Talk:U.S. federal judge halts Trump's ban on refugees, people from Muslim countries entering U.S.

Miscellany

• 9/11 should be a local wikilink.
• 9:00pm in what time zone?

--Pi zero (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Done and done. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"Newly inaugurated"

There are two ways to deal with this: In number of stories and in absolute time. In absolute time, it's been only one week since he took power and Trump is already doing things like this. But since we can't say "I mean this guy didn't waste any time to rip on Muslims and foreigners," I think it's good to mention that he's newly inaugurated and let the reader come to it on their own. Thoughts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It might be a bit heavy-handed to describe him in the lede as newly inaugurated; on the other hand, one might have some background information, far down the inverted pyramid, about the recentness of Trump's inauguration, possibly by itself or perhaps as part of addressing the history of his position on this aspect of immigration (there's clearly a vast range to the sorts of things that might be done, from a single short sentence on up).

I'm now reviewing the article; something could be proposed here during review or applied to the article after review. --Pi zero (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The thing is the mere event of Trump becoming the president has been over-reported and people are aware that he is the president of the US. And I am not surprised to see all these things happening, it was expected that he just shows the world what kind of person he is. Muslims and foreigners. I don't know if there were people who were in the illusion that we won't do this, but yes, lot of us knew this was coming from November 9. The second question is, when should we stop calling his a newly elected president? A fortnight? A month? After tenth act of madness? After he "bombs the shit out of" Syria? He would not stop. I don't expect he will. I also expected some news websites would not publish ten articles to showcase Trump did this. Seriously, no international news websites are there which won't have more than one news article about the same act of foolishness which was directed by Trump. As of there is only one thing in the entire world for to report news. It is really silly to say newly elected president because there is almost zero chance for people not knowing he is (except for people who would march as if it is still possible to change the outcome of this electoral vote or Trump would be ashamed and would not do any of the things he is doing.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 14:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

See my above remarks. Explaining background is a valid thing to do; in any ongoing story we should not assume the reader is already familiar with details of the story. News articles should be self-contained. We should strive to produce articles each of which is a clear and dispassionate snapshot in time, that a reader now can read and think "wow, that is a clear neutral exposition of the situation", and a reader a century or two from now can read and think "oh, so that is what was happening then". --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We assume our readership is both intelligent and articulate, but also ignorant; I know lots of bright people who read very little news. We should also write in such a way the article stays readable years down the line as a historical record. The recently-inaugurated thing is a splash of colour; the article stands or doesn't without it, but it would work to have it in there somewhere. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

9/11 hijackers

They were the plane hijackers, not the date hijackers.Ellipse0934 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

That grammatical construct does not require that the preceding noun be the thing hijacked. The fancy term for it is attributive noun — a noun used as an adjective; indicating that the hijackers referred to are those associated with 9/11. --Pi zero (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4283771 [Passed]

Revision 4283771 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The question was raised of whether or not to mention that Trump is recently inaugurated. Imho that question is a distraction. It's not in itself all that important a fact, could be mentioned near the bottom of the inverted pyramid or not. It would, however, be of some relevance to the story that the executive order was supposedly addressing a campaign promise by Trump (I think that was mentioned by at least one of these sources), and in connection with that it would be of some relevance to mention also when Trump was inaugurated. I mean to address the matter of terminating punctuation on direct quotes in a separate comment on this page; I didn't want to hold up publication for that, though. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4283771 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The question was raised of whether or not to mention that Trump is recently inaugurated. Imho that question is a distraction. It's not in itself all that important a fact, could be mentioned near the bottom of the inverted pyramid or not. It would, however, be of some relevance to the story that the executive order was supposedly addressing a campaign promise by Trump (I think that was mentioned by at least one of these sources), and in connection with that it would be of some relevance to mention also when Trump was inaugurated. I mean to address the matter of terminating punctuation on direct quotes in a separate comment on this page; I didn't want to hold up publication for that, though. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.