Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Restored

I restored the version because it provides better referencing, wikilinkilng, etc. This is obvious after looking at the diff: [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about the referencing, this is about the content which simply doesn't belong here. I would support having that content elsewhere, such as articles for individuals and individual events. All we have to do is here essentially link to those articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course it belongs to the page. Here is your edit. You removed this: Carter Page emails senior Trump Campaign officials, including Glassner, informing them that his discussions with "high level contacts" with "close ties to the Kremlin" led him to believe "a direct meeting in Moscow between Mr[.] Trump and Putin could be arranged.". Why do you want to remove it? My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Carter Page's discussions with Trump's campaign are not automatically relevant by any means. A meeting between Trump and Putin would be relevant, but the many minor details that would go into planning such a meeting are certainly not relevant to this article. This entry is simply Page believing that Putin would meet with Trump some time before the election, and telling some people about his belief. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly relevant because it's not so much about a possible Putin meeting as it's about Page asserting he had high-level contacts connected to the Kremlin, and that alone raises questions about the men Trump surrounded himself with. Page was under FISA surveillance as early as 2013 because of his activities with Russians. soibangla (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

We're not here to raise questions or to publish content that in any way raises those questions. It is up to reliable sources to make those claims, not our synthesis or implications. Carter Page's specific activities are much better chronicled at the Carter Page article, and issues with the people in Donald Trump's campaign should likewise be elsewhere. This article is specifically for the actions by the Russian government that were involved in the 2016 election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Carter Page sending a speculative email to try and get some attention ≠ Putin using Page as a conduit to influence the U.S. election. — JFG ^talk 08:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's still relevant. Contacts and attempted contacts are covered by the investigations and are therefore on-topic for this list. These were good additions which should be kept. The fact that these are events uncovered in counterintelligence investigations of Russian interference, reluctantly admitted by Page under sworn testimony, and which Trump, Page, and other campaign members lied about and tried to hide shows its relevance here. This is evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This text (based on the report by Mueller) does not say that "Putin used Page as a conduit to influence the U.S. election". It tells something different (see quotation above). How this can be interpreted by a reader is another matter, and we do not say it on the page. This looks like one of numerous important details which prove that the "collusion" did occur. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is specifically for the actions by the Russian government I suggest you read the article lead more closely. soibangla (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, when something is not directly related to the actions of the Russian government but are covered by an investigation, that is a matter for the article about those investigations. Simply being a matter of investigation obviously doesn't constitute an automatic inclusion pass for this article. Even more, this article is not a list of Trump's lies.

My very best wishes, if the article is not suggesting that Page was directly used by the Russian government when he contacted on LinkedIn somebody who worked for Trump's campaign, then it does not belong on the article.

Soibangla, the article lead does not dictate what should be in the article, and it would be absurd if it did so. It also includes major events related to investigations into suspected inappropriate links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials. Much of the details in this article can by no means be considered "major events". On the other hand, major events [...] that Russia is alleged to have conducted is far too broad. We should not be covering allegations and there is plenty to be discussed about what Russia has been proved to have done, we don't need to add allegations.

These recent additions are very much in bad faith given that discussion is still ongoing about previous recent additions, we don't need further such additions at such a time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

They are very on-topic. We include what RS say about suspected inappropriate links. Your accusations of "bad faith" are inappropriate personal attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It's reasonable for this information to be included somewhere on Wikipedia, but this article isn't supposed to be "suspected inappropriate links". Your accusations of inappropriate personal attacks are inappropriate. I can assume good faith when someone initially makes those contributions, but when they have been reverted and a discussion is still ongoing and they keep adding more and more, that's certainly bad faith. I'm not attacking anybody at all, especially since I am not naming anybody in particular. I don't wish to discuss what constitutes good or bad faith by anybody, I would rather discuss the content and the article itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Look, in your edit you removed not only the phrase above, but references to previously unsourced statements, links to the Center for the National Interest, sourced info about meeting between Veselnitskaya, Akhmetshin, Kaveladze, and Samochornov, and so on, and so on. And now you are telling that others acted in a "bad faith"? Why? What do you mean? No, the contributors acted in a good faith. Let's respect their work. OK? My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Your assertion that this article isn't supposed to be "suspected inappropriate links" is directly contradicted by the lead. Unless you're prepared to alter the lead, thereby creating the possibility that countless relevant edits will then cease to be relevant, the edit in question — a flat statement containing no synth leading readers to a conclusion — is entirely relevant. Moreover, your assertion of bad faith is wholly unwarranted and I suggest you promptly strike it. soibangla (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, simply to answer your question directly, the content itself was written in a reasonable way but the way in which it has come about does not appear to be in good faith while discussion is ongoing about previous contested content. I don't want to dwell on this as I don't think this drama does anybody any good. I never removed references to previously unsourced statements, and that's frankly an absurd claim. We do not need and have never thought to need sources to verify those in the list of individuals. I certainly respect the work created by other editors and I feel that the work should be included on Wikipedia, but certainly not on this article.

Soibangla, yes the lead should ultimately be changed as well. We are not bound by the lead paragraph, and there has never been a consensus on what the lead paragraph should be. The lead paragraph is supposed to summarise the article, not the other way around. "Suspected links" and the mundane background of each suspected link and suspected person suspected to be involved in those suspected links is far too much detail for this article, clearly. I hope we can work collaboratively to address this, and we should give great consideration to moving content to other articles and splitting the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a regular page, but a list. The lead is not a summary, but criteria for including the items. "Investigations" means not only official investigations by the state, but also journalistic investigations published in RS. Nothing prevents contributors from improving the page during discussions. I removed phrase about 2018 elections, it is probably not needed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a regular page, but a list. The lead is not a summary, but criteria for including the items is absolutely correct. soibangla (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not this article is a "regular page" is irrelevant. Leads are not item criterias, they are introductions. The lead is not some kind of constitution that determines what can and can't be contained in the article, it simply is supposed to reflect what is contained in the article. List articles are still articles, and this applies to list articles as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia differentiates between articles that consist primarily of lists (generally called "lists" or "stand alone lists") and articles that consist primarily of prose (called "articles"), and list articles have selection criteria. Perhaps you should not only change the lead to your liking, but also the underlying policy, and see how that goes. soibangla (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wholly irrelevant to the discussion here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually very relevant. It is certainly good to include a summary of the article contents in the lead, just as in normal articles, but it has long been common and accepted practice to define the inclusion criteria, since the editors determine those criteria, and the inclusion criteria can be very different for different list articles. This one has always included anything related to Russian interference and all the investigations of that interference, so that would include anything related to the Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation), IOW the actions of Trump and his associates that are part of the investigations.

We realize you are coming very late to this list article, and we've been trying to help you understand it for some time. Now you know what the inclusion criteria are, so don't try to change them against consensus or fight them. Just understand and follow them. It's much simpler when you get on the same page as the rest of us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Again that's a completely separate issue. The article isn't bound by the lead at all, and that would be an absurd case. Using the lead as any kind of argument on the inclusion of anything elsewhere in the article is blatantly a last resort argument when there's little else left to justify the excessive detail in the article. It's an absurd lie that I am "coming very late to this list article", and you should withdraw it. Again I say to you that making demands of editors is almost always unwelcome, and certainly the case when you are making them of me. Furthermore, most editors who have participated in discussions about content on this article certainly agree that there is far too much on this article. That is much more important than whatever happens to be written in the lead, which you have recently changed yourself. Open hostility towards me is obviously not going to work now, and it hasn't worked previously. Now let's drop all of this drama and get on with discussing content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• "the precise inclusion criteria for the list should be spelled out in the lead section" [2]. "Timelines describe the events that occurred before another event, leading up to it, causing it, and also those that occurred right afterward that were attributable to it." [3]. That is what was don on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

There's clearly too much here, and it's not only about how early the timeline extends. This is not about the lead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

2006 August item question

August: Davis and Deripaska meet with McCain at a restaurant for a dinner with a dozen people in Montenegro. McCain is there as part of an official Senate trip. Davis is in Montenegro because his firm, Davis-Manafort, assisted the governing party with their recent independence campaign, which was bankrolled by Deripaska, the largest employer in Montenegro. After the dinner, a group including Davis and McCain travel to a nearby yacht on the Adriatic Sea for a party celebrating McCain's 70th birthday.

Who created this item and when? Is there WP:SYNTH or some other issue with this one? X1\ (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who added this, but it's totally irrelevant. — JFG ^talk 16:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly not useful in this article. We also need to address these bizarre edits. Reverting because my edit didn't contain an edit summary? Removing the length tag and adding it back in? Alluding to "previous discussions"? Reverting because the edit is "no change to the article"? Out of courtesy I haven't reverted back but this is clearly a problem. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably needs to be rephrased. This is not about McCain, but about Deripaska. As 2nd ref tells, "Even without a U.S. visa, Deripaska still managed to develop ties with some of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington, including Manafort and his then partner, Rick Davis. The consultants introduced Deripaska in early 2006 to several Republican Senators, including John McCain." My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Certainly agree with rephrasing, but probably should be deleted. Theoallen1 (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: this was deleted (by 123IP) 01:35, 23 July 2019, but the questions were not followed-up on or resolved. Discussion / consensus appears incomplete. X1\ (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing will ever be resolved, seeing that even the most reasonable suggestions for trimming this list of superfluous entries are systematically stonewalled. — JFG ^talk 21:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Specific date for December 2018 revelation

Is there a reason that this belongs on January 19, 2017 (or anywhere in this excessively long article): “In December 2018, it is reported at least 16 Trump associates interacted with Russian nationals during the campaign and transition period, including Papadopoulos, Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Page, Sessions, Gordon, Caputo, Sater, Cohen, Prince, Stone, Ivanka Trump, Trump Jr., Kushner, and Kushner aide Avi Berkowitz.”Theoallen1 (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a placement error. Shouldn't that be moved to December 2018? Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018). -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It should be moved.Theoallen1 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: See C25 from just two weeks ago. If you are not going to answer my questions, you should at least read my answers. That is how Discussion works, otherwise it is "sealioning" (a form of Wikipedia:IDHT, thus disruptive behavior). X1\ (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"Alleged" interference

I'm amazed that this addition on JUNE 21 (!!!) didn't get removed until now by My very best wishes. Thanks. We really need to police these articles much better. The use of the word "alleged" is appropriate in some circumstances, but not in this one. The Russians did interfere in the election and continue to do so. Period. Anyone who allows their fringe doubts to affect their editing should be reported and their edit(s) reversed immediately. They MUST follow what RS say. We can do better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

If something is alleged, or is unsourced, it should be speedily removed or reverted.Theoallen1 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Theoallen1, you are speaking in generalities and I'm speaking about a specific misuse of "alleged". It is improper to label the Russian interference as "alleged". The allegation has been proven, so we describe it as a fact. That's what RS say, so we must not add any doubt by labeling it as "alleged" interference. It's been a long time since we do that, even if some reports are super cautious and add such weasel words. In this case we must stop doing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The events on this page are not alleged events; they occurred. To be clear, the fact of interference in 2016 is not a question. Calling interference in 2016 as alleged is not occur constitutes obvious vandalism and warrants immediate reversion without going to the talk page.Theoallen1 (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED says, "Words such as...alleged...can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." We need to amend that so that when charges are made by U.S. intelligence, particularly against persons in any way connected to Russia, that they are treated as fact. TFD (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

We can't assert something as true simply because American intelligence says so. Asserting that something is factual should be based on all available evidence and analysis. We do not need to list allegations here, as there are clearly more than enough events factually established. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

We assert it as fact because it has been proven, with plenty of evidence provided by foreign and domestic intelligence agencies, sworn testimony, successful convictions of some participants, private cybersecurity companies, and analysis of social media campaigns. The interference occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion",[4] and "members of the Trump campaign knew they would benefit from Russia's illegal actions to influence the election".[5] That's what RS tell us, and we go by them. We also list allegations, such as alleged crimes that have not yet been proven, such as the "alleged" pee tape. In such cases we still use the word "alleged". -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

We should ultimately be following reliable sources, not intelligence agencies or testimony. There is not one single thing that is either asserted as fact or not, there are instead many claims which can be considered facts or allegations, we should deal with facts here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh no. Most events included in this list are actually facts - [6]. For example, a meeting of people A, B and C did occur as a matter of fact. Trump did make an announcement. Person X did say this "...". A and B did travel to ... My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Saying that there are allegations in this article is completely provable. You can search the word "allege" for yourself. If you support removing those allegations from the article, I would agree with you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

??? I'm not sure of the relevance of that comment. Of course there are allegations in the article as that is content it must have per our rules and purpose, and they are labeled as allegations. We do not remove unproven allegations if they are properly sourced.

We're talking about the proper and improper use of the word. This thread is about a specific misuse of the term. We must not label proven facts as mere allegations. That's a policy violation. (More at your talk page.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the facts that are being presented as allegations. I'm talking about the allegations that are being presented as allegations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

??? They certainly shouldn't be presented as unquestioned facts. We are supposed to label them properly. Are there any particular ones you find problematic? -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the allegations should never have been on this article. Maybe on other articles instead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You would need to be specific ("Are there any particular ones you find problematic?"), per my question. There is no policy basis for leaving out properly sourced allegations of the type we include here, so a blanket "no allegations" assertion is off the table. That will never fly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

They're just too minor to meet the standard for inclusion in this article. It's not by the fact of being allegations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah! That's a different matter. If RS haven't mentioned something, then it's certainly too "minor" for inclusion. If it's only mentioned in junk and sensational sources, the same applies (it's trivia). If it's mentioned in multiple RS, then it's another matter and not trivia, so we generally include it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The official investigation said there was interference, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of allegations

I searched for the phrase “alleg” and found it 38 Times.

• Of those, “allegations” was found 7 times, 3 in the bibliography.
• Of those, “allegations” was found 2 times, none in the bibliography.
• Of those, ″allegedly″ was found 6 times, 2 in the bibliography.
• Of those, ″alleged″ was found 11 times, 7 in the biblography.
• Of those, “allege” was found 2 times, both in the bibliography.
• Of those, “alleging” was found 6 times, 2 in the bibliography.
• Of those, “alleges” was found 4 times, none in the bibliography.

I do not think the 16 in the citation matter. Some of the remaining 22 warrant deletion.Theoallen1 (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Theoallen1, what are you talking about? Certainly not the subject of this thread the thread above. This That thread is about ONE very specific misuse of the term.

In general, as you are dealing in generalities, rather than the subject of this thread (I may as well use the opportunity to explain how this works.), the following principles apply:

• If a claim, for example, is unproven, we are not allowed to include the allegation as a statement of fact. We are required to include it, but must add a modifier, such as "alleged".
• If an allegation we include is a personal accusation, it becomes a BLP matter, and then we are required to include the accusation, but it must be done in the proper manner, depending on whether it's a public figure or a person who is relatively unknown. We treat them quite differently. Public persons get less protection. We do not leave out the accusation.

Now please answer each of the following questions so I can figure out what you mean:

1. Are you suggesting that we include such content without the modifier?
2. Are you suggesting that we leave out such required content, just because it's an unproven allegation, even though reliably sourced?
3. Are you implying that we should only include proven facts?
4. On what policy are you basing your suggestion?
5. When you say "bibliography", are you referring to what we call the body of the article?
6. When you write "citation", are you referring to what we call the references section?

That's six questions. Please answer them. Then we can carry on the discussion without misunderstanding each other. (I fixed your bullet points, per WP:REFACTOR, so they now show properly.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Particularly WP:DUE. We have a lot of information here and we should prioritise the most important information. Anything of lesser importance should be put somewhere else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, not all uses of the word allegation should be deleted. The number 16 are in the reference section, so those don’t violate anything, and each of the remaining cases can be looked on an individual basis.Theoallen1 (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There's also 31 uses of "claim" in the body of the article and 17 "suggest". Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Specific Cases

Some bad examples of accusation include:

1. Concord Management and Consulting, accused of funding a troll farm that interfered in the 2016 electionTheoallen1 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian entity charged with coordinating online propaganda efforts, finances managed by Khusyaynova, funded by PrigozhinTheoallen1 (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Konstantin V. Kilimnik, Paul Manafort's right-hand man in Kiev, Ukraine, alleged Russian intelligence operativeTheoallen1 (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is wrong idea that sourced allegations should be excluded. The interference itself is not an allegation, but many other claims can be. But should we describe a specific claim as an allegation? That depends on coverage in multiple RS (i.e. some RS present this as an allegation, but other present it as a fact). In particular, I do not think that the claim about Kilimnik is just an allegation, but even if it is, it should be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not question that they should be included, but that these are allegations.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced materials

The following bullets are uncited:

• “November 21, 2013: The Ukrainian crisis starts when President Yanukovych suspends preparations for the implementation of an association agreement with the European Union.”
• The June 6, 2016 bullet that Clinton won the nomination is unsourced, but has not been removed.Theoallen1 (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Y Done. X1\ (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And for the umpteenth time, Ukrainian politics have nothing to do with the subject matter of this list. — JFG ^talk 21:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Paul Manafort's conviction says otherwise. He was helping president Viktor Yanukovych, who was #PutinsPuppet, and Manafort's actions in Ukraine were often related to Russian interests, and also to the sanctions imposed because of Russia's actions in Ukraine. The goal of lifting those sanctions was a major factor in the Russian interference and the subject of the Trump Tower meeting. He was also compromised because of his actions related to Deripaska. He also shared polling data with Deripaska's aide Kilimnik, who was "peddling a peace plan that would give Moscow more influence in eastern Ukraine."[7] Ukraine and the sanctions imposed because of Russian actions in Ukraine are central to much of the interference. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You're making my point: Manafort used to work for pro-Russian president Yanukovych until that guy was ousted from power (late 2013–early 2014), and during the 2016 campaign he sent some polling data to Kilimnik (who allegedly was a U.S. State Department asset or double agent). Yet, nothing in the Manafort indictments accuses him of being involved in Russian election interference, therefore it's off-topic. (and don't tell me Mueller didn't turn every stone, more indictements may be coming, yadda yadda…) — JFG ^talk 14:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer is making the point to keep, as the "polling data" were key battleground states which the Russians wanted to tip toward Trump. The polling data was transferred (Manafort & Gates) in Kushner's building to the dual (Ukrainian/Russian) citizen Kilimnik (see his wp article). Wikipedia:CIR, JFG, yadda yadda. X1\ (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

key battleground stateswhich the Russians wanted to tip toward Trump @X1\: WP:NPA, WP:OWN, yadda yadda… Oh yeah, Kilimnik attended military school in 1987 when he was 17; he probably had it planned all along, this MUST be in the article. WP:IRONY, duh. — JFG ^talk 05:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Facts are facts. Manafort owed Deripaska, and Kilimnik was Deripaska's aide. Deripaska is also very tight with Putin, and everything he does is linked with Putin, who was behind the interference. This is what RS tell us. Disbelieve it at your own peril. Conspiracy theories that seek to move the guilt from the Russians and nullify the significance of all the secret contacts between Trump campaigners and Russian agents are fringe theories we don't need here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that Paul Manafort was not primarily involved in Russian interference, but we can satisfy the issue both ways. We should split the timeline as it pertains to Manafort into its own article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No, not at all "clear". A large factor in the Russian interference was to get the Ukraine-related sanctions lifted, and Manafort was right in the middle of those efforts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• The date Akhmetshin emigrated to the US is an unsourced BLP violation, and was removed.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• That is not a BLP violation. Just add a cn tag next time, or also do what I did...find the source and add it. Follow WP:PRESERVE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Relevant Individuals

Although I see former used, it is used inconsistently. I would support using a format of dates such as (2017-2018) rather than use the word former. Furthermore, for William Barr, the use of US Attorney General (1990-1991 and again since) and head of DOJ should be modified to remove the head of DOJ part to be consistent with other officials in this area.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

1. The word "former" can be removed from properly dated items in the List, but only if dated when they became "former".
2. "William Barr, United States Attorney General (1990–1991, and again since February 2019), head of the United States Department of Justice" is fine, as Readers my may not know the connection of USAG to the DoJ. X1\ (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

2016 March 28/29 items

I confused regarding a change made, and of the previous items also: Previous:

March 28: Manafort is brought on to the campaign to lead the delegate-wrangling effort. According to Gates, Manafort travels to Mar-a-Lago in Florida to ask for the job, without pay, and is hired on the spot. In 2018, Gates tells Mueller's team that Manafort's intention was to monetize his relationship with the new administration should Trump win.

March 29: On Stone's recommendation, Manafort joins the Trump campaign as convention manager, tasked with lining up delegates.

March 29: The Trump campaign announces that Manafort will be the campaign's Convention Manager.

Or the newer change to just:

March 29: On Stone's recommendation, the Trump campaign announces Manafort joined the campaign as convention manager, tasked with lining up delegates. According to Gates, Manafort travels to Mar-a-Lago in Florida to ask for the job, without pay, with the intention to monetize his relationship with the new administration should Trump win, and is hired on the spot.

Theoallen1 made the change, and I am guessing Websurfer2 added the original items. Is one correct, or neither exactly right? X1\ (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The combined version is much clearer. — JFG ^talk 23:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: the question is not whether one is "clearer" than the other, but if one or both are not correct. X1\ (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@X1\: Manafort was hired on March 28, per the Mueller report. He was hired on Stone's recommendation, per the Washington Post article, but the date of the recommendation isn't specified, so it happened on or before March 28 since the Mueller report says he was hired on that date. The press release was dated March 29, and articles prior to the Mueller report refer to that date as the day he joined the campaign. I think this is a better consolidation:

March 28: On Stone's recommendation, Manafort is brought on to the campaign to lead the delegate-wrangling effort. According to Gates, Manafort travels to Mar-a-Lago in Florida to ask for the job, without pay, and is hired on the spot. In 2018, Gates tells Mueller's team that Manafort's intention was to monetize his relationship with the new administration should Trump win.

March 29: The Trump campaign announces that Manafort will be the campaign's Convention Manager.

Websurfer2 (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's better, thanks. — JFG ^talk 19:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This is fine, but would prefer combining Gates info into one sentence with one citation.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Suggestion - splitting content

Proposing content split offs into possible sister pages such as Timeline of links between Trump associates and Russian officials or alternatively Timeline of events leading to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. What do you think? starship.paint (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Something like the first one is a good idea. The latter not so much, as events are either part of the interference or not, Trump visiting Russia in the 1980s isn't something that lead up to interference. This article isn't for every link between Trump and Russia(ns) as it has become, but that doesn't necessarily mean these links can't be on Wikipedia at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I think one can create first list, but it is simply different from this one, this is not a sub-list. Second one is problematic because one needs sources explicitly telling that some earlier events led to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. My understanding is that many sources, like the book by Harding, describe the earlier events as something relevant to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, rather than something which necessarily led to this. My very best wishes (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It is all too detailed. I skipped at 1/10th of this article. Zezen (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

2017 events

Especially given the size of this article, it would be more sensible for the post-election events to be moved into the 2017 article. For now though I will only move the 2017 events that are in this article to the 2017 timeline article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Besides my ES, notice how the title of the wp article match worse then before. What is appropriate for the breaks for each of the Timelines was discussed previously, such as when they were created. The current breaks are the best/closest we could arrive at per consensus. As you have been told many many times, mass deletions/changes to longstanding items must be discussed and reach consensus BEFORE changes are made; also see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 174#Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. That being said, I am not averse to change which deliberately improve this and the other Timelines. As this is a large and complex topic, edits must be thought through regarding ramifications as much as possible with preparation for potential future events IRL and regarding maintenance of this topic's integrity on wp.

While some of your changes may be appropriate (after given due consideration), such as removal of insignificant or once used names from the List, your process continues to be inappropriate. X1\ (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

We already have agreement to remove the names that aren't used in the article from the list of names section. I can restore the lists for other articles to how they were before if anybody wants. Please stop being dramatic though, we ought to be capable of discussing these issues civilly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The better method would be to trim the article by moving the transition out and information on investigations discovered post Election Day out of this article.Theoallen1 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: that is a viable option. If we moved the Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Post-election transition (#November–December 2016 & #January 2017) section to Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017) we would need to rename articles and make redirects. Another &/or option is moving "Relevant individuals and organizations" to its own page and transclude it here too. Both of these have been previouly discussed. X1\ (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: good to see you back. X1\ (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

We could rename (move) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017) to Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia after the 2016 election (start day after election, and keep this article the same? X1\ (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Or Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia following the 2016 US election? Could add "November 8" in title to avoid confusion of the United States Electoral College process. X1\ (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This would not be a good option. The timelines into the investigations are 400 in 2017, 350 in 2018, and 150 in 2018 (all in thousands of bytes). This page is approaching 500 thousand bytes. We need a centralized talk page for the timelines, preferably on this page, and to consolidate the articles.Theoallen1 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: the four Timeline page articles themselves are not going to be consolidated anytime in the near- or midterm-future. The "2017" article is significantly smaller than this one and would be an acceptable place to move a chunk of Timeline. "2017" is currently number 161 on the Special:LongPages list, below for example number 54) Timeline of the war in Donbass (March–April 2019) and number 101) Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–February 2019) and number 106) Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2016). Centralizing the Timelines' Talkpages didn't progress over concerns of disruptive editors' activities on the articles and their talkpages; as noted here, the other talkpages, in ESs, and at the DRN (of which I gave notice to you (by linking your username) and others who were not invited by the filer). X1\ (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Theoallen1's excellent suggestion of the creation of Presidential Transition article from this one

Draft:Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections started from various discussions on this Talk page. Constructive comments welcome. X1\ (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As TheoAllen1, Onetwothreeip, My very best wishes, and I have shown support; as significant contributors to this article, BullRangifer, Websurfer2, and Soibangla (JFG was asked already, below. Vanished Account Byeznhpyxeuztibuo were you some other username before? Arglebargle79 still of interest here?) do you all support this change? As this page is currently the longest, I would prefer to directly make this new page live immediately; but if not, I plan to submit the Draft within a week. X1\ (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@X1\: I agree that the transition section is big enough (98 KB) to warrant moving it into its own page. The draft looks ready to publish. I removed an extraneous ">" that was probably missed when fixing-up the references. Good work! Websurfer2 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I've no problem with that.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears we are leaning toward going live, and not using the lengthy and potential unhelpful (in this case) Draft review process. X1\ (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Splitting transition era

Are there any objections to splitting the transition period events to its own article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to copy it and use it, but not to remove it. The same applies to everything else here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about moving it to its own article. That's what splitting is. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I'm objecting to removing it. You're welcome to copy it and use that anywhere you wish. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like you understand when you're talking about copying it and using it anywhere else. That's got nothing to do with splitting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

No objection to splitting as suggested in Draft:Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.Theoallen1 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To avoid anymore confusion here and to keep up on reference and any other changes I went live, per support, with Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. The Draft was not submitted for review. This article is now down to number 85 at 400,244 bytes. X1\ (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

National Enquirer, Pecker, Cohen, and Trump

1. Relevant individuals and organizations: David Pecker, Chairman and CEO of American Media, Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer

2. August 2015: David Pecker, the chairman of American Media, Inc. (AMI), meets with Cohen and Trump. He offers "to help deal with negative stories about that presidential candidate’s relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they [can] be purchased and their publication avoided." In September 2018, AMI enters into a non-prosecution agreement for cooperation with the investigation into such activities by the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

3. 2015 August 5: AMI pays Karen McDougal $150,000 for the "limited life rights" for her story about her relationship with Trump. The payment is made with the understanding from Cohen that AMI will be "substantially reimbursed" by Trump. In August 2018, Cohen pleads guilty to a campaign finance violation for the payment. In September 2018, AMI enters into a non-prosecution agreement in which it admits the purpose of the payment was "to suppress the model’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

4. 2016 Late August–Early September: Cohen tells David Pecker he wants to buy the rights to the suppressed story about McDougal's relationship with Trump.

5. See also: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, and 2017–18 United States political sexual scandals

@AmYisroelChai: "still nothing to do with the topic of this page take it to the talk page", @Websurfer2: "These items are part of the Mueller investigation for violating campaign finance laws", @JFG: "The playmate affair is not related to Russia", @Rangerkid51:, @AlsoWukai: additional comments, besides ES? X1\ (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@AmYisroelChai: @JFG:@X1\: This looks like another set of drive-by deletions. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

My basic argument for keeping these items is that deliberate campaign finance violations by Trump are a form of election manipulation, which should be fair game for inclusion in this page because it is 1) Trump and 2) alleged illegal activity aimed at changing the outcome of the 2016 election. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Where does Russia fit in? PackMecEng (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing. Not all forms of campaign interference and campaign finance improprieties are connected to Russia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: RSs show Mueller and other investigators are looking into Russian money going to Trump, a long history with many channels. Follow the money. X1\ (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Cohen created shell companies where money could be "donated" and used for various reasons by Trump. X1\ (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh what a tangled web we weave ... X1\ (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I get that and it could have to do with Mueller in some form or fashion but not everything to do with Mueller is Russian interference in the 2016 election. At worst this looks like a campaign finance issue that is completely domestic and without any outside powers influence or help. PackMecEng (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The only connection point is that the playmate affair may be investigated by Mueller, and Mueller is in charge of investigating Russian influence on the election. However there has been to my knowledge no allegation that McDougal, Pecker, or the Enquirer are in any way connected with the Russia collusion story. Therefore it's off topic here. — JFG ^talk 23:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The connections aren't about Mueller, they're about Trump and "Russia". X1\ (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

So where is Russia in the McDougal events??? — JFG ^talk 23:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

International money effecting a domestic election campaign is not "domestic". X1\ (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there an allegation somewhere that the payment by AMI/Pecker to buy and bury McDougal's story involved "international money"??? Is the National Enquirer international now? — JFG ^talk 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that these items fall under this scope delineated in the lede: "It also includes major events related to investigations into suspected inappropriate links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials." These items were revealed by those investigations. Websurfer2 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

That's undue and politically-motivated scope creep. The lead wording should be amended to conform to "Trump and Russia" affairs (which in itself is some considerable scope creep from the original goal of the article: documenting Russian interference and investigation thereof). — JFG ^talk 07:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: You are pushing your own agenda by insisting on following a narrow scope definition that has been rejected more than once by consensus among editors. Your current wholesale deletion storm is risking a ban for deliberate disrtuption. Websurfer2 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This page is censoring how Russia recruited Trump for years and years. No other US candidate would fall for that. Nothing is an accident with KGB & Putins circle. Stop erasing the story everybody's read it everywhere but on this page its erased? Why?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2019

I suggest we remove this (below) from the List as Rick Davis (political consultant) appears to be much more significant than Ms. Kristin:

Kristin M. Davis, former head of a high-end prostitution ring in New York City who became known as the "Manhattan Madam" in the wake of the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal. Davis ran in the 2010 New York gubernatorial election with Roger Stone as her campaign manager and is a longtime associate of Stone.

X1\ (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have added connected "See also" items to "talk quote block" section. X1\ (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• I have added numbers to each item. X1\ (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Follow-up on sale. X1\ (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC) On April 18, 2019, AMI accepted an offer from Hudson News head James Cohen to Hudson Group head and agreed to sell not only the National Enquirer, but also Globe and The Examiner to Hudson News for $100 million. X1\ (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Note: As of May 2019 the Southern District of New York is investigating the possible role of Trump and others regarding concealment of hush money payments. See Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal and Karen McDougal. X1\ (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Note: See Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019)#July. X1\ (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Note: See Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel 1973 memo question for the above case, that was used per Mueller in the Russia probe (hear his testimony). X1\ (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs: [8][9][10][11][12] (John P. Carlin with Mary McCord). X1\ (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

References

November-January, November-December, and the first November item

The November-January, November-December, and the first November item should be moved to the transition article, preferably between November 8 and 9, since those events occurred during the transition.Theoallen1 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: no. As discussed before, events could include BEFORE November 8. Vague date windows would never go "between" dates. If you have RSs that places any or all of these items to more specific dates, then let's do that; but until then, at the beginning has been the standard. We must follow RSs, and only RSs. X1\ (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@X1\: see WP:HISTSPLIT on deletion of notice on top. On the events, I think that they are obvious.

“After the election”, a Russian hacker breaks into …

“During the transition period,” the FBI warns Trump …

The British Foreign Office holds a series of meetings with Cambridge Analytica executives in London, Washington, and New York to "better understand" how Trump won and acquire insights into the "political environment" following his win.

“Hours after the polls closed” the hashtag #Calexit is retweeted…

Theoallen1 (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: please strike-through the Template:History merge (WP:HISTSPLIT) comments from this page and relocate them to the proper Talk page. This is not a conversation, and Talk pages need to maintain an appropriate organization; not just for other editors, but for Readers. X1\ (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: Prose such as "After the election", and during "During the transition period" are easily placed in Prose articles such as Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but unless there are specific dates we have a problem. If the RS has an explicit date, or date range given, we can use that as the item "title" (date(s)). If you want to be Bold, attempt that. Items will be changed, moved, copied etc if they don't match (only) what the RS states. Do not assume, just because it makes it easier for the editors here or isn't duplicated or looks nicer. Keep in mind the pattern & style that has already been maintained across the Timeline pages. Don't go beyond what the RSs explicitly state, otherwise it is OR etc. X1\ (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@X1\: When the sources state before the election, is a date needed? When the source states during the transition, is a date needed? Can analysis on how Trump won occur before Election Day? I think not. Theoallen1 (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: see my responses in my thank you(s) and edits to article content. X1\ (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits and splitting

First of all, there have been a lot of recent additions to the article by Websurfer2, BullRangifer, X1\ and My very best wishes. Are there any other editors who agree with those additions? Judging by the talk page, there does not seem to be such, especially the talk page archives. There seems to be an idea that trivial details are acceptable in this article as long as they are reported by reliable sources, but this doesn't appear to be corroborated by the broader consensus.

Secondly, splitting the article should be able to satisfy everybody. George Papadopoulos is mentioned 102 times in the article, Paul Manafort is mentioned 94 times, Michael Cohen is mentioned 75 times, Carter Page is mentioned 69 times, Michael Flynn is mentioned 63 times, Roger Stone is mentioned 62 times, Felix Sater is mentioned 46 times Julian Assange is mentioned 42 times, Sergey Kislyak is mentioned 39 times, Maria Butina is mentioned 38 times to name a few, not including references. Where these individuals have their own stories, we can safely split them away from the article.

I'm sure we can all agree that as far as timeline articles go, this single article does not need to be larger than timeline articles of more significant and complicated events, like World War II or the Syrian Civil War. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why I was mentioned as I have added very little to this article, but I completely disagree with the above. All relevant actors and events should be mentioned here. This is a list article which is a valuable resource for researchers. There shouldn't be any holes in our coverage. That some of that content can also be used in individual articles is obvious.

Any splitting should be done by date, not by the type of content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Splitting normally happens by topic as well as by time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip. How exactly are you going to split this list? By years? By people? By episodes? I do not see any ways to split without destroying the integrity of the list. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Splitting by thread where appropriate, to start with. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The glossary is being spin off WP:NCGLOSSARIES but the entire transition period should be in one article. If this is being split, it should be split on November 8 with the transition items moved into the 2019 page.Theoallen1 (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We can actually split the entire transition period of the timeline into a new timeline article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

See earlier discussion at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#2017 events.

Yes, the Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Post-election transition section could be moved to its own Timeline article, a segment between this one and the Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017) article. We wouldn't need to change the title of this or the "2017" I'd assume. It appears the new "transition" article would be about 90 kb (to start).

The Relevant individuals and organizations list a while ago was called a "glossary". Theoallen1 are you for spinning-off the List and transcluding it at this article too? As far as is being spin off, that should be decided here before such a significant change, as other editors should be considered.

X1\ (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Since when does adding relevant content to an article require permission from other editors? I have been actively contributing to Wikipedia for nearly two years and have never encountered such a rule. Please be specific when asserting what the rules here are. Be a good Wikipedian and provide citations supporting your accusations and disparaging assertions. Your repeated mass deletions of my additions have never been supported by consensus in these talk pages, regardless of your baseless ES claims. You are not Editor in Chief and do not speak for most of the editors here (as shown in these talk pages). Websurfer2 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about permission. Adding content, as with any change to the article, needs consensus whether implicit or explicit. If you have been contributing to Wikipedia for two years then I guarantee you have come across this. This discussion is to ascertain whether there is support for the additions by editors other than those making the additions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggest split by thread

@BullRangifer: Actually a split by thread would be most beneficial to readers, because the current strictly chronological mix makes it very hard to keep track of any story. For example, we could have a section for the Butina-related stories, another one for the Manafort stories, another one for the DNC hacking stories, another one for the IRA stories. That would in my opinion make the list much easier to make sense of. Once it's split by themes, it would also be easier to fork out any section to its own dedicated article. — JFG ^talk 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose a general split in this area, but would not oppose a new separate timeline of the Mueller investigation, beginning with the firing of FBI Director James Comey and ending with the testimony of Special Counsel Mueller before the House of Representatives. I support forking out themes such as moving the NRA/Butina stories to one article, and moving certain Manafort items to another page. I would oppose moving the DNC hacking and IRA stories to separate articles, however. Theoallen1 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's right, many of these events are better grouped by their main characters, rather than by month. We should probably start with the NRA-Butina timeline. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think one can make the timelines of Mueller investigation and NRS/Butina as two separate pages. Then, we should look at them and decide what (if anything) should be removed from this list. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would start with creating a new timeline of the Mueller investigation and then use that list to see what we can remove from this page, as well as the timeline into the investigation pages from 2017, 2018, and 2019. Any timeline on the Mueller investigation should not be split up. As for other forking off, each fork off should be handled on its own.Theoallen1 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure. And there are sources: [13]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree to a separate Mueller timeline. Would have little impact on this page, though, as it started in 2017. Would greatly simplify the 2017–2019 timelines. — JFG ^talk 20:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am all for creating additional pages for the various narratives in these timeline list articles, but I am dead set against removing that information from these pages. It only serves to obfuscate related information by removing temporal context. What about the nexus points like the NRA conventions and the inauguration where many of the people involved crossed paths? What about the Russians falling over each other scrambling to invite Trump and friends to Russia through separate communications channels in May 2016? That observation pops-out in this timeline, but would be hard to see if split into separate narratives based upon individuals. Are you suggesting it is beneficial to readers to force them to read multiple pages in order to get temporal context for related information found in separate narrative threads? Websurfer2 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We'll see naturally where each thread is separate, and when they meet for example at the convention, links can be provided. Also, several individuals would be naturally grouped in a single story arc, for example a number of people are involved in the Kushner / UAE meetings but nowhere else. — JFG ^talk 20:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We do not provide "temporal context" here. If sources say that there were "Russians falling over each other" then we may say that. We don't simply collect all instances of people contacting Trump's campaign and then let the reader assume as much. We have to completely avoid making value judgements on these events. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I very much support Websurfer2. X1\ (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: That’s a strange assertion. The whole purpose of a timeline is to provide temporal context. Websurfer2 (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not recognise "temporal context", and is simply not something we provide. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Timelines do provide temporal context. They place events in their temporal place in history. That's their temporal context. That is very valuable for researchers. There exist a number of excellent timelines on these subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Editors should state exactly what they want to retain in the article and why, rather than claiming the benefits first. Wikipedia has no provision for "temporal context" and there is no guideline that establishes it. It is completely inappropriate for us to present a context that isn't founded and due by reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend that we not use this order, but justify what should be forked off.Theoallen1 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

?! soibangla (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Theoallen1 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: OK, I read WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. How is that relevant to temporal context (grouping related items by time)?

It’s not a comment on time, but about extraneous information being included.Theoallen1 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No forking by content, thread, or otherwise. Splitting at a specific date to make the article shorter might be acceptable, but not to get rid of material. The timeline is completely proper according to Wikipedia guidelines and should not be destroyed. If anyone wants some other format they can just create a new article without destroying this list article. This is sabotage and unacceptable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of sabotage are completely unacceptable here. The obvious Wikipedia guideline that determines this timeline article to be improper would be WP:SIZE. Forking is a form of splitting. If you want to prove that Wikipedia allows for temporal context as described, it is up to you to demonstrate that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I have stricken that word. Just keep in mind that the effect is still the same, regardless of motivation. That's what I meant. Your "size" argument has some legitimacy as a guideline, although I believe you misuse it a whole lot. You're even trying to use it to say that this list is "improper". That's nonsense. You should say that it's "too long".

You are making an argument against the existence of timeline lists. We have myriad timeline lists, and they are all according to policy. If you wish to get rid of timeline lists, then seek to do that in the right place, not here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify. Although creating other lists is OK, I would be opposed to removing anything from this list without very clear consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to split out content: rather we can organize this timeline by thread, as suggested above. I'm convinced that it would be much easier for readers to make sense of the contents if it was grouped by theme (Butina, IRA, DNC, Manafort, Trump Tower Moscow, etc.) Within each section, the chronological order would be preserved, and appropriate links could be made to other sections when threads cross each other. If you look at the suggested groupings I made earlier, you'll see that those threads actually rarely cross. — JFG ^talk 22:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As Websurfer2 stated above I am all for creating additional pages for the various narratives in these timeline list articles, but I am dead set against removing that information from these pages., other articles of a radically different style, as JFG has described of themed threads, can be created; but not by destroying this wholly chronological Timeline. See Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections for a non-wholly chronological example, or just take your ideas there instead. I am all for copying items or referring to these Timeline articles in other wp articles. X1\ (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Duplicating information across several articles is not the appropriate way to improve the encyclopedia. Rather, we should structure the available information in the most accessible way for readers, and make abundant use of hyperlinks between related pages. A lot of the Trump–Russia content is already mentioned across several articles, and some order would be most welcome. — JFG ^talk 00:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This current "deletionist" discussion has a familiar red herring feel. X1\ (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The record of that discussion was removed. You are linking to an outdated and inaccurate version of the record. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

As a list article, this one serves as a valuable resource for content and references to use in other articles. In that sense there is duplication, but that is not problematic. Items on certain, easily defined (without OR or SYNTH) topics (such as individuals) can be used in prose articles, where the narrative is all in one place. Removing such content from this article would leave a whole lot of items here that aren't as suitable for use in such articles. There is also the danger that in the transition from deletion here to inclusion elsewhere, a lot will never reach its destination because of undue weight and other concerns. Here we don't have that problem.

We should keep this article as comprehensive as possible and be happy when some of it can be used for content in prose articles elsewhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of improving the readability by grouping entries by event threads? — JFG ^talk 00:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a list article, so "readability" isn't a concern, as with a prose article. This isn't the type of article where people expect to read a nice prose narrative, so it's irrelevant for them. This is useful for researchers. I often check dates here and find some treasures that can be used elsewhere.

Naturally, each item could benefit from nice prose, but there is no use for "readability" beyond that.

The only headings that are necessary are the ones we're using already. All these other concerns are useful for content which is copied and used in other articles. Bringing them here is just counterproductive and wastes our time. It's not constructive and impedes the development of this article, but maybe that's..... -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Grouping the events by thread would in no way hamper anybody's ability to check dates here and find some treasures that can be used elsewhere. Think about it. — JFG ^talk 01:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Seeing it on a sub-page would certainly help in making a final decision. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm saying that the size of the article is improper. I have absolutely no reason to oppose timeline articles generally. We should move forward with dividing the article by groups of events, where those events would then be listed by date. Readability is of concern to every article, not only prose articles. There are simply different implications depending on the type of article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft of threaded timeline

To illustrate my suggestion above, I have started to re-arrange the events by logical threads, at Draft:Threaded timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It's a work in progress: some of the next threads would be Flynn, Russian cyber-attacks, Assange/WikiLeaks, campaign/election events, Veselnitskaya/Trump Tower meeting, Crossfire Hurricane, etc. I have also reworked the cast of characters into short paragraphs of prose at the beginning of each session; that provides appropriate context in close proximity to the list of events involving each person described. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 07:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that draft should be renamed to the same title as this article. If that's not possible as a draft, I would have no objections moving it to user space for now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't move it to user space while it's work in progress. Let's see what editors think. It's a lot of work, so I'd like to see some momentum for this idea. To me, it really helped to see connected events together in a thread, instead of having them all mixed in a giant calendar. It's also a better format to improve the text, and help readers follow what happened in each thread. (I have only applied such improvements to the Papadopoulos section so far.) — JFG ^talk 10:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think the sub-lists are useful can be used/included on the pages like Internet Research Agency and Butina. It is rather common to include a timeline of events related to subject X directly on a page about subject X. They could be also made as separate pages. However, I would oppose to rearranging this list, instead of simply using a chronological order. The reason: some events (e.g. from the line of Butina and the Agency) occur nearly simultaneously, and that is really important because these events were not random, but orchestrated from the Kremlin. That would be lost if we rearrange the list. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

To use your example: from the line of Butina and the Agency, I don't see the connections, really; where are they? Butina may have been a Kremlin agent, and the IRA may also have been Kremlin agents, but nothing in their actions connected them with each other. Not even sure they knew the other existed. Has Mueller uncovered any connections between Butina and the IRA team? I don't think so, but if he did I'd be happy to see them. Similarly, there were no connections between the IRA and the Mifsud/Polonskaya/Timofeev/Millian group. When we do have connections, they pop up quite naturally, for example Halper was involved both in the Papadopoulos story and in the Crossfire Hurricane story, and that will be easy to see for all readers. On the contrary, the "throw everything into a chronology" approach, mixing every thread of the investigation into a single blob, takes way too much cognitive load for anybody to follow what was going on. Just spending a few hours sorting some threads for demonstration has already given me a clearer global picture of what happened; the full timeline blurs it all into a haze. We want our readers to have access to the full documentation in the appropriate context, and the threading creates that coherent context. Links between related events are readily apparent when they exist; and we don't go inventing links that do not exist simply because action B by person Y happened the same week as action A by person X. — JFG ^talk 17:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I can see that you combined Manafort, Davis, Patten, Gates, Kilimnik and Deripaska in one section. Is it because those are indeed related and therefore should go as one section? Same with Papadopoulos, Mifsud, Polonskaya, Timofeev, Millian, Halper and Downer. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It's possible that not all people in each group knew each other, but they all gravitated around the centrally-investigated figure of the group: Manafort in the first case, Papadopoulos in the second one. Downer is a bit of an outlier within that second group, but he must be mentioned in the Papadopoulos story, because he is the direct connection between this story and the start of the FBI investigation on July 31. — JFG ^talk 18:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You are making good effort here. I need to think more about it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick check shows that both groups are connected, and a lot more more events from the "general" part should be included to the corresponding sections. Perhaps all these events are too closely inter-related to be separated to such "clusters". Butina - yes, her story can probably be separated. But I should wait until you finish the process of separation to the threads. Then perhaps it will be more clear. My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: both groups are connected, which groups and how are they connected? Regarding events in the "general" part, of course a lot of work remains, and in the end there will probably be nothing left there; we'll see. I have started by the most obvious "clusters" indeed, and I have a pretty good idea on the next ones, as I mentioned above. Once we start moving events, the clusters emerge quite naturally. For instance I noticed that Flynn, Sessions and Kislyak are almost always mentioned in connection to each other, so that will be another natural cluster. And the next big one will have the hacking and leaking events. — JFG ^talk 19:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Events about second group (Mifsud, Polonskaya, Timofeev, Millian, Halper and Downer) include Manafort (first group). But some degree of the overlap is probably possible. And again, I would rather wait with judgement until you complete the draft. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

However, I would oppose to rearranging this list, instead of simply using a chronological order I wholly agree. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This is definitely the right format to rearrange the events of this timeline. Much easier to read, especially if we assume what other editors say here is true that this article is for research rather than prose. The use of any Control-F function should not be required to navigate this page. From there, we can split some of these timelines to their own articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed, this list is difficult to navigate. Ideally, this should be a sortable Table with the following fields: (a) 'date' of the event, (b) 'names of people' involved in the event, and (c) names of organizations' involved in the event. Then, one could sort the content by the date, by name (e.g. Assange) or by organization (e.g. IRA). But in any case, the content should not be removed or moved anywhere else, because it will be even more difficult to find the information of interest. The new organization does not really work because too many events in the list are related. My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Where events are related, they can and will be placed into the same section. Otherwise the events are not particularly related to all the others. The kind of table that you are describing doesn't have a precedent here and is getting further away from encyclopaedic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought about it. Creating a sortable Table is the only way to allow quick analysis of these data. Anything else is not going to work. The way of dividing these data to arbitrary static clusters as suggested by JFG is unhelpful. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How is it unhelpful? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Because it creates a mess by dividing the data (items in the list) to highly arbitrary sub-groups. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the point is to divide the information in a different way. Why do you think this is worse than the current way? Surely a mess would be combining everything into one set. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: The proposed threads or clusters are not "arbitrary": they follow the stories of each protagonist in the Mueller indictments. — JFG ^talk 07:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

These stories and protagonists are not separate, but related in various ways. And they are all related to the common subject of the page, i.e. the "interference". That's why we always simply sort events by the date on all timeline pages. This page is not an exception. There are only more individual events here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

They are both related and separate. For two things to be related, they have to be separate things as well. There are obviously very clear separate threads, which are only related by being part of a broader Russian government agenda. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

One needs either a sortable table (see above) or something like this to analyze such data. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

These are also excellent timelines:

• The Moscow Project
• A graphic version of that timeline
• Just Security
• ABC News
• PBS
• Mother Jones
• Politico
• Reuters
• NBC News
• The Washington Post

BullRangifer (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Great refs! That one is especially good, but we should compile a number of sources per WP:NPOV. Of course one can also create additional timelines for individual people (as suggested in JFG draft), see what I did on the page about Butina. However, doing something like that on pages like Julian Assange, Guccifer 2.0, Manafort, Deripaska, Cohen, Kushner, or Sater might cause BLP-based objections, so I am not sure. Actually, such sublists would be very helpful (try Assange as an example), so I would be strongly for making them on biography pages or as separate list pages. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

For depth in time:

1) "The Trump-Russia Timeline" Just Security (NYU Law#Centers) back to 1984; see Updates current (through July 29 '19); see "News and Guts Media" at Dan Rather

2) "Timeline: Corruption to Collusion" back to 1984, and back to 1996, see Center for American Progress Action Fund for "The Moscow Project", current

3) "The giant timeline of everything Russia, Trump and the investigations" (25.March '19), back to 1998; used in this wp article, PBS NewsHour

4) Mojo item (23.March.2018) back to 1986

5) NBC News item (14.May '19) back to 2004

6) ABC News item (23.July '19) back to 2013

7) WaPo item (19.April '19) back to 2013

8) Politico item (28.Feb.2018) back to 2013

9) Reuters item (23.July '19) back to 2013

X1\ (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody contests that there are sources for long timelines. Indeed that's the problem: too much information crammed together in a long long long long long long list of microscopic events, with each line randomly jumping from one subject to another. It is not reasonable to sort those events only by timestamp: there are clear threads, that sources and investigators have followed, and we serve our readers better by grouping related events into logical and palatable threads. — JFG ^talk 23:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: so you are for Theoallen1's idea then? X1\ (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(a) I think the idea by Theoallen1 is reasonable. (b) Speaking about the "threads" they can be good as separate specialized timelines. For example, this either belong to Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia or can be made a separate page. However, very same events also belong to this general timeline and should stay here. Reorganize? See my comments above. A sortable table.My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason to have all this in one page though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is, because items in one part of the timeline can be related to items in another part of the timeline. The current long timeline should be kept intact, without deleting or moving items. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

How could that be a reason? We could just put those events in multiple timelines. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I would point out the following, though. Some item can (and should) appear in the threaded timeline multiple times. Theoallen1 (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the connecting events are repeated, see for example Page meeting Kislyak during the Republicn convention, mentioned both in the Page and the Kislyak sections. — JFG ^talk 09:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Threaded timeline almost complete

Fellow editors: I have completed the sorting of the timeline by threads, clearly delineating who was doing what when, following the principal story arcs of each group of players. There remain a few loose events that are not clearly part of any section thread; wondering what to do with them. We also need to complete the intro blurbs for each thread, while keeping them short. Please give me your feedback, and let's get this ready for publication. — JFG ^talk 09:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

That alternative timeline has been discussed already in the previous thread, and no one supported it so far. My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not support the new page. This is not to say the draft should be deleted. As an example, the Dissolution of the USSR can be deleted, the Rohrabacker item can be moved to warnings, and Crimea needs to be placed somewhere.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I too do not support replacing current version of the page by the draft for the reasons discussed just above. One possible solution might be creation of a sortable Table. I think the draft is useful because it allows creating shorter and more specific timelines that could be used on other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, while a sortable table would be useful for Readers (I have seen something similar in a couple of larger RSs), I am concerned about do-ableness, easy-of-editableness, and maintainability. It would be daunting for new editors to edit. Theoallen1, I agree JFG's Draft should be kept (definitely not replacing this one), to be used as My very best wishes has suggested and done. JFG's contribution can be useful for other pages. X1\ (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The page was made live already.Theoallen1 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Threaded timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

With the threaded article now finished, it's time for that version to replace this article. There might be some inconsistencies that we should address first, however. I'm opening this up for discussion now but hopefully we can get this all finished soon. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: See massive previous comments strongly against the Threaded timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and your hopes to delete the Timelime. X1\ (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Not enough to say that you have made comments before, you would have to actually make those comments. I've never indicated any suggestion of wanting to delete any timeline, so that's a very odd claim to make. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

See your first comment of this section your you created. X1\ (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a single mention of deleting anything. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Are there any objections? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, Clearly there are objections, and have been to your behavior for far too long. Your disruptive editing is unwelcome here. X1\ (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't bother baiting me with comments about myself, it's not going to work. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We talked about it already. No replacement. The lists are very different. One could reasonably argue that the "Threaded" timeline is a content fork of this page, not the other way around. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing to do with forking here. What possible justification could there be for two pages of the same content? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Not the "same content", as you know: as you (along with others) have deleted content copied from the Timeline during the chopping & jumbling that created the "Threaded". As you appear to have at least a rudimentary understanding of English, you know to "replace" functionally is to "delete" in Wikipedia. And you know there has been strong consensus by credible editors such as My very best wishes, Websurfer2, BullRangifer, Soibangla, and the creator of this page Arglebargle79 to keep this Timeline list the same. Onetwothreeip (123IP), you are sealioning and NotHere. You appear to be lying, 123IP, if not troublingly confused; either way the sooner you are banned/block from here the better for the Wikipedia:5P. X1\ (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Increasing the intensity of personal attacks isn't going to make me respond either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep both. @Onetwothreeip: I see the value of having a threaded timeline in addition to this purely chronological timeline. However, like X1\ and others, I strongly oppose deleting this timeline and replacing it with the threaded timeline. Wikipedia is meant to grow, not be pruned, and has plenty of space for both. We seem to be going in circles with these delete/replace discussions. Repeatedly bringing up your rejected replacement proposal as if it were a fait accompli is a sign of disruptive behavior.Websurfer2 (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeatedly bringing up your rejected replacement proposal as if it were a fait accompli is a sign of disruptive behavior and it's a pattern of behavior. soibangla (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This was not my proposal. Now that the other version has been established, it is right that it takes place of this article. I don't see the point in retaining this list when there is a better version, but that's not relevant to this discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The chronological timeline article is informative and it is important that it remains. It should not be replaced by the new "Threaded" article. It is useful to users of the encyclopedia and is imperative to understand the complexity of the events within a temporal frame of reference. Just because it is long in length is irrelevant. Netherzone (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Netherzone Would anybody like to explain why they consider this timeline to be useful? The threaded timeline is still chronological, it is just split into different timelines. This article is just everything in one timeline, even if they are not related to each other. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, you are sealioning again. X1\ (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip If the "anybody" that you are referring to is me (which I assume it is since you pinged me) then let me explain why I think this chronological timeline is useful. Not everyone thinks like you do. The chronological timeline is linear rather than non-linear. Not all readers of the encyclopedia are non-linear thinkers and learners; some people absorb information much better when it is presented in linear formats. The threaded list is confusing to those whose learning/cognitive style does not match your own. Some people are unable to comprehend the complexity & correlations of the issues when they are presented in a threaded format. The threaded format chops-up the continuity, although it may not seem that way to your mind. To mine, and obviously to others on this talk page, it degrades the content. With the content degraded in this way, it is more difficult to grasp and comprehend the big picture. It's like taking the dictionary and applying the William Burroughs' Cut-up technique to it, and then trying to look something up. In other words it is not as accessible. And an encyclopedia, at least to my mind, should be accessible to its readers, esp. since not all of the users have English as their first language. We, as a community of editors have a responsibility to present information in accessible ways. A threaded list runs the risk of creating an "order" or hierarchy of content simply due to the fact that the contents box is numbered. It is not improper nor a violation of policy to have both a timeline and a threaded list - both systems of organizing information are valid and are complementary of one another. Therefore, this chronological timeline should not be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I was asking you in particular but I would have accepted a response from anybody. All you're saying is that this information is presented in a different way than how the information is presented in the timeline article, but not explaining how that way is better. You have only said this is linear rather than non-linear. The events simply did not happen in a linear way as this article shows them, as it combines different events with others that are unrelated to each other. Why should the information be presented in "linear format"? I can't make any sense of this being framed in terms of how I personally think or learn, so I can only view this from how an average reader would. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip I am not interested in arguing with you. It seems that you are not interested in thinking about what I have to say, nor cultivating thoughtful consideration of others' opinions. Netherzone (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Netherzone I'm glad we agree that we don't want an argument. Can you explain what you mean about how this article is a better presentation than the other article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip Read my comment above more carefully. Netherzone (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Netherzone I have, and thank you for your comment. I am asking further, how do you feel the article has better presentation? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip Read my comments above more deeply. Netherzone (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If we were to delete one, then delete the threaded. I say keep both as some people want less info (the threaded) and some want all the info (the full timeline). 123IP's deletionist agenda must be blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The threaded article has more information than this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No Onetwothreeip, you deleted content. X1\ (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, why aren't you giving provide attribution? "Threaded" was copied from the Timeline. Trying to take credit (responsiblility) for other's work? X1\ (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@X1\: I wish you'd remember to assume good faith and stop attacking editors who happen to disagree with you. — JFG ^talk 19:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the fact that the threaded article has more information than this article? I've only removed duplicated content from that article, and I always provide attribution when copying within Wikipedia. You are deliberately making false accusations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

For other Readers of this discussion see here. X1\ (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree: the "threaded" list was constructed essentially as a different/reduced version of main/chronological list (mostly same data, but in different order), but I do not see any problem with just keeping both lists - merely as a matter of convenience. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

How can the threaded article be considered reduced when it's larger than this one? How can it be considered more convenient, rather than less, to have two of these articles rather than one? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

For other Readers of this discussion see here. X1\ (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• I created the threaded timeline in order to help readers make sense of the various stories reported in this very long timeline. I think it's confusing to conflate unrelated events just because they happened in the same time frame. If I had to choose only one version, I'd keep the threaded one, however there has been vocal support to keep the purely chronological list as well. It's unfortunate that we are duplicating information, but I can live with that. — JFG ^talk 19:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No "conflation", RSs connect all of this. X1\ (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources do not connect them at all. The only connection that sources show is the events happened on certain dates which may be close in time to other events. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Untrue Onetwothreeip, as My very best wishes has pointed-out to you many times, and as I have pointed-out to JFG too. X1\ (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think no replacement (see this and other discussions). If anyone wants to merge these timelines, please start another thread, specifically about merging. Justify why you think these pages should be merged and how, and wait for responses. One of possible outcomes here can be deletion of the "threaded list" as a content fork, however I would probably vote to keep both lists as two separate pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

refs etc

(moved from my Talk page)

regarding your revert here you do realize you didn't re-fix the issues I mentioned? redundant use of the same ref in one paragraph, typo. Such long ref names are just annoying. Mind pointing me to any essay or anything mentioning this necessary consistency between articles? regardless, I changed it on the threaded timeline article too. I'd revert you myself, asking that you fix the issues you see instead of just reverting, but the page has discretionary sanctions. Please deal with it yourself. Hydromania (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hydromania: Refs are associated best with sentences, not paragraphs. I'm in the middle of something, so be patient with me and I'll attempt to address the rest of your comments. Thank you for your input. X1\ (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)