This page is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
The entire report is totally unverifiable. The relationship between Trump and corporate media interests are clear to anyone with even a minor knowledge of the idiocy surrounding it. Will we start recording Tabloid news next? 96.83.146.222 (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This generates a global buzz over the weekend while the world tries to understand a strange foreign policy after the "recognition". The story (behind paywall now) provided useful hard data on estimated viewing time and, more importantly, the selection of the channels. It's clearly attributed as a report from the noted New York Times, so it's a relevant collection of points of view. If that's not possible, we'll never have any social sciences.
If one were to sit down and count the number of sock-puppet accounts on attack pages like Trump's businesses you'd be there for an eternity. Who censors who here? 96.83.146.222 (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to interpret this ip's reaction, but it sounds in favour of removing. "Don't do anything because you're powerless anyway." I think I heard it before. It's remarkably close to the "pass gass" argument that we had to endure. Wakari07 (talk) 15:06, 13
Another gauge is the level of bias shown by the relevance-questioning tags (on the surrounding "hamlet" and "Egyptology" blurbs) standing undisputed.
