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:

  • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      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.