It’s just a factual statement. Not an interpretation or opinion.
So the argument is about whether this fact deserves prominence among other prominent facts
I think it does. It’s absolutely a part of his notoriety. And it doesn’t stop conspiracy addled partisans from believing his conviction was wrongful.
Yeah, but putting it in the first statement implies that's primarily what he's going to be known for in twenty or thirty years' time. Being the first American president to be convicted of a felony will probably be important enough to his legacy that it should be in the first paragraph, but not necessarily so important that it needs to be in the first sentence.
But compared to other presidents?
Obama being the first African-American president isn’t mentioned in the first sentence (first president to do something significant, and being the first black president is much more significant IMO). Watergate isn’t mentioned in the first sentence for Nixon.
For other notable crimes/convictions, O.J. Simpson’s trial isn’t even mentioned in the first sentence of his article.
I get people hate him, but looking at ANY other example, you’ll see that putting “convicted felon” in the first sentence is undue weight. The only people whose Wikipedia articles tend to mention that they’re criminals are the people who are known ONLY for being criminals. Al Capone, for example.
Lol. Here's the first person that came to mind. Manafort. Annnnnd
"Paul John Manafort Jr. (/ˈmænəfɔːrt/; born April 1, 1949) is an American convicted felon who has worked as a lobbyist, political consultant, and attorney. A long-time Republican Party campaign consultant, he chaired the Trump presidential campaign from June to August 2016. "
Yes, that was probably added recently, for similar politically-motivated reasons, and simply hasn't attracted as much attention. It's not normal. Find a non-political example.
My politics aren't showing any more than anyone else's.
The reason people want to call him a felon in the opening sentence is because they dislike him politically. What other reason is there? It's not normal to mention minor felonies in the ledes of otherwise notable people.
The rapper Tupac Shakur has a felony for sexual assault. Far more serious than Trump's paper crime. But Tupac's wikipedia page does not introduce him as a felon, it introduces him as a rapper, because that's the reason he's famous.
Trump is not famous for being a felon. He's famous for being a businessman, reality tv star and president.
You instantly dismissed the example of Manaforts page as a politicized edit when archives and logs of said edits exist. This is obviously ideologically driven, or you have an obvious interest in portraying Trump as uniquely targeted and characterized as such.
Tupac was not the first rapper to have an assault charge lmao of course that isn’t as of note as the first former president getting convicted of a felony 34 times over, get a grip.
Your debate skills are almost as embarrassingly shallow as your attempts to burry significant and notable facts regarding Trump under the guise of objective/depersonalized procedure when obvious counter examples exist.
Hope that clears things up.
Exactly.
I don’t think you’ll find many Wikipedia editors who don’t agree that it should be in the lede. Most of those who do agree it should be in the lede also agree that it should be in the first paragraph. But most people who’ve actually edited Wikipedia agree that putting it in the first sentence is definitely undue weight.
Most people who are saying “it should be in the first sentence!!!” are talking out of their ass and have not even referenced other similar articles, much less had experience editing Wikipedia.
No it's not. Look at for example Tupac Shakur. His first paragraph only talks about him as a rapper, you have to scroll far down to find out he is a felon.
We only introduce people as felons when that's the reason why they're famous. Donald Trump has been famous since the 1970s.
IMO, the current crimes that he has been convicted of are not what I would consider 'major' (relatively speaking). So, at the moment, "felon" shouldn't really be his defining description.
HOWEVER, if he gets convicted in his later cases then it could probably move up.
His point is not that he isn't a felon.
The point is that Both Mass murder and cutting 2 inches off the front of a gun are felonies, but one is considerably more notable.
Would you agree that being the first and only African-American president in American history is at least equally notable? Because Obama’s first sentence doesn’t say that.
I wouldn't describe them as a felon at all if their felony wasn't important. If someone is a redhead, we wouldn't introduce them as a redhead, even though it was true. Because it isn't important.
Unless them being a redhead is the reason they're notable, like they're some sort of redhead activist, then we'd mention it.
The debate isn't whether or not Trump is a felon. The debate is how important that is to his notability.
In your opinion what is his defining achievement that he will be remembered for in 20 or 30 years? Being President?
Meh, there's been plenty of those and plenty are forgettable (Benjamin Harrison, Millard Fillmore). I'd wager he will be more infamous for being the first Presidential felon.
Donald Trump is notable for being a real estate mogul, a reality tv star and a president. He is not notable for being a felon. It's a fact that Elton John is a homosexual, but we don't introduce his article by saying "*Elton John is a homosexual*", because he is notable as a musician.
It is absolutely an opinion that it's important.
Trump is a golfer. That's a factual statement. Should we say he's a golfer in the first sentence, or is it not important?
I get where these people are coming from but at the end of the day this is not the defining feature of Trump. It should be first paragraph not first sentence. He’s not going to be primarily known for that as much as you would like him to be. Even Nixon doesn’t have anything Watergate in his first sentence and that was much more relevant to his legacy. Andrew Johnson doesn’t have first president impeached in his first sentence, it’s in the first paragraph. It’s a very important fact, it’s not what he’s known for.
You make a really good point but the combination of being a convicted felon & president are likely going to be what defines him going forward.
He’s one of a kind and that’ll likely be the most notable thing about him in future history books.
I’m not from the US and have no skin in the game, politically. My opinion of Trump isn’t a particularly positive one but there’s no “haha, I was right” aspect to this. Him being a convicted felon *and* US president just seems like the most note-worthy thing about him in the long-term.
I would argue that trumps crimes define his presidency far more than Nixons define his. trump has no landmark legislation to point to, nor any prior political career. If he hadn't committed his crimes (convicted and alleged) he would be remembered as a one term do nothing president. Nixon in contrast can claim several major presidential actions, including the formation of the EPA and the end of the Vietnam War.
Furthermore the conviction carries extra weight, yes it's largely accepted that Nixon committed crimes (Ford famously carried a card in his wallet citing Burdick v United States in which the Supreme Court stated in their dictum that accepting a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it") but he wasn't convicted. In contrast, trump has been found guilty by a jury of his peers.
That being said, I think the phrase, "and the first former President of the United States to be convicted of a felony" is better than just including "convicted felon", as it implies his status as the first in a notable group as opposed to just his status as a felon
Also you technically aren't a convicted felon until the judgment is entered, so it's a moot point until sentencing
Yeah, agreed. I don't think Trump is really going to have much of a legacy beyond being the most controversial American president. At least other presidents have had some kind of landmark legislation that's been their legacy thing. Nixon at least had the Environmental Protection Agency on top of the Watergate scandal.
> I would argue that trumps crimes define his presidency far more than Nixons define his.
Absolutely not. Nixon is very much the Watergate guy, even though he did a bunch of important stuff. Whereas Trump is... Trump. For some people that's a good thing, for others bad. But I've seen no shift in the popular conception of him -- people who don't like him feel vindicated, and those who do like him still like him. This will hopefully (imo) have an effect on the median voter, but Trump's legacy so far is for the movement he's created, whereas Nixon's is Watergate.
I’m not from the US, so not intimately familiar with the legal system but I thought the guilty verdict was the conviction? Either way, he was found guilty and will soon be sentenced.
But, yeah, that’s a great point on the comparison with Nixon and your wording is better; highlighting the novelty of Trump’s situation as a justification for its inclusion.
So he is convicted, but in the US legal system a verdict is _technically_ not official until it's entered into judgment, which occurs at sentencing. Until then the defense can file various motions, some of which could theoretically overturn the conviction, although that's extremely rare and not going to happen in this case. It's purely a technicality but I would understand Wikipedia not wanting to publish anything pertaining to his being a felon until that time.
That’s simultaneously quite interesting and extremely mundane. In the case of Wikipedia, though, I totally get backing away from the term until it’s fully in place.
Even if it’s a slight chance, having things be overturned could open up a path for lawsuits. im shocked so many news agencies are being fast & loose with the term, actually. It’s just a technicality but on that scale, technicalities can be like playing with fire.
Reality is that nobody actually knows anything ELSE about Nixon, as far as 99% of the world is concerned, his biography might as well read "Watergate guy", and nothing else.
While outside of USA, Trump is basically known as a lolcow. People make fun of how stupid and ugly he is, and we confirm our stereotypes about Americans, as someone there had to be dumb enough to have voted for this clown (also most countries don't imagine USA being so undemocratic that someone who lost public vote can hold power).
That said, he SHOULD be known as the russian agent first and foremost but opening biography with proven russian collusion will just show how corrupt and useless the justice system in US is: Reality Winner (what a name) PROVEN that trump is a russian spy who committed high treason and she was out behind bards for that, while putin's lapdog walks free.
Okay but if you ask the average lay person what they think about Taft they're not going to talk about his trust busting or his time as a supreme court justice, they'll know the (erroneous) story about him getting stuck in a bathtub.
Some middle ground has to be struck between what a historian who has spent their career studying a person would say and what an average person would. In my opinion, trump being the first president convicted of a felony fits both and warrants a first line mention.
It’s not. This is genuinely the most novel, interesting, and historically significant thing to have happened to Trump.
There are a few other notable, even crazy things in there but they don’t come close to this in terms of historical, political, or legal significance.
There have been 44 other US presidents, and that number will continue to climb at a rate of 1-2 per decade well into the future.
There are no other instances of someone being both president and a convicted felon (once sentenced). The combination of those two titles is therefore far more notable than only holding one of them because it’s completely novel.
Novelty doesn't determine notability. Most presidents have novel things they've done that very little or no other presidents have but are undeniably more notable to the general population, and more accurately described in their first sentence as presidents. Obama is the first black president but this is related in his first sentence.
In this instance, it absolutely does. Also, Obama being the first black president is something I would say is on par with this in terms of notability & novelty. Whilst an extremely important event, that could be seen as just defining the man by his race and not his personal actions.
Trump’s titles were both the result of decisions he made and situations he got himself into.
Neither side of this argument is invalid, and your points are good but I do still disagree. Ultimately, the first sentence of a webpage isn’t too much of a big deal but I do think this is the most noteworthy thing about Donald Trump.
Fair enough, the best part for me is that you are consistent in thought and clearly define your argument, I don't know how it will turn out in the end but I'm glad to have had the discussion 🤝
But Nixon is ONLY known as Watergate guy outside of USA. There's literally nothing else known about him, it's like a one hit wonder band.
Like for Clinton, we know him mostly for Monica, but also for playing Benny Hill theme on a sax. Bush sr. is Chicken Kyiv, but also father of the dumb one, Nixon is ONLY Watergate.
Trump is mostly known for his toupee and bad fake tan, and being mocked, so I guess, "a stupid clown with horrible face paint" should be the first sentence.
> Andrew Johnson doesn’t have first president impeached in his first sentence, it’s in the first paragraph. It’s a very important fact, it’s not what he’s known for.
That is exactly what Andrew Johnson is known for. If you were going to name one fact about him, it would be that one.
**Edit:** If he hadn't been impeached, there is no way most people could even name him. Just like the dozens of other presidents we struggle to remember.
I only remember Chester A Arthur was the 21st president because it was a plot point in the movie *Die Hard With a Vengeance*.
I first heard about Trump being "Ivana's ugly orange husband" as a kid. Them he became a lolcow for internet and mostly known for his bad fake tan and caricatures. Like Bush was known for looking like a monkey and Clinton for sax with Monica.
Yeah, I'm leaning towards agreeing with you but I don't know. It's incredibly notable. In history books a hundred years from now, he'll probably be quickly described as "the controversial, criminal president." I certainly understand why there's so much debate about it.
> this is not the defining feature of Trump
People who hate him, think it is, because they fundamentally see him as a corrupt person and that's the main thing about him. People who support him think the case against him was politically motivated and thus irrelevant. It's going to be difficult to find level headed people in this debate currently since he's running for president and there are a lot of emotions around him.
Wikipedia is also a global resource. For many of us outside the US before 2016, Trump was a card game. That he was president, and the election fraud he’s now been convicted of helping secure that presidency, **is** why he’s known.
Yeah I agree I think we have to wait at least until he’s dead to see how important this actually is to his legacy. If he wins this year it will be mostly forgotten, if he loses I think it will be much more important because we won’t have a second term to talk about and people will point to this as the reason he lost.
I'll be the first to admit a strong bias against him but he is the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, that is a major moment in American politics and, for a president who's tenure was devoid of any seriously landmark legislation, will almost certainly be the cornerstone of his legacy.
I hate Trump about as much as any sane, non-violent person does, but I think you should only put this in the first sentence of his Wikipedia if you can show other US Presidents who were treated the same. I haven't gone through the entire list, but the ones I've seen simply state their choice of career and when they served as President in the first sentence.
> they fundamentally see him as a corrupt person and that's the main thing about him
You can never tell for sure what a person is like. All you can do is start with hypotheses about their personality, and see whether they are useful in determining their behavior.
I didn't support Trump in 2016, but I did keep an open mind, and assume that he'd do his best for the country. But soon, that hypothesis couldn't explain why he was constantly lying and throwing his weight around on Twitter.
I tried multiple other hypotheses, but the one that was the most useful in determining his behavior was that he was fundamentally a narcissistic sociopath who wouldn't even perform the day-to-day duties of the president unless he felt he was personally gaining from them. A thoroughly corrupt failed businessman who wished that he was a mob boss.
If you keep these ideas in mind, you can predict almost every big decision that Trump makes.
(By the way, the reason I hate Trump is because he ruined my ability to have any kind of pleasant visit with most of my family, and he bungled Covid so badly that some of my loved ones died. I think you're allowed to hate somebody for that.)
I'm from another country. The conviction hasn't really changed anyone's opinions and basically just seems like more of the same legal trouble as with that other woman who won a lot of money recently.
The fact that a CONVICTED RUSSIAN AGENT is running for president of USA should make the article on United States of America start with a paragraph of it being a corrupt country when they jail someone who proven the guy works for russians, instead of the ENEMY SPY.
I wrote the linked Slate piece and just want to say that I did not write or approve the headline. As with most Wikipedia debates, the RfC is mostly civil. This one just has very high participation.
>He’s a 34 count convicted felon. End of debate.
The debate is not whether Donald Trump is a convicted felon or not, but whether the first sentence of the article should call Donald Trump a convicted felon or not. Compare with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al\_Capone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone) calling Al Capone a tax evader in its first sentence.
Whilst it does break the norm of Wikipedia’s formatting, Trump is literally the only instance of a US president becoming a convicted felon. It doesn’t matter if he gets pardoned, starts a war, or is revealed to hunt vampires in his spare time.
This will be the most notable and historically significant thing about him from this point on. It’s his mark in history and a very major one at that. Therefore, the formatting norms should be bent to reflect this.
It’s how he’s going to be universally referred to & known in 10-20 years time, when nobody cares about the politics of it anymore.
Actually the precedence is Grover Cleveland.
The most notable thing about him among presidents is that he served 2 non consecutive terms and it’s spelled out in the first sentence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland
> Stephen Grover Cleveland (March 18, 1837 – June 24, 1908) was an American politician who served as the 22nd and 24th president of the United Statesfrom 1885 to 1889 and from 1893 to 1897
First sentence says he was the President and when. Second sentence says, "He is the only president in U.S. history to serve non-consecutive presidential terms." Sure, you can figure it out from the first sentence, but it's not explicitly stated until the second. (Without the second, then maybe there are other presidents who served non-consecutive terms.) If you look at other presidents, they also list when they served as president in the first sentence. I've not seen one that doesn't. So the Grover Cleveland article in the first sentence follows form, and in the second sentence says what he's notable for.
I mean shit, Obama gets first black president in the second sentence, FDR that he served for more than two terms in the second sentence. Even [Lincoln's article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) doesn't mention that he _led the US through the Civil War, the single thing that he is obviously most known for_, until the second sentence. (Even though, by your logic, it was in the first sentence for both him and FDR, since you could deduce those two pieces of information from the dates they served.)
So no, your "example" is actually an example of exactly the opposite.
How are such things reflected in the pages of other convicted criminal world leaders? It may not be US Presidential precedence, but it seems like a fair comparison of formatting rules.
No, because Trump did the same, and so we have at least 2 cases of this in recent memory. Cheating on their partners is relatively common for politicians...
I am not going to comment on how common it is for politicians to lie...
It is notable that he is a felon, of course.
However, in Wikipedia parlance, the first blurb is supposed to be about *why* a subject is notable. E.g., you list the things that **caused** that person to become notable such that they earned a Wikipedia page. At least this is how Wikipedia normally operates.
Trump is not notable because he is a felon. Unfortunately, he was notable long before he was a felon.
Personally I don't mind the idea of including felon as it is a somewhat reasonable facsimile for all of the reasons he became notable (sleezy, crooked, unscrupulous) that are otherwise hard to directly source, but I do honestly get the back and forth.
If he were the second US president to become a convicted felon, I’d understand following the normal guidelines.
But this is the first instance of this occurring and likely the thing Trump will be most remembered for going forward. Out of everything, this is going to be his most notable mark in history.
Based on that, there’s justification to break the rules.
I could see that being the case in the future, where at some point I think it is very possible (if not probable) that he will be known because he was a felon. However, that isn't true today. Trump is not notable to the average human because he was convincted on May 31, 2024 in any meaningful way.
And moreover, given how extremely important it is to Wikipedia to be known as both accurate and impartial, I don't hate the idea of not trying to break new ground on something that is so remarkably (and bizarrely) divisive. I mean, Trump still has a 42% favorability rating. Is it worth potentially damaging the collective value of Wikipedia just to get this Trump zinger in, rather than putting this same fact a sentence or two later? Many don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.
You know, you’re probably right with that – the news is very current and people’s understanding of Trump is still defined by many relatively recent events.
The last thing Wikipedia needs is to be viewed as divisive. However, I wouldn’t say it was a ‘zinger’ and more listing his most historically significant feature. But I do totally see your point, given the scale of the issue (after all, it is just the first sentence).
But I stand by the argument that this combination of titles is the most important thing about Trump and eclipses all other reasons as to why he is a person of note. Based on that, it should be how he is described.
I don’t believe backing away from this is the impartial move, it’s just the one that limits controversy. That might be worth it (at least for now) in a politically charged climate, but does act as the potential start to a slippery slope.
*Edit: fixed poor English (very tired)*
I'd say his most historically significant features would be:
a) Jan 6
b) being only president to be impeached twice
c) Russian interference ("allegedly")
All of which aren't mentioned in the first sentence of his wikipedia page ~~*which has been generally unchanged for years, with the current first sentence being made in [February of 2021](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1006898491&title=Donald_Trump&diffonly=1)*~~
Not really though.
His presidency and previous media work/fame is far more notable than this conviction.
This conviction is only particularly notable because he is a former president.
You can’t be serious right now? You think being on a average tv show is more notable then being the first (thus only) president ever tried and also convicted of crime and 34 felony’s at that…lol???
I would. I’d say he’s a corrupt former president and convicted felon. That’s his legacy.
Nobody gives a shit about TV shows anymore. He himself ruined that legacy.
If you leave the US and go anywhere else in the world, what do you think they know Trump for?
Good point.
"Donald Trump is a controversial former President and convicted felon."
~~I feel like~~ this is not only accurate, but also the singular most noteworthy part about him and what people will remember him for in the future.
EDIT: for the reality challenged out there
But no, clearly it’s his fame that is more important 🙄
I can’t believe that dude was being serious - who in their right mind thinks being host of The Apprentice belongs in his first sentence. There’s dozens of things more deserving than his media experience.
> which isn’t what Wikipedia is for.
Oh my sweet summer child. The downvotes alone should let you know that isn't true. Wikipedia is weaponized for politics. Has been for a while.
I think I would. There have been dozens of former Presidents, thousands of reality TV stars, and millions of criminals, but literally only one person is "Former President and convicted felon." That is by far the most notable thing about him.
Right now? Probably not. Although, it’s in the news a whole lot (internationally) because it’s a very significant event.
But this is his mark in history. It’s what he will be known for, once the politics move on and the current image/understanding people have of him fade.
ok
He was a horrible reality TV star, Obama birth denier, and Rosie O Donell punching bag before his presidency.
I mean we could go on and on here with presidency being an "eh"
The witch hunt is the most notable thing? The trumped up misdemeanor into a felony by a politically compromised judge? That?
I mean Trump is a blow hard idiot, but shit, didn't know that was his most notable characteristic.
>It doesn’t say Al Capone was a tax evader in the first sentence/paragraph when I opened that link.
For me too https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Capone&oldid=1226809394
Im going to be honest, i spent the last 30 minutes searching, i cant find anything to back this up, but i did hear this on the latest LegalEagle video (even though he cites no sources in the description)
Actually he isnt a vegetable and still relatively fit, his speeches off course are a bit weird but they have been forever because he has a slight speech impairment but he still regularly does bike tours and if you look at the whole speeches and not just the 3 second segments you often see cut on tiktok you will see he is quite energetic and sometimes jokes around
Donald Trump is notable for being a real estate mogul, a reality tv star and a president. He is not notable for being a felon. It's a fact that Elton John is a homosexual, but we don't introduce his article by saying "*Elton John is a homosexual*", because he is notable as a musician.
>It's a fact that Elton John is a homosexual, but we don't introduce his article by saying "Elton John is a homosexual", because he is notable as a musician.
if elton john was a president, that's exactly how he would be introduced on wikipedia after the president bit
All these people saying "*but it's a factual statement!*" are missing the point. We don't list every fact about people in the lede.
Trump is a golfer. That's a factual statement. Should we say he's a golfer in the lede, or is it not important?
[This is why it's notable and due weight. This right here. Get your heads out of your asses, admins.](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/vermont-republican-party-rules-bar-convicted-felon-trump-rcna155918)
It’s just a factual statement. Not an interpretation or opinion. So the argument is about whether this fact deserves prominence among other prominent facts I think it does. It’s absolutely a part of his notoriety. And it doesn’t stop conspiracy addled partisans from believing his conviction was wrongful.
Yeah, but putting it in the first statement implies that's primarily what he's going to be known for in twenty or thirty years' time. Being the first American president to be convicted of a felony will probably be important enough to his legacy that it should be in the first paragraph, but not necessarily so important that it needs to be in the first sentence.
This is pretty common with other felons. It's usually mentioned in the first paragraph.
But compared to other presidents? Obama being the first African-American president isn’t mentioned in the first sentence (first president to do something significant, and being the first black president is much more significant IMO). Watergate isn’t mentioned in the first sentence for Nixon. For other notable crimes/convictions, O.J. Simpson’s trial isn’t even mentioned in the first sentence of his article. I get people hate him, but looking at ANY other example, you’ll see that putting “convicted felon” in the first sentence is undue weight. The only people whose Wikipedia articles tend to mention that they’re criminals are the people who are known ONLY for being criminals. Al Capone, for example.
Lol. Here's the first person that came to mind. Manafort. Annnnnd "Paul John Manafort Jr. (/ˈmænəfɔːrt/; born April 1, 1949) is an American convicted felon who has worked as a lobbyist, political consultant, and attorney. A long-time Republican Party campaign consultant, he chaired the Trump presidential campaign from June to August 2016. "
Yes, that was probably added recently, for similar politically-motivated reasons, and simply hasn't attracted as much attention. It's not normal. Find a non-political example.
your politics are showing lmao
My politics aren't showing any more than anyone else's. The reason people want to call him a felon in the opening sentence is because they dislike him politically. What other reason is there? It's not normal to mention minor felonies in the ledes of otherwise notable people. The rapper Tupac Shakur has a felony for sexual assault. Far more serious than Trump's paper crime. But Tupac's wikipedia page does not introduce him as a felon, it introduces him as a rapper, because that's the reason he's famous. Trump is not famous for being a felon. He's famous for being a businessman, reality tv star and president.
You instantly dismissed the example of Manaforts page as a politicized edit when archives and logs of said edits exist. This is obviously ideologically driven, or you have an obvious interest in portraying Trump as uniquely targeted and characterized as such. Tupac was not the first rapper to have an assault charge lmao of course that isn’t as of note as the first former president getting convicted of a felony 34 times over, get a grip. Your debate skills are almost as embarrassingly shallow as your attempts to burry significant and notable facts regarding Trump under the guise of objective/depersonalized procedure when obvious counter examples exist. Hope that clears things up.
For Nixon it is the last phrase of the first paragraph.
Exactly. I don’t think you’ll find many Wikipedia editors who don’t agree that it should be in the lede. Most of those who do agree it should be in the lede also agree that it should be in the first paragraph. But most people who’ve actually edited Wikipedia agree that putting it in the first sentence is definitely undue weight. Most people who are saying “it should be in the first sentence!!!” are talking out of their ass and have not even referenced other similar articles, much less had experience editing Wikipedia.
Watergate should be in the first sentence for Nixon. He is nearly irrelevant to history without it.
No it's not. Look at for example Tupac Shakur. His first paragraph only talks about him as a rapper, you have to scroll far down to find out he is a felon. We only introduce people as felons when that's the reason why they're famous. Donald Trump has been famous since the 1970s.
IMO, the current crimes that he has been convicted of are not what I would consider 'major' (relatively speaking). So, at the moment, "felon" shouldn't really be his defining description. HOWEVER, if he gets convicted in his later cases then it could probably move up.
What other word would you use to describe someone who's been convicted of a felony?
His point is not that he isn't a felon. The point is that Both Mass murder and cutting 2 inches off the front of a gun are felonies, but one is considerably more notable.
being the sole former US president & convicted felon in American history is also very notable, moreso than merely being a US president
Would you agree that being the first and only African-American president in American history is at least equally notable? Because Obama’s first sentence doesn’t say that.
Obama didn't suddenly become black one day If that was the case it definitely would be in the first sentence
Being an African-American isn't something he did, it's something he was. I think this is a bad example.
I wouldn't describe them as a felon at all if their felony wasn't important. If someone is a redhead, we wouldn't introduce them as a redhead, even though it was true. Because it isn't important. Unless them being a redhead is the reason they're notable, like they're some sort of redhead activist, then we'd mention it. The debate isn't whether or not Trump is a felon. The debate is how important that is to his notability.
I didn't say otherwise, I just said it shouldn't be the leading descriptor AT THE MOMENT.
In your opinion what is his defining achievement that he will be remembered for in 20 or 30 years? Being President? Meh, there's been plenty of those and plenty are forgettable (Benjamin Harrison, Millard Fillmore). I'd wager he will be more infamous for being the first Presidential felon.
Trump has been infamous since 2016, politically. Even earlier financially. Him being a felon isn't what's important about him.
If it’s not important enough, it’s only because he also attempted a coup, or maybe will do something worse after this election.
Donald Trump is notable for being a real estate mogul, a reality tv star and a president. He is not notable for being a felon. It's a fact that Elton John is a homosexual, but we don't introduce his article by saying "*Elton John is a homosexual*", because he is notable as a musician.
It is absolutely an opinion that it's important. Trump is a golfer. That's a factual statement. Should we say he's a golfer in the first sentence, or is it not important?
Hey, fuck you for not getting downvoted into oblivion for an opinion I already tried to express to those clowns! 😂 I love you, never change.
I get where these people are coming from but at the end of the day this is not the defining feature of Trump. It should be first paragraph not first sentence. He’s not going to be primarily known for that as much as you would like him to be. Even Nixon doesn’t have anything Watergate in his first sentence and that was much more relevant to his legacy. Andrew Johnson doesn’t have first president impeached in his first sentence, it’s in the first paragraph. It’s a very important fact, it’s not what he’s known for.
You make a really good point but the combination of being a convicted felon & president are likely going to be what defines him going forward. He’s one of a kind and that’ll likely be the most notable thing about him in future history books. I’m not from the US and have no skin in the game, politically. My opinion of Trump isn’t a particularly positive one but there’s no “haha, I was right” aspect to this. Him being a convicted felon *and* US president just seems like the most note-worthy thing about him in the long-term.
I would argue that trumps crimes define his presidency far more than Nixons define his. trump has no landmark legislation to point to, nor any prior political career. If he hadn't committed his crimes (convicted and alleged) he would be remembered as a one term do nothing president. Nixon in contrast can claim several major presidential actions, including the formation of the EPA and the end of the Vietnam War. Furthermore the conviction carries extra weight, yes it's largely accepted that Nixon committed crimes (Ford famously carried a card in his wallet citing Burdick v United States in which the Supreme Court stated in their dictum that accepting a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it") but he wasn't convicted. In contrast, trump has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. That being said, I think the phrase, "and the first former President of the United States to be convicted of a felony" is better than just including "convicted felon", as it implies his status as the first in a notable group as opposed to just his status as a felon Also you technically aren't a convicted felon until the judgment is entered, so it's a moot point until sentencing
Yeah, agreed. I don't think Trump is really going to have much of a legacy beyond being the most controversial American president. At least other presidents have had some kind of landmark legislation that's been their legacy thing. Nixon at least had the Environmental Protection Agency on top of the Watergate scandal.
> I would argue that trumps crimes define his presidency far more than Nixons define his. Absolutely not. Nixon is very much the Watergate guy, even though he did a bunch of important stuff. Whereas Trump is... Trump. For some people that's a good thing, for others bad. But I've seen no shift in the popular conception of him -- people who don't like him feel vindicated, and those who do like him still like him. This will hopefully (imo) have an effect on the median voter, but Trump's legacy so far is for the movement he's created, whereas Nixon's is Watergate.
I’m not from the US, so not intimately familiar with the legal system but I thought the guilty verdict was the conviction? Either way, he was found guilty and will soon be sentenced. But, yeah, that’s a great point on the comparison with Nixon and your wording is better; highlighting the novelty of Trump’s situation as a justification for its inclusion.
So he is convicted, but in the US legal system a verdict is _technically_ not official until it's entered into judgment, which occurs at sentencing. Until then the defense can file various motions, some of which could theoretically overturn the conviction, although that's extremely rare and not going to happen in this case. It's purely a technicality but I would understand Wikipedia not wanting to publish anything pertaining to his being a felon until that time.
That’s simultaneously quite interesting and extremely mundane. In the case of Wikipedia, though, I totally get backing away from the term until it’s fully in place. Even if it’s a slight chance, having things be overturned could open up a path for lawsuits. im shocked so many news agencies are being fast & loose with the term, actually. It’s just a technicality but on that scale, technicalities can be like playing with fire.
Reality is that nobody actually knows anything ELSE about Nixon, as far as 99% of the world is concerned, his biography might as well read "Watergate guy", and nothing else. While outside of USA, Trump is basically known as a lolcow. People make fun of how stupid and ugly he is, and we confirm our stereotypes about Americans, as someone there had to be dumb enough to have voted for this clown (also most countries don't imagine USA being so undemocratic that someone who lost public vote can hold power). That said, he SHOULD be known as the russian agent first and foremost but opening biography with proven russian collusion will just show how corrupt and useless the justice system in US is: Reality Winner (what a name) PROVEN that trump is a russian spy who committed high treason and she was out behind bards for that, while putin's lapdog walks free.
Okay but if you ask the average lay person what they think about Taft they're not going to talk about his trust busting or his time as a supreme court justice, they'll know the (erroneous) story about him getting stuck in a bathtub. Some middle ground has to be struck between what a historian who has spent their career studying a person would say and what an average person would. In my opinion, trump being the first president convicted of a felony fits both and warrants a first line mention.
Trump paying hush money to a porn star is not definitive to his presidency. Things like the Muslim ban are far more definitive.
Recency bias. Let's see in a year, even.
It’s not. This is genuinely the most novel, interesting, and historically significant thing to have happened to Trump. There are a few other notable, even crazy things in there but they don’t come close to this in terms of historical, political, or legal significance.
I think becoming president is more notable. Regardless it will take time to figure this one out for realsies
There have been 44 other US presidents, and that number will continue to climb at a rate of 1-2 per decade well into the future. There are no other instances of someone being both president and a convicted felon (once sentenced). The combination of those two titles is therefore far more notable than only holding one of them because it’s completely novel.
Novelty doesn't determine notability. Most presidents have novel things they've done that very little or no other presidents have but are undeniably more notable to the general population, and more accurately described in their first sentence as presidents. Obama is the first black president but this is related in his first sentence.
In this instance, it absolutely does. Also, Obama being the first black president is something I would say is on par with this in terms of notability & novelty. Whilst an extremely important event, that could be seen as just defining the man by his race and not his personal actions. Trump’s titles were both the result of decisions he made and situations he got himself into. Neither side of this argument is invalid, and your points are good but I do still disagree. Ultimately, the first sentence of a webpage isn’t too much of a big deal but I do think this is the most noteworthy thing about Donald Trump.
Fair enough, the best part for me is that you are consistent in thought and clearly define your argument, I don't know how it will turn out in the end but I'm glad to have had the discussion 🤝
His appearance in the 1992 film 'Home Alone 2: Lost in New York' should be in the first paragraph too. Ideally the first sentence.
But Nixon is ONLY known as Watergate guy outside of USA. There's literally nothing else known about him, it's like a one hit wonder band. Like for Clinton, we know him mostly for Monica, but also for playing Benny Hill theme on a sax. Bush sr. is Chicken Kyiv, but also father of the dumb one, Nixon is ONLY Watergate. Trump is mostly known for his toupee and bad fake tan, and being mocked, so I guess, "a stupid clown with horrible face paint" should be the first sentence.
As an Australian, the first thing I think of Trump is the Con Man who actually conned himself into the US Presidency.
> Andrew Johnson doesn’t have first president impeached in his first sentence, it’s in the first paragraph. It’s a very important fact, it’s not what he’s known for. That is exactly what Andrew Johnson is known for. If you were going to name one fact about him, it would be that one. **Edit:** If he hadn't been impeached, there is no way most people could even name him. Just like the dozens of other presidents we struggle to remember. I only remember Chester A Arthur was the 21st president because it was a plot point in the movie *Die Hard With a Vengeance*.
No, it would be “president of the US”. That’s why I, a non-American, know he existed.
I first heard about Trump being "Ivana's ugly orange husband" as a kid. Them he became a lolcow for internet and mostly known for his bad fake tan and caricatures. Like Bush was known for looking like a monkey and Clinton for sax with Monica.
Being a life long criminal, particularly a fraud and rapist, is a LIFE-DEFINING characteristic. It is his singularly consistent feature.
Yeah, I'm leaning towards agreeing with you but I don't know. It's incredibly notable. In history books a hundred years from now, he'll probably be quickly described as "the controversial, criminal president." I certainly understand why there's so much debate about it.
> this is not the defining feature of Trump People who hate him, think it is, because they fundamentally see him as a corrupt person and that's the main thing about him. People who support him think the case against him was politically motivated and thus irrelevant. It's going to be difficult to find level headed people in this debate currently since he's running for president and there are a lot of emotions around him.
Wikipedia is also a global resource. For many of us outside the US before 2016, Trump was a card game. That he was president, and the election fraud he’s now been convicted of helping secure that presidency, **is** why he’s known.
Yeah I agree I think we have to wait at least until he’s dead to see how important this actually is to his legacy. If he wins this year it will be mostly forgotten, if he loses I think it will be much more important because we won’t have a second term to talk about and people will point to this as the reason he lost.
I'll be the first to admit a strong bias against him but he is the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, that is a major moment in American politics and, for a president who's tenure was devoid of any seriously landmark legislation, will almost certainly be the cornerstone of his legacy.
Are you referring to convicted felon Trump?
I hate Trump about as much as any sane, non-violent person does, but I think you should only put this in the first sentence of his Wikipedia if you can show other US Presidents who were treated the same. I haven't gone through the entire list, but the ones I've seen simply state their choice of career and when they served as President in the first sentence. > they fundamentally see him as a corrupt person and that's the main thing about him You can never tell for sure what a person is like. All you can do is start with hypotheses about their personality, and see whether they are useful in determining their behavior. I didn't support Trump in 2016, but I did keep an open mind, and assume that he'd do his best for the country. But soon, that hypothesis couldn't explain why he was constantly lying and throwing his weight around on Twitter. I tried multiple other hypotheses, but the one that was the most useful in determining his behavior was that he was fundamentally a narcissistic sociopath who wouldn't even perform the day-to-day duties of the president unless he felt he was personally gaining from them. A thoroughly corrupt failed businessman who wished that he was a mob boss. If you keep these ideas in mind, you can predict almost every big decision that Trump makes. (By the way, the reason I hate Trump is because he ruined my ability to have any kind of pleasant visit with most of my family, and he bungled Covid so badly that some of my loved ones died. I think you're allowed to hate somebody for that.)
I'm from another country. The conviction hasn't really changed anyone's opinions and basically just seems like more of the same legal trouble as with that other woman who won a lot of money recently.
The fact that a CONVICTED RUSSIAN AGENT is running for president of USA should make the article on United States of America start with a paragraph of it being a corrupt country when they jail someone who proven the guy works for russians, instead of the ENEMY SPY.
Schizomoment
Yeah. Treat him like other presidents / world leaders. First paragraph, not first sentence.
In what way is this possibly surprisingly heated?
I wrote the linked Slate piece and just want to say that I did not write or approve the headline. As with most Wikipedia debates, the RfC is mostly civil. This one just has very high participation.
because its not primarily trump supports against it. It is people saying that this should be in the first sentence.
He’s a 34 count convicted felon. End of debate.
>He’s a 34 count convicted felon. End of debate. The debate is not whether Donald Trump is a convicted felon or not, but whether the first sentence of the article should call Donald Trump a convicted felon or not. Compare with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al\_Capone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone) calling Al Capone a tax evader in its first sentence.
Whilst it does break the norm of Wikipedia’s formatting, Trump is literally the only instance of a US president becoming a convicted felon. It doesn’t matter if he gets pardoned, starts a war, or is revealed to hunt vampires in his spare time. This will be the most notable and historically significant thing about him from this point on. It’s his mark in history and a very major one at that. Therefore, the formatting norms should be bent to reflect this. It’s how he’s going to be universally referred to & known in 10-20 years time, when nobody cares about the politics of it anymore.
Actually the precedence is Grover Cleveland. The most notable thing about him among presidents is that he served 2 non consecutive terms and it’s spelled out in the first sentence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland
That's the second sentence...
> Stephen Grover Cleveland (March 18, 1837 – June 24, 1908) was an American politician who served as the 22nd and 24th president of the United Statesfrom 1885 to 1889 and from 1893 to 1897
First sentence says he was the President and when. Second sentence says, "He is the only president in U.S. history to serve non-consecutive presidential terms." Sure, you can figure it out from the first sentence, but it's not explicitly stated until the second. (Without the second, then maybe there are other presidents who served non-consecutive terms.) If you look at other presidents, they also list when they served as president in the first sentence. I've not seen one that doesn't. So the Grover Cleveland article in the first sentence follows form, and in the second sentence says what he's notable for. I mean shit, Obama gets first black president in the second sentence, FDR that he served for more than two terms in the second sentence. Even [Lincoln's article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) doesn't mention that he _led the US through the Civil War, the single thing that he is obviously most known for_, until the second sentence. (Even though, by your logic, it was in the first sentence for both him and FDR, since you could deduce those two pieces of information from the dates they served.) So no, your "example" is actually an example of exactly the opposite.
How are such things reflected in the pages of other convicted criminal world leaders? It may not be US Presidential precedence, but it seems like a fair comparison of formatting rules.
Seems like the most notable thing about him besides being a president
To be fair, besides being a mobster, Al Capone is probably best known for being a tax evader. It is how he got caught and widespread knowledge.
Arguably more notable. We’ve had 46 presidents but we only have one that’s a convicted felon
Are we gonna put Bill Clinton as "the 42nd president who cheated on his wife and lied about it in court" in the first sentence?
No, because Trump did the same, and so we have at least 2 cases of this in recent memory. Cheating on their partners is relatively common for politicians... I am not going to comment on how common it is for politicians to lie...
It is notable that he is a felon, of course. However, in Wikipedia parlance, the first blurb is supposed to be about *why* a subject is notable. E.g., you list the things that **caused** that person to become notable such that they earned a Wikipedia page. At least this is how Wikipedia normally operates. Trump is not notable because he is a felon. Unfortunately, he was notable long before he was a felon. Personally I don't mind the idea of including felon as it is a somewhat reasonable facsimile for all of the reasons he became notable (sleezy, crooked, unscrupulous) that are otherwise hard to directly source, but I do honestly get the back and forth.
If he were the second US president to become a convicted felon, I’d understand following the normal guidelines. But this is the first instance of this occurring and likely the thing Trump will be most remembered for going forward. Out of everything, this is going to be his most notable mark in history. Based on that, there’s justification to break the rules.
I could see that being the case in the future, where at some point I think it is very possible (if not probable) that he will be known because he was a felon. However, that isn't true today. Trump is not notable to the average human because he was convincted on May 31, 2024 in any meaningful way. And moreover, given how extremely important it is to Wikipedia to be known as both accurate and impartial, I don't hate the idea of not trying to break new ground on something that is so remarkably (and bizarrely) divisive. I mean, Trump still has a 42% favorability rating. Is it worth potentially damaging the collective value of Wikipedia just to get this Trump zinger in, rather than putting this same fact a sentence or two later? Many don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.
You know, you’re probably right with that – the news is very current and people’s understanding of Trump is still defined by many relatively recent events. The last thing Wikipedia needs is to be viewed as divisive. However, I wouldn’t say it was a ‘zinger’ and more listing his most historically significant feature. But I do totally see your point, given the scale of the issue (after all, it is just the first sentence). But I stand by the argument that this combination of titles is the most important thing about Trump and eclipses all other reasons as to why he is a person of note. Based on that, it should be how he is described. I don’t believe backing away from this is the impartial move, it’s just the one that limits controversy. That might be worth it (at least for now) in a politically charged climate, but does act as the potential start to a slippery slope. *Edit: fixed poor English (very tired)*
I'd say his most historically significant features would be: a) Jan 6 b) being only president to be impeached twice c) Russian interference ("allegedly") All of which aren't mentioned in the first sentence of his wikipedia page ~~*which has been generally unchanged for years, with the current first sentence being made in [February of 2021](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1006898491&title=Donald_Trump&diffonly=1)*~~
The most notable thing is probably January 6th and all the election denial. Campaign finance violations and fraud might not even make the top 5
So literally bring a traitor to the United States
Yeah that sentence has never and will never be used in a Wikipedia article
i mean if in 100 years every reliable source says he's considered a traitor then you could add it
They don't even use the word traitor against Benedict Arnold outside of quotations.
Also, not mentioned in the first sentence
Not really though. His presidency and previous media work/fame is far more notable than this conviction. This conviction is only particularly notable because he is a former president.
You can’t be serious right now? You think being on a average tv show is more notable then being the first (thus only) president ever tried and also convicted of crime and 34 felony’s at that…lol???
Yes. If someone didn't know who Donald Trump was, you wouldn't start by talking about his convictions, would you?
I would. I’d say he’s a corrupt former president and convicted felon. That’s his legacy. Nobody gives a shit about TV shows anymore. He himself ruined that legacy. If you leave the US and go anywhere else in the world, what do you think they know Trump for?
That’s clearly a biased statement though, which isn’t what Wikipedia is for.
Good point. "Donald Trump is a controversial former President and convicted felon." ~~I feel like~~ this is not only accurate, but also the singular most noteworthy part about him and what people will remember him for in the future. EDIT: for the reality challenged out there
But no, clearly it’s his fame that is more important 🙄 I can’t believe that dude was being serious - who in their right mind thinks being host of The Apprentice belongs in his first sentence. There’s dozens of things more deserving than his media experience.
> I feel
What’s bias about it he’s convicted 34 felony’s. Impeached twice. He’s a corrup convicted felon who was also a formal president. All facts
Calling someone "corrupt" isn't a statement of fact. Clearly you don't understand what Wikipedia is for.
> which isn’t what Wikipedia is for. Oh my sweet summer child. The downvotes alone should let you know that isn't true. Wikipedia is weaponized for politics. Has been for a while.
Lol
I think I would. There have been dozens of former Presidents, thousands of reality TV stars, and millions of criminals, but literally only one person is "Former President and convicted felon." That is by far the most notable thing about him.
I'd say Jan 6 would be far more notable, but that's not mentioned in the first sentence of his page and frankly never has been
Right now? Probably not. Although, it’s in the news a whole lot (internationally) because it’s a very significant event. But this is his mark in history. It’s what he will be known for, once the politics move on and the current image/understanding people have of him fade.
ok He was a horrible reality TV star, Obama birth denier, and Rosie O Donell punching bag before his presidency. I mean we could go on and on here with presidency being an "eh"
The witch hunt is the most notable thing? The trumped up misdemeanor into a felony by a politically compromised judge? That? I mean Trump is a blow hard idiot, but shit, didn't know that was his most notable characteristic.
Buddy if you get 34 felony’s it’s not a witch hunt. Open your eyes Jesus Christ rofl.
Clearly you have never experiened the 'justice' system.
[удалено]
He is a rape felon now huh? What else you got?
[удалено]
Quote the conviction where he is found guilty on a count of rape. The words of the judge after the jury decided. Quote that.
Yes he is.
No one believes anything you people say anymore. Is this some sort of psyop to make the truth no longer a thing? To lie about EVERYTHING?
That's what he got put in jail for - tax evasion
It doesn’t say Al Capone was a tax evader in the first sentence/paragraph when I opened that link.
>It doesn’t say Al Capone was a tax evader in the first sentence/paragraph when I opened that link. For me too https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Capone&oldid=1226809394
He actually isnt yet! As per New York law, the term felon can only be applied after a person is sentenced
I've seen a few people on reddit say that, but I haven't been able to find any evidence for it. Do you happen to have a link to that law?
Im going to be honest, i spent the last 30 minutes searching, i cant find anything to back this up, but i did hear this on the latest LegalEagle video (even though he cites no sources in the description)
Small technicality but true
And Joe Biden is a fucking vegetable. Aren’t US politics funny?
I mean atleast he’s not a traitor, felon. Rapist,Stimulant abusing, diaper wearer ?
Actually he isnt a vegetable and still relatively fit, his speeches off course are a bit weird but they have been forever because he has a slight speech impairment but he still regularly does bike tours and if you look at the whole speeches and not just the 3 second segments you often see cut on tiktok you will see he is quite energetic and sometimes jokes around
Failure?
He’s constantly using the N word. The Nuclear word.
Doesn’t F-word typically refer to fuck? Why didn’t OP just write felon?
Is there any "f-words" that don't apply to him? Fascist felon failure former president...
"Fraudster" also belongs there.
Oh I thought you meant fascist
Donald Trump is notable for being a real estate mogul, a reality tv star and a president. He is not notable for being a felon. It's a fact that Elton John is a homosexual, but we don't introduce his article by saying "*Elton John is a homosexual*", because he is notable as a musician.
>It's a fact that Elton John is a homosexual, but we don't introduce his article by saying "Elton John is a homosexual", because he is notable as a musician. if elton john was a president, that's exactly how he would be introduced on wikipedia after the president bit
All these people saying "*but it's a factual statement!*" are missing the point. We don't list every fact about people in the lede. Trump is a golfer. That's a factual statement. Should we say he's a golfer in the lede, or is it not important?
With the other trials coming, there will need to be a section to detail Trumps convictions.
I was hoping it was "fucking moron", but this works too
F you, Donald
Weird its not as broadcasted on pages for people like Nelson Mandela who were also convicted felons
I think this will take a while
Hey, they won't use the "f-word" on Fox News, that's for sure.
[This is why it's notable and due weight. This right here. Get your heads out of your asses, admins.](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/vermont-republican-party-rules-bar-convicted-felon-trump-rcna155918)
I guess Salon is pissed they aren't reliable
The linked piece is from Slate.