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:

        • PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          41·
          6 months ago

          I haven’t edited a wiki page, so maybe I’m missing something. Isn’t that an accurate statement? Until yesterday we didn’t know the verdict, and we still need the sentencing. Both of those absolutely should be added to the page once result are known. Hence why information would/will change.

          They’ve locked the article, and it still states the ‘criminal status’.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          10·
          6 months ago

          Conservatives are in there arguing we can’t call him a convicted felon until he’s exhausted his appeals.

          • Stupidmanager@lemmy.worldEnglish
            12·
            6 months ago

            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.

          • lolrightythen@lemmy.world
            9·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              3·
              6 months ago

              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.

          • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
            5·
            6 months ago

            I have such a hard time imagining a conservative, much less a Trump fan, thinking the general concept of Wikipedia is a good idea.

  • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
    12815·
    6 months ago

    Hey you guys I just had an amazing thought, wouldn’t it be amazing if he just sort of accidentally dropped dead of natural causes or whatever so we could be relieved of all this nonsense? And Biden too…

    seriously, imagine what a huge relief that would be.

    of course politics would just replace them with some other yahoos up there but can we just move on already…

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      232·
      6 months ago

      Its why I really wish I had a death note. So many names to put into to make the world a bit better

      • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
        83·
        6 months ago

        First order of business: Googling the name and picture of every Republican member of the House, the Senate, and the SCOTUS.

        • daltotron@lemmy.world
          7·
          6 months ago

          You know I do kinda wonder what effect that would have culturally, especially if that became a kind of trend or mainstay. Like, obviously a big investigation would take place as to the cause of death. Doubt they would come up with anything, but obviously, huge scandal. After that, do the successors keep getting killed since they’d probably be the same or worse, or what happens? What would happen in response to that? Would they rename the party, launch further investigations, would they attempt to dissolve the party? Would they attempt to believe in different ideals out of a kind of fear or natural selection, or what? Would they all just devolve into extremely conspiratorial thought as they desperately tried to ward it off?

          I mean, if they figured it out, then they might even just start putting them out under aliases or fake names or something.

          • BigBenis@lemmy.world
            1·
            6 months ago

            What happens when the government figures out who is in possession of the death note and arrests them/confiscates the death note? I don’t know what’s scarier, some rogue nobody with the death note or the United States Government.

            • daltotron@lemmy.world
              3·
              6 months ago

              I mean the government pretty much already has a death note, of a kind. If you’re not Gary Webb, then they could always just slip some shit in your water main or whatever, or otherwise just kinda kill you however they want. So it’s not all that useful for them to have, other than being cheaper and maybe making some political assassinations much easier.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      5·
      6 months ago

      His followers would call it a political hit and cause an even bigger ruckus as he’s remembered as a martyr

    • 1984@lemmy.today
      1614·
      6 months ago

      There is relief right now if you don’t follow politics. :)

      Since you do, I guess you enjoy reading about the worst of humanity.

      • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
        212·
        6 months ago

        I mean not reading about it doesn’t make it go away. Advising people to ignore politics that directly effect your life is… not a great strategy.

        • 1984@lemmy.today
          1·
          6 months ago

          I disagree actually. It affects your life but you can’t do anything about it. What the politicians say is just hot air anyway. It’s pointless to get emotionally involved and manipulated by their statements. Even bad for you.

      • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 months ago

        I absolutely do NOT follow politics, but am addicted to reddit & Lemmy in my downtime when I’m not doing yoga or massaging people or sleeping and it’s pretty impossible to avoid getting hit in the head with posts mentioning political figures every time we leisurely browse Lemmy.

    • SitD@feddit.de
      334·
      6 months ago

      it’s exactly as you say, but i think moving on and on with worse and worse options is not gonna be better than the current iteration. and no one’s gonna fix the social divide or the voting system. i recommend just stopping to vote and stopping to watch news. the losers have already won, why are we still playing

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
    982·
    6 months ago

    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.

      • 1ostA5tro6yne@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        5·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • rwhitisissle
        121·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          7·
          6 months ago

          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

    • MueheOP
      7·
      6 months ago

      So, I think it’s pretty stupid to argue whether “convicted felon” should be in his opening lede line for Wikipedia.

      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.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
        6·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        451·
        6 months ago

        Thanks for the link. I love Wikipedia!

        Pretty much the only question is first sentence or second sentence (almost):

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          50·
          6 months ago

          I’m inclined to agree with this comment, to be honest:

          Use Barak Obama page as an example. First sentence is about him as a US President. The second sentence is about something he was particularly special for – bring first African-American US President. Both sentences are above the portrait.

          The same should be done for Donald Trump – first sentence is about him being a US President. The second sentence (still above the portrait) is about him being the first US President convicted of a felony

        • Default_Defect@midwest.socialEnglish
          4810·
          6 months ago

          His being a criminal is the most well known fact about him, I’d argue it should be mentioned as early as possible to reflect that.

          • alehc@slrpnk.net
            213·
            6 months ago

            I’m pretty sure that him being an ex-president is a better known fact. But still, him being the first and only criminal ex-president is pretty remarkable. Keep it in the first sentence!

            • kelargo@lemmy.world
              31·
              6 months ago

              No. A lot of his followers think he is not convicted. That’s a shame jury. A lot still think he is president and didn’t loose to Joe Biden. The most damning truths about him have been pushed aside and ignored.

          • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
            181·
            6 months ago

            “Trump is a convicted felon, a failed businessman, and the only president to be impeached twice.”

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            61·
            6 months ago

            “Donald is a life-long con man and fraud, finally convicted of dozens of felonies in his later years. He is also a rapist.”

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            5·
            6 months ago

            It’s Wikipedia, even the Nazis have to try to sound rational or they get banned. Don’t be fooled by the tone. They are lying and there’s tons of articles of politicians with their criminal history in the lede.

  • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
    32·
    6 months ago

    I am all for mentioning his conviction in the 1st sentence, but the crowd saying it should go into the 2nd sentence make some good points.

    Barely anyone gets to have “convicted felon” in their lead sentence. Firstly, it is poor style unless the person is only known because they did a crime, secondly, convicted felon can mean a lot of thing and should be specified. “Convicted of falsifying business records” is just so much more specific, and can later be added with “and election interference”.

    In any case, while the discussion is ongoing it has been included in a 2nd sentence, and the editors supporting to move it to first sentence seem to be the majority. If only more of them would read the whole discussion, instead of just saying “Support due to being established fact”.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      18·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, it’s in the third sentence of Richard Nixon’s wiki page where it’s stated he’s the only President to resign from office. First sentence was political positions he held, second sentence about events while he was President, third sentence about him resigning.

      So maybe the wikipedia page should follow that pattern and the first sentence be about positions he’s held. The second sentence should be about his record as president… so something about Trump being President at the start of the Covid Pandemic (that killed over a million Americans), passed legislation to cut taxes for the wealthy, assassinated an Iranian General, tried to weaken NATO, was impeached for withholding military aid from Ukraine for personal gain, and was impeached again for trying to overthrow the government after losing the election. Then in the third sentence it would say he was later convicted on falsifying documents while covering up a scandal so he could be elected.

      I feel like this would be fair.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    193·
    6 months ago

    It’s already locked and even the talk page is restricted. Past that Wikipedia won’t even let me log in to participate.

    Not going to be surprised when this magically disappears.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    10·
    6 months ago

    He’s also THE LIVING INCARNATION OF THE CHRIST and shit. don’t mock the incontinence diapers, that shit’s not funny.

  • erp@lemmy.world
    1·
    6 months ago

    No cause for panic. The letters just got scrambled over the inter-webs: he’s not a convicted felon , he’s a convinced melon. There are many varieties of melons of course, for example watermelons, bitter melons, and musk melons.

  • DrElementary@lemmy.world
    524·
    6 months ago

    Wiki is a circlejerk of people who have gotten their digital power and want to play pretend that they’re doing something important, something that has gravitas. So they’ll have a “discussion” for a week on whether the first president convicted of 34 felonies is a “significant” fact. This is what brain dead “neutrality” looks like.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      10·
      6 months ago

      It’s not like they’re arguing over something emergent like pulling a drowning man to shore or something though. And it’s a better system than the closed encyclopedias where the facts are whatever the company determines. So while it sucks that we have to have a discussion to tell the trump supporters they can’t censor Wikipedia (again) it’s better than the alternatives.

      • Iamdanno@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 months ago

        He’s right about arguing whether it is significant fact or not. It is absolutely a significant fact.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          2·
          6 months ago

          Of course it is. The point here is the process itself protects that neutrality. You can’t skip it just because it’s obvious to 2/3rds of us.