Following recent developments, our consensus wording for the travel ban in the lede section is no longer accurate. I suggest changing it from:

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

to:

He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was amended twice in the face of amid legal challenges, and was eventually approved allowed to take effect by the Supreme Court.

Rationale:

• The article has been updated to describe the evolution of the travel ban since its initial wording.
• The number of affected countries has changed twice (seven, then six, then eight, two of them non-Muslim).
• The vetting procedures for numerous countries have been reviewed, leading to more precise acceptance criteria.
• The temporary order, which was close to expiry, has been replaced by a permanent Presidential Proclamation 9645.
• The Supreme Court has cancelled the October hearings and vacated one of the top challenges to the order. (see Executive Order 13780#U.S. Supreme Court)

Opinions welcome. — JFG ^talk 06:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That initial order still involved 6 muslim majority countries, so having six instead of several would also be true. Also just because some of the legal challenges were dismissed doesn't mean the supreme court "approved" of it. That implies that it actually had a decision (say 5-4 etc) approving it, which would be conclusive. I'm not sure if all the challenges have been dismissed and there might still be more challenges for the new travel ban which could get to the supreme court. Until a final decision is made I don't that "approved by the Supreme Court" can stay. Apart from that it looks okay. Galobtter ( talk) 06:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that the difference between six or several is minor. I do agree that with the current situation saying "approved by the Supreme Court" is not something we should do. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 08:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it's minor. The main thing is "approved by the Supreme Court" which as far as I know is not being said by any RS. Galobtter ( talk) 09:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Amended wording, taking into account your remarks and the first comments from the survey. — JFG ^talk 16:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Pinging all participants in the earlier discussions that led to the current consensus. @ Anythingyouwant, Awilley, Axxxion, BullRangifer, Cjhard, Darouet, Darwinian Ape, Dervorguilla, Emir of Wikipedia, Hidden Tempo, JFG, Joobo, Mandruss, MelanieN, Neutrality, NoMoreHeroes, Objective3000, PackMecEng, Power~enwiki, Purplebackpack89/C, SPECIFICO, SW3 5DL, Sagecandor, Scjessey, Snow Rise, and Tataral: please state whether you Support or Oppose the new wording, with a brief rationale. — JFG ^talk 06:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hidden Tempo and Joobo have both been indefinitely blocked. If any further discussion happens no need to ping them. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 08:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support in part. I think the ban, as amended, is reported to have been upheld (not "approved") -- or, to be hypercorrect, its most significant elements have been upheld (in that Hawaii is reported to have sought to frustrate the ban as amended). -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 11:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support mostly. I think “amid” would be better than “in the face of” because it’s more concise (also less suggestive that all the changes were because of the legal challenges). I also agree with Dervorguilla that “upheld” would be better than “approved” (judges often disapprove of stuff that they nevertheless are obliged to uphold). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 12:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC

The supreme court hasn't upheld anything yet. They temporarily approved some of the first version (denying an injunction) and then seemed to have dropped the case later as moot. The revised version seems like it needs to make its way through the lower courts first. Either way the supreme court definitely hasn't upheld it. From what I read, It has left the questions unanswered for now. Galobtter ( talk) 13:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven’t followed these cases all that closely, but I seem to recall that SCOTUS did reject a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the whole thing. But indeed that would be a bit different from upholding; “tentatively upheld” or something like that might be more accurate. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose No poll or survey of editors is going to change the fact that the Supreme Court did not "approve" "the" travel ban. What's now in place is a different measure and no RS tells us that it has been approved or sustained by the court. What's needed is not an editor's OR "rationale" -- we need RS descriptions of the situation. The proposed language obscures the fact that the measure was not enacted. The current regime is something different. It's not "the" ban and it was not "approved" Please work from RS accounts. The first version is still fine. The second is inaccurate and insinuates POV. SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Would it be more accurate to say "permitted" by the Supreme Court? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

They've allowed or temporarily preserved the second version of the travel ban, but from a Sep 25 article I see after the third version they've said this:

In its brief order, the high court asked the Trump administration and the ban’s challengers, including states and refugee advocacy organizations, to file briefs on whether the case should be dismissed.

I think permitted would be correct for the second version but not sure for the third version. Galobtter ( talk) 15:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that "permit" (particularly in a legal context) suggests affirmative approval. The court simply stood back from taking a very strong affirmative action against the ban by easing a small aspect of the Federal Appeals Court injunctions. The issue ultimately will be adjudicated, unless the Trump Administration drops the matter. Some sources suggest that will be the ultimate outcome, as the newer versions of this restriction bear less and less resemblance to the illegal initial version. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Reuters uses allow:

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

Which is synoymous with permit. Galobtter ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree that, with respect to legal authorization, "allow" is synonymous with "permit" -- but at any rate there's still the key point that "the ban" keeps changing to remove the clearly illegal parts for which the Administration apparently has no defense. So the Appeals courts' rulings have not been reversed en masse and the proposed language does not present a full and accurate picture. What is wrong with the first version? SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO, I do not engage in OR: all the points mentioned in my rationale were culled from recent RS about the matter, which are all cited in the article body or in the main articles. Let's work on a good wording. — JFG ^talk 17:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that you 'engage in OR' so please don't confuse folks by misrepresenting my words. If you have a reliable source that states the US Supreme Court "approved" "the travel ban" a link would be helpful to us all. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In your first comment on the survey, you wrote quite eloquently What's needed is not an editor's OR "rationale" – given that I am the "editor" who provided a "rationale" for this proposal, I was bound to take your remark as a personal accusation of OR, so I pointed out to you that none of the motives listed in my rationale were OR. If you don't want your words to be "misrepresented", then please pick more accurate words, and focus on content, not people. Regarding the wording, I have already changed "approved" to "allowed to take effect" which is more accurate according to several comments including your main objection. — JFG ^talk 02:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's never advisable to personalize talk page discussions. If you feel so personally invested in your POV that you're unable to discuss it in terms of content, there's little chance of progress. Blaming me for your ownership issues really makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussing in terms of content is precisely what I do. Just cut the redundant aspersions and insinuations, please. — JFG ^talk 06:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Specifico. The supreme court has been ambivalent on the whole issue really.

He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was amended twice amidst legal challenges

Cutting the supreme court part is better I think as above, but even then what we really need to do is find how RS are describing what has happened to the travel ban—the correct wording may actually include the travel ban being amended because of the legal challenges as making it more written by national security experts and not having religious exemptions reduces the legal challenges etc. Galobtter ( talk) 13:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

But that language does not indicate that the courts were content to have it go forward. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah they were content with allowing the second version of the travel ban and the third version of the travel ban is still being discussed (i think in lower courts)..I'm not sure how we can explain all that in one sentence. Agree have to include somehow that the third version is indefinite and in effect. Galobtter ( talk) 14:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – I have amended the proposed wording, taking into account the comments from the survey so far. Please check this version. Remember that we can't go into too much detail in the lede, so we shouldn't mention exact terms of the first/second/third version changes. — JFG ^talk 16:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support the amended version. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I do still feel that this sentence will probably be removed from the lede in its entirety next year, so I have no strong preferences as to its content. The changes seem to be an improvement that reflects recent events. power~enwiki ( π, ν)
• Oppose The SC did not fully allow it to take effect. It put conditions on the government about the relationships the parties had to US residents. The effects of those conditions are still in the lower courts. Casprings ( talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I may not understand the full import of the changes being proposed, but as far as the lede is concerned, I view the original text as having basically the same import as the revised proposal. I propose to change "six" to "several" as JFG suggests, but otherwise keep the original text, which is simpler. I also believe the original text is consistent with the variety of changes and past and ongoing challenges the ban has faced. - Darouet ( talk) 16:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the rationales provided by several editors above. -- Tataral ( talk) 17:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment At a glance I think "six" --> "several" is an improvement. I think the bit about the Supreme Court is a bit too much detail for the Lead. ~ Awilley ( talk) 05:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The edited replacement language only makes the proposed text less clear and accurate. "Amid" suggests environment or ambient circumstances rather than legal reversals by the courts, which is conveyed by "in the face of". "In the face of" accurately denotes opposition. Weasel #1. Then as previously stated in this section above, the ban was not enacted. The limitation that was enacted is not the same as the limitation that was found to be illegal. So Weasel #2. Things are going from bad to worse here. The original text is fine. The proposed text insinuates POV into what should be simple descriptive text. SPECIFICO talk 12:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose mentioning Supreme Court - there has been no determination on the merits yet, and the Hawaii's case, which deals with both travelers and refugees, remains pending before the Supreme Court. We should wait until there has been some decision on the merits before mentioning the Supreme Court. And just today, a federal judge issued a new temporary restraining order] blocking the third travel ban from going into effect. Neutrality ^talk 19:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed text implies that the ban is a wholly done deal (especially being written in the past tense - not absolutely sure about the existing sentence, either). Premature given the outstanding complaints from Hawaii and Maryland. Would it not be more accurate to rephrase the existing sentence to indicate that the ban remains an ongoing process? Cpaaoi ( talk) 22:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I find it hard to vote for any of the options because the travel ban thing has gotten rather complicated as the previous two bans have already expired and a new one is in place, targeting other countries besides the six Muslim-majority nations in the previous bans. It's also a bit sketchy to say that the SCOTUS "allowed for it to take effect" as they did so with certain restrictions. They dismissed the case on the ban only after it expired and was replaced with a new one. I would support mentioning that there was more than one ban; maybe we could simplify it and simply say that he has placed restrictions on travel from certain countries since the beginning of his presidency. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 02:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Time to close or withdraw before any more editors waste time on this. No support and it's hardly applicable after latest vacate order. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The new wording is misleading. It implies the Supreme Court has approved the new order. In fact it quashed an interim injunction by a lower court. The executive order will be allowed to be carried out until final determination by the Supreme Court on its legality. It's similar to someone appealing a financial judgment. The appeal court will vacate the order that the defendant pay the plaintiff until the appeal is heard. It does not mean that the defendant has won the case. TFD ( talk) 03:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Retracted Support When this RfC was begun the amended travel ban was in effect. Challenges are irrelevant, existing laws are challenged regularly. An injunction would be relevant but none existed so I would have voted Support. Except as of a few hours ago Watson issued a new injunction [4] so the proposed wording would be inaccurate. James J. Lambden ( talk) 03:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear...I think we first need to atleast keep our travel ban section updated. This time it is definitely expected to go to the supreme court, so we can maybe get a resolution on this atleast. But that means that a new wording definitely now needs to be created; including the fact that an injunction has blocked the travel ban as of October 18. Galobtter ( talk) 04:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Abort – In light of recent news, I agree with Awilley that it's too early to mention the status of legal challenges, and we should wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the merits. Suggest to keep the prior wording and just change "six" to "several" countries. — JFG ^talk 09:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm late to this party because I've been on vacation, but I'm opposed to changing this at this time, since the situation is still very much in flux. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose specified wording, but general Support for updating the statement. As has been noted, the Supreme Court did not rule on the actual constitutionality/legality of the ban, but rather lifted part of the injunction, on legal grounds relating to the manner in which injunctions are approached, procedurally. Even then, the court left significant portions of the injunction in tact and limited the class of individuals who could be reached by those provisions which were cleared to proceed, for the present time. So I don't think "allowed it to proceed" adequately captures the scope and nuance of what the court's ruling entailed--that subject, to be fair, is a complicated one, and difficult to capture in lay terms for any encyclopedic summary, let alone the micro-summary of the lede. Even so, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to try to include mention (in the lede, that is) of the depth of the legal disputes, and the involvement of SCOTUS--even in advance of the court coming to a point where it is going to rule on the core legal issues, especially as constitutional scholars and other observers seem to feel the court is not exactly chomping at the bit to review this one and may defer the matter as long as possible--but the wording would have to be adjusted substantially. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Minimal change request

In light of the survey above, and given the ongoing legal battles, I suggest to amend the earlier consensus wording #23 by changing "six" to "several" because the number of countries affected has already changed several times. I also suggest to link "travel ban" and "legal challenges" to the dedicated articles. The net result is:

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

Please indicate whether you Support or Oppose this minimal change. — JFG ^talk 04:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

New ping for all participants except blocked users: @ Anythingyouwant, Awilley, Axxxion, BullRangifer, Casprings, Cjhard, Cpaaoi, Darouet, Darwinian Ape, Dervorguilla, Emir of Wikipedia, Galobtter, James J. Lambden, JFG, Mandruss, MelanieN, Neutrality, NoMoreHeroes, Objective3000, PackMecEng, Power~enwiki, Purplebackpack89, SPECIFICO, SW3 5DL, Sagecandor, Scjessey, Snow Rise, Tataral, and The Four Deuces: Thanks. — JFG ^talk 04:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What about North Korea and Venezuela (not Muslim)? Those are the only countries for which it’s now implemented AFAIK. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't care for the egginess of travel ban. We link to Executive Order 13780 in the body, so I would prefer to (1) unlink "travel ban" or (2) link "travel ban" to Persona non grata, which is the first entry at the dab page Travel ban. Unqualified to comment on the rest as I haven't kept up with these developments. ― Mandruss  ☎ 04:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Linking to a generic meaning would not be sufficiently informative to our readers, but I agree that the Easter Egg is suboptimal. Perhaps linking "a travel ban" instead of just "travel ban" would convey that we are talking about this particular travel ban? Or link the whole phrase "a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries", but that's ugly. — JFG ^talk 05:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Since lead is summary, I don't see why we necessarily need to link to the specific in the lead. That detail along with others is in the body. If a reader doesn't make it that far I think that suggests they aren't interested in the details of the executive order, in which case the link is superfluous. Failing that reasoning, I prefer long links to eggs, and including the article "a" is only marginal improvement. ― Mandruss  ☎ 05:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What about linking "the ban" to the specific ban and "travel ban" to the general meaning. Galobtter ( talk) 05:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Why link to only one version of the ban but not others? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Try this: “He has ordered a travel ban including restrictions on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban has been partially implemented amid ongoing legal challenges.” Wikilink only “legal challenges” because that provides lots of info about all the different versions of the ban. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

One egg is half as bad as two. :) IOW I could live with that. ― Mandruss  ☎ 05:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, wikilink “ongoing legal challenges”. No egg, right? Eggcellent? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not much less eggy than linking "legal challenges", and I don't think it's sufficient reason to add a word that otherwise wouldn't be needed. Like I said I could live with the latter. ― Mandruss  ☎ 05:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but note the word “ongoing” is in the draft I suggested above at 05:27. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

We ought to just go with NPOV. Based on a solid majority of reputable mainstream sources (but grossly oversimplifying):

He ordered a travel ban that targeted several Muslim countries. State appellate courts quickly struck it down as unconstitutional, citing his personal Islamophobia. A few months later, the Supreme Court declined to affirm, and reversed in part...

Both the appellate courts and the mainstream press emphasized, reemphasized, and continue to passionately emphasize -- at great length -- Trump's personal xenophobia. So we do have to mention this as the key issue. It's OK to add that SCOTUS dismissed this argument as not even worth discussing. But we can't unring the bell. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Weak support. It's pretty minimalist compared to what I'd propose, but it reflects the pragmatic facts, while delaying the political and legal discourse until later in the article. I can get behind it. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban is currently blocked by a preliminary injunction because of concerns about discremenation against Muslims and overstepping the bounds of U.S. immigration law.

• 1. It has not been partially implemented. It is currently blocked by a preliminary injunction. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-tweets/trump-defends-tweets-as-key-to-white-house-victory-idUSKBN1CR00B

• 2. Second, we need to mention why the courts blocked the travel ban to be WP:N. Otherwise, it seems like the courts are blocking him for no reason. Casprings ( talk) 13:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well the restrictions on venezuela and NK are active; but the ban on the muslim-majority countries, which what we mention, is blocked. That seems quite a bit much for the lead, which needs to summarize what all has happened to the ban.. Galobtter ( talk) 14:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This OP proposal is another POV version that obscures the nature of the various versions of the "ban" and the courts' findings in blocking it. Casprings version is much better. I would be OK with something close to that. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well it is just a one word change from the current version. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean we can't atleast agree on that. We can do a bigger change later... Galobtter ( talk) 14:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The Americans say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I am puzzled by the insistent efforts to tweak the language of this bit when the current version is more or less OK for an evolving and still-developing story. It's ham-fisted and in my opinion should be dropped. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The restriction does not focus does not solely on Muslim majority countries. Also since the exact number of countries and which countries are covered in the body of the article the lead can be simplified. With linking travel ban to executive order 13780, I'm not sure. I like the idea of the sentence linking there but it feels off to do it on travel ban. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

C'mon. "The" restriction is a fiction restriction. It keeps changing every time it's blocked by the courts so that there won't be a headline saying "Trump travel ban dead." There is no "the" restriction. It's like chasing rabbits around a cornfield (a pastime my late husband and I used to enjoy every spring at Easter). The central point, however, was that the implementation of the campaign promise Muslim Ban was blocked by the courts and that POTUS, rather than fight and lose on the merits, has kept changing the story. Remarkably, with little to show for it. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Specifico, you seem to be conflating your pragmatic analysis of Trump rationalizations with the legal reality here, which I suspect, based on your comments immediately above, you may not be entirely well-versed on. Without getting into Trump's motives and how much we should credit his claims as reflecting his true motives, we can still say that the most recent version of the order is in fact in effect, as a matter of law and practical fact. Further, the recent rulings and orders by SCOTUS, while not in and of themselves a final decision on the legality of the ban, nevertheless give a strong indication that the court is prepared to rule in the President's favour, should it give full review. Discouraging as this may be for a large portion of the U.S., it's not entirely surprising. Because of longtime trends in both legislation and jurisprudence, the president has very expansive authority over the administration of immigration policy; Congress granted the Executive something approaching plenary power in regard to immigration controls, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly approved the broad scope of executive discretion in such matters, even the face of countless constitutional challenges going back more than a century.

Now, the Supreme Court can look past the text of the order and look at Trump's highly public statements about the racial and religious nature of the ban--and with the right court composition, it could easily find each variation of these orders to be unconstitutionally discriminatory. But there's a lot of reason to believe the present court won't do that. Under the present statutes, administrative processes, and Supreme Court jurisprudence, the president really just has to make a pretty minimal display of a 'rational purpose' analysis in order to justify their admissions policies; the first two executives orders were amateur hour and lacked sufficient justifications on these grounds, but the version of the orders which resulted from the most recent proclamation has a more substantial national security analysis undertaken by the relevant agencies, and clearly this goes a long way with the court, even in the face of the President's public statements. And again, while no one was sure which way the court might first move on this issue, the rulings have not been altogether surprising; this is a highly conservative court and probably the most deferential to executive authority of any court since the Progressive Era.

Finally, the court's recent order concerned injunctive relief, and whenever that topic comes up, the court does a minimalist review of what they think the petitioning party's chances are of prevailing in a full review. The court's comments in the most recent ruling, and their ultimate decision, are both highly indicative that the court could come down on the side of POTUS on this issue, no matter how "obvious" Trumps rationalizations are and how many people see clear discriminatory intent in his policies. In the meantime, without question the orders have been partially implemented and immigration procedures are adapting accordingly. So your assertion that the administration's efforts are merely a face saving gesture and a show, without real functional implication or legal force, is just plain wrong. They've made substantial legal headway, and stand well positioned to perhaps prevail on most of the major issues. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Snow Rise:, you are the one that is incorrect concerning the meaning of the SC decision. Per: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide rela- tionship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion. See infra, at 11–12.

The injunction continues for those that have a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." What is a bona fide relationship? Who knows. That is what is working its way through the lower courts again. Moreover, this is CLEARLY a compromise between the liberals and the conservatives on the court and should, in no way, be seen as an indication for how the court will rule on the case. Casprings ( talk) 01:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Casprings: Your comment seems to be arguing that no one's been banned yet... And I think most RS say that's not so... Maybe you could clarify this point? Also, do you have a response to my point about NPOV? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don’t understand your comment. I am just saying what the SC actually said and adding a little bit of analysis. If you don’t have a “bon fide” relationship with someone or something in the US, the ban clearly stands. But defining what that is, is difficult(per Thomas’s opinion. Moreover, it doesn’t really offer any guidance how Kennedy will decide the case in the end. Casprings ( talk) 03:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Casprings, even by the most expansive definition of that language that's been employed in law for a bona fide relationship--and it's not a "who knows" situation for the the most part; there's a lot of BIA jurisprudence, agency regulations, and even statutory language in the INA as to the meaning of this term; the parties are simply disputing whether a few key relationships can be included--but again, even under the most expansive definition, that still leaves the order in tact for a majority of those which the ban was intended to cover. Also, you cited one small portion of the holding; the issues at bar extend well beyond that. As to your assertion that it's "CLEAR" that this order resulted from a "compromise", you may want to write up your analysis for a law review article, because there's a lot of doubt amongst experts about where the court is headed here and what that ruling portends, but your theory is not a leading one. Myself, I was not trying to assert with anything approaching certainty which way the court might be heading--I thought my wording had made that clear--but rather was rejecting (as plainly inaccurate) the notion that the Trump administration's repeated efforts in this area had no pragmatic consequences and that they were only keeping at it so Trump could appear not to have been defeated. That perspective is clearly ignorant of the legal reality here, because the Government has clearly made significant gains recently in advancing the POTUS agenda. It's still very much an open question how things will fall out over the next few years, but A) the order is currently in effect for a majority of those it was intended to cover and B) the chances that the current court will uphold key provisions of the order under review is a lot higher than the average person (or indeed even the average nightly news anchor) seems to realize. There's just so much settled law on executive prerogative in this area, and this isn't the most likely court to break this particular trend. Anyway, even if this does indirectly inform upon the editorial issues, we're getting a bit off track. If you have a response you'd like me to read, it might be better to place it on my talk page--cheers. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Justice Thomas in the linked opinion, would disagree. He is pretty clear that he believes, and is correct, that this will result in a wave of lawsuits on what “bona fide” means. I think that cite gets to the core of what they decided. If there are other parts I missed, please cite the important bits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I would disagree with the assertion that a lot of litigation about the meaning of that term is on the horizon--because I don't. The two points I made on that topic are: 1) that there is already much BIA jurisprudence, INA statutory language, and agency regs defining the meaning of that term-of-art with regard to visa applicants and other admitees, and 2) the parties are contesting its meaning with regard to a small (but very important) subset of relationships. The question of the scope of the issues is a very different one from how many different actions there will be and how big the stakes are. I don't think we're that far apart on the latter two matters. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - As I stated before, the situation is in a state of flux. I would prefer to see it play out before changing the existing text, although I think Casprings might be on the right track with the proposal below. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support "six" --> "several". ~ Awilley ( talk) 03:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't even know what version we are talking about now, after recent news and court actions. I would support the wording suggested above, He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was amended twice amidst legal challenges. I'm not even sure what the status of the ban currently is; I think it may be in effect for North Korea and Venezuela but not the other countries. I think we need to come up with a general summary like the above, and not try to keep up with all the twists and turns here in this biography. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternative text suggestion

Wanted to suggest:

He ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a preliminary injunction currently prevents the full implementation of the ban because of concerns about discrimination against Muslims.

• 1. This text provides the current state of the ban. It is mostly blocked by a preliminary injunction.
• 2. It is important to tell why the ban is blocked. While courts have linked the logic to both current immigration law and to constitutional concerns, at the core is the view that the ban discriminates against Muslims. We should provide the reader with more context, even in the lede. To leave that out gives the reader the impression the court is blocking legitimate national security concerns for no rationale.

I would ask you to vote support or oppose. Casprings ( talk) 18:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe - I would prefer to see the situation play out a bit, but I think this is much better. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I think this is mostly an accurate summary, but I fear that the final claim ("because of concerns about discrimination against Muslims") is a bit of an oversimplification. This was surely a major concern cited by the lower courts, but the matter is a little bit more nuanced than this phrasing reflects; after-all, the class of individual which the Supreme Court allowed the ban to proceed against are Muslims to exactly the same extent as are those for whom the injunction was upheld. I don't disagree that the core issue here is the question of discriminatory intent, and this has been reflected in the rulings and (critically) sources covering the rulings. But I still feel that the proposed wording is too perfunctory if we are going to get into the business of classifying the disparate reasoning of the courts, in the lead. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What wording would you suggest to give the courts rationle? Casprings ( talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually gave that a fair bit of thought when posting the above, but I couldn't come up with anything that wasn't problematic for the lead in one way or another, and continue to favour the current wording, because it dodges the issue for the time being, while still noting that there is legal controversy on the issue. Insofar as the statement continues to include a link to our article on the ban itself, it presents an opportunity for the reader to follow up on the complexities, which is good enough until we strike on the right wording for a more nuanced (but still brief) description of where things are at now. I'll keep thinking on what I might propose for that last clause, though--since yours is the logical and obvious response to my initial comment. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it stands to reason that it is early days to burden the lede of a president in office for less than a year with all the newsstream hoopla bites, the real significance and notability of which (for an encyclopedia) have yet to be proven. Mind, i amnot suggesting removing it from the article, only from the lede. I believe this suggestion is especially convenient given the fact that the ongoing debate appears to have deadended.

Please indicate whether you Support or Oppose the overall removal of this passage (concerning the travel ban) from the lede, i.e. this sentence as it now stands: ″ He ordered a travel ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; the ban was partially implemented after several legal challenges.″. Axxxion ( talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose One is his most important policies and an important conflict between the Courts and his office. Casprings ( talk) 22:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a core campaign issue, a core policy objective, and one of the most widely reported and discussed issues of the Trump presidency. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose One of the most important events and policies of his Presidency, far more than most of the other stuff mentioned in the lead. Galobtter ( talk) 04:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's frankly ludicrous to suggest we should exclude one of the most pivotal policies and scuffles with the courts of Trump's presidency. It has received overwhelming coverage in reliable sources. Also, I suggest Axxxion be trouted for suggesting editor's !votes "are based on partisan/political rationale" - a clear assumption of bad faith. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above observations: a major (and to date, defining) feature of Trump's presidency, which presidency is itself going to be covered at some length in the lead of this article, as the now single biggest part of his notability. This is a borderline WP:SNOW call on a simple WP:WEIGHT analysis. I also agree, especially in light of the most recent comment below, that there is something fundamentally bad-faith, needlessly inflammatory, and just generally unhelpful/ WP:Disruptive in how Axxxion has decided to interject comments about other editors here; Axxxion, please follow the Wikipedia policy of arguing the point on its own merits, rather than trying to attack the character of your "opposition"; speculation of the motivations and supposed flaws you believe you have divined about your fellow editors are not a proper (or a permissible) part of the analysis of content issues during discussions on this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose ~ Awilley ( talk) 03:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose A defining aspect of his candidacy and presidency. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I am sensing that the objections to the proposal I see above are based on partisan/political rationale rather than the Encyclopedia′s criteria and Policies: above all, the passage grossly abuses Wikipedia:Recentism – and not only in that it has happened lately, but, more egregiously, in the fact that it has not actually happened yet: the upshot of this executive order effort has yet to be seen, it is in effect an ongoing event. And thus putting it in the lede preempts history, as a matter of fact. Hence, the obvious inability of ours to arrive at consensus and endless wrangling over the passage. Axxxion ( talk) 13:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Many editors here have voiced concern that Trump Administration talking point spin can be artfully insinuated into various "minor" editing and language changes on a range of American Politics articles. Also many editors have voiced concern that social media, cable TV and blogosphere talking points are being pushed as valid WP content, deprecating established and acknowledged mainstream media such as Washington Post, NY Times, and the like. There's nothing political in WP's content and sourcing policies and they are very effective at preventing the kind of POV tilts that have been proposed for this bit of content. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Recentism is about undue weight of recent events; an event occurring recently does not preclude it from being included. You're talking absolute nonsense. The executive order going into effect and being blocked in courts are significant events that have already occurred; enough to include in the lead. Galobtter ( talk) 09:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok. But what is the actual meaning of this passage? I fail to see it. POTUS signs dozens of executive papers daily, incl CIA ″findings″ to kill persons by drones or otherwise, who have not been even charged with anything, all over the world, mostly in ″Muslim-majority countries″, the only objective qualifying criterion for such killings being that such persons not be U.S. citizens. All other humans are fair game for such arbitrary murder. That does not bother any one, as people do not want to know about it, and these CIA ″findings″ are classified until when no one is interested. Then, we have this ″travel ban″ that bans people who haven′t the remotest chance of going to the U.S. anyway arousing millions of Americans to feverish political activity. We do not yet know the basic facts even about the election campaign of Clinton/Trump: those are only starting to emerge (BBC: Clinton team and Democrats 'bankrolled' Trump dirty dossier). The only fact worthy of an encyclopedia about this ″travel ban″ is that it caused lots media coverage – that much is true. Why and wherefore it happened, we shall learn in a while, most likely; but at the moment we simply do not know. It is just news coverage. And WP is not a news media outlet. Axxxion ( talk) 15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Immigration limits - which he himself used to call a "Muslim ban" - is not a matter of "recentism". By his own choice it has been a defining aspect of his candidacy, and later his presidency, for the past two years. And its repeated imposition, and court challenges/reverses, have been a staple of the news for the past 10 months. BTW, "lots of media coverage" as you say is one of the main metrics we use to define what kind of WP:WEIGHT to give a particular aspect of the subject. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, I mainly agree with what you wrote immediately above. But if we proceeded from your logic, the text in the lede would go sth like this: ″He succeeded in implementing his election campaign pledge to restrict entry to the U.S. by citizens from certain security-risk countries after overcoming legal hurdles in American courts.″ But of course, this version hasn′t a prayer of being approved by consensus, as it implies Trump′s success, whereas the current one — the other way around. That is what I mean by saying the text as it stands now is politically biased (POV-pushing). Axxxion ( talk) 17:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Axxxion: Well, I would say your version is fairly biased the other way; it certainly does not "proceed from my logic" or from the actual history of what he said and did. His original, loudly repeated, months-long campaign pledge was not "to restrict entry to the U.S. by citizens from certain security-risk countries" as you say; it was to restrict entry to the U.S. by MUSLIMS specifically. [5] Remember this - "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" - which he issued as a campaign press release and read out loud at every campaign rally? [6] He said that in December 2015; he was still saying it in June 2016. He eventually modified it to be about citizens from certain countries (all of them Muslim-majority), and that was what he tried to implement with his executive orders. His original insistence that the ban was to be against Muslims was what caused the courts to strike down his orders as religiously discriminating. But if you want to focus on his successes, the wording might go something like this: "On his third try, he succeeded in implementing travel bans against citizens from a few countries he had never mentioned before; however, his three attempts to limit immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries were struck down by courts." I am not proposing to put this in the lede, however. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, thanks for your detailed response. I hear what you say, but i always tend to think that treating people who run the executive branch in countries such as the U.S. by standards that are applicable to politicians who merely run for an office is wrong. I mean, what Trump said and says is ultimately irrelevant in comparison to what he is empowered to do and indeed does; and this ought to be highlighted. It is very obvious why he issued these orders: because he needed to publicly demonstrate that he seeks to make good on his campaign pledges. But any one who knows how immigration policies are regulated and effected understands that in essence the orders were largely meaningless (as i pointed a while ago: the executive branch has discretionary powers to ban/allow entry of any individual); what was staggering in this case is utter inadequacy of public reaction to these meaningless orders. And it is impossible to deny that this reaction was mostly political, fueled by bitterness of people who were not able to reconcile themselves to Trump′s win. Therefore, having this narrative in the lede in itself is a political bias, I believe. Axxxion ( talk) 18:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion, it appears to me that you're arguing for an alternative mode of coverage if we were editors of a secondary source such as a newspaper or if we were writing our own account of the matter. But I think MelanieN's account more or less summarizes how those secondary sources actually chose to cover it. As WP editors, we're bound to convey the sense of that version -- regardless of the merit of some of your concerns. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, nice of you to have used ″it appears to me″: i think that is exactly the case. In fact, i am arguing for precisely what the major Policy of WP commands: ″WP describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.″ The lede′s text says the order "cites security concerns″, which is well and good (we have attribution to the text of the primary source), but then it uses this journalistic cliche descriptor ″Muslim-majority countries″, which is not found in the document in question, ergo, at the very least there has to be an attribution of some type or other explaining why we use this term (if we are to use it in the article′s lede in the first place). Axxxion ( talk) 18:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, you are justifying your view based on the primary source, which is consistent with the point I was trying to make above. But as WP editors we must use secondary sources, and they do not agree with your preferred presentation of the Order - regardless of whether they are in any abstract absolute sense neutral or fair. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you obviously distort what Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources prescribes by saying ″as WP editors we must use secondary sources″; moreover i have no ″preferred presentation of the Order″: i just say that before presenting exclusively one–sided interpretation of the Order, we must mention what the Order itself actually says. Axxxion ( talk) 18:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

But then we cherry-pick secondary sources to pander to our own political stance: for example, Foxnews does not use this cliche in its coverage of what it refers to as ″Trump's travel decree″ (the document is actually titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, but this is irrelevant, acc to your interpretation of WP:RS); moreover it stresses and cites Trump as specifically saying ″The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting″ (as reported by a secondary source). Thus we have the protagonist of this story (as well as others such as Chairman of House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul) expressly rejecting this narrative as false (for what it′s worth), yet we use this cliche in the lede as if we referred to an established fact, without so much as attributing it and explaining why this ″false″ characterisation is used, let alone without mentioning that this interpretation is expressly denied and rejected. Axxxion ( talk) 18:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You would need to demonstrate that what you call "cherry pick" does not reflect the WP:WEIGHT of RS reporting. Fox News, by itself, does not represent the weight of mainstream reporting. It's one source, and in some recent matters has not been considered a reliable source. I really don't have more to add. It's a matter of conveying the weight of mainstream reliable source descriptions. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You should use Donald Trump's Presidential PORTRAIT *on file* with the National Archives. (Stop being disrespectful.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.35.145 ( talk) 00:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is an official portrait with a valid usage license, no editor has seen it yet. Got a pointer? — JFG ^talk 03:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, there’s currently another deletion discussion about it. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Picture

Although it isn't his official presidential portrait, please see the latest discussion. Mr. Coulter has said it is O.K. to use now per the admin. Corky  ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 21:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's official portrait

It turns out that Doug Coulter is OK with the official portrait's use on Commons, according to this. He states this in the very OTRS ticket that caused the photo to be deleted in the first place. Apparently, the only reason the photo got deleted was because Coulter did not want to state a specific license. If Coulter is OK with the photo being used on Commons and being attributed to him, he doesn't need to state a specific license. If we use this photo on Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, don't worry, we won't get sued. Phil roc ^{My contribs} 21:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I propose we overturn consensus point 19 as it was based upon the deletion of the image by Coulter. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like admin Jim looked at the same evidence that resulted in the deletions and drew the opposite conclusion. Is it normal to do this without even discussing the situation with the opposing admins? How do we know they are even aware their decision has been overridden? ― Mandruss  ☎ 22:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If there’s an admin whom you’d like to hear from, please ping them. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware it is unprecedented but then again the whole sage with this image has been unusual. @ Jameslwoodward: Would you care to weigh in on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia ( talk • contribs)

His enwiki user page says "I work here on WP:EN occasionally". So he might not receive the ping in a timely manner, even if you signed your post, which you didn't. No signature in the same edit means no notification. ― Mandruss  ☎ 22:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ADonald_Trump_Official_Presidential_Portrait.jpg&type=revision&diff=264497807&oldid=264447148 Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said in my closing of the Commons DR, the OTRS ticket, while very complex, with a lot of back and forth, came down to the fact that Coulter is clearly willing to have the image on Commons as long as he gets attribution. The vast majority of our contributors do not have any real understanding of copyright, so we are usually very careful to get a specific license. Coulter, on the other hand, is a professional photographer and therefore thoroughly familiar with copyright. He clearly understands exactly what he doing when he expresses the willingness to have the image on Commons -- an irrevocable license for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. I don't see any reason at all not to accept his statement.

And, by the way, a ping here on WP:EN shows up at the top of the page even if I am working on Commons, so no worries there. I suspect that's true across all the projects. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) ( talk to me) 01:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems very reasonable to me. The federal government website says it’s a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, and Coulter has not disagreed. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Jameslwoodward: Do you understand the desire of some of us for you to get agreement from the admins and OTRS experts who were involved in the deletion and failed undeletion? If your reasoning is that obviously correct, how hard could that be? ― Mandruss  ☎ 01:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please remember that Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 2,000 of them for one reason or another. The vast bulk of that work is done by ten Admins, who, of necessity, work very fast. We occasionally make mistakes or don't address subtleties as well as we should. I haven't seen the previous DR -- I couldn't find a cite to it -- so I don't know what my colleague's reasoning was.

What I do know is that on May 5 Coulter said:

"Coincidentally, I looked at the image again today and noticed it reflected the proper authorship, Doug Coulter. If this can be left as is, it’s fine with me."

When he looked at the page, he wasn't looking at the photograph -- he was looking at everything else, in particular the attribution and the license. I don't see any way to read "it's fine with me" in any way other than as an acceptance of the CC-BY license that he saw when he looked at the page on May 5.

I understand that you'd like a final word on the matter, but that doesn't happen here or on Commons. While both projects work by community consensus, that consensus can change from time to time. We regularly delete images that have been use on one or more WPs for ten years. As I said above, I'm confident in my assessment of Coulter's acceptance of the CC-BY license, but the community has disagreed with me in the past and will certainly do so again in the future. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) ( talk to me) 11:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Should we use Coulter pic at the top?

• Yes, it’s tentatively/temporarily the official photo. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Not until all involved admins have discussed this and reached agreement. As it stands now, there is little preventing the image from being deleted after a few days, once the other admins become aware of the new Keep ruling. This article should not suffer the instability created by admins' failure to communicate and coordinate with each other. ― Mandruss  ☎ 22:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Woodward did discuss it, he closed it as keep. See the huge diff I gave above. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I was aware of his close comments before you provided the link (that's where I got the "admin Jim" in my first comment). I see nothing in those comments to suggest that he discussed this with the admins involved in the Delete ruling and the failed undeletion request. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Mandruss – wait until other admins get involved. Corky  ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 23:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Corkythehornetfan and User:Mandruss, which other admins do you want to hear from? If you tell me, I will ping them. Why do you expect that we will hear from them if we do not summon them? Alternatively, you can appeal Woodward's decision to keep the image. But if you don't tell me what admins you want to hear from, nor appeal Woodward's decision, then there is no reason to postpone this survey. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 was one of the admins in the original discussion... I have already notified him on his talk page. Rob said one thing and James said something else, so they need to work this out before it gets used here again IMO and it become a "HUGE" mess again. This is an administrator issue, not a non-administrator issue. Corky  ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 00:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's see what BU Rob13 says. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind that at this point we have one admin reading it one way and (as far as we know) at least four other admins still reading it the other way. The other three are the closers of the first deletion request (Revent and Josve05a) and the closer of the undeletion request (Natuur12). ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe User:Revent, User:Josve05a and User:Natuur12 would like to know about this discussion. Anyone else? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

We do not have it available under any specific irrevocable free license, as is required. We should not use it. The Commons admin who kept it the second time around supervoted and blatantly ignored Commons policy while doing so. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 01:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: In this scenario, it doesn't matter if Mr. Coulter named an exact license. If he just wants the photo attributed to him, we can just use {{ Attribution}} on the photo page. I think that you are focusing more on the letter of the OTRS process than its spirit. The spirit of the OTRS process is to get the copyright holder to make the photo free, not necessarily to get them to name a specific license. Phil roc ^{My contribs} 11:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Philroc: Wikilawyering over a legal matter? How dare I! We require licenses to be irrevocable. A three word non-license is not irrevocable and therefore cannot be accepted by Commons. The fact a Commons admin supervoted doesn't change that. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 12:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: If you want a specific license, Coulter has implied in the OTRS ticket that he accepts a CC-BY license, as he saw one on the old photo and said he was fine with it. Phil roc ^{My contribs} 12:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

An implication is not a legally-binding release. We need a release. A consensus of OTRS agents agrees with that view and that the ticket is invalid. Of course, the Commons admin has decided to ignore that. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 12:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: When Coulter saw the CC-BY license on the photo and saw that it was attributed to him, he said that "it's fine by me". "It's fine by me". "It's fine by me." Those four words were his CC-BY release, no matter what hoops you wanted him to jump through to get the photo 'technically' released. If we keep this photo, we won't get sued, because Coulter has let us use the photo under CC-BY. Phil roc ^{My contribs} 12:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't comment specifically because I have no intention of breaking the confidentiality agreement I've signed. You're saying something substantially incorrect about what the ticket said, though. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 12:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: Here's the full quote, if you want it: "Coincidentally, I looked at the image again today and noticed it reflected the proper authorship, Doug Coulter. If this can be left as is, it’s fine with me." If Coulter said this in the ticket, he said this in the ticket. You can't say that he disallowed the use of the photo on Commons in the ticket. Phil roc ^{My contribs} 13:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to confirm/deny what is written in the ticket or who sent it in, as doing so is barred by a confidentality agreement all OTRS agents sign. Having said that, if that was what was in the ticket, the attribution is rather clearly what he's saying is fine, not everything else on the page. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 14:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: If he was fine with everything the way it was - including the attribution, he is clearly fine with the CC-BY license. Phil roc ^{My contribs} 15:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

He was fine with the attribution. Assuming he's fine with making that decision irrevocable (which is what the license does) is another thing entirely. Nowhere in the ticket does anyone say "I'm fine with every single word on the page." It was more along the lines of "I'm fine with the attribution." Those are meaningfully different statements. In any event, the image has been deleted. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 15:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn’t the source website of the federal government say it’s “Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License”? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The content of the OTRS ticket makes clear that is false. Unlike my colleague, I will not breach the confidentiality agreement I've signed to give more detail than that. I will note that the White House is not the copyright holder and so cannot release this image under any license. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 02:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding whether a photo was released to the federal government under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, I do not believe that you have evidence proving that it was not released in that way. At most, you could have evidence that the photographer has disputed that it was released in that way. Unless you’ve got the actual contract between the photographer and the feds, which I doubt, but if that’s the situation then it seems like the photographer ultimately accepted Attribution 3.0 by saying “I looked at the image again today and noticed it reflected the proper authorship, Doug Coulter. If this can be left as is, it’s fine with me.” I’d like to hear from more people familiar with the OTRS ticket. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That is an erroneous argument. We don't seek out evidence that a proper license or transfer of rights doesn't exist. The onus is on the user wishing to add it to Commons or Wikipedia.- Mr X 02:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose there's nothing too wrong with the long-standing image on this page. If the White House will clearly release an official image to the press as a public-domain work, we can use it. Otherwise, this is a repetitive discussion that doesn't need to be had. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly. The White House has released an official image to the press as a public-domain work. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Honestly, at this point, I want a White House lawyer to say it on the record. I suppose I'd settle for an official statement from the WMF that endorses the image as being under a free license. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC) A public statement from the photographer (who is clearly the copyright holder) that this is released under a public license is sufficient as well. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support official portrait. IMO it's a bad picture, but it's conventional to use official pictures in the infobox. The deletion discussion at Commons failed to get a consensus to delete. As long as the picture is available on Commons I think we should use it. In case it's deleted, we can replace it with the current Pentagon one or take the opportunity to open a new image survey altogether. (oh and by the way, if Coulter said it's OK to use this, we should try getting the Mike Pence portrait back as well, since he also took that one). NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 02:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per BU Rob13. As a reminder: the Federal Government cannot "release" a photo for which they are not the copyright holder. It doesn't work that way. If the photographer/copyright holder wishes it to be in the creative commons, all they have to do is choose one of several compatible licenses.- Mr X 02:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @ MrX: In this scenario, it doesn't matter if, per Rob, Mr. Coulter didn't name an exact license. If he just wants the photo attributed to him, we can just use {{ Attribution}} on the photo page. I think that you and Rob are focusing more on the letter of the OTRS process than its spirit. The spirit of the OTRS process is to get the copyright holder to make the photo free, not necessarily to get them to name a specific license. Phil roc ^{My contribs} 11:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @ Philroc: Copyright has very serious legal implications and how we treat it affects the reputation of this movement. COM:L requires that "The license that applies to an image or media file must be indicated clearly on the file description page using a copyright tag." If the copyright owner has not chosen a license, then this simply cannot be done. This is not an area where I think we should WP:IAR. - Mr X 12:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course the Federal Government can "release" a photo for which they are not the copyright holder, if the photo has been released to the Federal Government under a Creative Commons License. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Wrong. In the US, the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute their work.- Mr X 02:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
      • According to creatvecommons.org, “The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.” If the licensor released to the Federal Government under a Creative Commons License, the terms of the license forbid revocation. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
        • That's a different matter entirely, and unfortunately, you have no evidence that the photographer released it to the Federal Government under any type of license, including one that is compatible with our free content mission.- Mr X 02:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
          • No evidence? The official federal government website hosting this image has a link to “copyright policy” which says: “Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.” Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Yeah, no, that's the same circular logic that you used moments ago. Again, it just doesn't work that way. - Mr X 03:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
              • You mean you think the word “licensed” refers to a license from the federal government, rather than a license from the copyright holder to the federal government? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
                • I have no idea what is legally represented by the copyright policy statement on whitehouse.gov. I do know that this administration has issued more falsehoods than I ever thought possible. My default position is incredulity. YMMV.- Mr X 12:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
                  • @ MrX: The website said the same thing during the Obama administration, so you can't use your political opinions to prove the license invalid. Phil roc ^{My contribs} 14:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
                    • @ Philroc: I never used a political opinion anywhere in this discussion. I'm not aware that there is a problem with the licensing of the Obama's official portrait. If there is, you're free to pursue it at an appropriate venue.- Mr X 14:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
                      • @ MrX: "...this administration has issued more falsehoods then I ever thought possible." Phil roc ^{My contribs} 15:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per BU Rob13. It is unfortunate that this appears to be the first presidency incapable of releasing a public domain official portrait, but I suppose this is just another example of the administration's systemic incompetence. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Scjessey: Political opinions are not needed in this debate. Phil roc ^{My contribs} 15:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @ Philroc: I agree. I was stating a fact, not an opinion. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Just because the administrators here have a hard time with copywrite, an admittedly challenging area, does not mean there is systemic incompetence. That was kind of mean. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
        • @ PackMecEng: Administration, not administrators. I was referring to the Trump administration's inability to release a public domain image. Or were you attempting to be sarcastic? -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
          • I found it humorous. PackMecEng ( talk) 21:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh give me a break. Last thing this website needs is more politically charged editors with an agenda, make sure to go cry on Macron's page about how his photo is copyrighted, oh no I forgot nothing exists outside of Trump around here. Uggh. 70.44.154.16 ( talk) 23:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Except no French administrations have released public domain portraits, whereas all modern US admins (except for Trump) have. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 00:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Image now deleted

The image has been deleted on Commons. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 14:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This situation remains mystifying to me, and therefore I have started a discussion at the Commons Village Pump about the Pence image. [7] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It is mystifying to me also. I have started an undeletion request at Commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Donald_Trump_president-elect_portrait.jpg. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is it mystifying? We have a defined process for identifying compatible licenses on file information pages. If that is missing, or falsified, the file should be deleted. If you really want this photograph on Wikipedia or Commons, call/write/text/email/smoke signal Coulter and ask him to either post a license adjacent to the photo on social media or his website, or contact OTRS to explicitly declare a license. I've made similar requests of copyright holders before. It's not that hard to do.- Mr X 18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

During the last deletion request for this photo, I stated that I was going to DM Doug Coulter on Twitter and ask him about whether the photo was free. However, I was stopped from doing this by the closure of the request. However, now that a new discussion has started and it has been proven that Coulter has authorized the photo's use on Commons (but not necessarily under CC-BY), I am going to DM Coulter today and ask him to license the photo under CC-BY. Hopefully, my doing this will settle this debate for good. Phil roc ^{My contribs} 19:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've finally gotten to DMing Doug Coulter on Twitter. In the message, I ask him to choose a free license and offer CC-BY as a possible choice. Message contents:

Dear Mr. Coulter- I am Philroc, a volunteer at the Wikimedia Commons, the photo repository of Wikipedia. Last May, an anonymous individual who may or may not have been you sent us an email stating that you were OK with the use of your photo of Donald Trump ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/45/PE%20Color.jpg …) on the Commons as long as it was properly attributed to you. However, you did not name a specific free license that it was OK to use the photo under, even though you were asked to do so multiple times. The Commons can't use photos unless they are under a specific free license. Now, I am going to ask you once again to give us a specific free license that we can use the photo under. One license that you can choose is the Creative Commons Attribution License, which lets anyone use your photo for any reason as long as they properly attribute you for it. You implied you were OK with this license in your email to us, so this is probably a good choice for you. If you do not want to release your photo under this license, a list of other Creative Commons licenses you can choose is at https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-types-examples/licensing-examples/ …. (A couple pointers before you make your decision: Creative Commons licenses are irrevokable, meaning you can't take them back, and if you choose a license that prohibits commerical use, the photo cannot be used on the Commons, and it will be uploaded to Wikipedia's local photo repository instead.) Sincerely- Philroc

Phil roc ^{My contribs} 13:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we use this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 ( talk • contribs)

I doubt much has changed since the last time you suggested this. ( Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_67#Image). Why are you insistent on this goofy-grin image? TheValeyard ( talk) 15:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This image looks a lot better than the rest

File:Donald Trump in the Oval Office, June 2017 (cropped).jpg seems to be better than the other images of Trump. What do you guys think about its inclusion in the infobox ? 2.51.17.85 ( talk) 13:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Greetings Wiki staff and editors, I absolutely LOVE your website and use it all the time for so many reasons. I am requesting a new picture refresh for 45th President Donald J.Trump. The picture does not have the American flag. Thank you, keep up the Amazing work! M.G. Mmgraesser ( talk) 23:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit semi-protected}} template. This is under more-or-less constant discussion. O3000 ( talk) 23:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)