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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No consensus. There's no consensus for merging Conviction of Donald Trump to Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. There are also suggestions to merge it to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, or to leave it as a separate article. Brian Kendig (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

---

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

Oppose - This is A Historic Conviction, The first President to ever have been Convicted in U.S History, it is very important. InterDoesWiki (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither this article (Prosecution of Trump), nor the Conviction of Trump article, lays out and explains exactly what all of the 34 counts and charges even are. This is kind of important, since he was unanimously found guilty on every single one of those charges.

The Conviction of Trump article might be a good place to include such details, just a thought. 133.32.217.18 (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose - As of right now, I think it’d be better if instead it was merged with Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York since it’s almost entirely just said reactions, and then maybe expand on or make a separate verdict section on this page. Booyahhayoob (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Right, this duplicates Reactions_to_the_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Political and doesn't need to be separate. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, if the page can be expanded with more than just a background section. Otherwise, merge with Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York as per Booyahhayoob's suggestion. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with that merger also. Just feel that the current Conviction page is not useful as a set of reactions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, do not decide to close a merger proposal in this way. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh come on, how about you not create articles this way, maybe propose a split first? Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

That was a merge, not a split. -- Beland (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak support / Wait. No question absolutely, unprecedented historic event. The question is why this requires a separate page, considering it can and should be covered here. And there is also Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 00:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(weak) Oppose Support – it's best to wait for now, it's a historic and first-of-its-kind event afterall for a former POTUS to be a convict. Josethewikier (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. Yes, this conviction is indeed historic. That's why we can expend the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York article instead of creating a separated article. Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, let's not fall into recentism. Cosmiaou (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The referenced essay, while interesting, has nothing to do with your argument. You acknowledge that the conviction is indeed historic, so this isn't an example of something not-notable as it were. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merging to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York as the conviction is the penultimate step in the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, all that remains is sentencing. I would support redirecting to a relevant section in the article about the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York where the guilty conviction decision by the jury is discussed, at the end of the Trial section, but not to the section about the whole Trial, because "Conviction" is a specific step in the judicial process. Reactions to the conviction could be split into a separate sub-article if these became unwieldy, because the conviction itself may be a notable event receiving world-wide news coverage, commentary and analysis. At least having a redirect that points to the right section in the right article would help. However, a "reactions" article is not the right target for the redirect, although it might be for the content. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support - the conviction is very historic, but so is the prosecution. Having an article for both is inevitably going to produce a WP:CONTENTFORK. In the event that he is convicted in any of his other legal proceedings, a broad-scope article covering all of them could be a solid idea, but for now this just feels redundant. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — I have yet to see arguments to retain this article. There is a reason this is a merge request, not an AfD. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  There's net opposition to merging Conviction of Donald Trump into Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York and support for merging it into Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. The content of the Conviction article 100% overlaps with the Reactions article because it only talks about reactions, and thus doesn't fit the scope of its title. I don't think there's benefit to continuing this discussion; we've already improved upon the original suggestion and found an optimal solution. There is benefit to tidying up quickly, while these articles are getting thousands of views per day that they won't be a week from now. It's possible that content will need to go under the Conviction title in the future, but before attempting to e.g. make that article a subarticle of this one, it would be good to let the in-progress renaming discussion below end. It's also entirely possible that by the end of the year, Trump will have been convicted in multiple cases and that title will not be a good fit for any article. -- Beland (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy support to either here or the reactions page since this just duplicates Reactions_to_the_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Political. Absolutely no basis for a separate article whatsoever. The conviction is part of the case, and to create this is utterly ridiculous. Perform a WP:SPLIT per proper procedure when appropriate, don't just create short redundant page. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Merge the content of this article into the reactions article as duplicative and then redirect this title to the base prosecution article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  In my opinion, this feels like the most common sense option, so I support this. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: It'd extend the other article excessively and beyond scope and in general, give a singular target to targeted non-factual edits. More trouble and space than the suggested effort is worth, maybe, just maybe in a decade, when it's largely considered history. Even then, I'd debate it, due to the historic nature of this, to be frank, embarrassment.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - this article isn't really about the conviction, it's about reactions to the conviction. Should be merged to the "Reactions" article. Anything that is really about the conviction should be moved to the "Prosecution" article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - there's no need to separate his conviction from his trial proceedings. It is true that the trial and the conviction is notable, but there are no need to create a separate article for his conviction. He also got more trials - and possible convictions - coming (top secret documents case, Georgia racketeering case). ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment — An increase in violent rhetoric suggests that this is an event that bears significance and would saturate the present article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's already mentioned in Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, and it only takes up one paragraph, far from "saturating" the article. If warranted by future events, coverage there could be expanded 5x without needing to spin off a subarticle. If a spinoff article ever becomes necessary, it's unclear Conviction of Donald Trump would be the correct title. -- Beland (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, we could be facing a POV problem if we have multiple articles about this convection. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the existence of multiple articles on related topics as a POV problem per se – this is a matter of high historical significance and various ramifications, which may not be possible to cover adequately in one article. Note that Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a limited length. (That doesn't mean I don't support the merge – I don't have an opinion about that one way or the other at this time – it just means I don't see it as a POV issue.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support because of exactly what other other editors are saying about WP:NPOV. The more that you split the page into many pages the more that you end up with wildly different POVs let alone arrangements of facts even if that isn't the intention of the split. Wikipedia readers are given the best experience when they can read about the entirety of the topic with the full spectrum of viewpoints instead of only getting one part of the story that they have to click around for and at the risk that those narrow slices of the story only give them a fragment of the truth Jorahm (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree - I think it would be better to condense articles referring to Donald Trumps legal issues under a single page rather than multiple one's. This could result in other point of views and individual biases of the author. Boorishbrute781 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support This is a completely unnecessary content fork. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

• Suppport, preferably speedy. Is the reader going to want to read about the conviction without actually getting the background which the prosecution gives? I think we better serve our audience by treating the topics in one article. /Julle (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - The conviction of a former president and a current candidate for US President is a rare thing and notable in and of itself. The number of independent sources that discuss it are too many to name. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a whole article's worth of things to say about the conviction; it's covered in six short paragraphs in this article. Do you find the coverage massively incomplete, and if so what's missing? -- Beland (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. WP:SNOWBALL

JLCop (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support We have plenty of other articles where the trial and the conviction are covered in the same article, most in fact. This would be an oddity for us to need a separate article to say he was convicted. There is no good justification for the current content fork and the fork article looks laughably sparse. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Although the article is a glorified stub in need of much improvement, as noted the conviction is historic and deserves to be an article in it's own right. Specifically because it's about the conviction, not the trial itself. WP:TOOSOON otherwise doesn't apply here, as the conviction is clearly WP:GNG and this isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL scenario. Also based on WP:ARTICLESIZE, specifically WP:SIZERULE, which is currently over 12,000 words, the article should be further split not have content merged into it. Especially given the scope of this article, which is about a trial, as opposed to the conviction and ensuing results/reactions. Otherwise I would agree to merge the content for now for it to be expanded upon prior to split later, if the article wasn't already above a desirable size. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, the parts of the article that directly pertain to this article have no reason to stand on their own. As for that "Reactions" section, that ought to be part of Reactions to the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York.

Also, and others have pointed this out before, but WP:SIZERULE is outdated. Most computers now have the bandwidth to load articles far longer than 12,000 words. Slamforeman (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Since when was SIZERULE outdated? Per WP:SIZE, it's not just about technical issues: "Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc." CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It’s not an issue of computer bandwidth, it’s human bandwidth: what are the limits of human attention span and readability? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I sympathise with this argument but I still think it's fundamentally flawed. People can choose to read what they want of articles, and for efficiency's sake, it’s far better to have everything important in one place than to split it into multiple stubs or to omit it entirely. Slamforeman (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:CANYOUREADTHIS: "A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers". Meaning at over 12,000, you'll lose most readers due to the length of the article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if the length of the article discourages people from reading it, that’s not « efficient ». Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Support because this is associated with one case, that being the NY case. Will he be convicted in the three other cases? Probably, but only time will tell. I also think having two separate articles--one relating to the conviction and the other relating to the prosecution pre-conviction--is inconvenient. You would think that the conviction piece would be included as part of the prosecution article. Unknown0124 (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Support Everything should be in one place unless size becomes an issue. That does not appear to be the case here, so all the information should be in this one article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak support: I don't think it is as notable as it's own article, though that may change in the coming weeks so perhaps it's better to wait and see what comes of it. TheBritinator (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, as there is still pending litigation, and there could be more convictions. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Jury verdict facebook posting by "Marc Anderson"

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

It's UNDUE unless it's proven that the "professional shitposter" wasn't shitposting. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not WP:UNDUE to mention its existence given the response. A single sentence + annotation doesn't seem UNDUE. There is a lot of digital quackery surrounding the case from fake twitter handles to photo combination mishaps.GobsPint (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is UNDUE to mention at all as it is likely just a shitposter shitposting. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason to include it unless it winds up being actually important to the trial. Right now it's just trivia, and including it here gives it way too much credibility. We don't have to rush and include every little thing that happens in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)