Jump to content

Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was No consensus. There's no consensus for merging Conviction of Donald Trump to Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. There are also suggestions to merge it to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, or to leave it as a separate article. Brian Kendig (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I propose merging Conviction of Donald Trump into Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York (this page). No reason to have a separate page on his conviction, especially as it is just filled with "reactions". Natg 19 (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - This is A Historic Conviction, The first President to ever have been Convicted in U.S History, it is very important. InterDoesWiki (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Neither this article (Prosecution of Trump), nor the Conviction of Trump article, lays out and explains exactly what all of the 34 counts and charges even are. This is kind of important, since he was unanimously found guilty on every single one of those charges.
The Conviction of Trump article might be a good place to include such details, just a thought. 133.32.217.18 (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Weak oppose - As of right now, I think it’d be better if instead it was merged with Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York since it’s almost entirely just said reactions, and then maybe expand on or make a separate verdict section on this page. Booyahhayoob (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Right, this duplicates Reactions_to_the_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Political and doesn't need to be separate. Reywas92Talk 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, if the page can be expanded with more than just a background section. Otherwise, merge with Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York as per Booyahhayoob's suggestion. Ships & Space(Edits) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm okay with that merger also. Just feel that the current Conviction page is not useful as a set of reactions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Done. -- Beland (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
For future reference, do not decide to close a merger proposal in this way. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh come on, how about you not create articles this way, maybe propose a split first? Reywas92Talk 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
That was a merge, not a split. -- Beland (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Weak support / Wait. No question absolutely, unprecedented historic event. The question is why this requires a separate page, considering it can and should be covered here. And there is also Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 00:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(weak) Oppose Support – it's best to wait for now, it's a historic and first-of-its-kind event afterall for a former POTUS to be a convict. Josethewikier (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Support. Yes, this conviction is indeed historic. That's why we can expend the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York article instead of creating a separated article. Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, let's not fall into recentism. Cosmiaou (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The referenced essay, while interesting, has nothing to do with your argument. You acknowledge that the conviction is indeed historic, so this isn't an example of something not-notable as it were. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose merging to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York as the conviction is the penultimate step in the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, all that remains is sentencing. I would support redirecting to a relevant section in the article about the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York where the guilty conviction decision by the jury is discussed, at the end of the Trial section, but not to the section about the whole Trial, because "Conviction" is a specific step in the judicial process. Reactions to the conviction could be split into a separate sub-article if these became unwieldy, because the conviction itself may be a notable event receiving world-wide news coverage, commentary and analysis. At least having a redirect that points to the right section in the right article would help. However, a "reactions" article is not the right target for the redirect, although it might be for the content. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Support - the conviction is very historic, but so is the prosecution. Having an article for both is inevitably going to produce a WP:CONTENTFORK. In the event that he is convicted in any of his other legal proceedings, a broad-scope article covering all of them could be a solid idea, but for now this just feels redundant. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Support, we could be facing a POV problem if we have multiple articles about this convection. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the existence of multiple articles on related topics as a POV problem per se – this is a matter of high historical significance and various ramifications, which may not be possible to cover adequately in one article. Note that Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a limited length. (That doesn't mean I don't support the merge – I don't have an opinion about that one way or the other at this time – it just means I don't see it as a POV issue.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support because of exactly what other other editors are saying about WP:NPOV. The more that you split the page into many pages the more that you end up with wildly different POVs let alone arrangements of facts even if that isn't the intention of the split. Wikipedia readers are given the best experience when they can read about the entirety of the topic with the full spectrum of viewpoints instead of only getting one part of the story that they have to click around for and at the risk that those narrow slices of the story only give them a fragment of the truth Jorahm (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree - I think it would be better to condense articles referring to Donald Trumps legal issues under a single page rather than multiple one's. This could result in other point of views and individual biases of the author. Boorishbrute781 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Suppport, preferably speedy. Is the reader going to want to read about the conviction without actually getting the background which the prosecution gives? I think we better serve our audience by treating the topics in one article. /Julle (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The conviction of a former president and a current candidate for US President is a rare thing and notable in and of itself. The number of independent sources that discuss it are too many to name. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a whole article's worth of things to say about the conviction; it's covered in six short paragraphs in this article. Do you find the coverage massively incomplete, and if so what's missing? -- Beland (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
JLCop (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support We have plenty of other articles where the trial and the conviction are covered in the same article, most in fact. This would be an oddity for us to need a separate article to say he was convicted. There is no good justification for the current content fork and the fork article looks laughably sparse. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Although the article is a glorified stub in need of much improvement, as noted the conviction is historic and deserves to be an article in it's own right. Specifically because it's about the conviction, not the trial itself. WP:TOOSOON otherwise doesn't apply here, as the conviction is clearly WP:GNG and this isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL scenario. Also based on WP:ARTICLESIZE, specifically WP:SIZERULE, which is currently over 12,000 words, the article should be further split not have content merged into it. Especially given the scope of this article, which is about a trial, as opposed to the conviction and ensuing results/reactions. Otherwise I would agree to merge the content for now for it to be expanded upon prior to split later, if the article wasn't already above a desirable size. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Support, the parts of the article that directly pertain to this article have no reason to stand on their own. As for that "Reactions" section, that ought to be part of Reactions to the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York.
Also, and others have pointed this out before, but WP:SIZERULE is outdated. Most computers now have the bandwidth to load articles far longer than 12,000 words. Slamforeman (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Since when was SIZERULE outdated? Per WP:SIZE, it's not just about technical issues: "Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc." CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. It’s not an issue of computer bandwidth, it’s human bandwidth: what are the limits of human attention span and readability? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I sympathise with this argument but I still think it's fundamentally flawed. People can choose to read what they want of articles, and for efficiency's sake, it’s far better to have everything important in one place than to split it into multiple stubs or to omit it entirely. Slamforeman (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
According to WP:CANYOUREADTHIS: "A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers". Meaning at over 12,000, you'll lose most readers due to the length of the article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if the length of the article discourages people from reading it, that’s not « efficient ». Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Support because this is associated with one case, that being the NY case. Will he be convicted in the three other cases? Probably, but only time will tell. I also think having two separate articles--one relating to the conviction and the other relating to the prosecution pre-conviction--is inconvenient. You would think that the conviction piece would be included as part of the prosecution article. Unknown0124 (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Support Everything should be in one place unless size becomes an issue. That does not appear to be the case here, so all the information should be in this one article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Weak support: I don't think it is as notable as it's own article, though that may change in the coming weeks so perhaps it's better to wait and see what comes of it. TheBritinator (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, as there is still pending litigation, and there could be more convictions. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2024 (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.

Jury verdict facebook posting by "Marc Anderson"

The addition of a sourced reference to the facebook posting by a user "Marc Anderson" about the verdict was removed per WP:UNDUE. There are multiple WP:RS saying there will be a hearing and Trump has acknowledged the posting with a "Mistrial" post. GobsPint (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It's UNDUE unless it's proven that the "professional shitposter" wasn't shitposting. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not WP:UNDUE to mention its existence given the response. A single sentence + annotation doesn't seem UNDUE. There is a lot of digital quackery surrounding the case from fake twitter handles to photo combination mishaps.GobsPint (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It is UNDUE to mention at all as it is likely just a shitposter shitposting. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
There's no reason to include it unless it winds up being actually important to the trial. Right now it's just trivia, and including it here gives it way too much credibility. We don't have to rush and include every little thing that happens in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I find this article to be of low quality

I was disappointed to read this article, as I find it to be of low quality. 2001:4C4E:1E99:6D00:4DB4:7073:29A2:5D64 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Then work to make it better. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Providing feedback that's more specific might help. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Travel ban in 38 countries

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-travel-ban-1906686 Victor Grigas (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, pretty much the whole of the European Union is open to him, as well as Russia and satellites. Some of what he called "shithole countries" that banned him, he wouldn't care about.
I'd like to see more sources pick this up before we add it to the article. The consequence of having travel restrictions is already known for felons. We don't really have to explain that, like we don't need to explain other obvious facts, such as 2+2=4 or the sky is blue. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I too would like to see more sources, but this could be notable to call out as if Trump is elected again, this would affect the ability of him to conduct presidential business(like being unable to enter Canada to meet with Trudeau/whoever). It could certainly be that there won't be sources until that happens. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Also see WP:NEWSWEEK: "Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable" (especially when it comes to topics relating to politics). Heads of state are certainly eligible for diplomatic passports and would have diplomatic immunity in foreign settings, which may (or may not) enable a special permission for entry. Some countries would probably also be willing to change their law if the hypothetical situation arises of a felonious POTUS wanting to visit. In theory, he might be imprisoned in the United States during his presidency anyway, or at least under a court-ordered foreign travel restriction, which would make him unable to travel even if the other country would allow him to enter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Trump is currently not Head of State, nor is he, currently, in any form of government office. This might change soon, of course. 181.170.168.236 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I listen to NPR like 4 hours a day, and I hadn't heard that pointed out nor had it occurred to me. It's far from 2+2=4 obvious. They did mention that he might have trouble voting for himself unless he had completed his sentence. -- Beland (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I didn’t know trump was banned from certain countries for calling them “s***holes”.
(I apologize for my censorship; I don’t like writing cuss words on talk pages). West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. He was banned for being a convicted felon. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Even with other sources, it is conjectural unless/until he is denied entry to a country. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:D32A:A415:DE3A:471E (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
There are probably also some other hypotheticals that present interesting questions. For example, perhaps we could have a Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces who is not allowed to use or possess a firearm. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
It certainly makes his claim that nothing would happen to him if he shot someone more dubious too. Nevertheless, I don't think any of these conjectures would have coverage worthy of including in the article unless they are put to test, and then you can be sure it would be covered heavily. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I wonder whether the nuclear football is considered a firearm. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the nuclear football isn't in Trump's possession and according to my understanding of EU laws, is decidedly not only not a firearm, but a diplomatic parcel.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, as a Clintonian distinction, the nuclear football isn't in Trump's possession, but if he becomes president in the future, it seems that it would be placed in his possession when he assumes that position. Under the legal definition of possession, that is. Possession is the effective control of a thing; he wouldn't need to be physically carrying it himself to be considered as having it in his possession. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The newsweek list includes the United States. Would that mean he would be able to exit the USA to any country, but not come back??? Uwappa (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
No. The list is about entry by non-citizens. As far as I know, citizens have the right to enter the country of their citizenship regardless of their criminal status (at least in the case of the United States). They can be arrested as they enter (and perhaps then extradited if some other jurisdiction wants to prosecute them), but they can't be denied entry (or deported) as far as I know. That is why Newsweek changed the headline of their article to refer to 37 countries instead of 38, which is described poorly in their footnote that says "Update, 5/31/24, 9:45 a.m. ET: The headline on this article was updated to reflect the fact that one country with a potential travel ban is the United States." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Would the travel ban apply if mr. Trump would travel on a diplomatic passport issued to him as head of state? Uwappa (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

According to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/31/travel-trouble-gun-restrictions-and-no-more-mr-trump-the-trials-of-life-as-a-convicted-felon, GW Bush had to get a waiver to travel to Canada. The Guardian mentions "many countries" without any furhter specification. --76.14.122.5 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Factual distinction, he's not POTUS or close to it, he's a candidate, so wouldn't have the football. It's as if we're talking about Clinton, since you want to bring that up, absent Lewinsky. Or are we going to talk next about POTUS launching photon torpedoes here?Wzrd1 (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You may not have noticed that the discussion of the nuclear football was indented as part of a chain of discussion clearly identified as being about "hypotheticals that present interesting questions", including Trump's potential future as a Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. As far as I know, he is still one of the two candidates most likely to be elected as POTUS in five months – a future nearer to us than hypothetical photon torpedoes. This whole section is about hypotheticals, since as far as I know he has also not yet expressed an interest in traveling to any of those other countries since his conviction. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York/Archive_3&oldid=1245072864"