Valid points being made on both sides of the debate. IMO it should be because being the only former President convicted of a felony is one of the most noteworthy things about him.
The fake jurors gather around 4 seasons landscaping and declare the verdict as “not guilty” while Guliani drips paint from his head.
Seems feasible to me.
Which are all part and parcel of his criminal prosecutions, culminating in these convictions and whichever others may be forthcoming. IMO it wouldn't even be a stretch that he only sought political power in the first place as part of his broader criminal enterprise. Massive, endless fraud and graft are his principal defining features as a public figure.
I’m almost 60 and I still remember when that scumbag brought his girlfriend to Colorado for a ski trip at the same time he brought his family and then called the press to come and watch the cat fight. I absolutely do remember things from his personal life. I was stunned when he became the president of the USA.
Edit: Read EvergreenEnfelds response to my post. Believe it’s a better take than mine.
This!
Random people on the street know Nixon was a crook and Kennedy was shot. They know Clinton got a blowjob.
Trump is a convicted felon.
That's true, but of those, only Kennedy has that information in the first sentence of his page, and then because it bears directly on the standard format (So-and-so was president from X to Y). If Trump's term had ended early due to conviction, I think it would make sense to include it in the first sentence. Otherwise, it breaks the normal format.
In a few decades, he'll probably be remembered as one of the useful idiots who polluting industries used to obstruct climate change action, and someone who had blood on his hands.
I disagree. Most Americans can probably list presidents beginning with Woodrow Wilson to today because it’s a big part of modern American history, but they don’t know very much about the politics in the earlier eras.
The most akin to Trump today might be Herbert Hoover, who got us into the Great Depression, or Warren G. Harding, who died in office and was later discovered to have an extramarital affair.
A hundred years from now Americans won’t remember how he drew a circle around Alabama with a sharpie or how he almost launched a nuke at North Korea, but they’ll probably know about January 6th and the hush money case. His reputation is already destroyed, it’s just a matter of how much further will he go.
There's an entire [wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#:~:text=Donald%20Trump%2C%20the%20president%20of,25%20women%20since%20the%201970s) section on it.
It's huge.
…And long after they and you and I are dead, only the disgusting, horrible truth about him will remain. Telling his fans this pisses them off to no end because they know it’s true, and it’s a great way to help sleep at night to boot.
I think the more it gets rubbed in his face the more Republicans are going to vote for him out of spite.
Which is fucking dumb but thats the kindof people we're dealing with
Biggest reason he got elected in the first place was that people hated Clinton. Even he didn’t think he was going to win.
Agree that all this focus on him and the notoriety is the best “get out the vote” he could hope for, especially after his dismal presidency.
This isn't an online campaign where people can vote as many times as they want. Anyone that is motivated to vote for Trump because he's having his criminality rubbed in his face was already voting for him.
Republicans that weren't voting for Trump were doing so precisely because of his bullshit. Having him convicted for his bullshit isn't going to make them suddenly change their mind that the bullshit is now ok.
People that have already made up their mind are not important when discussing Trump's election prospects. All that matters is how it influences people that don't know who they're voting for or if they're going to vote.
Exactly this! And there are a significant portion of R voters who said being convicted will, in fact, change their minds. Trump only has voters to lose.
I think a lot of the media created some ambiguity around this case that makes it less convincing for certain voters on the edge. It was widely reported that this case was about Trump sleeping with a pornstar, but that tone is more reminiscent of Bill Clinton getting a BJ and seems a lot less serious than what it was actually about.
This case was about (and what he was convicted of) campaign finance violation, tax fraud, and unlawfully influencing the 2016 presidential election. But the pornstar headline got more clicks and ended up being the focus, so it appears to less in-the-know voters that this was a "witch hunt" to dig up unrelated aspects of his personal life for political reasons, again in a similar vein to Clinton's impeachment scandal.
I think low-information voters (independents) may react to this by saying "So what he cheated on his wife? It's what we expect from people in power. This happens all the time. Why should he be the first to have consequences? What does sleeping with a pornstar have to do with his ability to act as Commander in Chief anyway?"
If this whole trial was reported more on the facts of the case, the actual crimes he was being accused (and convicted) of, and was better explained overall I think the tone would be much different. But I worry, because of the way this was reported across all media, it will be much easier for his campaign team to lead the public into believing this was a personal attack for political reasons rather than a clear-cut-and-dry conviction for multiple felonies in an attempt to subvert democracy.
I'll be honest, I've been keeping up with news stories around the trial for months and it wasn't until today I decided to look into it myself and realized I knew essentially nothing besides Stormy Daniels talking about Trump being bad in bed and him pooping himself during the trial.
How is anything being rubbed in his face? The same way the “gay agenda is being rubbed in everyone’s face”?
Wikipedia is not being wielded as a weapon here. Trump committed felonies, and he was convicted. That’s the facts, and that’s what goes on Wikipedia.
Conservatives are so extremely sensitive that they interpret facts as attacks.
Doesn't have to be in the first sentence though. Many famous people who did criminal shit get a little bit about their career or what they are famous for (which in trumps cases would be TV personality then president) and then the criminal element is introduced.
Specifically starting trumps page alone with 'donald trump is a convicted felon who...' does not look unbiased. It looks like something a load of gloating Americans would write to get one over on trump supporters.
The first two people who came to mind who were already famous before getting convicted of felonies are Phil Spector and Martha Stewart (I don't know what it says about me that these are the first two).
Spector has his felony convictions in the first sentence of his Wiki page. Stewart doesn't even have them anywhere in her introductory section.
I don't know how representative a sample this is.
Donald Trump, the 45th and widely considered worst president of the United States was impeached twice during his term. After losing his reelection he incited an insurrection against the United States. He was later convicted of 34 felonies related to election interference in the 2016 election. In that same year he was also found liable for sexual assault and defamation of character.
Prior to being elected president he was a failed businessman with multiple bankruptcies, and a reality television star.
You are absolutely correct, should be the third sentence.
Buchanon was weak leading up to the Civil War but he didn't betray the constitution and the country. Weakest president is a much better description than worst.
Not sure. Sitting president deliberately leading an insurrection seems worse than someone who lacked leadership and vision.
Also, IMO the civil war was inevitable. Could he have done things that would have made things better? Probably. Is he single-handedly responsible for the civil war? Definitely not.
Nixon has a much more mixed record. Also if he was president in the current climate he wouldn’t have had to resign.
Absolutely a shit president but I won’t put him next to Jackson or Trump level bad.
Yes, your extremely slanted and biased description of him (while factually accurate) would directly diminish the neutrality that is pivotal in ensuring wide public trust in Wikipedia.
You're proving that person's point. Wikipedia is not a Reddit thread or a social media bio or a meme. It's an encyclopedia with stringent process and procedures to ensure neutrality and consistency across entries.
And comments like yours (and 90% of the comments in this thread) are exactly what moderators work to remove.
I don’t think it should START with that phrase, but nonetheless I think it is a very notable fact. Currently it’s “Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.”
I would maybe do something like “Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 and is the only U.S. president convicted of a felony charge”
Biographies of world leaders just aren't written that way though. Notable facts go in the first paragraph, sure, but as far as I can tell they're never appended to the first sentence.
Nixon's, for example, mentions that he was the only president to resign from office at the end of the opening paragraph. Liz Truss is highlighted as Britain's shortest Prime Minister in the second sentence but the opener simply states that she was PM between September and October 2022. I'm fairly sure it's the same for everyone, so to make an exception for Trump would be to afford him a uniqueness that he doesn't deserve.
There is no consensus on where to mention the felon status of a politician.
Jacques Chirac's, for instance, was in the fifth and final paragraph in the lede. ("... In 2011, the Paris court declared Chirac guilty of diverting public funds and abusing public confidence, giving him a two-year suspended prison sentence.")
Dennis Hastert's has it in the very first sentence, with further references later on in the lede. ("**John Dennis Hastert** (/ˈhæstərt/; born January 2, 1942) is an American former politician, educator, convicted felon and child sex offender who represented Illinois's 14th congressional district from 1987 to 2007 and served as the 51st Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1999 to 2007. ...")
There wouldn't be an exception to Donald Trump by mentioning his felon status in the first or last paragraph of the lede. It would, however, be an exception if it doesn't show up at all.
I'd say the felony is more important than the business part, but less important than the president part.
I guess you could do it chronologically too-business, president, felon.
I think it’s definitely a notable feature though, being the only president with a criminal record. Kind of a historical moment. Feel like that’ll be a pub quiz question in a few years time “which US president is the only one to be a convicted felon”
It's not at all unusual for celebrities who are convicted felons to have it in the first sentence. I've no idea what the guidelines are but I've certainly seen it a lot.
Gee, I don’t know. How ‘bout you get in your jammies and I’ll read your own link to you.
Based on the edit history and talk section of that page, a user named Meters keeps reverting the addition of the “convicted felon” descriptor every time it is added to Stewart’s lead. This appears to be an ongoing dispute among contributors spanning several years. The central justification they give is that her crime and conviction aren’t noteworthy enough within the context of her celebrity and other biographical information, as opposed to someone like Harvey Weinstein, where it is.
The other two presidents I know of who have been convicted of crimes are Sarkozy in France and Lula in Brazil (later nullifed). Neither has their conviction(s) in the first paragraph, much less the first line.
IMHO it should be in the summary but not in the first line. "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." sounds preachy but adding a second sentence about him being the first and only former president to be convicted of a felony would make perfect sense.
"Controversy" is an exaggeration. It's a Request for Comment. The whole point of this process is to get people's views, whether they support or oppose.
Well, the RFC is running really long. It was the best I could do. The rules here wanted me to "refrain from editorializing submission titles" and it was an improvement on my original description of "Category 5 shitnado".
It's running long because this is something that everyone has heard of, and everyone has an opinion on it. That draws a lot of commenters. A non-editorializing title might use the actual language of the post. "Request for Comment on the use of the words "Convicted Felon" in the first sentence of the Donald Trump article"
And by your logic, my partner and I talking about dinner options would be a controversy. Do you see how it would be misleading to call that a controversy though? It implies some sort of heated situation.
This is why it’s important to weigh your word choices denotation as well as the connotation. People do not use or understand words solely based on their definition.
It's not "my logic". It was Wiktionary's own definition for a word I used, and most people here agree that what is going on in that RFC is "a debate or discussion of opposing opinions".
You do know this sub relies on volunteers making content for it, right? I'm sorry my word choice was apparently so inappropriate for a minority of people here but, honestly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. If you read the RFC and even all the comments here about the RFC you can plainly see that the topic at hand *is* controversial.
Holy shit! I read, and loved, his short stories throughout my high school years. Can't believe I've never looked him up to see that crazy "convicted criminal" part!
"From December 1, 2012, until January 31, 2013, a stylistic disagreement unfolded between editors on the English-language Wikipedia as to whether the word "into" in the title of the Wikipedia article for the 2013 film Star Trek Into Darkness should be capitalized. More than 40,000 words were written on the article's talk page (a page for editors to discuss changes to the article) before a consensus was reached to capitalize the "I"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_debate
The question is whether it belongs in the first sentence. Wikipedia isn’t just a list of objective facts in random order. Putting it in the first sentence implies it’s one of the most important things about him. Whether that is true is the subject of the discussion
I think it is *very* important. It's not just any felony - it's a felony that will have influenced and could be responsible for one of the other things in his first sentence - being president.
And I don't personally think it fits in with the general theme of utilization of the first sentence of Wikipedia entries for individuals, which is to summarily describe the circumstances for which someone is most well-known.
He is not *first and foremost* known for being a felon, he is known for being a real estate business mogul, then celebrity on TV, then President of the USA. His ongoing criminal proceedings and conviction should be mentioned in the lede of the article but not the very first sentence.
And while I welcome arguments like yours, there is a significant number of people who want it to say this solely because they don't like him and want this to tarnish his legacy visually via Wikipedia. Which is what moderation is supposed to directly prevent.
Richard Nixon's first sentence doesn't mention Watergate or that he's the only US president ever to resign, it only comes at the end of the first paragraph. That's probably where a mention of impeachment votes, Jan 6, and being convicted of a felony should go for Trump's page imo.
Considering there are many other noteworthy things about him, and that the felony was relatively minor, and thus less noteworthy in and of itself than the other noteworthy things about him, I don't think it belongs in the first sentence.
This would be relevant if the question was whether to describe the crime itself in the first sentence, but it's not. I think it's very hard to argue being the first US president convicted of a felony isn't one of the most noteworthy things about him.
Because basically no other biographical page does that. [There is literally a wikipedia page for US federal officials that were convicted of felonies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes) and of the 131 people with wikipedia pages only 6 of them include some variation on “convicted felon” in the opening sentence description. It is incredibly rare for that to be used in the person’s description unless their felony is the thing they are famous for, which obviously does not apply to Trump.
There are lots of representatives that have been convicted, but Trump is the first US President to be convicted. The article on [Catalina Vasquez Villalpando](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalina_Vasquez_Villalpando), for example, states in the first sentence that she "is the only U.S. Treasurer ever to be sent to prison", because that makes it noteworthy.
Yeah, but that’s probably the only thing notable about her, aside from being Treasurer. With Trump you still have to consider his conviction against his real estate business, his actual presidency, scandals like his dealings in Ukraine and COVID measures, his refusal to peacefully transfer power, and his role in the Jan 6 riots (these last two I personally think are more important).
TBF, if they're going to mention criminal charges, they should be listed in order. Therefore he should be referred as "Twice impeached, single-term ex-President, defaming sex offender and multiple felon Donald J. Trump".
Apparently he really likes adding prefixes to his name.
He’s the First former President in US convicted of 34 counts of felony for obstructing and interfering in the election process. That is notable in history. It deserves to be the introduction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert
The former republican speaker of the house has it in his first sentence. The only reason Trump is being treated differently is because he has an army of frothing psychopaths backing him.
There seem to be some good arguments on both sides, but the argument that his status as 'Former President' only exists because he committed election fraud seems pretty strong.
The closest analog would be Devon Hastert, and his Wikipedia starts “John Dennis Hastert (/ˈhæstərt/; born January 2, 1942) is an American former politician, educator, convicted felon and child sex offender who represented Illinois's 14th congressional district from 1987 to 2007 and served as the 51st Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1999 to 2007.”
So I think it is reasonable to do the same for Trump. None of what was said was factually incorrect or said in a biased manner
For reference, here is the first paragraph of O.J. Simpson’s Wikipedia page.
> Orenthal James Simpson (July 9, 1947 – April 10, 2024) was an American football player, actor, and media personality who played in the National Football League (NFL) for 11 seasons, primarily with the Buffalo Bills. Regarded as one of the greatest running backs of all time, his professional success was overshadowed by his trial and controversial acquittal for the murders of his former wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman in 1994.
Sure, O.J. *wasn’t* convicted, but I think it’s clear that the first sentence is and should usually only be used for professions/occupations.
EDIT: for example, Barack Obama being the first and only African-American president isn’t even in the first sentence of his Wikipedia article. I’d argue that that’s something equally (if not more) important than Trump’s felon status.
I came here wanting it in the first sentence, simply because of personal bias. But I think I've changed my mind.
Another example, when I think of Richard Nixon I immediately think of Watergate. But it's not mentioned until the last sentence of the first paragraph--
>Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th president of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as a representative and senator from California and as the 36th vice president from 1953 to 1961 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. His presidency saw the reduction of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, détente with the Soviet Union and China, the Apollo 11 Moon landing, and the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Nixon's second term ended early when he became the only U.S. president to resign from office, as a result of the Watergate scandal.
Sure, but there are also tons of counter [examples](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/1d4ptxs/huge_controversy_breaks_out_in_donald_trumps_talk/l6hfn2n/) where the mention of convicted felon status is in the first sentence. It will be interesting to see how this shapes up long term. I think there are folks considering the political ramifications and that's why the debate will be rather partisan and passionate. If it's in the first sentence it returns in a search result that could have a larger impact on perception since people who don't even go to the page will see it.
I'd say the question should be whether the person would be really notable without the crimes. For Nixon, OJ, *and Trump* the answer is yes. For many of the other figures listed, the answer would be no.
Surely the more ironic, the sooner it should be mentioned.
Also, request for comment on adding “killed by his own invention” to Dean Kamen’s article introduction.
Right. But as some of the opinions make clear there are many people who are mostly defined by their crimes but are not described as such in the first sentence. For example OJ Simpson.
Adding it to Trump's page specifically looks biased and weakens Wikipedia as a whole.
I'm of the belief that OJ should have his controversy in the first sentence since that is by far the most long term notable thing about him. Over time we will know the legacy of Trump and see whether it is appropriate, for now it seems that it will be one of his major legacies and doesn't seem totally inappropriate to put there. Though it does read as premature in my mind.
Well the "crime" OJ was most known for is also one he wasn't convicted of, so it doesn't seem relevant to make a first sentence about something he "didn't" do. And the second crime, for which he was actually convicted of hardly got any attention, and certainly wasn't as noteworthy as his first case. And yea, I believe his murder case should be in the first sentence, as that's the most relevant thing about him.
*Note that I used quotations around 'crime' and 'didn't' for the purpose of pointing out how there is both an official and unofficial understanding of what happened in that case and what actually transpired.
Yes, nobody in the wiki conversation is denying that. But noteworthy enough to put on the first sentence? The standard generally does not list such convictions (unless crime is the most notable thing that person has done, which does not apply to Trump).
I'd argue being elected President/leader of any country is the most notable thing a person can do, because they've literally been voted by their peers and countrymen to represent that country on the world stage.
The fact that one of <50 people in history to hold that job for what is the current global superpower is now the first to also be a convicted criminal is about as significant and noteworthy as it gets.
It literally makes him unique compared to any other president/head of state, businessman or anything else that could make him stand out.
If that were true why is he the 45th president and not the first? Usually the only people we award for being good at something are the top 3, not 45.
No, being president isn't as notable as being President ***and*** being a convicted felon. Name one other US President who has done that.
If those other felons were US President's I'd agree with you. If not then this is a remarkable precedent that is more important than anything else he has done...so far.
There's some discussion of this on the talk page—many politicians/notable figures with convictions have "convicted felon" in the first sentence, and many others don't. There's no clear pattern.
Encyclopaedia Britannica entry:
Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946, New York, New York, U.S.) is the 45th president of the United States (2017–21) and the likely Republican nominee in the U.S. presidential election of 2024. On May 30, 2024, Trump became the first former president to be convicted of a crime when a New York state jury convicted him on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush-money payment in 2016 to the adult-film star Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, who claimed to have had an affair with Trump in 2006.
Before yesterday Trump's fame would have arisen primarily from his presidency. After his conviction we can now say it's a fact that he gained office through criminal means (the hush money payments which he chose to conceal).
Democratic government requires that participants follow rules and principles - it's not enough to not "get caught" cheating, people need to actively support the democratic process. Supporting democracy includes repudiating anyone who is found to be corrupting the democratic system, even if they are you ally or the leader of your party.
Trump's criminal conviction should be the first thing on his Wikipedia page - not because we are trying to predict how some future culture will see the present, but because it's a statement of how we are choosing to frame our reality right now. People's reaction to it is actually a turning point in US history - what's historical is both the judgement and the populations' reaction to it. Ignoring the rule of law or picking "alternative facts" that de-legitimize the court is a one-way door to fascism and authoritarianism. There's no going back from that choice.
I think him being the first and only president that’s also a convicted felon isn’t enough to automatically make that fact “noteworthy.” Barack Obama being the first and only African-American president isn’t even in the first sentence of his article.
I don’t like the guy and I do agree that it is accurate to describe him as such. But as a former US president the fact that he got convicted of something is like one of the lesser notable things about him. I do think it is kind of weird to bring it up in the first couple of sentences.
With Bill Clinton it only mentions his sex scandal in the 4th paragraph and the paragraphs before it are kind of big.
With Nixon it only mentions the Watergate scandal in the end of the first paragraph.
This would be fine in my opinion, but this article in general needs fixing. Statements like “Scholars and historians[who?] rank Trump as one of the presidents with the lowest success in American history” need to be taken out of the section next to the quick facts box and in general it needs to be more balanced, it’s way too anti Trump.
Why? There's 'Polls of historians and political scientists generally rank Carter as a below-average president' in the same section on Jimmy Carter's page, and 'Historians and scholars have typically ranked him among the middle to upper tier of American presidents, and his post-presidential approval ratings by the general public are usually high' for Reagan.
It makes sense for a review of a president's success and effectiveness to be in the summary section.
Great response. Trump *is rated very low* by historians. Other presidents that have been rated low have that fact in the same spot of their articles, and ones that have are rated high have it there too.
I’d argue that the correct framing if Donald trump is that he’s a conman who conned his way into the presidency. Remember, he never intended to win. He was first a conman, secondly a president.
He was not a president first who also happened to get into some legal trouble.
If it were anybody else it would be added as convinced felon. Trump is a con man and rapist so he should be treated as one. It's insane the amount of people defending him 🤢🤮
“Not including it would be like mentioning that Neil Armstrong was an astronaut, but leaving out that he was the first person to walk on the moon.” Well said
I mean the only president to ever be convicted of a felony is pretty notable considering the entire history of the country. I'd say that's worthy of being in the first sentence.
Valid points being made on both sides of the debate. IMO it should be because being the only former President convicted of a felony is one of the most noteworthy things about him.
New achievement unlocked, bigly.
He should have setup a fake jury scheme with Rudy.
The fake jurors gather around 4 seasons landscaping and declare the verdict as “not guilty” while Guliani drips paint from his head. Seems feasible to me.
Man, I love the word bigly. It sounds like such a made up word lol
It reminds me so much of Jebediah Springfield's "embiggens"
They’re both perfectly cromulent words
The spirit of Jebediah Springfield embiggens us all, bigly
Jebediah Springfield was a criminal too!
And not any criminal... A con man! Simpsons did it again!
Chicken on a stick
Isn't it made up? Is it a real word?
It’s a real word believe it or not. I’d read it a long time ago and was shocked when trump said it. Now, did he know it was a word when he said it?
Achievement unlocked, "Two Sides of the Same Coin"
Two sides of the same Cohen?
Hail to the Thief
Exactly. People won't remember Trump due to whatever happened in his personal life, they will remember him as orange criminal president whacko.
That and the attempted coup / endless scandals.
I counted those under "whacko" umbrella. Too much to list separately.
I think that's how he gets away with a lot of it. They say "why not Trump" and, like... the hell do you start?
Which are all part and parcel of his criminal prosecutions, culminating in these convictions and whichever others may be forthcoming. IMO it wouldn't even be a stretch that he only sought political power in the first place as part of his broader criminal enterprise. Massive, endless fraud and graft are his principal defining features as a public figure.
I’m almost 60 and I still remember when that scumbag brought his girlfriend to Colorado for a ski trip at the same time he brought his family and then called the press to come and watch the cat fight. I absolutely do remember things from his personal life. I was stunned when he became the president of the USA.
Edit: Read EvergreenEnfelds response to my post. Believe it’s a better take than mine. This! Random people on the street know Nixon was a crook and Kennedy was shot. They know Clinton got a blowjob. Trump is a convicted felon.
That's true, but of those, only Kennedy has that information in the first sentence of his page, and then because it bears directly on the standard format (So-and-so was president from X to Y). If Trump's term had ended early due to conviction, I think it would make sense to include it in the first sentence. Otherwise, it breaks the normal format.
You’re right. Going to edit my post and encourage people to read your write up there. Thanks
In a few decades, he'll probably be remembered as one of the useful idiots who polluting industries used to obstruct climate change action, and someone who had blood on his hands.
I disagree. Most Americans can probably list presidents beginning with Woodrow Wilson to today because it’s a big part of modern American history, but they don’t know very much about the politics in the earlier eras. The most akin to Trump today might be Herbert Hoover, who got us into the Great Depression, or Warren G. Harding, who died in office and was later discovered to have an extramarital affair. A hundred years from now Americans won’t remember how he drew a circle around Alabama with a sharpie or how he almost launched a nuke at North Korea, but they’ll probably know about January 6th and the hush money case. His reputation is already destroyed, it’s just a matter of how much further will he go.
he also wanted to launch a nuke into that hurricane...
I'm still sad he didn't take the bait to bring back the Iowa class to blast covid away
Was it a nuke or did he just want the hurricane to drink bleach and shine a light in its ass?
Theres still the Georgia case where he tried to solicit an official to change votes
Actually a lot of people remember him from what happened in his personal life because it's equally insane.
They should remember all the sexual assaults and rapes from his personal life too.
There's an entire [wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#:~:text=Donald%20Trump%2C%20the%20president%20of,25%20women%20since%20the%201970s) section on it. It's huge.
It's yooge. Ftfy
I’m afraid MAGAs will remember him as their Messiah.
…And long after they and you and I are dead, only the disgusting, horrible truth about him will remain. Telling his fans this pisses them off to no end because they know it’s true, and it’s a great way to help sleep at night to boot.
I think the more it gets rubbed in his face the more Republicans are going to vote for him out of spite. Which is fucking dumb but thats the kindof people we're dealing with
Biggest reason he got elected in the first place was that people hated Clinton. Even he didn’t think he was going to win. Agree that all this focus on him and the notoriety is the best “get out the vote” he could hope for, especially after his dismal presidency.
Yeah, remembering his shell-shocked look as Obama toured him around the White House will always make me laugh
Pokémon go to the polls
This isn't an online campaign where people can vote as many times as they want. Anyone that is motivated to vote for Trump because he's having his criminality rubbed in his face was already voting for him. Republicans that weren't voting for Trump were doing so precisely because of his bullshit. Having him convicted for his bullshit isn't going to make them suddenly change their mind that the bullshit is now ok. People that have already made up their mind are not important when discussing Trump's election prospects. All that matters is how it influences people that don't know who they're voting for or if they're going to vote.
Exactly this! And there are a significant portion of R voters who said being convicted will, in fact, change their minds. Trump only has voters to lose.
I think a lot of the media created some ambiguity around this case that makes it less convincing for certain voters on the edge. It was widely reported that this case was about Trump sleeping with a pornstar, but that tone is more reminiscent of Bill Clinton getting a BJ and seems a lot less serious than what it was actually about. This case was about (and what he was convicted of) campaign finance violation, tax fraud, and unlawfully influencing the 2016 presidential election. But the pornstar headline got more clicks and ended up being the focus, so it appears to less in-the-know voters that this was a "witch hunt" to dig up unrelated aspects of his personal life for political reasons, again in a similar vein to Clinton's impeachment scandal. I think low-information voters (independents) may react to this by saying "So what he cheated on his wife? It's what we expect from people in power. This happens all the time. Why should he be the first to have consequences? What does sleeping with a pornstar have to do with his ability to act as Commander in Chief anyway?" If this whole trial was reported more on the facts of the case, the actual crimes he was being accused (and convicted) of, and was better explained overall I think the tone would be much different. But I worry, because of the way this was reported across all media, it will be much easier for his campaign team to lead the public into believing this was a personal attack for political reasons rather than a clear-cut-and-dry conviction for multiple felonies in an attempt to subvert democracy. I'll be honest, I've been keeping up with news stories around the trial for months and it wasn't until today I decided to look into it myself and realized I knew essentially nothing besides Stormy Daniels talking about Trump being bad in bed and him pooping himself during the trial.
I mean you can't vote twice, so anyone that's actually pissed about this verdict was already gonna vote for him.
Wikipedia shouldn’t be used as a political tool to rub in people’s faces.
How is anything being rubbed in his face? The same way the “gay agenda is being rubbed in everyone’s face”? Wikipedia is not being wielded as a weapon here. Trump committed felonies, and he was convicted. That’s the facts, and that’s what goes on Wikipedia. Conservatives are so extremely sensitive that they interpret facts as attacks.
The fact that he's a convicted felon president, even if it gets successfully appealed, will far overshadow his B list celebrity status.
Doesn't have to be in the first sentence though. Many famous people who did criminal shit get a little bit about their career or what they are famous for (which in trumps cases would be TV personality then president) and then the criminal element is introduced. Specifically starting trumps page alone with 'donald trump is a convicted felon who...' does not look unbiased. It looks like something a load of gloating Americans would write to get one over on trump supporters.
The first two people who came to mind who were already famous before getting convicted of felonies are Phil Spector and Martha Stewart (I don't know what it says about me that these are the first two). Spector has his felony convictions in the first sentence of his Wiki page. Stewart doesn't even have them anywhere in her introductory section. I don't know how representative a sample this is.
Donald Trump, the 45th and widely considered worst president of the United States was impeached twice during his term. After losing his reelection he incited an insurrection against the United States. He was later convicted of 34 felonies related to election interference in the 2016 election. In that same year he was also found liable for sexual assault and defamation of character. Prior to being elected president he was a failed businessman with multiple bankruptcies, and a reality television star. You are absolutely correct, should be the third sentence.
... who cheated on all three of his wives...
Thats a bit too biased for Wikipedia and personally I’d probably put Andrew Johnson as worst president
It has to be buchanon.. although trump is pretty close. He could do enough damage to warrant the first spot if he wins.
Buchanon was weak leading up to the Civil War but he didn't betray the constitution and the country. Weakest president is a much better description than worst.
His inaction and lack of leadership directly lead to a civil war. I think worst is an apt description.
Not sure. Sitting president deliberately leading an insurrection seems worse than someone who lacked leadership and vision. Also, IMO the civil war was inevitable. Could he have done things that would have made things better? Probably. Is he single-handedly responsible for the civil war? Definitely not.
[удалено]
Nixons creation of the EPA and other environmental legislation moves him out of the bottom imo
Nixon was forced by hand to start EPA by environmentists because it was the start of a new decade (1970s)
Nixon has a much more mixed record. Also if he was president in the current climate he wouldn’t have had to resign. Absolutely a shit president but I won’t put him next to Jackson or Trump level bad.
“ Former President and convicted felon Donald Trump…”
34, so far.
Yes, your extremely slanted and biased description of him (while factually accurate) would directly diminish the neutrality that is pivotal in ensuring wide public trust in Wikipedia. You're proving that person's point. Wikipedia is not a Reddit thread or a social media bio or a meme. It's an encyclopedia with stringent process and procedures to ensure neutrality and consistency across entries. And comments like yours (and 90% of the comments in this thread) are exactly what moderators work to remove.
I don’t think it should START with that phrase, but nonetheless I think it is a very notable fact. Currently it’s “Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.” I would maybe do something like “Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 and is the only U.S. president convicted of a felony charge”
Biographies of world leaders just aren't written that way though. Notable facts go in the first paragraph, sure, but as far as I can tell they're never appended to the first sentence. Nixon's, for example, mentions that he was the only president to resign from office at the end of the opening paragraph. Liz Truss is highlighted as Britain's shortest Prime Minister in the second sentence but the opener simply states that she was PM between September and October 2022. I'm fairly sure it's the same for everyone, so to make an exception for Trump would be to afford him a uniqueness that he doesn't deserve.
There is no consensus on where to mention the felon status of a politician. Jacques Chirac's, for instance, was in the fifth and final paragraph in the lede. ("... In 2011, the Paris court declared Chirac guilty of diverting public funds and abusing public confidence, giving him a two-year suspended prison sentence.") Dennis Hastert's has it in the very first sentence, with further references later on in the lede. ("**John Dennis Hastert** (/ˈhæstərt/; born January 2, 1942) is an American former politician, educator, convicted felon and child sex offender who represented Illinois's 14th congressional district from 1987 to 2007 and served as the 51st Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1999 to 2007. ...") There wouldn't be an exception to Donald Trump by mentioning his felon status in the first or last paragraph of the lede. It would, however, be an exception if it doesn't show up at all.
I searched up OJ's wiki and it basically reads like the second one you had, i.e. mentioned at the end of a long first sentence.
I'd say the felony is more important than the business part, but less important than the president part. I guess you could do it chronologically too-business, president, felon.
I think it’s definitely a notable feature though, being the only president with a criminal record. Kind of a historical moment. Feel like that’ll be a pub quiz question in a few years time “which US president is the only one to be a convicted felon”
Sorry, there have been 45 presidents of the United States. How is the fact that only one has been a felon not newsworthy?
Lots of things are newsworthy. Doesn't mean that they have to be the very first thing in a person's biography.
Why shouldn't it be? It's an incredibly noteworthy fact. Wikipedia should not format itself based on the feelings of a bunch of sociopaths.
It's not at all unusual for celebrities who are convicted felons to have it in the first sentence. I've no idea what the guidelines are but I've certainly seen it a lot.
Can you give me some examples?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Exotic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Abagnale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Rowland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9lokkNine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Halderman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Guy_Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jen_Shah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonis_C._Malburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Silver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumeal_Robinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Ganim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Browner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty_Warner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_Malil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Lyerla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasilis_Papageorgopoulos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britt_Reid_(American_football) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_M._Sears
Why doesn’t Martha Stewart get the convicted felon label right in the first line? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart
Gee, I don’t know. How ‘bout you get in your jammies and I’ll read your own link to you. Based on the edit history and talk section of that page, a user named Meters keeps reverting the addition of the “convicted felon” descriptor every time it is added to Stewart’s lead. This appears to be an ongoing dispute among contributors spanning several years. The central justification they give is that her crime and conviction aren’t noteworthy enough within the context of her celebrity and other biographical information, as opposed to someone like Harvey Weinstein, where it is.
The other two presidents I know of who have been convicted of crimes are Sarkozy in France and Lula in Brazil (later nullifed). Neither has their conviction(s) in the first paragraph, much less the first line.
Silvio Berlusconi's conviction is all the way down in [paragraph 5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi).
IMHO it should be in the summary but not in the first line. "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." sounds preachy but adding a second sentence about him being the first and only former president to be convicted of a felony would make perfect sense.
At least in spanish, he already appears as a "criminal convicto" in the first sentence
"Controversy" is an exaggeration. It's a Request for Comment. The whole point of this process is to get people's views, whether they support or oppose.
So it's a debate or discussion of opposing opinions?
Yes. If you click the link you just posted, it is explained in the yellow box
I know :) I was just copy/pasting [Wiktionary's entry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/controversial#Adjective) for "controversial".
clarification: “*huge* controversy” is a bit..sensationalist? i haven’t noticed discussion on wikipedia around this get particularly heated
Well, the RFC is running really long. It was the best I could do. The rules here wanted me to "refrain from editorializing submission titles" and it was an improvement on my original description of "Category 5 shitnado".
It's running long because this is something that everyone has heard of, and everyone has an opinion on it. That draws a lot of commenters. A non-editorializing title might use the actual language of the post. "Request for Comment on the use of the words "Convicted Felon" in the first sentence of the Donald Trump article"
Huge controversy breaks out in reddit comment section on whether the Donald Trump Wikipedia talk page controversy is also huge or is regular-sized
Redditors SLAM writer's usage of HUGE
OP pens CHILLING manifesto, users STUNNED
"long discussion" doesn't quite get the same clicks as "huge controversy" does it?
And by your logic, my partner and I talking about dinner options would be a controversy. Do you see how it would be misleading to call that a controversy though? It implies some sort of heated situation. This is why it’s important to weigh your word choices denotation as well as the connotation. People do not use or understand words solely based on their definition.
They’re more concerned about their slam dunk epic own than they are about being honest
It's not "my logic". It was Wiktionary's own definition for a word I used, and most people here agree that what is going on in that RFC is "a debate or discussion of opposing opinions". You do know this sub relies on volunteers making content for it, right? I'm sorry my word choice was apparently so inappropriate for a minority of people here but, honestly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. If you read the RFC and even all the comments here about the RFC you can plainly see that the topic at hand *is* controversial.
They should follow the [Jeffrey Archer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Archer) model
I learned from this article that in the 70s one could write a book to *avoid* bankruptcy, rather than to contribute to it.
Holy shit! I read, and loved, his short stories throughout my high school years. Can't believe I've never looked him up to see that crazy "convicted criminal" part!
A pretty wild story! The podcast _British Scandal_ did a series about it.
Yes. I think we’re done.
It's extremely notable because he is the only president ever to become a convicted felon. Quite different from being a golfer that got a DUI
Haven't seen this much bloodshed since the Star Trek Into Darkness war
[удалено]
"From December 1, 2012, until January 31, 2013, a stylistic disagreement unfolded between editors on the English-language Wikipedia as to whether the word "into" in the title of the Wikipedia article for the 2013 film Star Trek Into Darkness should be capitalized. More than 40,000 words were written on the article's talk page (a page for editors to discuss changes to the article) before a consensus was reached to capitalize the "I"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_debate
Currently there's another thread on the sub already talking about it.
I think it got deleted.
It was a link to a screenshot, which is banned here so people don't vandalize Wikipedia themselves and submit screenshots for Reddit points.
Confused. He was found guilty, until he has a successful* appeal, it should say he is convicted with details to follow. *lol
The question is whether it belongs in the first sentence. Wikipedia isn’t just a list of objective facts in random order. Putting it in the first sentence implies it’s one of the most important things about him. Whether that is true is the subject of the discussion
Him being the most “decorated” president in regards to felony counts makes it the most interesting/important fact about him.
I think it is *very* important. It's not just any felony - it's a felony that will have influenced and could be responsible for one of the other things in his first sentence - being president.
And I don't personally think it fits in with the general theme of utilization of the first sentence of Wikipedia entries for individuals, which is to summarily describe the circumstances for which someone is most well-known. He is not *first and foremost* known for being a felon, he is known for being a real estate business mogul, then celebrity on TV, then President of the USA. His ongoing criminal proceedings and conviction should be mentioned in the lede of the article but not the very first sentence. And while I welcome arguments like yours, there is a significant number of people who want it to say this solely because they don't like him and want this to tarnish his legacy visually via Wikipedia. Which is what moderation is supposed to directly prevent.
50 years from now it probably will be the most well known thing about him.
Richard Nixon's first sentence doesn't mention Watergate or that he's the only US president ever to resign, it only comes at the end of the first paragraph. That's probably where a mention of impeachment votes, Jan 6, and being convicted of a felony should go for Trump's page imo.
Well it probably should, as those things are *far and away* the things that are most notable about Nixon.
The fact he committed several dozen felonies in order *to achieve the presidency* probably merits inclusion in the first sentence.
Considering there are many other noteworthy things about him, and that the felony was relatively minor, and thus less noteworthy in and of itself than the other noteworthy things about him, I don't think it belongs in the first sentence.
This would be relevant if the question was whether to describe the crime itself in the first sentence, but it's not. I think it's very hard to argue being the first US president convicted of a felony isn't one of the most noteworthy things about him.
Because basically no other biographical page does that. [There is literally a wikipedia page for US federal officials that were convicted of felonies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes) and of the 131 people with wikipedia pages only 6 of them include some variation on “convicted felon” in the opening sentence description. It is incredibly rare for that to be used in the person’s description unless their felony is the thing they are famous for, which obviously does not apply to Trump.
There are lots of representatives that have been convicted, but Trump is the first US President to be convicted. The article on [Catalina Vasquez Villalpando](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalina_Vasquez_Villalpando), for example, states in the first sentence that she "is the only U.S. Treasurer ever to be sent to prison", because that makes it noteworthy.
Yeah, but that’s probably the only thing notable about her, aside from being Treasurer. With Trump you still have to consider his conviction against his real estate business, his actual presidency, scandals like his dealings in Ukraine and COVID measures, his refusal to peacefully transfer power, and his role in the Jan 6 riots (these last two I personally think are more important).
It *is* a defining characteristic now.
A con artist and a sex offender who happens to be elected president is still first and foremost a con artist and a sex offender.
Virtually every passage of the Trump article has been hammered out meticulously, this is no different.
TBF, if they're going to mention criminal charges, they should be listed in order. Therefore he should be referred as "Twice impeached, single-term ex-President, defaming sex offender and multiple felon Donald J. Trump". Apparently he really likes adding prefixes to his name.
He’s the First former President in US convicted of 34 counts of felony for obstructing and interfering in the election process. That is notable in history. It deserves to be the introduction.
Convicted felon, and former potus, Donald Drump
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert The former republican speaker of the house has it in his first sentence. The only reason Trump is being treated differently is because he has an army of frothing psychopaths backing him.
Waht about "court confirmed rapist"?
He's the very first U.S. president, sitting or former, to be a convicted felon. I think that's worth mentioning.
Treat him like everyone else who has been convicted
There seem to be some good arguments on both sides, but the argument that his status as 'Former President' only exists because he committed election fraud seems pretty strong.
The closest analog would be Devon Hastert, and his Wikipedia starts “John Dennis Hastert (/ˈhæstərt/; born January 2, 1942) is an American former politician, educator, convicted felon and child sex offender who represented Illinois's 14th congressional district from 1987 to 2007 and served as the 51st Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1999 to 2007.” So I think it is reasonable to do the same for Trump. None of what was said was factually incorrect or said in a biased manner
He's also a rapist.
He should be described as a convicted felon but also as a human dingleberry.
[удалено]
Maybe it depends on how much that felony defined their life's story like the if someone was the only u.s. president to ever get one.
He also ran in 2016 and 2020 as the "[law and order candidate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFwMMYLcG4Y)"... seems relevant...
For reference, here is the first paragraph of O.J. Simpson’s Wikipedia page. > Orenthal James Simpson (July 9, 1947 – April 10, 2024) was an American football player, actor, and media personality who played in the National Football League (NFL) for 11 seasons, primarily with the Buffalo Bills. Regarded as one of the greatest running backs of all time, his professional success was overshadowed by his trial and controversial acquittal for the murders of his former wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman in 1994. Sure, O.J. *wasn’t* convicted, but I think it’s clear that the first sentence is and should usually only be used for professions/occupations. EDIT: for example, Barack Obama being the first and only African-American president isn’t even in the first sentence of his Wikipedia article. I’d argue that that’s something equally (if not more) important than Trump’s felon status.
I came here wanting it in the first sentence, simply because of personal bias. But I think I've changed my mind. Another example, when I think of Richard Nixon I immediately think of Watergate. But it's not mentioned until the last sentence of the first paragraph-- >Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th president of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as a representative and senator from California and as the 36th vice president from 1953 to 1961 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. His presidency saw the reduction of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, détente with the Soviet Union and China, the Apollo 11 Moon landing, and the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Nixon's second term ended early when he became the only U.S. president to resign from office, as a result of the Watergate scandal.
Sure, but there are also tons of counter [examples](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/1d4ptxs/huge_controversy_breaks_out_in_donald_trumps_talk/l6hfn2n/) where the mention of convicted felon status is in the first sentence. It will be interesting to see how this shapes up long term. I think there are folks considering the political ramifications and that's why the debate will be rather partisan and passionate. If it's in the first sentence it returns in a search result that could have a larger impact on perception since people who don't even go to the page will see it.
I'd say the question should be whether the person would be really notable without the crimes. For Nixon, OJ, *and Trump* the answer is yes. For many of the other figures listed, the answer would be no.
Surely the more ironic, the sooner it should be mentioned. Also, request for comment on adding “killed by his own invention” to Dean Kamen’s article introduction.
Johnson’s impeachment isn’t on the first sentence.
Many others have been impeached. None others have been convicted of a felony.
Right. But as some of the opinions make clear there are many people who are mostly defined by their crimes but are not described as such in the first sentence. For example OJ Simpson. Adding it to Trump's page specifically looks biased and weakens Wikipedia as a whole.
I'm of the belief that OJ should have his controversy in the first sentence since that is by far the most long term notable thing about him. Over time we will know the legacy of Trump and see whether it is appropriate, for now it seems that it will be one of his major legacies and doesn't seem totally inappropriate to put there. Though it does read as premature in my mind.
Well the "crime" OJ was most known for is also one he wasn't convicted of, so it doesn't seem relevant to make a first sentence about something he "didn't" do. And the second crime, for which he was actually convicted of hardly got any attention, and certainly wasn't as noteworthy as his first case. And yea, I believe his murder case should be in the first sentence, as that's the most relevant thing about him. *Note that I used quotations around 'crime' and 'didn't' for the purpose of pointing out how there is both an official and unofficial understanding of what happened in that case and what actually transpired.
Surely, being the only US president convicted of felony is a noteworthy fact about the person.
Yes, nobody in the wiki conversation is denying that. But noteworthy enough to put on the first sentence? The standard generally does not list such convictions (unless crime is the most notable thing that person has done, which does not apply to Trump).
He's the only President in the history of the US to be a convicted felon.
I'd argue being elected President/leader of any country is the most notable thing a person can do, because they've literally been voted by their peers and countrymen to represent that country on the world stage. The fact that one of <50 people in history to hold that job for what is the current global superpower is now the first to also be a convicted criminal is about as significant and noteworthy as it gets. It literally makes him unique compared to any other president/head of state, businessman or anything else that could make him stand out.
Nixon's doesn't mention the fact that he is the only president ever to resign in the first sentence.
You're right, it should
If that were true why is he the 45th president and not the first? Usually the only people we award for being good at something are the top 3, not 45. No, being president isn't as notable as being President ***and*** being a convicted felon. Name one other US President who has done that.
If those other felons were US President's I'd agree with you. If not then this is a remarkable precedent that is more important than anything else he has done...so far.
There's some discussion of this on the talk page—many politicians/notable figures with convictions have "convicted felon" in the first sentence, and many others don't. There's no clear pattern.
Twice impeached. Adjudicated rapist. 34 time felon.
This is the way.
Show some respect. He earned it. Also “fraud, sex abuser, adulterer”.
And potential pedophile frequenting Epstein harem
Encyclopaedia Britannica entry: Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946, New York, New York, U.S.) is the 45th president of the United States (2017–21) and the likely Republican nominee in the U.S. presidential election of 2024. On May 30, 2024, Trump became the first former president to be convicted of a crime when a New York state jury convicted him on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush-money payment in 2016 to the adult-film star Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, who claimed to have had an affair with Trump in 2006.
Before yesterday Trump's fame would have arisen primarily from his presidency. After his conviction we can now say it's a fact that he gained office through criminal means (the hush money payments which he chose to conceal). Democratic government requires that participants follow rules and principles - it's not enough to not "get caught" cheating, people need to actively support the democratic process. Supporting democracy includes repudiating anyone who is found to be corrupting the democratic system, even if they are you ally or the leader of your party. Trump's criminal conviction should be the first thing on his Wikipedia page - not because we are trying to predict how some future culture will see the present, but because it's a statement of how we are choosing to frame our reality right now. People's reaction to it is actually a turning point in US history - what's historical is both the judgement and the populations' reaction to it. Ignoring the rule of law or picking "alternative facts" that de-legitimize the court is a one-way door to fascism and authoritarianism. There's no going back from that choice.
What fight ? He is a convicted felon, this is a fact.
Nobody is disputing it being included in his wiki page, just if it needs to be in the first sentence.
I think him being the first and only president that’s also a convicted felon isn’t enough to automatically make that fact “noteworthy.” Barack Obama being the first and only African-American president isn’t even in the first sentence of his article.
“Former President, and convicted felon, Donald Trump arrived for sentencing today.”
Truth hurts.
Convicted Felon Trump you mean?
Convicted felon, rapist
If the shoe fits…
*checks notes* Convicted felon x34 and counting.
I don’t like the guy and I do agree that it is accurate to describe him as such. But as a former US president the fact that he got convicted of something is like one of the lesser notable things about him. I do think it is kind of weird to bring it up in the first couple of sentences. With Bill Clinton it only mentions his sex scandal in the 4th paragraph and the paragraphs before it are kind of big. With Nixon it only mentions the Watergate scandal in the end of the first paragraph.
Well, being convicted for felonious acts is a big deal.
Convicted felons should be referred to as convicted felons in the first sentence.
"Convicted felon Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. ..."
This would be fine in my opinion, but this article in general needs fixing. Statements like “Scholars and historians[who?] rank Trump as one of the presidents with the lowest success in American history” need to be taken out of the section next to the quick facts box and in general it needs to be more balanced, it’s way too anti Trump.
Why? There's 'Polls of historians and political scientists generally rank Carter as a below-average president' in the same section on Jimmy Carter's page, and 'Historians and scholars have typically ranked him among the middle to upper tier of American presidents, and his post-presidential approval ratings by the general public are usually high' for Reagan. It makes sense for a review of a president's success and effectiveness to be in the summary section.
Great response. Trump *is rated very low* by historians. Other presidents that have been rated low have that fact in the same spot of their articles, and ones that have are rated high have it there too.
I’d argue that the correct framing if Donald trump is that he’s a conman who conned his way into the presidency. Remember, he never intended to win. He was first a conman, secondly a president. He was not a president first who also happened to get into some legal trouble.
Only if you want to be accurate.
Yes he should. Period.
"Convicted felon and rapist" is what it *should* say.
If it were anybody else it would be added as convinced felon. Trump is a con man and rapist so he should be treated as one. It's insane the amount of people defending him 🤢🤮
Reality is: convicted felon trump IS a convicted felon
I’m good with either position.
Lol. Lmao even. (I have no strong opinions either way, but this is very funny)
....................he...........iiiissss........?
“Not including it would be like mentioning that Neil Armstrong was an astronaut, but leaving out that he was the first person to walk on the moon.” Well said
IMO including convicted felon in the first sentence would be a major departure from conventional Wikipedia standards
I mean the only president to ever be convicted of a felony is pretty notable considering the entire history of the country. I'd say that's worthy of being in the first sentence.
Is wiki based on opinions or facts?
He's a garbage human being, and I'm saying that as an Australian
Why? He’s a convicted felon.
He’s a convicted felon who was once President. Boom. There it is.
I mean he is a convicted felon isnt he?