Talk:Executive Order 13769/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Source executive order number?

Is there any source on the number "13769" in the title? Looks like someone just renamed it, but I don't see any supporting source. HaEr48 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm displeased with someone inventing a number then renaming. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well someone renamed it (from the previous long title) to this number. If we don't have source let's rename it back. HaEr48 (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Whitehouse.gov currently lists a different executive order on ethics as his fifth one. That makes it more likely that this order's number will actually be 13770. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, renamed to the long title, pending a better source. HaEr48 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hasn't shown up here yet either. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree we should wait for the Federal Register to officially assign a number, then rename the article to be Executive Order 12345 (or whatever the proper number is). Neutrality^talk 22:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It now has an assigned EO number, since 11:15am EST. Federal Register published a publication notice, assigning 13769 to the EO in question. Public inspection document released today, with official EO publication scheduled for tomorrow, February 1. To stave off a potential flurry of name changes, I have taken liberty to insert a short summary of same in main article, updated List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above with information available as published on FR website, and to The ed17 (talk), the editor who effectively posted the 'please don't change' notice to make the if/when call to change the title as appropriate. Cariboukid (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Prefer the descriptive title over a number

What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It's way too long to be manageable. If we have an order number supported by RS, I think we should prefer that. HaEr48 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with long. A redirect or shortcut from a short title would be OK, too. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There are many Executive Order pages named after the number. I support using the order number. Knope7 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, original titles are often too verbose and contain "propaganda" about how awesome they are :) HaEr48 (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How about "President Trump's immigration bans"?

I recently created this article, and it should probably be merged into this one. You are welcome to the title if you want. Anyway, since the editors that have been working on this article are the most familiar with it, I request that you (editors) merge that article into this one. I could try but I don't want to interfere with this one. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The same material is covered in both articles - and this one seems to have much better and more extensive coverage, so I changed that article to a redirect. There might be some useful references in that article - I don't know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Typo. Can't correct

"Professor Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina noted that since the September 11 attacks in 2011"

Thanks! Has now been fixed. SausageRoll101 (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

This part in the opening needs to be fixed:

"....as well as entry of people from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen...."

You can change it to ".. people with Iraqi, Iran, Libyan, Somalian, Sudanese and Yemeni citizenships..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.120 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Following naming conventions used by legislation

User:Tataral, User:Seagull123, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Volunteer Marek, and anyone else: Currently per WP:NCGAL, titles for articles on pieces of legislation should reflect what name is commonly used in reliable sources. Even though executive orders aren't legislation, and in this case the order inconveniently has a longer title than most legislation, in my opinion their naming conventions should be similar for the following reasons:

• Naming them by their number makes titles harder to remember when there are 4-5 digits or more
• Though news outlets usually refer to executive orders in ambiguous language (e.g. "Trump signed an executive order that...") as opposed to giving its official title, in all cases I've seen news outlets referring to executive orders by name they refer to text titles, not the number
• Using titles for executive orders giving descriptions of their content (such as "Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" or "Trump's Muslim Ban"), even if backed up by sources, will be subject to conflict and potential bias over the name among Wikipedia editors (for example, if the title "Trump's Muslim Ban" were to be used, even if you agree that the executive order limits Muslim entry into the US, many others at the same time, including Trump, would disagree with that notion, causing conflict)

At the most basic level, legislation and executive orders are the same thing: they're official policies of the government that make some form of change, and both have official titles that can be used for article names. If many disagree with changing back to the original title, I suggest at least changing the name to "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (executive order)" to make it more search-friendly. I also suggest at the conclusion of this discussion we add a piece of text to WP:NCGAL on executive orders for future reference. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that parentheticals in Wikipedia article titles are usually (if not always) for purposes of disambiguation, so probably not appropriate here. If you look at the actual document, "executive order" is part of the title, so that's the way we ought to present it now (and imho even after we confirm the EO number).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant: I think we should go back to the full title without parentheticals at all, though if others still want "executive order" in the title, it looks better at the end in parentheticals. At this link from the LA Times there is the original document released by the White House, where the full title is on a separate line, with "executive order" above in the header solely to declare the type of the document. On whitehouse.gov where executive orders are listed, in the headings in the list it has the format of "Executive Order: full title" because executive orders are listed on the page in addition to Presidential Memorandums, and the prefix is there solely to state the type of declaration it is, though on the official documents the term "executive order" and the full title are separate. Because there are many other pages that use number notion for executive orders, when the number comes out I'll support the change to that, though until then the title currently looks strange and not uniform, and I think just listing the full title by itself is sufficient. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Your link from the LA times shows that "executive order" is far below the header. It's part of the title.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This title is too long (13 words!), and it's wrong. It is either Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States or Executive Order 13769, not... whatever this is. I think someone should start a RFC to see what the title should be, since this is just too much of a mouthful to digest. epicgenius (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Dual citizenship

What about those men and women who are American citizens as well as citizens or residents of Iran, Iraq and the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Apparently there is still confusion. I started a subsection on dual nationals based on what RS'es report so far. If anyone found better info, feel free to add. HaEr48 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks. I did not see this earlier. So some sources say that the order will affect Canadian-Iranian nationals, even though Canadians don't need a visit to enter the US. Can the Canadian-Iranian national leave his Iranian passport at home and lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.120 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If this question is for personal purpose, please consult the professionals (e.g. lawyers), and don't rely on Wikipedia editors who are usually not trained on the law. HaEr48 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

University of California

Should there be something about the recent statement by the University of California chancellors condemning the order? Benjamin (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Mo Farah citizenship

Mo Farah does not hold Somali citizenship, as currently stated in the article. The only citizenship he holds is British. HampsteadLord (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he is not a dual national - British. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/fears-sir-mo-farah-will-separated-family-donald-trump-travel/ - I have updated and corrected the page, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Executive_Order_%22Protecting_the_Nation_from_Foreign_Terrorist_Entry_into_the_United_States%22&diff=762642441&oldid=762642120 Govindaharihari (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And does this matter? Britain is not one of the countries on the list.

totally agree, I would remove his content completely. The fact that he was worried but not actually affected at all is nothing more than worthless bloat in the article. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Listing under Category:Donald Trump controversies

I feel that this would be appropriately listed under Category:Donald Trump controversies, but I want to take extra care before listing it. Is there any sort of consensus around this proposal? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems logical. Neutron (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracy as to scope of Sec 3

Section 3 is incorrectly described as being a blanket ban. It isn't. Section 3 more accurately is a blanket ban SAVE for G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4 visas (which are effectively diplomatic staff and those working for for international organisations). See https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states Sec 3.1 which states

I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

Arguably, those with existing permanent residence in the US are neither Immigrants (holders of H1B and other similar cards) or nonimmigrants (holders of tourist class visas) as they are "lawful permanent resident" under the act, rather than immigrants or nonimmigrants.

Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC) I am a lawyer.

Title is too wordy

I've never seen such a long title before. Change it. Lakeshake (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

See, for example, Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Many of the articles about this are referring to it simply as the "Executive order on immigration" or some minor variations on that theme. Since there have been other executive orders in history that meet the same description, how about Executive Order on immigration, January 2017? It is much less wordy, much more neutral, and more of a "common name" than the official title of the Executive Order. Neutron (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It's fine with me, but there's a survey above that's leaning toward just using a number, so that the title will not give a clue as to what kind of executive order this Wikipedia article is about. Go figure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible Pov and WP:Synth

I removed a block of text that was recently added [1]. It appears to be possible POV and WP:SYNTH and appears to be interpretations derived from primary sources. These are the sources that referenced the text: [2], [3], [4]. The first part seems to be a COATRACK for pointing fingers at the previous administration. However, this may need closer reading. Also, this text seemed to have implied or say something like 380 terrorists attacks have taken place on US soil (need verification) by foreign born nationals (need verification). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2017‎

In addition to removing information recently added you also removed information that had been in place for (I think?) more than 12 hours (Sessions' confirmation hearing testimony). Citations were provided to the 380 terrorist attacks which were attributed in the text to each Trump's and Sessions' statements, which you have deleted with citations. The primary sources were supporting direct quotations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources....An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements."G1729 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you because my assessment turns out be accurate. I am fully aware of when and how to use primary sources. In this case, primary sources are not being used correctly. Primary sources should be backed up secondary sources that back up the Wikipedia editor's interpretation. If you want to split hairs about using primary sources for quotations that is fine with me. But that is not how they were used in this case. Also, just because someone says it in a speech doesn't mean it is true or accurate. With primary sources, one has to be very careful and precise - which, it seems, did not happen here. Anyway, you will need secondary sources to back up all of your assertions in this paragraph. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

I find the Sessions quote troubling as well. It confuses more than it illuminates and I think the facts Sessions uses are dubious. Moreover, Sessions has not yet been sworn in and I have not seen reliable sources indicate he was involved in the drafting of the EO. His statements in a speech are, IMO, not particularly relevant to this article. I also find the argument that the quote was undisturbed for 12 hours persuasive as to whether it should be included moving forward. Knope7 (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I did remove that little section by mistake due to the wall of text that was added, and it was difficult to ferret out. I added it back in before I read the above by Knope 7. This sentence seems consistent with the section it was placed in. And because it wasn't removed for twelve hours, I am not going to be the one to keep it out. If someone feels strongly it should be removed, then I recommend discussing it first, but I am not going to get involved if it is removed. But, personally, I think it should stay in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm unclear as to what content is in dispute here. Knope7 (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is what I restored [5], and here is what I originally removed [6]. If you look at the bottom of the section I removed, you will see the sentence I later restored. According to User:G1729, this was in the article for 12 hours before I removed it, along with the large block of text. Let me know if you still find this confusing. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

What is in dispute is the large block of text minus the sentence that I restored. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This is what I mean by being accurate and precise when using primary sources. The title of this source [7] says "At Least 580 Individuals Convicted in Terror Cases Since 9/11, At Least 380 Are Foreign-Born." This is at variance with the text that was removed - that erroneously said "the Senate Subcommittee...identified 380 foreign-born individuals as having committed terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I read through the article, it does not say what was claimed in the removed text, and actually seems to be focused on a different issue than that particular claim. --Steve Quinn (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Countries selected

Has there been an explanation regarding why the citizens of some countries with major terror problems - such as Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan - aren't included in this order? Jim Michael (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to comment on this. So I apologize if I'm breaking rules. But check this source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kypwri (talk • contribs) 16:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

So Priebus is suggesting that those countries are all of the ones that had previously had measures put down under the Obama Administration? I think it needs cross-referencing to verify that this is definitely the case - I can see this potentially becoming an important point.

Also, further to the sources that suggest that list is only countries in which Trump has no business interests: President Trump's foreign business interests not hit by new travel restrictions (Tampa Bay Times, seems to be syndicated from Washington Post); President Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries linked to his sprawling business empire (New York Daily News).

I think we need to try and identify the lists that Priebus is referencing, firstly to verify whether they are the only countries mentioned (i.e. that none have been added or removed from the list without explanation), and also to understand the rationale for those countries having been chosen under the previous administration in the first place. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

People claim countries that Trump has business interests are not named but this is just being anti-Trump. More likely is that some big countries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have mutual political interests with the USA. The 7 countries named are just some weak countries (except Iran). Lakeshake (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Several reliable sources have pointed out Trump's business interests with countries not involved with the ban, so it belongs into the article. If multiple reliable sources state other possible reasons for those countries not being included in the ban, than they should be included in the article too. JDDJS (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Some mainstream media sources have stated that Trump hasn't included Saudi Arabia or Egypt because he has business interests there. Do they say why he might have excluded Pakistan and Afghanistan, both of which have frequent terror attacks? Does he have business interests there? Jim Michael (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There are no countries specified in the executive order. That Trump doesn't have business dealings in Yemen or Sudan is not shocking. And Iran is under sanctions so of course he doesn't have business dealings there. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Add photo to "business community" section?

Would it be appropriate to add one of these photos to the Reaction from business community section?

• 
• 

These are the pictures from the protest at Google headquarters on Jan 30., which drew about 2,000 people. The section talks about the tech companies a lot, so I thought it would be appropriate. The caption could read something like: "Protesters in Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California". I don't have permission to edit. User170130Anon (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

References

 Done I added one of the images, and added the commons category at the bottom of the article, since there are more than a hundred images of this type on the category already, and in only about 48 hours. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

Under "Background" it is referenced that Trump suggests Obama did not treat Syrian Christians fairly. This statement is rebutted with an article from the economist which lists the number of TOTAL refugees taken under his tenure. This does not seem to be a direct rebuttal to how Obama treated Syrian Christians and is therefore misleading. According to Quartz Media, the US has only taken ~14,000 Syrian refugees to date. The numbers on their religious affiliation suggests they are overwhelmingly Muslim. I hate to defend Trump, but this economist article is clearly irrelevant and misleading. I contend that the entire last sentence be removed as irrelevant to how Syrian Christians were treated under Obama and misleading readers to believe we have accepted some 30,000 Christian refugees from Syria.

Some additional sources: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/1037-syrian-refugees-admitted-may-two-christians-1035-muslims https://qz.com/894439/how-many-refugees-has-the-us-taken-in-from-syria/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/ http://www.newsweek.com/us-bars-christian-not-muslim-refugees-syria-497494 Kypwri (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done: used last two sources. --Robertiki (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

In the first paragraph under the heading “Development of the order,” following the sentence

On January 30, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates indicated the executive order had been reviewed by the DOJ's OLC, which found the order lawful on its face.[40]"

add the following:

Yates’ successor, Acting Attorney General Dana J. Boente, issued “guidance” to Justice Department employees on the evening of January 30 stating that the Office of Legal Counsel “found the Executive Order both lawful on its face and properly drafted.”

The source is here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/acting-attorney-general-boente-issues-guidance-department-executive-order. 209.203.97.50 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I made the requested edit. Thanks for the suggestion. G1729 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Preibus

please change ((Reince Preibus)) to ((Reince Priebus)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:78de:a5c5:cb8b:d516 (talk) 14:23, February 1, 2017‎ (UTC)

 Done. Bradv 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Muslim Ban

1. That this EO was referred to as 'Muslim Ban' has been verified. But bolding it and not Trump's response would be undue weightage to one PoV.
2. Also please provide sources to support that the description by the media as 'Muslim Ban' is based on Trump's earlier statement. It can't be your PoV.
3. Retaining the 'confusion and outrage' sources from Yahoo source
4. Adding full sentence of clarification from Trump

CatapultTalks (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Just putting this out there, whether we include others describing it as a Muslim ban and to what extent is a matter of debate. But it is, in-fact, not a Muslim ban. It is literally a ban on certain countries, which is not unprecedented at all, for example, the US banned immigration from China for 60 years. TimothyJosephWood 19:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Another notable example is that immigration from Japan to the US was suspended during World War II during the internment of Japanese Americans, though adding these to the article would likely require sources that compare the situations. ^Falling_Gravity 22:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Neither should probably be added to the article at all as they would likely be WP:UNDUE, and the Japanese issue is probably a bit different, since I expect most counties suspended immigration from those they were at war with, in the age where great power still went to war. But at least the Chinese Exclusion Act demonstrates that, while it was definitely a racism motivated ban on Chinese people, it was, in fact, and objectively, a ban on immigration from the country of China. TimothyJosephWood 22:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not undue, because the Muslim Ban is the WP:COMMONNAME, used by WP:RS, to the extent that Trump complains heavily about it, which merely confirms that this is its common name[8]. There is now an enormous amount of sources which call it the Muslim Ban, which discuss the fact that it is known as the Muslim Ban, and quite a few sources covering Trump raging about the fact that what we call WP:RS overwhelmingly call it the Muslim Ban. Therefore it needs at the very least to be bolded and included in the opening sentence. Ideally, it should be the title of the article. --Tataral (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Also note that a claim that it is "not a Muslim ban" is not something we base this decision on. Firstly because editors' own views (WP:OR) on whether this "really" is a muslim ban are not relevant; usage in reliable sources is. And secondly because a lot of sources say that it is "in fact" a Muslim ban. For example Rudy W. Giuliani has said Trump specifically asked for a "Muslim ban" and ordered a commission to do it "legally"[9] And lots of experts agree that it is "in fact" a Muslim ban; for example Prof. Gerges at the LSE; who says that "Trump’s ban is a Muslim ban, based on religious discrimination and racial discrimination."[10] --Tataral (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've seen some other sources that argue it's a de facto "Muslim ban,"[11][12] though those are mostly opinion pieces. That's not to say those articles can't be included, but their opinions should be attributed. ^Falling_Gravity 05:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The usage of 'Muslim ban' word seems to be an immediate reaction and the verbiage has since changed, especially after the President's clarification. Trump raging about it doesn't lend any legitimacy to it. Similarly Trump calling it false reporting by media doesn't make it so either. Bolding one side of the argument while not bolding the other side's clarification DOES provide undue weightage. You are also right about editor's own views not being relevant.CatapultTalks (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "side of the argument," but its WP:COMMONNAME used in WP:RS, which is what we base decisions on here. Its usage has not declined, rather the opposite, it has become firmly established as the common name used in reliable sources. Here in the UK it's called the muslim ban by everyone, in parliamentary debates and in the newspapers. The fact that Trump uses much energy to rage about the name does indeed confirm that it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Also, while we bold names based on whether they are commonly used in reliable sources and not to represent "the other side," it is patently false that "the other side" is not bolded; the racist and Islamophobic title "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" used by Trump himself (which calls all citizens of several muslim countries "terrorists") is not only bolded, it is mentioned before anything else. Having the more common and less extremist name, the muslim ban, mentioned after that is certainly a very modest proposal (I would prefer moving the article to the Muslim ban based on Wikipedia:Article titles, but that's another debate). --Tataral (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is subject to WP:NPOVNAME, which this fails in spades. And editors' "opinions" do matter in as much as it concerns whether this is an accurate description of the subject, or mostly an inaccurate POV phrasing used by political opponents to attack their rivals. It is, in fact, not a Muslim ban, and the term does not appear to have yet taken on the type of traction that Obamacare (capital O) did, where even coverage from sources ostensibly supporting the subject widely use it to the extent that it becomes a proper noun, and not simply a description. TimothyJosephWood 15:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No, editors' personal views (OR, SYNTH) on a subject are not relevant; Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. The Muslim ban is this subject's COMMONNAME and NPOVNAME, based on how this is covered in reliable sources. A statement like "It is, in fact, not a Muslim ban" is just your personal opinion on/interpretation of the matter, not any sort of widely accepted fact, and as we know, numerous reliable sources state that it is, in fact, a muslim ban, and furthermore, it is overwhelmingly called the muslim ban in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Judging whether something is NPOV is not synth, and if you think it is you probably need to reread WP:SYNTH as well as WP:NPOV: neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly.

The three sources above that you cite meaning basically nothing. Two are using the term in scare quotes ([13], [14]), with Yahoo saying specifically that it arose as a result of a desire for a Muslim ban., not saying it actually was a Muslim ban. The third is quoting the opinion of a professor ([15]). None of them actually refer to it as a Muslim ban per se, as if that were the proper noun that fits it. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME again

In the opening sentence we now have

"Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States", called Trump's executive order on immigration by the New York Times[1][undue weight? – discuss] or Trump's Muslim ban by Reuters,[undue weight? – discuss][2]

It seems somewhat unnecessary and clumsy to mention Reuters specifically in the opening sentence. The WP:COMMONNAME of this is the Muslim Ban. Its usage is not restricted to Reuters, but it is used overwhelmingly by reliable sources across the planet. --Tataral (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Trump's executive order on immigration" is a very common term too. We are not limited in the lead sentence to only one synonym.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not about that, but about the above wording being extraordinarily clumsy with names of various sources squeezed in and all those tags. It would be better to omit names of specific sources from the opening sentence, as in

"Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States", commonly known as the muslim ban or the immigration ban, is an executive order ...

or something like that. --Tataral (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with:

"Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States", commonly known as the President's order on immigration or his Muslim ban, is an executive order ...

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• The title of the article should be the executive order number, as soon as it's established, exactly the same way we do with other executive orders, (Executive Order 13493, Executive Order 13567, Executive Order 13492). Other descriptive names should redirect to the article, and not be the actual name of it. TimothyJosephWood 13:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fait accompli. The common name is the term/phrase our reliable sources call this topic. There are several imperfect options but I have yet to see a single major source call it "Executive Order 13769". czar 19:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the title be renamed to "Executive Order 13769" or not

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.

---

Should the title be renamed to "Executive Order 13769" or not? –Buffaboy ^talk 02:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as there are examples of this being done for similar executive as Executive Order 9066, which may not be commonly referred to by this number (however WP:COMMONNAME is determined in these cases), but it is not a word salad of a title. I will admit I am not privy to the WP:PG, but I think that this is an acceptable and appropriate title for this action. –Buffaboy ^talk 02:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose until number is confirmed by the Federal Register. There is another order that could get this number. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that I also support moving the article to "Executive Order #####" once it's confirmed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for time being per Ed17. Support change to "Executive Order 137xx" once number is official, on the grounds that the text title is unwieldy, deliberately tendentious, and (probably as a result) has no reasonable claim to WP:COMMONNAME. I doubt that any options along the lines of "Donald Trump Refugees Ban" will gain COMMONNAME-level consensus in RS in the near future. FourViolas (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose until number is confirmed by the Federal Register per Ed17 and FourViolas. Support change to "Executive Order 137xx" once number is official; when the Federal Register publishes it (probably tomorrow), we should of course move it to the assigned number in accordance with the longstanding naming convention. Neutrality^talk 02:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with renaming to number, but Oppose for now because it's not supported by official/reliable sources. HaEr48 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional support on it being backed by reliable sources. We'll probably know tomorrow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Can I get a list of sources that refer to it as such? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, titles should be descriptive, per wp:mos. That doesn't mean we can't add the number in addition. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support once the number is confirmed. This "descriptive title" is really a proper name that is currently the subject of controversy, and since this isn't an Act of Congress (which are far more likely to use full titles), there is no need to use such a title rather than simply "Executive Order 177xx" in order to maintain consistency with most other article titles. Dustin (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you think renaming those other titles to be consistent with wp:mos?

• Oppose. There's no sensible reason why statutes should be treated differently from executive orders with regard to the titles of Wikipedia articles. The name of a statute or order is more informative than the number. Alternatively, I support a descriptive title in our own words. Using a number is just silly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional support once the number is official. History and politics texts in the US consistently refer to executive orders by number and legislation by short title; a civil rights text would cite "Executive Order 9066" and "the Civil Rights Act of 1964", not "Executive Order Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas" or "Public Law 88–352". The rest of Wikipedia also uses this convention in US English. I see no reason to deviate from it. —Brent Dax 09:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There has been a lot of talk about Obama's executive orders in the news and none of them have been referred to by a number. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: it should be noted that "Executive Order 13769" is not the common result (13K Google hits). "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" is (1.9M Google hits). But "Trump 7-nation ban" has 3.74M Google hits and is brief. [16] is 15.4M results. ((edit conflict) I meant to post this 12 hours ago, but oh well...) epicgenius (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As for the RFC itself, I will support once it's official. Otherwise, I think renaming to Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States is sufficient. epicgenius (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support when number official: Ultimately, I believe it is best to use the official title if sufficiently short, so I would go with the Federal Register's numbering once official in order to be consistent with titles of other notable Executive Orders. Other consensus names, such as the descriptive name currently used, can be mentioned in the article lead, and redirects can likewise be set up, but I feel that for the sake of accuracy and inambiguity, the official numbering should be used if of reasonable length. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• How about Donald Trump Travel Ban? Lakeshake (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That is a misleading title because Trump isn't banning travel. He's banning non-US citizens with citizenship from these seven countries from entering the US. epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Use short descriptive name, such as 2017 United States immigration freeze. Neither the formal name nor the number (when it becomes known) are the most recognizable names for this topic. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support when number official. "Trump 7-nation ban" is also an option and has been used on occasion by sources as noted by epicgenius, but I find the number less ambigous Vandergay (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Slightly Oppose - "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" is better known than "Executive Order 13769." But we could add the Executive Order Number right next to "Executive Order," so that it looks more like this: "Executive Order 13769 "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"" M.W.B.A.B. (Making Wikipedia Better And Better) 01:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The purpose of this RfC is to avoid long titles like that. epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support when number official for consistency with other executive order articles BlueSalix (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support when number official - Just saw this, but I commented to the same effect somewhere below. TimothyJosephWood 16:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support when number official we should follow the same guidelines all across Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support when number official - This is official enough for me, fwiw: [17].--Carwil (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - The scope of the EO seems to be temporary and after the said period might just become another EO with a number. May not deserve a specific title CatapultTalks (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey index

Since the same position is described as "support", "oppose", and "conditional support" above, here's an index of positions through the final comment by CatapultTalks:

• Support immediately: None
• Support when number official: Buffaboy, The ed17, FourViolas, Neutrality, HaEr48, King of Hearts, Dustin V. S., Brentdax, Epicgenius, Sasuke Sarutobi, Vandergay, BlueSalix, TimothyJosephWood, Sir Joseph, Carwil, CatapultTalks
• Slightly oppose, use number and official title: M.W.B.A.B.
• Oppose, use official title: Anythingyouwant
• Oppose, use neutral descriptive title: Daniel.Cardenas, Anythingyouwant
• Oppose, use 2017 United States immigration freeze or similar: Antony-22
• Oppose, use Donald Trump Travel Ban: Lakeshake

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.

Please note that an impartial "survey index" would have included Antony-22 and Lakeshake under "Oppose, use neutral descriptive title". But regardless, the majority view was apparently to use the number as title (based on what other similar Wikipedia articles have done) even though it's not the common name in this case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Really bad call here. "Executive Order 13769" is absolutely not its common name—no sources call it that. They do call it some amalgamation of "Trump", "immigration", and possibly "executive order", but we follow what the sources call it, not necessarily its official name. Also we don't do things by survey—we only judge policy-backed rationale in consensus, not warm bodies. czar 19:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Naming articles based on executive order number is the standard that is applied, as far as I can tell, to literally every article on executive orders, as well as their corresponding entries on Wikisource. Meeting the COMMONNAME criteria while failing criteria three, four and five of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is a much worse call. TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I guess Wikipedia really screwed up then by making United States Executive Order 1 a redirect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• That seems to be because the vast majority of articles on EOs are stubs that don't have sufficient sources to be able to assess a common name. Consistency between those cases and this isn't very useful, and I don't think it should be valued over the EO number's clear failure on the first two points. 'Trump travel ban' or 'Trump Muslim ban' are also both concise and precise (at least for now). My view is that it seems more recent reliable sources have shifted away from using the term 'Muslim ban' (or do so in scare-quotes), but still appear to use the term 'travel ban' or 'Trump travel ban' authoritatively: ABC (Australia), Guardian, RT, Al Jazeera, NYT, CNN, WSJ, TIME, Reuters, WaPo, LA Times, The Times (UK), Irish Times. That list includes recent articles from every major paper of record in the US and several others, both local and international. This has got to be preferable to an obscure official title/number, surely. Seggens (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A layman's question that this article title

Is there any other country's administrative order naming "Executive Order No. x"? If any, or "United States Executive Order No. 13769" better.——星耀晨曦 (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of other Executive Orders all following the same naming convention (see Category:United States executive orders), and the Executive Order page doesn't currently mention any other countries' administrative orders for clarity. If there are any instruments in other countries that are typically described in English-language, then please feel free to raise it, but it doesn't appear to be a common term. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

CAIR v. Trump

For the leaked source google "CAIR-Suit-EDVA-20170130", it's a PDF with 35 pages. KABC-TV covered it:

Eileen Frere (2017-01-30). "Council on American-Islamic Relations files lawsuit challenging Trump Executive Order". Politics. KABC-TV. Retrieved 2017-02-01.

–2A03:2267:0:0:A186:E76:F33A:ED11 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

JFTR, primary source. –2A03:2267:0:0:B159:B3CD:8864:D064 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – OP (=me) wasn't aware of Sarsour v. Trump.

–193.96.224.2 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Add changes to Exec. Order 13769

We could add things like "Green pass (Permanent Residents) are able to enter from said countries" etc. (I can't because I'm "New") Cocohead781 (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That's apparently covered by exempted U.S. lawful permanent residents (green card holders) in the lead section citing Noah Bierman writing for the Los Angeles Times. There are 11 occurences of "green card" on the page outside of references. If that doesn't work for you and you have a reliable 3rd party source—funny "rule" WP:42 might help, it's short—and you can explain exactly what an admin or other logged-in user could do, if they are willing to spend at most one minute to grok + execute your suggestion: Please holler if you need help with {{edit semi-protected}}. –2A03:2267:0:0:6110:A93C:F901:AD93 (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

DHS inspector general investigation

According to [18] (I haven't read it yet) the DHS IG has opened an investigation of the ban, and ordered document preservation. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, but is the preservation of documents an unusual state of affairs in the DHS, or is the IG just venting? –193.96.224.2 (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

POV inline: Reliable sources call the EO a Muslim ban

Reliable sources call the order a Muslim ban. Take this one, for example, from The Atlantic. So if the order is verifiably a Muslim ban, then why do we have a little debate in the lead section with unspecified "critics" on one side and Trump and Giuliani on the other side? That paragraph needs to be re-written to make it clear that the order is a Muslim ban and that Trump (an unreliable source) is wrong. The Giuliani quote should be removed. He's just another talking head, not unlike the ones described collectively as "critics" and tucked into a footnote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This comment is taking wiki policy to a whole new laughable level. I have a link, a reliable source calling it this.. hello - are Muslims banned from the US, no of course they are not, so it's not a Muslim ban is it - that is true whatever press outlets headline to excite readers and/or whatever WP:verifiability says, at least to any neutral observer. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Some reliable sources (not merely critics) do call it a Muslim ban, though other reliable sources call it by other terminology, e.g. Trump's immigration order, or the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever any outlets or people call it - it is not a Muslim ban is it? - see - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?_r=0 - Experienced wikipedia editors supporting Muslim ban is embarrassing. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"Muslim ban" would be lousy in the article title because the ban applies to only a very small percentage of Muslims. But we're not talking about the article title here. Fleischman added the tag to this paragraph:

“ The order was described by critics as a "Muslim ban" due to the people it affected most.[10] President Trump, however, stated that, "this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting," while Rudy Giuliani, who said he was involved in developing the text of the order, described the order as a legal alternative to a religious ban targeting Muslims.[11][12][neutrality is disputed] ”

Apparently, Fleischman wants this tag to apply not to the last sentence alone, but rather the whole paragraph. I think we need to modify the paragraph to say "various sources" instead of "critics" and that should take care of the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

described by some sources as a 'Muslim ban' and remove the opinionated, 'due to the people it affected most' - those two statements do not intelligently connect together and as such are clearly opinionated and would need attribution. What about - 'Although it wasn't a Muslim ban some sources reported it as if it was a Muslim ban' - Govindaharihari (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please not propose edits that are clearly not backed by reliable sources? It's not helpful. Seggens (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue may also be that Giuliani gets undue weight here. Could possibly avoid this by also describing the criticism of Giuliani's interview, e.g. by Keith Ellison here. Seggens (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

These proposals do not solve the problem. If it's verifiably a Muslim ban, then we should say it's a Muslim ban without the "Various sources describe..." The Giuliani quote violates WP:WEIGHT; there is nothing more special about Giuliani's viewpoint than all of the other unreliable critical viewpoints, and we can't possibly given them all a quote in the lead section. The only unreliable viewpoint that merits inclusion is Trump's. So, putting this together, I'm proposing something like this:

The order effectively acts as a Muslim ban by targeting Muslim-majority countries and prioritizing Christian and other minority-religion refugees over Muslim ones.[8] President Trump has nevertheless disputed the "Muslim ban" label.

Thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not a muslim ban, it is known as muslim ban. Cf. dewiki Executive Order 13769#CAIR_v._Trump for a similar German discussion, where I so far failed to add this nit to the article. –193.96.224.2 (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• The Atlantic source above is, as far as I can tell, just like the rest of the sources provided in this recurring stick that apparently cannot be dropped: it refers to it as a "Muslim ban" or a 'Muslim ban', but not a Muslim ban or a Muslim Ban. It is mostly concerned with the question of whether it is, whether it isn't, whether it was intended to be, inspired by, or an attempt at achieving in part, whole or in principle.

In the real world, this doesn't even apply to any of the top five most Muslim nations by population, doesn't apply to most of the world's Muslims period, and applies to many^many people who are not Muslim.

This entire line of argument is a transparent attempt to push a political POV by playing fast and loose with the sources as well as policy. Go find something productive to do. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately, I believe Wikipedia should be looking at the consensus of the sources, and I read the consensus of the sources as follows: It is known as the "Muslim Ban" (partly because of Trump's claims that he would enact such a ban as soon as he could), but does not ban all Muslims, but rather bans all people from some Muslim-majority countries for a period of time, following which it gives the ability in immigration decisions to prioritise religious minorities from Muslim-majority countries. Whether it is precedent for something more significant down the line, or something that will be rolled back as unconstitutional remains to be seen, but I don't feel will be settled here.

If A or B are saying that it effectively acts as something because of x or y, then we can report on that, but we can't get sucked into justifying what something is or isn't based on our interpretations of the primary source (in this case, the EO itself), only who described it as what in the secondary literature; we have to be E-Prime about it. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A consensus of the sources might not exist, not as a Wikipedia guideline or policy I've heard of, but I'm always interested to learn new tricks, e.g., measuring the height of ponies in hands, informed WP:IAR applications beat ignorance. But seven muslim countries, excluding, among others, the biggest muslim countries or even countries with hotels managed by Trump's sons… Wikipedia is not supposed to follow some consensus of mainstream media while knowing that the US elected a president less than two months ago, who claims to be in a bing bing bing war with the mainstream media. Check out Gateway Pundit and its talk page, it's hard (for me) to find reliable conservative facts, not counting "alternative". –2A03:2267:0:0:1948:988E:E252:BF74 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

What I mean by "look at the consensus of the sources" is about finding common ground between the sources to make it easier to describe what is agreed-upon by the sources; this helps then elaborate what is still disputed after that. A precursor to that, I suppose, is judging the quality of the sources one is using to report — given the glut of sources that we have, then we can certainly afford to avoid bundling of sources that provide nothing new or insightful — but Wikipedia's status as a tertiary reference means that we at least need to take heed of what many places are saying, even if only to report on what they are saying. But beyond that, it also means that as we sift through to using only the best sources available, we begin to be able to illustrate the nuances of the subject at hand. I'm certainly not advocating that we are either a linkfarm for pro- and/or anti-Trump statements, but when it comes down to it, I think some of the most important things you can have in an article like this is what the enactors said they wanted it to do and what experts say it actually does.

Putting abstraction aside, I think the articles linked above by Neutrality are a good starting point for this, especially Politifact's discussion of the differences between Obama's and Trump's immigration restrictions (such as the difference between the people from the countries [per Trump] and the people who had recently visited the countries [per Obama]). I think expositions such as this make for more insightful inclusion than a yard of "me too" citations. And I think insightfulness is the meter stick of a good article. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Good luck, but don't shoot for GA before 2021 (bing bing bing, eight years), it could hurt you. –193.96.224.2 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Comparison: countries of concern

I've removed a sentence in the article that notes, citing to DHS's official website, that the 7 affected countries were previously designated "countries of concern" under a list "last reviewed in February 2016, under Obama's administration." This is true (if synthy), but presented without context is misleading. See the following:

• Jack Goodman, US travel ban: Why these seven countries?, BBC News (January 30, 2017) (noting that the previous Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, "unlike Trump's much more broad order, only affected people eligible for the visa waiver programme, rather than suspend all citizens' travel from one of those seven countries").
• Linda Qiu, Why comparing Trump's and Obama's immigration restrictions is flawed, PolitiFact (January 30, 2017) (rating Trump's claims of similarity "mostly false" and explaining in detail)
• Eugene Kiely, Trump's Faulty Refugee Policy Comparison, FactCheck.org (January 30, 2017) (writing that Trump's claims of similarity are "faulty" and "distorts the facts," explaining in detail)

If someone wants to take a deeper dive into the sources and write up text accordingly, I have no objection. But we can't have an out-of-context snippet. Neutrality^talk 22:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Following your removal, the sentence was revised to address your concerns. The revised sentence stated:

“ The initial seven countries are Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, which were previously singled out by the Obama administration for travel restrictions that are milder than the executive order's.

References

”

I don't see any problem with this revised sentence, nor have you described any problem with it. The Obama administration did single out those countries, and that is why the Trump administration singled them out. However, the restrictions under the previous administration were milder. It seems very straightforward in the lead, and further details can be presented later in this Wikipedia article. Why did you remove the revised sentence? Your edit summary says "this is extremely misleading when presented in this way, as many high-quality sources show". How is it misleading, User:Neutrality?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources that I linked above carefully explain that the restrictions under the E.O. are much broader (not just "tougher/milder," which is a different axis from "broader/narrower"). A restriction on visa waivers is very different from barring visas altogether, as these sources reflect. This kind of comparison is nuanced and to say that "these same countries were already singled out" tends to paper over the very substantial differences in both intent/purpose and effect/impact. Neutrality^talk 22:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Reactions

So long, it should be a separate article. Lakeshake (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the length is pretty decent for the time being. I'm reluctant to atomize content unless absolutely necessary. And we have 2 spinoffs already. Neutrality^talk 01:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Former PM of Norway was detained w/ diplomatic passport in Dulles over visit to Iran

http://wjla.com/news/local/former-norwegian-prime-minister-held-for-questioning-at-dulles-airport
-Mardus /talk 04:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

President Barack Obama Not Tagged

For a policy inspired and in part copied by the previous administration ran by Barack Obama, I love how no one has actually tagged him to any of his articles (despite one mention in anti-Trump statement regarding repatruation of Christians) despite being listed over 10 times in the article. In my opinion to make him appear he isn't tied with Trump's policy.

Classic liberalism affecting Wikipedia and the information they want to portray. This page is even protected from non users to edit to simply add such an article tag. Thank God the talk page isn't. Four edits in the past months have all been removed if it's due to Trump on Wikipedia despite over 10 years of Wikipedia edits that went unaffected. 47.199.33.69 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The article on Obama was previously wikilinked. I have also added a wikilink for Presidency of Barack Obama. TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

200 million

The 200 million impacted number was cited by sources as a total of the 7 countries affected by the ban. However editor Monopoly31121993 reverted this to come up with a 3% of world population. It may be accurate calculation but isn't justified in this context. Unless there is a better explanation, I'm going to revert this. CatapultTalks (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is this "not justified in this context?" Like you say, it's a fact and it very clearly describes the affected group.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it is WP:SYNTH. Other Synth examples: 14.1 % of World Muslim population. Added source to support earlier statement CatapultTalks (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization. Eperoton (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

3% of 7400{{who}} gives 222, and that's about 200{{why}}, {{as of|2016|august}} in world population. 222 is 11% more than 200, and the seven countries might grow slower or faster than the world. Was there a community consensus (closed RfC) to supplement policy WP:SYNTH with the WP:NOTSYNTH essay intended to be an explanatory supplement to the policy, or was it added as some alternative fact? The wall just got 11% higher. –193.96.224.20 (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:Routine Calculations states that "division" (eg. 220 million/7.5bilion= apx. 3%) is a routine calculation and is "valid as [a] "routine calculation (WP:CALC)" when there is (implicit or discussed) consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." Can we therefore agree/come to consensus that 220,000,000/7,500,000,000=.029333 or apx. 3% of the world's population? Thanks to everyone for adding to this discussion.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, 200/7400 yields approximately 2.7. Where did you find 7500 and 220? It's the same issue: Another reliable source and an as-of timestamp are required to get a plausible SYNTH/CALC approximation. –2A03:2267:0:0:1CF0:B1F7:EECD:3A10 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Background leans too heavily on Trump statements

The Background section, as written, leans far too heavily on the Trump and Trump administration statements. His proposals were debated and scrutinized during the campaign. That is also part of the "background" which preceded the Order. Moreover, Trump has a history of stating things as fact which independent sources cannot verify at best and frequently can disprove. To quote a paragraph of a campaign speech without any context as to the veracity of those statements is not helpful towards providing an understanding of the existing policy towards immigration and refugee resettlement prior to the implementation of this new policy. Knope7 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph I believe you reference is from a CSPAN video and was deleted. I am adding substantially the same paragraph back to the article because the background section would be incomplete without that part of the speech). Although it is primary source material (a Trump speech excerpt), it meets all criteria for inclusion. I kindly request that no one delete it unless all of its substantive claims pertaining to the policy that became the executive order (e.g., the agencies/parts of government that the Trump said his administration would involve when forming a list of areas from which vetting could not occur, the stated information and sources of such information used to justify such a suspension of immigration, the statement that it was going to be called "extreme vetting", etc.). I have seen claims (e.g., by the person who most recently deleted the paragraph) that some issues are covered in other parts of the wikipedia article. Such claims are inaccurate because in this particular speech excerpt, Trump is stating a *plan* for *his administration*'s policy. This is important run-up to the event that belongs imo belongs in the background section. Because it is primary source material, I would not characterize Trump's claims in any way. As for whether the issues in the pargraph were debated in the campaign, if that is true, feel free to include that debate. But (and I'm not saying you did, but this goes to anyone who might) please don't remove accurate, properly sourced, and vital information (such as the paragraph below) from the article unless doing so can replace the the information pertaining to the subject of the article.

Number six, we are going to suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur. (APPLAUSE) According to data provided by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, and the national interest between 9/11 and the end of 2014, at least 380 foreign born individuals were convicted in terror cases inside the United States. And even right now the largest number of people are under investigation for exactly this that we've ever had in the history of our country. Our country is a mess. We don't even know what to look for anymore, folks. Our country has to straighten out. And we have to straighten out fast. The number is likely higher. But the administration refuses to provide this information, even to Congress. As soon as I enter office I am going to ask the Department of State, which has been brutalized by Hillary Clinton, brutalized. (AUDIENCE BOOS) Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to begin a comprehensive review of these cases in order to develop a list of regions and countries from which immigration must be suspended until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put in place. I call it extreme vetting right? Extreme vetting. I want extreme. It's going to be so tough, and if somebody comes in that's fine but they're going to be good. It's extreme. And if people don't like it, we've got have a country folks. Got to have a country. Countries in which immigration will be suspended would include places like Syria and Libya. And we are going to stop the tens of thousands of people coming in from Syria. We have no idea who they are, where they come from. There's no documentation. There's no paperwork. It's going to end badly folks. It's going to end very, very badly.G1729 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, Knope7 - this very long quote is completely unnecessary, clutters the article, and is undue (given the length, the fact that the statement predates the executive order, and the fact that the long, discursive quote may be easily summarized). G1729, you are the only editor who seems to support this. Steve Quinn has removed it (see diff), and Volunteer Marek has also removed it. When four editors disagree with you, and nobody seems to support your position, you should reconsider your position. Neutrality^talk 15:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In general there's way too much over reliance on primary sources in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

if the purportedly "long discursive quote" can be easily summarized, I would prefer that you (or someone not me) perform the easy summary rather than delete many of the relevant elements; but first note summarizing a primary source with multiple elements warranting inclusion such as here can cause accusations (I'm pretty sure by at least one of you) that rules on use of primary are not being followed because any edit summarizing a primary source that contains multiple elements will be potentially criticized for injecting POV or SYNTH. I agree caution is warranted on the length of material from a primary source—I used caution here, but that caution must be weighed against the value of getting the relevant information from another source: for the reasons with which I prefaced the paragraph in controversy above, I think using the primary in full paragraph isg justified. Some concerns raised above such as ("completely unnecessary" and "clutter[]" have already been addressed in my previosu response). Another editor previously thanked me for including that speech excerpt. Material (such as stated goals in a political campaign leading up to a policy implementation (e.g., Exec Order or law)) are highly relevant to background. Without the paragraph many expressions of political intent during the campaign, information relied by Trump in making such expressions in the campaign are not visible. From WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

As for the generalized concern of "in general there's way too much over reliance of primary sources in the article" are you proposing using a secondary source for the info? I am not opposed to that if you have one.G1729 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I really don't see the justification for including that or any paragraph from a stump speech. That we have transcripts of speeches and the person who said it was later elected president is not really a reason for including long, meandering paragraphs. Moreover, many of Trump's campaign speeches included inaccurate or flat out incorrect "facts" which when repeated on Wikipedia gives the impression that those facts are reliable. They are not. I'm sure we can find secondary sources that succinctly state that Trump said he wanted to reduce terrorism. We can also find secondary sources that say Trump sighted scant figures and his assertions were often contracted by facts, such as when he said the Pulse Nightclub shooter was born in Afghanistan when in fact he was born in the United States. Part of the problem is the level of activity on this page is so high that good sources have been removed and it can be a lot of work to figure out when and why they were removed. Knope7 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

All the information in that long quote is already covered in the article - and more accurately. It is not necessary to have this in the article or a summation that rehashes what is already accurately covered. What Trump intends is clear, and what he intended is clear. Also, that speech is 6 months old, is an artifact of the campaign, and pretty much outdated. There is no information in that quote that is necessary for this article. In fact, I left a one sentence summation in the article, which gives all the information that is needed as pertains to this article: "In a speech on August 31, 2016, Trump vowed to "suspend the issuance of visas" to "places like Syria and Libya." And I am letting that slide with a primary source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, that is the second time I removed that quote. The first time it was buried in the text and became an unreadable large block of text [19]. This means when Volunteer Marek removed it, that was the third time. I think the status of this quote for this page is now pretty clear. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

Steve Quinn, again, my understanding is "all the information is" not" already covered in the article" for the reasons given above. Re "what Trump intends is clear" and what "Trump intended [during the campaign] was clear"; I think that is certainly debatable: Secretary of State James Mattis, who is posing in the picture of Trump signing the executive order and thought a proposed Muslim ban (which imo is not what the order is, but has apparently merited inclusion elsewhere in the article b/c advisors saw the executive order as a legal alternative to a Muslim ban) seemed like a bad idea, was not aware of what the order entailed until he read it hours before the order was issued... Mattis was concerned he did not have time to evaluate the order. What do y'all think of the following sentence instead, which reduces the length of the speech excerpt and focuses on Trump's claims that pertain to the policy eventually implemented in the order (currently, I think Volunteer Markek's rendition, while including some, omits others of the following relevant points):

In an August 31, 2016 speech, Trump vowed, if elected, to “suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur,” “consult with the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice to begin a comprehensive review” of “terror cases inside the United States” involving the convictions of “foreign-born individuals” which, he said, “according to information provided by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest,” numbered “at least 380 from 9/11 to the end of 2014”; Trump referred to the proposed approach as “extreme vetting”; and in addition proposed to suspend immigration from “places like Syria and Lybia”.

G1729 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC) [fixed indentation]G1729 (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC) G1729 (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the first place, extreme vetting was already occurring during the Obama administration across the board. His administration just did not call it that. Trump did not and has not taken into account any accurate information about what has been happening in this area during the Obama administration. The above that you have written is a vague and a mostly POV statement: "Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur" is not at all what happened with this executive order. Issuance of visas have been suspended where more than adequate screening has been occurring pertaining to all the Muslim nations delineated in the executive order. The previous administration has been very open about its vetting process and it is (or was) rigorous, and deemed effective by many authorities including from Homeland Security and other security agencies, and some senators, and so on. Just because a minority of the US population and President Trump are making inaccurate statements about this, doesn't make it true.

Trump did not consult with the DOJ, Homeland Security, and State Department when he crafted the Executive Order - so that turned out to be not true. And then "terror cases" is a vague and imprecise phrase. It is inflammatory. It doesn't mean anything that 380 people were convicted of something but we don't know what between 2011 and 2014 - this has nothing to do with banning Muslim people from seven nations in the year 2017. And I have no idea if that number is accurate or if that is actually what happened. Just because Trump said in a speech and Sessions has it on his web page doesn't make it true. Numbers and statistics can be skewed, especially when there is an axe to grind. Also, saying "380 foreign born nationals" were convicted is inflammatory. And, what exactly were they convicted for? That is not at all clear. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the formulation of relevant information to the article presented as a campaign promise/POV statement by Trump, does that fact not justify inclusion in the article? Isn't it relevant if, as you claim, Trump promised to consult with Depts of State, Justice, Homeland Security and (did or did not) do so, or did so only cursorily? (See the section on development of the order.) As for extreme vetting, are you saying that because the claim by Trump, a political candidate presented as just that might upset people supportive of the Obama administration, it is not warranted as inclusion in the article? I think it's relevant to show he used the phrase "extreme vetting" not only after the order issued but also before. I don't think that presenting a (your suggesting) controversial statement by him violates anything re POV, but omitting it might. If (as you suggest) the edit I've suggested shows Trump "did not and has not taken into account any accurate information into account", isn't it relevant to include the information he relied on? For example, earlier in the background section, one of the figures he uses in the speech appears to be in controversy. But arguably deleting the speech's use of such information just omits the fact that Trump relied on the controversial information. I'm not taking a POV on whether the info is accurate. But I think it's relevant because it shows the development of the policy from campaign promise/rhetoric (whichever you prefer) to an implementation/order with the force of law.G1729 (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please apply proper indentation per wp:indent - it is based on a guidelines, as can be seen in that essay.

I think it would be best if you put together a set of reliable sources the support a pared down version of the speech, but perhaps gets across the main points. Otherwise, realistically, it seems to be WP:UNDUE based only on one primary source. There is just not enough support for doing this any other way, as far as I can see, based on the responses from other editors. Also, Trump had been consistent during his campaign, and now as President, so I don't think it will be a problem to find WP:RS. In this way, the content policies can also be satisfied. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of primary sources / accepting contentious claims in Wikipedia's own voice

I have reverted this edit by CatapultTalks, which changed this text:

The text of the order invokes the September 11 attacks three times.

References

to this text:

Section 1, stating the purpose of the order, invoked the September 11 attacks referring to then State Department policy that prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of the attackers

References

This edit suffers from two related problems:

• First, it's an inappropriate use of a primary source, in a situation where reliance on a primary source isn't necessary or even helpful (given the dozens or hundreds of reliable secondary sources that discuss and analyze this topic to death). I'm not the first user to note this problem - Volunteer Marek made a similar point on another topic on this article.
• Second, and more seriously, it's certainly not NPOV to accept as true Trump's dubious assertion that prior State Department "policy" had "prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications." Maybe we could include that statement if properly hedged and attributed, but I'm seeing no media coverage or analysis of this point, as as a matter of weight we probably should omit it. Neutrality^talk 16:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It could be Trump's assertion, but the mention of the text is from the ACTUAL order itself with quoted section. It does seem inappropriate that the mention of 9/11 in the order is being quoted without setting the context while including full details about critics of the mention. I agree that we can properly hedge and attribute - but that's what my edit was -it attributed the sentence to the order itself. Didn't mention if the statement is true or false CatapultTalks (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the article itself IS about the "Primary Source" - so the quote from a section of the EO is similar to other quotes for different section. I disagree that it is a inappropriate use of a primary source CatapultTalks (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That really doesn't respond to my main points. The text, as you wrote it, first, doesn't appear to hedge at all, rather, it appears to accepts it as ground truth that the State Department had a "policy of insufficient scrutiny" as Trump claims. Also, since this this material has been challenged, you should self-revert. Neutrality^talk 17:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to significantly attribute the statement to the order. CatapultTalks (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also looked if there are any sources that countered this statement from the EO. If so, we should include those too. However, omiting this sentence and including the comments about 9/11 reference does seem inappropriate. I don't see that being challenged. CatapultTalks (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It's still not good, in my opinion. It's somewhat less objectionable as reworded, but is still primary, it's still an issue of undue weight (which is reflected in the fact that no secondary sources discuss this specific point). We already mention that Trump has invoked 9/11 and explain why the order would not have affected any of the countries that the 9/11 hijackers actually came from. I'm unsure why we need to larder down the article with Trump's assertions about "State Department policy."

If it would resolve the issue, I would accept quoting the bit from the E.O. in the references section (in the "quotes" field of the citation template). I don't think it belongs in the body of the article. Neutrality^talk 17:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The article specifically calls out that 9/11 has been referenced and it has been criticized. It lends context (not larding down) if there is a mention of WHAT the actual reference in the EO is. That's what my edit does. Without that, in the body of the article, it looks like the 9/11 reference is called out ONLY to lend credence/undue weight to the critics' comments about list of countries != 9/11 attackers countries of origin. The 9/11 reference in the EO wasn't (clearly) to identify the list of countries for the ban CatapultTalks (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "undue weight to the critics' comments." The citations about 9/11, and the fact that the executive order would not have affect any of the countries from where the 9/11 hijackers came from, are from straight-news accounts in well-respected newspapers of record. That's fact, not opinion. So if your position is that we must directly quote this snippet of text from the executive order to somehow "balance" what the journalistic sources say, then I can't agree.

Will you agree to move the quoted text from the article to the reference? Neutrality^talk 17:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I did explain what I meant. It is not inappropriate to mention WHAT the reference of 9/11 in EO is. It is a fact that the reference is in the EO. It is not just "a snippet" - it is the ACTUAL reference about which the following sentences talk about. I don't agree that it should be moved to references. It needs to be in the provisions section where different sections of the EO have been described. CatapultTalks (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've no issues with the comments or news accounts quoted later in the paragraph. But if your position is that this text from the EO somehow undermines those news accounts, that I'm not able to agree CatapultTalks (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Trying again. "A did X, B criticized X" -> Doesn't make sense. "A did X. Here's X. B criticized X" -> makes more sense and balanced CatapultTalks (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I just don't see the encyclopedic relevance of Trump's remark about supposed "State Department policy" 16 years ago. We should give the facts ("Trump invoked X [cites to reliable secondary sources], but X is not relevant [cites to reliable secondary sources]"). What we should not do is rehash side comments in the executive order that got little or no attention from secondary sources. I will start an RfC. Neutrality^talk 18:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've no issues about mentioning X is not relevant. But at the same time we have to objectively mention what X actually is. Not leave it as an unknown x. Again, X is not a "Trump's remark" or a "side comment" - it is THE reference, which is part of the EO. CatapultTalks (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I've had the same issue throughout the background section. Trump and Sessions have both made some claims regarding refugees and immigration that are hard to prove at best or at times demonstrably false. Simply presenting all of Trumps claims without factual context does not help to inform readers of the article, IMO. The other problem with simply parroting the Order's use of September 11 is that the legal requirements for immigration have changed significantly since then. I guess a possible solution would be outline major immigration changes under Bush to show that the United States government did not in fact have no response to immigration until 15 years after the September 11 attacks.

The Background section also now has the problem of mentioning Trump's reaction to the Pulse Nightclub Shooting as a background to the Order, when that perpetrator was born in the United States and not in the Middle East, as Trump erroneously stated at the time. Knope7 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems this discussion is ongoing in the above thread here [20]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Review for POV

I recommend editors review this article for POV additions and review for editorializing. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll do a little, though I'm not really aiming for POV and editorialising right now. I'm avoiding removing content as much as possible right now and mainly rephrasing or reorganising to make it easier for follow up editing (plus work on other contentious articles have taught me it's best to take baby steps and not be bold without consensus). Having said that, if you think I've erred, hit me up. I'm happy to explain my reasoning. Hollth (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

My main POV concern is with the background. That's is mess. Way too much info and a very heavy reliance on Trump/campaign info. There should be one paragraph, about 5 sentences long, on Trump's related campaign stances; proposed muslim ban, strong border security and extreme vetting. There should be a paragraph on the precursor framework from Obama's admin. And really, that's all that's needed for the background as far as I can see. 2 short paragraphs with no statistics (can't trust Trump's and it takes up too much room to counter them + it turns into a wp:coatrack. What are other's thought's on the background section? Hollth (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to making Background more concise, but think some space may be required to unpack what the positions were that pertain to the order and how the order is related to those positions. For example. Initially suggested Muslim ban. Then started talking about areas to ban. But I haven't seen a lot from of reporting on Trump officials actually saying this order delivered on a campaign promise in precise language that can be traced back to the campaign, even though that is how the order is widely understood. imo there is no problem with making clear what the campaign promises are and who was involved in creating and stating the campaign positions that are directly relevant to the order.G1729 (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Poll

I believe that it should specified how many Americans were polled following the signing of the order. Normally, it's around 1,000 Americans polled; however, 1,000 Americans does not represent over 300 million citizens. It should be noted in the lead and section of the poll. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A thousand people is sufficient to represent 300 million people...that's statistics. TimothyJosephWood 19:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, what a condescending response. Callmemirela can certainly include the sample size of the poll.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is true. A lot of times if you get larger samples than 1-2k it's because they are oversampling to examine some specific group (gay black men from Alabama, Catholic immigrants from Canada) or because they're looking for a very small or very complex effect (think...large medical studies on genetics that might sample millions). Other than that sampling more than is statistically necessary is just a waste of money.

Overall, around 1,000 people, if it's representative, is usually sufficient to generalize to the national population. It's the representativeness that screws polls up (e.g., how do you define a likely voter). TimothyJosephWood 20:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually have a background in anthropology, and what you say is false. You'd need at go up least one, preferably two orders of magnitude to get a good sample; 30,000 is around the minimum I would feel comfortable with if I were to try to make a generalization about a population; anything less than that, and I would consider my research tentative, at best, and certainly not definitively representative of a population many orders of magnitude larger. (Of course, there are other considerations, such as from whence and how a sample was selected, if it was a sample of convenience, and other such things.) To quote our article on the matter "Larger sample sizes generally lead to increased precision when estimating unknown parameters." Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It's probably better to format the polls into a table for sake of clarity, and also it would help if we get more polls. ^Falling_Gravity 01:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree it makes sense to include sample size of the poll if we include the poll. Is it typical to include polls of public opinion in such a place? (BTW: Someone added an un-citedsentence claiming 49% in a Reuters poll and I corrected it, based on the citation to an Ipsos/Reuters poll and 48%..) Certainly polls have been inaccurate on voter preferences a lot lately, so I'm not sure of their legitimacy (IPSOS got Keiko Fujimori's numbers way off till close to the election in Peru last year, Polls generally didn't expect Brexit or Trump's election....) I'm not sure I see the merit in including the poll. How about including margin of error-type stuff... would that make sense to do?G1729 (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

POV re-inserted into the article

These POV edits were recently reinserted into this article: [21], and [22]. This was previously removed [23] because it was sourced only to Jeff Session's website [24]; and because it has been refuted in numbers of ways according to the following reliable sources - three of which were added to the article for clarification, when it was previously removed :

• The Guardian
• in Fact-check.org
• Mother Jones,
• and by the New York Times.

These sources were pointed to when the material was removed [25] (see explanation in edit history - and scroll down).

The first POV statement is derived from and supported by a primary source document on Session's website - (see the url) - [26]. The applicability of this source for verifying that first sentence cannot be determined. This is not a useful source for the purposes of Wikipedia, and I think the editor has to show how this source backs up that sentence - otherwise it should be removed. Then the editor decided to claim this is supported by news reports and other open-source information, using only this source [27]. Hopefully consensus develops for removal of this material based on what I have posted. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

...the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that was committed by a foreigner over the 41-year period [1975-2015] studied here is 1 in 3.6 million per year. The hazard posed by foreigners who entered on different visa categories varies considerably. For instance, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. By contrast, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year...The hazards posed by foreign-born terrorists are not large enough to warrant extreme actions like a moratorium on all immigration or tourism --- "Terrorism and Immigration". The Cato Institute. 13 September 2016. (Number 798) --[28]). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: If you don't mind, could you include a link here to the discussion on the talk-page Background section leans too heavily on Trump, or a link that tells me how to do such things? I think the talk-page section Background section leans too heavily on Trump is relevant to this discussion because if Trump relied on these (in Steve Quinn's opinion) false claims, they deserve attention in the article. Others may prefer to add sourced info that satisfies Steve Quinn showing Trump relied on the false claims rather than delete them. Currently, I think it makes sense to include the controversial claim because it's represented as a controversial claim. I think it makes more sense to add more information on how the claim by Sessions/Cruz/The Senate Subcommittee on immigration and the national interest was relied on by the Trump campaign than to delete the information including the claim and showing it was clearly controversial. Thanks for the suggestions.G1729 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, sorry, this is a separate discussion and a separate issue. Please do not bring that discussion here, or this one there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a "separate discussion of a separate issue"; there, you proposed deleting material because "All the information in that long [Trump Speech] quote is already covered in the article"; now you appear to be proposing deleting the only other reference to some of that information in the article (figure about purported 380 terrorism acts trump referenced in the speech).G1729 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that these are "POV" edits

Statement#1: In January 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ), upon request by the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, provided a list of 580 public international terrorism and terrorism-related convictions from September 11,2001 through the end of 2014.

I don't understand the concern here. That the Senate subcommittee requested the list and DOJ provided the list in Jan 2016 is backed up by source which has the entire list. What's your basis for calling it "not useful" or questioning its applicability? This is THE LIST that Cato's analyst talks about when he says "..241 out of 580.." The analyst's statement challenging this is already in the article

Statement#2: Based on this data and news reports and other open-source information, the committee determined that at least 380 among the 580 convicted were foreign-born.

Again backed by a reliable news source. There are several statements across the article with only one reliable news source reference. Why question this statement for having "only this source"? There are several other sources about this. feel free to add.

All the other sources quoted refer back to Cato analyst's findings. I don't agree that it refutes any of the statements above. Because it's basis seems to be different. The DOJ list is for "all international terrorism and terrorism-related convictions" while Cato's list for its analysis is "convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack in the U.S"

CatapultTalks (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The concern is this contravenes WP:NPOV. This is an attempt to add inaccurate information to this article. The second statement is inherently misleading. But it also refers to the first statement, so both statements are misleading when taken together. Parsing the sentences, and making them separate, does not change contravening NPOV. Just read the sources I provided. Also, read the Cato Institute's study. The Fox News source just echos Sessions spin on this matter, which is not based on reality, and neither is the reinsertion of this material. Also, once it was removed, it wasn't supposed to be restored, per the template at the top of this talk page, without consensus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The first statement is accurate. The DOJ did give a list to the senate subcommittee. A senator can be considered a reliable source when he says he received a list from the DOJ. Are there any sources disputing that DOJ didn't give a list? There isn't, so we keep it. Coming to the second statement, there is a source that confirms the committee's determination. Is there a source disputing that the committee hasn't made it's determination? We are not fact-checking what Sessions's claims or Cato's analyst claims. CatapultTalks (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

(Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk)

(edit conflict):Here is more reality, and this is what I was trying to get across when I first removed the material : [29]

One important note: Sen. Jeff Sessions — Trump’s nominee to be attorney general — came up with a far higher number of foreign-born individuals who were convicted in terrorist attacks. But Nowrasteh, of the Cato Institute, did an analysis of that list and found it to be flawed...Nowrasteh, of the Cato Institute, wrote in a recent blog post that actually only 40 of the foreign-born individuals on Sessions’ list were convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack in the U.S...There are at least two major problems with the list. First, you might get the impression that all of those convictions were for terrorist attacks planned on U.S.-soil but only 40, or 6.8 percent, were. Second, 241 of the 580 convictions, or 42 percent, were not even for terrorism offenses. Many of the investigations started based on a terrorism tip like, for instance, the suspect wanting to buy a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. However, the tip turned out to be groundless and the legal saga ended with only a mundane conviction of receiving stolen cereal. "Facts on Trump’s Immigration Order". (underline mine). FactCheck.org. 1 February 2017---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Cato's analyst is contesting the DOJ list by saying that all 580 aren't for terrorism offenses and since Cato is as reliable a source as a Senator, we do have that too - which is statement 3 CatapultTalks (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: I added the Cato sentence and don't think any of the info should be removed. How does it contravene NPOV? I've added another claim by Stephen Miller in the whitehouse because his statement is relevant to the purported purpose of the order. If you and @CatapultTalks: think that should be deleted too, feel free. It seems relevant to me because it's a Senior Advisor in the administration defending the order by stating what he thinks is its purpose.G1729 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the "Architect" Miller edit. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Re "architect" thanks.G1729 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

reasons for refugees fleeing

This wording "where they may face death inflicted by ISIS" is just... stupid. First, stylistically it reads like something written by an 8 year old who just got done watching his Saturday morning cartoons. Second, the sources don't say this. Third it's not just ISIS, but also Russian and Syrian government bombs and the civil war in general. Which is what the text previously stated before it was mindlessly reverted [30]. Can we at least agree to restore the previous text for this part? This was: "The order also indefinitely suspended the entry of refugees fleeing from ISIS and the civil war in Syria".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine. Someone inserted that the Syrian refugees face "genocide" by ISIS, and I toned it down, but deletion is better for the reasons you just gave.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The CNN source says that Syrians are "liv[ing] under ISIS". I added "refugees fleeing from ISIS and the civil war in Syria", which was tagged as citation needed or undue weight or something similar by someone else. I realized that my wording was bad, so I reverted it myself. It was bad wording because the EO-affected Syrian refugees could arguably be fleeing for reasons unrelated to the civil war or ISIS, so I added "refugees fleeing Syria, where they live under ISIS". I think I also added "genocide" at some point, because it's fact and sort of a big deal. KinkyLipids (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

I concur that the lead is too long. I've made the following cuts:

• Part of Trump's immigration-related campaign promises, the order established several provisions regarding entry into the United States, on the basis that measures taken by the government "did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States." [Note goes on to read]: Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. 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.

This should be covered in the body, and probably already is.

• According to The Washington Post, the travel suspensions can potentially impact around 90,000 people, which is the number of immigrant and non-immigrant visas issued to people from the seven affected countries in fiscal year 2015.

Removed press estimates, since rest of the para lists the official estimates.

References

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Disagree: it is imperative that we cite the reasoning stated by the President to sign this order in the lede. Otherwise, it seems as if the President signed the order "just because." The reason why the citation is so long is because someone removed that sentence claiming that it was synthesis. So we pasted the verbatim text to show that was the rationale for the President to sign the order and put it under quotes to show that it was his rationale rather than Wikipedia's. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The EO's title makes it clear. KinkyLipids (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's in bold in the first sentence: "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States". I think why Trump signed it should be covered in the body, not in the lead, which is already tagged as too long. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• The EO's title makes it clear that the President wants to "protect the nation from foreign terrorists entering the U.S." Nowhere does the title mention that his rationale is based on terrorists that were admitted into the United States. Big difference. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

But the rationale itself is an issue of contention and debated by several sources. some call it a 'Muslim Ban', some 'Immigration plan', some 'safety plan'. so i think its better to leave the rationale part in the background as it is now CatapultTalks (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Some rationale should be in there, but it should be brief, avoid excessive quotation from primary sources and be based on secondary sources. As always.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump campaign website took down cited article.... someone please replace with internet archive link?

https://web.archive.org/web/20160624042428/http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/donald-trump-releases-immigration-reform-plan-designed-to-get-americans-bac An article on the Trump website used to justify the comment that Sessions was "influential" on the Trump campaign's immigration stance has been taken down and someone has deleted the descriptor "influential". Could someone please replace with the above link and move to a separate sentence so no synth? the article says "Billionaire Donald Trump released a detailed immigration policy position paper on Sunday morning, a paper that walks through exactly what steps he would go through as president to help American workers.....The paper, which was clearly influenced by Sen. Jeff Sessions who Trump consulted to help with immigration policy" G1729 (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I removed my username from the above post. The way it was positioned in this post makes it look like I am requesting this, or am involved in requesting this. I am not involved, and I had nothing to do with this request. Please do not do this again. Consider this a warning. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

sorry about what has offended you. I promise it was written without the intention you suggest, and it was was written in good faith. I tried to delete the post before you replied. Sincerely—G1729 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

And I retract my prior suggestion to add the descriptor "influential".G1729 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Objection to edits to lead

I object to parts of this series of consecutive edits. The following bolded material was removed altogether along with the accompanying note:

“ The initial seven countries are Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, which were previously affected by a Congressional act during the Obama administration ”

The removed material appears accurate and pertinent and is supported by refs that remain in the article, mainly this one. Additionally, I object to this edit which was as follows:

“ The order's most prominent provisions suspended the entry into the U.S by certain foreign nationals. Specifically, the order suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, after which the program will be conditionally resumed for individual countries while allowing officials to make case-by-case exceptions, including people of minority religions who are fleeing religious persecution (which various commentators have described as a religious test).after which the program will be conditionally resumed for individual countries while prioritizing refugees of minority religions - which effectively establishes a religious test for Muslims.

References

”

The cited refs plainly attribute the "religious test" characterization to "commentators" so it's extremely bad editing to put it in wikivoice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I would've just deleted the parenthetical about commentators... doesn't the order itself refer to religious minorities fleeing persecution. Thx for posting.G1729 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

my bad, the order says this: "basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality." and I think there may be another reference to religious minorities; does the gist still remain?G1729 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Not just the order, but also the refs quoted above refer to religious minorities fleeing persecution.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

ah right. sorry. I agree with your objection.G1729 (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the "previously affected by a Congressional act during the Obama administration" part - the obvious problem with this is that it makes it sound like the same kind of ban was put in place under Obama. Which of course isn't true. What does it mean, "affected"? Affected how? Without clarification this is POV. And to clarify would be too much detail for the lede. So best to just remove it.

As to the second part - hold on. There was a New York Times source there which I was relying on (indeed, I was worried that I hadn't paraphrased it enough) but it seems to have been moved or removed. Let me look through the history.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Question: why does the initial text says, "a Congressional act during the Obama administration"? Aren't all acts Congressional? Furthermore, isn't it a law rather than an act? Moreover, didn't President Obama stamp his signature to convert the act into law? Why are we referring to Congress? Why don't we instead say, "a law enacted by President Obama"? Is it pertinent to mention this at all? Why is it important to mention this particularity in the lead? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Answer: An Act of Congress is a perfectly standard term, and so there's not necessarily anything wrong with using it. Also, Presidents do not enact laws, Congress enacts laws. It is important to mention that this list of 7 countries was first compiled before Trump became president, because a zillion reliable sources say so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It is important to mention it but it is also important not to imply that Obama instituted a ban on these 7 countries. It is also not important to mention this in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• That is not how our system works, both Congress and the President can enact laws. When the President signs an act after it passes both the Senate and the House, it's the President the one enacting the law (through his signature). Two other cases do not require the President's signature; in those cases, it is Congress the one that enacts the law. The law referred to in the text aforementioned was a law signed and enacted by President Obama, not by Congress itself. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• The president can veto laws, but only Congress can enact laws. This is elementary civics. Look up "only Congress can enact" on google (or google books). I really don't want to get into a debate here about basic civics.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• From usa.gov itself: "The President takes action on the bill by either signing it into law, letting it become law without a signature, vetoing it, or pocket-vetoing it." [31] The law referred in here was "signed into law" by President Obama, not by Congress. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• That's right, but he did not "enact" that legislation. If he had ignored it instead of signing it, it would have become law within ten days. "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law." Please google "only Congress can enact". Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Also replying to Anythingyouwant and Volunteer Marek, the issue of "why those 7 countries" is a big enough deal to be mentioned in the lede, though it's complex enough to need clarification. Anything less would easily be suggestive and misleading in different ways. To simply say "a law enacted by Obama" gives sole responsibility to Obama for choosing the 7 countries for this EO, when it's known that only 3 of those countries were chosen for visa requirements in rare situations. Iraq and Syria were chosen by Congress. Iran and Sudan were chosen by prior administrations. "Congressional act" is accurate for bills and laws and accurately portrays how government works (laws are written by Congress). A short mention of the origin of the 7-country list is needed, along with a note, which provides clarification without adding to the block of text in the lede. KinkyLipids (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

But that's the difficulty here - how (and if) to mention this in a concise way which doesn't further bloat the lede. I think it's actually NOT that important (though I'm aware that all the fringe right and fake news sources are trying to make a big deal out of it). Of course it should be discussed in text, but the lede just needs to summarize key aspects.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Congress did not "choose" Iraq and Syria. Congress approved an act with those two countries included explicitly in the text. President Obama then converted that act into law through his signature. The blame cannot be put into Congress when the President himself approved the act as well (and whatever was explicit in the text) through his signature and enactment. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It is very important to mention in the lead what the cited CNN article and many others say: that the list of 7 countries was formulated before 2017, although for somewhat different purposes. I am very flexible about how we say it. If you want, say that President Obama enacted a statute that was vetoed by the Chief Justice, and then overridden by the Congressional Budget Office, if you want.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Could you elaborate on the Chief Justice and the CBO? KinkyLipids (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I was merely emphasizing how flexible I am, and it would be better to not mention those two items in this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ahnoneemoos: I'm sure you must have misspoken when you said "Congress approved an act". The sole power of legislation is given to Congress by the Constitution. Since this issue is contentious, I suggest changing the text to say "Iran, Iraq, Libya... are the seven countries on the initial list, which has a complex origin." or something similar, with a note directing the reader to the section that gives a complete description. KinkyLipids (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Iran, Iraq, Libya... are the seven countries on the initial list, which has a complex origin that pre-dates 2017" would be fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be better than what is in there now, but really, what is the point of it? It looks like just like a watered version of the "Obama did it too!" fake news that is being spread around the internet. I don't really see how this is crucially important how the list was compiled.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• "How the Trump administration chose the 7 countries in the immigration executive order", CNN
• "US travel ban: Why these seven countries?", BBC
• "Spicer: Obama administration originally flagged 7 countries in Trump's order", The Hill
• "How the Trump Administration Is Justifying the List of Countries Banned", ABC News
• "Sean Spicer: Countries in Trump's ban were identified by Obama administration", AOL News
• "Immigration Expert Outlines Origins Of 7 Countries In Trump Order", NPR
• Etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

On the other question (perhaps this should be a separate section), here is one NY Times article which says "As a general matter, this will give priority to Christian refugees over Muslim ones. Though framed in a neutral way, this part of the order may raise questions of religion-based discrimination. Mr. Trump has said that he means to favor Christian refugees." Likewise there's a ton of sources which highlight the fact that Trump said he intends for this to have a religious test. So please stop playing POV games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Since the lede is too long, I would consent to not mentioning the background on the list, as long as it's described completely in the body. Regarding the NYT article, the EO directs prioritization of religion in Section 5, which affects all countries, not Section 3, which deals with the 7 Muslim-majority countries. The NYT article, which was published very early, is inaccurate. Regarding other sources about Trump's intentions post-EO, I would consent to adding content based on those sources, as long as it's made clear that these are just intentions and do not override the actual text of this EO. KinkyLipids (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so do we have consensus to omit the background from the lede? I'm perfectly fine - in fact I insist - that it's described completely in the body.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see why that needs to be included in the lede since, technically, the list could had been modified through the Secretary of Homeland Security. So I would agree with its removal. But I would like to keep the discussion open for a few more days to allow more input. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Poll company lean?

@Neutrality: - besides the lean of Rasmussen mentioned by Bump, are there any other elaborations on the lean of the poll companies in relation to the polling on this EO? Are any of the poll companies noted as being "less friendly" to Republicans, as it were, or as being generally perceived as fair? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Sasuke Sarutobi: Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight maintains a pollster rating list that includes an objective "mean-reverted bias" score (see here). Rasmussen Reports has a R+2.0% bias and a C+ grade for accuracy. Gallup has a R+0.8 bias and a B- grade for accuracy. Ipsos is the best rated and most accurate, with a D+0.1 bias and an A- grade for accuracy.

Notably, Bump at the Washington Post was not the only media outlet to mention Rasmussen's leanings in the specific context of reporting on the E.O. polls. See The Guardian (Feb. 2: "a second survey conducted by Rasmussen, a conservative-leaning polling company"); The Hill ("The right-leaning firm Rasmussen Reports had found in its own survey earlier this week that a majority approved of Trump's order."). Neutrality^talk 22:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take a look at them and see what I can add to the article from them. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Info box legislation: status

Please do not put any value in the status section of info box legislation. According to the documentation, there are only these values:

• pending
• not passed
• current
• not yet in force
• not fully in force
• in force
• amended

If any other values are entered, the status will be displayed as unknown. R-athrill (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)