Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Repeated misleading edits

[edit]

The entry for September 5th concerning DACA has been the subject of repeated misleading reversions by F2Milk. I have noticed a strong pattern in this editor's contributions whereby statements are falsely placed in the mouths of subjects (see recent edits by F2Milk concerning conversations between Trump and the leaders of China and Kazakhstan, for example), or in which language is altered (usually under the given definition of a "tweak") - giving a false impression of events. F2Milk's version seems to prefer a) vagueness, when we have specific information the occupies scarcely more space and b) suggests that Sessions made comments at a briefing which he did not make. In short, F2Milk's version of events simply does not appear in the given sources, so this ought to be a simple matter. However, F2Milk appears intent on digging into a disruptive and indefensible position, so I am just starting the procedure here to get some clarification on what other editors think, before taking the matter through the arbitration process. Many thanks Cpaaoi (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The DACA statements are correct as stated in the sources. I have shorten the edit while Cpaaoi continues to change it to his version. He changed it in the first place and continually reverts it to his version after I have changed it. He also states he can do this the whole day(reverting). Is that a habitual disruptor? F2Milk (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; rhetorical questions are not a justification. The edit is not supported by the given sources. One source does not mention Jeff Session at all, and the other attributes to Sessions only some comments about the executive branch, employment and the rule of law. The sources do not say a) that Sessions confirms a 6-month amnesty, or that Sessions is placing an obligation on Congress. I don't know why F2Milk is trying to misrepresent the events in this way, or to make the statement more vague by removing specific dates, when we are treated elsewhere to masses of detail about Trump's endless telephone chit-chats, for example. Cpaaoi (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was stated that the DACA was rescinded. It was stated that new applications are suspended. It was stated that this was a six month period. It was stated that the the obligation was placed on Congress to fix or replace the program. The sources back this. I know you Cpaaoi love just putting up details about the Russian investigation which is your forte. But try to give a little here and there. I have not removed any of Cpaaoi's so called posts wholesale. F2Milk (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, F2Milk, but we cannot allow ourselves to become sidetracked by secondary issues. The edit in question is not backed by the sources. Include a source that supports your edit, and I will consent! All the best Cpaaoi (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the edit has been reverted back once again by F2Milk. I am certain that this particular entry is not supported by the given sources - but I won't revert again right now; I'll wait to see what other think. Many thanks again Cpaaoi (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The edits are all supported by the sources. If you are adamant on the point about the issue of the executive branch taking the lead, I will just changed it to President Trump instructs the Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security. That is what I can give you The other parts are still correct.F2Milk (talk)
Sorry, but I am not here to negotiate on facts. Your version attributes statements to people which do not appear in the sources, and introduces vagueness where there are hard, short, simple facts. Cpaaoi (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made the changes needed, including a new source to back it up. There is no vagueness as your are asserting. There changes are validated by the facts stated in the sources. F2Milk (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree - your third source mentions Sessions only a single time, and only to point out that Trump delegated him to announce the ending of the program. It makes no mention of Sessions talking about the six-month amnesty. It makes no mention of Sessions making any comment about Congress. And, overall, it does not support a policy of removing the specific date we have (5th March 2018) in favor of a mealy-mouthed "six month" period. But, as I say, I am not going to keep reverting it, I am going to be patient and see what other editors like Ethanbas think. All best Cpaaoi (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)'[reply]
Dept of Homeland Security gave a 6 month timeline or 'delay for current recipients'. The specific date is also for the same period. F2Milk (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, F2Milk; let's start from the bottom and work from there. 1) Please quote here a line from your given sources that state that Jeff Sessions mentioned anything about Congress. (There is no need for commentary, a simple direct quotation will do.) Many thanks again Cpaaoi (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you have placed a fourth reference on this entry now, F2Milk. I notice that this reference likewise does not contain information about Jeff Sessions saying anything about Congress in his briefing. I remaining waiting on a source which supports your version of events. A simple quotation will suffice. Many thanks! Cpaaoi (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed half of the citations for this entry, per WP:CITEKILL. None of them truly support your version of events in any case, and are thus doubly superfluous. As I say, a quotation from a single reliable source that Sessions said anything at all about Congress will satisfy me. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cpaaoi, the citations were needed since you continually seems to believe your own assertions of what you believe to be true or not. The changes are fine as they are. Why you challenging or changing the posts or the timeline continually, is very confusing. 6 months is reported in most articles or sources, the specific date fits that timeline period. The sources report the onus is on Congress to come up with legislation to fix the problem. The sources say the program is to be rescinded, meaning no new applications will be accepted. F2Milk (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My dear F2Milk; at the risk of repeating myself: let's start from the bottom: please supply a single quotation from any of your given sources that Jeff Sessions mentioned anything about Congress. Many thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am still waiting, F2Milk, for an indication of the passage(s) in your sources which demonstrate that Jeff Sessions made any mention of Congress at his briefing. Many thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that no quotation is as yet forthcoming from you, F2Milk. I suspect this is because the source material does not support your characterization of the event. I shall put the question of Sessions mentioning Congress in a box to be re-opened later on. In the meantime, are you able to point to any specific passages in your given sources that Jeff Sessions confirmed at his briefing that existing DACA recipients would be unaffected for the following six months? As before, a simple quotation will satisfy me! Many thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cpaaoi, you removed 2 references which stated to that effect. DACA recipients will be unaffected in the next 6 months - this is already confirmed by Homeland Security.F2Milk (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No commentary is required, F2Milk: a simple quotation from, or direction to a specific passage, in any reliable source showing that Sessions mentioned anything about DACA recipients being unaffected for 6 months in his briefing will prevent this matter being taken for arbitration. I suspect that I wait in vain! Cpaaoi (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute will now be passed over for a third opinion. I remain unsatisfied that the given sources support F2Milk's characterization that Sessions said at his briefing of Sept 5th anything about Congress, or anything about the 6-month amnesty. My preferred version remains: "Attorney General Sessions announces at a special briefing that, at President Trump's order, the Department of Homeland Security will immediately cease to accept applications to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It is confirmed that current DACA recipients will be unaffected until 5 March 2018. Trump later places the responsibility with Congress to fix or replace the program." Cpaaoi (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-open request for comment with specificity (Repeated misleading edits)

[edit]
EXCLUDE
Consensus has been reached that this statement should not be included, since it is not supported by the given sources, in article or talk page. (non-admin closure) --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should it be stated in the entry for Sept 5th that Jeff Sessions at his briefing placed "responsibility with Congress to fix or replace the [DACA] program", when this is not stated in the given sources? Cpaaoi (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose inclusion - Unless a source can be provided which clearly and directly supports the statement. NickCT (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. Even with a reliable source stating this, it probably wouldn't be worthy of inclusion since this is a timeline article that should keep its bullet points extremely brief, in line with WP:SS. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the sake of clarity I'll reiterate here my position that given sources must explicitly support an edit. I consider that none of the sources provided by F2Milk at any time support their entry, and that F2Milk has not taken any of many opportunities to highlight specific passages which they allege do support their version of events. Cpaaoi (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include I have already put in a couple of references which were removed by Cpaaoi that back up the points or changes made. That is reason enough to keep the current changes.F2Milk (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean Include, F2Milk. Exclude would mean you agree with everyone above. The other sources you mention no more supported your edit than the currently existing ones; they were added by you subsequently in an attempt to obscure this fact, and were removed per WP:OVERCITE. You have been asked repeatedly to cite the specific passages in any source which support your version, and you have failed to do so once again. Cpaaoi (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended it to Include. My reasons still are the same to include the information as they are.F2Milk (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...and have missed yet another opportunity to cite the specific passage(s) which support your version. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The brevity of a Timeline article is imperative in order to prevent this very thing. That the sources do not state what is claimed is secondary. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Include - it's in the lead title for both cites, so need to say it, and it is in the USAToday cite and prominently reported but not as from Sessions initial announcement. So -- the line shown is misstating, fix it to be short and clear that Sessions announced the ending of DACA, and end the sentence. The 'responsibility' and 'six months' parts are a different sentence and different sources. That should not indicate Sessions as others also said it -- Sessions is just the initial announcement. Markbassett (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Sessions announcement of the ending of DACA ought to be maintained. The issue is that the existing entry pretends that 1) Sessions went on to say anything about the 6-month amnesty, which is not given in the sources (it was later confirmed by the administration), and 2) that Sessions said anything about Congress, which is also not in the given sources (since that was said by Trump himself). Cpaaoi (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entry should stay the same. There were other sources or references which were removed which stated to the effect.F2Milk (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat: the identification here of a specific passage from a source which supports your version will close this RfC. Consider how little is required! Many thanks (again)! Cpaaoi (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, here are the two existing sources provided by F2Milk:

And here are the two sources (which F2Milk refers to above) which were deleted under WP:OVERKILL following their addition by F2Milk when it was pointed out that their version of events misrepresented the source material:

If anyone can point to any specific passage in these sources (or any RS!) which details Jeff Sessions mentioning anything about Congress at his briefing, I would be much obliged. Thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any passage at all, F2Milk. Many thanks. Cpaaoi (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you have a different source which is not listed above which shows it, F2Milk? Thank again! Cpaaoi (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/05/trump-administration-ends-daca-with-6-month-delay.html - The headline which you gave stated 6 month period. F2Milk (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That headline reads: "Trump administration ends DACA, with 6-month delay". It says nothing about Jeff Sessions or Congress. To repeat myself, any passage which specifies that Jeff Sessions said anything about Congress at his briefing will suffice. Many thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have mentioned the 6 month delay in the past. That follows the timeline given by the administration and Jeff Sessions to Congress. Congress has to enact legislation to address the the issue.F2Milk (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No commentary is necessary; just a simple quotation showing that Jeff Sessions mentioned anything about Congress at his briefing will do! Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reports stated - 'President delegated the announcement about ending the program to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' and '6-month delay'. That is pretty much self explanatory. F2Milk (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which 'reports' are you referring to? Cpaaoi (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only source given above which mentions anything about "delegation" is the Washington Times. It states: "But in a possible sign of his conflicted views on the matter, the president delegated the announcement about ending the program to Attorney General Jeff Sessions". It doesn't say anything about Jeff Sessions mentioning Congress. As I say; any passage in a reliable source will do! Cpaaoi (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's put in extra reference sources and break the timeline entry into 2 sentences. One entry for Jeff Sessions with two reference sources and one entry as a followup with the administration with two reference sources. Is that a fair compromise? The points raised such as - The 6 month delay is still applicable and the DACA program is rescinded.F2Milk (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not looking for compromise, I am looking for the truth. Please show me a specific passage in a reliable source which shows that Jeff Sessions mentioned Congress at his briefing. No discussion is required on this point; a quotation will do. Thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise is a fair assessment of the situation. We can put the first sentence reporting on the rescinding of the DACA program by Sessions and the 6 month delay, with two references. The second sentence will talk about the onus to Congress to come up with legislation to deal with DACA by the administration in the next 6 months.F2Milk (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the above, I believe the real reason that still no source has been provided for Jeff Sessions mentioning anything about Congress is because he did not do so. For lo! - it was Mr Trump who made the suggestion that DACA might have a future, to the horror of his political base. And this has been a transparent attempt to whitewash that fact. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreliable sources

[edit]

I said nothing about the Daily Mail, and that is not pertinent.

The Straits Times is listed as a potentially unreliable source by Wikipedia, along with Sputnik and other sources you rely upon. Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources Many thanks Cpaaoi (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


moved from my page:

== Straits Times ==
To assert that the Straits Times is a potential unreliable source, without much evidence is being disingenuous. Anyone can call them a propaganda piece. Its a wonder that many of the news outlets you quote regarding the Russian investigation aren't call potential unreliable sources as well. There are many news outlets that are unreliable too and it cuts both ways. I will include these references, unless they are blacklisted. F2Milk (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying anything. It is Wikipedia which has these sources listed as unreliable. I you have an issue with any given source, please do make your case with Wikipedia and get it added to the unreliability list. Good luck! Cpaaoi (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is always 2 sides of the coin. Anyone can edit and list these news outlets as unreliable sources. It is always suspect with listing something as 'potentially unreliable'. Many of the sources which you reference in regards to the Russian investigation depend on unnamed sources too. Until there is a consensus to blacklist that news outlet, these references will stay for the time being.F2Milk (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about blacklists, and there is not always two sides. I have asked you if you are aware that some of the sources you use are regarded by Wikipedia as suspect. As with all our charming prior conversations, if you have any specific complaints, please do make them explicitly, and not in the form of generalized cryptic statements. Many thanks again Cpaaoi (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue about blacklists are pertinent here. Only if there is a general consensus for news sources to be blacklisted(eg. Daily Mail), then they should be removed. Otherwise these sources which you listed should stay.F2Milk (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have not raised the issue of blacklists, nor of removing any of these references. I am talking about Wikipedia's list of unreliable sources. I have noticed only that you sometimes rely on these for this Trump timeline, and wanted to ensure that you are aware that although many of these sources may be used, the Wikipedia community treats them as suspect. Cpaaoi (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irregardless of whether you think these sources are suspect, they haven't been blacklisted. It is also the same if you reference new sources which quote unnamed sources. So these references / sources stay where they are until there is a consensus to remove them.F2Milk (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we have a pattern of ignoring what has been said, and repetitively making the same point over and over, as if by virtue of repetition it becomes true. It is not a matter of what I think is suspect: it is a list of unreliable sources produced by Wikipedia. Once again, no-one has mentioned 'blacklisting' - if you could direct me to a Wikipedia page of blacklisted sources, I would be much obliged. I have not suggested removing any of these sources; I only wanted to ensure that you are aware that Wikipedia (not I) looks on such sources with suspicion. My principal issue has been the repeated misrepresentation of sources both good and bad, for example: putting words into the mouths of people who did not say them, including myself. Cpaaoi (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, no one is ignoring what you have said. You believe what you want to believe. You just ignore the other side's point of view and come up with your own point of view. The list is suspect according to their own assertions. You might think it is not suspect. So there is your argument. Now regarding the blacklisting, you already know the situation with Daily Mail. That media source got blacklisted and anyone who adds Daily Mail to references has them removed asap. You can quote any list you want, but there is always an element of suspicion to fit your own narrative. There is right and wrong, good and bad, there is always two sides of the coin. To quote that an unreliable sources list, to back up your narrative and attack events that are reported by those sources is one of them.F2Milk (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to an official unreliable sources list is absolutely legitimate. I have no idea what you are trying to say here; sorry! Cpaaoi (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cpaaoi, it is within reason why you brought up the issue of potential unreliable sources to fit with your narrative that some of the posts in the timeline should not be included. I brought up the issue with the blacklist to tell you why those sources irregardless of them being in an 'official' list should stay. TQ. F2Milk (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
F2Milk, this is not my narrative; it is Wikipedia's narrative; please stop suggesting otherwise. Some sources are deemed reliable by Wikipedia, others are not. It is reasonable to point this out to people who are using sources deemed potentially unreliable by Wikipedia. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cpaaoi, this is your narrative that these are unreliable sources. Anyone can add to these lists. In spite of what the list says these sources are also reporting the same reports as other news sources or regurgitating what others have said previously. So I am right to say that you can add these sources here until there is a consensus to completely blacklist them. People in the past have reported on sources such as the NYT and CNN, yet these are not on the unreliable sources list. Yet people still put these sources up for references.F2Milk (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
F2Milk; this is not my narrative; it is Wikipedia's. The unreliable sources page may indeed be edited by anyone; and as such represents the consensus of the Wikipedia community, otherwise it would be a contentious page and much-altered. It would be an interesting experiment if you were to place CNN and the NYT on that list, in order to see how quickly they would be removed by the community; you are welcome to have a go. In the meantime, I shall keep using those sources for this page, and avoiding sources like the Straits Times and Sputnik until they are removed from that list. As I have repeatedly stated: not my narrative; but Wikipedia's. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cpaaoi, anyway you explain it, it will always be your narrative. The unreliable sources page can be edited by anyone as you say. There are always 2 sides of the coin when it comes to consensus. There must be a agreement by all to have those sources listed in the reliable sources list. Nowadays its not consensus but by majority votes in most Wikipedia discussions. You see its always funny when you say it represents the consensus by the Wikipedia community, where consensus is sadly lacking. No one is going to remove the sources such as Straits Times and Sputnik, because that's debatable. Those sources are reporting on events, so there is no issue and will stay where they are. Do you also really believe your NYT article about the Trump JR meeting is 100% accurate? You see I still am going to challenge you on the JulyCpaaoi (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC) 9, 2016 meeting which you posted. That happened last year and did not happened in Q3 2017. So why is it there? Shouldn't that be removed?F2Milk (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, F2Milk - wrong, wrong and thrice wrong again! Wikipedia does not proceed by vote: please see WP:DEMOCRACY. And no; consensus derives from demonstrating that one side is lacking in substance; there may be two sides but it is wrong to assume thereby that both carry equal weight (unlike your well-used coin metaphor). NYT articles do not have to be 100% reliable in order to prove that sources like Sputnik are unreliable. As for July 9th; I think you mean July 8. And, no, the event listed did happen on the date specified - i.e. the date of the report's release, concerning a prior event. Until then, no-one had known about the Veselnitskaya meeting, and all hypotheses about such meetings had been repeatedly denied by President Trump and his campaign team as a conspiracy theory. So, the date is correct, and it remains a significant moment in the Trump presidential timeline, absolutely regardless of any questions about the man's innocence or guilt. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-By the way, are you aware it emerged over the weekend that Sputnik is now under FBI investigation, allegedly due to being a propaganda arm of the Kremlin? Not, then, only Wikipedia's "narrative", but also possibly part of a US intelligence services "narrative". Two sides to every coin, indeed! All the best, as ever, F2Milk! Cpaaoi (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cpaaoi, I understand you are defending Wikipedia but that is the current situation Wikipedia is in. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but most admins succumb after seeing the number of votes on issues and let the majority YES people have their way and that's how it is. To assume that the list in the unreliable sources list is final or the end all is not the case. It can be changed and list is fluid. You can also assume that most of the media organizations in the US like CNN and NYT are in the cahoots with the DNC during the election, yet we still quote them. So that narrative that Sputnik is suspect because of an FBI investigation is just that. Nearly every foreign news organisation is suspect, just is like very main stream media organisation. In the end we shouldn't care much about their bias or politics unless they are reporting their own opinions. But they aren't, they are just reporting on current events, thus that is it should be fine. So the current consensus on blacklisting the Daily Mail is fitting example. Until there is a consensus to blacklist Sputnik, then I don't see a problem. Now regarding the NYT report on the meeting is just that - an event that happened before the Trump presidency, which should go to your Russian interference timeline. We are just reporting on events that happened during the presidency. The NYT report in the meeting is part of the interference narrative or current investigation.F2Milk (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with very little of what you say, and it clearly shows conspiracy theory tendencies, for which I cannot provide a cure, I am afraid. As matters of detail, however; you keep saying that the Daily Mail is blacklisted - that's not true either; it may be used to demonstrate the opinion of its contributors, for example. Nope, the NYT report emerged during the presidency, on the given date. That it referred to an earlier event is immaterial: the report was the one of the more significant moments at which it began to become confirmed that the Trump campaign had been lying about having nothing to do with Russians (and continue to lie: even on the very day of Manafort's testimony to the Senate about the Veselnitskaya meeting, Trump stated that none of his people (quote) "saw anybody from Russia"!) So, no - the NYT's July 2017 revelation of repeated, proven, high-profile lying by the occupant of the White House and his folks remains a significant event for the Trump Presidency. This is not a partisan issue, it's just a fact of political history now. Sorry about that. Based on the foregoing, I have to assume that you will keep asking me to dismantle the same weak point over and over, so I shan't keep repeating myself. Cpaaoi (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we can have disagreements. There is no conspiracy tendencies like you say. Its always the case of Wikipedia admins siding with the majority in most cases. The Daily Mail has been blacklisted, I have noticed in many articles which has the Daily Mail as a source get the reference removed. Though I might disagree with that, even though the Daily Mail is just repeating what other news organisations are reporting. Now in regards to the NYT article post, events that happened before the presidency begins should be placed in the a different timeline. That Russian interference timeline encompasses the many months before the presidency starts. So your NYT article post about the meeting should go there. This is just a reporting by a news organisation on what may or may not have happened. So this argument stating that the event is pertinent to the timeline is not only wrong but POV pushing. I mentioned duplication in the beginning to get the post removed. I am partially correct in that regard. Also now this meeting happened in a different time period, which gives me a bit more ammunition in my argument to get it remove. F2Milk (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the Mail is not "blacklisted"; we just don't use it as an authority. Nope again; vaguely accusing people of being "in cahoots" (without evidence) is by definition conspiratorial thinking. And nope, the NYT entry is not about the event; it is about the report. And it is anti-POV. And it stays. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is the Daily Mail not blacklisted? Many editors have removed the posts which are sourced from the Daily Mail reference. Isn't that a blacklisting? The NYT article should be removed because of the reasons I mentioned. One, its a duplication of the Russian interference timeline. Two, its about an event that happened during before the presidency. Three, its pushing a POV narrative. The lawyer in the report denied denied working for the Russian authorities or offering any incriminating information to the Trump campaign. That is all the more reason to relocate the information to the Russian interference timeline.F2Milk (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Mail is not blacklisted; we just don't use it as an authority. Please stop repeating this. In any case, the original point was about your use of the Straits Times and Sputnik (which is under FBI investigation as a propaganda unit).
The issue of duplication has already been settled in previous discussions with other editors. Almost everything on the entire timeline is duplicated on other pages. Please stop repeating this.
Again, the NYT entry is not about the event, it is about the report. And again, it is not POV; it is a fact of political history. Please stop repeating this. Furthermore, the entry says nothing about the authorities or incriminating information.
If you are really that concerned, F2Milk, about alien material leaching into the timeline, why have you made a special and dedicated effort to retrospectively include Robert Mueller's (lack of) comment on the 12th of September? Not only is it not an action of the presidency, but it was not even an action at all! If we are going to include entries about things that are not said, then would you say that we should make more of an issue on this timeline about the things that Trump does not do and say also? Like, for example, his delay in condemning Nazis and the Klan after Charlottesville because he 'needed to get all the facts' (despite being quickly onto Twitter whenever there is trouble he believes to be instigated by a non-white person - viz recent terror attacks in Europe). No? I thought not, F2Milk. The fact of the Trump administration handing over documents here is an official act of the presidency and certainly belongs here. Mueller's (lack of) response surely belongs on Mueller's page (if anywhere)? And you don't have an issue, F2Milk, with your own entry about Nazarbayev promoting Kremlin interests on the 1st of September? Surely this belongs on the Nazarbayev page, F2Milk? And what of the North Korean statement on the 8th of August, F2Milk? Surely you should be pressing for that to be moved to the North Korea page? Of course I do not necessarily support moving or deleting any of these items (which I did not write). But it is intriguing that F2Milk has not taken issue with any of these (and more) in his/her noble quest to clean up Wikipedia! What could be the reason for this double standard? What reason, indeed! Any thoughts, F2Milk? If you really wish to continue (and continue and continue) to make accusations about what you call 'POV-pushing', perhaps we could take a closer look at F2Milk's edit history. What do you say, F2Milk? Might there be anything to be learned there?
* I suppose what I am really asking is: why are other editors required to conform to rules invented by F2Milk - rules which F2Milk themself does not follow? Cpaaoi (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cpaaoi, sorry but the Daily Mail is blacklisted no matter how you describe it. Editors have remove references to it and replaced it with other sources. The usage of the Straits Times and Sputnik so far do not hold any extra scrutiny compared to the Daily Mail. They are just reporting on events and that is why they can be included in the timeline as reference sources. They are not reporting opinion pieces and thus giving the reason of the FBI investigation of Sputnik as a propaganda unit is not a valid argument. Other countries like in the Middle East and Singapore have called CNN, The Economists as American propaganda units. So that doesn't hold any water in your argument here.
The duplication argument is part and parcel why you should remove the alleged Russian interference bit regarding that NYT meeting. They should be move since you say that it is a part of political history. It should be moved to an election article or the timeline about the Russian interference. This is an event that happened way before the presidency began. If on a particular date on December, 2017 the Washington Post or some other media outlet reports that Trump said some crass things in 2016, do we include that in the timeline?
Mueller is conducting his own investigation into the allege Russian interference, and that by itself has its own Wiki article. That information is also pretty much covered in the Russian interference timeline which you are diligently updating every other day. Have you also included the Russian lawyer's version of events and her explanation? Or are you just reporting what only the NYT is reporting?
The report on the phone call between Kazakh President and Trump is just that and other conversations with world leaders are events that happened during the timeline of the presidency. To equate these conversations to an event(apartment meeting) that happened outside this timeline is laughable.
No one is cleaning up Wikipedia as you are insinuating. The issue is that you keep nitpicking on the events such as phone calls with world leaders while giving extra weight to the Russian interference storyline. So Cpaaoi, I didn't invent any new rules here. F2Milk (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the blacklist.
By all means, keep reading Sputnik and the Straits Times. And by all means, keep using them here. Just remember to describe their contents carefully next time, and don't put Nazarbayev's press statement into the mouth of Donald Trump, like you did. (Similarly to your curious placing of a Trump tweet into the mouth of Jeff Sessions at a formal briefing - please don't think that the reason I have refused to be drawn into an edit war about it means that I have forgotten; it will be corrected eventually!)
Your duplication "argument" has been dismissed - by consensus.
Veselnitskaya's claims are not relevant. The report demonstrating Trump's dishonesty is relevant.
The NYT entry is not about the event, but about the report.
Nazarbayev is not part of the Trump administration.
You do have your own invented rules. Your rule on duplication is an invention. Which you have just repeated.
The word Russia appears in no more than ten entries on the Q3 timeline page, and Mueller appears only once. Most of these entries refer to trips, actions and statements made by Trump and his people. For a matter which is featured on the Trump presidency sidebar, the content on the multiple ongoing investigations into Trump's team seems remarkably thin here. On the contrary, I believe that the multitude of entries along the lines of "Trump phones dictator, calls for free marshmallows for everyone" is much more of a concern, being in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on triviality, giving undue weight to events which are mostly of no consequence. See WP:NOTNEWS if you are unsure.
And you haven't answered the question why something not said by someone not in the administration has been worthy of inclusion here by you, F2Milk (viz Mueller's non-reaction on 12 Sept)? Many thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The blacklist - Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source - Link
Your putting up the whole speech of Trump at the UN, instead of making it concise or brief or trying to decipher Trump's tweets, what does that say?
Since you admitted that the NYT is a report, it should be a report. There is nothing to back that report, because its what the report says and what the individuals say. You are just making up something out nothing, putting credence to the report when there isn't any. Plus that report is stating that this event happened outside Q3 2017 timeline, which makes it all the more reason to remove it and place in the Russian interference timeline which is longer and takes place longer.
The lawyer's claims is relevant is you need to put her claims to rebut, as this would have 2 sides of the story and make this NPOV. (Did you put her claims in your Russian interference timeline?)
I have already mentioned about the duplication argument. Other editors have said they have no issue with duplication about entries in different articles. I will listen to their wisdom on this. This is not my rule, but common sense. Sometimes common sense gets thrown out of the window.
No one said Nazarbayev is part of the Trump administration. The phone call took place between the 2 leaders and that was what reported.
If we were to include everyone's comments about what the administration said, I would have to include everyone. Not only the negative comments but the positive. There are places to put these comments - Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information, Presidency of Donald TrumpF2Milk (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source you cite (The Guardian) proves you wrong! The opening sentence says Wikipedia has banned "the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances". Doesn't sound much like "blacklisting" to me, F2Milk! The article says it is "generally prohibited", which precisely fits my version, given above; and not yours, given above! To repeat myself *again*, I don't even know why we are talking about the Mail; it was you who brought it up. I don't read the Mail and I almost always avoid citing it on Wikipedia - it's just not an issue here. The issue was your use of publications which are similarly viewed with suspicion and, in the case of Sputnik, under FBI investigation as potential Russian propaganda outlets.
I did not put up the whole UN speech; yet another absolutist misrepresentation from F2Milk. Only the more remarkable points were included, such as the schoolyard name-calling, the dismantling of America's ability to broker future international deals by reneging on current deals, continued threats of a military intervention in Venezuela, and the continued drive for nuclear war in south-east Asia, along with Trump's accustomed humbug about "coming together".
I am not making something of nothing. Trump has made denials of any connection to Russia a feature of his presidency. The NYT report was the first hard indication that he and his people were provably lying. Whether the man is innocent or not, it will remain a landmark of his presidency. And, to repeat myself *yet again*, the entry is not about the date of the previously-denied Veselnitskaya meeting; it is about the date of the report, when Trump's mendacity was exposed.
But how are there two sides? Everyone has agreed (and testified) that the meeting occurred. I suppose some coins only have one side, F2Milk? Unless it could be that matters of fact are not multi-sided, like your favorite coin metaphor?
I am glad that you have decided to pack away your duplication "argument". I cannot, however, say that I will be much surprised if you bring it out again in the future, whatever the outcome of the ongoing RfC directly below. And as an aside, I don't accept that you have partaken of much of the "common sense" of others which you seem to attempting to co-opt for yourself with a commonplace statement like "sometimes common sense gets thrown out of the window". It is you who have been conducting the defenestrations.
I cannot deny that there were two people on the Trump-Nazarbayev call. I just found it intriguing that Nazarbayev's perspective was left alone as an isolated sentence here, instead of on his own page, while you continued to plead "irrelevance" and "duplication" about anything that might make President Trump look anything less than the very image of George Washington himself.
And I have no idea what you mean by your final line. My question was, why should something not said by someone not in the administration (Mueller 12th Sept) be included here by F2Milk who has long protested anything other than White House press-release material being included here? Are we to take it that F2Milk would be content to see included on the timeline Trump's refusal to say anything naughty about Russia assisting North Korea, when he is more than eager to repeatedly describe the leaders of the Chinese government 'failures' in this respect? All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was reported its banned. The other word in the English language is blacklisted. So in any case many editors have removed edits which include Daily Mail as the reference source. Everyone looks at different news media sources with suspicion, including Sputnik, NYT and CNN. Other foreign governments looks at US organisations with suspicion and investigate them too. There needs to be a balance that not only US news sources or references are preeminent all news articles. So that FBI argument is not relevant here.
In regards to the UN speech, you included the descriptions of the North Korean leader, the Iranian government, the nuclear deal when a simple condemnation of all 3 should be sufficient. Just like you like to keep reiterating the topic of including trivia to the timeline.
I brought out the duplication argument in the beginning. That was already discussed at length with a couple of editors. I still have misgivings but will let that be. The other reasons I gave are important to remove the entry about the NYT reported meeting.
The date of the meeting which the report wrote about important. The report came out about an event that took place outside Q3 2017 in the Presidential timeline. Also you are implying something nefarious took place in the meeting, which the lawyer and Trump's team have denied to that effect. There are two sides to the meeting. Has there been an conclusion in the investigatin to this effect?
Yes, the call took place between the President and Nazabayez. To put Trump in the same pedestal as George Washington is silly. The entry is just reporting what was said during the phone conversation. Nothing else to that effect. You can look for other sources which will imply that the phone conversation took place and what was said.
The timeline is about the actions, speeches made by the administration in the Q1, Q2 and Q3. To include events outside the scope of the timeline just invites us to include things that happened many years back or decades back. We might as well include Trump's business dealing in the Middle East, Asia, etc and Trump University.
To make up assertions about information to include the Russia assisting North Korea and the Chinese government failures is detracting for the main argument here. The detractors or criticism of the administration is being reported many of the articles - Presidency of Donald Trump, the immigration executive orders, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. To include every detractor, we must balance it with people supporting the administration's actions. That will leave the timeline 75% of people commenting on the administration's actions because every single person has his or her own opinion. F2Milk (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - in order of (re)appearance: It wasn't. It isn't. I've already said this to you. They don't. What investigations? They aren't. It is. It isn't. I don't. You haven't. They're not. It isn't. The entry doesn't. I know. It isn't. It doesn't. Why? It isn't. So what? We mustn't. It won't. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already pointed out this point before. Do these reports have confirmation by the administration or the investigative team or the Congressional team? Did they confirm that the documents were handed over to the investigative team? Or was it an unnamed source? Was that source reliable? This is paramount in order to make things as much accurate as possible.F2Milk (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your authority for such requirements? And the meeting has been confirmed anyway. Cpaaoi (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your information that something nefarious took place during the meeting that fit with the Russian interference narrative? Is the source reliable? So do you see that the posts is stating that the administration had something to hide? That this took place outside the current Q3 timeline? That this is not an action taken by the current administration?F2Milk (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entry says nothing about 'nefariousness'. The NYT is regarded by the Wikipedia community as a reliable source. The event took place in summer 2017, during the Q3 timeline. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is considered a reliable source by some of the Wikipedia community but not by all. The event reported during the Q3 timeline took place outside the Q3 timeline. Then it should be removed. I have mentioned a couple of points regarding this in the past.F2Milk (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Full agreement is not required, nor is it sought on Wikipedia; rather, we proceed by consensus. And the consensus is that the New York Times is a reliable source. It is not a profound insight that one or more contrarian(s) may always be found on a given subject. Sputnik, however, has been flagged on Wikipedia as an unreliable source in a way that The New York Times has not been. And the event happened in the summer of 2017, which places it within the timeline of the presidency. Thanks as always! Cpaaoi (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to understand I am not putting down the NYT as a reliable source. But you seem to want to parade the NYT as an impeccable news media source. Please show me the consensus discussion that the New York Times is a reliable source and how that was derived. All news sources are suspect in most cases. If news outlets report on events happening then by all means include them in the timeline. There have been issues with retractions and that is why we look at things with a grain of salt. The event (NYT reported meeting) happened during the campaign, and that year is 2016. This is 2017 not 2016. This is Q3 2017. Unless you can state otherwise that entry should be removed. F2Milk (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT is not infallible; it is reliable. The NYT has not been added to WP:PUS All news sources are not equally suspect. What retractions? The report was on 8 July 2017. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To say the NYT is reliable, when not the case. Just remember they ran a couple of polls during the election which was suspect and they do write a lot of opinion pieces to run their own narrative. Just like many papers or media outlets in different countries. Reliability is sometimes in short supply in all news outlets. How many disclaimers do you think the NYT puts out in its history when they are found out to be wrong on a certain topic or issue they have reported on? F2Milk (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-open request for comment with specificity (Unreliable sources)

[edit]
There seems to be rough consensus for allowing the content to stay, as the grounds for removal based on de-duplication are believed to be insufficient.

As is the case in our guidelines and in arguments raised in support of allowing the content to remain, content can (and frequently does) appear on more than one page. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

--slakr\ talk / 07:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Must the entry for July 8th concerning the initial New York Times report on the Veselnitskaya/Trump Tower meeting be removed for the reason that it also appears on other pages? Or may it stay? Cpaaoi (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stay - Not aware of any provisions which say relevant content can't appear on two different articles. NickCT (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay (qualified). There is no policy or guideline basis for removing content just because it appears on another page. However the content in question may be removed for other reasons, such as it being out of scope. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --[[User:|Dr. Fleischman]] (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay For the sake of clarity, I'll reiterate my position that material cannot be excluded from a wikipage for the reason (repeatedly offered by F2Milk over many months) that the material appears on one or more other page(s). Cpaaoi (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I have already stated that I have no issue with entries that entries that appear in two different timelines or duplication. That is just conflating the issue and making this to be another excuse to push some POV entries. The NYT article should be removed because the event took place outside the Q3 2017 of the Trump Presidency timeline or out of the scope (as mentioned by DrFleischman). The news article also brings up issue of accusations or things that might have happen or might not have happen. The woman in question has made denials working for the Russian authorities or offering any incriminating information to the Trump campaign. This is back up by the people who attended the meeting. Cpaaoi seems to always tries to include the Russian interference narrative throughout entire Q1, Q2 and Q3 timelines.F2Milk (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Let me add here, F2Milk, that Dr Fleischmann has not here advised to remove on grounds of irrelevancy (as you insinuate); only that the question of irrelevancy must be considered also. And it is being considered in another RfC on this page. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
No, you keep repeating your issue with 'duplication', which is the issue brought up by this RfC. This is an RfC about your 'duplication' claim (made as recently as 18th Sept - see above). If you want to discuss relevance, that is another matter for another discussion. Please do not conflate the two. (I note that you have indeed now retracted your "duplication" point - but let it be recorded that F2Milk's retraction came days *after* this RfC was set up; F2Milk's characterization here clearly attempts to make it sound as if this RfC was unwarranted, despite months of "duplication" argumentation.)
I have also just gone through all three pages of the Trump timeline, F2Milk. Each 90-day period contains approximately a dozen or so mentions of the Russia issue, almost all of them actions or statements by the administration. And not all were added by me. If you have any problem with any specific entry, then be specific - and stop constantly repeating these vague and false accusations about foul play. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with duplication is just a red herring. That was one of my original arguments to remove the entry about the NYT reported meeting. The other arguments is this is not part of the Presidential timeline, and happened before the presidency took place. Also this is pushing a POV narrative that something happened when the investigation to the Russian interference has not been concluded. There are numerous articles which are just opinion pieces which are also not statements or actions by the administration. Please don't lump all the entries about the Russian interference as gospel truth.F2Milk (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument about duplication has been made by you repeatedly right up until the creation of this RfC, whereafter you immediately recanted. It is not a red herring, it is a matter which needs to be dealt with conclusively, because I am not satisfied that this will be the last we see of this hitherto unknown "rule". The issue of relevance is being dealt with in a separate RfC. Once again, the entry concerns the date of the report, not the event referred to. I don't know what you are referring to when you mention "numerous articles", "opinion pieces" and "gospel truth"; if you have specific problems, please do be specific. Many thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that it appears in numerous articles, but I see no guidelines that indicate that the content of other pages may determine the content of a page in question WP:OSE. Many thanks! Cpaaoi (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Markbassett, thank you for setting the point straight. Apparently this duplication argument was discussed previously. Decided to let things remain untouched. But the other arguments to their removal holds sway.F2Milk (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No point has 'been set straight'. This RfC remains open. Cpaaoi (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay. Obviously it can be covered on multiple pages. If it seems to go into too much depth, then other pages can link to the main page to the topic; but it seems worth a mention. A timeline in particular is absolutely expected to briefly cover things that will also be on their own separate pages - that's part of the point of having one in the first place, since it organizes topics that may be covered elsewhere in one central timeline. --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to remove the entry and put it in the main article. The duplication argument has been set straight. The argument here is about the timeline scope of the entry and that it happened before the presidency began.F2Milk (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has yet been "set straight". This RfC remains open. And this RfC is not about "scope"; it is about your duplication argument, which you claim to have dropped but which still leaves its shadow over the posts you have just added below.WP:OFFTOPIC. Cpaaoi (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have another Rfc talking about this issue (the NYT apartment meeting entry) This is why we should try to come up with just a list of points in one topic area.F2Milk (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief guidelines clearly indicate that RfCs should be kept to single, brief questions. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry opening up multiple Rfcs on the same topic negates that argument. We should just close this section and move the discussion to the other Rfc. This is why you should have only 1 or 2 Rfcs with a list of points you wish to raise to avoid multiple and duplicate Rfcs. This is common sense.F2Milk (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These RfCs deal with separate subjects. I propose we keep them open. You are right; one should have only 1 or 2 RfCs - but only if there are 1 or 2 issues to address! Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 Rfcs talking about the NYT reported meeting. Just close 1 of them and continue the discussion in the other. All the more reason to use common sense to list down the issues in one topic area.F2Milk (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Wikipedia does not proceed by editors commanding other editors to do things; rather, it proceeds by consensus and guidelines. Commanding an editor to close an RfC would come clearly under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There remain several issues at stake, and there will remain several RfCs until they have been discussed and resolved in full. It is true there are two RfCs mentioning the Veselnitskaya meeting; but they deal with two separate issues, one of which has now been resolved. The RfCs will remain open for the time being, according to standard Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not commanding you or ordering you about. You seem very defensive. I have suggested we close one of the Rfcs and discuss this further in the other Rfc. This is why you should instead of trying to sound righteous, look at things with a bit more common sense. We can talk about the issues in one of the Rfcs. I have already recommended previously we should at least try to collate the issues and list them in one section. Not many people have the stamina like you to post many discussion topics one after another.F2Milk (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have no authority here to 'recommend' anything. You are here to make your argument; and your argument falls squarely under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since when can you command people not to recommend anything. I find this laughable when you think you have lost an argument and tell people they have no authority. So you only have the authority. That's great. Tell that to everyone else on this planet.F2Milk (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Veselnitskaya/Trump Tower-New York Times report

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was keep. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Must the 8th July 2017 New York Times report on the Veselnitska/Trump Tower meeting be removed because it refers to events from prior to the Trump inauguration? Cpaaoi (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Though referring to a 2016 campaign event, this entry is about the moment at which the meeting was revealed (July 2017, during the administration) and which has led to widespread public debate and to administration testimony, during the administration. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The July meeting has evolved into an important incident that effects the presidency. While it predates the inaugaration, it only came to light during this administration and is relevant to explain future developements. ―Buster7 ☎ 17:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove -- WP:OFFTOPIC as the line is about an article by a reporter, not about something done in the Presidency. Sort of like the article does not have a line for Harvey, just for the Presidential actions. Markbassett (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all "sort of like" Hurricane Harvey. A denied meeting with Russians in Trump Tower is not a natural phenomenon that derives from forces beyond the power of an administration. It is not clear why WP:OFFTOPIC has been cited: the report emerged during the Presidency; it concerns members of the current administration; denials were made by the President both before and after it had been confirmed, and it has led to formal testimony. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Remove - This is an off topic entry in a article and is not part of the Q3 Presidency timeline. I have already mentioned I have no issue with duplication of entries with different timeline articles, but this entry goes beyond the scope of timeline. The event happened before the Presidency began. The woman in question has made denials working for the Russian authorities or offering any incriminating information to the Trump campaign. This entry should just be placed in the other Wiki articles which are reporting the Russian interference.F2Milk (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again; unclear why this is 'off topic', when it directly concerns members of the Trump administration at a time when they are in power. The event did not happen prior to this Presidency; it happened in the summer of 2017. The question of whom Veselnitskaya works for is WP:OFFTOPIC. To say that "this entry should just be placed [elsewhere]" is not an argument or an appeal to guidelines. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain They are two separate issues. Issue 1: should it be removed on grounds of duplication? Issue 2: should it be removed on grounds of relevance? Both shaky arguments have been made repeatedly by F2Milk on this entry and numerous other entries. Since all discussion has gone nowhere, I am looking for clarity on what the community thinks. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abort - This is just an abuse of the Rfc process. The Rfcs that deals with the Russian interference or investigation should just be merged and Cpaaoi should understand that his arguments of including the Russian investigation entries are not correct and they should be moved to the main article: one- the dates are outside the scope of the timeline , two - they are not confirmed by the other parties that are mentioned in the reports. Furthermore I would like to add that Cpaaoi of not being WP:CIVIL and doing a disservice to me by accusing me of an ulterior motive of using a single purpose accounts when I have already edited different timelines in the past. This is not right.F2Milk (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am within my rights to highlight F2Milk as a single-purpose account, for it is a single-purpose account. If other accounts exist - then those are other accounts! This is not an abuse of the RfC process. One RfC deals with your "duplication" argument - which you have now agreed to drop, which means that that RfC may shortly be closed anyway. And this RfC deals with exclusion on the basis of alleged anachronism. << duplication != anachronism = 2 RfCs >> And again we see more non-specific allegations of incivility; if you have a specific complaint to make, then please do be specific! But let's not change the subject (again). Many thanks! Cpaaoi (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat that this is an abuse of the Rfc process. Just introduce 1 or 2 Rfcs will suffice. Just state the points you wish to raise in one area and then let everyone comment. If that is the case, if Cpaaoi wish to highlight me as a single purpose account, then I wish to highlight Cpaaoi as a WP:POV pusher on the Russian conspiracy. There are plenty of arguments here state that as a fact. Then we don't need to follow the WP:CIVIL rules here then, if that is the case. The NYT meeting post should be remove in its entirety. It should be covered in the other articles which I have mentioned in the past. F2Milk (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repetition will not make an argument correct. 1 or 2 RfCs would suffice if there were 1 or 2 issues to clarify. WP:OFFTOPIC If you want to "highlight" me as a "POV-pusher" (O, immortal phrase!), you can do that, but please do that elsewhere, and please do cite your evidence (because you still haven't provided any despite many long centuries of asking). WP:OFFTOPIC And we do need to observe civility. WP:OFFTOPIC. The NYT report is already covered in other pages. That has no bearing on the content of this page. WP:OFFTOPIC Thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You see this event is not really significant. It just reporting on a meeting that happened before the presidency. There is a current investigation ongoing which so far has not revealed any thing that happened during the meeting. This special investigation is just that. So far this meeting is outside the scope of the timeline, outside the scope of the presidency. Should be removed. F2Milk (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any potential outcome of any investigation is WP:OFFTOPIC. And it is not about the meeting WP:OFFTOPIC; it is about the report. Many thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not off topic to discuss the investigation, because you are also butting into WP:BLP as some of these are reports on people involved in the investigation. The other parties mentioned in the article have denied some of the accusations brought up in the report. The entry is also outside the current article timeline. It is also outside the scope of the Presidential timeline. Not to mentioned the duplication argument. (if you wish to resurrect this again) F2Milk (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is WP:OFFTOPIC, because the entry says nothing about any investigation. It is not in violation of WP:BLP: the persons at the meeting have all confirmed it. In fact, Donald Jr volunteered information about it. The entry is not outside the presidential timeline; it happened in summer 2017. And I am confused: I thought you had explicitly abandoned the argument about "duplication"? Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your inferring something happened during that meeting that ties with the ongoing Russian interference storyline. So this is a violation of WP:BLP. Has the parties confirmed any nefarious happening during the meeting? Does the meeting have to deal with the presidency or the election timeline? This happened before the presidency began, even though the article reported on it during this timeline. So it is correct to say that this event happened outside the presidency timeline and should be removed to that main article. Also this has nothing to do with the presidency. Is Donald Jr part of the president's team or administration? I have already abandoned the duplication argument, so that is over. But if you keep bringing it up again or resurrecting it, then please be my guest.F2Milk (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific BLP guideline do consider to have been contravened? The entry says nothing about nefariousness. Yes it does have to do with the timeline. It happened in summer 2017, during the presidency. Jared Kushner was at the meeting, and he is part of the administration. I would be more than happy not to keep responding to your duplication argument. Thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • F2Milk - shall we agree here never again to mention your "duplication" argument, in light of the facts you have now dropped it, I don't like talking about it, and it has found no support in these RfCs or Wikipedia guidelines? Cpaaoi (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly on the duplication argument. This was discussed in the past to drop it, so we should drop it. Now in regards to the meeting, this was dealing with the election and not with the current administration. The meeting happened outside the timeline during the election. Yes, it was reported that the group wanted to find out things to help with their election advantage over the other party or candidate. They stated they did not get the information they wanted. This is more do deal with the election. How is that entry anything to do with the Presidential timeline? Jared Kushner is an advisor to the President. His position is to advise the president. Do you see how this entry is out of place and scope?F2Milk (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is fantastic news! I am glad we will no longer mention "duplication". I will not henceforth mention it (please ignore the comment about it below in reply, which was added before this note). If the issue of duplication is raised again, I will simply direct that part of the argument to this place on this page, where (and I shall put it in bold, so that it is easy to see) we here agree never to mention the duplication point again.
As for the NYT entry; I still don't understand what you mean by it happening outside the timeline: it happened in summer 2017; and the inauguration was 20 January 2017, so it happened during the presidency. The entry says nothing about any "information they wanted". And you are correct; Jared Kushner is an advisor to the President. Cpaaoi (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have dropped the duplication argument and that's it. The meeting purpose was to dig information about the opposition during the election campaign. This by itself disqualifies the entry from being included in the current presidential timeline. Also the NYT times entry headline states - Trump Team Met With Lawyer Linked to Kremlin During Campaign. Now the key words here is During the Campaign. This is entry is more suited for an election timeline or the Russian interference article. It is just a meeting and doesn't infer that anything happened that ties with the Russian interference narrative. The event didn't happen during the summer of 2017, it happened in 2016. So I don't understand your confusion about this being outside the timeline scope and also this being outside the presidential timeline event scope.F2Milk (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The report was on the 8th of July 2017. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The event in the report took placed outside this timeline, not on the 8th of July. That is pertinent to the argument for its removal.F2Milk (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment on Trump timeline listing practices

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was a mix between "remove" and "remove but create a footnote". Either way, the text should not be kept as a list in the body of the article. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump timeline: should we condense this list of names on 19th Sept 2017 to something like "world leaders"? Cpaaoi (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Quotation of passage in question (entry for 19th Sept 2017):

"President Trump has a state and power luncheon meeting hosted by UN Secretary General António Guterres, seating on the same table with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, Swiss President Doris Leuthard, Ecuadorian President Lenín Moreno, South Korean President Moon Jae-in, King Abdullah II of Jordan, Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė and Guinean President Alpha Conde." - quoted edit by F2Milk

  • Remove Unhelpful and distracting trivia. I hold the same opinion for many other similar entries by F2Milk, such as the needless specification of the names of Jewish holidays on September 15th, or press-release-style mission statements such as that appended to the White House Historical Association on September 14th. (I won't keep making these RfCs forever; I am currently looking for clarity about the community's opinion on F2Milk's overall approach to editing.) Cpaaoi (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The UN speech would come under WP:OSE, if you are trying to tie the two directly together. If you want to raise that as a separate issue, then please do so. (But if I may add a note here: are you seriously suggesting that Trump's first speech to the UN deserves equal billing with a list of lunch-hall diners?) In the meantime; it does not need pointing out that the entry shows who attended the meeting - that is why this RfC was opened. It needs to be explained why it is not trivial. Many thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the edit or removal of the leaders's names in order to make the entry post concise. The Trump UN speech entry post can also be made more concise at the same time. TQ. F2Milk (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to hear that some agreement may be beginning to be reached here on the removal/condensation of trivia. The next task, I suppose, will be determining whether things such as Trump's maiden speech to the United Nations count as trivia. Cpaaoi (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The details in the Trump maiden speech can be condense. Don't need to add the minor details of describing the North Korean leader as 'rocket man', etc. This is just an idea. F2Milk (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stick to the question of the condensation and removal of trivial details about the lunch, F2Milk. WP:OFFTOPIC Many thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lunch entry has already been condensed. I don't understand why Cpaaoi is bringing it up again. I suggest the speech should be condensed a bit - like putting a line like 'condemning the North Korean regime or leader' That is simple enough.F2Milk (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been condensed; it remains a list of lunch-hall diners and this RfC remains open. The UN speech is WP:OFFTOPIC. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I don't supposed the names of the leaders have been removed out of thin air all of a sudden? This is why this Rfc is null and void, whereas the issue of condensing the UN speech should be brought up instead. F2Milk (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entry remains the same. And this RfC remains open. By all means bring up the matter of the UN speech; but for this RfC it is WP:OFFTOPIC. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is the same issue. You bring up the leader's names and it ties in with the condensation of the UN speech. All the more reason the Rfcs should be merged and a list compiled on the issues being raised. That's common sense. Thank you.F2Milk (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an RfC about a list of diners. Trump's speech to the UN remains WP:OFFTOPIC. I think it is preferable to follow Wikipedia guidelines than 'common sense'. Many thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The list of diners has already been amended. The Trump speech is part of parcel of the discussion. I repeat again it is better to have common sense than follow the dogma of Wikipedia guidelines. Quoting Wikipedia guidelines every time can be tiresome. You should use common sense more often, as it will give you a better lead in life.F2Milk (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The list of diners has not been amended. Please stop repeating this untruth. (I think you may be looking incorrectly at the lunch list for the 20th of September. We are talking about the lunch list on the 19th of September. However, the question of whether it has been changed or not since this RfC was opened is WP:OFFTOPIC, since we are looking for a consensus about how it ought to look (not how it may look at any given hour). Were we not to reach a consensus here, an editor might feel free to change it to an even longer list (I am sure there are waiters and fork-polishers who were annoyed at being left out!), or to change it to whatever they personally feel it should be, such as, for example, just deleting the leaders' names and instead leaving a distracting and meaningless list of countries instead. I don't see that what you call "common sense" trumps Wikipedia guidelines. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT, where it is clearly stated that "Content on Wikipedia is judged based on its compliance with guidelines". Any person is free to quote guidelines in pursuit of an improved Wikipedia page; that is what the guidelines are there for, to stop debates proceeding along purely idiosyncratic lines. What you call 'common sense' may or may not give a person "a better lead in life"(?), but on Wikipedia, it is better to adhere to guidelines - then we know where we all stand. Many thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If they're sourced there's no reason not to list attendees of important meetings. If it's a meeting where it's expected that a large group of leaders will be present it is not so necessary. If it's a smaller meeting where the purpose may not be readily apparent, info should include attendees and a brief summary of the agenda/purpose/outcomes of the meeting. Edaham (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense & footnote: (Summoned by bot) On the one hand it could be seen as trivia, on the other hand, whom Trump sat with at the luncheon could be of interest to some readers. I propose that it gets condensed to "secretary general and 9 world leaders" as per Markbassett, and a footnote is provided with the full list. See: WP:REFGROUP for implementation details. AdA&D 13:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a footnote: change the wording to 'world leaders' and then place a footnote tag next to it. It interrupts the flow of the piece as it is. –Sb2001 01:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump timeline content exclusions

[edit]
The wording of this question (not to mention some of the responses) is somewhat vague to me, but the input seems to favor some sort of limitation on non-presidency-related information (the extent of which is not clear). Presumably, if the administration takes actions/does things/is affected by things covered in Presidency of Donald Trump (a more top-level article), there's a good chance it's okay for inclusion in the timeline. Exclusion criteria aren't clear to me from either the discussion or the question posed, so a new discussion to establish consensus on that might be needed. --slakr\ talk / 07:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should a presidential timeline be limited solely to actions and statements specifically of the administration? Cpaaoi (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Not limited Persistent claims that the timeline may only comprise actions and statements of the Trump administration are absurd. Such a point of view suggests that no mention could be made here, for example, of Trump being impeached by Congress or having damaging information released on him by the Kremlin, or of him being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize or being made an honorary Ph.D. It will be seen that we already have numerous elements in the timeline of actions and statements made by people and bodies outside the administration, but there is a notable set of demands which focuses only on the removal of mention of the TrumpRussia issue, along with bogus claims that the timeline has been utterly filled with such material. I consider that to remove such (few) entries would be highly misleading, regardless of any politician's innocence or guilt. (And to repeat myself, I will not persist in creating these RfCs, but I believe that they are necessary to establish consensus, given the excess of inconclusive discussion since Jan 2017.) Cpaaoi (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limited - Firstly this is a timeline about events (actions and statements) that happening with the Administration. The Trump/Russia narrative is amply address in the Russian interference timeline and its main article. If we were to fill the timeline with the things that deal with the Russian investigation, we need to have at least confirmed it by the administration that these things happened as stated in the reports. That deals with the administration handing over documents to the investigative team, or purported events or meetings that happened, etc. Also this is with the knowledge the investigation is ongoing, while the press is making loads of speculation on what is happening especially on events, etc. If the administration or the Congressional hearing or the investigative team haven't confirm these things, then these statements or reports should be moved to the other main article - Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. These Rfcs are just unnecessary as they are just overlapping over each other. Just one or two Rfcs with several points listed is just find or this is just an abuse of the Rfc process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F2Milk (talk • contribs) — F2Milk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No-one has suggested to "fill the timeline" with Russia. And no-one has done this. That is your (repeated) invention. The administration has confirmed many of these reports. And there is no justification for citing such confirmations as a central criterion for inclusion/exclusion. These RfCs are related, but they do not overlap (except where people change the subject). They are an attempt to separate and clarify the confusions you have introduced to the discussions on these talk pages. These RfCs deal respectively with the separate matters of: 1) your verifiable distortion of sources; 2) your argument about exclusion on the basis of "duplication"; 3) your arguments about exclusion on the basis of alleged anachronism; 4) your habit of including a wealth of trivial information; and 5) your arguments about exclusion on the basis of alleged irrelevancy. I have not been satisfied by any of the long discussions I have had with you, my dear F2Milk, since the subjects of discussions have been repeatedly derailed (as you have done here once again) and I have read and re-read the same statements made repeatedly without clear rationale, or consensus, or an appeal to Wikipedia guidelines. The number of outstanding RfCs here does not represent an abuse of the process, it is an indication of the large number of problems that I contend afflict your general editing tendencies. I shall be content with the consensus reached by the community on these matters, since it is not up to me to stand in official judgment of your activity here. Cpaaoi (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but you have did the opposite of what you are saying. You did fill many parts of the timeline with the Russian interference entries. These haven't been confirmed by the administration, the parties or individuals or the investigative team or special counsel. There is plenty of overlap when it comes to these Russian interference entries - the entries are outside the timeline, the sources are unnamed or unverified or not confirmed by the administration. I repeat again, that this is an abuse of the Rfc process. Opening many Rfcs when 1 or 2 will suffice, with just listing the specific points is enough. While you can accuse me of my editing tendencies, your editing tendencies are also up for debate and we will see what consensus comes out of the discussions. F2Milk (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 2 RfCs would indeed suffice - if there were but 1 or 2 issues at stake, F2Milk. And, as I always say to you, if you have specific issues with any specific entry, then please do be specific! And I would wholeheartedly welcome you opening an RfC, in order to bring yet more light to this previously confused and dim talk page! Many thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. 1 or 2 Rfcs would suffice in this situation. You can just merge them, because the points raised overlap each other. Also one thing I would like to raise is that this is not a canvassing for votes or getting people to side with your point of view. There is no need to always reply to every person's post in the Rfcs. Let them have their say and they we can evaluate their ideas or opinions.F2Milk (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't agree, F2Milk. 1or 2 RfCs would suffice if there were 1 or 2 issues. But there are more than 1 or 2 issues, so therefore there are more than 1 or 2 RfCs. And it would make no sense to merge them, since they deal with discrete issues. Have you just invented another rule about limitations on replying to posts? I would be interested to hear where that rule has come from and why it does not apply to F2Milk's postings. But that can be dealt with elsewhere: this is an RfC about inclusions and exclusions from this timeline. WP:OFFTOPIC Many thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The introduction to this RfC seems to omit information necessary to put forward a vote. Presumably it was started because the editor who started it had some kind of inclusion or exclusion in mind. The RfC should summarize this without making it necessary for me to read the entire talk page to find out about the issue at hand. That being said, given the nature of the article and the kind of things I can imagine people inserting or removing from this article, I support whatever position discourages POV or partisan editing. Not having been given a specific item or edit on which to vote, my advice regarding the opening summary of the RfC is this: Items on this timeline (as loosely defined on the article about the 1st quarter) should contain information related to the administration and its effects on a reasonably large national scale. This means items on the administrative agenda, notable attendees, cancellations etc. Events which affected the agenda, announcements of milestone targets, effects of decisions on the economy and so on. Trump's twitter feed should only be included if it is related to administrative policy or scheduling, ie. Saturday, February 25: Trump announces via Twitter that he will not be attending the White House Correspondents' Dinner scheduled for the spring." His rants about who ever he hates or whatever should not be included on this list no matter how notable. The parent article should have a better defined summary or list in its lede (agreed on by consensus) of what constitutes an inclusion to make it easier for both persons reading the list to understand the scope of what it contains - and editors wishing to make appropriate or remove inappropriate inclusions. Edaham (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I am aware that it is preferred that RfCs are made about specific entries. The issue at stake has been going on for many months about a number of entries, and it seemed counter-productive to raise an RfC about each of them. It has been a repeated position by F2Milk that only actions and statements of the administration may be included, although it will be noted that F2Milk tends to apply their 'rule' only on matters which might make Trump look powerless, ineffective or suspect. If we can't get clarity on this general point, I'll start working through RfCs on individual entries in order to build up a consensus that way. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
well there's no deadline at stake so you are under no pressure to rapidly improve the article, however it might be better to consider collaborating with your fellow editors working on the article to determine a consensus as to what defines a list entry. You can then add this definition to a lede summary in the parent article of this list. Once that's up it might be easier to prune current inclusions, which fall outside of the definition and to vet future inclusions. I understand I'm oversimplifying a tad, but such a summary is conspicuously absent from the parent article and the lists which deal with each quarter. As a previously uninvolved editor I found it difficult to grasp the scope of the list having given the entries a cursory skim. Edaham (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point about producing a lede definition; I would very much like to see something like this. I have tried communicating with other editors via the talk pages with an eye to precisely this outcome, but the number of editors on the timeline is small and there tend to be fewer still on the talk page. The only other editor who consistently engages on the talk page is F2Milk, but unfortunately they routinely resort to a declamatory and repetitive statement-based style of "debate", cite regulations which don't exist, distort material, derail discussions and engage in accusations for which they never cite evidence, to say nothing of trivial and hypocritical edits. The "debates" rarely go anywhere, and if any kind of resolution is reached or a fallacy exposed, then F2Milk can always be relied upon to resurrect the same claim shortly afterwards, as if it had never been discussed/agreed/dismissed. (This latter behavior may even be observed in these very RfCs; F2Milk claimed to have dropped their phony argument about "duplication" after several RfC editors debunked it; following which F2Milk proceeded to argue along the same lines further down the page.) Since F2Milk has latterly turned towards overt edit-warring tactics on the main page, I have largely removed myself from editing there (for the time being) and have turned to these RfCs to clarify the community's position on F2Milk's methods, in the absence of other working remedies to date. So far I have been satisfied that this process is working, since other editors not previously seen here have been engaging and are beginning to clarify what exactly the Wikipedia community thinks of the editing strategies seen on this page thus far. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The plot thickens. Edaham (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the duplication argument here by Cpaaoi is getting stale. Here he likes to distort the whole situation and make it seem like he is the victim here. I already said I have dropped the duplication argument even though there is merit to that argument. There were a couple of editors who were alright with having duplicated entries from different timelines in past discussions. But regarding the Rfc process so far, we just list the points in one Rfc instead of creating numerous Rfcs. That way editors can just skim through the points list down and give their opinions. Cpaaoi here likes to create fires out of nothing all the time.F2Milk (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Refutations of the duplication claim will remain fresh for as long as it continues to be made. I am not the victim; the victim is the Wikipedia page. If you could show me the guideline which states that multiple issues must be dealt with in a single RfC, that would be most helpful. But make that point elsewhere, please, because it is WP:OFFTOPIC All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure if you like to bring up the duplication argument again or resurrect it, please be do that. I am not forbidding you from doing that. You seem to be try to put the Wikipedia page as the victim, but so far most of your arguments here are putting yourself as the victim here. Simple common sense will put it that you can list down the issues in one topic, rather than post numerous Rfcs. But that being the case, if you still refuse to listen to common sense then you can continue with opening up hundreds of Rfcs which you like to do. F2Milk (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not raising the duplication argument; I am raising an objection when it is raised (as it has been once again today, in one of the sections above), and am asking the community what they think of it. No-one has opened 'hundreds' of RfCs, and no-one has suggested doing so. Common sense dictates the following of Wikipedia guidelines, which state that RfCs should be kept short and simple, and they mention only a single statement. Many thanks. WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't bring the duplication argument up again. I didn't bring it up. You did again. I said I am done with the duplication argument, but if you keep bring it up, then be my guest. This is getting to be a stale argument. The hundreds of Rfcs is just sarcasm if you catch my drift or meaning. Common sense is the best guideline in life. Just list the issues you raise in one section and we are deal with them. Keeping it short and simple as per your list of issues. That is what should be done. Already a couple of Rfcs are repeating each other.F2Milk (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Neville Chamberlain, that is not a true statement! If you never mention "duplication" ever again, I will never mention it to you by way of dismantling it again! Do we have an agreement here, never to mention it again, F2Milk? That would suit me well. What you call 'common sense' may or may not be the "best guideline in life". But on Wikipedia, Wikipedia guidelines are the best guidelines! To base a point of view upon something like "That is what should be done" is not a reasoned argument or an appeal to guidelines, and it is a type of statement which Wikipedia explicitly discourages. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many thanks! Cpaaoi (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. The duplication argument was brought up the in beginning. We have decided to put it to the side and not talk about it anymore. Sorry but your comments in regards to the Wikipedia guidelines are just that - guidelines. The Wikipedia guidelines are not the best guidelines. There are many inconsistencies when people quote Wiki guidelines to suit their ends or win an argument. People can use their common sense when it comes to discussions and editing articles. Guidelines does not rule your life or what you post. I have more respect for people who can come down and talk without quoting or pushing 101 guidelines to my face.F2Milk (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The Wikipedia guidelines are not the best guidelines." - F2Milk, 30th September 2017. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't agree because it doesn't bolster your case when it comes to some of the issues raised in the some of the discussion topics.F2Milk (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2017_Q3)&oldid=1263654887"