Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2017 Q1)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Use of the reference provided

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.

This diff undoes my edit and makes the false claim that I am interpreting Trumps policies. All I have done is balance the previous edit by using further information from the same reference (which is emphasized by my use of quotes). As I state in my edit summary...."Source headline clearly states "Without evidence.....". I did not use a new or different reference. I used the one that was in place. If the intent of this article (actually it's a timeline not an article) is to limit the readers ability to know the facts, you will have to find another less-informational reference. Buster Seven Talk 17:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that the source referenced makes that claim, but nothing in rejecting an edit which includes claims by a media organization about the consequences or truth of a claim is in an effort to "limit the readers ability to know the facts." If any omission of information can be attacked as "limiting the readers ability to know the facts" than what is to be excluded from the article?
You earlier said "A clear, concise detailing of Trump's Presidential activities for that day is the goal. A timeline needs to be as succinct and to the point as possible." "The barest of information. He did this, he signed that. He met with this dignitary, He traveled to this International meeting. There will be hundreds of sources for the details." I, in fact, was not aware that the same person that had made the edit I reverted was the person who posted that on talk page. The only reason that I reverted the edit was because of what I understood you to be saying. This is not an article about anything other than what Trump accomplished on a given day. As you say, by doing anything other than that, we would be "[laying] the groundwork for future intrusions of political mayhem". Do we want every event to turn into an edit war with trump-supporters and anti-trumpers citing conflicting sources and debating how the consequences of an event should be described, or the truth of a statement to be assessed? 204.69.190.254 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I have no political axe to grind here, and you are likely more familiar with the relevant rules that apply in this situation. I was only following what I understood as a result of what you said, and I thought this article to be separate from President Donald Trump in it's focus on actions taken with respect to a given day, not an article with a broader interest in providing relevant or information of interest with regard to those events. (I am also now posting from this account) Cineloeb (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
204.69. Exclude everything that will lead to a problem. Take a look at the various timelines at Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama and see how lean and sparse they are. Over the eight years of editing the timelines listed they were completely free of contention... no drama... no edit wars. Check the history. Buster Seven Talk 23:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Voter fraud in 2016 had <100 credible, documented cases from officials in every state combined. When it is instead claimed to be in the millions, even if we are just acknowledging it was said, it can lead readers to believe it is true, esp because it was said by the president. When I fly on an airplane, I am not afraid of crashing because there is ~1 death per billion miles. Giving weight to the true distribution of events is useful, and holding out on this information is not NPOV. – Kjerish (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
nytimes conflict of interest: http://ijr.com/2015/06/341980-connect-dots-connections-hillary-clinton-new-york-times-discovered/ reported cases of fraud don't equal the actual number of fraud, there are credible sources that support trump's claim, and credible sources that don't. leave this stupid shit on another page, there is no rule justifying the idea that a npov statement "x said y" might be believed by a reader to be fact, when it is clearly a statement. would you like us to also label true quotes, as true? stop trying to obviously use wikipedia as a weapon in some political war. Cineloeb (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Re:"citing conflicting sources". I'm not citing conflicting sources. I am using the same source. And I'm not sure what the ijr.com source you cite above has to do with 3 to 5 million fraudulent votes that Trump claims all went to Hillary. Trumps claim is a huge story and will not go away. Actually, I would prefer that the entire sentence--In a private meeting with congressional leaders, President Trump says 3 to 5 million illegal votes cost him the popular vote although analyses of the election "found virtually no confirmed cases of voter fraud, let alone millions". be entirely removed from the article. Its the kind of thing that stretches the boundary of what a timeline should be and it causes consternation and unnecessary editorial strife. But, if the front part stays the back part is needed for balance. Buster Seven Talk 08:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to do this, but looking at your page and past edits you clearly have a political agenda. there was never any conflict on the obama page bc obama was popular among wikipedians and you can check the user categories to find this out for yourself. stop bringing in issues that aren't at hand like "balance." If we are to operate off the post you yourself copied and pasted from the obama timeline talk to this one then there is no questions that the added "which is not true" should not be present. It simply does not even come close to the guidelines set and in fact is intentionally violating the most heinous problems the article might have which you seemed to have set forth. With regard to whether or not the quote should be included, not because of "balance" or any obv political maneuvering by either of us, but whether or not it is a relevant or interesting event with relation to the office of presidency and should or should not be on the timeline, I suggest you look at the obama timeline and find the minor quotes published there (i found quotes of minor feuds with celebrities). If this goes, those have to go as well.

Cineloeb (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a little history. User Joshdboz started The Obama Timelines back in Jan of 2009. I started to assist in early February. Joshdboz stepped aside and I did what I could to maintain the decorum that he established. My daily goal became to watch the timeline and keep it/them clutter free. Each subsequent year, I would cut and paste his To Do's and Not To Do's from the current talk page onto the new years talk page. I made my share of entries to all eight timelines over the years (over 1500) with the intent purpose of an agenda free perspective. I have the same purpose here. Lets not pretend that every American editor that works here for more than punctuation corrections doesn't have a political agenda. My goal is to keep the political agendas (yours and mine and any one elses) out of the article. The best way to do that is just to state the actions of the president with very little, if any, embellishments. I say this for all editors not just as a reply to you. My work here is as a Wikipedia editor. Lets move on in the knowledge and agreement that we are cohorts working toward the best timeline we can create. BTW, I would warn against calling another editors efforts "stupid shit". Its not very congenial. Buster Seven Talk 18:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
if you want to play this game for the next 4 years then fine, I wanted to keep politics out of the articles simply stating facts, not media spin (bc both sides of this claim are nonsensical, the number of people who voted illegally is not something that can be known) but I won't let you take over the article with your agenda if that's what you think this is going to be. "Congeniality" and nice language don't make for a whole lot when you are speaking with an open hand but have a fist behind your back. Cineloeb (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
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.

Pipelines

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.

The article says, "...which President Trump says will recover 28,000 jobs,..." Should we tell our reader that Forbes says, "Nearly all construction jobs for this project would be temporary."? Our should we let our reader assume that they will be long-term career opportunities. Buster Seven Talk 06:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Better yet, here's what January 24 should look like – President Trump signs five executive orders. Two of them , which President Trump says will recover 28,000 jobs, reverse the Obama administration's halt on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines,the latter of which has been the subject of tense protests by the Standing Rock tribe. He also signs a bill requiring that the pipelines use domestic steel, as well as two orders affecting similar future infrastructure projects. President Trump speaks with Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi. Buster Seven Talk 07:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
People know these kinds of jobs are temporary I think, otherwise they wouldn't have come and lost so easily. I'd say keep both. The Dakota Access Pipeline protests have resulted in hundreds of injuries and arrests. – Kjerish (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Concur. It's clear enough that a construction project creates jobs for the duration of construction only. The aggregate effect of many construction projects does support steady jobs (direct and indirect) but we are not there yet. Per the guidelines, better keep opinions and comments out of the timeline. — JFG talk 16:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
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.

Scope and overlap

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.

Due to strong overlap between several Trump-related articles, editors may wish to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Scope of this article? — JFG talk 13:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

Yemen Raid

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.

Please consider this act by Mr Trump for inclusion. I am unsure how to de-politicize it:

January 25 - Trump authorizes a clandestine strike in Yemen targeting collection of al Qaeda computer equipment. The mission occurred on Sunday January 30 and its goal was accomplished. Several combatants and civilian non-combatants were killed in the heavy firefight including a Navy Seal Team 6 member, Chief Petty Officer William Owens, and children. [1] [2] [3]

"not a holdover mission approved by President Obama, but President Trump's first clandestine strike" -unnamed senior military official

"His approval of the Jan. 29 raid came over a dinner four nights earlier with his top national security aides..." -Yemen Withdraws Permission for U.S. Antiterror Ground Missions

Ncr100 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noting it. If it gets added into timeline, that's that. If it doesn't (no editor deems it important enough to move into the timeline), that's fine, and your contribution to the discussion is still noted :) -Ethanbas (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Ncr100, I'm not sure what should be added to the timeline. Right now the timeline has this: "President Trump visits Dover Air Force Base for the arrival of the remains of U.S. Navy SEAL who was killed in action in Yemen, the first known combat death under the Trump administration". What you have written right now is a bit too long me thinks, but some of it could be added to the entry already in the article. I think many people watch this talk page, so they might add more to the quote if they think it's good to add more. Ethanbas (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/seal-american-girl-die-first-trump-era-u-s-military-n714346
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/world/middleeast/yemen-special-operations-missions.html
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.

Ridiculous stuff happens all the time, my friend.

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.

As to the Donald Trump Timeline: The Re-election committee is paying for it. You are probably right that events aren't usually supposed to be put up until they actually happen (there are exceptions Such as the Olympics), but just because something appears to be off-the-wall and ridiculous, doesn't mean it isn't real. It's totally real. There's no other reason for it. Why do you think he's having it? Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Thanks for contacting me, however this is off-topic for my talk page; please let's discuss on the relevant article talk page, so other editors can participate too. — JFG talk 21:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
When I first saw the mention of the rally I thought sure it was vandalism. But a little research proved it to be fact. Let's wait till tomorrow to enter it into the timeline. Buster Seven Talk 03:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Would you rather drop the weekend-plan reference completely, then, in the Friday note? I think it would be sort of contrived but I would see it as better than the current, misstatement-by-partial-omission 'plan' text. First choice, I favor restoration of the deletion of the more highly publicized campaign event to Friday's entry. Swliv (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
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.

Balance in Feb 16 2017 press conference

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.

The Feb 16 entry states:

President Trump holds a 75-minute long press conference where he defends his administration's work in the first few weeks, criticizes "dishonest" press coverage thereof, denies any Russian connections and questions Hillary Clinton's conduct towards Russia.

This could be read as if this were some 'slam dunk'. To provide context I have added that:

Media reported that the news conference was "rife with untruths and evasions"

[1] , "bizzare"[2], "insane" and a "marathon rant"[3] Noting the need to keep these entries short, I have summarized some typical responses from the media. This day's entry is now longer than any other. I would welcome anyone to try to summarize the entry, but please try to keep balance.

References

  1. ^ "One Press Conference, Two Audiences".
  2. ^ "That was one bizarre Trump press conference". Retrieved 2017-02-19.
  3. ^ "Donald Trump's Alternative Reality Based Press Conference". Retrieved 2017-02-19.
REPLY to unsigned post above:This is a timeline. A timeline is best suited when all the nasty little tid-bits are left out. Media reports can be found elsewhere in the many WP articles about Trump. Balance, in a timeline, is best achieved when we report only what The President does...plain, simple and precise with as little fluff (either way) as possible. Buster Seven Talk 00:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
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.

Lead section WP:UNDUE

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.

"The early days of Trump's presidency have drawn comparisons to the initial phase of the reign of German chancellor Adolf Hitler, with both being notable for an extraordinary increase in violence against Jews and desecration of Jewish holy and burial sites, and Anti-semitism towards both Jews and Arabs,[1][2][3] as well as repeated attacks on the legitimacy of the media.[4][5][6][7]" Can we remove this from the lead please? An IP added this, and it's not appropriate for the lead of the timeline. Ethanbas (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

March 6th Executive Order

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.

I had not until now seen the note at the top of this talk section asking for no reinstatements without talk-page consensus, so have undone my own reinstatement manually - but I do believe that the revision made by 65.51.188.50 on 6th March is factually incorrect. The immigration order of March 6th is an altogether new order, not a revision of the old one (see: Alan Gomez in USA Today, March 6th http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/06/donald-trump-travel-ban-six-majority-muslim-countries/98798788/). Admittedly the headline says it is a revision, but the Dept of Justice's letter to the 9th Circuit describes it revoking the first one. Any thoughts? Cpaaoi (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion -- "Trump signs an executive order which is extremely similar in language to Executive Order 13769, placing a 90-day ban (effective March 16th) on entry to the United States from six Muslim-majority nations (having removed Iraq from the previous order) and clarifying that lawful permanent residents are excluded from the ban." Decent revision of what's already on the article? Swimfellow (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose something like that could be in order - a lot of the papers are calling it a revision, so I'm not 100% certain that I'm right to query it in the first place - maybe I'm just being needlessly picky... Cpaaoi (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

March 18 calls

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.

Is it worth mentioning that on March 18 Trump had telephone calls with the presidents of Brazil and Chile? [1] [2] (mention), [3] (in Portuguese), [4] NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick mention, no more than one sentence, that sounds good to me. Ethanbas (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

Minor problem

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.

In the table, when there's little text for a day but there is an image, there's a lot of blank space in the text area. How can we fix that? Ethanbas (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not an issue imho. We could flow the image across two rows if people do complain. — JFG talk 09:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I think its not a problem, although I think images should have their own fixed-width column. We might be able to use some sort of collapse, or Template:Scroll box so that even if multiple pictures are used it's not an issue. — Kjerish (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

Days of the week

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.

There are times when I feel the days of the week would add context, especially when actions are performed "for the weekend". Something like the example below. What do people think? – Kjerish (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

From

  • January 20 – ...
  • January 21 – ...
  • January 22 – ...
  • January 23 – ...

To

  • Fri Jan 20 – ...
  • Sat Jan 21 – ...
  • Sun Jan 22 – ...
  • Mon Jan 23 – ...
I think it would be too much. Ethanbas (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ethanbas: Here's a draft, I think it fills it up, but may take attention away. I have a script that can do it, so the Obama ones can be changed easily too. You're right though 👌 – Kjerish (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely think it's too much. No other timeline I've seen on WP does what you're proposing; of course, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies for that. I would say that the weekend stuff has been getting less common, and will get less common as the presidency goes on. If we check back in 5 months and see that wow, there's a lot more of these weekend items than in other presidencies, then we could add it somehow. For now, it's not needed. Ethanbas (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It does look overkill. However we could discreetly separate weeks with a thin line instead. I've just implemented this, take a look. — JFG talk 07:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: I feel it. It kind of clashes with the section headers, and it's hard to mentally parse, I think it should be subconscious/instant. It's definitely possible somehow – Kjerish (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
User:JFG, I don't like it. It's unclear for readers what the lines mean; and, if they figure out the lines separate weeks, it's unclear if the line is between sunday and monday, or something else. I think the weekend thing can be discussed on the article about Trump's first 100 days; I don't think anything of this sort should be done on this timeline. Ethanbas (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Another idea: just add "Monday" to the Monday dates. This gives both a visual cue and a clear meaning, without overloading the text. — JFG talk 08:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
See how it looks at Draft:Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump: a version with just Mondays, and another with Mondays and line separators. — JFG talk 09:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
As to the whole idea of adding days of the week, I see no credible reason for it. I appreciate the desire to help our reader, but to me it just seems like "clutter". My 2 cents.... Buster Seven Talk 14:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I support adding at least Mondays to the list. The day of the week is important for context. Trump's schedule on weekends (like most people) is much different than during the week. He also lives in different locations depending on the day of the week. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

Quick poll

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 we mention the Mondays as proposed in Draft:Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump for clarity about his weekend schedule? Pinging contributors @Ethanbas, Kjerish, Buster7, and 1990'sguy: for now I count 3 editors in favour and 2 opposed. Not sure we should run an RfC for such a minor discussion; can some of the opposing editors change their mind? — JFG talk 12:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I support some form of the days of the week but I'm not sure if only Mondays is the best delivery; seems visually inconsistent to me. Side note though, if things keep going even close to the rate they are now, this page will be the 15th largest page on Wikipedia. If that happens, splitting it up by the month might be best, in which case we could probably add days of the week in full. Just lookin ahead. — Kjerish (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Haha, as long as it fits on a floppy disk, we're good I suppose! Seriously, if the daily Trump activities worth reporting keep sustaining the current pace, we'll just split the page at the half-year or quarter level. — JFG talk 18:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I think quarterly would work very nicely, esp with the length and economic undertones. For now we'll see if this keeps continuing. Kjerish (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
By month is a bit much I think, lol. Ethanbas (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ethanbas: The article's gotta be cut in half in that case. Monthly would actually not be too weird. Bill Clinton's timeline is a stub. George Bush's timeline is all in one page (and it didn't exist until this year). Obama's timeline is split up by year. It feels like exponential change. I don't think there's currently too much fluff that doesn't add real value, not half of it at least. — Kjerish (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
"cut in half" Do you mean cut the timeline into 6 month parts? (as opposed to Obama's 12 month parts) I could go with that. That can be done in the future. Ethanbas (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think quarterly pages are a good standard/middle ground. — Kjerish (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I oppose the current draft, and I don't know what a draft that I could support would look like. Make it "smooth" I'd say, and then I can support it. Ethanbas (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ethanbas: Interesting… I'd be happy to experiment with more layout options. Could you give me a sense of what gives you a feeling of "unsmoothness" in the draft? — JFG talk 17:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
For me, the "Monday" that appears each week all over the timeline is distracting and annoying; I don't know how others feel about it.
Cpaaoi can give their thoughts as well. Ethanbas (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about days of the week, but perhaps an abbreviation (M, T, W, Th...) next to the date would give clarity without too much clutter? Perhaps the day might be given (in full, or abbreviated) in brackets at the end of the day's events, almost like a footnote? I don't really know. As for the length, the growth of the article does seem to be a problem - though not on account of contributions as such - there have been an extraordinarily high number of very important developments, almost daily. Probably worth bearing in mind that a fair portion of the existing material (including my own) could easily be trimmed down over time, as certain things come to seem less significant. I have thought about going through the whole thing and collapsing duplications (e.g. on Jan 21, where we see that Trump criticizes the media, and then a quotation that doesn't strictly add any more information), and removing details about budget percentages, but I don't want to offend other editors or be mistaken for a vandal! Cpaaoi (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's likely the timeline will be split into 6 month bits in the future. Ethanbas (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried a different style: formatting January as a table, with distinct bullet points for each event, and smaller pictures. [[Look over there. What do you all think? — JFG talk 18:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow I think you nailed it. Very scalable too. I don't think the week separators are necessary anymore though. — Kjerish (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree; that looks awesome Cpaaoi (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@JFG, Cpaaoi, and Ethanbas: The draft is current as of right now, I did some semi-automated parsing to do it. Should be looked over before migrating but will be a lot faster than doing it by hand. — Kjerish (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I'm fine with doing this to the mainspace article. Ethanbas (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I see no problems with the proposal. I definately addresses my concerns. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 Great! I have completed the formatting (thanks Kjerish for your help) and updated the live article. — JFG talk 03:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
WOW! I take this article off my watchlist for a few days of vacation and come back to find new rooms and spaces and places and just a whole new look. I see Melania has hung family photos on every available wall. What a difference...Looks great! Buster Seven Talk 14:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

Suggested Guidelines

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.

In order to maintain a strict bipartisan nature extreme brevity and conciseness is required in a timeline. In its first few days this article has begun to display imprudent edits. Not imprudent in that they are false or in error. Just imprudent in that they lay the groundwork for future intrusions of political mayhem. A clear, concise detailing of Trump's Presidential activities for that day is the goal. A timeline needs to be as succinct and to the point as possible. A lean mean machine. The barest of information. He did this, he signed that. He met with this dignitary, He traveled to this International meeting. There will be hundreds of sources for the details. Most dates should have a subject (Trump), a verb, and an object. Clauses on consequences, contexts, reasons, etc should only be included if absolutely necessary to understand the action. If there is much additional information, it can usually be placed in corresponding articles. Buster Seven Talk 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

An example of a statement of fact that, in my opinion, is not pertinent to a timeline and should be excluded is from January 20... "Protests damage parts of downtown Washington, and lead to the arrest of 217 people. Six officers and three others sustain minor injuries." Just as we should NOT include routine activities (calls, meetings, weekly addresses, trips to Capitol Hill, etc) or unremarkable ceremonies (obscure legislation/executive orders, obscure nominations/speeches/announcements, etc) because they will only act to clutter the timeline, we should also be wary of peripheral activities that are not presidential in nature and are outside the parameters of an Administration. Buster Seven Talk 20:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying, but I think the article is *OK* for now. But yes, for the future, if this article starts having too much stuff, we'll have to mow the lawn. Ethanbas (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
And where would one go for an article that in detail dictates all accomplished by the president during the day? is it too much information to state "the president gave a speech to business leaders etc. etc. without specific quotations?204.69.190.254 (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree about the brevity. This would maintain the timeline in a permanent stub status. Dimadick (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree I very much agree that the article should be kept brief and that non noteworthy routine or minor events should be excluded as should indirectly relevant issues. However, I would include within the scope major controversies such as investigations, leaks, major tweets, major misstatements or incidents as these are a relevant to the presidency and are therefore noteworthy. However any such discussions should be kept to bare facts to ensure brevity and neutrality. There are already a number of examples of such entries in this article.Mozzie (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

grammatical tense

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.

I think the article should be written in the past tense instead of simple present tense. After all, every event covered by this article has already occurred. Sofeshue (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Both present and past make sense, as long as we are consistent. The tradition for presidential timelines has been to keep each day's event in the present tense. I see no compelling reason to change this convention to past tense. Listening to other editors' opinions. — JFG talk 19:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep present tense; it's not just the way it's done for presidential timelines, it's the way for most timelines I've seen on Wikipedia. Ethanbas (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Present tense takes the reader back to the moment of the incident/meeting/briefing/press conference/etc. It is the preferred method for timelines. Buster Seven Talk 20:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Disagree Present tense reads fine, it seems to be the standard and it would be a lot of effort to change the whole article!Mozzie (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

Stop adding Hitler comparisons into the article

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.

Not only is it not relevant and slanderous, it does not belong in a neutral Wikipedia article. It makes us and in turn the entire website look bad, continue including what Trump actually does and responses to it, not writing new information to benefit yours or someone else's preferred politically slanted outlook. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree remove or revert any references to Hitler.Mozzie (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

Placement of pictures

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.

@Kjerish: I see that you moved the pictures to a separate column, however I think the layout looked better before that change: compare before and after. Would you mind if I restored the previous style? Opinions from other editors? — JFG talk 05:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Maybe it just needed a resizing — Kjerish (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with JFG. Ethanbas (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I think separating text and pictures is better form than not; maybe it can be tweaked. You can change it back though if you'd like — Kjerish (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It's better since you reduced the image size, thanks. However specifying a fixed pixel width is frowned upon; I have applied an "upright=0.6" alternate markup for January instead of the fixed "200px", as a test. What do you think? — JFG talk 16:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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.

300+ references

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.

woot woot Ethanbas (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

man, you guys/girls do amazing work Ethanbas (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there are some refs where only an original source is necessary, like certain statements, the signing of an order/memorandum, etc... Could I get some help replacing those w/ sources from federalregister.gov, whitehouse.gov, congress.gov and the like? Those and other refs could also use some cleaning up. - Kjerish (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, that's not too important. Ethanbas (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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.

Including legislation?

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.

Is this article purposely not including the sessions where Trump has signed multiple bills, such as bills related to the Congressional Review Act, or it is an oversight? Either way, admittedly, I probably will not add the info due to other priorities tasks. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the timeline talks about Trump signing bills (and when he signs multiple bills together). For example, "President Trump signs three memoranda" Ethanbas (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I mean congressional legislation. I see that it mentions him signing executive actions, but not legislation, at least on more recent dates. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The timeline should cover new legislation being passed; it's just that the vast majority of news isn't related to any new legislation. I follow the news daily, and don't remember ever reading about any new legislation passing. If you think the legislation you mentioned should be added, I think it can be. Ethanbas (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I added a few mentions of the legislation. I think it is notable to include the times where Trump has signed Congressional Review Act disapproval resolutions, as he has signed so many, and the Act was only used once before, 16 years prior. Hopefully, other editors will add such legislation in the future, as I probably won't be available to do so myself. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I actually prefer primary sources to news for this sort of thing. I think I'll add an external links section or something like that at some point. There's some really great feeds of activity for the president and other cabinet members for fixed activities — Kjerish (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
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.

Missing information?

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.

I noticed the federal declaration for state of emergency made for state of Mississippi as result of tornadoes that struck it recently by President Trump was not listed here. Was this omitted by mistake or is this page not meant to be a comprehensive listing of all activities he engaged in official capacity as President of the United States? Cheers --Legion (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's probably not something to include on this timeline. It's notable, but not notable enough for this timeline in general. Ethanbas (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi I would like you request post Wiki about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin conspiracy theories it Russian state TV trump danger than Kim Hong un GAJJR (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

Splitting by quarters

COMPLETED
Split by quarters

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.

We're barely at the end of the first quarter (really two months and ten days) and this page (734 kB file size, 147 kB wikitext) is already as long as the whole first year of the Obama presidency (632 kB file size, 150 kB wikitext). As discussed earlier, I think the time has come to split the page into quarters, starting April 1st. Opinions? — JFG talk 19:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What do other people think? The other option I think is going for half a year bits. An entire year would be too long. Ethanbas (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm in favor of quarterly pages. We don't have to split it up right away, we can do it anywhere between April 1 and July 1 (Q2), just so we can see how things go beyond the first 100 days. That will also give us time to perfect the page structure. Edit: What should the new page be called? Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump (Q1 2017)? — Kjerish (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait. Let's wait a bit, maybe until June. We can probably do quarters. The new page should be called something like Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump (2017 January-March). Ethanbas (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

OK to wait a bit; we can certainly move the April content to a new page when May comes around. About the naming, I would strongly recommend a scheme that gets sorted naturally, e.g. Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump (2017 Q1), Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump (2017 Q2), Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump (2017 Q3), Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump (2017 Q4), Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump (2018 Q1), Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump (2018 Q2), Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump (2018 Q3), Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump (2018 Q4), etc.
I looked at the Obama timelines: after the first year (which is as large as Trump's first two months), the size goes down regularly, and stabilizes at roughly 50–60 kB wikitext per year except a bump in his re-election year (2013). If Trump follows the same trend, we will probably be able to keep half-years, however that is stretching some browsers, especially on mobile, so I would still prefer quarters; they also match the usual rhythm of business and government. — JFG talk 05:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I would also support shorter article titles for those timelines, e.g. Timeline of the Trump presidency and Timeline of the Obama presidency. It gets too long for the search engine box to do its job effectively, so readers can't distinguish articles where the only difference (year or quarter) is at the end of a long title. — JFG talk 05:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow @JFG and Ethanbas: — Kjerish (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Great visualization, thanks! Looks like Trump years are dog years compared to Obama years And this despite doing our best to keep it short! — JFG talk 11:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The Obama timelines basically mentioned only the actions of the president. For instance, there was very little, if any, mention of any cabinet positioning or administrative maneuvering. Very little family...no week-ends...heated press briefings...tweets and the resulting mayhem...firings of personnel....etc, etc. I think we would all agree that there is a lot more going on with this administration that needs to be recorded for posterity. If we just compare the number of references we find a stark difference. This article has almost 300. Obama's first year had 374 and the rest averaged only 100. Lets face it: comparing the two administrations is problematic. The current administration is "hot" with important, noteworthy, historic things happening almost every day. The size of the article is the result of including the stuff that is happening. And editors should be proud that every effort has been made (as JFG has said) to keep it short. It is as streamlined as it can be. The size needs to be resolved but this article is in good hands and a solution will surface. The First 100 Days seems to be a meme worth considering. Its a common benchmark. Buster Seven Talk 13:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. I wasn't trying make a statement or anything, just wondering what it would look like.... It's also not too bad for seeing when it will taper off relative to itself. It looks like the rate was not only less but it was more consistent for Obama too, and that the first 6 months is about when things flatten out. — Kjerish (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Preparation for page move

We are now 790% through the year. Some of the following may be obvious, but bear with me.
I propose the following actions:

On or shortly after May 1, 2017:
  • Move
  • January–March events to a Q1 2017 page
  • Reach consensus on a page name
  • Add Q1 performance
  • Economy (such as here next release is on May 1)
  • Jobs (such as here)
  • Approval rating change (such as here)
  • April–May events to a Q2 2017 page
  • Change
  • This page will become a discussion area for changes that apply to the whole series, not specific events
Now through May 1, 2017:
  • Reduce size
  • Trim or remove events that:
  • Occur often
  • Do not affect many people at any magnitude
  • Do not affect some people with great magnitude
  • Improve images
  • Add images where none exist
  • Replace existing images with more notable ones
  • Increase subject variety
  • Use video when possible
Media related to Donald Trump in January 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Donald Trump in February 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Donald Trump in March 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Donald Trump in April 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Mike Pence in January 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Mike Pence in February 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Mike Pence in March 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Mike Pence in April 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to James N. Mattis in January 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to James N. Mattis in February 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to James N. Mattis in March 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to James N. Mattis in April 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to John F. Kelly in January 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to John F. Kelly in February 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to John F. Kelly in March 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Ben Carson in 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Jeff Sessions in 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Ryan Zinke in 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Betsy DeVos at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Sean Spicer at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Reince Priebus at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Scott Pruitt in 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Nikki Haley at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Linda McMahon at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Seema Verma at Wikimedia Commons
Media related to Demonstrations and protests against the presidency of Donald Trump in 2017 at Wikimedia Commons
  • Improve references
  • Primary sources > third-party interpretations, for signed documents, speech transcripts, etc.
  • Remove redundant references
  • Fill out parameters
  • Increase depth (as usual)

— Kjerish (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the roadmap; looks good to me. Here's my proposal for page titles:
This scheme allows natural sorting of pages and short enough titles to be visible in search results. Can we agree on that? — JFG talk 15:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: The dates should probably be in parenthesis, similar to Obama's. Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump (2017 Q1) Kjerish (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's what I first suggested, but upon reflection, I think we should follow the naming convention of elections (Indian general election, 2014, United Kingdom general election, 2015, United States presidential election, 2016). Parentheses are rather used for WP:Disambiguation between articles on different subjects sharing a name; commas are more natural for a time series of articles on the same subject. The Obama timeline titles should be shortened to Timeline of the Obama presidency, 2009, etc. — JFG talk 19:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: Yeah you're right. I've tried other things out (as I'm sure you have) but your proposal seems to work best imo. — Kjerish (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Split done

As agreed, I have now split the article into Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q1 and Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q2, and I wrote a short overview at the main title. All talk pages point here, and DS edit notices are set. Happy week-end! — JFG talk 09:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2017_Q1)/Archive_1&oldid=927856545"