Talk:Executive Order 13780/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... (nominator was too fast on the draw, I was in process of collecting sources and the article had only existed for about 45 seconds before he tagged it) --Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I have formally warned the tagging editor for their incorrect and bitey behavior. My apologies, on behalf of the editorial community, go to to the creator of this page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It's cool. I was actually impressed at how fast things get reviewed. Wow. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hah

Thanks for catching that User:Octoberwoodland. Edit conflicts can be disorienting. TimothyJosephWood 20:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem brother, always here to help.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible merge?

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

---

Discussion moved to Talk:Executive Order 13769#Possible merge?, so that all relevant comments regarding the merger proposal can be included in the consensus finding. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Headers

We should probably not be using "STATE vs Trump" in section headers for a couple of reasons:

1. The sources don't seem to actually use the "STATE v. Trump" terminology
2. We probably shouldn't be deciding on our own how to shorten the full title (WP:OR)
3. The lawsuit isn't actually against Trump, the lawsuit is against "the president" and the cabinet level officials as cabinet level officials and no one is personally liable for damages <span style="color:#a56d3f;font-famtoberwoodland|Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Re your point#3, I don't care too much either way but just fyi I think lots of cases referred to stuff by the name of the elected official. e.g., Clinton v. City of New York , Cheney v. United States District Court &c.G1729 (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Fair enough. TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Maryland ruling

Aside from the ruling in Hawaii, a judge in Maryland also blocked parts of the ban. Jay Coop · Talk · Special:Contributioions 00:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

deleted material, clarified section title

I deleted material and clarified a section title here [1]. The section title referred to statutory authorization of immigration and statutory prohibitions of immigration that pertained to the exec order. The deletedve no direct relevance to the executive order. It was based on regulations that presumably could have occurred with or without the executive order, and those regulations were just---regulations---not legislation, which would be "statutory". If others disagree, I'd be glad to discuss/understand any unforeseen relevance of the deleted material to the exec order that is the subject of the article.—G1729 (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Main article needed

From a reader's perspective I think it would be helpful to have a main-topic article on the travel ban—a parent article as it were to our current Executive Order 13780 and Executive Order 13769 articles—with a recognizable name and broader scope. This new article could track the travel ban from its origins in the campaign and summarize the executive orders, enforcement, and legal challenges all in one place without making the reader slog through multiple articles. It could also spare us l ban for Muslim-majority countries]] — Possible alternative, but not as concise.

• Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States — Disambiguation page for Executive Orders 13769 and 13780 or redirect to main article
• Executive Order 13769 and Executive Order 13780 — Daughter articles covering the individual history and nuances of each executive order.

Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a ban on Muslims or Muslim majority countries as it affects only 6 countries with state sponsored terrorism or lax security vetting, so those names are out. If it were a Muslim ban, it'd ban all Muslims and it does nothing of the sort. Same for Muslim-majority countries. 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, "Trump Muslim ban" is too WP:POV for the article name. ~Awilley (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley:Discussion on merging the two articles is available at Talk:Executive_Order_13769#Possible_merge? on the talk page for exec order 13769 and was closed due to consensus. I'm optimistic that merging the two articles will happen eventually after both events are complete, but I think that until that happens there could be some practical advantage to keeping them separate (less need to re-write both article to disambiguate every reference when some material will likely be culled in the end anyway). I was for merging the articles initially but that view did not win out. At this point, I'd be fine going either way.G1729 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@G1729: I don't think a merge is what we need. Both executive orders are notable enough to have their own articles. What I think we need is a standalone article that covers the whole topic. I've started a draft at User:Awilley/Trump_travel_ban if you or anybody else interested in contributing ;-) ~Awilley (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Scope and title of spinoff articles about the executive orders

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

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

I have tried to start a discussion about the scope and title of these articles at Talk:Legal challenges to Executive Order 13769. Please join that discussion and let's figure out how to handle this. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC) ticle. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Revised order

Sudan has been dropped off the list while Venezuela, Chad, Libya are added. But no changes have been made here. 103.223.9.241 (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Presidential Proclamation 9645

I added a table with all the countries on the current version of the ban (Presidential Proclamation 9645) plus all visa restrictions. Should there be one for the entire article listing what countries are facing travel restrictions put in simple English, so that people can understand what the actual travel restrictions are?C1MM (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Exceptions of 13780 still in effect?

Are the exceptions to the ented in 13780 (e.g. close business or family ties to the U.S.) still in effect under 9645? AxelBoldt (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)