Talk:Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2017 Q3)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Brevity

Looking for a little clarity on consensus, since I find myself not only shortening contributions but even re-shortening following reverts to these edits, yet don't want to keep feeling like I'm taking matters into my own hands. This article is a timeline, and it is my understanding that entries ought to be kept absolutely as brief as possible (especially with a busy subject such as this one). Am I right in assuming that others agree that extraneous details, tautologies and repeated phrases ought to be excluded from such a timeline, and that the length of all entries be kept to a bare minimum? Good to hear some thoughts... Cpaaoi (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is not possible if you don't provide context to the entries in the timeline. Don't cut the entries to an extent that half the information is gone. Encyclopedias need to be informative to the point that people understand what they are reading and what is going on. You don't just post for example, Person ABC visited the museum. You need to provide context to why the visit took place. Another problem with cutting so much information you don't know who else attended the meeting. This is not WP:NEWS that we add everything in the article, but being too brief is not beneficial for readers to know what context the entries are about. This is also nothing to do with fake news which you are ascertaining. F2Milk (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• There is certainly a balance to find between keeping things brief and losing too much context. "Stick to facts" has worked well as a criterion to exclude repetitive prose, commentary, motives, speculation, und so weiter. — JFG ^talk 16:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok fair enough; I'll stop cutting it back! Probably I have placed too much importance on this page; perhaps I'll go over and work on the Nixon timeline: the poor guy has no more than five entries for all of 1970 and 1971! Cpaaoi (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump police brutality comments 28th July

It would be much appreciated if you would not accuse me of pushing a particular point of view. A careful look through all three pages of the Trump timeline will show edits by myself describing the man giving successful speeches and rallies, handing out medals, making good appointments, abiding by Congressional norms, and so forth, as well as removing critical entries such as the one concerning the 'March for Science', which had little to do with Trump directly, even though he was of principal interest to the marchers. However, I am not shy to include entries about his habit of failing to pass legislation and of making disgusting remarks (in which case I think there has been much restraint on my part - consider the tweet about Mika Brzezinski and facelift wounds, etc, ad nauseam). By contrast, to describe Trump's speech at Suffolk County as a matter simply of talking cozily about security and crime, and to give no suggestion of the unprecedented reaction by the nation's police forces from coast to coast to Trump's comments about a well-recognized technique of police brutality (later said by Sarah Sanders to be what she "believed" to be a "joke"), could easily give the impression of pushing a particular point of view. The clause containing reference to the revulsion at the top of all police departments refers specifically to comments made in the speech, and is just as relevant to his presidency (if not in some ways more relevant) as the reaction of world leaders to Trump's decision to remove the US from the Paris Agreement, or North Korea's reaction to his talk of nuclear war, which have been unquestioningly included in the timeline.

I do not wish this to sound confrontational, because I believe that you have contributed much of value to the timeline, such as a wealth of information about Trump's conversations with world leaders and businesspeople which I am sure will be useful to people in the future. But regardless of anyone's personal political leanings, the timeline simply cannot be permitted to read like an extended White House press release. All the best. Cpaaoi (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Cpaaoi, let me address some of the points you made regarding the timeline of Trump's presidency. There have been made additions in the past 7 months to the timeline that doesn't deal with the presidency itself. There have been additions to the Russian investigation (this already has its own timeline - Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections ) and other controversies (This has been addressed in other articles about Trump's presidency). There have been a lot of duplication in that timeline. For individual or group reactions to Trump's speeches or actions, there should be a place to put them. It should not be in a timeline as this deals with presidential issues/events. If we wanted to add everyone's reaction/revulsion/opposition/praise/adoration we would have a whole load of entries which would not add any substance to the timeline. So regarding the police's reaction to Trump's speech, wouldn't it be better to put that entry in Presidency of Donald Trump, maybe under Criminal justice section. Sure I agree with you regarding the statement that the timeline doesn't have to read like a White House Press release. But in the end it doesn't have to have just people's negative outside the presidency's statements. Otherwise I would have to include everyone's positive reaction in response to the negative reaction. That would be POV pushing.

Listen, I am not here to bash or criticize. Everyone wants improve the articles in Wikipedia. F2Milk (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, let me then deal with your points, F2Milk:

• 1a) I am aware that there is a timeline for the Russia investigation. Members of the administration have been co-operating with the Russia investigation: entries may therefore be relevant to the presidential timeline also.
• 1b) If you have complaints about any specific entry, then do make them known.
• 2) Duplication is not anathema. The presidential timeline and the Russia investigation timeline are not silos requiring no cross-contamination of information. General developments in the Russia investigation may appear in that timeline; important developments, such as the submission of thousands of documents, may apply in both. A future reader ought not to be expected to switch between timelines in order to see the overall development of either timeline.
• 3) You are quite right to say we would be wrong to include all criticism of the Trump presidency. But that is not what is being proposed.
• 4) You are quite right to say that the timeline does not have to include only negative criticism. But that is not what is being proposed.
• 5) You would be wrong to include everyone's positive reaction, because no-one is suggesting including everyone's negative reactions. That would be a long list indeed, and I myself have removed many such entries, such as Al Green's impeachment speech.

I see that you have reverted the entry on the 28th of July, which now once again reads as if Trump delivered an unremarkable and uncontroversial speech in the manner of a great American patriot. I am not going be drawn into an edit war over this, so I have included Sarah Sanders' comments from a few days later alleging that Trump was 'joking' about police brutality. I hope that this is a satisfactory compromise. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Cpaaoi, I like you to take note that Trump's comments will illicit all kinds of responses whether negative or positive. If we just add all the negative responses, then it would be better to add the positive ones as well. Then the timeline would just be about Trump's events, Tweets and everyone's reaction and response to his tweets. But this is not what the timeline should be in any case. But there are other articles that these reactions or responses should go to. Eg. Presidency of Donald Trump, Social policy of Donald Trump, Economic policy of Donald Trump, Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, Immigration policy of Donald Trump, Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. Please take your pick where you would like to put the condemnations or praise of Trump's tweets, statements or actions.F2Milk (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

F2Milk:

1) Once again, no-one has suggested including *all* the negative responses. This is your invention.

2) If you have complaints about specific entries, it would be better to identify those complaints here, and:

*a) not to make unwarranted and generalized claims about that which may or may not be pertinent to this timeline

*b) not to keep making edits without edit summaries which makes it harder for other editors to see what you are doing on this page. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Cpaaoi, let me again try to address some of your points:

1) There being the case that the edits or entries so need balance, whether negative or positive. But putting a spin or comment by other parties should be removed and placed in other articles's subsections such as Criticism.

2) Entries which include the Russian investigation should go to the other timeline and this is to avoid duplication. To place an entry about a meeting that took place before the administration took place, is just extraneous info.

a) Unwarranted claims like stating other editors are painting Trump like a statesman?

b) Well regarding the summaries, if you do the same to 100% of your edits, then you will set a good example to all other editors. Otherwise its a 50/50 situation.F2Milk (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your efforts, F2Milk

1) Please see the notes below on duplication. I hope this is the last time we have to hear about the demerits of duplication.

2) Please see the notes below on duplication. I hope this is the last time we have to hear about the demerits of duplication.

a) I am terribly sorry, but I can't engage with a leading rhetorical question since I don't know in which direction you are pointing. If you have a point to make, please do make it directly.

b) I'm not sure what point you are making here: edit summaries are not always required when altering articles. It depends on the context. However as general rule, I prefer to give edit summaries when making isolated significant changes, or concerning contentious matters. It is quite clear looking at your edit history that you prefer not to give edit summaries, or to make multiple changes to the work of other editors in a single edit without specifying those changes in the summary; a practice which is not encouraged by the Wikipedia guidelines. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's definitely appropriate (on occasion, and with care) to mention major reactions to Trump/his administrations words and actions. And as I wrote below, duplication is no concern. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ethanbas, if that is the case we need to find all the positive reactions to balance out the negative reactions. Are you alright with that or just agreeing for the sake of agreeing?F2Milk (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think reactions to Trump's statements should only be mentioned when exceptionally prominent, and we should wait a few days until a clear picture of the volume and tone of reactions emerges. For example, reactions to his stance on North Korea were initially panicky, then turned bland as Kim Jong-Un backed off his threat to Guam → no need to mention them. Reactions to his dismissal of James Comey have turned into their own political affair, so they must be included, whereas reactions to the dismissal of Sally Yates fizzled out to nothing. For reactions to Charlottesville, commenters are currently in full drama mode, so it's to soon to make sober edits. — JFG ^talk 05:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with including the reactions to Trump's statements. There is a proper place to put them and they should go to the Criticism sections of the said articles or the main Presidency article. To include all reactions whether prominent or not will just have bias or WP:POV unless we include all reactions whether positive or negative to his statements. There is plenty of reaction posts to the following articles such as Dismissal of James Comey or Dismissal of Sally Yates.F2Milk (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Charlottesville

I hope this is the correct place for this comment. The timeline events for Charlottesville and subsequent events seem to promote an affirmation of the President's view. A reference is linked to a Fox News editorial praising his equivocations, which were otherwise widely denounced. (Will there be an in-depth article on the Donald Trump page which shows the criticisms from both political parties, as well as journalists from both liberal and conservative publications?) My concern for now is just the link reference used in the Q3 timeline section, which may be misleading. Thank you. Criddic (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Problematic presentation of administration statements as fact

The given source says "Trump has vowed to make infrastructure a priority". This is not the same thing as saying that infrastructure *is* a priority of the administration, hence my use of the word "avowed". F2Milk, you say there is no difference between what is said, and what is the case. But there is a difference. It is misleading to state that infrastructure simply *is* a priority for the administration simply because Trump and the White House *say* it is. Once again, your version is not supported by the given source. I have little doubt that you will revert the change (please see WP:EDITWAR), so I will, as with the issue above, leave it and ask instead for direction to the specific passage in a reliable source which states categorically that infrastructure is a priority for this administration, and not, for example, Muslim and Mexican immigration, drug abuse, transgender rights, ACA repeal or Russia (all of which have either been preoccupations of President Trump's tweets and speeches or have seen attempted action by his administration). The only voluntary movement in terms of infrastructure I can recall from this White House has been the cancellation of flood-risk regulations a couple of days prior to Hurricane Harvey. Incidentally, looking back through the edit history of the timeline, this approach of yours appears to be long-standing pattern, and I think we need some clarification here that statements by the administration are not facts by virtue of having been *said*. Cpaaoi (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Trump said he has vowed to make infrastructure a priority. You can state its a priority. Its the same meaning. There is no need to put it as a top priority or an avowed priority. Priority by itself is a the same meaning. There is no need to fully describe what that priority is about. You already have that information the Trump Presidency page. There are always issues with you and the wordings in most of the timeline history. You seem to want to nitpick on everyone's post, when just a simple description would suffice. Isn't that POV pushing in most cases. F2Milk (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not the case that what is said is equal to what is the case. And you are right that I have many, many issues with the phrasing of many, many of your contributions. And, no; that's not POV; it's a matter of removing POV. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with you there. There you go again with the defending the removal of POV - what does that mean? How does adding avowed or promised priority add to the removal of POV? F2Milk (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Defending the removal of POV means standing in defense of POV removal. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So how is removing an extra word in from of another denoting that word as POV? Does that make sense? F2Milk (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense if that word is POV. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.F2Milk (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No; thank you! Cpaaoi (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, thank you anyway.F2Milk (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The gratitude is all mine. Cpaaoi (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Your gratitude is flattering.F2Milk (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Price resignation

This [1] edit is a clear example of protective editing. No need to reply since I have no further interest here. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 agreed, the inclusion is warranted but the wording is wrong. It shouldn't say due to it should say after Edaham (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Edaham. Without wanting to lay it on too thick, may I add that this is exactly the type of protective editing which prompted the RfCs on this page, and it has been going on for some time. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Edaham, I see that your simple change makes it more acceptable, TY. ―Buster7 ☎ 19:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The simple change is acceptable. The first edit was not correct. Cpaaoi should know he is not the victim here and shouldn't make this about himself.F2Milk (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

List categories.

I think the problem here is that your issue doesn't require discussion, it requires work. I have therefore

• created this list of categories I compiled based on skimming the first quarter. Feel free to edit
• added this list to my sandbox. Feel free to edit it there but don't use the talk page there. I will delete everything from that talk page without replying or moving it to the correct place, which is here. I don't have time.
• Highlighted potentially contentious items, or areas where the list page could easily begin forking or overlapping with other articles if it overloads with items of that category.

List follows below:

summary of categories - go to list

Intent This list non-exhaustive list attempts to summarize the categories of inclusions in the list articles found at The time line of the presidency of Donald Trump. The purpose of this list is to ad an RfC which in part is dealing with what does and does not belong on the list. The final aim is to create a summary which will be added to the lede of the above linked article. Each category includes several sub categories and comments on their suitability as list items. These can be edited by any editors who wish to be involved in the RfCs on the article's talk page List Categories Things listed in black should almost certainly be included. Things listed in red are also potentially OK for inclusion, but potentially open the article to forks, miscellany and other things which could weaken or confuse the subject of the list. A summary of what this list includes should loosely define what entails a list item, without overt restrictions, whilst clarifying what constitutes a potential entry. STAFFING staff changes hiring firing and resignation and white house staffing issues Jan 20 – James Mattis becomes Sec of D. Proclamations (commemorative occasions) Jan 20 - National Day of Patriotic Devotion POLICY Alterations of policy, signing or enacting of bills, Sanctions, executive orders, budget announcements bans and appeals against aforementioned by other countries Jan 20 – Military retirement policy Formal requests by whitehouse staff – Jan 20 Priebus calls for freeze on new Regs Comments made in or by the Whitehouse in internal meetings or phone calls Jan 23 President Trump says 3–5 million illegal votes cost him the popular vote Looks very very much like opportunity for clutter and coat racking LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Inauguration and related oaths etc Jan 20 – inauguration Lawsuits and accusations either as plaintiff or defendant – Jan 23 A federal-court lawsuit is filed accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause. Court/legal intervention or interaction – Jan 29 Federal judges in the states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington sign orders halting implementation of parts of Executive Order 13769 PUBLIC RELATIONS Press Briefings – (If notable) Friday, February 24 The New York Times is barred from the White House press briefing along with the BBC, CNN, Politico, The Huffington Post, The Los Angeles Times and BuzzFeed News, prompting criticism from the White House Correspondents' Association. Public speaking and presidential visitations Jan 21 – Trump Pence speak at CIA HQ Protests and strikes : deserve scrutiny because 1)They're outside of cabinet control 2)It only matters to the list if the protests or stikes led to some kind of administrative effect They should be here if 1)The protests can be included in an item about the administration – for example, the poll tax riots occurring as a result of the passing of a taxation law by the conservative party led by Margret Thatcher. this is a good example because the protests led in part to the resignation of the Prime Minister Jan21 woman's day march is probably not a correct inclusion as it was not spurned by a specific action of the administration. Nor did it really have any effect on it (Public announcements by either the president or staff. These deserve scrutiny 1)how far down the ladder do we go? 2)Should we rate according to long term effects of the announcement? 3)An example is Jan 21 Sean Spicer's announcement. It is a very notable event, but it's implications and effects on the white house administration are debatable and vague. Criticisms from notable figures – very definitely debatable Feb 27 - Former President George W. Bush offers implicit criticism of the Trump administration's handling the free press and religious freedom on the TODAY show. Notability guidelines beyond those normally prescribed apply here – what are they? Notable public petitions (National or International) to or about the administration Jan 30 - A petition, launched Sunday to cancel President Trump's state visit to the United Kingdom in October Tweets - March 20 President Trump issues a tweet rejecting allegations of collusion with Russia as "fake news" Press reports - e.g. The NYT report on the undisclosed Veselnitskaya meeting. DIPLOMACY Notable Diplomatic correspondences or meetings with national representatives or bodies outside of the administration (can be info regarding schedule attendance or cancellation) – Jan 22 President Trump speaks to Governor of Georgia Nathan Deal Actions of other countries political administrations which are a direct result of U.S administrative decisions or actions – (Jan 22, Israel settlement approval) Allegations and Denials and apologies - March 17 GCHQ denies all involvement in the alleged wiretapping of Trump Tower,[283][284] prompting the Trump administration to issue a formal apology to the United Kingdom with assurances that the allegation will not be repeated. THE MILITARY Military actions – Jan 21 Drone Strikes Again debatable: This list could potentially fill up very quick if interested parties came along and started noting every military action which had to be passed by the white house as part of a default chain of command involving the commander in chief

It is my intention to:

• Allow sufficient time for editors to edit and discuss the categories on the list
• Add links to relevant policies and guidelines to the list
• After this time, I'm going to say 30 days, to write a short summary and definition of list items based on the results and include it at the top of the parent article and the articles for each quarter
• Review current and future inclusions to the list based on a consensus as to what defines a list item.

Edaham (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's very helpful - this has been needed from the start, really. I've added press reports to the list; it's been placed in red for now, pending an outcome from the RfC above. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The main issue to remove non-administration comments on actions by the administration in the Q1 or Q2 timeline sections. That way it would just report on events and not on non-partisan comments by individuals, organisations, political parties, etc. Then that would be a proper timeline. Contentious issues such as the Russian interference creep in the last few months is notable, while duplication argument has been dropped, the other argument stating that the entries are not in the article scope is there to see.F2Milk (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a simple list of issues in one section instead of numerous Rfcs and topic subsections

Some people have a hard time trying to keep track of the many different issues or sub topics raise in the past couple of weeks. It is common sense to list the issues in one area.F2Milk (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be common sense if there were a single issue at stake. RfC guideline: "Keep the RfC statement short and simple." WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief An RfC is expected to be a single, short statement, not multiple statements. Thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, common sense in listing down the points and keeping it short and simple. This is not multiple statements, but a list of points. Thanks. F2Milk (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I think following Wikipedia guidelines is preferable to 'common sense'. Many thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Common sense is the best guideline in life. Don't follow the dogma of Wikipedia guidelines or quoting them willy-nilly. You will lead a better life. Thank you.F2Milk (talk)

What you call 'common sense' may or may not be the best guide in life. But on Wikipedia, Wikipedia guidelines are the best guidelines. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you two should suspend your double act for the time being and ask an less involved editor to boldly write a summary of what defines a list inclusion then include in the article space somewhere. this talk page is a prime example of what happens when the unstoppable wp:bludgeon meets the immovable wp:IDHT Edaham (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not really, I think it is best to discuss it out. Common sense says we should collate the points raised and have them listed in on topic area. There is nothing too dramatic about that, Edaham. I have always said people should have cooler heads when it comes to these situations. Not to quote every Wiki guideline just because it suits them in winning an argument. F2Milk (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, and how's that been working out for you both? your discussion took a turn for the "meta" when you started a discussion on how to discuss the topic. Now you are discussing how to discuss discussions. Perhaps before we reach Dante's Ninth Circle of Meta-debate I'll just make the lede summary I was talking about in the hope that both of you will take to editing that rather than either continuing to lambaste this cowering talk page or possibly reverting it entirely. Edaham (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, Edaham, it has not been working out well at all! (Although in fact we have actually come to an agreement in the last twenty-four hours on an important point above, so there has been some progress.) I am only glad that these RfCs have attracted a sensible person to help with the decision-making process. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And thanks for pointing out WP:BLUDGEON; I'd not seen that before! Perhaps I'll cut back on my repetitive counter-arguments. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, cut backs would not be a bad idea - especially in the case of an RfC; the point of which is to let the discussion benefit from the presence of editors new to the subject who may be able to contribute new ideas if presented with an impartial summary of the topic. Edaham (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The sensible thing with a bit of common sense would just be listing out all the points in a concise and brief manner. I agree there were too many Rfcs opened in the first place. Didn't you come here in the first place, because a Bot sent you a couple of notices in your TALK page(isn't that BLUDGEON enough)? I welcome new editors to come here and discuss the many issues raised.F2Milk (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Russian investigation

To avoid lots of duplication on the Russian interference and hacking and the following special counsel investigation, all information to that regard should be moved to the following articles. Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). Any erroneous news reports about meetings or events take took place before the presidency should not be added to the presidency timeline.F2Milk (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

1) I spy a logical fallacy, F2Milk. "To avoid lots", "all" information should be excluded? No-one is talking about "lots". The inclusion of some does not have to mean "lots". This is your invention.

2) The Russian investigation is not off-limits for this timeline. A federal investigation of an administration and that administration's activity in regard of that investigation may be pertinent to an article about that administration.

3) You are quite right to say that erroneous information ought to be excluded. That goes for any page on Wikipedia, and does not need saying here. But if we are to talk about basic procedure, it is as well to recall that omission may amount to falsification.

4) Let me also add that although I am always willing to assume good faith of any editor, I want to register my concern over the long-term pattern of your edits on this timeline. There has been repeated verifiable misrepresentation of sources and events, and a process of constant adjustment of other editors' contributions to *reduce* and *blur* any events that cast President Trump in anything other than a positive light - in striking contrast to a tendency toward *excessive* and *precise* detail about Trump's daily roundtable discussions and telephone calls.

There have also been repeated claims from yourself that certain information does not belong in this article, with no arguments yet detailing the specific irrelevancies. Moreover, these only ever seem to concern matters which make President Trump appear to be anything less than a great statesman. I don't see this activity from other editors, and I am not going to accuse anybody of anything today - but there is a noticeable pattern.

I have no particular desire to quote guidelines at other editors and I don't make a habit of it, but, particularly in light of your latest unwarranted adjustment to my edit concerning the resignation of six business leaders over Trump's refusal to condemn the KKK and neo-Nazis as immediately and completely as he condemns other people without evidence - turning it into a vague and weasel-word entry - I feel I must draw your attention to the WP:NOT guidelines. All the best. Cpaaoi (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Let address your points bit by bit:

1) If you have any issue with pronouns such as "lots", maybe I can change it to fit something which you are comfortable with such as an "increasing amount of edits" or "great deal of information". This is not sarcasm, no pun intended. No one is inventing things as you are imagining.

2) The Russian investigation deals with what is happening during the election process and the current investigation. That information is better served to be placed in the Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). The edit which you posted is a report from a newspaper or media organisation(NYT) on an event which took place before the presidency started. So that bit of information should go to the those articles which I stated before, mentioning duplication being the reason.

3) Erroneous bits of information like I mentioned should not be included in this timeline. In no way is there any falsification as you suggested or assumed. There are plenty of resources or references from different news media which entries of this timeline are backed. To assumed otherwise is pushing WP:POV argument when there is none.

4) Any misrepresentation of sources is what you make of it. I can also say there has been a noticeable pattern by yourself to add information focusing on the negative whereby the rules states that this is not WP:SOAP. I am just adjusting some of wordings in the WP:NPOV way. There is a pattern by the media to take what Trump says literally and then make assumptions and create their own narrative or opinion pieces. I repeat again I am not painting Trump as a great statesman which you are assuming. The man has his own faults and this has been reported in his own article. There have been plenty of edits which I have included such as events that have been attended or officiated by other members of the Trump administration and these are things that happen during the presidency.

Hope that addresses some of the issues which you mentioned.F2Milk (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply:

1) As I am sure you understand, here I was making no point about your choice of vocabulary. I was, and am, demonstrating the falsity of your claim that there are unnamed editors who are either requesting that the timeline be filled with criticism of Trump, or have filled the timeline with such.

2a) The New York Times entry you mention legitimately describes a notable event in the Trump presidency. All such meetings were denied by all members of the administration prior to that point. Remarkably, Trump has continued to deny that he and his people met with Russians, despite Trump Jr himself demonstrating that this was, in fact, the case. Moreover, the statement issued characterizing this meeting (quickly shown to be misleading) was dictated by the President himself, aboard Air Force One, despite his denials of all knowledge of this meeting or having attended this meeting. This remains perfectly legimitate material for this article.

2b) You claim to have a noble objection to "duplication" of information. This must not become a case of 'whataboutism', but it is clear that you are keen to include lots of information about:

* Trump's domestic trips (for which there exists a specific page),

* Trump's international trips (for which there exists a specific page)

* Trump's appointments (for which there exists a specific page)

* Trump's executive actions (for which there exists a specific page)

* Trump's foreign policy (for which there exists a specific page)

You will need to demonstrate what it is that makes all criticism of Trump by his seniors, his peers and his appointees eligible only for a dedicated page, and ineligible for any mention in a general timeline of his presidency. It is my belief that this is fatal to your argument about duplication.

3) Once again, you have accused me of pushing a particular point of view, when it is quite clear that this is not the case. I am not going to accuse you likewise, but I will take a most recent example of your activity here:

On the 16th of August, I wrote:

"The CEOs of Merck, Intel and Under Armour resign from the American Manufacturing Council in protest at President Trump's response to the Charlottesville rally."

A few hours later, with no edit summary indicating the change, you turned this to:

"The CEOs of Merck, Intel and Under Armour resign from the American Manufacturing Council in protest at President Trump's remarks regarding the violence at the Charlottesville rally."

This was a clear falsification of the facts. Nobody resigned from the president's council over his condemnation of violence; that would be an absurdity. They resigned specifically because of his failure to condemn outright the Nazis carrying swastikas and rifles in the streets, shouting "Hail Trump", and talking about "Jews" and "gassing" (all captured on film, photograph and testimony). Hence the advisable use of the word 'response', and not the word 'remarks', for it is clear that the protest was not about what he said, but about how he said what he said, and what he refused to say. I am not convinced by your repeated accusations about the pushing of particular points of view. The reasons given for the resignations were not reasons given by me; they were included by me on this timeline since they were given by (previous) members of Trump's team, and as such are wholly notable and legitimate for inclusion in this timeline.

4) I disagree with the relativist position you are taking. There has been no attempt by myself to include only negative information. A careful observation of the edit history of the three pages of the timeline will demonstrate this. There has admittedly been less of the positive developments added by myself lately, since you have taken it upon yourself to do this in recent months. You will notice that I took a hiatus from making any significant edits to this timeline for the weeks following Trump's visit to Paris. I was interested to see, following a number of contentious edits, exactly how F2Milk wants the timeline to appear. Indeed, my hypothesis was proven correct: there was a very definite slant towards long descriptions of Trump's mostly meaningless talking-shops and phonecalls, with no mention of his undisclosed meeting with Putin at the G20, no detail on the Scaramucci episode, no mention of his 'hilarious' joke about police brutality (can one imagine Reagan making such remarks? - no, and this is why it is relevant for this timeline, because it is directly informative about the specific and unique nature of this administration), no mention of the formal apology for his speech to the Scouts, no mention at all of the dramatic failure in the Senate of his central policy concerning the Affordable Care Act - and no mention at all of the single piece of major legislation which Trump has yet signed: a Congressional bill preventing him from doing a personal deal with Putin on sanctions, which Trump hated and signed behind closed doors (when he otherwise rolls out the cameras even for the signing of memos and the re-naming of libraries, etc) with a delay of about a week (when he had even tweeted that he was sitting with 'pen in hand' in the Oval Office ready for Mitch McConnell's ACA bill). All of this: highly remarkable and significant, regardless of whether a person is a crazy Bernie fan or a Charlottesville Nazi, or anywhere in between.

I want nothing other than a timeline which takes in the general and overall drift of this presidency, good and bad, important and less-important. I remain waiting for specific arguments in justification a) for your chosen approach to this timeline and b) for your repeated antipathy towards mine. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I am with Cpaaoi here. The information he's included on the timeline is appropriate IMO, and it's definitely allowed to put major Russia investigation events in the presidential timeline. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Cpaaoi, like I said before there is duplication in the information pertaining to the Russian investigation entries. I have also pointed out that many of your edits are responses to Trump's tweets, speeches and actions. I have stated again if we were to include all the negative reactions, we should include the positive ones as well. So removing these individual responses is the best solution.

Regarding editing your entries, a few tweaks is not going to destroy or falsify the messaging or entry. Like the assertion that Trump's failure to condemn the Nazis or the alt-right is a media narrative. That statement is false and is putting a false narrative. The reaction and resignations of members of the American Manufacturing Council is due to his condemnation of both sides of the rally, and in no uncertain terms the not so strong condemnation of the right or Nazis or KKK whichever way you look at it.

"The CEOs of Merck, Intel and Under Armour resign from the American Manufacturing Council in protest at President Trump's remarks regarding the violence at the Charlottesville rally." - Since when did Trump not remark on the violence at the Charlottesville rally? He made those remarks and the CEOs resign in protest. Your making assumptions on their resignations here.

You are a major contributor to both the Russian investigation timelines and the current Presidential timeline. No one told you to leave for a week. I don't take no issue of your edits exact towards the duplication of the entries for both timelines which I have mentioned. The only issue is that you continually delete and leave a lot of posts without context, sometimes to fit with a certain narrative.

You mean that all those talking shops and phonecalls were meaninigless? These are events that took place during the presidency. Aren't they more deserving of being put in this timeline than a entry about the Russian investigation (which is a duplication from the Russian investigation timeline) That really reveals your bias.

List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump - I would rather move all the international trips here, but what about Mike Pence or Rex Tillerson's trips? Plus there is no context on what the international trips are about? List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump - or the local trips. Many entries without context or the speeches he made during the local trips.

That being said I wish this timeline to have a proper balance. F2Milk (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I see no problem in duplicating information. This timeline serves as a daily chronicle of the presidency, and events should not be excluded arbitrarily, because readers can't guess that they should read the "trips" page to learn about a speech made during a trip. But whatever we list here, let's keep it short: just the facts, no speculation, judgment, inferences or commentary. — JFG ^talk 06:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That's fine regarding the Russian investigation. As long as we remove all the responses by individuals or organizations to the White House's events, Trump's tweets and speeches. Those should go to the articles under the Criticism sections of those articles.F2Milk (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Most articles should not include a WP:CRITICISM section; best practice is to embed reactions, positive and negative, in context. — JFG ^talk 09:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

F2Milk:

1) I disagree with your claim that a few "tweaks" may not falsify a statement.

2) I disagree with your claim that the protests from the AMC were due to Trump condemning violence. As previously stated, that would be an absurdity.

3) No-one has claimed that Trump did not mention the violence at Charlottesville.

4) I did not claim that anyone told me to leave for a week.

5) I did not say that all of the phonecalls and discussions were meaningless: only that they were mostly meaningless, which is thus far verifiably true: none have yet led to any important legislation or agreement.

6) I have never claimed that the phonecalls and discussions ought not to be included in the timeline.

7) The matter of duplication has now been dealt with, and I cannot recognize further points about this, unless a new argument emerges.

8) I would disagree with any suggestion to remove Trump's international trips from this general timeline in favor of a specific page.

9) I do not agree with your suggestion to "remove all the responses by individuals or organizations to the White House's events". The White House does not exist in a bubble and while the timeline should not be overburdened with reviews of Trump's actions, good or bad, we cannot labor under the delusion that reaction from any quarter can never be an event in the lifetime of a presidency. Without wanting to get into hypotheticals: if Trump were to be censured by Congress, that would be an opinion on his presidency, yet deserving of inclusion here. If Trump were to solve the North Korean crisis and were to receive a twenty-minute standing ovation at the United Nations, that would also be an opinion on his presidency, yet deserving of mention here. To remove ourselves from hypotheticals: no president in history has given a speech to the Boy Scouts followed by a formal apology from the Scout executive. To pretend that this is not noteworthy in the land of Lincoln and JFK is insupportable. As one last note; I am afraid that I cannot keep pointing out that no-one has suggested including "all the negative reactions". That is the last time I will recognize this specific claim of yours. Many thanks Cpaaoi (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

1) I disagree with the view that we should included responses by individuals or organizations to any of the White House events. These individuals or organizations are not part of the administration and as such their responses or actions are extraneous information. Any personal opinions by individuals are just their own opinions. We can look at the latest news for the media the last couple of months. There is so many editorials out there and news reports or interviews trying to get people's opinions on the actions of the administration or Trump's views/actions. This is why I will not include any standing ovations to any of Trump's speeches or praise of any of his actions. That can be put in the Reactions page of the main article. The same can happen with the negative reactions which should be transferred to the Criticism page or the main article.

2) Regarding the phone calls, many of them are to world leaders and deals with international diplomacy. If you want information that deals with important legislation or agreements I can look for phone calls by Trump to congressmen and Senators. Perhaps then we can have a proper balance.

3) Regarding the Russian investigation, posts should only include times when Congress subpoenas individuals in the administration to testify before Congress.

4) Trump did condemn the violence on both sides in the Charlottesville rally. The Alt-right and Alt-left to be exact. The resignation of the individuals in the American Manufacturing Council is he did not condemn the Alt-right more harshly. Pointing out in your assertion that a few tweaks are able to falsifying the statement, that is not true.

5) Most individual articles of World leaders includes a Criticism section. For Trump or some of these world leaders these sections are worded differently such as his Legal Affairs and Bankruptcies or Campaign Rhetoric.F2Milk (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

1) This has already been dealt with. Sorry about that.

2) If you can find information on major legislation or international deals, then by all means - include it! Sadly, I think you may struggle, since there has been no major legislation or deals - except for the Russian sanctions bill which Trump did not want. We are all still waiting on the Mexico wall funding bill; the infrastructure plan; Dodd-Frank reform; Affordable Care Act repeal; its replacement with something "better" and "cheaper"; a special investigator into Hillary Clinton's affairs; peace in the Middle East; peace in Korea; improved relations with Moscow; any significant trade deal beyond specific commodities; tax reform; etc; etc; etc; etc; etc; etc; etc; etc.

3) I am not aware of any guidelines or consensus which could support this approach. By your rationale, if Mueller were to instruct the FBI to conduct an armed dawn raid at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue tomorrow, it would ineligible for mention here. Et cetera. Et cetera.

4)

a) I have never claimed Trump did not condemn the violence; I have even demonstrated this on the timeline. The 'alt-left' is a neologistic slur used by Trump, and has as yet no accepted definition. Moreover, it does not apply here. It is quite clear that the protestors against the Nazis in Charlottesville were not all anarchists and communists: they were clearly a range of people seated upon a wide spectrum all to the left of the fascists on display; many of whom may have moderate and even conservative views.

b) Once again, I deny your indefensible claim that 'tweaks' may not falsify a statement. See the old riddle: "Charles the First walked and talked half an hour after he was beheaded." The omission of a semi-colon (;) following "talked" changes the meaning of the sentence entirely; and this example is not even a question of vocabulary. I could be more specific, but it is hard in the face of generalized and non-specific complaints.

5) I don't know what point you are making here. It looks something like another repetition of your dismissed point about duplication (irony of ironies!), so I won't say more.

I rather feel as I am being taken round in circles here; I have seen no consensus or guidelines which support your unique demands, so in fact I will leave this discussion at this point. If and when you add anything below, based on what I have seen so far I think it is safe for me here merely to recommend that you re-read all of the above as many times as may be required.

As a final note, hopefully pointing in a more productive direction - I do wonder if there may be some misunderstanding on your part. It seems that you are really only interested in the actions and statements of the President and his immediate official associates, and their unique perspective on events. However, this timeline is a general timeline about the significant events occurring during Trump's presidency, with a special focus on the deeds specifically of Trump and his people, which either relate to Trump's presidency or which instruct the reader of its general character and perception in America and the world. If you really do think that a list of presidential actions and statements warrants special treatment, then might I suggest setting up a page for this? May I suggest Timeline of the official actions and statements of President Donald Trump? It clearly does not exist yet - but then there may be a reason for that. Good luck! Cpaaoi (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me try to clear some of the points which you mentioned.

1) Regarding the legislation part, we can include posts of Trump calling senators or congressman asking for their support on major legislation eg the repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act. Regarding the funding of the Mexico border wall, Congress has already allocated funds for part of that wall. Let's wait on other pieces of legislation that he has promised that will come later this year or next. Are you in a hurry?

2) I am really sorry that you think Trump invented the term the Alt-left. If you believe the mainstream media and their narrative, you think all the counter protestors were Antifa or BLM. But there were a broad group of people on both sides who were protesting and counter-protesting. That is why Trump condemn the violence from both sides. Not everyone was causing the violence and that was what I meant regarding the condemnation of the violence on both sides.

3) Again you are being silly regarding the tweaking to falsify statements. See this statement: Mr A died due to cancer. Tweak: Mr A passed away due to cancer. Your complain here is not based on facts.

4) Let me put to rest the duplications argument. Some editors would like to put the Russian investigation timeline posts over her in the Presidency timeline. I have no problem with that. I only have an issue with events that happened before presidency timeline. The NYT article about the meeting should be moved to the Russian investigation timeline or Russian investigation article.

5) I am not in favour of introducing another timeline like you suggested. There are just too many timelines out there. We already have the election campaign timeline and the presidency timeline. That should be sufficient. The timeline should include more actions/events by the administration, not only about Trump's tweets like in the beginning of the timeline in Q1 and Q2. F2Milk (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say Trump invented the word. I said it is a neologistic slur with no accepted definition. We see much evidence of persons describing themselves as 'alt-right', along with a wealth of RS on the subject. We do not see the same for 'alt-left'. Please don't call me silly; that is a violation of the very WP:CIVIL guidelines which you yourself repeatedly cite. Your 'cancer' example well demonstrates that a 'tweak' may have a minor effect. But that is not the issue; the issue is that a 'tweak' may also have a minor effect or it may have a major effect. Mr A died due to cancer. Mr B died due to cancer. - A small 'tweak' (smaller even than your 'tweak'!), with a comprehensively transformative effect. The NYT entry is about the report, not the event. I am glad you are not going to create another timeline, but I fail to see how this timeline could be any more filled with "actions/events by the administration", when we have reams of information about such, even down to every inconsequential telephone conversation enjoyed by President Trump. Thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Any news outlet can report on a things. The main issue is that they reported on something or an event that happened outside the Q3 timeline. That is grounds for the report to be removed from the timeline and placed in a proper section - Russian interference (main article) or the timeline of the Russian interference. This has nothing to do with the current administration, this has more to do with the election. The actions / events organised by the administration has higher standing in a timeline of that the presidency then a report of a meeting that happened during the election. Diplomacy with world leaders is part of the presidency - so those phone conversations is just that. Any news outlet can say Trump did something in a past date (eg. 2001 or 2002) doesn't mean it should be included in this timeline.F2Milk (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)