Talk:Protests against Executive Order 13769

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protests against Executive Order 13769 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Airports

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the airport project.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

United States: Presidents / 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Protests against Executive Order 13769. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Protests against Executive Order 13769 at the Reference desk.

Expand article scope?

Resolved

Should this article be renamed to cover all of the airport protests across the U.S., and not just JFK? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. 2017 airport protests or something similar would be better. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer and Antony-22:, a rename may be good... as long as this article redirected to the new name since the NY one seemed to have the most attention. It would be great to expand to other cities in this article since we only hit the tip of the iceberg. I also like 2017 airport protests. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur: another vote for 2017 airport protests. Ian Page (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've got three votes to move to 2017 airport protests and expand the article's scope to include other airports. Shall we take the plunge? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to 2017 United States airport protests -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I added a couple images. I had added the wide one up top at 450px. That's indeed wider than usual, so I get that it was shrunk. At 300px, however, the signs, etc. are barely legible so perhaps it's best to swap it out for something else? It seems desirable for an article about an event to have more pictures of that event than of other events :) but I don't want to crowd the article with images or start removing those other people have added (since these images are ones I took). I'll just drop a few of the ones I like here and you can do with them what you wish (if anything). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. I reduced the lead image size because I thought 300px was standard. Feel free to replace as appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video from O'Hare

I've got two videos from the O'Hare protests that could be added to the "Other protests" section:

Don't want to clutter up the article with too much media, but I think a video would be good to add to the section. Should we consider adding a gallery? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@I JethroBT:, I like the idea of a gallery. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was that there is NO CONSENSUS for the proposal.
If any editor desires a new result, make a new, fresh proposal.
Yellowdesk (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page now covers all the protests at the airports, how does this mesh with List of protests against Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States? I've added a proposed merger tag at this article and the other. Please discuss. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SIZE, the list is simply to large for a merger. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is now about all of the protests rather than just the JFK event (with everything else under "other protests"), it'll inevitably be reorganized to reflect as much. The list could simply be listed in prose form (for those which are not covered in more detail), taking up a couple paragraphs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both articles are going to grow significantly. I know we've barely scraped the surface of coverage. London is holding protests related to the EO today, for example. Other cities have coverage we have yet to add. I think that size issues are at play here. I find that most people find prose summaries of long lists difficult to parse. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The airport protest is not protesting keeping terrorists out. It's protesting not letting legitimate travelers in. CorkyH (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All the airport protests are relevant to the EO so there is no need to have a separate list. In no way are these too long to consider together, and this is a disservice to readers to have materially related content divided between multiple pages. References do not count against WP:SIZE. Reywas92^Talk 20:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with a merge only if all of the protests mentioned in the list are converted to prose form and mentioned in the article. Otherwise, if this is too much to include in the article, then the list seems appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very opposed to putting lists into "prose form." They are difficult to read and use. The list of protests is very long and as I said above, I think it's going to get longer. I haven't found all of the sources yet (in non social media form) for the protests that have taken place. There's a lot more to add. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to table form yesterday, that does make it shorter and clearer without losing any data. — JFG ^talk 21:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have a feeling that this article will get too big to the point where it should be its own article. M.W.B.A.B. (Making Wikipedia Better And Better) 01:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.W.B.A.B. (talk • contribs)
Support, Or please split the protests in this article into the list article. It makes little sense to make two lists. epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, however, that one article is a list and the other describes the events, who was there, the impact and more. They are not "both lists" so shouldn't be merged. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Merge the list into an "Other cities" section of this article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to get too big. I know I've said this a few times, but I've been working on both of these (as many of us have) and I can see that both are going to be huge articles. The nice thing about the list is that it accommodates the pictures well, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That list is about the international protests, while this article includes details about ongoing protests in the US airports and it's also growing significantly. Keivan.f^Talk 07:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: Take a good look: the list covers both domestic and international protests. — JFG ^talk 16:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, AHusain3141 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:SIZE. As mentioned above, the articles are too big to merge and will continue to grow larger. Smartyllama (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some form of renaming and reorganising seems called for but proposed merge fails SIZE. Airport protests were the first US response, street demos possibly followed in UK and elsewhere, but other forms of objection are becoming manifest, such as this. There is also the unprecedented matter of the speaker of the UK parliament declaring his unwillingness to welcome Trump as a guest to UK parliament in response to the ban. These responses and actions need to be organised coherently. Would separate US/International response articles make sense? Pincrete (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Premature close

The following is a closed discussion of the merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merger proposal was that it has failed at this time, for lack of consensus. Yellowdesk (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellowdesk: ?! I don't feel terribly strongly about this, but closing after one day when opinions are clearly split (assuming one doesn't just count bolded words) seems inappropriate. As it says at WP:MERGECLOSE: they're "normally one week or more". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, should have stayed open for a longer time. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened to let the discussion play out for a week. — JFG ^talk 23:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to re-opening, but I wonder how you'll get a consensus on what has been written so far. Yellowdesk (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New title?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS is forthcoming.
The proposal fails.
Yellowdesk (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be renamed to Protests against Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, given the existence of List of protests against Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. The two articles are similar, except this is more in depth article, and the other is more like a simple list. epicgenius (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The airport protest is not protesting keeping terrorists out. It's protesting not letting legitimate travelers in. CorkyH (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't an RM so you don't have to oppose, but yeah, I see what you mean. Except these are protests about the same thing. epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are many protests in Canada and the UK that should be acknowledged as well. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The protests started out in airports, and moved out to different locations. The thing that ties them together is the executive order. I like the name Protests against Executive Order 13769. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be too complex because I don't know how many people know executive orders by their numeral name. I suggest simply 2017 Donald Trump airport protests. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like 2017 Donald Trump airport protests, which was suggested immediately above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Protests against Executive Order 13769 seems to be a better title. Keivan.f^Talk 05:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Non neutral, unreadably overlong title, title does not even acknowledge that 'Protecting the Nation' is the name of the exec order, not an abstract, thus no one is protesting against 'protecting the nation', they are protesting against an exec order that they believe is unconstitutional and which they believe violates US commitments in Int. law. Title must necessarily be the number of the exec order, or a clear commonname. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per unanimous consensus. The nominator lists out the reason accurately, pointing to a current precedent in naming. QEDK (愛) 17:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The request to rename this article to Protests against Executive Order 13769 has been carried out.

2017 United States Donald Trump airport protests → Protests against Executive Order 13769 – Protests are not limited to airports, and they are a reaction to Executive Order 13769, which has become the WP:COMMONNAME for Trump's immigration restrictions. We have already similarly-named articles List of protests against Executive Order 13769, Reactions to Executive Order 13769 and Legal challenges to Executive Order 13769. — JFG ^talk 13:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree that it should be moved/renamed to Protests against Executive Order 13769 because while the protests started in the airports, they did not all occur in the airports. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle per my comments above and for reasons given by Megalibrarygirl, it does not make sense to separate protests in airports from those in other locations. Though some form of reorganising the two current article seems called for. Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good move to match other articles on the topic and expand beyond the U.S. Kamalthebest (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this would help consolidate things over time. Classicwiki (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

video could be migrated

https://vimeo.com/202597508 Victor Grigas (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and title of this article

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

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

I have tried to start a discussion about the scope and title of these articles at Talk:Legal challenges to Executive Order 13769. Please join that discussion and let's figure out how to handle this. Pinging @Another Believer and Megalibrarygirl: --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, MelanieN. The general public protesting aren't really protesting the orders: they are protesting the effects of the orders. We should cover protests to both orders on the same page. If later orders come and are similar, I think any protests against them should also be covered on this page. As for the legal details and challenges, I'm not a lawyer, but if legal challenges are specific to the orders themselves (which they seem to be) then I suspect those should remain separate. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind repeating these comments at Talk:Legal challenges to Executive Order 13769? I'm hoping we can reach some kind of consensus on how to handle these articles and how to title them. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, since that would be helpful, I will, MelanieN! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Reactions to Executive Order 13769 Article

I believe that it would be great to , merge this Wikipedia article with the similar Wikipedia article titled "Reactions to Executive Order 13769".(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Executive_Order_13769?fbclid=IwAR2PYZ_h4RKOJhWkeKfhdqDCAiJ_hM6132IhYEqaDs3TT2Va9GcC0IXAbRs#Public_opinion)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). I believe that both articles touch on important concepts of the reactions/protests and would be great to merge the two articles. If we can merge these 2 articles the reactions and protests to the Executive order 13769 would be more complete. In addition to this merge I believe that it would be very beneficial to add a detailed section on the article about the online protests that took place against and for the executive order 13769. Examples of social movements that became popular on social media are #nobannowall and #grandparentsnotterrorists hashtags. Please let me know what you think about merging these 2 article and creating a detailed and complete article about the protests/reactions to the Executive order 13769. --CanKaya1 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)CanKaya1[reply]