Talk:Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals (2017)

Was this split necessary?
Is it normal for presidential memoranda to have standalone Wikipedia articles? I'm sure this split from Transgender personnel in the United States military was in good faith, but I doubt that it's necessary. Funcrunch (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, when you copy text from other articles like this you need to state that in the edit summary for proper copyright attribution, . Funcrunch (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If we're going to keep this article, I recommend at least moving to a more specific title, something like President Donald Trump's Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals. And properly acknowledging that this was a split with content copied from other articles, as noted above. Funcrunch (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree about name: I agree completely with about the name of the article. That, in fact, is the reason I browsed here: I saw the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, and thought, So how would that article be distinguished from an article about any other presidential memo to those officials? The name should reflect the reason it's notable and of interest to this project.  Thnidu (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think keeping this article would be a good idea, it needs expansion but I think the nature of how it was announced and other factors have lead to it being independently notable. I also agree about the name, it took me a long time to find this article since the name is so nondescriptive.★Trekker (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I moved the article to a new name. Court documents tend to refer to it as the Presidential Memorandum, but that's even more nondescript and presupposes a knowledge of the Memorandum, I think. Per the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, I've moved it to a more descriptive title, Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals by Donald Trump (August 25, 2017), which encompasses the subject, author, and date rather than the official title, which only provides the document type and recipient. I feel that in the text, Presidential Memorandum of August 25 is sufficiently descriptive as a short title. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this Presidential Memorandum transphobic?
As shown by the most recent edits to this article, there is disagreement over whether or not the subject Presidential Memorandum should be categorized as transphobic. In his edit summary of 4 December 2017, Mliu92 declared, "Two separate orders of preliminary injunction state [that the Presidential Memorandum is transphobic]." However, neither Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's 76-page October 30, 2017 preliminary injunction in Jane Doe v. Trump nor Judge Marvin J. Garbis's 53-page November 21, 2017 preliminary injunction in Stone v. Trump mentions transphobia. I request that Mliu92, instead of edit warring, explain how he deduces from his WP:OR of those legal documents that the Presidential Memorandum is transphobic, and allow time for editorial consensus to form. Meanwhile, absent citation to WP:RS, that category should not be re-added. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The simple fact that it was rejected by judges because it was based on no real research or legitimate reason should make it pretty obvious that it is. Even if trans people were unfit for service this specific action was motivated by no real logic. It doens't matter anyway becuse wikipedia doesn't generaly describe specific things as "racist", "sexist" or "transophobic" anyway, just that they have been identitified as such by a lot of people, which this has. Finding a relibale source for the description would be as easy as a google search if anyone actually put in the effort. The category is too general anyway, it covers broader articles, this fitts more into somehting like "discrimination against transpeople in the United States" if such a category exsisted.★Trekker (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I am engaging in an edit war (a single revert) or original research, but respectfully offer the following passages:
 * "As a form of government action that classifies people based on their gender identity, and disfavors a class of historically persecuted and politically powerless individuals, the President’s directives are subject to a fairly searching form of scrutiny. Plaintiffs claim that the President’s directives cannot survive such scrutiny because they are not genuinely based on legitimate concerns regarding military effectiveness or budget constraints, but are instead driven by a desire to express disapproval of transgender people generally. The Court finds that a number of factors—including the sheer breadth of the exclusion ordered by the directives, the unusual circumstances surrounding the President’s announcement of them, the fact that the reasons given for them do not appear to be supported by any facts, and the recent rejection of those reasons by the military itself—strongly suggest that Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim is meritorious." (17-CV-1597, document 61, Judge Kollar-Kotelly's memorandum, pages 2-3).
 * This is how I connect those dots: "the President's directives" (i.e., the Memoradum of August 25) are characterized by Judge Kollar-Kotelly as "a form of government action ... that disfavors a class of historically persecuted and politically powerless individuals". Plaintiffs claim the Memorandum's policies "are instead driven by a desire to express disapproval of transgender people generally" and Judge Kollar-Kotelly concludes the "Fifth Amendment claim is meritorious."
 * Judge Garbis writes "There is no doubt that the Directives in the President’s Memorandum set apart transgender service members to be treated differently from all other military service members." (17-CV-02459, document 85, pages 42-43)
 * All that adds up to clear discrimination against transgender people. Drawing a conclusion that the Memorandum itself is transphobic, i.e., driven by a fear of transgender people is a stretch, however, and I will abide by the decision on leaving that categorization off this article. It was not my intention to edit war, but rather revert a change by an anonymous editor that appeared to not consider the two decisions for preliminary injunction.
 * Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Mliu92, I appreciate your response, and commend your willingness to abide by consensus. However, it should be noted for the record that you reverted not one but two editors:
 * 66.87.133.171 and
 * 177.158.116.104
 * Also, and more importantly, your stated rationale is virtually the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. I trust other editors will not fall prey to that temptation. KalHolmann (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please double-check. The edit by 66.87.133.171 occurred one week after my reversion. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Mliu92, I apologize for my misunderstanding. It was indeed a single reversion, not two. KalHolmann (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)