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:
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.
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…
There is relief right now if you don’t follow politics. :)
Since you do, I guess you enjoy reading about the worst of humanity.
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.
Pakistan and India pages: amateurs
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.
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”.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.
His bio at 8:48pdt
Being debated on the Talk page
You’re fuckin kidding me.
Conservatives are in there arguing we can’t call him a convicted felon until he’s exhausted his appeals.
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.
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.
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.
