Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Merge proposal

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

I propose merging

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

Oppose - This is A Historic Conviction, The first President to ever have been Convicted in U.S History, it is very important. InterDoesWiki (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither this article (Prosecution of Trump), nor the Conviction of Trump article, lays out and explains exactly what all of the 34 counts and charges even are. This is kind of important, since he was unanimously found guilty on every single one of those charges.
The Conviction of Trump article might be a good place to include such details, just a thought. 133.32.217.18 (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - As of right now, I think it’d be better if instead it was merged with Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York since it’s almost entirely just said reactions, and then maybe expand on or make a separate verdict section on this page. Booyahhayoob (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this duplicates Reactions_to_the_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Political and doesn't need to be separate. Reywas92Talk 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if the page can be expanded with more than just a background section. Otherwise, merge with Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York as per Booyahhayoob's suggestion. Ships & Space(Edits) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that merger also. Just feel that the current Conviction page is not useful as a set of reactions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Beland (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, do not decide to close a merger proposal in this way. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, how about you not create articles this way, maybe propose a split first? Reywas92Talk 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a merge, not a split. -- Beland (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support / Wait. No question absolutely, unprecedented historic event. The question is why this requires a separate page, considering it can and should be covered here. And there is also Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 00:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Oppose Support – it's best to wait for now, it's a historic and first-of-its-kind event afterall for a former POTUS to be a convict. Josethewikier (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, this conviction is indeed historic. That's why we can expend the
a separated article. Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, let's not fall into recentism. Cosmiaou (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The referenced essay, while interesting, has nothing to do with your argument. You acknowledge that the conviction is indeed historic, so this isn't an example of something not-notable as it were. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging to
coverage, commentary and analysis. At least having a redirect that points to the right section in the right article would help. However, a "reactions" article is not the right target for the redirect, although it might be for the content. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Support - the conviction is very historic, but so is the prosecution. Having an article for both is inevitably going to produce a
WP:CONTENTFORK. In the event that he is convicted in any of his other legal proceedings, a broad-scope article covering all of them could be a solid idea, but for now this just feels redundant. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Support, we could be facing a POV problem if we have multiple articles about this convection. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the existence of multiple articles on related topics as a POV problem per se – this is a matter of high historical significance and various ramifications, which may not be possible to cover adequately in one article. Note that Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a limited length. (That doesn't mean I don't support the merge – I don't have an opinion about that one way or the other at this time – it just means I don't see it as a POV issue.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because of exactly what other other editors are saying about
    WP:NPOV. The more that you split the page into many pages the more that you end up with wildly different POVs let alone arrangements of facts even if that isn't the intention of the split. Wikipedia readers are given the best experience when they can read about the entirety of the topic with the full spectrum of viewpoints instead of only getting one part of the story that they have to click around for and at the risk that those narrow slices of the story only give them a fragment of the truth Jorahm (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Agree - I think it would be better to condense articles referring to Donald Trumps legal issues under a single page rather than multiple one's. This could result in other point of views and individual biases of the author. Boorishbrute781 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a completely unnecessary content fork. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, borderline speedy. This is unwarranted as a freestanding article, as it is merely an aspect of the case. BD2412 T 19:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JLCop (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We have plenty of other articles where the trial and the conviction are covered in the same article, most in fact. This would be an oddity for us to need a separate article to say he was convicted. There is no good justification for the current content fork and the fork article looks laughably sparse. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although the article is a glorified stub in need of much improvement, as noted the conviction is historic and deserves to be an article in it's own right. Specifically because it's about the conviction, not the trial itself.
WP:SIZERULE, which is currently over 12,000 words, the article should be further split not have content merged into it. Especially given the scope of this article, which is about a trial, as opposed to the conviction and ensuing results/reactions. Otherwise I would agree to merge the content for now for it to be expanded upon prior to split later, if the article wasn't already above a desirable size. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Support, the parts of the article that directly pertain to this article have no reason to stand on their own. As for that "Reactions" section, that ought to be part of Reactions to the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York.
Also, and others have pointed this out before, but
WP:SIZERULE is outdated. Most computers now have the bandwidth to load articles far longer than 12,000 words. Slamforeman (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Since when was SIZERULE outdated? Per
WP:SIZE, it's not just about technical issues: "Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc." CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed. It’s not an issue of computer bandwidth, it’s human bandwidth: what are the limits of human attention span and readability? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with this argument but I still think it's fundamentally flawed. People can choose to read what they want of articles, and for efficiency's sake, it’s far better to have everything important in one place than to split it into multiple stubs or to omit it entirely. Slamforeman (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to
WP:CANYOUREADTHIS: "A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers". Meaning at over 12,000, you'll lose most readers due to the length of the article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, if the length of the article discourages people from reading it, that’s not « efficient ». Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this is associated with one case, that being the NY case. Will he be convicted in the three other cases? Probably, but only time will tell. I also think having two separate articles--one relating to the conviction and the other relating to the prosecution pre-conviction--is inconvenient. You would think that the conviction piece would be included as part of the prosecution article. Unknown0124 (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything should be in one place unless size becomes an issue. That does not appear to be the case here, so all the information should be in this one article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: I don't think it is as notable as it's own article, though that may change in the coming weeks so perhaps it's better to wait and see what comes of it. TheBritinator (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as there is still pending litigation, and there could be more convictions. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 31 May 2024

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.

While there's been vigorous discussion here, I do see consensus on two points:

1. A more descriptive title than "Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York" is desired. A description of the charges (in the article's title) is more useful than their location. See

WP:CRITERIA
, specifically "Recognizability" and "Naturalness."

2. "Trump hush money trial" is what this is being called in the news, so that satsfies

WP:COMMONNAME
; but it's not an accurate description of the issue (hush money is legal; this is about falsifying records).

The suggestion which has appeared in several comments above, "Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records", seems to address both concerns. However, comments have given several variations on this:

  • Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records in New York
  • Prosecution of Donald Trump for falsification of business records
  • Conviction of Donald Trump for falsification of business records
  • Criminal trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records
  • 2024 trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records

Discussion of these possibilities, and then a requested move to whichever is most popular, would be a reasonable next step. (A name should be chosen that's clearly distinct from Prosecution of the Trump Organization in New York and from New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization.) Brian Kendig (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME policy. Cobblebricks (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Support. I had to search for "Trump hush money case" to find this Wikipedia article. While it is true that the entire case is not solely about his hush money, majority of the public, including the media, refers to it as the hush money case, and the hush money is part of it. Ryan York (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The "hush money" is a journalistic term but it is not encyclopedic because it is not what the convictions are about. The convictions are about falsification of business records.
Suggestion:
Trump hush money trial, which would then redirect to the article MexFin (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Soft oppose. The current title is too broad but this is too biased. I would be in favour of something like "Trump-Stormy Daniels Lawsuit". Slamforeman (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Trump-Stormy Daniels Trial not lawsuit. Slamforeman (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Daniels was not a party to the trial, only a witness, I don't think this is an appropriate title. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although the proposed title seems a bit colloquial without his first name. Angusgtw (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Reasons listed above and also "Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York" does not give a description of the charges while this does. Brooklaika (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then shouldn't it be "falsification of business records trial"? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep agreed. I agree that the title should be changed but this is the wrong name Joecompan (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That being the proposed name change not your one. Joecompan (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that title is that there is more than one case involving Donald Trump and falsification of business records (New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization). "Hush money" concisely disambiguates this article from Donald Trump's other litigation. The literal criminal charge was not "making hush money payments", but the case was all about the hush money payments; it's not inaccurate to have a title that suggests they are the focus of the case. IagoQnsi (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it helps that "prosecution" is specifically a criminal proceeding and "lawsuit" is specifically civil. Words like "trial" and "case" aren't specific for that, and don't help to disambiguate the large number of notable legal proceedings involving Trump that we have articles on. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cobblebricks Support acceptable reasoning. 94.175.23.202 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per above. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Beyond the fact that I don't think "hush money trial" is the common name, it isn't accurate to condense it to "hush money". This was an election interference trial, as you can see from the testimony. I think this requested move is too much
    WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Election interference was an alleged effect of the trial, not the main subject. Joecompan (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was also a focus of the prosecution: “This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up,” Colangelo told the jury. “The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election,” he continued. “Then, he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again.” - https://www.justsecurity.org/94927/trump-trial-opening/ ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a tricky dilemma. I oppose for a similar reason to @Muboshgu. The trial was mostly about the hush money, but that isn't the whole picture. It's about the election, business records, etc. Coulomb1 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even if the name is commonly used by news sources, I don't believe it qualifies as the common name, and as said above it's not really a trial about hush money payments, if that was all that happened he wouldn't have been prosecuted.
AveryTheComrade (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Even if the name is commonly used by news sources, I don't believe it qualifies as the common name"
The
WP:COMMONNAME policy literally defines the common name as the name commonly used by reliable news sources. Cobblebricks (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It is used commonly, that does not mean it's the name most commonly used, and even if it is there's not any real consistency in news articles or colloquial discussion. Either way way the substance of the argument is that the trial is not about hush money payments, so moving the article to that, even if it was indisputably the common name, would not be a good solution. AveryTheComrade (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose because the proposed title is incorrect for two reasons. (1) Trump was not charged with paying hush money, which is not illegal; the charges were for falsifying business records. (2) This article is about the entire prosecution, including pre- and post-trial proceedings, and not just the trial itself. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: there seems to be some support below for titles that incorporate "falsification of business records" in the title. There are at least two other cases that also involve business records falsification—Prosecution of the Trump Organization in New York and New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization—so those proposed titles may require disambiguation, whereas the current title is unambiguous. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those titles appear to describe actions against the Trump Organization, not against Donald Trump as a person, so I think the are
WP:NATURALly disambiguated from topics about Donald Trump the person. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Donald Trump was personally a defendant in the business fraud lawsuit. That one was about asset valuation whereas this one is about hush money, so maybe something like
Hush money records falsification prosecution of Donald Trump may satisfy more people, though it's a bit of a mouthful. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh. That's a problem then. I thought the "Trial of" might help, but that one had a trial too. How about "Conviction of"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Antony-22 and others. The proposed title reduces the subject to a single trial and inaccurately implies the criminal charge was for "paying hush money". JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I wouldn't be opposed to a more descriptive title mentioning falsification of business records. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Adding onto @Antony-22. Hush money is not what's being discussed, the allegation was the falsification of business records. Joecompan (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else would be inventing a name that sources aren't using, or is not the formal name. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In going over the reasons against this move, I'm not seeing a policy used to support that position, maybe I missed it. Policy would seem to support changing it. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the current title says nothing about what it is about and now that sentence has been passed it's not just about the prosecution either. // Liftarn (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's what the sources call it, and it's now a conviction. Alternatively, rename to Conviction of Donald Trump in New York. Skyerise (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Hush money is not illegal in itself, which the proposed title implicitly would indicate. A better name for the article might be needed after the verdict (or generally), but this isn't the one. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: there is a specific case name which has that article, and hush money case, while slightly more common, would be factually incorrect as pointed out above. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 10:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while supporting move to Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records or similar. I think it could be mentioned as an alternative title, as it is commonly referred to as such, but "Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records" tells us what crime he committed, which I think is more important than where he committed it. MarchRain ♡ 「weather station」 10:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed title misstates the nature of the criminal charges. There was nothing illegal regarding the hush money deal itself. A more accurate title would be 'Donald Trump hush money cover up trial' or even 'Donald Trump hush money election conspiracy trial'. These are convoluted, but get to the actual charges at issue. S51438 (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Agreeing with the reasoning that the title would make it look like the paying of the hush money was the illegal act. Zowayix001 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Trump wasn't prosecuted because he paid hush money, he was prosecuted and convicted for falsifying business records to cover up the payments he made to reimburse Michael Cohen, among others, to suppress (or fix) negative press coverage during his 2016 election campaign. The payment to Stormy Daniels was just the most high-profile one of several payments that were covered up by the falsification of the business records. What Trump appears to have been doing is manipulating media coverage in order to paint himself in a positive light for voters in the 2016 US Presidential elections. It appears to be perfectly legal to buy off the American news media to only publish the stories that one wants to appear in it. What is illegal is to falsify the business records to cover up the fact that one is buying the media off. Also, the
    readers might have, the proposed title does not. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Oppose - Agreeing with those above who are also opposed - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while supporting move to
    Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records as per all of the reasons stated above. Bayloom (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I would support, but considering the title seems inaccurate, I weak oppose. While supported by
    WP:NATDIS, the title may be inappropriate for the topic. It is best we redirect and refer to the nomenclature in the article.
    — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 13:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Support - obvious common name and distinct. Contrary to the oppose votes, this is about the hush money. This hush money was illegal because of the falsified business records relating to it, so it is the reason he was convicted. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hush money wasn't illegal, entering the cheques – some of which were paid for from Trump's personal account – into the Trump Organization's books was. Had he not done that, there would not be a crime. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hush money was illegal because of the the checks. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The payment of hush money by Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels was not illegal. Trump reimbursing Cohen was not illegal. The crime was falsifying the business records to hide the real intent of the payment to Cohen 76.14.122.5 (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Numerous news outlets have explained this on numerous occasions, and they have legal experts. One would think that not all of them would get it wrong. If hush money were illegal, people like David Pecker would get arrested on the spot. Use your brain.
The problem is that he let his business pay for what is his deeply personal expenses. The Trump Organization didn't (allegedly) have sex with Stormy Daniels. The Trump Organization didn't run for president. So why should it pay for Donald's personal expenses? Therein lies the crime: falsifying business records, a misdemeanor. As the purpose was to conceal another crime, it was "upgraded" to a felony. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft support Many sources refer to the topic as “hush money” but it does not cover everything. It would allow for easier understanding of the case from a quick glance, but isn’t very precise. 2600:1006:B01E:9F7:59FC:27B0:A5EC:2738 (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per
    WP:HEADLINES. Sensationalist media coverage is irrelevant when it does not reflect the nature of the prosecution, as is clearly the case here. yaguzi (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Support -
MOS:LEGAL#Cases. 2601:2C3:C782:E9F0:24F7:18D9:C0EB:B061 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. This case is not a hush money trial and Trump was not prosecuted for it. I think that @
Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records would be welcome, but between the title we have now and the proposed title I much prefer the current. Piyo99 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose. Calling it hush money in title obscures that the felonies were for falsification of business records. I can see "common name" argument for the change since many in the media call it the hush money trial, but I'm not sure that is compelling enough for the change.CipherSleuth (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the trial was not directly related to the payment of "hush money" (which in itself is legal), but rather for falsification of tax records. I would support a move to "Trial of Donald Trump in New York" Frank Anchor 19:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the above stated reasons on the legality of hush money in and of itself. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Support I definitely agree with changing the name, but I think the name should be something more like "People of New York v. Trump." I understand that there have been a lot of cases involving Trump on one end and the State of New York on the other end, so I think we should put "criminal" somewhere in there. I think the change here would be a good first step. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose because the proposed title is misleading, and we shouldn't use misleading titles in articles. The trial was about criminal falsification of business records. Hush money was just part of that. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per
    WP:COMMONNAME. Virtually every source uses "hush money" and as other users have pointed out, people should be able to find this article on Google. Veilure (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Why don't we use the official name and then use parentheticals to refer to the unofficial name? 'Persecution of Donald Trump in New York (Trump hush money trial)' seems like a fair title to me 75.137.182.149 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't use redundant titles like that. (And "Persecution" rather than "Prosecution" would be POV.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Hush money trial" is just too misleading. We can't allow Wikipedia to be bound my sensationalist headlining. ErrorDestroyer (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support , while many of the objections are rooted in the trial being about the financial record falsification (etc. x34), and not the payment of the money per se, the falsified records all pertain to the underlying payment of hush money; they weren't about much else. But the main deal is that it's the
    WP:COMMONNAME. Chumpih t 21:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose while supporting move to
    6 22:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm not fond of using "Trump" by itself (without "Donald"), although I'm not familiar with the conventions for describing legal matters. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that, if Trump is being shortened, the plaintiff name should be shortened to either People or New York, with the latter being clearer for this article. Amyipdev (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - support move to official title --truflip99 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, if moved at all I'd prefer the title moved to something like
    Trial of Donald Trump (New York). Specifying the charge makes sense when it's the federal charges (Jan 6 vs documents), but there isn't another New York charge against him and potentially cause confusion. Paris1127 (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    As noted by Antony-22, there was another trial of Donald Trump in New York. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a trial of the Trump Organization, not of Donald Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We talked about that already. It was a trial of both the Trump Organization and also Donald Trump personally. See the opening paragraph of that article: "The defendants were Donald Trump, five other individuals including three of his children, and ten business entities including some that owned property in New York, Florida, and Chicago." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The title of the article should be the full case name The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. A redirect from something like Trump hush money trial can be implemented. --Chino-Catane (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - The examples cited in the COMMON NAME guideline are simple identifiers for persons and places which have a history, this trial is current news. At this stage the title used for the topic should be technically correct. The crime was not hush money payments, but fraud and election interference. The exact name of the court case would also be acceptable.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but instead make the title Donald Trump hush money trial. EatingCarBatteries (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per
Wikipedia:COMMONNAME LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose The title should either indicate the actual crimes for which Trump was indicted, or simply be full case name as suggested above.
76.14.122.5 (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it is misleading Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per
WP:HEADLINES WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 02:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I have changed my suggested title to add the year 2024 following comments from other editors that the title I previously suggested could be confused with the article New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization, which documents a 2023 case. Redtree21 (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject United States History, WikiProject United States presidential elections, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject United States Presidents, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Donald Trump, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Law, WikiProject New York City, and WikiProject New York (state) have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
rootsmusic (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Trump wasn't charged with or convicted of paying "hush money;" rather, he was charged with and convicted of falsification of business records. A re-direct is fine given the common phrase used by the media, but the phrase "hush money trial" is factually inaccurate. 47.46.41.164 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Hush Money" is a recognized slang term. Donald Trump's convictions also weren't pertinent to paying off a porn-star, as that individual act isn't illegal. The case was misappropriation of campaign funds, and improper financial reimbursements, as a result of paying of a porn star. Boorishbrute781 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It does appear as a
    WP:COMMONNAME
    from numerous RS and there doesn't appear to be another CN that conflicts with this.
    • Arguments that the CN isn't accurate are irrelevant, as there is nothing in the policy about ignoring a CN based on it's accuracy; it simply about common usage, and the policy is clearly to benefit accessibility for readers.
    • WP:SLANG
      doesn't apply here either, as this is about an article title, not the content of the article. It's also not a guideline either, but simply an essay on writing articles, so can't logically be used as an argument against CN policy.
    • WP:RECENTISM
      shouldn't apply here, the trial has been referenced as the "hush money trial" long before it started, and it doesn't seem like another CN will surface, or the CN will change in the future now it has been firmly established.
    • WP:HEADLINES
      is about sourcing, and "hush money trial" is referenced as much in the body of sources as it is in the headlines.
Based on this, I failed to find any logical arguments against this move, as many appear to be arguments indirectly against CN policy itself, as opposed to specifically the CN in question, or otherwise
Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records as previously suggested if this RM fails. The current title is simply too vague and needs improving, even if not to current RM. Arguments that this isn't just about the trial also appear misguided, as it's all part of the background to the trial, aka pre-trial, ie "Before a trial". CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. I believe we should use the official, court-given name for the article, rather than a de facto title. 2601:246:4A80:52A0:CCB7:DA21:2D44:6B8A (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is more descriptive. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. That title is too biased and I feel the current is just fine, perhaps create a page seperate to this with that title to redirect? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The new title proposal should only be used as a redirect rather than the official title, as alot of people already mentioned, the current title is neutral in this case -as encyclopedic titles should be-, so it is fine. Apart from that, it could be used in the firsts lines in "also known as" so it keeps some neutrality while putting the more informal name of "Trump hush money trial". IRRUTIA5 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York" is very ambiguous and ignores the fact that it can easily be overtaken by time and events. If he's prosecuted again in New York, this will create a conflict. Additionally, the title is vague and fails to describe exactly what is in the article.

Kisyi (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

We have heatedly argued over this for some time so I think we should choose two captains, one from each opinion, to sum up their side’s argument and then we decide once and for all whenever we do the title change or not. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how the RM process works. An administrator or uninvolved experienced editor will determine consensus (or lack thereof) and will close the discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... is there a way to call an admin here? Or should we wait for some more time? Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would need a few more days before a consensus call can be reached. Amyipdev (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
maybe we should do my two captains idea, and then let an admin decide the consensus by reading both of them? Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. Looking at the responses, this is going to be closed as no consensus, as there's many people supporting and opposing and compelling arguments on both sides MarkiPoli (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The entire point of this process is that the closer will read all the arguments, weigh them against Wikipedia policies & guidelines, and then issue a close based on their assessment of which policy-based argument has consensus. If none of them have consensus, that's what the close will be ("no consensus"), and we'll have to try something else. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok got it Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Travel ban in 38 countries

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

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

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

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

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

Jury verdict facebook posting by "Marc Anderson"

The addition of a sourced reference to the facebook posting by a user "Marc Anderson" about the verdict was removed per WP:UNDUE. There are multiple

WP:RS saying there will be a hearing and Trump has acknowledged the posting with a "Mistrial" post. GobsPint (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

I find this article to be of low quality

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

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

Requested move 9 June 2024

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: Withdrawn. I am rather surprised to see no clear support expressed for either of these two suggestions after nearly two days, so I am withdrawing the RM. I still think the article should be renamed, but I do not sense convergence and don't want to encourage protracted random discussion under the banner of this RM proposal. (closed by non-admin page mover) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conviction of Donald Trump) or perhaps "Criminal prosecution of" without merging. The "name should be chosen that's clearly distinct from Prosecution of the Trump Organization in New York and from New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization". Adding "2024" and "New York" seem unnecessary at this point, and "Prosecution of" is ambiguous with Prosecution of the Trump Organization in New York (in which Trump was a defendant in a personal capacity and a falsification of business records was part of the accusation and conclusion). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Looks like a different editor already redirected
Conviction of Donald Trump here. Natg 19 (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with your explanation, but I don't understand how your explanation leads to a conclusion to oppose. This proposed move shares only two words with the other article's title. Since his business entity's name uses his surname, both articles must include his surname. The only other shared word is "business" -- one is "business fraud" and the other is "business records". (Yes, both cases involved business records.) So I don't see how the proposed move's title can be confused with New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization. rootsmusic (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No @JohnAdams1800, Conviction "is the determination by a court of law that a defendant is guilty of a crime." rootsmusic (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -
    Conviction of Donald Trump
    has already been merged here.

rootsmusic (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Final charges

The opening paragraph does not reflect the final charges correctly.

The conviction, as per the official jury instructions and final charges document (primary source) was falsification of business records to conceal or commit another crime.

The other crime is specified as violation of Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law (page 30) which is "conspiracy to promote or prevent an election".

The article states that the other crime is one out of three possibilities "violation of federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influencing the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and tax fraud".

The three possibilities should instead refer to the three theories offered by the prosecution that constitute the unlawful means by which the NY Election Law was violated. And even these are wrong. They should be tax violations, FECA violations, and falsification of other business records (p31+). 82.47.184.148 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change to a more accurate description of the conviction. Examples provided below which summarise the final charges as per the primary source linked above. Emphasis added to show that the current article is factually incorrect.
  • "New York jury found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election" AP News
  • "New York jury has found him guilty of falsifying business records to commit election fraud." Sky News
  • "Donald Trump has been found guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in a criminal hush-money scheme to influence the outcome of the 2016 election." Guardian
82.47.184.148 (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York&oldid=1228893904"