Talk:Trials of Paul Manafort

Orphaned references in Trials of Paul Manafort, 2018

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Trials of Paul Manafort, 2018's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto3":

• From Steve Bannon: Republican Jewish Coalition Defends Trump's Appointment Of Bannon By Allegra Kirkland, Talking Points Memo, November 15, 2016,
• From Adam Goldman: "The 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners". Pulitzer. Columbia University. Retrieved 31 March 2015.
• From Special Counsel investigation (2017–present): "Manafort bets on presidential pardon in special counsel case". CBS News. Retrieved March 28, 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

References

The best place I go for information on the trial that provides sources and a summary of each day is here: The Mueller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leitmotiv (talk • contribs)

Thanks, but we can't use it as a source here. It would not be considered a WP:Reliable source. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. Let me spell it out for you. You could read something interesting that merits inclusion, check the source, and then use that. Will require some digging, but it's there for the interested. As a Wikipedian I get what reliable sources are - but it's clear you need some reading comprehension skills. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Separate article

The "first trial" really needs to be a separate article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? This article is short enough (21 kB RPS). Better keep all relevant information in one place, rather than create a fork which would necessarily duplicate information and require more maintenance. — JFG ^talk 06:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential pardon

A recent edit [1] added a section on the possibility of a presidential pardon for Manafort, which was deleted by a subsequent editor as not noteworthy [2]. I'd argue that the possibility of pardon is pertinent to an article on Manafort's trials, since there is evidence that Trump has considered it, and a pardon would stop the trials cold. What do others think? Rider1819 (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine why it should have been deleted. It is talked about constantly in the media. I returned it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If it's relevant to anything, it would be to the Manafort article, not the article about his trials. Just because something is discussed in the media doesn't make it encyclopedic or noteworthy. Everything Trump-related is discussed ad nauseam in the media and unfortunately spills over into Wikipedia as if we are a proxy for the media. Everytime anyone related to Trump is convicted of something or may be convicted of something, the presidential pardon issue rears its head. It's just bloat for our articles. If he actually pardons someone, fine. Otherwise, we're not Twitter. Also, if you're going to include these rumors (I know they're sourced), at least try to pay attention to standard MOS rules, e.g., section case, titles, using a year maybe, overly long wikilinks, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Rider1819 and Gandydancer. A pardon is of a specific thing: this article describes the thing that would be pardoned, so coverage here is the right place. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Remove – This is entirely speculation. Not everything printed in the press should make its way to Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 06:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - I agree, this seems to be non-encyclopedic. We're not a rumor mill nor a tabloid. Just the facts, ma'am. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The possibility of a pardon for Manafort, and the implications that has for current events, has been discussed by numerous highly reliable sources (New York Times, Politico, Bloomberg, Daily Telegraph, The Atlantic, The Hill, ABC, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Der Spiegel and many more). This is not tabloid gossip or rumour mill stuff and it is erroneous to characterise the matter in those terms. Discussion of the matter is based in part on things the President has publicly said: it is not mere speculation. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hold off. At this point I don't think there's justification for anything more than a brief mention at best. Volunteer Marek 18:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

Could somebody please add a bit to the article explaining what his "Conspiracy to Defraud the United States" actually meant? I don't want a definition of the charge, I want to know exactly how he was defrauding the United States. What was he doing there? Every time I read about this charge, it's all very vague. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Face detail, Manafort Mug Shot (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)