Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Second sentence of the lede paragraph

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not include the proposed wording. Consensus in this discussion is that including information related to this aspect of the subject matter in the third paragraph of the WP:LEAD in the way it is currently done (In 1977, Polanski was arrested and charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. As a result of a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of unlawful sex with a minor. In 1978, upon learning that the judge planned to reject his plea deal and impose a prison term instead of probation, he fled to Paris. As a result, Polanski is a fugitive from the U.S. criminal justice system.) is both sufficient and more appropriate according to Wikipedia's WP:Policies and guidelines including WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. In particular, there is a strong consensus that covering the same ground twice in the WP:LEAD would be inconsistent with our policies and guidelines and that the current wording is better than the proposed one inasmuch as it better describes the situation.

The main point of disagreement appears to be the placement within the WP:LEAD. I would note that wording and placement cannot really be decided upon independently since both influence WP:WEIGHT (Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement [...]) and wording that might be WP:DUE when placed less prominently could be WP:UNDUE when placed more prominently. I will therefore explicitly state that I find no consensus in favour of moving the current wording to the first paragraph of the WP:LEAD. Some other options as to how to handle this issue were also discussed, but no consensus emerged in favour of any of them. TompaDompa (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the second sentence of the lede paragraph of this article be:

• Polanski is also a fugitive from the U.S. criminal justice system; he fled the country while awaiting sentencing on five criminal charges, including rape.

Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support. A significant portion of this article is devoted to Roman Polanski's legal trouble relating to his conviction for rape, and it's one of the most important parts of his life. Secondly, Roman Polanski is known as a rapist about as much as he is a director or actor. [1] Google Trends shows that in the past 5 years, "Roman Polanski rapist" or "Roman Polanski child rapist" frequently jumps above "Roman Polanski director" or "Roman Polanski writer" as a search term. In the USA, "Roman Polanski rapist" constitutes 21% of the searches for these four terms, well above "Roman Polanski writer".
  

It's important that this information is included in the lede paragraph as many readers only view the lede paragraph, and other sources of data that rely on Wikipedia (Knowledge Graph, for instance) frequently only excerpt the lede paragraph. The lede paragraph also serves as a summary of the article, and the article discusses at length the legal troubles stemming from his conviction. Roman Polanski is a convicted rapist and we've had a previous RfC in the past that resulted in including a sentence describing his status as a fugitive. [2] Over the past few years, this sentence has been slowly disappeared without consensus or a new RfC [3] [4] [5] and I'm asking for a new RfC to clarify what the consensus is. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I should also add in that most reliable sources describe him as a rapist. For the New York Times, searching for Roman Polanski gives mostly articles relating to his fugitive status. [6] When searching Time (magazine), most results are in relation to his status as a rapist. [7] We have an entire article on the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case with 133 citations describing his sexual abuse cases. This main article only has 208, and many of these reliable sources mention the sexual assault cases against him. I don't see why editors continue to try to scrub this from the lede paragraph when it's demonstrably one of the titles by which he's known the best. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I've also reinstated the sentence agreed upon at the prior RfC until this matter is settled. The sentence I was speaking of was removed without any discussion. [8] [9] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm removing per BLP and POV, but feel free to point to the prior RfC. But really, there is no deadline here. Whatever is decided can be added when ready. Rationale discussed below. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

When searching Time (magazine), most results are in relation to his status as a rapist, but not one of them that I was able to see described him as having been convicted of rape, or implying it. Quite a few thought that was the right name for what he did, or that he ought to be (or to have been) so convicted, but so what? Since when do we call people on WP "convicted" terrorists/murderers/rapists/any other kind of criminal because Time (or any other) columnists think they are guilty and should have been charged decades ago? And since when do we call people by the name of a crime which they have never been tried for? The crime he pleaded guilty to as part of a (broken) plea agreement might be just as bad as rape in some, or even most, people's opinions, but it just so happens to have not been rape. You can't retrospectively convict someone of a named crime without a trial, and WP cannot assert that he was convicted of that crime because Time (or anyone else) thinks he should have been. No wonder Polanski (and many Europeans) have little faith in US 'justice' over this matter. Pincrete (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion but strongly oppose wording as POV and unclear. Mentioning in the lede that (1) he was convicted of rape and thus a rapist, and (2) is a fugitive from justice, without at least some of the detail provided in the body of the article, would lead a casual reader to an incomplete and possibly more damning conclusion (if such is possible) about events being described. On the first point, language and understanding in the US has shifted greatly in the past decade or two around incidents of rape or child sexual abuse that had previously included qualifiers like "statutory" – sexual relations with a person who, though willing, is deemed to not be capable of consent due to age, duress, inebriation, or other lack of capacity. Reflecting the changing understanding, and as a matter of revulsion to all manners of sexual abuse, modern sources simply call it rape, whereas contemporary sources at the time would have called it something else or used a qualifier. Without wading into the fraught topic itself, "rape" is about as loaded a word as exists in the English language and simply calling it that without more misleads the reader. I don't have an exact proposal, but I would find a several-word phrase to say that he was convicted of rape over his relations with a 13-year-old child. You could add an adjective like "coercive" if the weight of sources support that. The second omission around being a fugitive from justice results in a similar lack of specificity. Saying he is a fugitive without mentioning that (a) he fled after going through trial, not to run away from a crime, and (b) the judge reneged on a please bargain as a matter of politics or judicial misconduct or is accused of having done so, also conveys the wrong impression. I do think his rape case, fleeing the US, and France's refusal to extradite, are each so significant that they belons in the lede, only that the lede should actually inform the reader specifically what these are rather than leave the reader hanging with these loaded words. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  So you acknowledge that reliable sources describe Roman Polanski as a rapist, and don't want to use that term because you don't like it.

  "Reflecting the changing understanding, and as a matter of revulsion to all manners of sexual abuse, modern sources simply call it rape, whereas contemporary sources at the time would have called it something else or used a qualifier"

  Regardless, how would you feel about the term "unlawful sex with a minor"? That's specifically what he was convicted of. Second of all, he is a fugitive. A ton of reliable sources describe him as a fugitive. You can't just claim he's not because you feel it was unfair. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I think "unlawful sex with a minor" is a viable solution. Similarly, if there is a term for fugitive that describes his actual status without implying something else, that would work. For example, one could say that there is an outstanding extradition order, arrest warrant, or whatever. It's not a question of fairness, but rather avoiding loaded broad terms that carry aspersions. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

(I was pinged) A few thoughts:

• Where mentioned, it needs to be more specific than just "rape" or "rapist". A more specific term like "convicted of statutory rape" or of "unlawful sex with a minor" would be fine.
• Something about it should certainly be somewhere in the lead. And it is significant enough that late in the first paragraph would be fine, (per pyramid journalism structure) but not the first sentence of the first paragraph.

But, as a slightly-self-conflicting sidebar, the lead itself is already the summary of the article. The first paragraph alone never is going to be. Wikipedia leads are not structured for the first paragraph to be a "summary of the summary of the article. I'm against starting to worry about a "first paragraph" distinction because some people only read the first paragraph. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is already described at length in 3rd paragraph. Describing this 2nd time in first paragraph would be inconsistent with our WP:BLP. This is not main thing he is known for. I addition, I would remove from 3rd paragraph phrase: In addition to his conviction, multiple other women have accused Polanski... This is an unsubstantiated accusation of crime in the lead, and something covered only little in the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes: I've provided a ton of sources demonstrating that this is one of the main things he is known for. At the very least, the first paragraph should mention that he is a convicted sex offender. How is this inconsistent with WP:BLP? BLP relates to unverifiable information. Roman Polanski was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old girl. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

No, he is mostly known for his movies, i.e. as a film director, producer and screenwriter, not as a sexual offender. Most of this page is about his movies, not about his offense. That needs to be reflected in the lead. Actually, one can reasonably argue that the "Sexual abuse case" section on this page should be made shorter because we have a separate page about it. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You aren't providing any evidence for your claim whatsoever. You're just repeatedly saying that "he is mostly known for his movies" on a loop, but when you search Roman Polanski in virtually any reliable source, all of the coverage is his sexual abuse case. When you search him on Time (magazine) [10], the New York Times [11], the BBC [12], CNN [13], or NBC News [14], all of these sources describe his sexual abuse case. I don't see why editors are trying to sanitize the lede paragraph based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and ignoring verifiable evidence that he is generally known in relation to his crimes. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I explained this already. Most of this page is about his movies, not about his offense. That needs to be reflected in the lead.. For example, if description of a controversy X takes 30% of the body of the page, then you need to dedicate same 30% to description of this controversy in the lead. This is all. If you think that the content of the page does not properly reflect coverage of the subject in RS, you need to first change the body of the page, and then it might be changed in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The sex abuse portion of the article is shorter because as you've mentioned, we have an entire separate article about it. Anyways, I understand your logic here. You said it yourself—the lead must be in proportion to the content in this article. Therefore, you seek to remove sex abuse stuff from the body of this article as we have a separate article on the subject. You will then use that to justify the removal of more content from the lede of this article, as you are currently doing.

Roman Polanski is known mostly in reliable sources as a sexual abuser. The majority of independent reliable sources in this article describe him as a sexual abuser. We have a lengthy article with well over a hundred citations describing him as a sexual abuser. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see comments by Pincrete below. I do not see why we should provide a significantly more biased description than EB does. Speaking on the essence of this, his conviction was highly controversial, given the disagreement between the US justice and his acceptance in Europe. Even after being convicted in US, he was awarded European Film Academy Lifetime Achievement Award in Europe, and his description by BBC in relation to this [15] is very much different from what you are saying. The US justice system has been criticized a lot, and rightly so. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Another, and possibly better approach to the "due weight" issue is to consult with a high quality tertiary source like Britannica: [16]. Does it describe the subject in the way you want him to be described? No. Not at all. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per My very best wishes.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this information already is in the lead, isn't it? Marcelus (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a confusing RfC. It's already mentioned in the lead. Are you asking to add it again? The current lead seems fine and it's already included. Nemov (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  The second sentence of the first paragraph should describe his crimes and status as a fugitive. It's what he is generally known for in the modern era. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  It's what he is generally known for in the modern era.

  He's still more notable for being a movie director. I'm not sure how you're drawing this conclusion. The current lead follows MOS:LEADBIO. Nemov (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose proposed wording as POV and unclear per Wikidemon. The crime which he admitted to was not called rape at the time I believe and neither does what he did conform to most people's understanding of what 'rape' is so using the term 'rapist' - even if justified by (some?) sources, is very misleading and would need clarification. People are quite entitled to think that sexual intercourse with someone whose age deems them unable to meaningfully give consent (according to local laws) is inherently just as bad as with somone who actively withholds consent, but laws at the time, laws in many countries outside the US now, and much general understanding distinguish between rape and 'statutory rape' - or 'sex with a minor' or whatever term used for the second crime in the particular jurisdiction at that time. The seriousness of either crime is judged by a whole range of factors. I also think the discussion about whether he is better known as a filmmaker or as an offender is fairly, self-evidently, fruitless. His notoriety, and continued coverage of his crime and absconding, almost worldwide coverage, is precisely because he was a famous. and much celebrated film maker who "fell from grace". Had he not been a famous figure, coverage of his (single, albeit serious) crime would almost certainly never have gone beyond local papers, and would have dried up within weeks of the charges and would not qualify for a WP article AT ALL. In most of the world of course he is not a fugitive from anything - as long as is clear that it is US justice he absconded from, and the circumstances of him doing so, it obviously belongs in the article, if not the lead.Pincrete (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC) … ps I haven't checked all sources, but all of the BBC ones linked above, even those concerned with the fallout from the 'sex crime', introduce Polanski as 'director' or 'film maker'. It is simply factually untrue to assert that Polanski is best known for his crimes, even if he is well known as a film director who is avoiding US 'justice' because of a crime .Pincrete (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support w/ alternative wording - I think the nom is aruging the lede is a little buried here, and I'd tend to agree. I think a better way of unburying the lead would be to simply make the lead sentence include "film director, producer, screenwriter, actor, and fugitive.". NickCT (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  That actually goes against Wikipedia guidelines. Film director, producer, screenwriter and actor are all occupations. Fugitive is not. Rcarter555 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Rcarter555: - Citation needed for the guideline. There are lots of leads that use descriptors which aren't necessarily occupations. NickCT (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  @NickCT: Judging by some of the recent edits, that seems to be intentional. User:My very best wishes has already got to work removing mentions of sex abuse from the infobox. [17] [18] Pincrete on the other hand has thrown in many scare quotes and seems to be implying that having sex with a 13-year-old isn't as bad as other forms of rape. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest to follow the instruction in Template:Infobox_criminal. It "is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal.". The notability of subject of this page is NOT "due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal". It says "such template is reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers... and other notorious criminals". Perhaps you consider him as a "notorious criminal" along with "serial killers, gangsters", etc., but he is not one of them per description in sources, such as EB or BBC (links above). Please do not restore the removal of Infobox "criminal" again because you need a consensus for such inclusion per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoring_deleted_content. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: It's not a BLP violation as it is heavily sourced throughout the article. You are taking a very questionable interpretation of the BLP policy here, to mean any information about a living person you want removed. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is well sourced, sure. What I am talking about is different. No, this is not any information. It says: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections..." (and here are my objections just above). This is actually an important issue/policy recently debated and applied on WP:AE. Yes, these materials belong to the page, there is no any question about it. I am only saying the Template "criminal" should not be used as an infobox on this page per instruction in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Chess, I nowhere say - or indeed imply that having sex with a 13-year-old isn't as bad as other forms of rape. I attempted to make clear that the seriousness of either rape or "statutory rape" are (rightly) judged by many additional factors - age differential, 'role' of the older party, extent of coercion, how often it occured etc. etc. etc.. Most laws in almost all countries until recently - distinguished between the two crimes, and Polanski pleaded guilty to one crime, but has not even been tried, and is no longer even charged for the other AFAIK. Saying that fraud is not the same crime as robbery says nothing whatsoever about which is more serious - which is decided by factors other than the name of the crime. Scare quotes are mostly used by me because essentially the same actions are defined differently in different countries and at different times. Presumably you want people (either as individuals or from countries which do not define rape in the same way as 2022 US) to actually understand what Polanski is accused of having done? Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Sure, I'm willing to compromise and I can see your point. How do you feel about the sentence:

Polanski is also a fugitive from the U.S. criminal justice system; he fled the country while awaiting sentencing for unlawful sex with a minor.

Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 13:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The equivalent of that very line already exists in the article, and with more details. No need to list it twice. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Speaking on the "alternative wording", yes, this needs alternative wording to explain complexity of the case. In particular, one should say that the judge planned to reject his plea deal, hence the subject became a fugitive. But this is already included in the last paragraph of the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Or we could leave out the fugitive part from the first paragraph, and just say he was convicted of unlawful sex with a minor. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: How is this covered in recent reliable sources that write about Polanski in a career sense (not just whatever he is working on now)? Like it looks like Historical Dictionary of American Cinema (2021 edition) has a section about Roman Polanski, but I can't view what it says about him upfront. Wikipedia can follow reliable sources in content and structure. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. This has been discussed already a number of times on this talk page. There was a consensus not make the change suggested by Chess, see on the top here, for example. Please check archives. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Per above arguments. Argument that it's already included in third paragraph does not make sense. Article also mentions that he's a film director in the lead. Does that mean it shouldn't be mentioned? Per, mos:OPENPARABIO, he's notable for being a rapist due to the many arguments brought up. No good arguments have arisen that he's more notable as a director than a rapist, or that his rape is not one of if not the most noteworthy thing about him. By the MOS, it should be per nom. Much of the discussion here is not relevant to the article and seems to construe Polanski in a subjective way. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  No good arguments have arisen that he's more notable as a director than a rapist, or that his rape is not one of if not the most noteworthy thing about him.

  Most of this article and the sources included are dedicated to the life and history of a film director. The rape is included in that history, but the overwhelming content of this article it about his career as a film director. I'm not sure how one could review this article and come to the conclusion that he's not more noteworthy for being a film maker. Nemov (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per My very best wishes and others. It's already mentioned in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 07:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose also per My very best wishes. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support [Harvey Weinstein] is a very accomplished film professional, but the first sentence in his article reads "American former film producer and convicted sex offender (born 1952)". That seems reasonable to me. Much of Polansi's recent notoriety is about the fact that he had sex with a 13 y.o. and plead guilty to a crime related to that. 13 year-olds are considered children in the U.S. (and, were at the time) and cannot consent to sex with adults. Plea bargains aside, he was convicted of a sex crime with a child victim, and burying that fact in a long article about his moviemaking accomplishment seems like whitewashing by his fans.

Banjohunter (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polanski being listed as only having 2 children not 3.

I think Paul Richard Polanski should be included in that list considering how far along the pregnancy was. In pretty much every country a fetus that's 8 and a half months along is considered a living person hence anyone with a pregnancy that far along would be ineligible for an abortion. I'm pretty sure Paul was also part of the murder count in the charges. If he's legally considered a living person then why can't he be listed as being one of Roman's children? 209.93.94.102 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the lead paragraph contain exclusively flattering information?

As of right now it's a list of his awards, with no mention of his fugitive status, ban from the Academy, or other sexual assault allegations. It also awkwardly breaks his critical acclaim across two separate places in the lead, sandwiching all other information with critical praise, in a way that seems non-neutral / fan POV. Earlier versions of the lead simply stated name, birthdate, nationality and occupation while keeping both his criminal record and critical acclaim in separate paragraphs. I think either doing that or mentioning both this most notable highlights AND lowlights in the lead paragraph are the only way to make the lead have a NPOV overall. Shadybabs (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. It’s perfectly neutral as written now. The information is in the lede, just not in the first paragraph. This has been debated Ad Nauseum on the talk page and this is where we landed. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Show me where this current version of the lead got consensus. Shadybabs (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You're exaggerating. There's discussion of this matter in all the archived pages I just looked at. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rcarter555: Speaking as someone who debated this very issue 5 years ago the compromise that was landed on then was that the second sentence would cover his criminal record. This was reconfirmed in 2020. [19] I will re-add this sentence to the lede paragraph as it was removed against consensus. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll add on that you didn't get consensus in the above talk page thread. Multiple people disagreed with you and there wasn't a clear consensus in that discussion, so I will be starting an RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Roman Polanski is best known as a fugitive child rapist.

I wrote [Perverts For Polanski] in 2009, after members of Société des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques signed a petition, because they wanted USA to drop charges against Polanski.

I spent a couple of hours copying names from petition - to spread their word.

I included

If you send me a note I will mark your name as “deleted.”

One person who signed petition, asked me to remove his name.

His email said he made a mistake signing SACD petition.

He said he could not get a job, if a background check revealed support for Polanski.

So - Roman Polanski is best known as a fugitive child rapist. Mitch3000 — Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

We just had an RfC about this and the consensus was to keep it as is. Your history proves that you are far from an unbiased editor on this subject. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

His notoriety as a convicted child rapist and fugitive from the US prosecution is his most notable attribute. Rarely do people talk about him without bringing up this fact. It's central to his identity, especially in the wake of the global #MeToo movement. To assume that there is "consensus" just because Rcarter555 continually undoes edits by people adding this information in the first paragraph is laughable at best and delusional at worst. Now before you respond to this, take a pause and ask yourself: "Why am I simping so hard for Roman Polanksi?". Take a breath. Then respond. I wish you a really good day and I do really hope you're doing well. Listen1st (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

And I will continue to undo changes that goes against the consensus. That’s how Wikipedia works. I’m sorry it didn’t go your way, but there was an RfC about this and the consensus was to keep it. I am not “simping so hard for Roman Polanski”, I am following the consensus, which is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Rcarter555 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and clearly it is. Why are you standing in its way? Multiple editors are push for this and only you have been shutting it down. As multiple people have said before like Chess have stated above, your voice alone doesn't make consensus. Listen1st (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

the RfC was literally done just three months ago. Start a new RfC to get a new consensus if you think opinion has swayed so differently in that short amount of time. Rcarter555 (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You must be a big Ezra Miller fan 174.16.74.110 (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m a big fan of following the rules of Wikipedia, which obviously you are not. Rcarter555 (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WTF? Change immediately!

"Polanski's mother, born in Russia, had been raised Catholic but was half Jewish."

"Half Jewish" is a purely Nazi idea. Unbelievably antisemitic. Revolting, edit accordingly please. 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:983A:9018:9D9C:AEBF (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it only means that one of her parents was Jewish, the other not, although it's weird that the nationality of the second parent isn't mentioned Marcelus (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You think wrong. It is a Nazi classification, and nothing else - its use is only ever virulently antisemitic. Remove it immediately FFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:B14D:B3EF:FEB:44BD (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this edit request seriously not going to be acted on? What on earth is wrong with you? Just change it to 'one parent Jewish, one not' or whatever instead of using a literally Nazi racial classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:109D:14CC:127A:935A (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a normal ethnic description to me; half-polish, half-chinese, half-jewish, half-whatever. It just indicates that one of the parents of the person in question belonged to a certain ethnic group.

I also looked up the nazi racial terms, and half-jew was not used, the term used by the nazis was "Mischling" and not "Halbjude" so trying to frame it as a nazi racial classification is simply wrong. Therefore I don't think it needs to be changed. 37.232.19.101 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, this is old, but it's completely wrong. Halbjude was the official Nazi-term for Half-Jews, they even used Vierteljude (Quarter-Jew). Here in Germany it's quite clear and unambiguous, that only (Neo-)Nazis would ever use such a word nowadays, the usage of such a word would disqualify anybody from a serious discussion. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 11:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This might be true in Germany (I have no idea), but it is not true universally. E.g., in New York City, it is a routine and innocuous ethnic descriptor. --JBL (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• There is simply no encylopaedic reason to keep wording that is offensive when it is no more informative that a neutral alternative. I am WP:BOLDly changing it. If you have better wording that is also inoffensive, please improve it. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Closing Sex Offender in Lead Paragraph RfC

Courtesy ping: @Rcarter555, @Curbon7, @Jagmanst, @Morbidthoughts, @LindsayH, @Random person no 362478479, @FMSky, @Listen1st, @Nemov, @Marcelus, @Horse Eye's Back, @MaximusEditor, @DFlhb, @Pincrete, @Burrobert, @Chess, @Thriley, @Invasive Spices, @Bilorv, @Gitz Edit: ping @Gitz6666

I closed the Reopening the "Sex Offender" in the Lead Paragraph Discussion RfC on behalf of @Finnigami, who agreed to the compromise solution of moving information about Polanski's sex offence and his fugitive status from the final paragraph of the top section to its own paragraph just after the lede. I will be modifying the article accordingly, with the new 2nd paragraph reading as follows:

In 1977, Polanski was arrested for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. He plead guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sex with a minor in exchange for a probation-only sentence. The night before his sentencing hearing in 1978, he learned the judge planned to renege on the deal, so he fled the U.S. to Europe, where he continued his career. He remains a fugitive of justice to this day.

If anyone disagrees with this change, feel free to revert and discuss here, and/or open a new RfC. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is fair. Are there any other similar figures to compare him to? I thought Michael Jackson was a fair comparison even though he was never convicted. The controversial aspects of his life are not mentioned until the third paragraph. Thriley (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really a fair comparison as Jackson was never a fugitive from justice which is a key piece of Polanski's notability (his flight and life on the run is arguably more notable than the crime itself). I'm not really sure there are any, Polanski is in kind of a league of his own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this, and for the ping. I haven't followed the discussion as i felt the ABF was at risk of becoming overpowering, but it looks to me (although i was originally content with the lead as it was) as though this is a reasonable solution. Good work. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for wrapping it up and thank you all for a good faith discussion. I do appreciate you all for participating. Cheers Listen1st (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This change creates a bizarre non-chronology where a 1977 event is presented before Polanski's birth and his entire career (which exists on both sides of that year). I don't think that this solution is reasonable at all, and the presentation now comes off as far more shoe-horned/out-of-place than in either a (lead sentence mention + last paragraph) solution or in the status quo (last paragraph) solution. I think it should be reversed. — Goszei (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The RfC has been closed and that was the consensus. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It was a tenuous result, which is why the closer opened this thread. I think the RfC should be reclosed. — Goszei (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean reopened? Not sure how something can be “reclosed” once it is, in fact, closed. Rcarter555 (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Goszei, there was a strong consensus against the status-quo: 4 to keep vs. 16 to change. However, among the 16, opinions were divided into three camps: 1st sentence (7), 1st paragraph (4), 2nd paragraph (5). I would prefer that a new RfC be limited to those three options so as to not simply relitigate the previous one. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit: My counts above were wrong. As of then the true count was 5 to keep vs. 15 to change. Among the 15, opinions were divided into three camps: 1st sentence (7), 1st paragraph (4), 2nd paragraph (4). Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with a chronology policy in regards to the lead. Do you have that handy? Nemov (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov I just happened to be reviewing that. There's no guidance under MOS:OPEN for chronology.

Closest I could find is: MOS:BLPCHRONO In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order.

Bios frequently break things into sections, as does this one. I don't see any reason why the lead section shouldn't do the same if the sections of the article aren't. As far as the lead section goes, it seems within the spirit of MOS that ordering content by notability is acceptable, if not encouraged. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I could understand keeping in chronological in regards to listing occupation, but this is in order by weight of the sources and fits within the "good reason to do otherwise" criteria. Nemov (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree as well MaximusEditor (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Somebody has disagreed with the close, so I have reopened the discussion. See above. TompaDompa (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the closer that 2nd para coverage (or 3rd or 4th if chronology is preserved, and which personally makes more sense) allows for more nuance and context than any opening sentence 'descriptor' could do, but a technical question anyway that some raised above, but which was never answered. Can someone who never faced trial (nor had the negotiated plea-bargain acted on) be described as a convicted offender? It is commonplace - especially by those hostile to Polanski on this matter - for commentators to refer to him thus, but is it actually legally correct? How can you be convicted if you haven't been tried, and convicted of what, the 'lesser' or more serious offences? That he has been quite open about some aspects of what happened with the girl, does not alter the fact surely that a 'conviction' - or 'offence' is an accusation until a fair and valid trial has occurred. Pincrete (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

In California, a guilty plea is entered into the books as a conviction. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

All the RS refer to him as convicted, including the British ones who can't just throw terms like that around with getting their pants sued off. I'm also not sure where you're getting the idea that they never faced trial, we're talking about things that happened at their trial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Closing Sex Offender in Lead Paragraph RfC redux

Thank-you to @TompaDompa for closing the RfC. I have (again) implemented the change suggested by @Rcarter555 at 00:56, 16 August 2023 with the difference of including the sex assault mention as a standalone 2nd paragraph instead of appending it to the lead paragraph. My justification for this particular option comes in three parts:

1. There was a 15 to 7 consensus against leaving the status quo.

2. Of the 15 !votes to make a change were 7 !votes for a mention in the lede sentence against 8 !votes for a first or second paragraph solution.

3. There was a slim majority of 5 to 3 !votes for a 2nd paragraph solution.

However, it could be argued that the 7 lede sentence !votes constitutes the most popular single option in the "change" camp, which is fair enough. Edit: this is wrong; the closing editor wrote The result was do not include in the first sentence, but make it more prominent. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC) I would advise against such a solution as it would risk overloading the lede sentence. The case is sufficiently complex that tacking on something like, "and a convicted sex offender", lacks necessary context which still needs to go somewhere in the top section. So I think it is more coherent to keep all mention of the incident in one place. I also think this solution provides a good compromise between the status-quo and lede sentence camps. Others may disagree, of course, so further discussion is welcomed. Courtesy ping involved editors: @Pincrete, @Burrobert, @Gitz6666, @Last1in, @Goszei, @Cavarrone, @Marcelus, @FMSky, @Horse Eye's Back, @MaximusEditor, @Curbon7, @Jagmanst, @Chess, @Invasive Spices, @Nemov, @Barnards.tar.gz, @Random person no 362478479, @LindsayH, @Finnigami, @Listen1st

Regards, Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Would something along the lines of including conviction+flight+life on the run within the existing paragraphs in chronological order instead of a new one but adding "controversial" before "French and Polish film director, producer, screenwriter, and actor." in the lead satisfy everyone? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that is an appropriate addition to the lede. MOS:CONTROVERSIAL is the the literal name of one of the links to Manual of Style's 'Words to Watch' guideline. Judgemental adjectives add nothing encyclopedic to articles. The lede and the article speak to his controversies. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" which would appear to be the case here[20][21][22]. MOS:CONTROVERSIAL appears to support the addition of controversial. If "The lede and the article speak to his controversies" then isn't it only natural? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Last1in on using the word controversial, but I would be ok with it if the second paragraph explains why that is so. Your suggestion would mean that the reader has to go through his family background, childhood, early career, and the murder of his wife before the question of why he's controversial is answered. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

They have to wait anyway, the only way around that one would be to mention it in the first sentence and we don't have consensus for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a clear difference between reading 50 words and 240. BTW, MOS:CONTROVERSIAL says that if the word is to be used it should be attributed inline. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And I have provided three sources for that inline attribution. How about controversial in the first sentence and a stand-alone second paragraph or working controversial into the second? Like it feels weird to mention that An Officer and a Spy (2019) was just award winning when it was also wildly controversial, it doesn't really seem to summarize what the article says about An Officer and a Spy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the film or the surrounding controversy, but after reading the relevant section of An Officer and a Spy (film) it seems to me that not the film itself was controversial, but Polanski's involvement in it and his attendance at the Venice festival. Maybe we could add a sentence to the paragraph about the sexual assault to the effect that his continued role in the film industry is controversial. Currently we have

In 1977, Polanski was arrested for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sex with a minor in exchange for a probation-only sentence. The night before his sentencing hearing in 1978, he learned the judge planned to renege on the deal, so he fled the U.S. to Europe, where he continued his career. He remains a fugitive of the U.S. justice system. Further allegations of abuse have been made by multiple women.

We could add to that something like the following:

Polanski has continued his career in Europe. His continuing involvement in the film industry is the subject of ongoing controversy. In 2018 he was removed from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that the controversy was about Polanski and not the film per say, I've tried to make it clearer in the body. I like your suggestion but feel that at that point we have more of a concluding paragraph than a second paragraph... Perhaps we add that and make it the concluding paragraph? We can attach the first sentence to the end of the previous paragraph and drop the laundry list at the end in favor of "where he continued his career" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back, very much agree with you that the section on An Officer and a Spy should include the controversy, and appreciate your edits along those lines.

No question that sources back up use of the word "controversial". My argument is that properly attributing that in the lede sentence could get cumbersome. But perhaps something like this would work:

−

Raymond Roman Thierry Polański (né Liebling; 18 August 1933) is a French and Polish film director, producer, screenwriter, and actor.

+

Raymond Roman Thierry Polański (né Liebling; 18 August 1933) is an award-winning French and Polish film director who has garnered controversy for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Edit: the closing editor wrote that the consensus was do not include in the first sentence, but make it more prominent. My apologies for the confusion. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Didn't we just conclude the Rfc stating that it SHOULDN'T be in the first sentence? It seems like we're just retreading old ground until we get the results certain people want. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

YES, we are 100% relitigating (again, so re-re-re-?) the WP:UNDUE weight of adding that to the first sentence. It simply does not belong there. Putting it in the first sentence and devoting the entire second paragraph is simply unjustifiable and unencyclopaedic. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There were exactly the same number of !votes for including it in the lead sentence as there were against doing so: seven. The consensus was 15 to 7 against keeping the status-quo, with no overwhelming consensus about how to change it; however, include in lead sentence did get the most votes over either of the other two options. (See my opening comment in this thread for the full breakdown.) Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Edit: the closing editor wrote that the consensus was do not include in the first sentence, but make it more prominent. My apologies for the confusion. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, you missed the next part, in which case use in-text attribution. That's also not really about the lede, it's about the body. Per in-text attribution, you would need a line like, "is a French and Polish film director, producer, screenwriter, and actor. {Name of Author} calls him controversial." It is simply not appropriate in the lede. Last1in (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And you apparently missed Xan747 bringing that up more than half an hour ago *facepalm* also PS the thing on a wikipedia page is a WP:LEAD "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I was pointing out that inline attribution that you mentioned is different than the recommended in-text attribution for judgemental, value-laden words. Please read WP:INTEXT as linked in my comment above. The word, in this case, simply adds nothing encyclopaedic. It obscures the fact that Polanski's fame is due to his professional life; whilst it's important for context, his (imho) horrific, criminal, personal acts are secondary. Also, 'lede' has been an acceptable spelling since the early days of Wikipedia. I was actually around for the discussion where they chose to prefer 'lead' over 'lede' without deprecating the use of the latter. Old habits die hard. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And I've suggested that any of the given sources could fill that roll as well as suggesting other places to do it. Note that his alleged crimes all occurred in the course of his professional life, not his personal life. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

> "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph."

Third paragraph of MOS:LEAD:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

IMO the MOS is making a distinction without a difference here, but that's irrelevant: the 2nd paragraph proposal is not at all inconsistent with the above guidance. As I mentioned previously, I don't know of any policy or guidance which says the top section should follow chronological order. Indeed, the guidance is to do exactly what the 2nd paragraph solution does: emphasize information in the order of its prominence in RS. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, I have never said that the 2nd paragraph proposal is inconsistent with that guidance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

> "alleged crimes"

No. He pleaded guilty, which is the same as a conviction in California. There is zero presumption of innocence at this point. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There are allegations of further crimes. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all with current, former, or potential co-workers or employees. All work relationships, we don't have any allegations from the subjects private life as far as I can tell. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thus far we are only proposing to mention the one crime for which he was convicted of in 1977. Anything else should be characterized as an allegation. Well, almost everything else: in his biography he freely volunteers (not "admits") having had sex with other underage girls. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. Controversial is not an appropriate addition to the opening paragraph. Rcarter555 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• I just read the lead again with fresh eyes. I'm comfortable with the current status quo. The first paragraph is rather short at two sentences. It explains why he's notable. The 2nd paragraph moves directly into the details about the rape. I'm not sure how to make it more prominent without moving into territory that was covered in the last RfC. Nemov (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The current lead does not make any sense. The lead is supposed to present the biography of the character and his achievements . At the very least, we should maintain chronology. The information about the sexual offense should be after noting Sharon Tate's death. Marcelus (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD says nothing about chronology. See my 19:41, 7 September 2023 for further details. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

PS: you're simply reiterating the argument which you made in the RfC. Please move on. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Since editors are relitigating the just-closed RfC and trying to insert the epitome of a WP:WTW in the first sentence, I don't think it's wise for anyone on this talk page to use the phrase, Please move on. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Including the sex assault in the lead sentence was NOT ruled out by the RfC. See my 21:00, 7 September 2023 for more. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Edit: actually, the closing editor did specifically rule that out. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And I respectfully disagree. An RfC is not determined by number of !votes, but by consensus. Read through the various sections above and it's pretty clear that there is no true consensus. There is support and vehement opposition to including a pejorative and judgemental WP:WTW in the first sentence, but grudging acceptance from most editors for creating a whole paragraph on the subject just below it. I feel it's still WP:UNDUE, but I am happy to accept it and move on. I'm sorry, but I feel we are very much at WP:STICK by now. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Last1in: I've been trying to get this included more prominently for years. I would say that the first sentence or two is critical because that's what most consumers of our content see, through media such as Siri, Google Knowledge Graph, or whatever else. I think we can workshop a four-option follow-up RfC with a proposed first sentence wording, second sentence wording, a second paragraph wording, and not including it at all. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Right now, we have a version that seems to please few but infuriate none. I am having trouble wrapping my brain around why it is so important to some editors to add the poster child for a WP:WTW into the first sentence. It does nothing to better inform the readers about what made this horrible man so important. 'Serial philanderer' isn't in William IV's lede and he had so many bastards they literally created a surname for them. Third paragraph and neutral, non-judgemental wording. Charlie Chaplin doesn't say 'parlour pink/commie sympathiser', nor 'child molester' even though he married three teenagers, one of whom was 16 and well gone with child at the time. Third paragraph, non-judgemental. How about Jerry Lee Lewis who married his 13-year-old cousin? Second paragraph. The list goes on. As much as people (rightly) revile this man for what he did, it is simply not the major reason he is notable. Another RfC will end up in the same place. Emotion is clear that we want to label this man as a monster. Policy is clear that pejoratives are not helpful to understanding and, usually and in general, unencyclopaedic. Rehashing this is not going to change either fact. WP:STICK. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

On a procedural note, I humbly submit that workshopping the specifics of the proposal more thoroughly ahead of time would likely have resulted in more productive discussion and a clearer consensus.

You can participate in the workshopping or you can refuse. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Please invite me. Thanks & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chess I don't think not including it at all is something anyone is advocating for. First sentence is not a realistic option either in my opinion (both policy-wise and based on the last RfC). I believe that the three most realistic options now are.

1. Mention in last sentence of first paragraph then add more information where it fits chronologically.
2. Present as second paragraph.
3. Present where it fits chronologically.

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we need specific wording. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chess, my nomination for 2nd paragraph is the current status-quo. I'd be ok simply deleting the paragraph break for a 1st paragraph solution, but I think putting it in its own paragraph is better writing. Option 3 (present it chronologically) is a non-starter because that was the previous status-quo. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Option 3 has a realistic chance of consensus either, but not being in chronological order is the objection based on which this was reopened. I agree that we need specific wording. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And the RfC was closed with the ruling that the sex assault case be given more prominence in the lead section, just not in the lead sentence. Option 3 is not viable because it does NOT give it more prominence than the previous status-quo because that WAS the previous status-quo. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Rando that those are the only choices likely to come close to consensus. I agree with Chess that the formal RfC will need specific wording. Pending both, I would likely !vote for the second option, as I think the status quo is the best way to frame this. I don't think that presenting it chronologically is a good choice. As much as his crime is not the primary reason for his importance, it is also more than a casual detail. I also feel that mentioning it twice, in the first paragraph and lower in the lede, puts us too far into WP:UNDUE. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think treating it sufficiently in the first paragraph is a realistic option. It is too complex and would end up being undue. If people insist on having a mention in the first paragraph the only realistic option I see is mentioning it twice. I am not a fan of this option, but given the number of people who want it in the first paragraph I think that any new RfC should include such an option. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

SOLD to the Random person in the first row! Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say that the first sentence or two is critical because that's what most consumers of our content see, since when are we supposed to match users with the shortest attention span? Is this some kind of rule? The lead is not long, describing a sexual assault case where it fits most neutrally (i.e. according to the chronology) is not hiding anything. Marcelus (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Where it fits chronologically is the previous status-quo, which was ruled against in the RfC. Why are you still arguing for it? Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I am not opposed to the chronological approach, but I am opposed to yet another ~60k of emotion-laden prose for and against. Proposing something that has proven time and again to be rejected does not seem to be a good starting point. It doesn't improve the encyclopaedia to fight for (or against) WP:SNOW. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Last1in, I reread the closing editor's comment, and it begins, The result was do not include in the first sentence, but make it more prominent. Emphasis in the original. I have struck my previous comments to the contrary. Apologies for the confusion. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

A few clarifying comments from the closer:

1. The close precludes mentioning this in the first sentence.
2. The close does not preclude mentioning this in the first paragraph.
3. The close precludes mentioning this twice inasmuch as the previous strong consensus against doing so was not overturned.
4. The close precludes retaining the pre-RfC version of the lead.
5. The close does not preclude mentioning this in its chronological position—prominence compared to the pre-RfC version of the lead can be increased in other ways, such as giving it a stand-alone paragraph (see below for an example of how this could be done), altering word choice, or devoting an increased word count towards it.
6. The close neither precludes nor mandates subsequent RfCs on this topic.

TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for those clarifications; I certainly had misconceptions requiring correction. Could you add them to your closing note in the RfC as well? Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 15:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: going to need some explanation of "The close precludes mentioning this twice inasmuch as the previous strong consensus against doing so was not overturned." That doesn't appear appropriate, it looks like that part of it is a superclose which doesn't actually summarize the discussion which was had but is your own opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

There exists, from a previous discussion, a strong consensus against mentioning it twice in the lead. That consensus could be overturned by further discussion (WP:Consensus can change), but that didn't happen here, so it remains in place. If further discussion down the line results in a consensus contrary to the existing one, it would supersede the previous one. The previous consensus on a matter that was previously discussed at length does not disappear simply because an RfC on a related matter did not reaffirm it (nor overturn it, nor really discuss it much at all). Basically, if somebody wants to implement a change (in this case mentioning this twice in the lead) that previous discussion has resulted in a consensus against, they need to establish a new consensus in favour of that change. Does that clarify things to your satisfaction? TompaDompa (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Was that previous consensus referenced in this discussion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. It remains in place until it is overturned. TompaDompa (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. For the record, I believe this is the previous RfC in question. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter then take it out of the close as extraneous. Either this covers the same ground and you shouldn't have made this close or it doesn't and it shouldn't be mentioned in the close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's in the close to remind people of existing consensus so they don't go against it, either unintentionally by being unaware of it or intentionally by trying to circumvent it. Considering the editor who opened the RfC was apparently unaware that there had been a previous one less than a year prior, this seems to me like a reasonable reminder. TompaDompa (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Its a re-assertion of a close *you made* not just any random close and you don't mention any of the other standing consensuses regarding the page, just the one you were involved in. Remember that editors should not be making multiple closes on the same topic, largely to avoid this sort of self referential/walled garden complication. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That I closed the previous discussion is clearly stated in my original close. I'm not sure which other standing consensuses relevant to the implementation of the consensus in this most recent RfC you think should have been mentioned in addition. TompaDompa (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I figured I'll give an example as to how chronological position can be retained while making this aspect more prominent. This is not a suggestion (not least because it increases the paragraph count from three to five), but it would at least in theory be consistent with the outcome of the RfC. TompaDompa (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

pre-RfC lead

Raymond Roman Thierry Polański (né Liebling; 18 August 1933) is a French and Polish film director, producer, screenwriter, and actor. He is the recipient of numerous accolades, including an Academy Award, two British Academy Film Awards, ten César Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, as well as the Golden Bear and a Palme d'Or. His Polish Jewish parents moved the family from his birthplace in Paris back to Kraków in 1937. Two years later, the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany started World War II, and the family found themselves trapped in the Kraków Ghetto. After his mother and father were taken in raids, Polanski spent his formative years in foster homes, surviving the Holocaust by adopting a false identity and concealing his Jewish heritage. Polanski's first feature-length film, Knife in the Water (1962), was made in Poland and was nominated for the United States Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. After living in France for a few years, he moved to the United Kingdom, where he directed his first three English-language feature-length films: Repulsion (1965), Cul-de-sac (1966), and The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967). In 1968, he moved to the United States and cemented his status in the film industry by directing the horror film Rosemary's Baby (1968). In 1969, Polanski's pregnant wife, actress Sharon Tate, was murdered with four friends by members of the Manson Family. He made Macbeth (1971) in England and Chinatown (1974) back in Hollywood. Polanski was arrested and charged in 1977 with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. As a result of a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of unlawful sex with a minor. In 1978, upon learning that the judge planned to reject his plea deal and impose a prison term instead of probation, Polanski fled to Paris and has since been a fugitive from the U.S. criminal justice system. After fleeing to Europe, Polanski continued directing. His other critically acclaimed films include Tess (1979), The Pianist (2002) which won him the Academy Award for Best Director, The Ghost Writer (2010), Venus in Fur (2013), and An Officer and a Spy (2019). References

Same wording as above, but paragraph breaks have been altered

Raymond Roman Thierry Polański (né Liebling; 18 August 1933) is a French and Polish film director, producer, screenwriter, and actor. He is the recipient of numerous accolades, including an Academy Award, two British Academy Film Awards, ten César Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, as well as the Golden Bear and a Palme d'Or. His Polish Jewish parents moved the family from his birthplace in Paris back to Kraków in 1937. Two years later, the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany started World War II, and the family found themselves trapped in the Kraków Ghetto. After his mother and father were taken in raids, Polanski spent his formative years in foster homes, surviving the Holocaust by adopting a false identity and concealing his Jewish heritage. Polanski's first feature-length film, Knife in the Water (1962), was made in Poland and was nominated for the United States Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. After living in France for a few years, he moved to the United Kingdom, where he directed his first three English-language feature-length films: Repulsion (1965), Cul-de-sac (1966), and The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967). In 1968, he moved to the United States and cemented his status in the film industry by directing the horror film Rosemary's Baby (1968). In 1969, Polanski's pregnant wife, actress Sharon Tate, was murdered with four friends by members of the Manson Family. He made Macbeth (1971) in England and Chinatown (1974) back in Hollywood. Polanski was arrested and charged in 1977 with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. As a result of a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of unlawful sex with a minor. In 1978, upon learning that the judge planned to reject his plea deal and impose a prison term instead of probation, Polanski fled to Paris and has since been a fugitive from the U.S. criminal justice system. After fleeing to Europe, Polanski continued directing. His other critically acclaimed films include Tess (1979), The Pianist (2002) which won him the Academy Award for Best Director, The Ghost Writer (2010), Venus in Fur (2013), and An Officer and a Spy (2019). References

This is what an alternative lead might look like. If I understand the closure, this kind of lead section has not been ruled out. To make it shorter and to emphasise the standalone paragraph on crime, I have removed information that might be valuable (the invasion of Poland started World War II; mention of the films Repulsion, Cul-de-sac, The Fearless Vampire Killers, Macbeth and Chinatown). Do you think this would be an improvement? Ditching the chronological order makes little sense to me and a Mike Tyson-style lead seems preferable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Chronological order, standalone paragraph on crime, four paragraphs

Raymond Roman Thierry Polański (né Liebling; 18 August 1933) is a French and Polish film director, producer, screenwriter, and actor. He is the recipient of numerous accolades, including an Academy Award, two British Academy Film Awards, ten César Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, as well as the Golden Bear and a Palme d'Or. His Polish Jewish parents moved the family from his birthplace in Paris back to Kraków in 1937. Following the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany in 1939, the family found themselves trapped in the Kraków Ghetto. His mother and father were taken in raids and Polanski spent his formative years in foster homes, surviving the Holocaust concealing his Jewish heritage. Polanski's first feature-length film, Knife in the Water (1962), was made in Poland and was nominated for the United States Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. After living in France and the United Kingdom, Polanksy moved to the United States, where he directed the horror film Rosemary's Baby (1968). In 1969, Polanski's pregnant wife, actress Sharon Tate, was murdered with four friends by members of the Manson Family. Polanski was arrested and charged in 1977 with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. As a result of a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of unlawful sex with a minor. In 1978, upon learning that the judge planned to reject his plea deal and impose a prison term instead of probation, Polanski fled to Paris and has since been a fugitive from the U.S. criminal justice system. After fleeing to Europe, Polanski continued directing. His other critically acclaimed films include Tess (1979), The Pianist (2002) which won him the Academy Award for Best Director, The Ghost Writer (2010), Venus in Fur (2013), and An Officer and a Spy (2019). References

That would be an improvement over the pre-RfC status-quo as breaking the sex assault mention into its own paragraph gives it more visibility. But I will not support it over a 1st paragraph-only or 2nd paragraph-only mention for reasons already given. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

PS: Tyson is not a comparable case. He did three of six years on the rape conviction, being released on parole. The conviction was not forgotten after his release (any more than his alleged domestic violence against Givens was), but it has not been the nearly half-century saga of Polanski's evasion of prison time. Nor is the boxing community known for having a widespread, sustained, chronic problem of its stars sexually assaulting women and girls. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)