The Problem with Trump
A series of Times editorials
  I. Our Dishonest President
  II. Why Trump Lies
  III. Trump’s Authoritarian Vision
  IV. Trump’s War on Journalism
  V. Conspiracy Theorist in Chief
  VI. California Fights Back

---

With this edit to the lede's last paragraph, I clarified the judicial status of the travel ban and I removed the qualifier "Muslim-majority" as POV. PatGallacher reverted, saying this was not POV but a statement of fact. Certainly those countries are Muslim-majority, but so are many others; a more important common trait of those countries is that they have been deemed dangerous and unreliable by the State Department, most of them being war zones. I would argue that in the context of this legislation, the labeling of affected countries as "Muslim-majority" adopts de facto the blocking judges' angle which interprets Executive Order 13780 on a religious basis, whereas this document makes no mention of religion. To uphold neutrality in the lede of this high-profile BLP, we should not refer to religion either. Casting the legislation in this light could be construed as misrepresenting Trump's motives based on his campaign rhetoric, although the White House has repeatedly argued that the travel ban was predicated on security considerations due to dysfunctional identity checks in said countries. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 21:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey 1

Should we describe travel ban countries as "Muslim majority" in the lede section? — JFG ^talk 21:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Most reliable sources are using that qualifier, and so should we. As for the implication that Muslims are targeted - well, Trump himself has implied (and said) that multiple times, and the judges drew upon Trump's own words to decide that there was a religious angle to the ban (regardless of how it was worded). We can't make the article neutral by pretending Trump didn't say what he said, or by ignoring the implications that multiple judges found to be important. That's not neutrality, that's whitewashing. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - Good question and I can understand your reluctance. Given the enormous number of times Trump said that he would impose a Muslim ban, I don’t see how the word can be omitted entirely. RS certainly point out that these are Muslim-majority countries. In fact, the cited article for that sentence states this in its first sentence. Seeing that changed this from Comment to Support. Objective3000 ( talk) 22:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - It would be a mistake to simply equate the travel ban with Executive Order 13780. The ban is only a part of that order, and at the same time, the ban is much bigger than that order, with a long and interesting history. Calling at a travel ban on citizens from six "Muslim-majority" countries is a nod to that history which included explicit promises for an actual travel ban on Muslims and then legal gymnastics to enact such a ban without calling it a Muslim ban. More importantly, the "Muslim-majority" language is widely used in reliable sources about the ban, and we should follow their lead. ~ Awilley ( talk) 23:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Awilley, regarding your comment just above, and your comment below, how is it just saying what Trump did if we say "six Muslim-majority countries", but not if we instead say "six countries" or "Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen" or "six countries that purportedly posed a security threat" or "six Muslim-majority countries that purportedly posed a security threat"? Only the phrase "six Muslim-majority countries" conveys what he did, in your view? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Awilley, that's a very good parsing of the situation. Initially it was purely a religious ban, and then, as revealed by leaked strategy discussions about how to (deceptively) make the ban more palatable and legal, the public comments tried to make it seem like a "security" issue. Since then the administration has been more careful, although Trump has many times insisted it was a BAN, in all caps, and expressed his Islamophobia. A real "security" issue has never been backed up by reliable statistics. So yes, wording which recognizes that history and the wording of most RS should be included. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - "important common trait of those countries is that they have been deemed dangerous and unreliable by the State Department, most of them being war zones." Yes, but there are other places just as dangerous that are not included. Clearly dangerousness alone is not the deciding factor. This was called a Muslim ban from the get go, by Trump himself. So I imagine the countries having a majority Muslim population is one of the major factors for their selection, and that should be worth mentioning. Secondly, reliable sources are all mentioning this as it is central to the ban, which means Wikipedia should reflect them. Darwinian Ape  ^talk 09:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - It's basically a ban on Muslims who don't come from countries America sells arms to. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes This is clearly the defining characteristic of the ban. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 13:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Obviously it is largely a matter of context and attribution, the question of where the same ban will be referred to as a travel ban or a Muslim ban. But the sheer number of sources which label it the latter (and even Trumps own descriptions) leave no question as to the religious dimension here, so it will be necessary (at least in places) to openly discuss this quality of the ban. Obviously this has become a political issue, but note that, even with certain architects/supporters of the ban carefully choosing their words in light of the fact that it could impact upon legal determinations (insofar as religion is a protected class and terms like "Muslim ban" could speak to intent when SCOTUS ultimately rules on this)--even under those conditions, this continues to be regarded by both involved parties and WP:reliable sources as an act either aimed at Muslims or (without question) affecting them disproportionately. Again, individual cases must be judged on how clearly the source is being attributed, but I can imagine many contexts where "Muslim ban" would the appropriate option. And even in con texts where we steer away from that particular term as too polemic, "Muslim majority" is certainly acceptable. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. The only reason the ban has been controversial was because of Trump's choice of Muslim-majority countries, and his repeated remarks made it clear his first thought was to ban Muslims (which the judge used as evidence for the cause of the ban), and the "security" issues were an excuse thought up later, because none of these six countries had a history as posing a threat to the USA. More dangerous countries, with a history of terrorism affecting the USA, were not included in the ban. If "security" was the real reason, it would have made sense to ban travel from them. This is all from RS. Some sources went further to note that the countries not included were those where Trump had business interests. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - key component of EO, discussed in every reliable source, and led to extensive federal litigation. Neutrality ^talk 18:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - single most notable thing about it. Covered in thousands of reliable sources. Directly discussed in federal lawsuits by multiple federal judges from different districts across the U.S. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes That would reflect RS reporting and analysis. In fact common usage in many sources is "Muslim ban" but that would be UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey 2

If we keep the "Muslim-majority" language, should we balance it with a consideration of the security argument, so that both angles are covered? (exact wording to be defined) — JFG ^talk 06:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes — Nothing speaks against stating that the countries of concern are of muslim-majority, as this is surely one key factor. Additionally, mentioning the security aspect would be needed as this is basically the ratio behind the executive order.-- Joobo ( talk) 09:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• No - There's no "security argument" the Trump administration can legitimately make, since the State Department already does extensive vetting and other Muslim-majority nations are far greater security threats than those listed in the ban. This is nothing more than Trump fulfilling the campaign promise he made to his xenophobic, jingoistic base. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Scjessey: With all due respect, methinks you are delving into WP:OR when you say "other Muslim-majority nations are far greater security threats than those listed in the ban" – do you have sources for that evaluation? Also, calling half of USA voters "xenophobic, jingoistic" sounds a bit deplorable. — JFG ^talk 03:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@ JFG: WP:OR only applies to article content, not talk page comments. Besides, there are hundreds of mainstream media articles pointing out the fact that most of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, as well as many others saying precisely the same thing as me. Also, I did not say anything about "half of USA voters". But it was clear that Trump's Muslim ban was specifically crafted to appeal to the naturally xenophobic Republican base of deplorables who falsely equate being Muslim with terrorism. -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, several commenters have opined that Saudi Arabia is more dangerous, whereas several others have opined that the nationality of 9/11 hijackers 16 years ago does not imply that vetting processes in place between Saudi Arabia and USA today are inefficient. If the State Department and Homeland Security are satisfied with that process, it's logical that this country was not singled out. Apart from Saudi Arabia, are there other Muslim countries that could be considered more dangerous or more hostile than the 6-7 concerned? Other editors pointed out that the list of suspicious countries was drawn up long before Trump took office, so it does sound a bit biased to blame it all on religion. Some people say this ban is a "trial balloon" as a first step towards banning all Muslims; that's just idiotic fearmongering.

To your other point: I was just kidding about your "deplorable" comment; other editors may not realize that you and I have a long history of collaborating on this issue in a friendly and neutral spirit, although we are looking at current US politics from different angles. — JFG ^talk 12:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe It would have to depend upon the exact wording. This is not the article of the travel ban, and we should not go into excessive detail about the ban especially in the lead, however we have no reason to abandon a well referenced rational if it would concisely explain why they claim the ban was created. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 13:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• No Agree with Scjessey. If this were really about security, Saudi Arabia would be on the list; that's where most of the 9/11 attackers came from. And his "security" argument is very flexible; one minute the courts are putting the country in terrible danger by delaying the ban even a day; the next minute he is going to take a month or two to think about it. His justification for the ban is a detail compared to the main thrust of the ban. IMO it could be in the article but not in the lede. I don't see any mention of the "security" rationale in our "immigration" paragraph here, but a brief mention could be added. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe, it would depend on the exact wording. For us to reject such wording out of hand seems quite POVish given that SCOTUS unanimously lifted an injunction against this Trump administration policy, so we would essentially be saying that not just POTUS but also SCOTUS are a bunch of religious bigots. Does that sound like NPOV to you? Or does it sound like Wikipedia editors trying to use Wikipedia for our own editorial purposes? Regarding Saudi Arabia, during the Obama Administration, the "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act" originally affected four countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran and Sudan. Then Libya, Yemen, and Somalia were added later as "countries of concern" by Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security. I am not aware why Obama did not add Saudi Arabia, but I very much doubt the countries on the list were selected because of any religious bigotry on Obama's part (the reason for excluding Saudi Arabia may have been that that country at least has a functioning nationwide government that can therefore be held responsible for proper vetting). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• No. The "security" argument was an after thought excuse which has never held water. It's a fiction. As I noted in the previous section, if "security" had been the real reason, then the countries which have a real history of posing actual terrorist danger to the USA would have been included in the ban, but they were notably excepted, as some RS noted, because Trump has business interests in those countries. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. It is necessarily to provide fair representation to other significant points of view and maintain neutrality. While some believe this is "fiction" there are a great many reliable sources which do not make this assertion.-- 97.124.67.164 ( talk) 05:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of "other significant points of view". It's almost universally regarded as a ban that has nothing to do with security. -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe. Personally, I think the executive order is simply an appeal to bigotry. But, what counts is what RS say and what Trump says. The cite used at the top of this article calls it a ban from six Muslim-majority countries. We have to say what RS say. I believe the executive order has a title stating that it is about terrorism. So, I think we need to include that claim in some manner. But, I think it must be phrased in such a manner that RS reporting is given greater emphasis. And, any mention in the lead must be more succinct than what I just wrote in this paragraph.:) Objective3000 ( talk) 12:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes That is the entire reason behind the travel ban from nations/failed states that are currently torn apart by ISIS and Jihadi violence. It would be disingenuous to say that the ban is based on religion, due to the fact that the most populous Muslim countries are not affected (as they have their radical Islamist situations more or less under control, and have a stable government). Any other reasoning put forth is nothing more than speculation, editorializing, and regurgitation of cable news talking points. Hidden Tempo ( talk) 22:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hidden Tempo, use of mainstream RS is not " speculation, editorializing, and regurgitation". We are supposed to depend on them for our content, unless they are provably wrong in specific situations. Yes, there are such individual situations (and we don't use them in those cases), but, as a general rule, the sources you are trying to get removed ("To do: Possible removal of NYT, WaPo, CNN as Wikipedia reliable sources"...per your user page) are perfectly good sources to use, and you will fail in your endeavor to disrupt our RS policy. Such a failure to understand our RS policy shows you are somewhat unfit to edit here, but that can improve if you can learn to follow our RS policy and depend on those sources you despise, rather than narratives from unreliable sources (like Trump's favorites). Instead of fighting against these RS, start using them, and only use RS, not fringe sources.

  Your narrative shows a dependence on the Trump narrative, rather than what the vast majority of RS say about this matter. That's why you seem to be ignorant of what others are saying here, and why below you call the narrative derived from RS "Pure speculation/WP:OR." To get up to speed, you need to start following NYT, WaPo, CNN, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, BBC, etc. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct BullRangifer, the use of mainstream media as sources is not in itself WP:OR, but taking material from RS, forming your own conclusions, and then synthesizing material from those conclusions is where the problem arises. Your opinion that the New York Times is "perfectly good" is just that - your opinion. Breitbart is now fact-checking these perfectly good RS, which I view as a very big problem for the NYT ("17 intelligence agencies", anyone?). Regarding your personal attacks and aspersions about "ignorance" and declaring who is or isn't "fit" to edit, I'd kindly ask you to refocus your energy on content rather than your fellow editors and telling them what they "need" to do. I'm very much "up to speed" on what's going on in the buildings over at the NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc., but please don't lump an esteemed organization like the WSJ in with organizations that push "mostly bullshit" narratives for "ratings" or ones that secretly dined with a presidential candidate's campaign staff to discuss "framing the HRC message." My comment isn't about the sources themselves - it's about what they say, as always. Happy to discuss more with you on my talk page so we don't derail the discussion, provided you can be a bit more civil and mindful of WP:NPA. Hidden Tempo ( talk) 04:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Probably not With the limited real estate in the Lead I don't think we need to take the space to give detailed rationales (valid or otherwise) for his actions. To give an example of the wrong way, take this excerpt from the Lead with rationales inserted in green:

  "[Trump] withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership as part of his policy of putting America First and the Paris Climate Agreement because he was skeptical of global warming, and he undid parts of the Cuban Thaw to further dismantle Obama's legacy. Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court because Gorsuch was a respected conservative judge. He ordered a travel ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries} to stop terrorists from coming into the country and review the immigration system.

  Just say what he did and leave detailed rationale for the body. ~ Awilley ( talk) 23:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Awilley, how is it just saying what he did if we say "six Muslim-majority countries", but not just saying what he did if we instead say "six countries" or "Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen" or "six countries that purportedly posed a security threat" or "six Muslim-majority countries that purportedly posed a security threat"? Only the phrase "six Muslim-majority countries" conveys what he did? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The RfC for that is just above this, labeled Survey 1. ~ Awilley ( talk) 00:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me that the surveys overlap to some extent, but I will pose the question up there instead of here if you like. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't bother, it's probably better to just keep the thread in one place. All of the examples you gave are saying what he did. But the first is saying it using language widely used in reliable sources. ~ Awilley ( talk) 01:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree the first is saying it using language widely used in reliable sources, but so do the second, third, fourth, and fifth. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If you think there's a stronger case for one of the others you are free to make that argument above. ~ Awilley ( talk) 02:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I am open to something like "six Muslim-majority countries that purportedly posed a security threat" and am glad that you seem to be as well. Omitting the last six words conveys that Trump and his subordinates, plus the U.S. Supreme Court are religious bigots, which I don't think is something that ought to be in wikivoice. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Too vague- it's unclear what is being proposed here. It's OK if we say that "the putative rationale was X," but only if we also (1) note that the federal courts ruled that the ban lacked a sufficient national security justification and was based on animus toward Muslims, and (2) note that the DHS's own reports said that the travel ban does not effectively combat terrorism (" DHS report casts doubt on need for Trump travel ban"), and note that experts on terrorism from across the political spectrum say the same thing (" Immigration Ban Is Unlikely to Reduce Terrorist Threat, Experts Say"). It's not OK to give the putative reason without also mentioning these highly salient facts. Neutrality ^talk 18:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Always a problem with adding questionable claims. You end up with a chain of counterclaims. Certainly not acceptable in a lead. Objective3000 ( talk) 18:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• No. Agree with BullRangifer that the "security" argument was an after thought excuse which has never held water. It's a fiction. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Pure speculation/WP:OR. Nothing in the DHS statements, Trump administration statements, or the EO itself lends credence to the above editorial. Hidden Tempo ( talk) 23:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

See my comment to you above. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I put my response there as well, thanks. Hidden Tempo ( talk) 04:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Lean no The Trump Administration's rationale (by which I especially mean the one that has been released by spokespersons, not the ulterior one suspected by many outside observers) should be discussed at length, but only where it can be better detailed and contextualized. I see no obvious way, within the constraints of the lead, to give a precise summary of what the sources say about the honesty or logic of the security assertion. That said, I'm open to being swayed by a concise piece of well-written/balanced prose. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I disagree with the premise of some editors here that the ban is solely anti-Islam and has no security argument behind it. The whole point of the ban is security (or rather, improving security methods by temporarily suspending immigration from risky nations). Whether this is a façade to hide Islamophobic sentiment is irrelevant. We have to take DHS and Trump admin statements into account as well as those of RS to provide a balanced overview here. With that said, per a comment above, Survey 2 proposal is simply too vague and no definite solution. I can only vote for something I definitely know the outcome of. In my opinion it would be smarter to first develop the lede rewrite and present it in the discussion, rather than a future, unknown rewrite. Finally, I think whatever the outcome is, we have to be wary to not include a huge chuck of info and details in the lede; it's the lede, after all. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• No. Agree with BullRangifer that the security issue is a fiction. SW3 5DL ( talk) 00:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, but. Most of *the most reputable* of mainstream sources refer to the seven original countries as having been singled out by Obama, a Democrat. We need to find quite-quality RS that say "Obama had singled them out because security" or "because his State Department was trying to pressure them" or whatever they say. Most likely security, in which case we say security. This is the one part of Trump's predecessor's legacy that he *tried* to keep intact. Yet it's also one of the two(?) most controversial aspects of Trump's presidency (after Russia). That alone makes it noteworthy enough to go in the Trump lead. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 17:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• No, there is no "security argument"; that's entirely made-up and we shouldn't treat such a fabricated and racist claim as a legitimate concern. -- Tataral ( talk) 22:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• No RS tell us that the best and brightest minds in the Trump Administration were unable to convince a competent court that there was a significant security argument. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully Specifico, that's not what the courts said and not what the reliable sources covering the courts' decisions say. There was some minimal discussion in those rulings concerning the legitimacy of the security arguments, but only as dicta that are incidental to the main legal issues that were put before the courts for adjudication. The crux of the actual issues put before the courts ( and therefore, by definition, the only issues which the court would or could rule on) were about whether or not the orders discriminated against certain protected classes. Now, those two issues get a little intermingled in American constitutional law, because the federal courts have a multi-tiered scheme of levels of scrutiny of the "legitimate state interest" depending on which particular constitutional protection is at stake. Nevertheless, it is inaccurate to say that "the Trump Administration were [sic] unable to convince a competent court that there was a significant security argument." as the courts made no such ruling (in fact, my understanding of the rulings is that the dicta on this issue in fact favoured the administration's claim, assuming that there was legitimate government interest here.

All of which is actually incidental to our editorial determination here, because we don't base our content decisions on our own WP:Original research as to the meaning of the rulings of courts as WP:PRIMARY sources. We have a bevy of reliable secondary sources which describe these orders and the circumstances around them in detailed terms (be they somewhat variable between the sources). We'll be employing their analysis as the basis for how we describe the orders and the context they arose from, motivations included--not our own. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• It depends on the exact wording chosen. I personally agree with MelanieN that the security justification is unlikely as an explanation, and less important than the import of the ban. On the other hand, I agree with Objective3000 that from the perspective of neutrality (and even just informing readers), it could be helpful to include a few words about why Trump stated the ban was necessary. Even if Satan or Gogmagog declared they'd purge the earth of all civilization, we might find it necessary to inform readers of their justification, whatever its merits ;) - Darouet ( talk) 18:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Thanks to all participants in the survey. There is unanimous consensus to keep the "Muslim-majority" wording and a mixed bag of opinions to mention the security argument. Support comments say that the security argument is due as the official reason behind the travel ban EOs, opposing comments say that security was just a pretext. Meanwhile, the EO was partially implemented and litigation on the merits at the Supreme Court was postponed to October. We won't know until then whether the official rationale for the ban will be upheld or dismissed. However, it exists and the travel ban is temporarily in force, so it seems to me that we cannot ignore it, because none of us is wiser than the Supreme Court… Some contributors wrote that we should mention it but we can't go into details and it's unclear what wording would be added. To enable closure on this discussion, I am now suggesting a minimalist wording, based on the existing text (addition in bold):

He ordered a travel ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns, which was partially implemented after several legal challenges.

Pinging all survey participants @ Anythingyouwant, Awilley, BullRangifer, Darwinian Ape, Dervorguilla, Emir of Wikipedia, Hidden Tempo, JFG, Joobo, Mandruss, MelanieN, Neutrality, NoMoreHeroes, Objective3000, SW3 5DL, Sagecandor, Scjessey, Snow Rise, and Tataral: for approval or rejection of this change. — JFG ^talk 16:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Seems good to me. Minimal but still giving the major points, that it was Muslim majority, it was based on security concerns, it was eventually implemented but only after multiple legal challenges. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Add "controversial travel ban" and I'll support it. That's pretty accurate. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Still misleading, I believe, but better than B, which is just too verbose for the lede. Axxxion ( talk) 20:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - It must say 'controversial.' On a grammar note, this is a run-on sentence with two too many commas. As well, it does not need to say, ". . .which was implemented after several legal challenges." That tells the reader nothing about the Supreme Court implementing it, and no I don't buy the argument that bit belongs in the body of the article. What is the continuing obsession with jamming everything into one sentence? Why can't we have an informative and grammatically correct article? It should be two sentences. SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. An ideal solution to this long debated issue. Simple, straightforward, neutral. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 00:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only wordy, but downright misleading to give the stated reason while ignoring the many sources that say that the motive was a pretext not based on security, but on religious animus. Not only did several federal courts specifically find that the ban lacked a sufficient national security justification and was based on religious animus toward Muslims, but the U.S. government's own reports said that the travel ban does not effectively combat terrorism (" DHS report casts doubt on need for Trump travel ban"; " Immigration Ban Is Unlikely to Reduce Terrorist Threat, Experts Say"). It's not OK to give the putative reason stripped of all context. That fails to do the job of a lead section: to fairly summarize the article and the facts. Neutrality ^talk 17:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I would agree to drop the official, based on the text of the Order (not putative), reason, if we also drop this misleading and contrived appellation "Muslim-majority". First, the order has nothing about it; secondly, if that were indeed the true reason, as folks try to prove, at least a few dozen other countries would have had to be affected, incl some in Europe such as Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo. Moreover, if this "religious animus" argument were true, the Order would have applied primarily to countries, where muslims are not majority, but all 100 per cent (officially!), such as .... yes, and the best known of those even makes it a crime to profess any other religion. Amnot talking of Daesh here, but about a country visited by the USA President with great pomp and royal dancing. Folks, look at facts, not your ideological fantasies: all that matters when entry policy is defined, both vis-a-vis a country and a person, is the amount of cold hard cash this country/person has; all else is irrelevant. Including security: on this isolated count, I fully agree with Neutrality. The USA′s global control of ″security″ since the collapse of the USSR was so overwhelming that the real problem for the US has been to create security threats for their allies, to keep them as allies (vassals). Saudis, as we well know, come in handy for this too. A very useful, ONE HUNDRED PER CENT MUSLIM country - no sanctions, no bans, great business deals! Axxxion ( talk) 21:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Covers the points clearly without extra fluff. I disagree with adding controversial, as it's vague and just says "some people disagree with it" which is not informative or helpful. PackMecEng, 97.124.67.164 ( talk) 02:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support more neutrally worded and provides fair representation of the reason for the ban-- 97.124.67.164 ( talk) 04:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - It's concise and neutral, as has been said by others. Cjhard ( talk) 03:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I would like to point up the fact that this media cliche clung onto this Order mainly because it was an early move by the president that followed his campaign′s controversial rhetoric about ″extreme vetting″ et al. But looking at facts of the issue per se, one sees that the hoopla and furore are no more than party politics hot air, on all the sides involved. Entry into any country, excepting very special cases, is solely regulated by the executive branch, without so much as executive orders, simply by consulate policy/guidelines. Most of the editors involved in this discussion on this thread are from the Anglophone countries, it would be safe to assume. In these countries, travel freedom tends to be taken for granted, as a natural right. But the overwhelming majority of people in the world live in entirely different conditions. The majority of citizens of the countries affected by this Order never had any chance to enter the U.S. legally, anyway, in the first place. To begin with, just to apply for a visa/permit a national of those countries need to have a valid passport, let alone considerable funds. A handful of people in countries like Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen have passports, or means to obtain one. The whole controversy around this Order in the U.S. centres on the debate that is totally misguided, ignorant and hypocritical, on all the sides, incl. the White House. Axxxion ( talk) 22:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Entry into any country, excepting very special cases, is solely regulated by the executive branch. Pardon if this sounds snarky, but I didn’t realize every country had an “executive branch” with such similar powers. Sorry, but your entire post is WP:OR and your personal opinion. Objective3000 ( talk) 00:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000, as in previous cases of interaction with you, I find what you write to be neither here nor there: WP:OR (″Wikipedia articles must not contain original research″) is about articles; on this page we express our views on specific problems pertaining to an article. BTW, the overwhelming majority of countries the world over have the executive way more powerful (vis-a-vis other branches of government) than what you have in the U.S.A. The real problem in the U.S. is that real power now rests with the sprawling security/intelligence bureaucracy, which is now effectively carrying out a creeping coup d'état by sabotageing and undermining their boss. This is akin to what we had in Russia in the latter 1990s. This evolution of statehood appears to be an inevitability in such countries, where you have a huge all-powerful security apparatus (establishment), whose activity is shrouded in official secrecy, that reports to just one person: at the end of the day they demand that their boss be their figurehead and they run the show themselves, naturally for the sake of national security. Axxxion ( talk) 17:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

As in previous cases of interaction with you, I find what you write to be neither here nor there. Then don’t ping me. And, I have no interest in your comparison of the U.S. government with Chekism. Objective3000 ( talk) 17:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Alternative B

He issued an Executive Order that would have prohibited residents of six Muslim-majority nations from entering the US. The order was repeatedly vacated in appeals by several states to the Federal Courts. A less extensive order, or "travel ban", was ultimately enacted.

SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think that goes too far for the lead, and I agree with Anythingyouwant that actions "by the lowest rung of the federal judiciary, that belongs in the article body rather than the lead." -- BullRangifer ( talk) 19:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support I don't think we should be getting into what activist judges in Hawaii and San Francisco felt like doing. The SCOTUS decision was 9-0, so it was a pretty easy call as to what the law says. Hidden Tempo ( talk) 17:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• But this is for the lead, so it must summarize the body, and there we do deal with the controversial nature and court decisions. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• comment "activist judges" is not for WP editors to decide. Do you have a policy-based argument we should consider in support of your position on this? SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support JFG's proposal, with or without the word "controversial", for the reasons given by JFG. (Though I disagree with JFG that "none of us is wiser than the Supreme Court"!) As for action by the lowest rung of the federal judiciary, that belongs in the article body rather than the lead, IMHO. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree that we don't need such detail in the lead. The lead does need to recognize that the move was very "controversial", hence using that one word. The body explains all the details. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 19:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support the first proposal (Alternative A?), including the "security concerns" phrase. This sentence is a model of concision, packing a lot of meaning into a few well chosen words. Minor tweak: IMO we should say it applies to "most" citizens of those countries; there are exemptions. Grammar nerd issue: the word "which" is ambiguous and could be taken to apply to the security concerns rather than the ban. I recommend changing it to "...citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented..." I see several problems with Alternative B, including: unnecessarily wordy, too much detail about legal challenges, and the quibble that it says "residents" when I believe the ban applies to "citizens". -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it also doesn't define "travel ban" -- when the ban was a ban on entry into the US, so there's that. Outbound travel, si! Inbound travel no! SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Whatevs - I've said before that "security concerns" had absolutely nothing to do with it, but it is fair to say that was the excuse the administration cited. I also agree with the additional word "controversial" suggested in "Alternative B". I think SPECIFICO's version goes too far, and I do not support that. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you say "too far" in what way? We can clean up both alternatives and then see which one seems best. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention the appeals in the lede. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Without "controversial", the sentence does not meet the requirements for inclusion in the lead. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 20:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Are we still talking here about text for the lede? Three sentences on one issue, among a list of many others that are supposed to be mentioned in summary? Axxxion ( talk) 20:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternative B is three sentences. The original proposal is one sentence, 23 words. That doesn't seem excessive for an issue that was so central to his campaign and his presidency. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternative B is 140% the electrons needed to display Alternative A. Never mind English sentences and punctuation. And it needs those to be clearer. The other one is briefer than needed for clarity. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Adding "controversial" would not convey much information, as we already say the ban was countered by several legal challenges. Besides, such editorializing is frowned upon in wikiprose, especially for lede sections; better stick to the facts of legal challenges, as yet unresolved. — JFG ^talk 22:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• JFG, so you're supporting the longer version? I was hoping we could keep it short and sweet. Adding "controversial" is consistent with the content in the body. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 23:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: No I'm not supporting proposal B. Given the way it was inserted in the survey, and subsequent comments made either below or above that proposal, it has become difficult to distinguish who supports what now. — JFG ^talk 23:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. It must say 'controversial.' It is in the RS and it absolutely does convey information to the reader. It is not at all 'editorializing,' because it is in RS. SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: While I don't object to a minimalist approach per se, "citing security concerns" strikes me as not quite the most ideal phrasing, insofar as it could be read to suggest that the security concerns "cited" were legitimate, whereas surely what we are trying to say here is that this was the justification presented by Trump and his administration, not one which sources all agree was a factual and accurate one. I could easily support the exact same sentence if that clause was replaced with "arguing that they were necessary to address national security concerns," Snow ^{let's rap} 23:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• B-2 (shorter) per Axxxion.

He issued an Executive Order that to prohibit residents of six Muslim-majority nations from entering the US. The order was rejected by various Federal Courts as unconstitutional and/or illegal, and a less extensive order was ultimately enacted.

SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest some subtle tweaks, Specifico, plus a typo correction? How about

He issued an Executive Order that would have prohibited residents of six Muslim-majority nations from entering the US. The order was rejected by various Federal Courts as unconstitutional and/or inconsistent with existing law, and a less extensive order was ultimately enacted.

With the bolded portion being probably disposable. If kept, though, I think we need to be careful about saying "illegal" in that context; in legal nomenclature, the term illegal generally refers to an act which is explicitly proscribed by law (as, for example, in a criminal context--though not exclusively there). Whereas in this case, it wasn't so much that Trump did anything that was "illegal", but rather tried to implement an order which was then found to be invalid by virtue of being inconsistent with legal precedence as prescribed by constitutional or doctrinal principles. Does the distinction I'm getting at make sense? Snow ^{let's rap} 23:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: SPECIFICO is going in the right direction. It needs work, but he's getting there. SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose longer versions B and B-2: we are looking to summarize a few of the initial actions of Trump during his first 6 months in office. The lede section of his overall biography is not the right place to dissert upon legal details of his travel/Muslim/entry/terrorist/immigration/refugee ban. — JFG ^talk 23:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment IMO none of these revisions are improvements, and I still support JFG's original proposal. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: You could put "controversial" in almost everything Trump's ever done; certainly most of the things he's done running for and serving as President. Do we need to say "controversial" every time he says or does something controversial? p b p 00:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Or at least a substantial number of them (those which are overwhelmingly described by sources as controversial). Snow ^{let's rap} 03:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose the original proposal is more neutrally worded and provides fair representation of the reason for the ban-- 97.124.67.164 ( talk) 04:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

Again, thanks to all participants. The initial proposal "A" (adding "citing security concerns" to the current wording) has gathered support from 8 editors (Emir of Wikipedia, Axxxion, NoMoreHeroes, PackMecEng, Hidden Tempo, Anythingyouwant, MelanieN and myself) and was opposed by 3 editors (Neutrality, SPECIFICO and Snow Rise). There are 2 additional supports if we say "controversial travel ban" instead of just "travel ban" (BullRangifer, Scjessey, possibly SW3 5DL). The longer proposal "B" was supported by 2 editors (SPECIFICO, Snow Rise with further amendments, and possibly SW3 5DL who said it's "going in the right direction") and opposed by 7 editors (BullRangifer, Anythingyouwant, MelanieN, Scjessey, Axxxion, 97.124.67.164 and myself). Finally, Snow Rise suggested another amendment to proposal A, adding "arguing that they were necessary to address national security concerns"; nobody replied for or against. For grammar, SW3 5DL and MelanieN suggested breaking proposal A into two sentences, possibly conjoined by a semicolon.

In light of this survey and all editors' comments, I would say we have rough consensus for the following wording:

He ordered a controversial travel ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after several legal challenges.

Accordingly, I will now push this wording to the article. — JFG ^talk 20:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@ SW3 5DL: According to your comments, you are possibly in favour of proposal A with "controversial" and possibly in favour of proposal B if further amended. Could you clarify whether you approve the consensus version listed here? — JFG ^talk 20:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I was asked to assess consensus and close this with a new item at #Current consensus. Said item would simply show the new language verbatim, in a manner similar to item 17.
I can find no fault with JFG's rationale in this subsection, and I have a general high regard for his objectivity and attention to detail, but it's a complex situation and possibly too complex for my ADD brain. Therefore I would like to wait about 48 hours for reactions to his rationale from those who were involved in the discussion. I'm not asking whether people support the new language, but rather whether JFG's assessment of the discussion seems reasonable. If not, how do you differ with it?
If multiple editors wish to assert a policy basis that outweighs the numbers, I would suggest requesting a closer with more experience with such things, at WP:ANRFC. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is remotely consensus to add the words in "proposal A" to the lead. I gave above a detailed comment that none of the supporters has grappled with. Moreover, participation is very low for the lead section such a high-profile article (a dozen editors); frankly, this should go to a full RfC or should otherwise get wider input. Moreover, Axxxion, although counted as a "supporter" of proposal A, said that it was "Still misleading"; his comment says that he merely preferred it to proposal B - that is not a strong endorsement, and we have more options than simply A vs. B. We should go back to the drawing board if need be, rather than put in the lead section something incomplete and misleading. Neutrality ^talk 01:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

1. I'm not going to second-guess the bold part of !votes. Axxxion may change that to "Weak support" if they feel that's more accurate. 2. Length or detail of an argument doesn't necessarily give it more strength. And the notion that an uncountered argument is stronger than a countered one is what results in WP:BLUDGEON. I've yet to see a closer state that they considered that in their assessment. 3. This leaves me with 6-2 7-2 Support for Proposal A, after addition of "controversial". I think that's a reasonable consensus. 4. I never oppose a non-frivolous, non-trivial, non- pointy RfC, but I don't see this issue as more important than what we confront at this article multiple times a month. An RfC would bring in more participants, but it would be just as hard to reach consensus with so many different considerations and viewpoints. 5. Going back to the drawing board outside of RfC is unlikely to bear fruit; if it did, it would be because some editors withdrew out of frustration; that would be an illusory improvement. ― Mandruss  ☎ 02:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that one side made a substantive argument that is not responded to should of course be a consideration in any close. This is, of course, not a number-counting exercise, but one based on strength of position. For a very high-traffic article, moreover, we should be extremely wary to push out traffic based on a handful of quick takes from editors. Neutrality ^talk 02:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody responded to any of the Supports either, and they are not inherently less substantive because they could be articulated in fewer words. Aside from clear policy bases (clear to the closer, not to the !voters asserting them), closers don't make judgments about strength of arguments. Absent such basis, any such judgment would be subject to the closer's own inevitable biases. As a closer here, I would not see any such clear policy basis. ― Mandruss  ☎ 02:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this "fewer/more words" thing is coming from — nobody has suggested that this is a word-counting exercise. This issue is strength of argument based on policy. Policy says that we should be accurate and should reflect the sources. For example, we reflect facts and reviews " in proportion to their prominence." The reliable sources, whenever they mention the putative rationale for the travel ban, virtually always also other motivations. It seems that for us to give one but not the other in the lead implicates policy issues. Is this mitigated somewhat by the inclusion of the word "controversial"? Sure. But it's still not a very high-quality approach. Neutrality ^talk 03:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No policy is so simple and without nuance that it doesn't usually require editorial experience and interpretation for a specific application; this is why closes rarely go against the numbers unless most of the participants are noobs who don't know Thing 1 about Wikipedia content policy. Clearly, five or six six or seven editors, including quite a bit of experience, disagree with your application of policy to this situation. If you get any support for your position, I'll recuse and you can try your luck at ANRFC. ― Mandruss  ☎ 03:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I continue to abstain; I feel the sentence will likely be removed in 6-12 months and can't be bothered to read all of these arguments. Power~enwiki ( talk) 01:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Neutrality: What wording do you think we should use? Or do you think we should leave it out entirely? I value your opinion and would like to understand why you are opposing this version - and what you think we should do instead. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN: Thanks for the ping. I would leave out both "controversial" (virtually everything that Trump does is controversial, including everything else that is mentioned in the lead section) and the "citing security reasons" language (for the reasons stated above - I do not believe that the "stated rationale" should be given when virtually every reliable source to treat the issue in any detail casts doubt on it). Neither of the parts sought to be added are necessary in a lead section, and both raise more questions they answer. I would keep the lead section at a high level of generality. Neutrality ^talk 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I question whether it's productive to fall back to the discussion phase because one editor disagrees with a consensus assessment, that editor's competence notwithstanding. If this were virtually anybody but Melanie, I'd make a point of order here. At some point we need to move along, on a question that's not exactly an 8.0 on the Richter scale. "Liargate" this is not, folks. ― Mandruss  ☎ 04:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I hate to relitigate the issue, but because the main objection appears to be the perception that "citing security reasons" implies that those security reasons are legitimate, and this hasn't been expressly addressed: I don't think that describing the stated rationale in this sense does imply anything about the truth of that rationale. I don't think it causes the reader to think one thing or another about the truth of the rationale, only what it literally says: that it is the stated rationale. That the truth of the rationale is disputed could be mentioned in the relevant section. Cjhard ( talk) 04:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

If you agree that it's not productive to fall back to the discussion phase, why did you then do exactly that? ― Mandruss  ☎ 05:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concern but I think Neutrality's objection, an objection some of the opposers shared, with the wording warrants addressing, and I don't believe that was expressly done. I believe that can be done without second-guessing what is a clear, recent consensus. Cjhard ( talk) 05:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I for one never agreed to "controversial" (that was not in the original proposal and was apparently added, post discussion, at the request of just two people; I don't see any way to call that "consensus") and I would prefer to leave it out. I did eventually agree to "citing security concerns". -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

We could have a mini-survey about adding "controversial" or not. I thought most people didn't mind, and it addressed the objections of some editors, thus reinforcing the consensus for "citing security concerns". I also think we're spending too much energy on this; current phrasing looks like a good enough compromise, and is by no means set in stone. In a couple months the SC will take up the case and we will gain new clarity. — JFG ^talk 17:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that it's overkill to have "controversial" every time several press outlets have characterized Trump's actions as controversial. Yes, Trump is obviously a very controversial figure, but that can be addressed with a few blanket mentions sprinkled throughout the article rather than every time he's called controversial. That would result in controversial appearing a couple of times every paragraph. p b p 18:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Purplebackpack89: I happen to agree with you on this, but consensus among participants seemed stronger with the word than without it. — JFG ^talk 20:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

We weren't offered the choice. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@ JFG: I reckon we may be headed toward some sort of discussion about the use of controversial in this article. p b p 20:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Only 7 uses of "controversy" or "controversial" in the article, that's not too bad (and one of them is about the Clinton email controversy). Anyway, I'm ready for a debate if somebody wants to launch it: I've got Controversy (Prince song) stuck on repeat. — JFG ^talk 20:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey 3

Enough people have voiced reservations about the use of the word "controversial" in what I called the consensus version, so let's take one more quick poll to resolve this. — JFG ^talk 07:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Should we insert the word "controversial" in the sentence describing the travel ban in the lede?

!Vote Yes for

He ordered a controversial travel ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after several legal challenges.

!Vote No for

He ordered a travel ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after several legal challenges.

Pinging all again (sorry for the bother!) @ Anythingyouwant, Awilley, Axxxion, BullRangifer, Cjhard, Darwinian Ape, Dervorguilla, Emir of Wikipedia, Hidden Tempo, JFG, Joobo, Mandruss, MelanieN, Neutrality, NoMoreHeroes, Objective3000, PackMecEng, Purplebackpack89, SPECIFICO, SW3 5DL, Sagecandor, Scjessey, Snow Rise, and Tataral: — JFG ^talk 07:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@ JFG: No need to apologize for the ping. This sort of thing is precisely what it is intended for. -- Scjessey ( talk) 10:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Note Joobo and Hidden Tempo have been blocked. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 10:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes- Travel ban is obviously controversial, I could go find several sources that would regard it controversial even from right wing sources, how is that in dispute? When even fox news calls it a controversial travel ban, it's pretty much settled Darwinian Ape  ^talk 07:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The remark by some editors was that legal challenges cited make it obvious that it was a controversial topic. — JFG ^talk 08:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand the concerns of overusing the word controversial. However, this is the first instance the travel ban is introduced, and the single most fitting adjective to describe the ban is controversial. Darwinian Ape  ^talk 17:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - It was controversial before the legal challenges began, and it remains controversial to this day. -- Scjessey ( talk) 10:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - Changing my !vote. I have been persuaded by the arguments put forward by other !voters. I no longer consider it a necessary inclusion, and I think solid arguments can be made either way. I disagree that it is redundant because of "legal challenges", but I agree there is a problem in that almost every single thing Trump does is highly controversial and there is a risk the word can be used too often (thus minimizing its impact). In summary, I'm cool with it going either way. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - Accurate single word and not disputed. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 10:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• No - At least with the source listed, since they do not call it controversial. [15] Also what does Trump do that is not controversial? If we went by the argument that a good number of source call it that, every sentence would have that unneeded qualifier. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Not the way to go about explaining Trump's controversies (so no) This was controversial. So's just about everything Trump does (he's a polarizing figure). We could easily dot this article with dozens, probably a hundred, uses of the word "controversial" to describe things Trump has said or done. We would be better served with a few, albeit some of prominence, blanket mentions of describing him and his actions as controversial. p b p 13:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. This is in the lead, and therefore it must summarize what's in the body. Therefore we don't just write the fact (a travel ban occurred). We add this word to describe why we even mention it at all. This wasn't controversial in the generic sense used to say that much of what Trump does is controversial. It was extremely so, especially because of the contradictory and deceptive explanations given which showed the Trump administration obviously trying to avoid admitting publicly that the ban was aimed at Muslims. Unfortunately for the Trump team, the fact that they knew ahead of time that it was wrong and illegal was leaked, giving federal judges proof of illegal intent, and this knowledge was used to oppose the ban. This much detail belongs in the body, while the word "controversial" suffices in the lead. Readers must be notified that there is much more in the body about it. Without this word we violate WP:LEAD. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 14:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: Again none of the sources either in the lead or the immigration section call it controversial. It also goes to the point that Purplebackpack89 and myself made, everything he does is controversial with this one not being significantly more or less than others. Lastly please keep the WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OR to a minimum. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

But why not just say "illegal" which is the basis of the controversy and is more specific? SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• No. It is unnecessary and only clutters up the lede. Unnecessary because there is controversy over many of the things he does (such as withdrawing from the Climate Agreement and firing Comey, both of which are mentioned in the same paragraph but not identified as controversial). Anyhow, doesn't the mention of legal challenges adequately suggest that the action was controversial? Furthermore, this does not match what we say in the article text - where we use the word "controversial" to apply to his original campaign proposal to ban all Muslims, rather than to his executive orders. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, not editorialize in a different direction. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• No. Most things Trump does are controversial. With the increasingly divisive nature of US politics most notable things a President does are controversial, with half the country opposed to it. It could definitely be said that the travel ban was particularly controversial, or that it was legally as well as publicly controversial, but that just adds a level of ambiguity to the word "controversial" if added to the lead. Cjhard ( talk) 10:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• No. Anything in this world can be labeled "controversial", just meaningless and non-specific: the term is usually used as a weasel-word in order not to use a real word such as "illegal", "criminal", etc. No need for this here: we say it was challenged in court, which is enough. But for strictly stylistic purposes, perhaps ″partially enacted″ is better than ″partially implemented″. Axxxion ( talk) 15:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No. "Enacted" is done by legislatures. None of this executive order has been enacted. The order was partially put into effect, as the result of an interim ruling by the US Supreme Court (final judgment to be rendered in the fall). -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• No. Redundant. (Legal aphorism: "No controversy, no case.") And to some readers it may sound just too silly. Trump didn't order the ban to be controversial...

...Unless he did. In which case, Yes. Can you find sources that say Trump purposely meant the ban to be controversial? In other words, that he wanted to create drama for its own sake? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 01:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• No – Superfluous, as we already explain that the orders were legally challenged. — JFG ^talk 06:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• No per JFG. "several legal challenges" already makes it clear the order was not without controversy in the first place. Not to mention pretty much every aspect of this administration is "controversial" and everybody already knows that. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 02:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

---

As per the arbitration remedy at the top of this page Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

@ PackMecEng, Volunteer Marek, ValarianB, and Bergeronp: You lot may be interested in discussing whether we should include this section or not. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Funny you should cite the remedies. This was the edit. This was the challenge via reversion. This was the violation of the ArbCom restriction. Are you under the mistaken impression that there is no vio if you weren't the one who made the initial edit? ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I was under the impression possibly mistaken that the reinstating was the violation. I didn't reinstate any challenged material but reverted the challenged material. If I am incorrect then I suggest that the wording should be changed to rid this possible confusion. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 15:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The language is about as clear as it can be. It's about reinstating an edit, not reinstating content. An edit cen be addition of content, removal of content, or change to content. In this case the edit was removal of content. That was challenged via reversion and you reinstated the removal without talk page consensus to do so. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It obviously not clear if confusion has arose, but I am fine with your restoring the content and discussing here if need be. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have requested clarification at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) on Donald Trump. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Also the issue of "lies" and "falsehoods" has been extensively discussed and there was consensus to include this info. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

[16] ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

What number is it at Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus ? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 15:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The section was first added on June 27th here, following discussion in this archived section. I was restoring a section that was created according to a consensus in a discussion and reverted by a single editor. Either you or @ PackMecEng: should restore it before you are brought to Arb Enforcement, per the rather large warning at the top of this page. ValarianB ( talk) 15:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I am happy for someone to restore the information it and for discussion to continue here if need be. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

First, that archived section had nothing to do with body, it was about lead. Second, and this is only my view, "per User1 and User2 suggestion at talk, with no expressed objections" may have been enough to include the content, but that isn't the clear consensus required to revert after a challenge without further discussion (that's why it was never added to #Current consensus). I suggest that we seek that clear consensus at this time, after restoring the section per the remedies. As I said previously, a mention in the lead requires something in the body; whether that's one or two sentences or a whole section is up for debate. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We can further discuss it here. You have not yet reverted Mandruss so would you wish to restore the section? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You beat me to the restore, sorry about that. After looking at the link provided to the discussion I agree with Mandruss that what you point to is not consensus but that something has to be in the body to have keep that lead. So lets hash that out here. Also @ ValarianB: per consensus required, you should know better than restoring controversial material that was challenged. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@ PackMecEng: Again, read the restriction in the remedy. ValarianB's edit was the challenge. They challenged the edit that removed the section. If you disagree with that rule, you're free to try to get it changed, but it is not about controversial material. Basically it's just "strict adherence to WP:BRD". ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

My mistake then, I was under the impression it was a relatively new section of text with Bergeronp doing the revision. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

'Twas added in late June, as diffed above by ValarianB. We'll probably need a survey here, since that's about the only way to show a clear consensus, but I'm not sure how to frame it. "Keep it or remove it?" would probably be insufficient; if only things could be kept that simple. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we could have a temporary keep or remove the current version discussion while we discussing working out the finer details. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only editor who objects to the section is Bergeronp, a low time editor who has no edits to this article before or since and who has not joined this discussion. The other two removals appear to have been procedural. [17] [18] As far as I'm concerned, if nobody wants to argue for the removal on this page, no discussion or explicit consensus is required and the content stays in until somebody does. This whole thing could have ended with ValarianB's challenge edit. I suggest we rewind the clock to 12:55, 17 August 2017‎ (UTC) and forget this ever happened.
I'll watch the emir's request for clarification of the ArbCom restriction with interest, but I'm pretty sure I'm interpreting it correctly. If I'm not, it definitely doesn't say what it means and seriously needs changing. ― Mandruss  ☎ 04:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You were correct Mandruss and I apologize for my mistake. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries! ― Mandruss  ☎ 14:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Bergeronp: If you object to the inclusion please discuss here or it will remain as per the consensus in this section. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Careful with that word "consensus". There was and remains no content consensus regarding that section. At this point it appears we agree as to process; at least there has been no disagreement voiced yet. Many of us 'Mericans are busy getting ready for the solar eclipse of August 21, 2017. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Just as a matter of process, I have no issue with closing this down. Unless Bergeronp has something to add. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, close it down. There is no policy-based argument for deletion of such properly sourced material, and, per WP:PRESERVE, if for no other reason, we must keep it. A very long article could be written, leaving that as the summary. We're being very merciful by not giving proper weight (we are literally in violation of policy) to a subject which deserves much greater weight and a much larger section. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)