Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 16

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)