Talk:E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for creating this article! I encourage you to create more articles! Have a good day!
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Potential evidence paragraph undue for lede
The first trial is underway. A sensible approach is to accurately summarize several of the best high quality sources for each fact that has occurred (rather than what talking heads predict may happen). Doing that well is hard enough. I removed this paragraph from the lede: "Potential evidence in the cases includes statements from witnesses Carroll reputedly told about the alleged incident, a photograph of her with Trump in 1987, and unidentified male DNA on a dress Carroll said she was wearing during the incident (although following three years of fruitless requests for a genetic sample from Trump, any mention of DNA was ruled inadmissible in the April 2023 trial).
" These statements quickly become inaccurate and outdated as they did today with Birnbach's testimony.
Just because something is verifiable, does not mean it is WP:DUE. This is an encyclopedia WP:NOTNEWS nor an indiscriminate collection of information. The paragraph on potential evidence is better left out of the lede. Cedar777 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the trial should be summarized, and that could end up replacing some or all of the evidence paragraph. It needs to be improved, not removed. Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- The lede should summarize major points only, not one of the countless squabbles among the various parties. Again, an encyclopedia summarizes: who is involved? what were the charges? when were they filed? where (which court) held the trial? When did it conclude? what was the outcome? All done in a concise, neutral manner. We don’t need a sentence detailing what didn’t happen and what wasn’t presented. The dress as evidence didn’t happen. Save that discussion for the body of the article. It is WP:UNDUE for the lede. Cedar777 (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- You would have a point if this were an article solely on a trial, but it's on all the litigation collectively. The failure to produce a DNA sample is telling, and played a significant role in the trial specifically because it couldn't be mentioned (in the trial—not an article covering it and connected matters). Again, my suggestion is to improve not remove. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- He's right though. If you're going to get this detailed with one side you might as well make a case for the other side. Since wikimedia has 0 bias 2600:6C4E:1A7F:DBD0:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- You would have a point if this were an article solely on a trial, but it's on all the litigation collectively. The failure to produce a DNA sample is telling, and played a significant role in the trial specifically because it couldn't be mentioned (in the trial—not an article covering it and connected matters). Again, my suggestion is to improve not remove. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- The lede should summarize major points only, not one of the countless squabbles among the various parties. Again, an encyclopedia summarizes: who is involved? what were the charges? when were they filed? where (which court) held the trial? When did it conclude? what was the outcome? All done in a concise, neutral manner. We don’t need a sentence detailing what didn’t happen and what wasn’t presented. The dress as evidence didn’t happen. Save that discussion for the body of the article. It is WP:UNDUE for the lede. Cedar777 (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
"That day, Trump made a statement from Ireland indicating he might come to the trial"
Actually he did not indicate he "might come to trial" According to the sourced material what he said was "“I have to go back for a woman that made a false accusation about me, and I have a judge who is extremely hostile,” Trump told reporters in Ireland about whether he would testify after all. “And I’m going to go back, and I’m going to confront this. This woman is a disgrace, and it shouldn’t be allowed to happen in our country.”" Which is not exactly "I might come to the trial" A better description would be "Trump indicated he was returning to confront his accuser" 2603:8081:8700:687D:CD7A:D656:EBFA:D908 (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Not worth rewording IMO; his own rhetoric was typically self-contradictory (implying both that he had to and was going to willingly return). The sources sum up the gist here, which was the implication that he might have been considering testifying. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Infobox?
Would this article benefit from having an infobox? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Move?
Is there a reason why this article uses "vs." in the title, when the case uses just "v."? Genuinely asking—I've not seen that before.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
2nd Trial Date - original 2019 lawsuit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3IyTOBkXVE 52.129.5.242 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't these sections be merged?
Valjean (talk) (PING me) Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, they're about two different and separate trials. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Trump is a rapist
By legal definition Trump is considered a rapist due to the ruling of the first Carroll trial, yet it's nowhere to be found within the article. A former U.S president legally defined as a rapist seems noteworthy. Chavando (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is objectively false. The jury verdict form explicitly says that Trump was not liable of rape. Please use facts and objective sources, not political talking points. JohnDoefordson (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's not persuasive. Cwater1 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fact. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- JohnDoefordson is blocked, so cannot reply, and should likely never reply to avoid a new block. I see the article is updated to state that he did rape her, according to the common definition of the word. He penetrated her first with his fingers and then with his penis, against her will. That is rape by all definitions. It's also consistent with his bragging about his habit of grabbing women by the pussy. So now he complains when one of them complains?! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Valjean I wasn't trying to feed in to trolls. WP:Deny I didn't realize the user being blocked. I guess the discussion can end. Cwater1 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- JohnDoefordson is blocked, so cannot reply, and should likely never reply to avoid a new block. I see the article is updated to state that he did rape her, according to the common definition of the word. He penetrated her first with his fingers and then with his penis, against her will. That is rape by all definitions. It's also consistent with his bragging about his habit of grabbing women by the pussy. So now he complains when one of them complains?! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fact. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's not persuasive. Cwater1 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure when it was added, but right now, the lede does say: "In July 2023, Judge Kaplan clarified that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word." Tuckerlieberman (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Appeal(s)
The lede seems to suggest that both awards have already been appealed, but the section about the most recent ruling makes no mention of it. I know that Trump has stated he will appeal the $83 million judgement, but I haven't seen anything suggesting he has done so already. Can someone source the claim, or should the lede be changed to clarify that only the $5 million award has been appealed? Torven (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)