Talk:Georgia election racketeering prosecution/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

This is an archive of past discussions about Georgia election racketeering prosecution. 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.

I have created a draft for Harrison Floyd. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I see you included a redlink to Black Voices for Trump. It might be better to write that article first, since coverage of it goes back to at least 2020, with a section about Floyd. You can then split him off to his own article if he becomes notable enough to warrant it. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It's nearly 1,000 words at the moment, just over half of which is in the Accusations of electoral fraud and attempts to overturn the election section. Most of that is not specific to the Georgia lawsuit, and is amply covered in the main article it links to. A 100 word summary would more than suffice. Similarly, the Trump–Raffensperger phone call has its own article, but all the detail that's been pulled over here swamps the content in the indictment section, which should be the focus.

A good 300 words for the Background section feels right to me. I'd slash it down to size myself, but I don't want to step on any editors' toes that may have put extensive work into it, so I'll simply plant the seed and mosey on my way. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 02:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747 Agreed, it's not specific to Georgia. The info should just be on Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election or Trump fake electors plot. We can link to those articles and transclude a couple paragraphs to help readers understand what's relevant to Georgia. We shouldn't repeat those articles here. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tuckerlieberman, both of those sections have been in the first article pretty much since the very first edit by @ElijahPepe. It appears they put a lot of effort into it, and much of it I think is better than some of what's in the main attempts to overturn article. So I wouldn't want to radically pare it down without some discussion first, WP:NORUSH.

One thing I'd like to emphasize is that whatever we end up putting in the background section should be based on post-indictment sources as much as possible. That will naturally focus on the most relevant and up-to-date information. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree @Xan747.

I noticed that the first sentence in this section was similar to a sentence on "Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election", so I updated the sentence on the "Attempts" article, and I transcluded it onto this article.

At least the transclusion is set up now in case we decide to consolidate more text with "Attempts". Tuckerlieberman (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, a sentence about Colorado in 2016 seemed to be going too deep in the background, so I cut/pasted it to the "Attempts to overturn..." article. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. The final paragraph in "Accusations of electoral fraud and attempts to overturn the election" was about the fake electors plot, so I moved it down to the newly-created list of fake electors in the "Indictment" section. I will continue banging away at that section, adding Georgia-specific information now. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Not good. The structure of this section was intentionally written and composed to fit the chronology of Trump's claims and overview his claims of voter fraud in previous elections. The edits divide the paragraph into two sentences that are "unusually emphatic", per WP:PARAGRAPH, one of which being unsourced, and don't wholly represent the context to the context. Absolutely acceptable to attempt to trim it, but the way in which it was performed here is callous. I've gone ahead and fixed the sentence issue, which should be most of the problem. Still, before trimming it, we should establish what the actual background is to the indictment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I moved it back to where it was. The only difference is that I deleted the first sentence, Trump and his co-conspirators repeatedly sought to overturn the results of the election. because it's completely redundant, right down to the wikilink.

There was no intent on my part to be callous, but rather to introduce the list of fake electors with content describing their role and the background of how they got there.

For establishing the background to the indictment, as I suggested earlier: comb through the post-indictment sources already in the article for it. That will do a lot of the filtering for us, and will be the most up-to-date information. This is much preferable to using citations that are two or more years old. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 23:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest changing reference 26 to Just Security's Chart: Names of the "Unindicted Co-Conspirators" in FultonCounty, Georgia Indictment because it identifies who they are by name, starting on page 2. Then those "unindicted co-conspirators" can be identified. 2603:8000:1400:8800:F5F4:C64E:7BC5:9805 (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Good find, but we should probably wait until one (preferably two) of the big media outlets to publish such a list, especially due to WP:BLP concerns. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 14:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

CNN has corraborated most of Just Security's identifications at https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/politics/trump-georgia-30-unindicted-co-conspirators/index.html. 2603:8000:1400:8800:F5F4:C64E:7BC5:9805 (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll start folding them into the article now. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 23:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

All done, thanks for the tips! Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 01:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Good job @Xan747! I suggest adding a section for "fake elector slate", so they can be listed by name. Then you can link to that section when it's unclear which fake elector is being described. (Currently, you describe "Alleged fake elector, along with unknown co-conspirators 12-19, and Fisher and Consiglio", which is redundant because Fisher and Consiglio were both fake electors.)

P.S. I assume that you need another source to corroborate Just Security's identifications for co-conspirators numbered 7, 24-27 and 29-30. rootsmusic (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree the fake electors should be named somewhere. I have a concern about including a name if they're not in the charging document as defendant or a known unindicted co-conspirator. (I'm correct that probably not all of them are, yes?) I didn't think I was being redundant wrt Fisher and Consiglio, but I confess that my bedtime meds have kicked in and I'm not thinking so gud.

I did not name anyone who wasn't conclusively identified in CNN's list because as you suggest, I'm wanting corroboration. That means some of the entries in the list I wrote aren't really "unknown", more like "unverified". Something for me to work on tomorrow if someone else doesn't beat me to it (hint hint). Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 03:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

All fake electors self-identified in a public document.

P.S. Just Security will continue to update their chart, but I believe they'll just change the link rather than overwrite the PDF that you've referenced as the source. rootsmusic (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I updated the citation^[1] so that it points to that link instead.

I'm aware the fake electors identified themselves by their public filings, but that's not the same as publicly admitting being guilty of a crime. As I'm thinking through it, the simple fact of them attempting to influence an election outcome in such a public way qualifies them as WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, alleviating my BLPCRIME concerns.

Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Xan747! I'm not knowledgeable about Wikipedia's guidelines to be able to directly contribute in this section. You've overlooked unindicted co-conspirators 21-22 that CNN corroborated. rootsmusic (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The essence of WP:BLPCRIME is editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. That would cover everybody listed in the indictment, save for the fact that they're public figures. Then the concern becomes how reliably-sourced the allegations are. Otherwise, this article wouldn't exist.

In the case of our fake electors, most simply don't have the higher profiles of the named defendants and unnamed co-conspirators, so I had to think a bit about whether to name them here. It was a quick argument; what they did was an part of an overt attempt to overturn a certified election result.

Thanks for catching 21-22; they've been added. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 03:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has corroborated Just Security's identifications for unindicted co-conspirators numbered 24 and 30. It has also differentiated between co-conspirators 25 and 29. rootsmusic (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, taking a look now and will update accordingly. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

All done, would appreciate if you'd check my edits. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747 You combined unindicted co-conspirators 25 with 29. Since the Atlanta Journal-Constitution identified co-conspirator 25 is Doug Logan and 29 is Jeffrey Lenberg, I think that the co-conspirators should be separately listed even if both shared involvement in the same activity. rootsmusic (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I prefer to keep them together to avoid unnecessary duplication in the description of their involvement. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There’s been vandalism. Can we get someone on this? CPena02 (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Just requested page protection. BappleBusiness^[talk] 01:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I changed Floyd's name from "Willie Lewis Floyd III" to "Harrison Floyd" in the table because

• that's how he's called in the indictment.
• that's how he's listed in the List of alleged Georgia election racketeers, the main article linked to above the table.
• that's how he's overwhelmingly called in the first page of results of a Google search for "black voices for trump" and "floyd".
• that's what the article on Black Voices for Trump calls him.
• that's what the draft linked to above calls him.
• everyone else in the table is referred to by first and last name, despite the indictment listing middle names for them.

There are indeed many sources that say he's "also known as Willie Lewis Floyd III", and there are even Georgia special purpose grand jury documents that call him "Willie Lewis Floyd III, also know as Harrison William Prescott Floyd III", but I don't think that outweighs all the above reasons. Joriki (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Trump claimed through a series of tweets that widespread voter fraud was imminent. The word claimed should be probably be changed to something else per Wikipedia:CLAIM, although I'm not sure if I have interpreted this principle correctly. 82.35.44.68 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think it's probably appropriate in instances where the statement is generally accepted as false in the preponderance of reliable sources. The MOS doesn't forbid words like "claim"; it just cautions that they should be used judiciously. GMG^talk 10:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Unlike the other prosecutions of Donald Trump, there are 19 total defendants in this case, some of whom are fairly prominent. If this article is to cover all defendants, it should have a title like "Georgia election racketeering case". Otherwise, if this article will focus solely on Trump, it should probably be a subarticle of a larger case article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree. There are a lot of notable people involved who were notable long before, and independent of this case. The case itself would be notable even if Trump were entirely omitted. Nobody's going to pretend we would somehow not write an article on a case where Rudy Giuliani was the lead defendant in an indictment for racketeering.
  I know Wikipedia gushes over anything Trump, and there are probably at least a few people who tuck their kids in with a bedtime story that just consists of reading the Mueller report over and over, but it's not exactly NPOV to act like this is about Trump and everyone else is incidental. GMG^talk 11:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is too limited in scope wrt defendants. I additionally think it's not descriptive enough. So perhaps, "Donald Trump et al. Georgia election racketeering prosecution"? A bit lengthy but not out of bounds. We could lose "racketeering" to make it shorter. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 15:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make the change. I'm also going to split out the long list of defendents/unindicted co-conspirators/fake electors to its own article since it's so long. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "Georgia election racketeering prosecution" is an appropriate title. It can be read too generally. In fact, this is not the only racketeering case brought in relation to an election in Georgia history. This is also not an article about prosecution specifically, but about a case in general (which includes the prosecution, defense, background, etc.). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeeeeaaah...Ben raises some good points too. It would be easier if it wasn't the only election racketeering case in Georgia. But how do we DAB that better without taking the first train to Trump Town? GMG^talk 10:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, basically, the main issues are —

1. This article is about a case, not a prosecution per se.
2. This is not the only election racketeering case in Georiga history. Specifically Caldwell v. State was another example. This might be the one with the most media coverage, but the article's title (especially with "prosecution") would seem to be about the prosecution of racketeering charges in relation to elections in general, rather than in just this election. (Even if there weren't, who's to say there will not be at some point another racketeering case in connection with this or another election?)

I actually think that this should be called Georgia v. Trump or similar, though! While a similar case might have been notable if Rudy Giuliani (or take your pick) were the lead defendant, that just isn't the case we're actually talking about here. Trump is the lead defendant. Calling this Georgia v. Trump would be more consistent with how other cases' articles are named (look up "Georgia v." in the search engine).

The naming of the lead defendant is not to say that the other defendants are purely incidental; they're not — but a name which mentions only the defendant (or "et al.") is standard here. (Besides, many cases are referred to using the name of a lead plaintiff/defendant; I don't think the name Obergefell v. Hodges implies that only Obergefell was a plaintiff.) In any case, it is NPOV to say Trump is the lead defendant — because he is. It is also WP:DUE to give him that prominence in the title, because his being a defendant is one of the most notable things about the case in sources (and you'll remark that besides the fact that Trump is named as the lead defendant, coverage of this case does generally focus on Trump's involvement over, though not to the exclusion of, that of the other defendants.)

With that being what the case is called, and that being how it's being reported on, I don't think it would be an issue at all to put Trump's name in the title. It implies nothing other than Trump is the lead defendant. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this title leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe include "2020 election" or something similar? I agree that Trump shouldn't be in the title but right now it is not clear it is referring to a singular case. Yeoutie (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The mugshot just released a few minutes ago. Given its public domain and it seems like the most relevant image to have, I added it. Chemistmenace (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This mugshot is needed on the main Donald Trump page. Flight Risk (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Noting that just because the image is "available to the public" doesn't mean it's public domain. If it's not Florida, California, or Massachusetts, states generally retain intellectual property rights over official works, unless you want to get to painfully specific instances like the Washington State Redistricting Commission or the Minnesota Geological Survey. Regardless, Georgia ain't on the list. GMG^talk 10:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The image is not public domain, and must comply with our policy and guideline. The image already has a dedicated article for it at Mug shot of Donald Trump. Per WP:NFC#UUI #6, the image isn't to be used here, and instead a link provided to that article which this article properly does. Please do not restore the image to this article. If you disagree with WP:NFC#UUI #6, you are welcome to start a discussion at WT:NFC to change it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Not necessary. UUI #6 doesn't say what you seem to think it says. The image cannot be used here in a way that violates NFC, but UUI #6 ain't it. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. If the image has it's own article, use the NFC on that article instead, and link to it from others instead of using the NFC directly. The image has it's own article and in fact, just survived AfD, because...I guess...if Trump get's a houseplant, it'll be about three seconds before somebody starts up Trump's under-watered petunias that only survive because one guy in the Secret Service turns out to be an avid gardener. GMG^talk 10:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole, I'm just the new guy here, but the way I read #6 is that we get to use a non-free image either in passage of an article describing something about the image, or in a stand-alone article about the image itself--but not both places. If that interpretation is incorrect, please explain why. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 15:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo, @Xan747: Let's reference NFC|UUI #6 directly: 6. An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). The word "illustrate" to me implies simple decoration. However, if our use of the image within this article is to comment on it and show it to the reader for their own understanding, #6 does not apply. I also have NPOV concerns about omitting the image, and depending on the outcome of the various court cases, this image may come to define Trump's legacy. Omitting it skews the imagery of the article towards staged/preferred images. Even if NFC applies as some suggest, our article neutrality cannot be overridden as NPOV is non-negotiable. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

1. "An illustration" is literally an English synonym for "an image".
2. Using images for a purely decorative purpose is covered under MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Basically, we don't do it.
3. NFCC is a policy with legal considerations. So yeah, it does kindof take precedence over other content policies.

GMG^talk 18:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

1. We're discussing the verb-form of "illustrate" here (e.g. illustrate: 3. To provide a book or other publication with pictures, diagrams or other explanatory or decorative features.) and "an image" is not a synonym for that;
2. Then the word choice at UUI is unfortunate, if editors wish it to apply to all images whether simply decorative or not, they should start a discussion at WT:NFC to have that changed so it can be understood to apply to all images, not simply ones used to "illustrate". I would suggest 6. An image used in an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image);
3. Are you invoking a legal concern now? As up until this point only UUI#6 has been mentioned. What is your legal concern?

As long as our use is beyond "they took a mugshot, oh look it's right there for you to see", e.g. critical commentary, I fail to see how the image would not be allowed. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, we don't use decorative images. If you don't get the meaning of "illustrate" in the context of an encyclopedia, then I'm not sure I can help you there. The only issue is that you've interpreted this word out of context to mean "fun, pretty pictures" GMG^talk 22:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This section isn't specific to Georgia, so I suggest moving it into Trump fake electors plot. I also suggest referencing the fradulent Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors From Georgia (pages 6-15). rootsmusic (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It may not be specific but it is extremely relevant to this case. The information can exist in both places, as it is relevant to both articles. Removing it from this article would diminish the information relevant to the case for readers and confuse the issue because 1) the fake elector plot involved multiple states hence the fake electors plot article, and 2) the fake elector plot is one of the main components behind the charges in this specific case, therefore an overview of the case should include the main components relevant to it. In this case the fake electors plot as it unfolded in Georgia. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)