DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Trang chủ
  2. Wiki

Shuffled around the lede conviction paragraph from #2 to #3

[edit]

Reason: chronology. The previous order was against Wikipedia Policy. Now everything is still prominently displayed, and WP is not broken. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chick Pea Corea: The second paragraph was an acceptable compromise. Why do we need to reopen this can of worms? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The result was do not include in the first sentence, but make it more prominent. Source on it being in the second paragraph being the result? Chick Pea Corea (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was part of that discussion (which I think mainly took place in the edit comment section unfortunately) and the second paragraph was absolutely the compromise that everyone came to. Rcarter555 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That argument does not sound convincing to me... Chick Pea Corea (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. You need to get consensus for your change. Don't violate 3RR. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Chick Pea Corea (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source of what? That you need to get consensus for a change that has been reverted? That's Wikipedia's 3RR policy. I invite you to review it. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, source for your statement being the consensus. I'm merely following the... result of the RfC above. And the Manual of Style, of course. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were multiple discussions outside of the RfC that landed on the second paragraph as the consensus. But that's irrelevant, as you are the one making the change to the status quo, that change was reverted and the proper procedure is to come to the talk page to gain consensus for your change, NOT to keep changing it back which is editing warring AND a violation of 3RR. By the way, I find nothing in the Manual of Style that mentions chronology, so I'd be happy if you'd point that out to me. But, as you may know, there are many exceptions to the Manual of Style and none of them are meant to be a hard and fast rule. Rcarter555 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What policy was it against? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MoS Chick Pea Corea (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MoS is guideline, not policy. I would also note that your version isn't chronological either... 1977 still comes before 1962... So if MoS says we "must" do something why only half ass it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph is his filmography, not biography. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more or is that all you're going to write? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to MOS. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... MoS... Which you just learned was guideline not policy. That should have rocked your world. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline is policy unless where explicitly stated otherwise... The two biographical paragraphs should be in chronological order, it's just confusing now and don't tell me it's not. It is confusing, and weird Chick Pea Corea (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No... A guideline is a guideline and a policy is a policy. Please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I don't find it confusing, especially because the last paragraph is non-chronological (thee is no distinction between filmography and biography BTW, filmography is part of the biography). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was the compromise that was decided upon after a very drawn out and contentious debate on the talk page, through an RfC and in the editing comments section. It was the solution everyone agreed to. That’s how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Rcarter555 (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraphs should be in chronological order. Yes what he did was terrible but he also did other 100 very good and very bad things. Chronological order should be sustained. Wikipedia should be free from any influences, agendas, and preassures. Myan1948 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Myan1948: And what arrangement of these four paragraphs would result in chronological order? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well it's very simple: first: "Polanski's parents moved the family (...) in 1937 (...) in 1969 Manson's murder etc
then 2nd paragraph: in 1977 ... - years 1937 and 1969 had happened before 1977 :D - its so simple.
then the last paragraph about his films
Putting this "1977 paragraph" just to highlight that he was a RAPIST just to make some agenda influanced people happy is just stupid. Wikipedia is not a place to please anyone. Lefts side or right side, Me-too movement or any other movements. Myan1948 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The positioning was decided due to the enduring attention it has received in reliable sources, while acknowledging he was independently notable as an excellent filmmaker prior to his conviction and flight to Europe to escape prison time, and whose career continued there to widespread acclaim. Some editors wanted mention in the first sentence of the first paragraph, or failing that the second sentence of the first paragraph. I felt that was too much emphasis, and was behind the compromise solution you see here. Finally, I might suggest that you take a chill with the tendentious comments and show a little respect for all the editors who participated in the long process we went through to arrive at this point. Xan747 (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but why the compromise was needed at all in the first place? It was needed to fulfill someone's agenda. That's what I'm talking about. Wikipedia should be free of that. Chronological is a natural, neutral, objective way to go. Myan1948 (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't need to chill. Thank you very much. Calling for a little respect maybe you should be respectful in the first place Myan1948 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's twice now you've directly accused other editors of having some sort of agenda, which is tendentious and disrespectful. Xan747 (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so why do you want the last paragraph to be out of chronological order? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph is different. It refers overall to his works, not events from his life. It justs lists his main films. It's a different one. Myan1948 (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intro paragraphs #2 and #3 should be swapped

[edit]

Simply put, the chronology would make more sense. Or, at the very, least, #2 and #3 could be merged so #2 is directly followed by #3. It's just a headache inducer of an intro in the current order. —theMainLogan (t•c) 06:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you to the rfc and the very contentious talk page debate which landed on this order as a compromise. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. What now? —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing now. If you feel the consensus may have changed, I suppose you could open a new rfc. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMainLogan; if you do open an RfC, it is good protocol to ping all of the editors who participated in it. Xan747 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2025

[edit]

Change

That initiative was soon followed by the requirement that all Jewish children over the age of twelve wear white armbands, with a blue Star of David imprinted, for visual identification.

TO

That initiative was soon followed by the requirement that all Jewish children over the age of twelve must wear a six pointed Star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge , which was made from yellow material, and stitched to their coats/Jackets for easy visual identification. 2A0A:EF40:D44:7601:C445:5C83:E674:14A0 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Round in circles

[edit]

Courtesy ping @Finnigami, Rcarter555, Curbon7, LindsayH, Random person no 362478479, FMSky, Nemov, Listen1st, Marcelus, Horse Eye's Back, MaximusEditor, DFlhb, Pincrete, Burrobert, Jagmanst, Chess, Thriley, Invasive Spices, Bilorv, Gitz6666, Last1in, Barnards.tar.gz, TompaDompa, Goszei, Cavarrone, and Morbidthoughts: The issue of where to place mention of Polanski's rape crimes in the lede has cropped up again, this time with some socking. I added the round in circles template to this talk page with a link to the RfC where this was decided. If anyone disagrees with the summary I provided feel free to modify to suit. Otherwise I just wanted all to know this goes on ICYMI (I did at first). Xan747 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the RfC, and the current summary (Argument: Mention of rape should be in chronological order in the lede section, not in the second paragraph. Response: the current positioning is the result of an RfC in September 2023, and is a compromise between first paragraph mention or chronological mention.) is not how I closed it. My close was that (1) it should not be mentioned in the first sentence, and (2) it should be more prominent than in the pre-RfC version, without specifying how it should be made more prominent. Mentioning it in its chronological position was not ruled out by my close, as I later explicitly clarified (as a sidenote: the RfC is at Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 17, and the post-RfC discussion is somewhat confusingly at Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 16). TompaDompa (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, my fault for relying too much on my memory and not enough on what's actually on the page. I'll update the template so that it just links to the RfC and after discussions and simply say the current state is the result of that process. Fair enough? Xan747 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: There were two RfCs you closed related to this topic, so I updated the template, linked to both of those, and to two of the post-close discussions. I also removed any summary of those except to say that the current state of the article is the result of those discussions so as to remove any of my biases from such a summary. Xan747 (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the updated version (Argument: Mention of rape should be in chronological order in the lede section, not in the second paragraph. Response: the current positioning is the result of two RfCs, the first in December 2022 and the second in September 2023, with some post-close discussions here and here.) is still overstating things. It would seem to imply that some kind of formal consensus in favour of the present version (as opposed to consensus against the pre-RfC version) was reached, which it wasn't. Framing "Mention of rape should be in chronological order in the lede section, not in the second paragraph" as an argument to which the previous discussion is a response also seems to imply that this option was outright rejected, which likewise isn't the case. I might just write something along the lines of

How to cover the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case in the WP:LEAD has been discussed in two RfCs, the first in December 2022 and the second in September 2023, with some post-close discussions here and here.

and let people read those discussions to find out exactly what was said. TompaDompa (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. I have updated accordingly. Thanks for your help. Xan747 (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: you appear to have made both closes despite being involved in the second because you closed the first and your close was part of the discussion... Did you not realize that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That I closed the 2022 RfC was clearly stated in my close of the 2023 RfC. My reading of WP:INVOLVED does not preclude closing multiple discussions on topics where one has not weighed in on the discussion itself (the same person closing more than one WP:AfD for the same article, for instance). I stand by the substance of the close I made. TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How would it not be a related dispute? The 2022 close was part of the 2023 discussion, so you were automatically involved. Note that it would be exceedingly rare for the same person to close more than one AfD for the same article (I'm not actually sure its ever happened), and I believe that almost all editors would avoid making that edit to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I wasn't involved in the 2022 discussion, I closed it. I also don't know that I would agree that The 2022 close was part of the 2023 discussion (the person who started the 2023 RfC believed that the topic hadn't been broached in years). At any rate, there wasn't exactly an outpouring of objections to the 2023 close on those grounds at the time (if there had been, I would likely have self-reverted and allowed somebody else re-close the discussion), and I'm sure we both agree that re-opening the 2023 discussion now would hardly do any anybody any good. I especially stand by what I said back in 2023 about workshopping proposals for different approaches before trying to decide between them being more likely to produce a productive discussion and clear consensus. TompaDompa (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you make a third close or do you now consider yourself involved? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not think it was a problem that I had closed the 2022 RfC when I closed the 2023 RfC, and I didn't foresee anybody else thinking so either, especially since I was transparent about it. In the general case, I still don't think it is a problem if the same editor closes multiple discussions they have otherwise not been engaged in as long as they are transparent about it and willing to self-revert if objected to on these grounds. In this specific case, I can foresee objections being raised (from you) if a similar situation were to arise in the future, and so would refrain from closing more discussions here. TompaDompa (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I think we can move forward from here. Not interested in relitigating the past but don't want to see mistakes repeated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Round in circles template was a great addition, thank you for adding Xan747, I must admit I wasn't aware of that template, I love learning new things! MaximusEditor (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2025

[edit]

Change: “Raymond Roman Thierry Polański[b] (né Liebling;[1] born 18 August 1933) is a Polish[2][3] and French filmmaker and actor. He is the recipient of numerous accolades, including an Academy Award, three British Academy Film Awards, ten César Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, as well as the Golden Bear and a Palme d'Or.

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 that the judge would likely reject the proffered plea bargain, so he fled the U.S. to Europe, where he continued his career. He remains a fugitive from the U.S. justice system. Subsequently, allegations of abuse have been made by several women.”

To:

“Raymond Roman Thierry Polański[b] (né Liebling;[1] born 18 August 1933) is a Polish[2][3] and French filmmaker and actor. In 1977, Polanski was arrested for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl.

The night before his sentencing hearing in 1978, he learned that the judge would likely reject the proffered plea bargain, so he fled the U.S. to Europe, where he continued his career. He remains a fugitive from the U.S. justice system. Subsequently, allegations of abuse have been made by several women.

He is the recipient of numerous accolades, including an Academy Award, three British Academy Film Awards, ten César Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, as well as the Golden Bear and a Palme d'Or…….” 151.53.116.200 (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No reason given for the proposed change, which inexplicably deletes the sentence about Polanski's guilty plea. Day Creature (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]