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:

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    186 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
      link
      26 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.

      • @Maggoty
        link
        26 months ago

        That doesn’t mean an encyclopedia should buy into that.