I am the worst![edit]

A lot of good work has gone in to the article today, and I am here to simply nitpick again. As usual, the upshot is correct, but we currently say the appeals court ruled to end the special master review. Again, in lay terms, sure--that's the effect. But more specifically, they ruled that the district court never should have exercised jurisdiction. Therefore, they didn't even technically reach the question of a special master review. Technically, we might say it was void ab initio. I would, therefore, like to take the specificity about the special master review out, and make the sentence about jurisdiction (with a subsidiary clause about the special master, possibly). As usual, if the consensus is that I am being hypertechnical or otherwise thick, no worries. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit the merge question[edit]

NO CONSENSUS
This discussion has died down - the last comment was two weeks ago - and it is clear that there is no consensus one way or the other. (Disclosure: I did !vote in this discussion myself - in fact I !voted to merge - but I think anyone will agree that "no consensus" is the outcome.) MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


Now that the passage of time has diminished the significance of the FBI search itself, and amplified the significance of the underlying possession of documents, I would suggest that the possibility of merging this into FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents be revisited. BD2412 T 02:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's generally referred to as the Mar-a-Lago case or investigation (Mar-a-Lago documents case, Mar-a-Lago case, Mar-a-Lago case, Mar-a-ago case, Mar-a-Lago investigation, Mar-a-Lago files case). Removing Mar-a-Lago from the name is not an option, it's what distinguishes this investigation from others. Any other name with Mar-a-Lago in it can wait until we know where the investigation is going. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've been trying to improve the investigation article, but it's essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK of this article. The two articles cover the same content, but this article is more detailed. I'm not opposed to having an article that solely covers the search, but the investigation article should be the main article. As it stands, the investigation article is poorly maintained compared to the gravity of the content. The void century (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge: Updating my answer. I think the Mar-a-Lago search article should be kept, but we should trim it down and move some of the material to the investigation article so the investigation article becomes the main article.
Support some form of merger (not necessarily under the FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents name - something shorter might work). Cannot be readily separated, and invites duplication of content. Mar-a-largo is basically a subset of the larger handling issue; it covers the refusal to transfer records to NARA. To shorten content, maybe spin off the failed Trump lawsuit (Trump v. United States, which is currently a redirected) into a separate article, leaving a summary and link at the main article. Neutralitytalk 19:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's lawsuit was a sideshow. Now that it's been dismissed, the play-by-play of the subsection should be replaced by a much shorter version. I haven't gotten around to it yet. "FBI investigation of ..." also doesn't cover the current status of the special counsel investigation — Smith special counsel investigation (needs a better name) looks like a candidate for an eventual merge to me. I don't see any pressing need to merge now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Space4Time3Continuum2x, I agree it can be shortened significantly. Perhaps the most interesting items raised in the suit were not legal issues, but the factual matters revealed in the DOJ filings on the direction of the investigation and the specific conduct under scrutiny. Neutralitytalk 17:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality, I shortened it, to the barest minimum — he sued, court agreed with him and appointed special master, DOJ won on appeal. I also think that the long version of the section could (should?) be spun off into a separate article. "Direction of the investigation" — are you referring to the detailed property receipt, something that normally wouldn't be released to the public? "Specific conduct" — Trump claiming classified material to be his personal property? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was gonna say that everything that was cut could probably be its own article! Would be good to preserve most of that detailed content, especially given the controversy around Judge Cannon. Might be nice to maintain a record of all that. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just rescued the deleted content and added it to a new spin-off article here Donald Trump Lawsuit Requesting a Special Master The void century (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I moved the page to Donald J. Trump v. United States of America. The shorter redirect suggested by Neutrality would do, too, but I didn't know how to do that. The redirect now leads to the new page title, and I think I caught all "main" and "see also" links. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, amazing! Good job everyone!! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere, either to the FBI investigations article or from there to here. It seems like this article has more information, so I would support a merge to here. Seems like there is a lot of duplicate information. Natg 19 (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I created the aforementioned article as an overview of the events that culminated into the search of Mar-a-Lago. I believe that the search itself is notable, if only because of its impact on the political climate. The topic of Trump's investigations and its coverage on Wikipedia have been discussed in detail previously, but the difficulty is working with events of this magnitude.
This article has an information problem, because the background sections go into excessive detail. I believe that this is because many editors treat this as the root article for the FBI's investigation into Trump's handling of government documents; while it is notable, it should not be the root article. If I could be more conservative here, I suggest that the background sections be moved, and the FBI investigation article be referenced in a short background section, not the entire ordeal. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but merge the FBI investigation into this article. This article's contents could be sorted into some sort of 'background' and then 'aftermath' sections here. If that article would be the main page, then it would be dominated by the events in mar-a-lago and I would predict a name change there would be follow suit. Yeoutie (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose on principle but the Mar-a-Lago search article has significant overlapping and unnecessary information not related to the search itself that should be removed. DecafPotato (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2023 (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.

Raid or search?[edit]

The article itself links to this: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mar-a-Lago_raid_affidavit 675930s (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most reliable sources refer to this as a search and not a raid. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The initial raid (a surprise) was carried out for the purpose of searching the property for documents. The terms supplement each other and are not contradictory. Both are backed by RS, and removing "raid" would deprive the article of the precision it needs to fully describe the nature of the events. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are several archived discussions, including a request to move, and the consensus is the current title (Title, Requested move, Page move). You'd have to ask the creator of the wikisource page why they used the word "raid" for a document entitled AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 41 FOR A WARRANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZE when the affidavit does not mention the word at all. It does use "search" and "seize" numerous times. 11:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)

I have no idea. We use it because RS use it to more precisely and accurately describe the way that search and seizure was pulled off. It was a surprise (AKA a "raid"), not a pre-arranged agreement to meet at a certain time for an inspection of the joint. That would have defeated the whole purpose of the raid.
I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would object to the word raid as an accurate description of that first search and seizure. Accurate nuance is a good thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, thanks?? I've already mentioned the links to the previous discussions, so I'm just going to repeat that law enforcement personnel do not make appointments for executing warrants to search and seize as that would defeat their purpose. With how much and what kind of force they show up depends on their risk assessment of the suspect, in this case obviously low, as indicated by the low-key approach, no SWAT team, no battering ram, no guns in sight (the folks with the rifles were Secret Service guarding Mar-a-Lago). The neutral term is "search", not raid, and that's what reliable sources used, except when they were quoting Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't intend to step on any toes. What is the reason for this thread? I don't know.
AFAIK, the article currently uses all the terms used by RS. That's as it should be. I see no need to change the title, if that's the purpose here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you on behalf of my toes. My initial response was to the red user who seemed to ask whether the title of this article ought to reflect the title of the wikisource page. Looks like the responders are all in agreement that we keep "search". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this was already discussed a couple of times previously:
Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago/Archive 1#Requested move 9 August 2022
Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago/Archive 2#Use of "Search" instead of "Raid" not consistent, should be changed to "raid" or raid should be mentioned in the introduction.
Let's please not go down that road again haha. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Using "raid" limits it to the very first search. Using "search" covers the first and all subsequent "visits" by the FBI. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Merger proposal[edit]

NO ACTION
Closing this to prevent confusion because there is already an ongoing discussion above ^^^

The following discussion 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.

I propose merging FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents into FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. These articles have similar information and can be handled in one article. Not sure if the merge should be from "FBI investigation" to "FBI search" or vice versa, but there should not be two articles for the same topic. Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't see the merge discussion earlier. I'll comment there then. Natg 19 (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"FBI investigation" is broader than the search, and insofar as the article covers more than just the search, "FBI investigation" is the more appropriate title. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2023 (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.

Usage of mocked[edit]

There's two places in this article that use mocked, one in Wikipedia's voice and the other in quotes. I figured that anything Trump-related beyond basic copyediting would likely require discussion, so thoughts of others on this? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories