Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023

In the lead, please change "falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, but could become a felony" to "falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, but can become a felony", for consistency of tense between the two parts of the sentence. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:7D77:923D:1C18:9AD8 (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Heavy Water (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Go easy...

... on the refs. one good ref is needed not multiple refs per sentence. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the trial section, please add that Trump's attorneys tried to grant Trump a virtual hearing for his next court date, citing security concern, but the judge denied this request. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/05/trump-trial-timeline-00090688 2600:100C:A21A:B5A1:D75:5541:67D2:DC48 (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Partly because (as indicated in edit summary) the request was not formatted correctly, so I took some liberty. Feel free to change / request a more specific version! I based this off of the source, if there are more sources later we can probably lean on them for a better version, but this bit did seem relevant. ASUKITE 04:17, 6 April 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)

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)

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)

Go easy...

... on the refs. one good ref is needed not multiple refs per sentence. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 121.98.204.148 (talk) 06:09, 8 April 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)

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)

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)

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)

New picture for infobox?

Does anyone have a picture of Trump in walking into court/in court that would be free for Wikipedia to use? Northofparadise (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I unfortunately was riding the subway while Trump arrived. It would have been so cool to snap a photo, even if brief. When I have time I'll upload a dump tonight to commons. SWinxy (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't there in time for Trump's arrival, so all I have are guards outside of the courthouse soon after he left (which I've made the new infobox image). Would have loved to snag one! D: (More images have also been added. Discuss here which ones to keep and which to toss.) SWinxy (talk) 06:10, 5 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)

My greater concern is that the AI image is being cast in the same category as the antisemitic "deep state" conspiracy theories of the QAnon crowd, when there's no evidence that it was meant to be anything other than artistic expression, like a political cartoon. This feels like an attempt at false balance between QAnon and a reputable journalistic outlet that has criticised and exposed them in the past, and an attempt to obfuscate the indisputable fact that misinformation and conspiracy theories related to Trump are coming exclusively from one camp. 46.97.170.168 (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a big "feels like". The two aren't equated at all, and we go to great lengths to explain how Higgins had zero intent to misinform; but that it was just a side-effect of how widely the images were reposted without his "it's AI" disclosure. DFlhb (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"...and we go to great lengths to explain how Higgins had zero intent to misinform"

Then why is the information included under "Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories"? 46.97.170.168 (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

See the rest of my sentence. Intent is lost when the images become disconnected from the original poster. DFlhb (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If QAnon users used the images in bad faith to help perpetuate their conspiracy theories, than that is how the incident needs to be framed, as a side-note to the other stuff they're already doing. Otherwise, there's no reason to mention it. The current wording is ambiguous, and doesn't clarify that the misinformation is coming entirely from one side. 46.97.170.168 (talk) 09:15, 6 April 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)

A hovering cursor suffices. kencf0618 (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Commentary and responses

In the "Commentary and responses" section (especially in the "Republicans" subsection), would there be a benefit of clarifying which statements were made before the specific charges were made public vs. which were made after? GoingBatty (talk) 20:08, 6 April 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)

The first? The New York Times begs to differ.Maarten1963 (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Grant wasn't indicted, his was a misdemeanor (if that). – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Just drop both and say "U.S. president", there are only two kinds. Ackchewally there are three kinds: current, former, and future. Has anybody been indicted and then later become president? (George W. Bush was arrested on a DUI in 1976. I know he was not indicted, but since many discussions of Trump mention Grant's arrest only to rule it out, have any mentioned Bush's in the same way?) If any of the sources that assert "first U.S. president to ever be indicted" have explicitly taken account of that possibility then we should quote them. Otherwise the assertion is vague. jnestorius^(talk) 21:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Short case name

@Antony-22 @Neutrality @Rando321: What's the conventional short name for this case? New York v. Trump, People v. Trump, or State of New York v. Trump? Is the convention for these case names documented more generally in any other article? Minh Nguyễn ^💬 00:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The convention would be People v. Trump. Neutrality^talk 00:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, do you know where I could find out more about that convention? I'm familiar with it from some other high-profile criminal cases, but it would be nice to have something less anecdotal to point to. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 01:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I changed it back to People v. Trump, adding a citation to a news article that used this short form in passing, but feel free to add something more solid. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 02:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Neutrality had pointed me to the New York Official Reports Decisions style manual, which convinced me to change my !vote. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Antony-22: Thanks, I hadn't noticed that the vote above was considering this question as well. I added this information to Plaintiff#In case names for future reference. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 04:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move to Trial of Donald Trump at the present time. Regarding other titles, no consensus, but feel free to propose a different title. New York v. Trump and People v. Trump both saw some significant support, as did the current title. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 07:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

---

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)

Wait, but please note that the indictment seems to be "The people of the state of New York against Donald J. Trump". That might be a bit long for a title though Tantomile (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Move to People v. Trump, per above explanation of official case name. HeyTomek (talk) 17:07, 5 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)
• More specific title per Dash77. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:34, 5 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)
  • People v. Trump — Per User:Neutrality's comments below and the New York Official Reports Decisions style manual, this is the proper short form for a criminal case in New York. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:23, 7 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)
• Move to People v. Trump or something similar. This appears to be the first case titled like this--New York v. Trump already refers to a DACA case but there is precedent for titling a Wikipedia article as "People v. Trump" e.g. People v. Turner. Dash77 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, People v. Trump is correct and is already used to reference the court case. Either way we should use a court case title rather than a vague reference to an indictment. Flameoguy (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Way too premature, as it assumes that there will be a trial. Dismissal, plea bargain, even dropping of charges may occur. 47.137.179.4 (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Or settlement out of court. Tvx1 21:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Move to People v. Trump - that’s the official title of the case (in full, People of the State of New York v. Trump). Note that NY v. Trump is incorrect - that nomenclature is used for civil cases (and there already is one under that title, unrelated to the criminal case). Neutrality^talk 01:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Neutrality: Do you have a source for the use of People v. ... as the proper citation for New York criminal cases? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  It can be seen in the indictment and the statement of facts. All criminal cases in New York are captioned as People v. [Defendant]. This is a requirement of the state’s criminal procedure law, section 120. Neutrality^talk 04:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Neutrality: I checked all three sources and they all use the long form "The people of the State of New York v. ..." and none specifies whether the short form should be "People v. ..." or "New York v. ..." Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Antony-22:: People v. [Defendant] is what is used as a short-form citation. See the the New York Official Reports Decisions style manual. Or other articles we have on New York criminal cases, like People v. Goetz or People v. LaValle. There is even a Columbia Law Review critiquing "the customary case caption in criminal court, 'The People v. Defendant.'" This is a longstanding thing. Neutrality^talk 00:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks; I will change my !vote. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand why we should favor the abbreviation. The non-NY-specific way to abbreviate is "People of New York v. Trump", not "People v. Trump". It's natural for NY official style guides to recommend abbreviation, because they're all "of New York", but I don't think it makes sense here. DFlhb (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't purely a New York phenomenon, as indicated by the Columbia Law Review article and demonstrated by popular culture references such as The People v. O. J. Simpson. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 04:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Current title will do for now. I'm willing to reconsider as we proceed, but feel this is the best name for Wikipedia readers to find the article, at present. Jusdafax (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support – It matches article titles such as Trial of Socrates, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, and Trial of Saddam Hussein. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 06:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Wait for hearing to be scheduled, and then move to New York v. Trump per numerous others above. This is likely only the first of many. — The Anome (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose People v. Trump (or the long form name) will be the best title in the event of a trial. This is not the first noteworthy proceeding that could be called a 'Trial of Donald Trump' (impeachment proceedings for example), and it may not be the last. This is a very common format for articles about high-profile criminal trials in jurisdictions that caption cases this way. Maltice (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support: New York v. Trump. There are also many other cases against him. Heavy Water (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  that does make more sense 73.216.91.108 (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now; I think we've got the problem that we've got several possible okay and acceptable titles; the proposed changes to the title are perhaps as good as the current one, but none is particularly better. The current title is not perfect, but neither are any of the alternatives, nor is the current title particularly confusing. Some time in the future, a clearly better title may make itself known. In the mean time, this works fine. I would have made the same argument had this been under the name of any of the other proposed titles in this discussion; moving between any of them seems like a pointless exercise at this time.--Jayron32 17:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because a trial would be very far out into the future. We only have an indictment and arraignment at this stage. Additionally, I oppose titling as New York v. Trump or any similar name, following the guidance in MOS: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." Edge3 (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The indictment and arraignment as an event was a big thing, and I think it deserves its own article. The trial itself will have a greater importance, and deserves it's own article. It's premature to rename this, and what if no court case happens? (n.b. I created the article and have added a lot, fwiw in my oppose.) SWinxy (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• People v. Trump, although "New York v. Trump" would be clearer, "People v." is the way criminal cases are referred to in New York, and there hasn't even been a trial yet (although it is highly likely, and may in fact deserve its own article later on). Esszet (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal. People v. Trump will always be right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The most analogous article I can think of is Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations. It might be reasonable to do something analogous. But the charges in the Trump case are not so easily characterized, as they relate to a combination of things, not just to one thing. But at this point, the WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "Trump indictment" or something similar, so "Indictment of Donald Trump" is a pretty good fit. I don't think we should actually use the name "Trump Indictment" as it's not sufficiently sufficient. A different WP:COMMONNAME may emerge, at which time we could consider using it. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• New York v. Trump, but article should start off with the full name, People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. Most succinct option, while also being specific and leaving open the possibility of other indictments/trials. Also, wasn't the impeachment technically a trial? –DMartin 04:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose at the moment. Things may differ in future. I also oppose proposals like 'People v. Trump'. Too soon for these, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why? People v. Trump is a real pending court case. It's not speculation. Flameoguy (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all changes. The current one is fine for the moment, and describes what has happened in terminology also used by the media. "New York v. Trump" has the problems noted above, that it is not the actual name of the case anyway, and furthermore that's not the WP:COMMONNAME being used in sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all proposed options, the current title seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME judging by secondary coverage. DFlhb (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• People v. Donald Trump per news sources [5][6][7]. --2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:71AD:3F1C:DEF5:3D6A (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Support People v. Trump per 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:71AD:3F1C:DEF5:3D6A (that's a mouthful, lol). DecafPotato (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose trial of Trump, and support People of New York v. Donald Trump as actual name of case, although the full 'of the state' and 'J.' I don't think are needed and RS don't use the full name. Yeoutie (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Trial of Trump isn’t a good title per discussion above. The person who loves reading (alt) (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• New York V. Trump. Is the best option. It differentiates it from the indictments and also saves us from having to change the title of the article as future trials happen.9yz (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, too premature. There may never be a trial. Until there is, let's keep the title factual. Truthanado (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose While it's normal to assume that there will be a trial following indictment, this is a historically unprecedented event. I would support the move to New York v. Trump, given that there are potential indictments in Georgia and by Jack Smith. If there is another indictment, much as there were two impeachments, we would need another title. "Trial" would not fix this problem either, so I would support keeping it what it is or changing it to "New York v. Trump". PickleG13 (talk) 21:00, 8 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.

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)

Why did this move back up to the top of the list, leapfrogging two more recent articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:8100:1C:C56C:EE18:F429:F5E9 (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That question should be addressed to WP:ITNC or WP:ERRORS. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of expert commentary

this diff (by AlexEng) removed commentary by two former DA staffers (one high-ranking) as relying on speculation, even though it didn't, and the underlying facts have now been confirmed. The AP published very similar criticism today, so I think the passage should be reinstated. DFlhb (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed original research. At the time of that edit, the FT article did not claim that a combination of state and federal law was used to arrive at a felony designation. It stated: In this case, that crime could be a campaign finance violation because the pay-off would have aided Trump’s White House bid. and The wrinkle, though, is that the possible campaign finance violation would be a matter of federal law. [emphasis added]. That's a pretty far cry from meeting the standard for saying in Wikipedia's voice that a combination of state and federal law was used to arrive at the felony designation. The statement was based on original research, and so I removed it. I stand by that decision. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

At the time, I read that as presuming Trump innocent until proven guilty, rather than raising doubts about how Bragg arrived at the felony designation (your edit summary said he charges have yet to be unsealed or even leaked, but they were clearly known to FT since they said they talked to "several people briefed on the matter").

It's true that Bragg has since said at the press conference that Trump wanted to hide attempts to violate state and federal election laws, so it may not just be federal crimes, but still, every recent secondary source says federal crimes are part of the case[8][9][10] (including a DA who worked on this case until 2022 and resigned in protest when it was almost dropped), so the federal aspect is worth including. DFlhb (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

FT was clearly discussing the nature of the secondary crime that would be used to elevate the charges from misdemeanors or felonies when they wrote "that crime could be a campaign finance violation". It's a tricky distinction, because that alleged crime is not part of the indictment itself, and it doesn't need to be. New York law states: A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. [emphasis added]. The crime that Trump allegedly intended to commit or aid or conceal is not part of the indictment; FT was discussing the possibility that that secondary crime was a federal crime in that section of the article. That, again, was not reflected in the text that I removed. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I had misread your reply, and for that I apologize, since you're correct. Would you object to the paragraph being reinstated, if the allegation of federal crimes was properly framed as a possibility? DFlhb (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic content

This court case is not about "Payment to a Trump Tower doorman" and "Other investigations". They are off-topic in the Background section. Isn't the latter supposed to be included in a "See also" section as internal links? Matt Smith (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The case mentions Sajudin's story as part of Bragg's statement of facts. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Matt Smith. I agree with you that the material in "Other investigations" should either be rewritten to make it relevant to this article or else moved to Legal affairs of Donald Trump. I wrote most or all of that material, and it's fine with me if it's changed or moved.

This article is currently titled "Indictment of Donald Trump", so I guess I was trying to disambiguate: "Not that indictment you may have been expecting. This indictment." Anyway, this article is likely to be renamed very soon with the name of the court case (per active discussion on this Talk page), which will help to clarify what it is and isn't about. Then the "Other investigations" section will become a bit less necessary.

I believe the ideal solution would be a paragraph briefly listing "all the major post-presidential investigations and charges" that can live in the lede of Legal affairs of Donald Trump and be transcluded into articles like this one. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Because the phrasing of Trump "is being investigated" conveys present tense, perhaps the said content can be moved into a new section in this article such as "See also" or something more suitable. And after this court case is concluded, the said content can then be moved to the Legal affairs of Donald Trump article. Would that be ideal to you? Matt Smith (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Matt Smith, Yes, I think we have roughly the same idea.

You can rename the "Other investigations" section here if you have a better idea of what to call it, or you can move the text to "See also."

Ultimately I think the more streamlined approach would be to manage the text in a single place on "Legal affairs of Donald Trump," then transclude that paragraph so readers see it here too, as if seeing it through a window. Then the information only has to be kept updated in one place. Today I opened a Talk topic on that article (Talk:Legal affairs of Donald Trump#Significant updates to lede) noting that the lede appears seven years old. If we update the lede there, we can transclude its information here. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I moved it out of the "Background" section and placed it above the "See also" section because I'm not sure if a "See also" section can contain plain text. I'm fine with the more streamlined approach. Matt Smith (talk) 02:12, 11 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)

He did not attack anyone. 2600:100F:B118:2148:0:6:9F2A:3A01 (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Early closure as the move proposer has withdrawn support and now wishes to discuss other naming options. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Indictment of Donald Trump → People v. Trump – As stated above, People v. Trump is the only correct way to refer to this case; New York v. is used for civil cases, and the indictment is only one part of the case. As for other jurisdictions, Georgia appears to use State v., and the federal government appears to use United States v. When necessary, we can use People v. Trump (New York) and State v. Trump (Georgia); United States v. Trump is self-explanatory. Esszet (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Esszet (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC) See below.
• Support. Covers all aspects (indictment, arraignment, possible trial). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Slight support — I'm worried about the descriptiveness of such a title, but "Trial of Donald Trump" could become a disambiguation page, resolving that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It’s important to have a distinct case name that covers all aspects of the case — not just the grand jury proceedings or indictment but also the arraignment, pretrial motions, and whatever happens next (any dismissal or plea negotiations or jury selection/trial). This fits the bill. In addition to being the formal title of the case, it's also used in the press: e.g., Politico: "What happens next in People v. Donald Trump" --Neutrality^talk 17:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Neutrality. DecafPotato (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support - It's the perfect title. I fully reincorporate the arguments I made for this title earlier above on this page. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Slight support per ElijahPepe and I feel like "Indictment of Donald Trump" is a more popular name but People v. Trump isn't totally foreign and is the more proper term. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Slight support per above, but it'd be nice to have a name that better describes which trial this is. 9yz (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:LEGAL#Cases. Articles on cases that are primarily notable for the legal precedent they set, or are primarily discussed within legal scholarship, should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case... 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. Edge3 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Edge3. This trial is mostly of tremendous interest due to its potential repercussions on the person, rather than its future implications on similar cases. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose that’s not how we refer to court cases just because people don’t like the guy. Eg224 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  That is incorrect. We routinely use case names to refer to cases: People v. Goetz, People v. Croswell, People v. Dlugash (just to name a few). Neutrality^talk 00:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Those are notable as precedents though, which MOS:LEGAL treats differently. DFlhb (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  We routinely use case names for cases that are more notable for the parties involved than for the legal principles—Depp v. Heard is an example. And I think it is pretty difficult to contend that a case against an ex-president is not a notable precedent, no matter what the outcome is. Neutrality^talk 04:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Neutrality Leaving aside the fact some minor legal principles were raised, that was a civil case (were both parties weren't involved in other major litigation and were referred to in the case name by internationally recognised names). One of the reasons others have raised a WP:RECOGNIZE issue with this is it's very rare to colloquially refer to criminal cases using "v." notation anywhere in the world. This is compounded by the fact that "People v." isn't necessarily familiar to people from other countries (or even other U.S. states) who use a different nomenclature for the state in prosecutions. These together create undue WP:SURPRISE as many could, on first glance, conflate this with one of the many civil cases against Trump. Llew Mawr (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Many existing articles use case names in the criminal context (same examples as above People v. Goetz, People v. Croswell, People v. Dlugash). I don't see any evidence for the notion that the current title is less "surprising" or more "recognizable" than the proposed one. There are many countries that do not use "indictments" in their criminal procedure, and "v." or "versus" is used in many countries from Ireland to Singapore. And even if a reader is unfamiliar, "v." will become readily apparent to him or her within seconds of landing upon the page. Meanwhile, there are zero other articles that begin with Indictment of ... as far as I know. Neutrality^talk 19:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the New York Official Reports Decisions style manual. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  For those citing MOS:LEGAL#Cases, keep in mind that the current title is inaccurate as it already covers not only the indictment but the arraignment and pre-trial proceedings. If this proposal fails, as a second choice I'd choose Criminal Prosecution of Donald Trump or something substantively similar, and to append "in New York" if another indictment occurs elsewhere. This has the benefit of avoiding having to describe the subject in the title; phrases like "hush money case" or "Stormy Daniels case" have been proposed, but these are peripheral aspects and it is really a "falsifying business records case" because that's the actual charge. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I like that suggestion. I would support "Criminal prosecution of Donald Trump". Edge3 (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Antony-22 I set up the Prosecution of Donald Trump redirect and that is also my preferred suggestion (due to being most widely understood esp. internationally and used in WP:RS). Since no one is seriously suggesting it, I will be weak supporting the current proposal (as far better than the last one and possibly marginally more well understood than the current title which is now outdated anyway). Llew Mawr (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Prosecution of Donald Trump does seem better. There are several "Prosecution of..." articles, and I think including "criminal" is redundant. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I was not aware of MOS:LEGAL#Cases; that certainly changes the argument. Maybe Donald Trump hush money case or something similar? Esszet (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not the WP:COMMONNAME (despite rare exceptions in the press), goes against MOS:LEGAL#Cases, and fails three of the five article naming criteria (recognizability, naturalness, consistency with other articles that follow MOS:LEGAL). Also not seeing any policy rationales in favour. The New York Courts style guide is irrelevant to us; we don't even put O.J.'s trial at People v. Simpson (it's a redirect), despite matching California's style guide and being a much stronger candidate for WP:COMMONNAME. I expect this article will eventually be moved to Hush money indictment of Donald Trump. We do need to move it soon, because the Georgia indictment is expected in the coming weeks. DFlhb (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support This feels like the right title, and the former president could still face future indictment. PickleG13 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:LEGAL#Cases precedent cited above. I think Trial of Donald Trump is therefore appropriate, along with an {about} tag to differentiate from impeachment trials. I do think that if Georgia brings charges in the future this move will have to be revisited again. Yeoutie (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because an article about just the indictment is sufficiently notable for a standalone article. If an article about the trial becomes necessary some time in the future, then it can be written as a standalone article also. There is no valid rationale given for cramming the two topics together under a single title, and no rationale given yet for even having an article about the trial. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Slight support- The change of it to "People v Trump" would be accurate to the case itself. Although I still do feel that "Indictment of Donald Trump" accurately explains the current situation of the case. AnonamousBeans (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support because a separate article on the trial would render this one superfluous. The only thing that might not get transferred over is some pundit commentary, but that's mostly unencyclopedic rubbish anyways. I think the title for the trial page could be the full name The People of New York v. Donald Trump. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Slight support but I think New York v. Trump would be better and in consistency with similar articles. Gaioa (T C L) 09:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per DFlhb and Edge3's policy-based reasoning above. — The Anome (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support MOS:LEGAL is a recommendation not a law.Giving the article a succinct name now avoids the problem of changing the article name again as more cases emerge as inadvertently pointed out by Yeoutie. Additionally a title like Trial Of Donald Trump(New York) is too verbose when People v. Trump is both the legal case name and perfectly sufficient to identify it. JSory (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral just pointing out that this move request is definitely in order and a good idea to be discussing. Red Slash 15:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral Per above. -- Hamid Hassani (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now for the same reason I opposed last week. Too much variance and too many moving parts to determine a better title than the one we've got. Also, as noted, this article still continues to be primarily about the indictment, with very little about said future trial. --Jayron32 18:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose "The people against ..." is misleading. What people? It's obvious that not all people are against him. Though that may be correct in American legal terminology, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, used by people around the world, with various native languages. To be totally correct, maybe the article should be titled New York State charges against Donald Trump (2023)? Truthanado (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  This doesn't make much logical sense, in my view. It's going to be pretty obvious to the ordinary reader that "People" (capitalized, and in italics, and in the case title People of the State of New York) is a term used in prosecution case titles. I mean, we have an article on Williams v The Queen (an Australian criminal case), and others like it ... but it seems incredibly unlikely that a reader would assume some personal involvement or animosity between Elizabeth II and the criminal defendant. Neutrality^talk 19:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  The name of the case is People (of the State of New York) v. Trump. DecafPotato (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most people would better know the event as the indictment as opposed to its legal title. GuardianH (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  But “the event” is not just the indictment. It’s also the investigation, arraignment, the pre-trial motions (which will be appealed), and ultimately jury selection and trial. All of that would be covered by the case-name title. Neutrality^talk 18:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support for consistency internally, rather than common/current names. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support because look up "people v." in wikipedia search. Its obvious. 37.201.199.203 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support Case name + unique and distinctive compared to case namings in other jurisdictions, so natural disambiguation. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Not all cases in Wikipedia are denoted as (party A) vs (party B). Consider Murder trial of O. J. Simpson, which has the official name of The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson. However, in the cases of Trump, this is the first of a couple cases against him, of which the latter have yet to be filed. For accuracy, the official court name should be used to distinguish one Trump case from another. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Mast303 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think we should drop the idea since nobody can reach a consensus. Eg224 (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dflhb. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The indictment and the court case should have two separate pages if anything, and a brief description of the indictment at the beginning of the page for the case. GraysonRV (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC) — GraysonRV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support This page is about the current case against him. If it absolutely needs to be an article, "Indictment of Donald Trump" should be about the indictment itself. BurgeoningContracting 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment How would the case name change if he appeals it? He can appeal the verdict that is unfavourbale, right? Then, would the appeal be a different article. I agree with the user above who brought up Murder trial of O. J. Simpson. It can be formatted in such a way, different trump trials have similar name. X trail of Trump, Y trial of Trump... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6995 (talk • contribs)

  • The case name would stay the same on appeal. Appeals and trial-court proceedings are typically handled within the same article. Neutrality^talk 02:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support as this is the case name and will help to distinguish this case from other legal cases. – Handoto (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom and responses from fellow Wikipedians. – Treetoes023 (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now as the situation might change swiftly. There might be a need for this title later when the case is finished, but not now. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - as others have said MOS:LEGAL#Cases states it should be kept as is, but with the fact that there is a good chance of more charges against Trump using the actual case name would be useful for disambiguation - as per KyuuA4's comment. Further more as per Neutrality, the proposed title has been used by media already. OneRandomBrit (talk) 20:52, 14 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.

Name

Since the first two attempts failed, this is a matter that clearly needs to be discussed more. My preference is now for Donald Trump hush money case, for several reasons: a) It covers all aspects of the case (and not just the indictment, which is only one part) b) It is in line with MOS:LEGAL#Cases; this is a case that will always be more notable for the people involved than the precedent that comes out of it, and on second thought, People v. will not be familiar to many people in New York, much less outside of it (I live in New York, by the way) c) It is sufficient to distinguish it from Trump's other impending cases (Donald Trump election interference case, Donald Trump Capitol riot case, etc.). The title will probably be changed to "Donald Trump hush money trial" once the trial begins, but for now, "Hush money case" is the best option. Esszet (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Technically the second request is still open. Someone will need to close it, so that we can discuss other options. Edge3 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Discuss away. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly prefer Prosecution of Donald Trump (or Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York if disambiguation is needed in the future). There are already several "Prosecution of..." articles so it's not novel. Having "hush money" in the title is problematic since he's not being prosecuted directly for the hush money, which I've read isn't even illegal by itself. The charges are all for falsifying business records, so something like Donald Trump business records case would be better. But we don't even have to have that discussion if we use the "prosecution of" title. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) I'm sure Trump himself would prefer "Persecution". ~Anachronist (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to have something about the case in the title, maybe Donald Trump record falsification case? Esszet (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Richard-of-Earth: Is there something I can put on the main page to say we're looking for comments? Esszet (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Esszet: You could try to file another move proposal first, similar to what you did last week. People will start commenting, once you begin the new discussion. I personally prefer Prosecution of Donald Trump. Edge3 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It would probably also end in no consensus at this point. Esszet (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Not workable without disambiguation; sources imply he'll be indicted in Georgia within weeks, which we should take into account. I favour:

• Hush money prosecution of Donald Trump (or "indictment", to be replaced with "trial" once that starts). The phrase "hush money" is used widely by the media.
• Election interference prosecution of Donald Trump for the future Georgia case (or "indictment", to be replaced with "trial" once it starts). "Election interference" is supported by the WaPo piece I link: launched her investigation into alleged election interference, and targets of the election interference investigation, and two-year investigation into alleged election interference.

IMO, this is what best complies with MOS:LEGAL#Cases. But we could also flip it like O. J. Simpson murder case, with Donald Trump hush money case

DFlhb (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if we can just start a new discussion that presents all of the proposed options. That way, we won't keep having multiple discussions, one after the other. Edge3 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Calling more editors to a discussion is usually only done to resolve disputes. (An WP:RFC for instance.) There are currently 133 people watching this page and any of them could comment and you also already have a bunch of comments above. All that said you could post on any of the talk pages for the WikiProjects mentioned above. Such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Or perhaps one of the general help boards Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Teahouse. However, I feel obligated to point out that no consensus for any particular name has formed. You might need to just wait until a name presents itself organically from media and social channels. You should also consider that drawing more editors into this issue draws them away from other issues on Wikipedia that may need their attention. Is it really worth it? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, I did not think this issue would be so contentious that it would draw people away from serious issues, and I was hoping to establish a consensus through discussion as opposed to a futile move request. I guess I'll just wait. Esszet (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Simplified proposal

To simplify things, I'd like to propose that we move the article to Prosecution of Donald Trump for now, on the basis that it's the same as the current title, but updating just one word to reflect a fairly obvious and uncontroversial change of scope. That way we don't have to worry about competing RMs, and User:Esszet or others can just make one RM for whatever they believe is their best proposal. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Antony-22: I think "Prosecution of Donald Trump" is a good option. Do you think it's uncontroversial, or should someone submit a move request? Either way, I support the move. Edge3 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's uncontroversial that it's better than "Indictment of Donald Trump", but I'll wait a few more days to see if there are any objections. This would make it fairly simple to afterwards have an RM for one of the topic-based proposals above, if anyone desires to do so. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, the admin declined the {{Db-move}} that's necessary for the move. Can we agree on this to avoid an extra RM, being that this has been proposed for two weeks now? @Esszet: Could we make this change and then have just one more RM for your preferred title, if you choose, to resolve everything? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The admin wants an RFC, I don't think me saying yes would do anything. Esszet (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Esszet: It's not uncommon to ask an admin to reconsider if there's a good reason. If this has been proposed for a month with no objections, and the proposer of the two previous RMs agrees, I think that's good reason to consider it an uncontroversial change. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Reading through the opposition to changing the name in the requested move above, I would say any change in the title would be controversial. There are a few who opposed the move, but thought some change would be good, but quite a few who thought it should stay as is.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

thinking ahead

When Trump is indicted again (probably tomorrow), what will this article be called? It would have to change right away. First indictment of Donald Trump? New York indictment of Donald Trump? The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump? Will Jack Smith's first indictment be Second indictment of Donald Trump? Or First federal indictment of Donald Trump? Are we eventually going to have two United States v. Donald J. Trump pages? Dinosaurtoaster (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Purely for my own curiosity do you have a source saying he will be indicted tomorrow? 331dot (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York is the best option for a quick move, since Indictment of Donald Trump and Prosecution of Donald Trump will immediately need to be disambiguation pages or redirects to them. "Indictment" has been an incorrect title for some time, as the article already covers post-indictment elements of the prosecution. Disambiguating by state is unambiguous, which is important because there's been no consensus in previous discussions about what topic-based title would be best (though a further discussion or RM could change that). Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

When Trump got impeached a second time, Impeachment of Donald Trump became a disambiguation page, and the original page was moved to First impeachment of Donald Trump. That would probably make sense here--make "Indictment of Donald Trump" a disambiguation page, and rename this to... maybe "Indictment of Donald Trump (New York State)"? -- — Narsil (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It really should use "prosecution" instead of "indictment". "Indictment" is an incorrect title given the current scope of the article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 00:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York → Donald Trump business record case – OK, this page was just moved 3 times in 5 minutes, we really need to get this worked out. My vote is now for this because: a) As I (as well as a lot of other people) have said before, the case is a lot more than just the indictment b) In addition to not being in line with MOS:LEGAL#Cases, People v. would not be familiar to many people in New York (I live in New York), much less outside of it c) "Prosecution of..." is rather bland, especially when his other cases are surely going to be titled "Donald Trump classified document case", "Election interference case", and "Storming of the Capitol case" or something similar, I'm also open to "Record falsification case", but that's relatively minor, the important thing is that we get this fixed as soon as possible. My proposed title is accurate, recognizable, and distinct; it will also be consistent with the titles of his other cases (once they become fully public). Esszet (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Esszet (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment "Prosecution of ..." titles seem fairly common, especially for prosecutions that don't have a trial associated with them. Can you give some examples of existing articles that use "... case"? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  I was only able to find three pages (not including these two) that use "Prosecution of..." to refer to specific cases (as opposed to Prosecution of Ottoman war criminals, for example): Prosecution of Marte Dalelv (not entirely clear if there was a trial), Prosecution of Daniel Duggan (no trial yet), and Prosecution of Rodricus Crawford (trial). It is not common, and although there probably aren't a lot of other articles that use "... case", this situation is unique: we're going to have one person with multiple pages for multiple different cases. Esszet (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for looking into that. Thinking about it more, this proposal is mainly saying that topic-based titles are more recognizable than state-based ones. So we'd have titles like Donald Trump business records falsification case, Donald Trump government document handling case, and perhaps one or two Donald Trump fake electors case articles. I'm not sure if they're really more recognizable to the average reader than Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, Prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia, and one or two Federal prosecution of Donald Trump articles. But I'm interested to see further discussion. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Here, I'll make another three moves in five minutes. SWinxy (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose see Antony-22's comment and 'business record case' is slightly ambiguous. Maybe "Donald Trump business record prosecution"? OfTheUsername (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per OfTheUsername. The title itself isn't terrible, but less ambiguity is called for in my opinion given the Trump organization also faces a lawsuit in New York, which is also about the business. Differentiating between the criminal case and the civil case may help clear up any potential confusion. Delukiel (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Use case names instead: move this article to People v. Trump and move federal prosecution of Donald Trump to United States v. Trump I stick with the position that I took months ago, that this is clear, objective (requires no judgment case), and reflects a name that is both official and readily recognizable. Neutrality^talk 03:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Strong support for this solution, otherwise weak support for original proposal Current title definitely lacks an encyclopedic detached POV. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as the current title works fine. This really only needs to be updated if more New York criminal cases have charges filed against the Donald. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  There will almost certainly be more than one federal case against him; at that point topic-based titles will become necessary. We might as well pick something now for the sake of consistency. Esszet (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - the current title is sufficient at identifying the topic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above The void century (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There may be a better title, but the suggested one isn't it. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose- current title fits article. Move to another title should be requested once there are advances in the trial itself, which we cannot know are occurring. BurgeoningContracting 02:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - How do I put this gently. No. Keep the title as is. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The current title is more fitting and less ambiguous than the proposed one. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 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.

"Susan Necheles" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Susan Necheles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 2 § Susan Necheles until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested Edit in Introduction

I'm looking to change this line in Paragraph 2 of the introduction: "The next in-person hearing is set for December 4 in New York. Trial was set for March 25, 2024." to "Trial is currently set for March 25, 2024".

The date for the "next in-person hearing" has passed and I don't see the relevancy of keeping it in the article at the moment. I think it would be best to remove it and just keep the trial date. Thecocohead (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York → New York prosecution of Donald Trump – More concise and consistent with Federal prosecution of Donald Trump. Using two different naming formats for these articles doesn't make sense. Would also support a move to People v. Trump, but it appears that would not get consensus here. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I don't see any reason not to move it for consistency. I would oppose "People v. Trump" only because I'm not certain the average reader would understand the relatively nuanced legal difference between "United States v. X", "People v. X", "New York v. X", etc. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Elli Very weak oppose. The consistency argument is too weak to pass my status quo threshold. Also, the new title has slightly more potential to be misparsed as, say, [{new {York prosecution}...}] by those for whom neither the state of New York nor Wikipedia naming convention are too familiar. Llew Mawr (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  I would understand the argument of it being a "new" prosecution in "X" place (here being a "new" prosecution in "York") if it were just about any other state. Considering most people will think of New York City before any other American place, it's probably not a stretch that readers will understand "New York" is referring to a place in this context, even if it's referring to the state as a whole and not the city that most would be familiar with.

  That all being the case assuming I read your argument right. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  Possibly clearer would be New York state prosecution of Donald Trump. This would more closely parallel Federal prosecution of Donald Trump and make it clearer that it's the state, not city, that is prosecutor, and that NY is not simply the location of a federal prosecution. Station1 (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Station1 I'd support that if it were proposed. It's much clearer and frees up space for a prepositional phrase to be added if the same state prosecutes Trump again on an unrelated charge. Llew Mawr (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd also support that title. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Station1 Your suggestion makes even more sense now a special grand jury in the state of Georgia indicted ten persons unknown—likely to include Trump—as it would more obviously cause confusion (with the sovereign country) to move 2020 Georgia election investigation to either Prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia or Georgia prosecution of Donald Trump. Llew Mawr (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Llew Mawr @Estar8806 I also support this new title as it can avoid any ambiguity. Should a new move request be filed then? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's no need for a separate move request if consensus here choses a different title than the one proposed. I still personally prefer the original proposed title, but if it is to be "New York State" then the "s" must be capitalized, so New York State prosecution of Donald Trump. Though, if the concern is that it could be misinterpreted as "New", "York" prosecution, then I don't see how the addition of state would minimize that confusion at all. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Also, there shouldn't be any worry of confusion with the City. The city doesn't have the power to prosecute cases like this, only minor offenses. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Estar8806 Totally agreed on your first point. As to the second, I'm really not fussed about which capitalisation we choose, but, presumably, when @Station1 proposed 'New York state prosecution' to, I quote, "more closely follow Federal prosecution of Donald Trump", they meant we should title so as disambiguate state prosecutions from federal ones (e.g. under their proposal, the Georgia article would also become 'Georgia state prosecution of Donald Trump'), not to distinguish the city from the state. Whilst 'New York State state prosecution of..." would be logical, I'd oppose that on obvious stylistic grounds. Llew Mawr (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Strong support: I also think this should be moved out of consistency, and the fact that it's codified with WP:CONSISTENT alone I think makes it a good rationale to do so, and generally, articles associated with the subject of Trump's prosecutions involve having the subject first. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose The argument made based on consistency doesn't make sense; in fact the move would disrupt consistency with Prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia. Keivan.f^Talk 03:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I'm not supporting this move proposal but it did occur prior to the Georgia article's creation (exactly 24 hours before your comment when the new indictment was announced prior to its publication). Presumably any decision we make here about the titling of articles for state prosecutions of Trump would carry over to Georgia. In other words, that article would be renamed (if needed) without a discussion to be consistent with the title that results from this discussion. Llew Mawr (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the Georgia article should also be moved to "Georgia prosecution of Donald Trump". Elli (talk | contribs) 16:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Elli The impending Georgia prosecution is one of the reasons for my opposition to this move and support instead of "x state prosecution of Donald Trump" since there's also a country called Georgia. For instance, 2020 Georgia state elections (whose subject Trump is charged with interfering with by Georgia state) uniquely includes "state" in its title despite being about non-state elections since Georgia (the country) had a national election in 2020 also. Llew Mawr (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Llew Mawr I'd be fine with adding "state" to both of these, though it's not my ideal title. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Such a disambiguation is unnecessary because Trump has not been indicted in the country Georgia. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Emphasizes that the prosecution is by New York state and not just in New York. Also, Keivan.f's argument is moot because that article was moved to Georgia election racketeering prosecution. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Donald Trump has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject New York (state) has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject New York City has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Weak oppose: In this case, Trump alone is indicted. In the Georgia case, Trump is one of 19 people indicted. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  @HandsomeFella FWIW, both the current title and proposed one include "Donald Trump" (and no one has suggested we remove his name from the title). Llew Mawr (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I still think the current title is better than the proposed one, firstly because "Federal" is an adjective while "New York" is a proper noun used as an adjective, secondly because we don't have total consistency anyway, due to the name of the article on the Georgia case. HandsomeFella (talk) 05:42, 31 August 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.

Request Edit in Trial

Old Text under subtitle Trial:

On April 12, 2023, in a separate legal action, Trump sued Cohen, seeking $500 million in damages for breach of contract.[113]

I suggest to append the old text, immediately following [113] with the following sentence:

On October 5, 2023, Trump dropped the lawsuit against Cohen. [ref1,ref2]

ref1: New York Times, October 5, 2023, Trump Drops Lawsuit Against Michael Cohen, His Former Fixer.

ref2: Reuters, October 6, 2023, Trump files to dismiss $500 million lawsuit against his ex-lawyer

Note Similar references exist in CNN. I would not include that the lawsuit is temporarily paused as stated by Trump's spokesperson. The alternative wording "files to dismiss" is acceptable. I believe the addition is necessary, as without it, there exists a legal threat against Cohen. Davelord florida (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)