Talk:Roman Polanski

Reopening the "Sex Offender" in the Lead Paragraph Discussion
I'd like to reopen the discussion about how to present Mr. Polanski's child sex abuse conviction and whether to include a mention of it in the opening paragraph or opening sentence. It has been several years since it was last discussed. I have previously suggested something like "Raymond Roman Thierry Polański (né Liebling; 18 August 1933) is a French and Polish film director, producer, screenwriter, actor, and convicted child sexual abuser.", along the same lines as the opening sentences in the Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein articles. The next two paragraphs could be reworked so that elaboration on the point comes sooner. Finnigami (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Director, producer, screenwriter and actor are all professions. Convicted child sex abuser is not. His conviction is mentioned in the lede and I think it’s appropriate as is. Rcarter555 (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that the lead sentence should include only occupations. Finnigami (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment This BLPN discussion from last month, while not being one-to-one, may be of interest to participants. Curbon7 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , please do not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion by responding to every opinion that is different to yours. Curbon7 (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry. Finnigami (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it really WP:BLUDGEON if they are not "making the same argument over and over". Besides I note that page is not a policy document. Jagmanst (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, re-read the first sentence. : so? Curbon7 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the spirit of the article is to stop people from 'forcing' their viewpoint. If someone has valuable points to make (particularly if they are the person who began the discussion, and presumably already have thought about this topc), I would like to hear it. In a robust exchange of ideas, people should have the opportunity to address opposing views.
 * I will only object on 'bludgeoning' grounds if they are somehow 'disrupting' the flow of ideas. I don't think Finnigami has come anywhere near that. Being not a policy document, it is advisory at best, anyway, and no hard mechanical rule such as 'don't reply to every (or most) comments' can be deduced. Jagmanst (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A current BLPN discussion that is more one-to-one and may be of interest to participants. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First off, it hasn't "been several years since it was last discussed" as the opening statement claims. It was discussed in an RfC three sections above which was closed in December last year, 246 days ago as i write; it was also discussed, though not as a formal RfC, in the current first section of this talk page, the latest comment of which was four days ago.  I find the inaccuracy misleading, though i'm sure it was accidental, as it lays an insufficient/incorrect foundation for the discussion this RfC is requesting.  As far as the question itself, i find the lead largely appropriate, in that the three paragraphs cover Polanski's notability in an essentially chronological order, which fits the recommendations of WP:LEAD ~ TBH, i think there is material in them which could be cut, neither his upbringing nor his wife's murder are actually part of his notability, the former of more interest in critiquing his work, the latter is really a bit of trivia ~ but i do not support reworking the lead overall in order to make the legal issues more prominent.  Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 08:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noting that i didn't bold, so now am for clarity's sake: Oppose. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 07:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The previous RfC you are referencing was a much more narrow discussion about editing the second sentence of the first paragraph, rather than rearranging the lead section as a whole. Furthermore, I would question whether the result of that RfC actually reflected the consensus among editors. Finnigami (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's not a reason for his notability. Having it in the lead is sufficient. There is no reason to include it in the first paragraph and it absolutely does not belong in the opening sentence. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * By that logic it shouldn't be mentioned in the Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein articles either as they were also notable before becoming criminals -FMSky (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s correct. Rcarter555 (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You'd have to be abjectly asinine to believe that it doesn't belong in the first sentance for the Weinstein and Epstein articles. I seriously don't get your obsession with covering for rapists, rcarter55. Listen1st (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because it wasn't the thing that made him famous originally doesn't mean it's not notable for who he is now. Finnigami (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For those asking for policy reasons while ignoring major policies like WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAPBOX: the relevant policies are MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, MOS:OPENPARABIO, WP:DUE, WP:RGW. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Include, obviously very notable and widely covered. This obsession with trying to protect convicted child molesters/rapists etc is a weird habit on wikipedia that i dont understand --FMSky (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Using the word "obsession" and saying editors are trying to protect conticted child molesters/rapists is perilously close to ABFing, ; you might want to rethink or clarify that. No one, here or elsewhere where it's been discussed is doing anything other than trying to follow WP's norm and guidelines to make this the best encyclopaedia possible. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 07:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * > No one, here or elsewhere where it's been discussed is doing anything other than trying to follow WP's norm and guidelines to make this the best encyclopaedia possible.
 * There's evidence in this very thread to the contrary. People cite WP norms, yet they are citing those norms only to say that this change is not necessitated under the norms, not that it would actually be against the norms or otherwise bad. Very few of the arguments against have actually provided any reason at all why it would be bad! Finnigami (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Include in first paragraph, oppose in first sentence. As Random stated this isn't what made him notable and his work is still the biggest park of his biography. Whether or not that's a good thing isn't for me to say, but FMSky's suggestion this POV is to protect rapists is silly. The conviction details are a part of this biography and the lead. As far as WP:OTHERSTUFF those two examples I would argue they're most notable now for their convictions. Added: I support a mention in the first paragraph. I don't have an objection to moving that up, but the first sentence should be reserved for his occupation. Nemov (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that it isn't what made him famous in the first place is hardly relevant to whether it's what he's known for now. Finnigami (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't make that claim and it seems your confusion stems from ignoring the second part of that sentence. Nemov (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's certainly implied, because otherwise you said "oppose" and then didn't actually give any reasoning, which isn't really helpful to the discussion. In that case, all you did was give reasons why it's not necessary to make the change, but didn't actually give reasons why we shouldn't make the change. Plus, your reasoning itself was quite silly because I'm sure you know that the first paragraph and the first sentence especially are much more impactful and more likely to be read and should give a good overview of the person as a whole. With that in mind, the argument that this POV is to protect rapists is not so silly, I think. Finnigami (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you refuse to accept the validity of the reasoning for opposition, because you are so entrenched in your opinion, that any counter opinion is, in your estimation, ridiculous. Rcarter555 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I could actually come up with many somewhat valid reasons to oppose the change. It's just that thus far, the stated reasons for the opposition have been limited to non-arguments that don't actually further the conversation at all. Finnigami (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Include In modern parlance, Roman Polanski is best known for his fugitive status and child sexual abuse controversy. Obviously he is a renowned film director but it is always in contrast to his sexual abuse allegations and now conviction. It's comparable to Weinstein, Cosby, and Epstein in that there previous achievements are overshadowed by their bad choices. Listen1st (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's comparable because he continued to work and be celebrated for his work after his fugitive status. Heck, he's still making films which seems insane to me, but it's happening. Nemov (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is comparable to Cosby because he is notable for his entertainer status, not the other ~ if he had not been a massively successful entertainer already, we wouldn't have an article on him ~ and Polanski is similar. Epstein, on the other hand, is not notable for much other than his assorted sexual allegations and court cases and death.  That's why for Epstein the SA belongs at the front of the lead and in neither Polanski nor Cosby does it. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 08:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support I think it's clear that Roman Polanski's sex offense case is one of the things he's most well known for at this point, if not the most well known, overshadowing his actual work. It's impossible to discuss him as a person without including that case; it essentially put a stop to his career as well. Furthermore, it's difficult for me to not see many of "Oppose" opinions as being made in bad faith. Many editors have expressed "Oppose" opinions, but the supporting arguments are flimsy at best. There are many valid reasons to mention the sex offense case more prominently, which have been made by other editors, but the arguments against it thus far have been limited to either a misunderstanding of certain guidelines, or simply stating that it's "not necessary" to comply with the requirements, which isn't really an argument at all. Finnigami (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Well said! Listen1st (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While you're making accusations of bad faith let me point out that your claim that "it essentially put a stop to his career as well" is at odds with the fact he's directed films in 2017, 2019, and he has an upcoming film that's going to be released next month. Nemov (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the information about the sexual abuse case is already mentioned in the lead, there is no reason to highlight it more Marcelus (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment It would appear that some editors here are behaving very poorly and accusing those taking a different position of poor faith, obsession, and not being honest in the arguments made. I am primarily thinking of,  and, to a lesser extent in that he hasn't repeated it, .  These accusations need to stop; i will repeat that no one is trying to cover for or excuse sexual abuse, that the purpose of the discussion is to find consensus, not to behave disgustingly towards one another.  If it does not stop, i shall feel the need to ask for the greater persuasive power of an active admin to enforce a lowering of the tone here.  Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 19:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misunderstanding what it means to "assume bad faith". "Assume" being the key word. I did start by assuming good faith, in fact I think we all did, it was only once evidence was provided to the contrary that my view changed. Per WP:AGF, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary." Indeed, I'm not sure how else you expect people to react when the only argument made in favor of keeping the status quo is that we are not explicitly compelled to change it by the Wikipedia guidelines. There's really no other conclusion to reach, when people say they oppose a change, yet refuse to provide any argument why, than that they are not disclosing their actual reason, i.e. they are acting in bad faith. And, even if you disagree with this logic, it would be dishonest to continue to say that I am assuming bad faith, since by definition I am believing bad faith for specific reasons, not mere assumption. Finnigami (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We HAVE been giving you reasons besides just keeping the status quo. We have given our opinion that Polanski's film career is the primary reason for his notability and that should be in the opening sentence.  You dismiss that out of hand and claim we are operating in bad faith because you do not agree with that. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're dodging the question yet again. No one has stated that his film career should not be in the opening sentence. Only that his sex offense conviction should ALSO be there. There's yet to be a reason given as to why it shouldn't be included. Finnigami (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's been plenty of reasons, but you don't agree with them. Thus, it may not change to your liking.  That's how consensus on Wikipedia works.  My point is that he is primarily known for his film career, which spans over six decades.  That is FAR more notable than his legal issues (which, as we have stated, is there in the lede of the article.  Just not in the opening sentence).  THAT is the reason.  It HAS been given.  If you disagree, fine, but to state that no one is giving reasons is just incorrect. Rcarter555 (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether or not I agree is not the issue. Even if I agreed with that your given reasons were all true, they do not actually support your conclusion in any way. Even in this very comment, before saying "THAT is the reason", you did not actually provide any logic connecting your "reason" to your conclusion. You have yet to give any argument as to why his career being more notable than his sexual assault case (even if that were true) actually means that we can't include both in the first sentence. Finnigami (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the first sentence should summarize that for which the subject is most notable. I'm sorry you don't see the logic in that. Your constant dismissal of counterarguments is quite frustrating. It appears no opposing argument will ever carry any weight with you and will always be deemed "illogical" or "unsupported." Rcarter555 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the opening sentence can only ever describe one aspect of the persons life? If it describes his film career it cannot describe his sex offenses? Even if his film career is more notable, that doesn't mean they aren't BOTH sufficiently notable. You would need to present an argument for why his sex offense is not sufficiently notable, which you haven't even attempted to do. All you've done is compare it to his film career, which doesn't actually further your point because both could be easily included. I will state once again that the key issue is not that I am disagreeing with your logic or arguments, it is that you have yet to make an argument for why his sex offense case should not be included along with his film career, that is, why do you think we cannot give sufficient attention to both? Why is the sex offense case, even if it is less important than his film career, not important enough to be in the first sentence? I beg you for a straight answer. Finnigami (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've given you a straight answer multiple times. You refuse to hear.  I will direct you to MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, which clearly states, amongst other criteria, it should include "The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". As I have argued multiple times, his film career is the main reason he is notable. Rcarter555 (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you have given a reason to include his film career in the opening sentence, but have not supplied a reason to leave out the sex offense case. This is getting ridiculous. Finnigami (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is approaching WP:DROPTHESTICK territory. Nemov (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The sex offense case is not the reason why he is notable. It's the other way around: the sex offense case is notable because he is notable. The difference is between why someone is notable and what is notable about someone. The sex offense case falls into the latter category. According to MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE the first sentence should provide information falling into the former category. E.g. it is notable that Michael Jordan paused his basketball career to play baseball, but MJ is not notable because he played baseball. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Random person no 362478479 I like that distinction, and shall hold on to it for future reference.
 * @Finnigami, there's a growing consensus in the "Comments" conversation below (I think it was intended to be part of this RfC) for dedicating the second paragraph of the top section to the sex offense conviction and his ongoing fugitive status. I think that's a good compromise between your proposal and maintaining the status quo. Please consider accepting that edit and self-closing this RfC so we can all spend our time on more productive endeavors. Thanks, Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that is a reasonable compromise. However I do not know what the procedure is for closing an RfC or how "consensus" is officially reached. Finnigami (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RFCCLOSE the person who started the RfC can withdraw it. If you do so, I suggest pinging everyone who participated in a new section to inform them. That way people can voice their objection if they don't find the compromise acceptable and if necessary start a new RfC. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is getting ridiculous as you refuse to accept any argument except your own. I've given you the reason.  Your inability to comprehend it is not my problem. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Include: Warrants--nay, requires--a mention at the end of the lede paragraph, something like:


 * In the late 1970s he plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor 13-year-old girl to avoid prison for the more serious original charges, which included rape. Upon learning the judge planned to reject the deal, he fled to Europe and continued his career, remaining wanted in the U.S. to this day.


 * We could probably then remove all the text about it from the final paragraph of the top section, except perhaps a brief mention of it for chronology.


 * Anyone who does does not immediately associate his name with those events should not have to read through nearly 240 words to be reminded of it, or worse, learn of it for the first time. As others have pointed out, this is consistent with our other articles on famous entertainers who were accused or convicted of similar crimes. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with this suggestion as an ending to the lede paragraph. I agree it doesn't belong in the first sentence. Rcarter555 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * PS: I notice comparisons to Epstein and Weinstein in various places above. These are not directly comparable, they were both long-term serial abusers, and the lede sentences in their articles rightfully identify them a sex offenders. So far as we know, Polanski is guilty of only the one sex offense. His status as a fugitive of justice, and the system which enables him, is very much a story, demanding early and prominent mention. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Include, in 2023 (the year we currently live in) the subject obtains at least as much notability for the pedophile stuff as for the movie stuff. You say "Polanski" and "pedophile" is the very first word that springs to mind... It is the defining feature of his entire career. To ignore that is either whitewashing or just plain misogyny. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Include, (Note* I am here from the WP:RFC/A noticeboards) I do think that it is notable enough and that the material in question (sex offender) has enough WP:WEIGHT to warrant inclusion in the lede paragraph. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:08, 15 Aug perust 2023 (UTC)
 * Include in the first paragraph, oppose in the first sentence. Prior to MeToo, this sadly wasn't a major aspect of reporting on Polanski; it was certainly present but was not to the level of today (I mean, when he won the 2002 Academy Awards, he received a standing ovation and media praise ). However, reporting now is largely centered on his conviction and fugitive status; even reporting on his movies centers largely on this (examples: ). So yes, this should be included in the first paragraph. However, as usual, it is simply bad writing to include this as one of his "occupations" in the very first sentence, as this isn't a case like Weinstein or Epstein. Curbon7 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Throughout the course of this discussion, I've come around a bit and softened my stance. I agree with Curbon7 here in that it should be included in the first paragraph but (despite my personal feelings about on the matter) it does not belong in the first sentance. I realize now that Polanski is not as comparable to Weinstein, Epstein, or Cosby as I originally thought. I wish you all well. Listen1st (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will second Curbon7's vote and rationale, since my views on this question are identical. DFlhb (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree and have updated my comment accordingly. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not a reason for his notability. Having it in the lead is sufficient. There is no reason to include it in the first paragraph and it absolutely does not belong in the opening sentence. per Random person above. To compare this single event - wrong though it may have been - an event that happened many years ago in the '60s - to compare this to Epstein or Weinstein and their habitual activities and misuse of power is frankly absurd. I believe even the young woman involved has asked the press/public to stop going on about the event and doesnt think Polanski should be punished further. Many of us in Europe think the conviction itself - the court agreeing to a plea deal and then reneging on it - was itself a travesty of justice, even though no one doubts that the event occurred, should not have done so and was illegal. For some reason there is a wish, maybe particularly in the US, to highlight this single event over his having been a Kraków Ghetto and Polish holocaust survivor and an additional, wholly innocent, additional victim in the era-defining muder of his wife and her friends - besides having directed many notable films.Pincrete (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC) … ps he has never been convicted iro this single incident, let alone a significant number of 'crimes', which the proposed wording strongly tries to imply. Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You say era defining but I doubt 2% of the population knows about the death of Polanski's wife (the Manson Family as a whole is barely a cultural blip, primarily famous due to the appropriation of their name by the artist Marilyn Manson). Were you being hyperbolic or are you some sort of Polanski super fan? I don't think that its just in the US that this single event is highlighted above all others, it seems to be a feature of the coverage of the subject globally. For example this piece in The Guardian "What does Hollywood's reverence for child rapist Roman Polanski tell us?" . In particular I would like you to consider this quote in the context of the argument you just made "Like all arguments in Polanski’s defence, the documentary stresses the previous tragedies in his life: his mother, four months’ pregnant, was killed in the Holocaust; his wife, eight months’ pregnant, was brutally murdered by the Manson family. But one can have enormous sympathy for those losses, and also feel that offering up dead women as mitigating factors for raping a girl doesn’t really wash." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to downplay the Tate murder. It's a huge part of history/pop culture. Heck, there was a recent Tarantino film that centered on it. I have never understood how Polanski was allowed to continue his career after leaving the United States. He was even defended by Mia Farrow of all people. Nemov (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The argument being made is that Tate's murder is a more important part of Polanski's life than his predilection for adolescent girls... I agree that its a part of history/pop culture, but so is Polanski's pedophilia (I googled it and both have been the subject of Family Guy skits, the defining feature par excellence of pop culture relevancy on wikipedia, lol) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hadley Freeman (the Gdn opinion piece writer) is American. There is absolutely no reason to think that RP has a predilection for adolescent girls, doing something once, in the 1970s - a time of enormous sexual experimentation, does not constitute a tendency or predeliction for anything. One aspect of his fugitive status is that there appears to be 'open house' for people saying things that would otherwise be deemed libelous about him. The 'rape' was what is/was sometimes called 'statutory rape' - ie where consent or otherwise becomes academic because of the age of one party. RP probably used his age and authority to persuade the girl, but not physical coercion. That doesn't make what he did right, morally or legally, but it characterises the act as not being typical. He has (I believe voluntarily) subsequently paid her substantial damages and she has practically begged the press and public to leave her and him alone and said that the press coverage over the years has done her more harm than the original event.
 * Paedophilia is attraction to pre-adolescents, the word is often used wrongly, to mean attraction to much younger people, but it has a precise meaning and RP doesn't fall into that category. Paedophilia is pathological and usually a permanent fixation. If we are going to pathologise RP, we should at least try to get out terminology right not use terms casually and merely for rhetorical effect. Even Hadley Freeman (like editors above) refers to RP as a "convicted sex offender", actually he has voluntarily been open about what happened with the girl, but - since there has been no trial - RP isn't a "convicted anything". There has been no conviction as there was no trial. Had the US judge honoured the deal he voluntarily made with RP, instead of 'playing to the gallery', the whole affair would have been forgotten years ago and RP would probably be seen as one of many people who behaved somewhat 'tackily' during the '60s, but has since grown up.
 * What is or isn't the topic of popular comedy is hardly a serious basis upon which to decide either to accuse somebody of a very serious matter, nor indeed of what should be in a WP article.
 * I'm not even much of a fan of his films, except a few early ones, let alone some sort of Polanski super fan. But you don't need to be a fan to think that making a legal deal, then reneging on that deal (for dubious reasons, possibly related to RP's fame), then behaving as though a trial that never happened actually found him guilty of more serious offences than those he pleaded guilty to in the deal, then blowing up the case in the press for N years as though the guy were a serial rapist or serial abuser of young women, etc. … etc. … etc. is really SHABBY. Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * > There is absolutely no reason to think that RP has a predilection for adolescent girls, doing something once, in the 1970s.
 * He openly discusses sleeping with underage girls in his autobiography. It does not make him a pedophile--so we should not use that term--but is not a "one-time" thing to be swept under the rug as "tacky" behavior.
 * > There has been no conviction as there was no trial.
 * Wrong: [Pleading] Guilty means the defendant admits s/he committed the crime. The judge finds the defendant guilty and enters a conviction in the court record. (My emphasis.) Perhaps California law was different back then, but I kind of doubt it.
 * > I'm not even much of a fan of his films
 * Good for you, but you're evidently fact-challenged about the subject. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds like it wasn't just a single event either. By his own admission, he has probably committed many more statutory rapes, according to this Vox article that came out during the beginning of #MeToo. I know alleged claims aren't conviction but it does paint a further pattern of behavior similar to Weinstein. Listen1st (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "alleged claims" and "probably committed" are irrelevant to Wikipedia and do not belong here. Rcarter555 (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If the get coverage and the subject is a public figure they absolutely belong on Wikipedia. What ever have you the idea that they didn't? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: "convicted child sexual abuser" is an editorial rewrite of how reliable sources describe what happened. He pleaded guilty to" unlawful sexual intercourse. We should stick with how reliable sources describe the events. Regarding the placement of the description, let's leave it out of the first sentence. Burrobert (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats not actually how most reliable sources put it, for example this one which uses "convicted child rapist" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on finding a source which uses that description. There are probably others out there somewhere. Have a look at the description used by the many sources in the section Roman_Polanski. Burrobert (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see a wide variety of descriptions, also not seeing the editorial difference between "convicted child sexual abuser," "convicted child rapist," and "He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a child and was convicted" they are literally the same thing. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the difference between a set and a subset. "Arthur Rubinstein was a musician" or "Arthur Rubinstein was a pianist". Burrobert (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which of those three is the set and which are the subsets? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Include: (provided the phrasing is accurate, noting Burrobert's observation). The lead sentence should say the most important attribute of someone, and this person is famous for this. Jagmanst (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Include. As per my comments at the last RfC, virtually every reliable source describes Polanski as a sex abuser when introducing him. Time (magazine), the New York Times , the British Broadcasting Corporation , and NBC News . If you search for him on any of these sites the first results will be in relation to his conviction. If that's the most important fact about Roman Polanski as judged by almost all reliable sources, it should be the first thing mentioned. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How does the French media generally describe him? Thriley (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No different than the rest from what I can tell, France 24/AFP for example: "sentenced for the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is specifically about a sex case. I meant that when reporting on a new film of his, does the French media generally talk about his convection? Thriley (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you meant to ask an inappropriate question, you can't segregate coverage on the subject like that. Polanski the rapist is the same person as Polanski the film director, French sources don't separate out coverage of the two because you can't... Its impossible to cover his new work without covering that he is a rapist, for example the first story that comes up when you search Polanski Film France 24 is "Calls in France for boycott of latest Polanski film after new rape claim" and "Outrage as Roman Polanski's new film tops 'French Oscar' nominations"  Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you decide to ignore any source that covers his sex offences, then of course you won't believe that "sex offender" is an important part of his biography.
 * Most oppose votes here say that Polanski is not notable as a sex offender. Then when people provide sources about him having sex with a 13-year-old, you say that we should only look at sources reporting on a new film of his.
 * This isn't how RfCs work. You're expected to base your claims about notability on WP:reliable sources. But right now, not a single person against inclusion has provided reliable sources for their claims. If this was WP:AFD, stacking the discussion with oppose but not giving any sources would get closed as WP:NOTAVOTE because these opposes aren't based in policy. But this is an RfC so there's a good chance we will get no consensus. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 21:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Include first sentence (I largely repeat Chess's reasoning) Due to:
 * This has been the most prominent reason for news coverage since 1977.
 * This is the only reason for his present location. Fugitive from justice and avoidance of extradition. It is almost certain that this will be true to the end of his life.
 * This has been the only reason for significant news coverage for some years.
 * Invasive Spices (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Include per Chess, in the first or second sentence. Modern coverage on Polanski already gives a good historical perspective, since all his main sources of public figure precede 1980. Polanski is known as a film director, first and foremost, but that he used his entertainment industry position to rape a child is more prominent than any of his film projects. As such, it makes sense for the lead to mention the child rape and the awards, but not mention any individual films by name (which can be done in the rest of the lead). (While we're here, I'd also take out the Golden Bear and Palme d'Or from the lead.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why remove the Bear & Palme? Length? Invasive Spices (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Polanski is not notable as "convicted child sex abuser". While the conviction is obviously relevant and should be included in the lead section, mentioning it in the opening paragraph is contrary to MOS:OPEN, which suggests to "define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * are you planning on providing any WP:Reliable sources to support your claim that Polanski is not notable as "convicted child sex abuser" or are you just going to WP:VOTE and call it a day? Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 21:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a Request for comment, not a Request for sources. A comment may point to a source, but not necessarily - we are here to provide a reasoned opinion to help finding a consensus out of an editorial conflict, not to find sources. I have given my reason, but I can elaborate, if you ask. Polanski is not famous as a convicted sex offender, but rather his crime is widely reported by the media because he is famous (as a director). This is an important difference: there are people whose public profile is defined by the crime they have committed and people whose public profile is tainted but not defined by their crime - people who have committed a crime but who are not widely regarded as criminals. We don't describe James Brown as "musician and wife beater" and Louis Althusser as "philosopher and wife killer". Polanski committed a heinous crime in 1977; before and after that he made important and award-winning films. Per MOS:OPEN, in the opening paragraph we should define or identify the subject "with a neutral point of view" and "without being too specific". I don't think that including a mention of that isolated offense in the opening paragraph or opening sentence is warranted here - he is not a Harvey Weinstein or a Jeffrey Epstein. I feel that if we define Polansky as a "convicted child sexual abuser" in the first sentence or in the opening paragraph, we run the risk of approaching the biography of a great filmmaker in an overly scandalistic, moralistic, editorialising and anti-encyclopaedic manner. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with this 100% Rcarter555 (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But how does ignoring the single most important event of the subject's life further NPOV? The subject is not only notable for it... It is their most notable aspect. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * “Single most important event” is an extraordinarily loaded comment and is certainly not NPOV. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you name an event which had a greater impact on the subject? I don't see anything which got more coverage, which is how its measured per NPOV. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We run the risk of approaching the biography of a great filmmaker in an overly scandalistic, moralistic, editorialising and anti-encyclopaedic manner seems to be saying that you think we should de-emphasize unflattering information about Polanski because you think he's a "great filmmaker".
 * This is not a real argument.
 * Yes, it's scandalous and uncyclopaedic that he drugged and had sex with a 13-year-old. If Polanski didn't want his reputation as a great filmmaker ruined he shouldn't have sexually assaulted a kid. It's not our job to clean up the lede because child sex abusers provoke moralistic outrage in our readers. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 02:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I might be willing to de-emphasize unflattering information about Polanski because I think he's a great filmmaker, but he is a great filmaker, according to sources, and we must describe him as such. You, on the other hand, might be willing to emphasize this information because you want to punish him (it's scandalous and uncyclopaedic that he drugged and had sex with a 13-year-old, etc.). I understand this feeling, people might want to punish Polanski for what he did in 1977, but I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for doing this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I might be willing to de-emphasize unflattering information about Polanski because I think he's a great filmmaker pretty much explains the position of you and many others here. I agree that he is a great filmaker, according to sources, and we must describe him as such, but there's nothing stopping us from doing both. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 03:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of accuracy: "de-emphasize" is not the right word here because I don't want to de-emphasize anything: the lead is fine as it is, in my opinion. Polanski's activities as a director are more important than the crime committed in 1977 because they answer the question "who is Polanski?", while the rape of a 13-year-old girl answers the questions "what did he do in his life, what happened to him?" alongiside other information that naturally belong to the lead but not to the first sentence (Holocaust survivor, wife killed by Charles Manson, etc.). So it's not my intention to de-emphasize unflattering information, it is rather the RfC's proposal that is aimed at emphasizing such information, possibly because of retributive justice purposes, which should not be our business. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that once the "first sentence" proposal is rejected - which I think we have - the choice is between the Mike Tyson's lead, which is more or less the same as Polanski's current one, and the O.J. Simpson's lead, which I understand some users prefer and would want to have for Polanski as well. Am I right? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The only thing that's clearly rejected is to leave the status-quo (Oppose). It's just about an even split between the first sentence and the combination of the first/second paragraph options. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * states that there's nothing stopping us from doing both [noting in the lede that his is both a filmmaker and a molester] - Actually, yes, there is. It's called WP:UNDUE. The article, but most critically the lede, must present the totality of the subject. The overwhelming reason that this man is notable, per RSs, is his filmmaking. The body of the article does a good job of keeping things in perspective. Putting this in the lede deemphasises his true notability with this distracting, moralistic and salacious info. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look Roman Polanski up in any reliable sources, you will see he is a child molester first and foremost. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 22:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Between WP:BADGER and WP:BLUDGEON, I don't envy the admin that attempts to evaluate and close this RfC. Adding what is perhaps the most emotionally-charged, negative descriptor in today's world to the lead sentence is clearly WP:UNDUE. The body does an excellent job of emphasising the relative importance of that crime compared to the primary reasons for his notability. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Include in the first paragraph, not necessarily in the first sentence. Numerous recent news sources about his latest film all mention the incident, but they don't generally introduce him as a sex offender. For example, "controversial director Roman Polanski", not "convicted child sex abuser Roman Polanski". I agree it's a bit absurd that the current version of the article doesn't mention the incident until the third paragraph. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Reopened This discussion was opened on 7 August by and closed on 26 August by. The closing statement, with some later amendments, can be seen here. This was an early close by an involved editor, which is sometimes appropriate per WP:BOLD/WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY/WP:IAR. However, the close has since been objected to below, so I'm reopening it to allow for further discussion and hopefully a clearer consensus. TompaDompa (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * For the record, I closed the RfC on behalf of editor who opened it, @Finnigami, after they indicated support for a compromise solution, but said they didn't know how to withdraw an RfC. See: 17:56, 19 August 2023. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 23:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Did I miss something? You pinged many of us 3 days ago and one one person kind of objected. That's enough to reopen this? Was a formal objection posted somewhere else? Nemov (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know about formal, but @Goszei at 07:05, 29 August 2023 objected to the change in favor of reverting to the previous status quo. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 23:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * RfCs are not typically closed early solely because the person who started them changed their mind if there is otherwise disagreement about the question being discussed, which I think it's fair to say is the case here. At any rate, somebody else might have closed it differently and the close was objected to. TompaDompa (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, just wanted to make sure that the reason for my close was clear. Since the RfC is reopened, I restored the lead section to more or less its previous status quo with the intro to the sex assault case appearing in the middle of the final paragraph of the lead section. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 23:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not an expert on how these things are handled, but if an RfC can be re-opened because one person objects, this thing will never end. As it is, I can’t see an ending that reaches any sort of consensus and thus the current version would stand (if I understand correctly how this is supposed to work). Rcarter555 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * RfCs are not typically reopened because one person objects to the close. There are however some categories of closes that can be reverted liberally if objections are raised. Among these are early closes and closes by involved editors. This was an early close by an involved editor. I don't believe I have ever seen a non-early close by a non-involved editor be reverted due to one person raising objections (when lots of people object, however, it is quite a different matter). TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Pincrete and Last1in. The current lead better reflects the relative importance of this affair within Polanski's life and career, and presents it in a chronological manner which places it with the necessary context for the reader's benefit. To include it in the first sentence or paragraph is both jarring and undue. — Goszei (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gitz's accurate analysis above, and per discussion below. Emphasizing the 1977 crime as per "retributive justice purposes" is contrary to NPOV. This RFC reads like proposing "Caravaggio was a painter and convicted murderer". Also the "convicted" part seems at least dubious, and certainly not widely used by sources (on the contrary, as per my WP:BEFORE it is pretty rare). The crime should be in the lead (as it already is) and I would support it having a bit more room/prominence (eg. a separate paragraph), but I think the proposed wording is a stretch and the current chronological structure of the lead is fine. Cavarrone 15:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the include !voters used the term retributive justice purposes; I believe that's a straw man. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe yours is a straw man as I never said that voters used such a term. Cavarrone 09:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then who are the editors arguing that we should be emphasizing the 1977 crime as per retributive justice purposes? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That was my interpretation (here at 13:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)) of by Chess. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of 's comment are you interpreting as "retributive justice" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can try to re-read the exchange above when Gitz used the term and you'll find the response, their argument is pretty clear to me. Also, I have tons of issues with your arguments Horse, like I doubt 2% of the population knows about the death of Polanski's wife (are you serious?) and "pedophile" [...] is the defining feature of his entire career, which besides being obviously unfactual makes me think that probably many voters here never heard about Polanski before (and beyond) MeToo (i.e. have a very limited knowledge of the subject). Let alone the egregious close To ignore that is either whitewashing or just plain misogyny which is both a personal attack and an instance of assuming bad faith. For the record, unless I'm missing something, no one here is advocating removing the 1977 crime from the lead. It is a matter of weight. And as I said above, summarizing his complex criminal case as "convicted child sexual abuser" is a questionable and potentially inaccurate synthesis. Cavarrone 21:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cavarrone, in your initial !vote, you indicated that you might be open to giving the sex assault case a little more prominence in its own paragraph. My 03:27, 16 August 2023 contains the compromise solution we implemented after @Finnigami agreed to it, and withdrew the RfC. @Horse Eye's Back never opined on that solution. If they do, then perhaps we can put an end to this non-productive back-and-forth. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I partially support (or partially oppose) the compromise, which BTW is for sure a more acceptable proposal than the original one and goes in the right direction. As I said, I certainly support giving it its own paragraph, my only concern with the proposal would be the chronological order (I could be wrong, but I don't remember other leads going back and forth chronologically as this one would do). IMO a good and easy solution could be to merge the first part of the current third paragraph with a reduced second p. (among other things, I would shorten a bit the early life part), so that a possibly expanded third p. would be devoted almost exclusively (or just exclusively, if we want to add a very short fourth paragraph) to the sexual assault case. This way we would have the context, the chronological order and the prominence. Cavarrone 23:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal: keeping the chronological order of the lead, having a shortened second paragraph on events prior to 1977, having a third paragraph entirely devoted to the crime and escape from justice, plus a short fourth paragraph on his post-1977 European career. I also like the 03:27, 16 August 2023 proposed text but I would replace "He remains a fugitive of justice to this day" with "fugitive from the U.S. criminal justice system" to avoid WP:BIAS in favour of the American perspective (I imagine that in most countries his crime is not prosecutable or is now time-barred). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it obviously "unfactual" or have "many voters here never heard about Polanski before (and beyond) MeToo" because only one can be true, either its not the most notable feature of the subject or its the one feature that those with little knowledge of the subject know... Both can't be true. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments
The proposed sentence includes "convicted child sexual abuser". Was Polanski ever convicted of a sexual offence? His bio does not mention a trial. It says "Polanski was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape. It also says "Since he fled the United States before final sentencing, the charges are still pending. His bio seems to indicate he agreed to a plea deal, which may not require a trial, and that's where the court proceedings ended as he fled. Is there more to the story than this? Burrobert (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Somehow I had it in the back of my head that he was sentenced in absentia a few years ago. But from what I could find he requested it, but it didn't happen. So, as far as I can tell, he is in fact not convicted., you started the RfC, do you have any newer information that would support the proposed language? If not, I am not sure how we should proceed. We could either close this and start a new RfC, or adjust the language of the RfC and ping everyone who already voted to notify them of the change in wording. The former would be "cleaner" in terms of procedure, the latter would be simpler. Thoughts? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but this article stated that he pled guilty, and the Wikipedia article on Plea states that in the US, pleading guilty means you are "automatically convicted". Finnigami (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You may be right. As far as I understand it a plea agreement has to be accepted by the court to go into force. I always thought Polanski fled before the court accepted the agreement. But upon reading more about it, I get the impression that he fled after the court accepted the agreement and he plead guilty, but before the sentencing (where the judge may have planned to renege on the deal). I don't know if that means that he counts as convicted or not. Roman Polanski sexual abuse case does use "conviction". None of the sources I've looked at so far is really clear on the question (at least not clear enough for my taste). I'll keep looking. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That fact pattern would result in a conviction under US law. I'd also question the use of renege as the Judge was never bound by the plea agreement in the first place (they always have discretion to do something different). WP:RS seem to universally use convicted. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * By now I have found RS that use "convicted" where I am confident that they do not do so in a merely colloquial sense that may not imply a technical conviction. E.g. Guardian and cnn and the NY Times article linked by Listen1st. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Reneged" is a word that a lot of RS use. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's definitely dubious but a Vox article from 2017 calls him a convicted child rapist and a New York Times article from 2009 says that he was convicted. But that's it. I couldn't find anything more recent or definitive. Listen1st (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we have to some degree moved past the idea of that proposed sentence as the opening sentence. I would be in agreement with Xan747 and his proposed sentence which would end the lede paragraph and does not mention conviction. Rcarter555 (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not be entirely opposed to that. But that would require us to either repeat information in the lead which is always awkward or to actually reduce the amount of information given about it in the lead. I don't think the latter is what people are looking for. I would prefer to take the current content and turn it (or a variation of it) into a standalone second paragraph (While I don't think it should be in the first paragraph, I agree that it is currently not given enough prominence.):
 * -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm more than ok devoting the second paragraph in the top section to this. The existing content is somewhat wordy, hence my initial proposal, but it did also leave out some detail that might be worth keeping. So how about:
 * Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 03:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this works as a good second paragraph. I agree that this would be too wordy for the first paragraph. Listen1st (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:43, 16 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&#39;s Back (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank 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, ~ LindsayHello 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&#39;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&#39;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. 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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
 * We could add to that something like the following:
 * -- 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&#39;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:
 * 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)
 * , 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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 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)
 * 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 OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg 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 OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg 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.
 * Mention in last sentence of first paragraph then add more information where it fits chronologically.
 * Present as second paragraph.
 * 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 OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg 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 that those are the only choices likely to come close to consensus. I agree with  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 ! 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: TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)
 * 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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)

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).

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).

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)

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).


 * 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2023
2601:1C2:1803:A250:35D5:8E18:7E2A:2083 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

In his up front bio it should say convicted child rapist and serial rapist. That is a lot more important than his academy awards and accolades.
 * The lede already mentions his arrest and guilty plea. RudolfRed (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If it won't too much try the patience of those here...
I hate to reopen this closely-related discussion, but I'm wondering if a slightly different approach might be possible.

Raymond Roman Thierry Polański (né Liebling; 18 August 1933) is a French and Polish film director, producer, screenwriter, and actor who in 1977 was convicted of a sex crime.

Again, not trying to stir the pot, just wondering if we don't state it as "Polanski is a French and Polish film director, producer, screenwriter, actor and convicted sex offender" we might be able to find consensus that the conviction does actually belong in the first sentence. Just not the label.

Feel free to shut me down if everyone thinks this is unlikely to change anyone's view on including this in the lead, again not intending to disrupt here. I just do really think the fact is important enough in summarizing this article for the lead, and wondered if maybe the problem was the language -- that is, using a negative label rather than a neutrally-stated fact -- that was being proposed. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This was discussed ad nauseum above, as you can see, including two separate RfC’s. I don’t see any world in which consensus is changed. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get it, and I respect the discussions, which are long and complex enough that I wasn't sure whether mentioning it as a simple neutral fact rather than labeling him as a sex offender, which is what the recent discussions look to be about, had been part of previous discussions. I thought that, if that alternative hadn't been discussed, maybe it was still worth discussing. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The entire next paragraph is about the subject, and the yearslong, relentless push to make his entire life about this event really is trying. It was WP:UNDUE then, it is now, and it will be the next time this conversation starts. I really think that, for at least a year, everyone (including me) should WP:DROPTHESTICK and let the poor dead horse rest in peace for a while. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, again I get that, and I don't actually have an objection to giving myself a w-ping for a year from now. :) The reason I brought it up is that the first sentence should actually hit the main points, and I feel like this is one of the points that will likely be mentioned in the first sentence of his obit. Valereee (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If I may, one of the things Valereee was doing here (I think; they can correct me) was an experiment on wording, or a test on how such wording might be received (badly, as noted; people are rather raw). We have been developing an essay on Crime labels. One of the motivations for the essay was the proliferation of lengthy arguments over labels, such as this article has experienced. Arguments that repeat the same common points, while making the same mistakes in interpretation, endlessly. I write to point out this dimension, to advertise the essay, and to invite a review of our essay from those of you "seasoned war veterans" who may be interested. Bdushaw (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)