![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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)
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" These statements quickly become inaccurate and outdated as they did today with Birnbach's testimony.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)
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)
Would this article benefit from having an infobox? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3IyTOBkXVE 52.129.5.242 ( talk) 21:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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)
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)
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)
Would this article benefit from having an infobox? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3IyTOBkXVE 52.129.5.242 ( talk) 21:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)