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:
His bio at 8:48pdt
Should be because of election interference via business fraud
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…
lol Biden?? What did he do to you?
Absolutely nothing but at least we can get some non geriatric presidential nominee.
After Trump dies
I’d rather have genocide joe over kamala tbh
Twice impeached, convicted rapist and 34-time smelly felon ‘Sleepy Don’ Donald Trump…
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”.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.
He’s also THE LIVING INCARNATION OF THE CHRIST and shit. don’t mock the incontinence diapers, that shit’s not funny.
“Trial’s over. Donnie’s a convicted felon. The judge out front should have told ya.”
Pakistan and India pages: amateurs
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.
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.
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.
He’s right about arguing whether it is significant fact or not. It is absolutely a significant fact.
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.
Wikipedia should turn the IP addresses to the police and the far-right net vandalism should be criminalized.
Yup. Because those are the IP addresses they’re going to go after and accuse of vandalism. Totally.
