Talk:Prosecution of the Trump Organization in New York

Confirmed Indictment?
Sorry I'm relatively new to this whole Wikipedia thing. So my sincerest apologies if my formatting is incorrect, I mean you no offence. There are a number of news agencies and what not reporting that Trump has been indicted, and I feel the contents of this article should reflect this. 2600:4040:B03A:BB00:65BA:7104:BF3F:658B (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Huh?
"The organization ceased a number of illegal practices, some of which had reputedly been executed since the 1980s, around the time of Trump's election as U.S. president." This sentence as it stands is obviously wrong - Trump became President in 2016 - and I have no idea what the person who wrote this is trying to say. Is it just missing an 'until'? Cross Reference (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See cited sources 88 & 96. As it says in the body, "Weisselberg testified that this scheme was amongst a number of illegal tax practices the organization ceased around the time of Trump's election." UpdateNerd (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

AI image of Trump running from the police
I strenuously object to the AI image of Trump running from the police. This has no place in an encyclopedia article, especially one on a current issue with political ramifications. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 22:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is an example of what the text describes and it is clearly labeled as AI. I have added a few words to the description. Maybe that will help. The fact that it shows him "running" should be enough to tell people it's a fake, but... He can barely walk sometimes and Don Jr. holds his hand then. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Jmabel. This is not primarily a question whether or not the readers understand that the image is a fake; it is rather a question of 'encyclopedicity'.  (This has nothing to do with my (lack of) sympathy for the guy who doesn't only repeatedly spread a number of lies to large audiences, but even implicitly has pleaded his falsity as main points in his defence in two ongoing trials.  More precisely, he has claimed that his recorded statement that certain documents in his possession were secret was just "bravado"; and that a statement overestimating the worth of his property in connection with a loan application was "worthless", due to a prior statement claiming that the estimates (at least partly) were based on guesses of future development of said worth. )  I do not think that falsifying AI produced images could have more than a rather reduced rôle in an encyclopaedia; they certainly could be relevant in articles about AI, or imaging, and perhaps as examples in articles about persons producing such images.  They should never be used 'just for fun' in articles with no connection with AI produced images in the text.
 * If you disagree with my opinion, then please explain what encyclopaedic values you think this fake illustration of a situation which never occurred has in this specific article; or why you think that fake images (clearly marked as false) should be OK to use in wikipedia articles in general. In the second case, I think that we have fundamentally different opinions about a point of general interest, and should take that discussion in a more general forum. JoergenB (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your ping didn't work, but I saw this anyway. I have no burden for the inclusion of the image, and tend to think it's better suited for an article about fake news and AI-generated images. If you choose to remove it, I won't object.
 * This reminds me of the dangers of using such images in politics, and it's so serious a matter that international laws should forbid it everywhere. Case in point is the campaign being run by Imran Khan while he is in prison. Campaigns should be run by the person, in the flesh. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's see if this ping works! I've alerted UpdateNerd (who did include that image) on their talk page, and await an answer for some day, before deleting it.
 * (As regards Imran Khan: As far as I understood that, the campaign is for voting on "his" party, not for him. Employing fake images in the campaign could be criticised, but not campaigning for a (legal!) party in a Parliamentary election, I think.  Whether or not campaigning for a person serving prison time is legally or morally right could be disputed, and could depend on the circumstances.  Recall that the Socialist Eugene V. Debs actually received more than 3% of the votes in the 1920 United States presidential election, in spite of being imprisoned for anti-war agitation!) JoergenB (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The image is clearly related to the discussion of reactions to the case, and could not be confused for a real event except by a buffoon (e.g. a propagandist claiming that anything at all negative about trump is part of a liberal agenda). Verbiage aside, no one seems to have cited precedent for removing the image beyond basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you removed my description of the image as "Example of fake image:..." and replaced it with "An artificial intelligence-produced depiction...". That does not make it very clear that it's a fake in every way. Psychologists tell us that when people are exposed to a false statement, and I assume this would apply to a fake image, the process of understanding it starts with accepting it as true and then reprocessing it by comparison with facts to finally arrive at the conclusion it is false. IOW, it takes a complicated process to eradicate the misleading impression it is true. That means the "it's true" has a more lasting impression on the mind, and is often the only lasting impression. It's not good to expose one's mind to falsehoods. Therefore, we must always label falsehoods as falsehoods, right up front. As it is, the image, with the current description, does more harm than good. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that readers might think artificial intelligence produces photographs of real events? Being "exposed" to an appropriately labelled AI image would only be confusing to a 'viewer', not a 'reader'. Any number of articles would have to be heavily altered if they were expected to be approached like a children's book. We can't pander to trolls who truffle-hunt for bits which might offend out of context. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * AI images are used for many things, from color enhancement and improved sharpness of real images to falsified actions, such as Trump running. Keep in mind that Trump is frequently displayed as a muscular superman to his MAGA followers, and we know that many of them literally believe that. That's how deep that cult goes. The fakeness of the image is what should be noted, and that it's AI comes next. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 05:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * LOL have you all lost your minds? Anyone who wants to put that picture back gets a free trip to AE courtesy of Levivich (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The image is plainly untrue and misleading. We cannot assume the caption may be read. The image may be reproduced elsewhere without the caption. There is clear potential for damage to the subject. Particularly on WP:BLP grounds, we should not have the image displayed on this article.  starship .paint  (RUN) 07:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I made it so you cannot read the image without seeing that it is an intentional fake. That is the issue that was raised by this discussion. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is indeed ONE of the possible issues, but this is a very controversial usage, and I really can't support it here, so I agree with this removal by PackMecEng. We should consider the original BOLD addition to have been REVERTED, and the image should not be restored until a DISCUSSION has reached a consensus for inclusion. As I pointed out above, the increasing use of AI-generated fake images is a growing danger, and we may need better policies to deal with this. There is a place for using them at Wikipedia, such as in an article about them, but I don't feel this article is a good place for them. Their use here should not be controversial, and this location is obviously controversial, so let's keep it out, at least for now. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 01:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)