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:
Conservatives are in there arguing we can’t call him a convicted felon until he’s exhausted his appeals.
I get that folks are engaged for various reasons, but Wikipedia isn’t at it’s best when it comes to current events. I feel like that battle will slow as time passes.
Still - a big thank you to those who strive to combat misinformation.
*And you make a great point. Make the edits to Trump’s page after the dust settles and there is no argument about the facts.
Oh his page is going to be locked for years after this if they don’t allow any inclusion. It’s the only way to prevent it from being repeatedly added. We’ll see how it goes. For what it’s worth half the problem seems to be that he has a leading sentence instead of a leading paragraph.
The double standard by conservatives is just… stupid. That’s not how the legal system works. He is now a convicted felon. In a normal American’s world, Donnie would be waiting for sentencing, and often he could be sent to jail to wait for this sentence to occur, before he’s sent to prison(or probation, or home arrest, or whatever). The right to an appeal does not make him “sorta kinda, not a criminal, yet”. If he wasn’t who he is, he’d be in prison for 3-5 years, maybe 10.
Now, Donnie must file an appeal. This takes a while because he needs to prove the conviction was in error, new evidence, something wrong about his defense attorneys or jury tampering. The judge then needs to approve or deny this. Denied appeals, go up the justice food chain to the next court, and the next, and all the way to the Supreme Court who can all but void that conviction and Donnie gets his appeal (unlikely they even view the case). But hey, let’s pretend he somehow gets an appeal.
Now, 2-6 years from now (because our justice system is slow), Donnie can have another trial and have his conviction overturned. But this time he’ll need to basically bribe, threaten and distort all the criminal charges that they used against him.
Is unlikely his conviction will be overturned. His appeals process is just going to muddy the waters, but never bring anything to help. His one saving grace will be the “one juror” he knew would hang the jury, who could say he was forced, or something, to vote guilty.
Until this soap opera is over, Donnie is still a convicted felon. There is no gray area. Ask any other “innocent“ convicted felons serving time while they wait for appeals. Appeals don’t make them less convicted.
I have such a hard time imagining a conservative, much less a Trump fan, thinking the general concept of Wikipedia is a good idea.
They aren’t there in good faith.