Edit: Stickying some relevant “war reporting” from the comments to the post body, in a hopefully somewhat chronological order. Thanks for diving into the trenches everybody!
So the “and convicted felon” part of the screenshot that is highlighted was in the first sentence of the article about Donald Trump. After the jury verdict it was added and then removed again pretty much immediately several times over.
Then the article got editing restrictions and a warning about them (warning has been removed again):
During these restrictions there is a “RfC” (Request for Comments) thread held on the talk page of the article where anybody can voice their opinion on the matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_on_use_of_"convicted_felon"_in_first_sentence
Money quote:
There’s a weird argument for **slight support**. Specifically because if we don’t include it in the first paragraph somewhere, either the first sentence or in a new second sentence, there are going to be edit wars for the next 2-6 years. Guninvalid (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a second battlefield going on in the infobox on the side (this has also been removed again at this point in time):
The article can apparently only be edited by certain more trusted users at the moment, and warnings about editing “contentious” parts have been added to the article source:
To summarise, here is a map of the status quo on the ground roughly a day after the jury verdict:
My useless opinion:
I barely knew Donald Trump prior to his election campaign, pre-2020. Not as a business man nor media personality. I would probably recognize the name, but I wouldn’t be familiar with anything he had done up until he ran for president the first time.
The only notable thing about him, for me, is that he was president (easily one of the worst), and he is a convicted felon. So, I think it’s pretty stupid to argue whether “convicted felon” should be in his opening lede line for Wikipedia. To me, that answer is obvious. Yes, of course it should be.
Drawn together parodied him as a big baby that got off on firing people back in 2004
Ah, yes, Drawn Together. The perfect show for people in the early oughts who thought South Park was both too clever and not nearly crude or mean-spirited enough. I’ve seen every episode at least twice.
Damnit I’m going to have to go rewatch that now.
I appreciated the intelligence of their jokes
They could make offensive jokes without being offensive
Like the guys playing spin the bottle and going full tongue then Woldoor says yippie when it’s his turn “If you’re going to be gay about this then you can leave”
Or “white girl is racist” but it comes from being sheltered not because she’s white
if it’s on OJ Simpsons and Mike Tyson’s, then 100000% should be on diaper dons
look im as stoked as anyone else but that information should really be in a section explaining it in detail further down the page, for Tyson, for Simpson, and even for Trump. Say who he is and what he did that’s notable, not what the government did about it. it should say “fraudster” if anything, because that’s who he is. i don’t think labeling people vaguely as “felons” helps anything, and mostly serves to dehumanize people who have caught charges whether it was justified or not. that’s just my two cents.
His first election campaign was in 2016, not 2020 haha
Yeah, I can’t be arsed to remember anything pre-COVID with that much detail. Unless it was something I was directly experiencing.
I’m not even a US citizen, nor do I live in the country, so I only have a passing interest in American politics. I know enough to know that I don’t really want to visit the USA, especially right now.
I’m happy staying North of the border, in Canada. However, US politics tend to bleed over to Canada, so I keep an eye on it when I can. What’s good for the US, is normally good for Canada, and the same for what’s bad. I’m just happy we haven’t gone to privatized healthcare, and in fact we’re enhancing the existing healthcare system and extending what’s covered. It’s probably one of the most important political items for me. I don’t need it, but I probably will eventually, and some of my family can directly benefit from the changes.
Wikipedia is fascinating with regards to how it handles these conflicts. I’m interested to see where it finally lands.
His first attempt was in 2000 with Jesse Ventura in the reform party.
I want an alternative history story about Trump being the president for 911
I don’t think that world would exist anymore. WW3 for sure.
True though that may be, I don’t think it’s surprising that this would happen, and since making the post I have been falling down a rabbit hole of finding out how Wikipedia is handling situations like this, partly through taking more than a glancing look at the talk pages for the first time ever, and it’s fascinating.
Currently my deepest point of descent is this sub-thread on the Admin board about the “consensus” boxes on top of talk pages being an undocumented and unapproved feature.
I agree, the whole thing is interesting to say the least.