion on the Talk page, where you started a new discussion section instead. Having proved that the challenged material made the article misleading at best, I removed it. Also, though I assume good faith, I have to wonder about the apparent urgency with which you want to restore material that would make the article obviously misleading. I had taken a break to cool off and have a cup of tea, but you seem in a hurry to get "three" reinstated, even though I've already cited at least five.TVC 15 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

update Here is a possible sixth, "18-year-old Bosnian refugee and Salt Lake resident Sulejmen Talovic...opened fire on shoppers in a mall, killing five and wounding four others before police fatally shot him, was armed with several rounds of ammunition and was carrying two guns, authorities said Tuesday."[29] Some said he shouted "Allahu akbar" during the attack, but the FBI found that insufficient evidence of terrorism, and he was not available for questioning.[30] He died in the attack, like the recent refugee terrorist in Ohio,[31] so the misleading report would exclude him. The fact remains, the attack by a refugee had been widely reported prior to the 2016 campaign and 2017 Order, so a report omitting it would tend to mislead rather than inform as to risk level.TVC 15 (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

update Yassin M. Aref was convicted, but the misleading report would exclude him because he arrived in 1999 instead of 2001.[32]

update "On June 10, 2004, a federal grand jury indicted Nuradin M. Abdi on terrorism charges. The four-count indictment included charges of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; conspiracy to provide material support to al Qa’ida, a designated foreign terrorist organization; fraud and misuse of documents; and fraudulent use of travel documents. Abdi, a Somali national living in the United States, is believed to have misrepresented his reasons for travel on a federal government form, claiming he intended to travel to Germany and Saudi Arabia for religious and family reasons when he actually planned to travel to Ethiopia for terrorism training. Abdi allegedly conspired to blow up a shopping mall in the Columbus, Ohio, area and engaged in explosives instruction in preparation for this plot. Abdi is also accused of obtaining refugee asylum status through false means. The indictment was originally filed under seal and was unsealed on June 14, 2005."[33] It doesn't say when he arrived though, so I'm still working on that.TVC 15 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

update Hesham Mohamed Hadayet was arrested, but had arrived prior to 2001. I'm going to take a Wikibreak because I can see that some people are determined to include an obviously misleading report in the article, even though it turns WP from encyclopedia to misleading advocacy.TVC 15 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

update "Fazliddin Kurbanov, an Uzbekistan national who was admitted to the U.S. in August 2009 and resettled in Boise, was arrested by federal agents at his Boise apartment on May 16, 2013, on terrorism charges after being indicted by Idaho and Utah grand juries. The Idaho jury indicted him on charges of conspiracy, possession of an unregistered destructive device and providing support to terrorists. The Utah jury indicted him on charges of providing instruction on the construction and use of an improvised explosive device... Following a 20-day trial and two days of deliberations, a federal jury in Boise found Kurbanov guilty on three charges: conspiracy, possession of an unregistered destructive device and providing support to terrorists. U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge sentenced him to 25 years in federal prison. Kurbanov appealed, then agreed to drop his appeal if the pending Utah charges were dropped."[34]TVC 15 (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@TVC 15 and K.e.coffman: I don't think it's misleading not to include the people who arrived before 2001 because the article gave the number of refugees resettled during that time. If you want to add additional people who committed attacks after 9/11 but were resettled earlier, you'd need to find a study that included how many additional refugees were resettled during that time. In other words, I think it is misleading for you to suggest no it was actually e.g. 6 people not 3 if we haven't moved the number "out of 784,000" to some higher number that includes the additional refugees that were admitted in e.g. 1999, 2000, and 2001 up to 10 Sept. This discussion of the issue makes it look like the per-refugee threat doubles from ~0.00038% to ~0.00076% when in fact it may be lower than the second figure. If there is an article out there from a secondary source that included the additional attacks and also the additional total numbers of refugees, I think it would be fine to include. otherwise it makes sense to me to leave the article in place since it provides more context than nothing.

However, it does seem natural that we examine figures 11 September attacks in isolation: surely vetting processes changed after that time (vetting changed very publicly in 2002 with NSEERS, which officially rolled out on the one-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and the first 5 countries of focus for that program were Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Sudan); the purpose statement in the exec order that is the subject of this article suggests 9/11 is a point in time from which vetting policies should've changed more (EO\Sec. 1: "And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States."). I think if you were to find another source that included pre 9/11 refugees (who were probably subject to less stringent vetting), you should still include the post-9/11 source/info, since what this executive is focused on is the purported inadequacy of response in vetting procedures after 9/11. G1729 (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point about the numerator, but the other issue is the denominator, which does not appear limited to the relevant countries. Atheists trying to escape Bangladeshi Sharia patrols,[35] or Christian alleged blasphemers fleeing Pakistan (see, e.g., the Asia Bibi blasphemy case), would have a well grounded fear of persecution and probably zero risk of terrorism. (Note also those refugees would actually be endangered by importing the Muslims trying to kill them, which is another reason why the advocates of mass migration do not necessarily have compassion on their side.) Meanwhile in Syria, the Sunni Islamic State militias reportedly captured genuine passport stock and equipment, enabling them to print Syrian passports,[36] and 20% of Syrians (almost certainly Sunnis) reportedly called the Islamic State a "positive influence."[37] So, the relevant statistic for the part of the Order relating to Syria would involve how many have a record of supporting terrorism or Sharia enforcement as a percentage of how many want to relocate from there, not how many have been arrested here who turned out to have arrived as refugees from other places.TVC 15 (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what incidents outside the united states have to do with the content you're disputing as being misleading or false.G1729 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

All. Read WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. It's great that ya'll know how to use google, but it is NOT the job of Wikipedia editors to try and "disprove" sources!. What you need here is a reliable, secondary, source which says "the sources which say that there were only three are incorrect". Otherwise you're just adding stuff up that may or may not be legitimately added. You want to have this argument find a different forum on the internet. Plenty will oblige I'm sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

All. Setting aside for a moment the issue of the report being false, it is misleading WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SYNTH to include it in this article, because the order applies to specific countries, and the 784,000 does not appear limited to those countries. The order is likely to be superseded anyway, but the article suffers conspicuously from WP:ADVOCACY, as others have noted above. The article pushes a POV based on clearly misleading news, understating the numerator involved in terrorism and overstating the denominator, i.e. the number of relevant persons.TVC 15 (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@TVC 15: Could you point me to what is "false" in the report (the one that has generated this post/controversy)? I tried to read everything on this page and feel I must be missing something. For the item you pointed out as being "misleading" directly above, it's not clear to me the numerator was limited to the seven countries; if that's the case, and the report is true, I would think the report is not misleading. If you see any way to directly connect the stuff you've mentioned about Syrian passports (I couldn't read the full WSJ article because it was behind a paywall so maybe it was in there and I missed it?) and/or Syrians' opinions of ISIS to the Trump administration's purpose in issuing the order or suspending immigration from Syria I'd be interested in trying to include in the wikipedia article. I've seen Trump criticize most Afghans' favorable opinions of Sharia (perhaps in the context of limiting immigration), but the order did not target Afghanistan. I'm sorry you feel the wikipedia article suffers from advocacy, synth, and pov based on misleading news, but I can't see a way to change it or your mind unless we identify specific concerns and find ways to remedy them using reliable sources that relate to the article.G1729 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Virtually no material from proponents of this EO

The tone of this article is obviously extremely biased. Every other sentence details negative reactions while virtually no space is afforded to those with the opposing view. Unfortunately it seems Wikipedia is now totally influenced by media coverage of political events. If the media despises something or stirs a controversy on an issue, editors rush to create a new article that rather than serves as an unbiased analysis of the facts, basically serves as a summary of the media's reaction. One only has to take off their politically tinted glasses to see it. This is not good for Wikipedia and it's a failure of our mission.

The majority of Americans support this particular executive action. It would be wise to at least add more detail on proponents. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which sources you wish to cite? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not post the original comment above, but I can see the issue. The myths that seem to propagate through certain commercial media coverage favored by some editors include (a) the false claim that zero refugees have been arrested for terrorism,[38][39] and (b) the related misleading claim that nearly zero have become involved in terrorism. The article cites currently a Guardian article claiming only three arrests, based on a report that claims only three, without naming them.[40] There have certainly been more arrests than that, in addition to at least one suicide terrorism attack not resulting in arrest.[41] For now, I propose removing the false and misleading claim of only three. I am unsure whether or how to present more realistic numbers, because there seems to be a lot of partisan advocacy on both sides, and some sources that cite more examples (with names) might not be universally accepted by WP editors.[42][43] This is an area where sometimes the partisan "left" can lose credibility by insisting on demonstrably false and misleading claims; it is easy to find "reliable sources" from the media repeating those claims as if they were fact, but putting false and misleading claims into an article, as if they were fact, undermines the credibility of WP itself.TVC 15 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could supply specific true and non-misleading claims and the source(s) from which you have obtained them. Thincat (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@TVC 15: There is nothing in the Ohio State University attack article you've linked to that indicates it was or was meant to be a "suicide terrorism attack". That attack occurred after the timeframe of the report you are disputing and didn't involve an arrest because the attacker was shot and killed by police.G1729 (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to be specific. But yes, Breitbart is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Some people seem to react based on their dislike of a particular source, as if their feelings could falsify everything in it. People might prefer a different source,[44] but I would suggest rather checking the names listed in the sources that they dislike.TVC 15 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@TVC 15: Regarding the AP source purporting to "fact check" judge Robart, I think it misinterpreted what he was saying. Watch the context of the video (available on the wikipedia page). He starts out with a claim about question about deaths. He then goes on to a question about arrests, and couches it in "as far as I can tell"; he's a judge. He can only rely on the arguments the parties make to him. The DOJ did not argue that arrests were made from those countries, so it is not in the factual record of the court. The AP reporter is treating it as if it's some sort of "fact" outside of court, which maybe some have misinterpreted what he was saying as a real-world "fact", but I don't think that's where the judge is headed. I'm pretty sure I've not made the assertion on wikipedia that no arrests occurred, but it would be accurate to claim the DOJ did not argue that arrests occurred in that case. See [45]G1729 (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is - Guardian quoting analysis of Migration Policy Institute considered reliable but Breitbart quoting analysis of Center for Security Policy considered not reliable?? CatapultTalks (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Because The Guardian is a reliable source and Breitbart isn't. One thing that means is that we can generally trust the former to faithfully represent the underlying primary sources, and we can't do that with the latter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good question, and I invite Thincat (talk) and Volunteer Marek (talk) to answer it, but meanwhile I've already listed below more than three examples to exceed and thus disprove the Guardian's claimed "three", and thus removed that disproved claim.TVC 15 (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"Like" or "dislike" has nothing to do with it. We have a policy, WP:RS. Breitbart and probably frontpagemag don't meet the criteria for a reliable source. Neither does democracynow actually, though I don't think we're actually using it in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that you have restored the misleading report. I've found at least eight examples published in WP:RS, and am listing them below, though a different editor and I are looking for a third opinion. One issue is the narrowness of the report, refugees admitted after 2001 and arrested prior to 2015; I'm finding all too many arrests and deaths in suicide attacks, but substantiating entry date is a challenge. If you insist on the narrow definition of "disprove," then I'm still working on it, but you have obviously violated the rule about reinstating challenged material and the material is obviously misleading at best.TVC 15 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

TVC 15, I think you have misunderstood my remark completely. I was not commenting at all on the reliability of newspapers. I was inviting you to suggest a specific form of words to go in the article and to give appropriate references. What sentence or sentences do you suggest should be included? Thincat (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the comments that this article is biased. There are good arguments for and against the order. This article is one-sided against the ban and does not explain why the temporary ban was put in place. I'm finding this type of bias in other Wikipedia articles as well. WSDavitt (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@WSDavitt: Re "The article...does not explain why the temporary ban was put into place..." what material is missing from the wikipedia article on the executive order?G1729 (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"seven countries"

This will be something to clean up later because it's probably too annoying to trouble-shoot while the article is still developing but many parts of the article refer to 'the seven countries affected by the executive order' or similar convenient shorthand... Such a characterization of the order is inaccurate because some parts of the order seem to apply to other countries, and potentially all countries (including the U.S.). Because of the most dramatic (or headline-making or whatever adjective applies) effects were on {Libya, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Yemen} it's tempting to use the above shorthand, but when the article cleans up, editors should strive for some way to remain concise but still be accurate. The TRO (now a preliminary injunction I think?) in Washington v. Trump only applies to parts of the order, other parts of which presumably remain in effect.—G1729 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

I know that the article subject is complex. However, must one of Trump's EOs be overly introduced to readers who read just the lead and not read further? I can think main points of the topic: Trump's signature, legal challenges, countries affected, protests, visas affected, and US Court of Appeals decision. Can the lead be trimmed down to remove too many details? --George Ho (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead could be a little shorter, but not by much. Each paring down is going to take a lot of effort, and probably run into some debate. Which is fine, except this article is not stable. It keeps developing, and as we move past the initial events, it's going to change in structure. Parts that seemed in need of great detail are going to diminish in favor of those that have a lasting effect. Which means a new round of debates and rewrites over the lead as the article goes through revisions.

You can put effort into that now if you want but I think it will be much easier if you wait a couple months. For right now there's more gains to be made in fact checking the body and cleaning up the writing, finding clarity. That sets us up in a better position to finalize the lead once things settle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead needs to be drastically shorter. See WP:LEADLENGTH for guidelines on this. I can shorten it, but I'd rather have someone who has been editing this page do it. It does need to be shortened significantly.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The WP:LEADLENGTH "general guideline—but not absolute rule" says a 30kb+ article could have a lead of about 3 or 4 paragraphs. This is a 48kb article with a 5 paragraph lead, one of which is a single sentence that could be merged into a neighboring paragraph. It's fine if you like it shorter, but the idea that this "needs" to be "drastically" shortened is not what the MOS says, and it's not what you see if you compare this with Featured Articles.

But when you consider that it is 48kb, or 7,500 words, it might be time to think about splitting the article. That's probably why the lead covers so much ground. Too much article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ya, something needs to be fixed. Though I'm not sure article length is the issue. There is just too much content in the lead and it needs to be more of a summary of the article than it is now. Donald Trump has 79031 characters (which is considerably larger) and is pretty close to fitting WP:LEADLENGTH. This article really should have no problem fitting LEADLENGTH.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Article titles

Just a heads-up: Trump has signed a new executive order rescinding this one. It has the same title as this one, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, which means that that title should eventually go to a disambiguation page. The new order is probably-but-not-certainly going to be Executive Order 13780, but we should refrain from using that title until we're sure about it. Perhaps we should temporarily use the long title for the article about the new order, with a hatnote leading to the old article, and then move the new one over to the number once it's known for sure. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well...someone just created it under the order number, which I agree we shouldn't do until it's official. Should probably move the article or redirect it if there has already been an article started with the other name. TimothyJosephWood 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

So, yeah. We should probably figure out what we're gonna do here. Seems like we can redirect the stub article here for the time being, move the stub to a disambiguation for the long title, or move the stub to the long title period with a hat note leading here. One way or the other, we as Wikipedia should not be assigning EO numbers. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't do anything. We don't shift articles around every time a news event happens. Executive Order 13769 was a thing that happened. Whether it's rescinded or replaced or struck down, it still existed. This article describes the events surrounding 13769, and Executive Order 13769 is probably the most neutral, most acceptable article title we will ever manage to come up with to describe that series of events.

Let the breaking news about the new executive order be stuffed into the new article, and add a paragraph to this article summarizing it.

Above all, please don't be one of the ones who makes drastic changes like renaming articles or creating new articles based on breaking news that happened a few hours ago. I know somebody is going to do it anyway, but we can at least try not to jump on that bandwagon. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Timothyjosephwood that we should not assign an E.O. number ourselves. We should wait until the Federal Register publishes it in a few days. Once an E.O. is assigned, we should re-title the article to Executive Orders 13769 and 13780 so that both are discussed together. Neutrality^talk 20:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not totally on board with that. I'm much more in favor of moving Executive Order 13780 to Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, with a hat note pointing to 13769. That's basically what we did with this article before it had its own number, and right now the long title is really the only sourced name we have for this.

Also, this is article is already pretty flippin long, and lord knows there's gonna be every bit as much of a scramble to add every tweet and tidbit to the article on today's EO. TimothyJosephWood 20:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree with Timothyjosephwood that the article is too long ... to the point where the content is obscured by the criticisms. WSDavitt (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't get on board with that. Every other E.O. article we have (hundreds and hundreds of them) is by number, not title. The formal title is not commonly used and is very lengthy. Neutrality^talk 21:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality, I really don't think you're following my logic here. The long title is not ideal at all, and not at all intended to be permanent. But it is source-able where a number currently isn't. This is exactly the same solution we used as a placeholder on this article when the long title of the EO was available, but an EO number wasn't, and we switched basically immediately once an EO number was assigned. Right now, the EO number of the other article is at best speculation and original research. TimothyJosephWood 22:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I agree with that. My inclination would be to merge the new EO into the old EO to avoid that issue altogether. Neutrality^talk 23:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I know that that's an appealing short term solution, but I think you know as well as I do that we're going to be talking about this and writing about this for the entirety of the foreseeable future. If we take your preferred route, there will eventually (and probably soon) be a follow up discussion about splitting the articles again, how much to split and how to do it, when there is already a good start class that we would destroy in the process. Both our solutions are temporary, but mine is both temporary and easy to fix, while yours is temporary and potentially very messy to fix. TimothyJosephWood 00:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the above poster. Executive Order 13769 fits the format of all other executive order articles on the site, and the events that occurred upon its passage are described with relation to the first travel ban. The two orders are different and should be kept as is (a reference and link to EO 13780 in the main EO 13769 article should suffice). In addition, the title is not commonly used and is lengthy. EOs are often addressed by their numbers and not formal title (e.g. EO 8802, EO 9066). Azwu (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly propose that we keep two numbered Executive Order articles for now. EO 13769 has an unusually elaborate amount of litigation, protest, and reaction associated with it. Let that stay here and write the corresponding material at EO 13780. For now, a draft of text synthesizing the two EO's together should go up at Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump#Executive_actions. At some future date, it may become clear that there only needs to be one article, but it's too early to tell, IMHO.--Carwil (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Carwil, I totally agree with you, once the other EO has an official number, but right now it doesn't and that process takes some time for the paper pushers to catch up with the White House. TimothyJosephWood 23:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible merge?

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

---

Discussion moved here from Talk:Executive Order 13780#Possible merge?, so that all relevant comments regarding the merger proposal can be included in the consensus finding. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Should this be merged into Executive Order 13769 (and the new page re-titled to Executive Orders 13769 and 13780)? It seems like this would make the most sense, since this E.O. revised/replaced the prior E.O. Neutrality^talk 20:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A discussion was started somewhat to that effect at Talk:Executive Order 13769#Article titles. One way or the other, AFAIK, this doesn't actually have an EO number yet. It certainly will, and this may likely be it, but right now the title is pretty WP:OR until that number is confirmed, and we should probably work out some solution to that in the interim. TimothyJosephWood 20:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Added merge template. Let's Discuss. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The order number has already apparently been tagged to the order. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

One item of importance is all the litigation which is still pending. Since Trump rescinded the previous order, these lawsuits have now become moot under Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) and fail to state a claim or which relief may be granted since the underlying order has been rescinded, so I expect to see all of these actions dismissed. What that means for this executive order vs. the previous order is up in the air and is something to consider which may preclude a merge. We will have to wait and see how the litigation plays out, or if there will be more litigation. I would expect to see the current deluge of lawsuits dismissed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty staunchly against a merge, since I expect that it will only result in an inevitable split, considering this seems just as likely to get its own extended press coverage and probably also court action. I do however think that they article title is premature until the EO actually gets an official number, and I may move it, at least temporarily tomorrow if no on on the other EO talk page, which is where a lot of the discussion seems to be taking place, comes up with a good argument to the contrary. TimothyJosephWood 00:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be for a merge. The article could potentially be reduced as events develop. Even if a split occurs the second order was imagined with reference to the first (to continue parts of the first, discontinue others, while some of the policies from the first will probably remain untouched). (Where first = 13769 and second =13780). I would not expect to see the lawsuits dismissed. I'm not a lawyer, but see ericposner.com 's recent posts; he's an expert on executive power among other things at uchicago (wrote for a strong executive in articles crediting collaboration with Jack Goldsmith etc.) and basically today wrote that he'd expect the new order to be dismissed for legal reasons IF it were any other president with any other run-up than this, but instead because of the initial order and the things Trump said before and after the campaign it will be tougher to get rid of. Also, aren't there at least a couple dozen lawsuits? The case-by-case nature of all their adjudication would seem (to me anyway) to make it less likely that all lawsuits would be quickly dismissed. (But again, I have no idea whether the lawsuits will now quickly evaporate... not sure whether it matters for purpose of a merge/writing the wikipedia article(s).)G1729 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If Trump rescinded the previous order, then it no longer has any legal effect so lawsuits to enjoin an abandoned order are moot. They have to file a new lawsuit or amend all the complaints in these cases to address the new order. Most of them will just end up dismissed. It matters because once the lawsuits start up again, they generate a bunch of little articles for whichever is the most public suits that all revolve around each order. The new order is just that, a new order and its separate from the old order. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Because you think it matters for the wikipedia merge issue: what is the source of authority (e.g., a statute, a case?) for your proposition that "lawsuits to enjoin abandoned [executive orders] are [necessarily] moot"?G1729 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Executive orders get revoked or rescinded all the time. See List of executive actions by George W. Bush. Keep both articles. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk)

I'm not sure I understand why you want me to consult the list of Bush43's executive orders re "Executive orders get revoked or rescinded all the time"... did each instance of those revocations/rescissions that were being litigated necessarily cause litigation over them to be moot and if so what is the source of authority was my question above?G1729 (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, I understand that mootness doctrine exists, but I'm not sure the bell can be necessarily be unrung (litigation can be ended) so easily in all the cases challenging the executive order simply by rescinding the exec order because there are plenty of exceptions to mootness. But I'm not super familiar with mootness cases involving exec orders (if there are any... typically exec orders aren't worth suing over/who would have standing anyway (e.g., exec orders asking some gvt agency to make reports for the white house) and if they are important enough and have standing, the government thinks the order in question is too important to rescind/let lapse for a month).G1729 (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's litigation 101, injunctions are disfavored under the law, which means you have to show irreparable harm of some sort to get one issued -- i.e. something is harming you. A revoked order harms no one, and with a new order being signed basically abandons the old one, so there is no basis for the plaintiffs to continue to claim they are being harmed when the order has been revoked. It's a huge burden to prove to a judge the need for an injunction, you have to show harm and likelihood of success. If they object to the new order, they have to either file a new lawsuit, or ask the court for permission to amend their complaint to address the new order. The injunction in this case is now moot since the government is not enforcing the old order. My concern about which article merges where, and the likelihood of another lawsuit. It's kind of a wait and see, but the previous injunction has been rendered moot, which means it will just get vacated and dismissed. I predict that's what you will see and I am about 95% sure that this will be the disposition of these lawsuits -- they will most probably not be linked to the new order. Expect to possibly see new lawsuits, but from the way to new order is written, I think its going to be hard to get another injunction -- the new order has a ton of loopholes in it, and it will be much harder make it stick. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

So you're confident all two dozen (or 50 or however many lawsuits there are out there challenging the first executive order) are merely seeking injunctive relief and do not seek civil penalties (I do not know the answer)? Note: you still haven't provided any of the requested specific statutory or case authority. For exceptions to mootness, see, e.g., the textbook case Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. in which even though a polluter had stopped polluting and closed a factory, b/c they could still theoretically build a factory the litigation was allowed to continue (it would presumably be even easier for the trump administration to issue analagous executive orders on points that would otherwise be decided by litigation on the first). I could see why plaintiffs would want to continue to get to use the first executive order in challenging the one that will revoke and rescind it and it's not immediately clear to me that the second one will neatly wrap up dealing with the first one on all the lawsuits involved. There is caselaw on mooting litigation on legislation due to the legislation being superseded, but (a) legislation is harder to rescind/re-enact and (b) see City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle (the case cited by Friends of the Earth) in which repeal of a city ordinance was not moot.G1729 (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Pretty confident. Kim Davis (county clerk) is a good one to get your question about mootness answered. Go read through the appeal and the order of dismissal from her appeal, lots of authorities listed there. This is something you need to go read up on for your own benefit. Her case is one of the easier ones which illustrate the concept. After the State of Kentucky removed the County Clerk from needing to sign same sex marriage licenses, the district court and appeals court dismissed the case and vacated the orders since the matter had become moot -- there was no longer irreparable harm. It a better one to help you understand. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Right on, thanks! I haven't found/read the appeal, yet but from what I can tell from the 6th Cir.'s order, two distinguishing factors could be (i) the Governor's executive order was turning into a bill and (ii) all parties agreed it'd be mooted by the bill (perhaps that's just the court's gloss on a misstep by plaintiffs)? "The parties agree that Kentucky Senate Bill 216, which will go into effect before we are scheduled to hear oral argument in this case, will render these consolidated appeals moot."G1729 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merge of main articles. These are separate orders, and Executive order 13769 is already long enough that adding coverage of the new order will just confuse everything. However some subarticles may discuss both orders together. User:Octoberwoodland makes a valid point that all the old litigation will be dropped, but similar cases may be filed by the same plaintiffs on the new order. We'll have to wait and see whether it makes sense to cover these in the same or different articles. (For example, if the state of Washington files a new lawsuit against the new order, it might make sense to cover the new lawsuit in a new section in Washington v. Trump rather than a new article with the same name and a probably unwieldy disambiguation in the title.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - It feels hasty to make a decision on this now. I suggest we wait to see what happens with the lawsuits and the new EO, develop the new article and see what happens to media coverage and outcomes. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  09:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Do not merge – There is enough distinct material about both orders, and we should not conflate reactions to the first one with reactions to the second one. — JFG ^talk 11:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Do not merge per JFG - this article is already extensive, and the new Executive Order will be sufficiently controversial and well-covered to produce an article of its own. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - each of these clearly meets GNG in its own right. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge for now per Spaully – I think there is enough distinction between the two. There should be hatnotes at the top of each page quickly saying something the along the lines of "See Executive Order 13780, which has rescinded/modified this order." Additionally Muslim Ban, should go to a disambiguation page, like Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States already does. Classicwiki (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. I find the text of each order to be important. (This first one did not mention seven countries by name. The second lists and discusses each one.) Keep them straight. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Two different orders. WSDavitt (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, with proposed additional article. Agree it's two different orders, but since it has the same full name "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States", a brief article or disambiguation page can be written under this title about each order with links to each.Mistakefinder (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Volunteer Marek already. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, it was actually JayCoop who set it up as a disambig between the two EOs. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Two different orders. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

state of washington v. trump removed from lede

I don't think State of Washington v. Trump should be removed from the lede. I don't want to reinstate content myself without consensus: I'm glad (and am sure others are also glad) that the lede has been somewhat condensed, but the exec order 13769 is still in effect (except what's been blocked by litigation) until the new one takes effect on March 16 and that case is central to the story of Executive Order 13769 so far (and for all we know may continue to be after March 16.... who can say).G1729 (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No. The previous order was revoked on March 6, 2017, unless I missed something in the wording of the order. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

See sections 13 and 14 of EO 13780, page 13 of the version I've seen, which read: "Sec. 13. Revocation. Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, is revoked as of the effective date of this order. Sec. 14. Effective Date. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017". Which part of the order 13780 do you think immediately revokes eo 13769? G1729 (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear the way its worded, to be honest. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What about it is unclear? also which part of the order 13780 do you think immediately revokes eo 13769? G1729 (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

While you are technically correct, it doesn't really matter since by signing this order he showed his intent to revoke it. Same legal effect, on March 7, 2015 the previous order was rescinded. Since the previous order is and has been enjoined from being implemented by a preliminary injunction (TRO), it has no legal effect anyway -- right? So it does not matter about hair-splitting over the date the new order will be implemented, there is already a new lawsuit filed by Hawaii against this new order. Anyway... Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

my understanding is only particular parts of exec order 13769 were revoked by that particular TRO in state of washington v. trump (which I think may now be a preliminary injunction instead of a TRO). I assumed other parts of EO 13769 that are not touched by the TRO/PI are still in effect till exec order 13780 goes into effect. there may be other court orders floating around out there that nullify other parts of the exec order 13769. I don't understand this sentence: " Same legal effect, on March 7, 2015 the previous order was rescinded. "G1729 (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

For purposes of litigation, He rescinded the order on March 7, 2017. In case you haven't noticed, it's not March 16 yet but already the litigation has begun. Understand now? You can obtain an injunction for both actual and threatened harm. Even though its not March 16 yet, there is still threatened irreparable harm, it becomes actual irreparable harm when the order goes into effect. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I might've been unclear. Could you direct me to a cite for "For purposes of litigation, He rescinded the order on March 7, 2017"? I don't think I've seen anything like that. I understand everything in your 9 March post after that quotation. My point was that the wikipedia article is about the entire executive order not just the parts of it that are being litigated so parts of the exec order that are not being litigated presumably remain in effect until the new order takes effect on March 16... but this is potentially contradicted if Trump rescinded the entire order earlier (or any more of it than was covered by the Judge's TRO/PI) so I would be interested in any such evidence.G1729 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok 1) On March 6, 2017 he signed executive order 13780 2) executive order 13780 states it rescinds executive order 13769 3) The effective date of publication of EO 13780 was March 6, 2017. therefore on March 6, 2017 Trump rescinded executive order 13769. 4) Executive Order 13769 has been gutted and enjoined from implementation for all intent and purposes by a Federal Court, and is not in effect, at least not in any way that matters. Hope that clarifies it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

ok awesome thanks. yup I think I understand your pov now. My understanding from the exec order itself is that the executive order 13780 has no effect till March 16 for the reasons already stated (i.e., that's what it says in its own terms). If there's some court filing by DOJ, a statement by the administration, or part of the order itself that contravenes section 13 and 14 of the order I'd be interested in knowing about it. Until I see such or similar evidence, I'd disagree that Trump rescinded executive order 13769 on March 6 (though parts of it were already not in effect due to various court orders). Thanks for the reply, and sorry if I've belabored the point.—G1729 (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am looking at it from the perspective of the litigation and I have never said either order is in effect, in fact, neither one of them are right now, but in terms of what Trump did and when I already answered that. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Scope and title of spinoff articles about the executive order

We have a problem with how to deal with the fact that there are two Executive Orders imposing a travel ban: the original order 13769, and 13780 which superseded it. Back in January we created multiple spinoff articles about 13769: Legal challenges to Executive Order 13769, Reactions to Executive Order 13769, Protests against Executive Order 13769, and List of protests against Executive Order 13769. And then there's Category:Executive Order 13769. We have no comparable articles about 13780 except for the main article Executive Order 13780, and the 13769 spinoff articles have barely been updated to mention 13780. For example, the "Legal challenges" article doesn't even mention the court orders blocking 13780.

We need to decide how to handle this. Should the existing articles be updated and given a more inclusive title, such as "Protests against Trump travel orders"? Or should comparable (and probably highly duplicative) articles be created called "Protests against Executive Order 13780"? I really don't think the current situation is acceptable, where there is a ton of information under the name of the superseded policy and nothing under the one that replaced it.

I have tried to start a discussion about the scope and title of these articles at Talk:Legal challenges to Executive Order 13769. Please join that discussion and let's figure out how to handle this. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Supreme court allows Trump's latest travel ban go into full effect

with just two of the nine justices dissenting Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Executive Order 13769. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170317033303/http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/files/announcement142/CV17-50%20219%20doc.pdf to http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/files/announcement142/CV17-50%20219%20doc.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170205221335/https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860 to https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME is "Muslim ban"

It's time to move this article to its WP:COMMONNAME. It's known globally as the Muslim ban. The term Muslim ban returns far more than ten times as many results as "Executive Order 13769". In most of the world Muslim ban is the only name used; e.g. here in the UK it's never called anything else and certainly not "Executive Order 13769." Even if "Executive Order 13769" was the more common term in the US (which isn't the case), it wouldn't matter because the US is just one country and Wikipedia is written from a global perspective, and this is very much an event that has received attention/coverage in the whole world. --Tataral (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to open a WP:move request. — JFG ^talk 12:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that Muslim ban is currently a dab page, with four articles sharing this colloquial name. Not sure you could make a case of WP:primary topic for the U.S. executive order. — JFG ^talk 12:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Error in fact in the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph.

Here are the 2 sentences:

"Homeland Security lists these countries as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.[2] More than 700 travelers were detained, and up to 60,000 visas were "provisionally revoked".

"Immediately, there were numerous protests and legal challenges, with some calling it a "Muslim ban" due to the fact that six of the affected countries had a Muslim majority."[1]

ALL of those 7 countries are majority Muslim. (The article referenced at [1], second sentence, is from the BBC.com, 25 September 2017, well after this Executive Order was implemented.) The facts on the ground may have changed from 27 January 2017, the date of issuance of this order to 25 September 2017 but the original 7 countries were all Muslim majority and that was in large part the controversy. 7 countries. Not 6. The second sentence and citation does not work there and only causes confusion when you go to Wiki's own pages on those original 7 countries and find they are ALL Muslim majority, Syria the lowest at 87% Muslim.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.156.143 (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Muslim ban

This ban has been widely described as a 'muslim' ban. However, this is false. If religion was the reason for the ban, surely Indonesia would have been on the list! When I put on the page that the term was inaccurate (which is factually true), it was reverted. I propose that it is put back to stop giving this smear of the policy undue validation of this term. Canyoutietheminaknot (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It was frequently described as a "Muslim ban" due to the fact that all countries on the list were Muslim-majority, and in keeping with President Trump's promise during the Presidential Election campaign that he would introduce such a ban. More importantly, the article addresses this nickname further down the lead ("Immediately, there were numerous protests and legal challenges, with some calling it a "Muslim ban" because all of the affected countries had a Muslim majority.") and in the "Reactions" section ("Some critics accused the order of being a "Muslim ban" because the order only targeted Muslim-majority countries, because Trump's advisers called it a "Muslim ban", and Trump himself equated the order to a Muslim ban on at least 12 occasions.") — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 19:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Struck through sock edit.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Froome2017. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Editorialization in the "provisions" section?

This caught my eye:

"The seven countries targeted by the executive order exclude Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Muslim-majority countries where The Trump Organization has conducted business or pursued business opportunities."

This seems to be more editorialization than including relevant information on the provisions and the justification for those provisions in this executive order. The countries included were based on intelligence from the US government, not on any personal motivation on the part of the President. --ClairelyClaire (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source of some kind where it has been publicly acknowledged that the ban was due to intelligence from the US government? I'm inclined to start a RfC on the issue so we can get consensus (per the arbitration enforcement) before removing the sentence altogether. Nanophosis (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nanophosis: The countries were based on existing intel from DHS; it's the same seven countries Obama put restrictions on. See this article.--ClairelyClaire (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@ClairelyClaire: Good catch. I have somehow improved the text[46] by splitting what each source says (one is about Muslim radicals, the other about Trump businesses). — JFG ^talk 20:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I'm not entirely sure how it's even relevant that some excluded countries are ones where Trump has done business, especially given the Administration's original rationale for the countries selected for the restrictions (it's the same countries Obama put travel restrictions on, per this article.)--ClairelyClaire (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's not relevant, but it has been alleged to be relevant by reputable sources, including the cited Washington Post opinion. As the wording is repetitive, I will simplify and just keep the attributed piece. The comparison with Obama-era restrictions is already addressed in the "Restrictions by Obama administration" section. — JFG ^talk 22:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Restrictions by Obama Administration

Allow me to start by saying I am new to Wikipedia editing, and am not entirely sure of the editing process. So if help is possible, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you.

My focus is on the last paragraph of the section I used in the subject box. The section begins "Trump's Press Secretary Shawn Spicer".

When arriving at citation number 13, you read it's cited in order to quote Spicer's claim that the seven countries involved in Trump's EO were actually selected by the Obama Administration and that he "put (...) first and foremost".

It then goes on to state that Spicer is incorrect due to research done through the articles that are cited (15)(17)(18). The reasoning given that Spicer is incorrect is "they were in response to a credible threat and were not a blanket ban on all individuals from those countries".

I believe that declaring Spicer's statements false is misleading and also incorrect. The proof given that "they were in response to a credible threat and were not a blanket ban" isn't relevant to Spicer's claim that the seven countries came from the Obama Administration.

Furthermore, citation 15, is a link to a Politifact article attempting to prove whether Donald Trump's claim of "My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months." Is true or false. Why is citation 15 relevant? The paragraph isn't claiming Donald Trump said anything.

Citation 15 allowed the words "they were in response to a credible threat" to enter the article. This claim is actually proved false by a link in the paragraph where that statement came from. The link lead to another Politifact article stating the credible threat has never been proven.

Overall. Obama selected seven countries in total. They were the exact same seven countries that Trump selected, which is what Spicer claimed. I believe the paragraph should reflect Spicer as Correct. Technically citation 15 states this as well.

Again, I've never edited before I'm unfamiliar with the process. Thank you

WhowinsIwins (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Student arriving to Boston from Iran after travel ban.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement is Run-on

Hello.

Is this statement a bit lengthy? Please see below: The signing of the order provoked widespread condemnation and protests and resulted in legal intervention against the enforcement of the order with some calling it a "Muslim ban" because Trump had previously called for temporarily banning Muslims from America soon after the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack (a call he reiterated after the Orlando nightclub shooting six months later), and because all of the affected countries had a Muslim majority.[1]

I think we should break it up into other statements. It is a lot being said for one sentence. Not easy to digest. Notabot1971 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed and I'm not sure all of it is necessary. For example, the "extra citation" regarding the Orlando shooting in brackets is both redundant (it doesn't add anything further) and statement is not sourced regardless (both in this article, and in the linked article on the shooting). ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"MUSLIM BAN"

It appears highly biased to consistently refer to the Executive orders as Muslim Ban. I have cited five different articles from differing viewpoints, including a Reuters article citing the Foreign Minister of the UAE, which state it is not a Muslim ban.

In light of Wikipedia's neutral policy, I'd like to know what the problem is with including the aforementioned articles along with the statement that some call it a Muslim Ban.

MrX: Can you state your specific objection to my edit?

Perhaps we can find some common ground here.

I believe it is relevant to leave the term "Muslim ban" on the page. I think it's highly prejudicial for this article in to leave "Muslim Ban" in bold, as an AKA, citing a single article that states some have called it that, as it gives weight to a certain claim which has not been verified. I don't expect the average wikipedia reader to look very deep into the sources unfortunately, and therefore I believe it is important not to give undue weight to certain political viewpoints.

As such, I propose that we edit the page as follows:

"whether this executive order constituted a "Muslim ban" has been the subject of debate and controversy, but it did not include all Muslims, nor all Muslim majority countries. (cite articles etc.) "

77.234.44.161 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I like this idea. I would like to hear others thoughts. Notabot1971 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

However you wish to word it you will draw accusations of lacking impartiality. It is just that kind of issue. Your overview seems biased *against* the concept of calling it a Muslim Ban. It is not prejudicial to leave it in bold - it was widely known as the Muslim Ban and that is one of the most popular names for it (perhaps the most popular), regardless of whether it was in practice. The first few sentences to the article make it clear by stating that it was *politically* known as a Muslim Ban. I think further adjustments to this specific part are going to suffer from lack of agreement and potential of bias. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

And why is it "politically" known as such? I mean, the average Base Voter is so Informed and PoliSci/IR-Aware! Sigh. They are not. Neither Party. The term took off as most Campaign Gold and OppoResearch Staging points & Buzzwords/Phrases do! Campaign Pandering as discovered via Focused, Targeted & Sourced Demo Data. One slogan might take weeks and cost a lot of USD. Pandering alone is enough as long as the Campaign has a Dedicated Field Team, but Additional use by media outlets, esp. TV Talk Shows, sometimes in reverse order (Media FAIL) increases the ROI and Parroting Effects. Nothing is Random. Literally. Why not cite the number of Asymmetrical Groups Officially sponsored by some of these States? Their Ranking on the Annual Fragile State Index (better known by the original name, The Annual Failing, Failed and Narco State Index. The CIA World Factbook? The violent crime rates across Schengen Area States and the correlation between perpetrators and nation-of-orgin, unless the European State decided to no longer record said Demos and Info because of fear of "offending people". Historically, numbers of attempted and successful acts of terrorism, worldwide and those nations? Standing as viewed by the International Community, Sanctions and Compliance vs. Violations, False Reports, Ignoring and using secondary associated Gov't helping bypass Supranational Orders and International Law.

These are only a few suggestions. But making it emotionally charged offers an incredible ROI and increases Candidate/Party Recognition whilst demonising the opposition. It's a lot more complex and I'm not explaining the process, but once implemented, it's off like a rocket to NEO and recharges itself without wasting Campaign or Financial Resources. There are several equations and formulae, each with particular advantages and uses depending on the CVAP% Demos, CPVI, Cycle, Media Environment, Economy and many more factors. This is why it's Politically popular... We made it (I mean Buzzwords & Phrases in general. I had no association with this particular example) that way on purpose. PVHenry 05:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry, P. V. (talk • contribs)

I thought I had my Sig. Settings turned on. My apologies. (PVHenry 05:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry, P. V. (talk • contribs)

Muslim Ban

A democrat talking point. The same article even mentions North Korea. Let's be reasonable and assume it was a 'terrorist' ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.132 (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why you apparently seem to think "Muslim" and "terrorist" are interchangeable. They're not, and this was a ban on immigration from Muslim-majority countries, hence the name "Muslim ban". ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

"Muslim Ban" is the name Donald Trump himself, and his campaign, used for this topic (see e.g. Sally Yates with sources). It is the name that was used by the media as well. By now it's abundantly clear that it's the WP:COMMONNAME of this topic, the term this phenomenon is known as to history. The mere idea that Executive Order 13769, a term most people would struggle to even remember, is its COMMONNAME is laughable. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should move this article to its common name, the name used by the president who instituted this muslim ban, his campaign, their critics, the media and the world.

I would also again like to draw attention to the fact that this is an international project. In Europe nobody has even heard the term Executive Order 13769; it was near-universally called the Muslim Ban, after Trump himself said he was instituting a Muslim Ban. Usage in the United States does matter, but so does usage in e.g. European reliable sources. U.S. jargon/legalese is clearly less important than the predominant usage in both U.S. and European media. --Tataral (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Original research

The editor 'LilBillWilliams' is edit-warring text into the lead of the article that removes "Muslim ban" and inserts synthesis that claims that the "Muslim ban" wording is wrong because the ban didn't specifically ban every single Muslim in the world from entering the US (who claimed it did?). These edits should be reverted and the editor should stop edit-warring and start abiding by WP:BRD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"Edit warring" hey dude I kinda wonder how fixing a single exit of mine, making one revert, which is exactly what you did, is edit warring. Care to explain? Bill Williams (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wanna check my edit? Show me one place where I used the word "wrong." I simply added NECESSARY information on how only 12% of Muslims were banned. Your edit is like putting that Muslims face a "meat ban" without context when they are only banned from eating a small percentage of food (e.g. pork). Bill Williams (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)