Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York

Lock This Page?

We should really get an admin to lock this page as it blows up. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@GreenFrogsGoRibbit: Pages are not protected in advance of disruption. Heavy Water (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water I agree with WP:NO-PREEMPT which is why I said as it blows up. So far, it's just a few of us editing it, and has not blown up. As it blows up, I believe disruption becomes inevitable, but I suppose I could be wrong. Let's see. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Like other sanctions, protection can be used to protect and prevent (IOW before it happens) problems, and in this case, the article will no doubt always be a target for vandalism. I doubt anyone could make a logical complaint if partial, but indefinite, protection was applied now, but what do I know.... -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In the news nomination?

This is a historical event unfolding in real-time, so it should defintely be added. The article is descriptive enough so far and it warrants an addition in my opinion. Jennytacular (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's being discussed at WP:ITN/C#Trump indicted. Comment there. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"He is the first former U.S. president to ever be indicted"

Should it say he is the first former or current U.S. president to ever be indicted, or just "former"? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 00:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to include the 'or current'. Multiple sources bring this up, highlighting that this is unprecedented both for in-office and out-of-office presidents. I would be okay to rephrase this as "No current or former president had ever been indicted before Trump." SWinxy (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Just drop both and say "U.S. president", there are only two kinds. And don't say "ever". Every first is the first ever, it's redundant. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Gah fine. It looks nicer that way. SWinxy (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

They don't say "short and sweet" or "less is more" for nothing, you know. A wise mutant rat once added, we must get to the root of our problems. Always Be Chopping! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

:) SWinxy (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You may have to forgive a clueless foreigner here, but how does "Trump is the first president to be indicted" reconcile with the arrest of Ulysses S. Grant? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Grant was arrested briefly, but was not indicted - which is a formal process usually involving a grand jury. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Arrests are just as formal, but are made by police directly against the suspect based on immediate probable cause (roughly "caught in the act"), while indictments are generally reserved for physically distant suspects, based on a historiography of probable cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The more pertinent difference is that Grant may or may not have been pulled over during a period in American history when news was scant and untrustworthy, while Trump was figuratively rolled up on during a time of mere great uncertainty. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, though Ulysses S. Grant was certainly placed upon a pedestal and widely surveilled to an extent, Donald Trump is the first truly famous/infamous president. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

We have had other famous/infamous presidents. Richard Nixon, for one. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, no disrespect to Tricky Dick. It's just that there are levels to this game. Reality TV, WWE and Twitter could have taken Nixon, Bush or Polk to the top, but (like Melisandre) they weren't there. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of WWE and in regard to the following, I've just got two words for ya...two words! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Error with date?

I was just wondering why the date template makes it "1 day ago" when it is still 30 March in NYC? phrogge 'sup? edits 01:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's how the template thinks time is. In reality, the only timezone to exist is east coast time. SWinxy (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

NYC

There is no such thing as a "New York City grand jury"; Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury (formally known as "New York County"). 331dot (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that was me. Whoops! SWinxy (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Shall we consider this resolved? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Image

The top image seems to have little to do with this topic- it also seems to be just a random group of people, not protestors. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@331dot Perhaps the image is more relevant for the "Call for protests" section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be a better fit, yes. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Content of the Indictment

In the introductory paragraph, can we add something like "purportedly" or "allegedly" around the connection between this indictment and the Stormy Daniels hush money payment? As the rest of the introduction correctly notes, we actually don't know the content of the indictment and it could be for other potential crimes committed in New York. Especially since it is now being reported: Two "sources familiar with the matter" told NBC News he faces around 30 fraud-related charges.[9] it seems reductive to assume that all 30 charges are from just the hush money scheme. Mccartneyac (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

More specific article title?

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

---

Given that this is the first of several possible indictments from different jurisdictions (see current investigations here, we may want to consider making this particular indictment more specific (NY State Indictment of Donald Trump), or perhaps more general as needed (Indictments of Donald Trump). And making the change now will help keep the article stable as time moves forward. Hires an editor (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Currently "indictments of Trump" redirects here. I don't think it's a good idea to recreate it. The pending investigations are mentioned on Legal affairs of Donald Trump and Donald Trump#Post-presidential investigations.

I think the plan should be to do nothing for now. Every source is simply calling it the Trump indictment, so per wp:commonname, that is the right name. Once another indictment actually happens, we can move this page to a more specific title based on what the sources are calling it, and turn "indictment of Trump" into a disambiguation page. But there is no hurry. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree it's early to think about a disambiguation by jurisdiction. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This likely needs to be moved to New York v. Trump, or whatever the case name actually is. There may need to be a disambiguation, as there's already a separate New York v. Trump case with an article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hires an editor Until there are other indictments, a plural title would be factually inaccurate. Until other wikipedia articles exist on indictments, disambiguation is needless, assuming they would be stand alone pages instead of part of this one. Further, we aren't fortune tellers. We should wait to see what actually goes down.

On the other hand, the name may need to change to be more broad than an indictment, considering there is resumably going to be a trial and a verdict.

There's another question though, of whether this warrants a stand alone article in the first place, we should consider a merge. Amthisguy (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As a short term measure, if Trump is indicted in Georgia, we could have Indictment of Donald Trump in Georgia and Indictment of Donald Trump in Manhattan or Indictment of Donald Trump in New York until better names are chosen. starship.paint (exalt) 03:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need articles about the indictments separate from the case as a whole? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No, but what I’m proposing is a short term thing if no one can agree on a better title yet and the Georgia indictment drops. starship.paint (exalt) 15:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

What you're proposing is a travesty of justice likely to end the world! I suggest Georgia indictment of Donald Trump (and so on). Same basic truth, more quickly digestible form (and yes, I am a fortune teller). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This case has a formal name, New York v. Trump, and that should be the title of this article. Would anyone object if I moved this to New York v. Trump (criminal case) (to distinguish it from the civil case New York v. Trump)? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Antony-22: - I've sent the old lawsuit to New York v. Trump (DACA). The old lawsuit seems to have received little attention. There doesn't need to be a disambiguation for this article, New York v. Trump. starship.paint (exalt) 02:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hear, hear. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's People of New York v. Donald J. Trump and I think we should move it now soibangla (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and Bill Clinton has formalities, too. It's the common name we want. It's what I want, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hires an editor, Mathnerd314159, Antony-22, Amthisguy, and Soibangla: - please see Talk:Indictment of Donald Trump#Requested_move 2 April 2023. starship.paint (exalt) 09:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Business day

I don't believe "business day" should be hyperlinked since it's common knowledge. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Criticism on technicality

@S51438 has removed a criticism about that the indictment uses a technicality for the charges. The criticism was sourced but s/he said that only the title supported the criticism, not the content of the source (and he was right). I have inserted other sources to the indictment section to explain the technicality. Can we add the criticism back? 95.12.127.137 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Who is "some"? That's a WP:WEASEL word. How do they know Trump is charged on a "technicality" if the charges are under seal? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The "some" word was added by @InedibleHulk. My original edit did not include that word. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It was more specific than nobody at all, but yeah, some actual critics would make far more sense to cite on this, if possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit is fully supported by the FT, though it would need to be attributed to Edward Luce and placed in the "Commentary and media analysis" section. The FT is (IMO) among the best newspapers out there, and Luce was the former FT Washington bureau chief (now FT's US national editor and columnist), so it's definitely due. DFlhb (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content by Speakfor

Speakfor has deleted sourced content detailing the indictment. In this edit summary he stated "removing controversial edits" but did not show any reasoning or evidence. Can we add this content back? @Speakfor: --95.12.127.137 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems a fine removal to me. Without being able to see what the FT sources say due to their paywall, I don't see what is meant by "linking a state crime to a federal crime". Or what Cohen's perjury has to do with it if the Manhattan DA's office believes he is telling the truth now, or if they're even using his testimony as basis for the charges, which remain under seal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshgu FT states that "The wrinkle, though, is that the possible campaign finance violation would be a matter of federal law. It is not clear to lawyers if a New York state law and federal law can be joined in such a way. One former DA staffer called it “a bank shot” — and one that has not previously been attempted." in the second citation of the indictment section. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And on perjury, it states that "Cohen, a convicted felon with a record of perjury, would make for a problematic witness, to say the least." in the same citation. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• @95.12.127.137: Please see This policy here, which states, in part, "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." Which is to say, that while sources are necessary, being "sourced content" has no bearing on whether or not some bit of content must remain in the article. From the same policy page "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Since you're the one arguing for inclusion, you need to make an argument as to why it should be included and have a consensus agree with you that your rationale is justified and the content should remain. The onus on establishing that consensus lies only with your side of the dispute. People are objecting to including it; you need to convince people it belongs. --Jayron32 18:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying the policy! I have started this discussion to achieve a consensus. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We can't put such a claim in our words. As even the sources only say this might be the case. Indeed it is pure speculation. So why not wait until we know? Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, that second edit was an obvious revert. DFlhb (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there could be a valid way to include this information, but more as a technical discription of what the legal proceedings actually are without neccessarily framing it as a criticism. Sennalen (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Great! Do you have any suggestions on what the potential wording might be? 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal by 92.18.42.213

The IP editor has removed a sourced content. The source stated "Even some who despise the former president fear his pursuers may have become blinded by their own investigation. “Alvin is under a lot of pressure from people who are obsessed with Trump, inside and outside that office,” said one former prosecutor. “[Trump’s] not worth what we’re doing to our criminal justice system.” " in the citation titled "Alvin Bragg, the district attorney".--95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no use of the word "analysts", (and again) this would need attribution, even if we include it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I'm fine with attribution. Any ideas for the potential wording? 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really as it seems to be yet more speculation, I am unsure this tells us a great deal about the case. Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think attributing a former prosecutor's opinion is speculation. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No, but it is speculation about why it's being done. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, and I don't think the source supported that phrasing. I'd instead quote the other FT piece[1], which says:

The wrinkle, though, is that the possible campaign finance violation would be a matter of federal law. It is not clear to lawyers if a New York state law and federal law can be joined in such a way. One former DA staffer called it “a bank shot” — and one that has not previously been attempted. Karen Friedman Agnifilo, who spent the best part of three decades at the Manhattan DA’s office, agreed it was “legally untested” but an “important case to bring” nonetheless.

It's a news piece written by Joshua Chaffin, and would need to be attributed to him. DFlhb (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. How do you think we can add this, any ideas for wording? 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Better paraphrases

I've added paraphrases of the two best points I found from the FT (not the disputed ones above), and think the dueness of both is self-explanatory. The first allows us to link to Smith special counsel investigation without committing OR, and the second provides the only serious legal commentary currently in this article. DFlhb (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!! You're amazing! SWinxy (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Far too kind; I forgot to mention that Karen Friedman Agnifilo is a former decadeslong Chief Assistant DA at the Manhattan's DA office, so her analysis is IMO quite valuable. DFlhb (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

See also link: John Edwards extramarital affair

I suggest removing John Edwards extramarital affair from the See also section, unless someone can explain the relevance? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's probably better suited for Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal instead of here. SWinxy (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree, seems like a stretch to go from indictment of a former president to affair of a former presidential candidate, if there's no other connection between the two topics. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A grand jury examined whether or not campaign finance violations occurred in the paying-off of a mistress. But I agree better off at the Stormy page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The crux is that Edwards obtained a deadlock (+ not guilty verdict on one count) after arguing that the payments were not meant to influence the election, but to save his marriage. LegalEagle (of YouTube fame) said that Trump might make a similar argument. I've expanded on that point inline, using the FT source (which calls it "an obvious comparison" for "skeptics" of the indictment), since it seems relevant. DFlhb (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Explain what an indictment is?

I’m thinking that a link may not be enough… and that we should (briefly) explain what an indictment is and means. Blueboar (talk) Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Good idea; English Wikipedia has more foreign readers than American readers (3B Americans, 4B foreign). DFlhb (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

My current understanding is that it is a form of Åtal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

AI images of Trump

I think it is just some 15-minute internet fame and not really worth being included per WP:recentism. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It might have significance in an article about the ethics of AI, but it's hardly relevant to the indictment. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat; the AI pics received significant international coverage in the run-up to the indictment (in great outlets, like AP, BBC, WaPo); it also led to a Democratic senator calling for regulation[2]. Obviously not notable for its own article, but seems noteworthy enough for a short mention here. DFlhb (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that the AI images only generated a fleeting sensation globally, but it has so little bearing to Trump's indictment in the grand scheme. If it leads to actual regulation (I highly doubt it on ground of the 1st amendment) then it can be included in the more relevant AI-image article, but it is too trivial for Trump's saga. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit needs reverting

IP trying to muddy the waters: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indictment_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1147576374&diffmode=source

2601:18F:1080:48F0:3850:4DD:FC69:51A8 (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Fringe claims

Trump released a statement calling the indictment "political persecution" and said it would "backfire massively" on President Joe Biden.

This is nothing but a fringe claim that should be followed by a factual statement explaining that Joe Biden has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump’s indictment, nor could he. This total fantasy and alternate reality created by Trump cannot exist in this article without correction. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes but describes them. Wikipedia editors do not have the fact finding capabilities to independently determine whether the said statement is true. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t say it shouldn’t be kept, I said it should be clarified. And yes, editors do have fact finding capabilities, it’s called reliable sources. Trump has been under criminal investigation for fifty years. Biden has nothing to do with this or any of the hundreds of other alleged criminal acts involving Trump. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

When we try to "debunk" things in wikivoice, it often comes across as try-hard or POV-pushing (notice I said sounds like, not is), because it's very easy to do clumsily.

If we add anything, it should be a follow-up sentence: The White House said it had no advance notice of the indictment., cited to this news report. I'll note that this style of "debunking" is actually quite common among journalists, who are often more graceful than us, though it should be the other way around. For the love of G-d, let's not add "baselessly" or "debunked" or whatever well-meaning but unencyclopedic tripe we often use. DFlhb (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I proposed in my original comment to this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right; I clearly read something into it that wasn't there. DFlhb (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I do that all the time, to the point where I have to read something three or four times before truly getting it. I’ve often thought it’s because of the transition our brains are having to make from the written page to the digital page, and several authors have written about just this. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't kill anyone to relay complete sentences instead of "fucking snippets", by the way, might even make the intended messages clearer. Message One: "This is Political Persecution and Election Interference at the highest level in history." Message Two: "I believe this Witch-Hunt will backfire massively on Joe Biden." Is there any reason to omit the election interference accusation or "I believe" qualifier? Why were these two lines selected in the first place? Do secondary sources cover them more than others in Trump's self-published source? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"Fleshed it out" a bit now, fewer capitals, more information. I don't think it should be used as a launchpad for his critics to have their say on it, at least not in his dedicated section. I'd urge Viriditas to also give his or her head a shake, for thinking a claim from the titular character (who happens to be an American president) is a fringe claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to briefly reply, Trump is famous for making false, misleading, and outright fringe claims, so this isn’t unusual for him. Don’t see what his title has to do with it. Just as nobody is above the law, nobody is also above making fringe claims. Reality applies to all of us, equally. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

False, sure. Misleading, who doesn't? But not fringe. He reaches an audience of billions. Fringe is my drunk uncle (who is not a racist, contrary to established archetype). Fringe is even (relatively) some notable governor. Trump is as mainstream as anything or anyone has ever been. And I'm talking about the article title, not his title. His dedicated section. Clearly a central figure in context, regardless of reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I see the disconnect. I’m speaking of fringe claims (see the title of this discussion) not his status as a fringe figure, which you correctly demonstrate he is not. Two different things. His ideas, concepts, and claims are very much fringe claims. From the nutshell: "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." I also think that one of the ways to avoid this is to stop citing Trump directly without clarification, and to rely on his appointed defenders, like attorneys. This tends to diffuse and eliminate the fringe element immediately. Joe Biden, in this context, has no part to play in Trump’s indictment, and can’t be connected in any way to it. In the event that explanation isn’t clear to you, let me add a bit more: by naming Joe Biden, Trump is pointing to the right wing fringe conspiracy that Trump has been hounded by liberals and democrats and has never committed a crime. There isn’t a single respected authority on other side of the political spectrum who will defend this idea. I don’t think I need to point to the article documenting the last fifty years of his alleged malfeasance. This attempt to control the narrative by placing the blame on Biden (and implicitly threatening what is to come) is what Trump does. It can’t be allowed to speak for itself, it has to have clarification that follows it, explaining the accepted, mainstream POV. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The field is American politics. Trump is the Republican, Biden the Democrat. However you want to divvy up their popularity, they're the clear frontrunners and anything either promotes in the race to the White House becomes the new normal. I don't believe the prosecutor is doing Biden's dirty work, but those are the words on the street, "dirty work". Of the hundreds of millions of Trump fans, at least many are going to believe it, because it came from an accredited master of American politics, through Wikipedia (and other channels). It's a Big Lie. I don't mean that as an insult or a compliment, just a fact. They work because they're popular. There doesn't need to be a respected authority defending it on the other side of the "spectrum" (fingerquoted because spectrums are gradients), there's a respected authority on this side attacking with it. Anyway, I think we've been at similar impasses before. You can have the last word here, if you want, cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will take a look later and see if I can improve it or not. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've removed the offending namedrop (among much less substantial wordiness). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with at least the spirit of what Viriditas has proposed. If there are fact-checks, we should present them. starship.paint (exalt) 02:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Viriditas "thanked" me for the edit that removed the "fact" about Biden, so I don't think there's anything left to "check". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Good edit. Thanks, again. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thank you, too, I learned something today. Now, if anyone asks, I'm off to see a man about a dog, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Trumps attack on district attorney Alvin Bragg

The article reads:

Throughout the investigation, Trump verbally attacked his prosecutor, district attorney Alvin Bragg and accused him of having political motivations.

It has to be noted in this article that this is a false accusation. As is highlighted in the Wikipedia article about a Grand jury, it is a group of citizens that "is empowered by law to conduct legal proceedings, investigate potential criminal conduct, and determine whether criminal charges should be brought." See also: "The function of a grand jury is to accuse persons who may be guilty of a crime, but the institution is also a shield against unfounded and oppressive prosecution. It is a means for lay citizens, representative of the community, to participate in the administration of justice. It can also make presentments on crime and maladministration in its area. Traditionally, a grand jury consists of 23 members." Naturelich (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

We already mention the 23-person part; but more to the point, the fact that a grand jury was involved is orthogonal to the allegation that Bragg is politically biased. It's a subjective claim that can't be proven or disproven, and I think our readers are smart enough to understand that without needing extensive margin notes. Don't think any changes are needed here. DFlhb (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2023

Indictment of Donald Trump → Trial of Donald Trump – This is a premature move, but as Trump's arraignment nears, it may be necessary to merge this article into the general trial article. Assuming "Trial of Donald Trump" will be created later on down the line, the contents in the background section will be equivalent. The indictment is notable, but it's a precursor to something larger. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not premature, it's too late; see developing consensus for the all-encompassing and already open case name, New York v. Trump, at #More specific article title? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I think New York v Trump is better too. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait but support New York v. Trump. A bit premature as @ElijahPepe himself mentioned, granted that as @Starship.paint stated, Trump's trial may not commence for another year, but in the event that the trial occurs, change the title. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose and disambiguate "Trial of Donald Trump" - There have been two impeachments of this man and this would be a third formal process, only this time in a criminal court. Rename this article to New York v. Trump. There may even be more events that can be labeled as a trial of Donald Trump in the future. BurgeoningContracting 19:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You can skip this. starship.paint (exalt)

Four against one, moved target. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC) What do you mean four against one. There isn't even an official vote. I was simply saying that I would rather New York v Trump versus the Trial Of Trump if we had to change the title, but I'm not even sure we should do that yet. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC) The one opposed moved it back, quite understandable. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the name, but on a global scale, "Trial of Donald Trump" may be more recognizable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Relevant opinion: [3] Appearing on MSNBC on Friday night, Marc Agnifilo, a former assistant U.S. attorney and a former Manhattan assistant district attorney, said that it's likely that Trump's case will not go to trial until roughly a year from now, due to the way the New York legal system is set up. As Agnifilo explained to host Rachel Maddow, the New York State legal system allows for a significant amount of pretrial motions and appeals. […] Due to this legal structure in New York, the former U.S. attorney said that it's possible that Trump could end up at trial for a federal indictment before doing so for the charges he is currently contending with… starship.paint (exalt) 13:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• New York v. Trump, per above. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oh whoops I didn't realize we were both agreeing. My bad, I thought you meant four against one with me being the one. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• New York v. Trump, oppose Trial of Donald Trump - (1) see purple text above, trial hasn't even been scheduled, we don’t know when it might be, it may not be any time soon. (2) this is not the only trial of Trump (see E. Jean Carroll litigation against Donald Trump is already ongoing, and also List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump#All current pending prosecution - there are even more trials in the works). (3) Regarding the recognizability argument, I refer you to Depp v. Heard, which may not be the most recognizable name for that case, but it nevertheless is the article title. starship.paint (exalt) 06:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• New York v. Trump, though the article should start off with the full name, People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. Theoretically there may not be a trial if he arranged a plea. 331dot (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW there is Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, though he is actually on trial. 331dot (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• New York v. Trump if we are officially voting on this, then yeah I side with this title. I didn't know if we were seriously considering the title now or just making conjectures for the future. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  • This is an official Wikipedia:Requested move, so it's not a conjecture any more. starship.paint (exalt) 07:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• New York v. Trump per others. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 11:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Move only when the trial is scheduled and more specific title per Dash77. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• New York v. Trump per others. Once the trial is scheduled.--Estar8806 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with the general New York v. Trump name, since we have the case number and title now, but I think since there's the 2017 DACA case New York v. Trump (DACA), we should add a WP:QUALIFIER, like New York v. Trump (2023) or New York v. Trump (Stormy Daniels). Personally I prefer the dates, less subject to argument. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  edit: found Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#Cases. "Criminal trials that are notable for the people or crimes involved, not for the legal precedent they set, should be titled "Trial of (defendant)" or another commonly recognizable name." So actually the original request is the most correct name. I change my vote to Support. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mathnerd314159: - but in all likelihood, Trump will be on trial first in another case, which makes this proposed title confusing. WaPo When a New York grand jury indicted Donald Trump last week, he became the first former U.S. president to get charged with a crime. That case is not likely to go to trial anytime soon, but a civil trial in a New York lawsuit involving Trump is scheduled to begin in a few weeks. starship.paint (exalt) 18:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well that's a civil claim. The guideline I stated clearly only applies to criminal trials. I expect the title of the Carroll article will probably not even change if a case is brought to trial. Going back to the legal MOS, if you look at the paragraph above it says that the New York v. Trump style is mainly for cases that set a new precedent and hence are commonly cited that way in court briefs. I guess this case could potentially be legally interesting, as it is the first US President criminally charged, but my feeling is the judge will probably try to handle it as normally as possible so there will be little novel law, and the "Trial of" naming scheme is more appropriate. I guess if we needed to be really precise we could call it "2023 New York criminal trial of Donald Trump involving fraud charges for hush payments to Stormy Daniels", but of course that is too long and some parts should go. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  He may also go on trial in Georgia. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Not opposed to any names here, but I think it might be a bit confusing for some readers having a New York v. Trump, a Trump v. New York, and a New York v. Trump (DACA). Not a big deal since we already use Template:about at the top to clarify and I'm assuming we'll leave Indictment of Donald Trump as a redirect to this article, but I thought it might be a concern worth raising just in case anyone has other ideas. I would lean towards Trial of Donald Trump if it weren't premature; we don't know if it'll actually go to trial yet.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree; the proposed options so far have practically zero recognizability, and are just setting us up for another move request soon. DFlhb (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• New York v. Trump - much better title, and it's more NPOV, except that it obscures the nature of the dispute. Maybe "Trump fraud allegations in New York", but that's a bit wordy. Hires an editor (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment — Several have rightfully pointed out that more trials are sure to come. An alternative name, such as New York trial of Donald Trump or Stormy Daniels trial of Donald Trump, or perhaps even switching around the order of the words. As of now, there have been two impeachment trials with proper names. The first trial of Donald Trump is sure to become the common name. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Either New York v. Trump, or New York v. Trump (criminal case) if disambiguation is needed. This is probably time for a WP:SNOWBALL close. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose — Trump has already had two trials (his impeachment trials) and currently Trial of Donald Trump redirects to Impeachment of Donald Trump, which in turn lists his two impeachment trials. Having Trial of Donald Trump suddenly refer specifically to this case, and only this case, would only create confusion IMHO. Instead I recommend that we wait until Tuesday and see what the actual charges are, and then adopt some more specific name consistent with what learn on Tuesday. As others have said, at that point possibilities such as Stormy Daniels trial of Donald Trump or maybe Hush Money trial of Donald Trump will emerge. But just plain Trial of Donald Trump is way too generic for someone who attracts legal controversy, both civil and criminal, as frequently as Trump does. Dash77 (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• New York v. Trump. Let's give it the more specific and neutral name. Songwaters (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Premature, as others have mentioned. There might be two defamation trials based on E. Jean Carroll's accusations; one of them, for battery and defamation, is scheduled top begin April 25. If Trump is indicted in one or more federal cases and one or more cases each in New York and Georgia, there could be several more trials, or he could agree to plea deals. Naming examples at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#Cases are "Trial of Saddam Hussein, O. J. Simpson murder case and Trial of Susan B. Anthony", so how about "Donald Trump [obstruction] trial", "Donald Trump battery and defamation trial", i.e., "Donald Trump [xyz] trial"? (What are the chances that WP editors will agree on and stick to a plan? ) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Important also to understand that even after the arraignment expected on 4 April 2023 a trial will remain a very unlikely outcome. Although the article claims that if Trump pleads "not guilty" the case will go to trial, in a typical criminal case this would be an unlikely outcome. For example, of the 18,478 felony cases disposed of in New York state in 2020, just 405 (about 2.2%) went to trial. A plea bargain following an initial not guilty plea--rather than a trial--is, by far, the most common outcome. Dash77 (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Given this I would opt for "Donald Trump [something] case" rather than "Donald Trump [something] trial". We know there is a case, and we know that (barring the prosecution unexpectedly dropping the charges by tomorrow) the case will proceed beyond the indictment. So some renaming will be appropriate. But it will be a long time before we know if there will be a trial, so even after tomorrow I'll be against using "trial" in the name. Dash77 (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Trump has stated that he will fight the charges; a trial is not unlikely. There's also a citation: IND-71543-23. Whether Trump will take a guilty plea is unknown, but I would imagine that it's a symbolic move for him to fight it, even if only 12% of Manhattan actually voted for him. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  HEHE, him. The indictment (No. 71543-23) has been unsealed. 2A00:1370:8184:1CE9:74AE:1363:743A:EF4A (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• New York v. Trump (2023) or New York v. Trump (criminal case) and keep the disambituation page as it's needed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• I have improved New York v. Trump (disambiguation). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• There will be no trial if Trump pleads guilty. Doubtful he will, but we still can't know. The actual case name is The People of the State of New York v. Donald J Trump.[4] soibangla (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose we dont predict the future. This move is also malformed with other proposals inline. Drop it for now and be patient Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support move to New York v. Trump to avoid confusion with Trump's previous two impeachment trials. Trial of Donald Trump should become a disambiguation page linking to the two impeachment trials and this trial. XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 15:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment — Trump has now pleaded not guilty. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose a name that represents the case such as THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs DONALD J. TRUMP, or something shorter to the same effect, would be better. Whilst I expect this to go to trial, this is not almost certain, a plea deal could still be taken or the case withdrawn. There have already been notable legal trials involving him. There are also other cases brought against him at similar stages, e.g. on the storming of the US capital, the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago and 2020 election investigation, so this name would be likely to change, even if used as under some COMMONNAME argument. Banak (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we have a bullet-pointed "timeline" section?

• April 3: Trump flies to New York from Florida.

Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 18:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No, per WP:PROSELINE, information in articles like this is best conveyed by prose. Timelines can be appropriate in places where we're highlighting key events in a compressed way, such as the article titled Timeline of chemistry, but we can sufficiently convey all of the necessary information in normal narrative prose. --Jayron32 18:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)