Talk:Travel to U.S. resumes after federal judge blocks executive order

There were concerns about bias and partisanship in the title of my last article on this executive order. I've tried to keep it to the facts (oddly, by making the title longer via inclusion of the necessary caveats), but please pay the title special attention. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Title
Do we really need such a big title? Like how about "Travel resumes after U.S. federal judge locks executive order suspending entry of refugees"? Agastya Chandrakant  ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰  19:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of them aren't refugees. They're people like international students who went back to their home countries for winter break, U.S. permanent residents who were out visiting relatives or on vacation, and just regular immigrants who'd waited their turn for admission. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What about "Immigrants, visa holders resume travel to U.S. after federal judge blocks executive order"? kamnet (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, it doesn't seem to include green card holders. Not a dealbreaker.  Just an imperfection. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying something simpler. --Pi zero (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Some Muslim countries agree"
I did a cursory search before review this morning and while there were at that time many sources indicating that Trump said this, there were none examining the facts behind it. I think that's going to be a thing with the Trump administration. They say something or refer to something like "Like when I won the apple tournament." We have to find another source about whether they won the tournament or in fact whether the tournament even exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --Pi zero (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)