Talk:Executive Order 13780

Splitting Presidential Proclamation 9645
Would anyone object to splitting Presidential Proclamation 9645 to its own article? It certainly has enough content. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not worth it. A lot of context would have to be repeated, and that would only be the fourth article dealing with this travel ban, after EO 13769, EO 13780, and Legal challenges. — JFG talk 17:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The current setup is weird in a couple of ways. It doesn't make sense that the two executive orders have separate articles, but the proclamation doesn't.  Also, each section of this article is already cleanly split between the two, with the proclamation having its own provisions section, and separate subsections under Legal challenges and International reactions. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly support split because the Supreme Court has affirmed it this week. Yes, we have multiple articles in this series, but I don't think that's a problem. That's what navigation is for. Some context would have to be repeated, but we have hatnotes for that. Furthermore, this is the version that will actually be in effect, the version with the most long-term notability, the version most likely to be covered by news outlets in the next year, the k readers would benefit from having an overview article called Travel bans of the Trump administration, which could tell the overall story of the issues, and then one article about the legal process, which we already have: Legal challenges to Executive Order 13769, should be renamed to Legal challenges to the Trump administration travel bans. Then the individual EO titles would simply point to relevant sections of the main article. What do y'all think? — JFG talk 17:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a Trump travel ban article. I think it can be filled out a bit more in WP:SUMMARY style.  My instinct is that there's too much material about the three executive orders/proclamation articles to merge them into one article, even if there was a separate omnibus article about legal proceedings.  All this rearranging would also be a lot of work, while just splitting out PP 9645 would be very simple given that the text is already neatly divided here.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon closer examination it appears that, despite being referred to as the "third travel ban", PP 9645 doesn't rescind and replace EO 13780, but implements changes to it as part of procedures laid out in the EO. Furthermore, the removal of restrictions on Chad was actually an additional proclamation, PP 9723  .  This has implications for how we organize these articles.  Antony–''22'b>[[Special:Contributions/Antony-22|contribs ) 04:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made some small changes to the article organization to make the relationship between the EO and PPs clearer. I think this is sufficient for now, I'm going to withdraw the split proposal.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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

This article is written by an activist.
Time to do some serious edits using non-primary sources. 68.134.78.19 (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)