Talk:Zack Polanski

Sun article

We've added reference in the article to a 2013 incident involving The Sun. I think it would be appropriate to link to The Sun article in question. I know The Sun is not RS, but it is allowable to link to such a source when it itself is the story, as here. However, guidance here is to seek "broad support" for such an action. So what do other editors think? Bondegezou (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that the inclusion of this information from a source which is not WP:RS is intended to defame the subject, and as such is not WP:NPoV. This incident is not related to the subject's WP:N and I think it may also violate WP:BLP which notes that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." As such, I would like to request comment by other users about whether this should be removed. --Jwslubbock (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation to the Sun article and claims deriving from it will be removed, since it is clearly not WP:RS, and no amount of talk on THIS page will change that. The Sun is clearly a tabloid journal and, as such, it's primary purpose is to spread gossip and other negative information about notable persons. However, the quote from WP:BLP mentioned above "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment ..." bears repeating. Johnnie Bob (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there's some considerable misunderstanding here. The events -- Polanski's participation in the story and subsequent apology -- are sourced to WP:RS. The article has always cited swlondoner for that. I have now added a citation to the New Statesman. There's also this and the story was covered by the BBC.

The text is not dependent on The Sun citation and of course should not be. However, when we're discussing a specific article in The Sun, WP:RS does allow us to link to that article. We don't have to do that: we can drop The Sun link. We could have a picture of the article instead, for example. But that is separate to whether we should cover the events.

The RS coverage of the events does link them to why the subject is notable. There's not a huge amount about Polasnki in RS. This is one story that has been covered, by multiple reliable sources. This is not spreading "titillating claims about people's lives", it is describing how a politician had to apologise for something, the sort of thing we often cover on politician's articles. Bondegezou (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I am quite concerned about the edits that Bondegezou has made here, which deadname the subject in a way that is a violation of WP:BLP guidelines. If 'There's not a huge amount about Polasnki in RS' then you simply do not say it, you don't go 'I want to say this thing about the person which is unrelated to their notability but I think it should be there'. Please do not revert my edits again without a good explanation or it will begin to look very much like edit warring.--Jwslubbock (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the claim about the hypnotherapy thing seems only to have a Sun citation. Please either replace this with a WP:RS or it will be removed again. Why you keep wanting to re-add this dubiously sourced claim seems odd to me, as it has no relation to his notability, and may also be contrary to WP:BLP in that it may cause harm. I invite other users to comment on whether this claim should be removed. Jwslubbock (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So, the solution seems self-evident and mutually agreeable at this point. Simply remove the Sun reference, since the South West Londoner article substantiates the (titillating) claim that Jwslubbock seems to insist on including, does it in a WP:NEUTRAL way, and appears to be a WP:RELIABLE source. Since we have already addressed his "deadnaming" (whatever that means) concern, everybody should be happy! Johnnie Bob (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Original name

I have removed the link to The Sun.

Jwslubbock made this edit, which I do not understand. This removed information about Polanski's career activities outside politics from the lead section. This material is supported by good citations. Maybe it doesn't warrant being in the lead? I've moved the citation about acting to later in the article.

But the main thing I don't understand is the claim that the article was "deadnaming" Polanksi by including his original name, David Paulden. MOS:DEADNAME is about individuals who have changed their gender identity. I don't see anything about Polanski changing his gender identity. Ergo, MOS:DEADNAME does not apply. WP:NCP tells us that the article should be titled according to the name by which Polanski is best known (i.e. Polanski), which we do, but doesn't stop us mentioning his original name. There are plenty of people who are known by one name, but we include their original name. If you want another politician example, look at Gerald Ford. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

He has changed his name, and his identity. I do not know why you continue to use a name which the subject does not use anymore and has no relevance to his notability. Whether someone has changed their name because they are trans or otherwise, the previous name is a deadname, and including it in a Wikipedia page, which is the first thing that people will see about someone when searching online, seems to me like it may cause harm, and is thus very much a violation of WP:BLP. Yes, there are plenty of people whose original name we include, including Chelsea Manning, but that is because their original name has a bearing on their notability. In this case it does not, so there is no reason to do it. In terms of the biographical information I removed from the lede, again, that is not related to the subject's notability, and while there is a case for putting it in the body, it should not be in the lede. Jwslubbock (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Bondegezou is right here re: deadnaming. MOS:DEADNAME is specifically about gender identity -- it's even in the heading -- it doesn't alter our editorial practices regarding simple name changes. Yes, there are plenty of people whose original name we include, including Chelsea Manning, but that is because their original name has a bearing on their notability. This isn't true; that practice is only in reference to trans people out of respect. After all, we list Elton John's birth name as Reginald Kenneth Dwight, though he was never notable under that name. Is this deadnaming, too? The deadnaming article even specifically states that it's a gender-related term. — Czello 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "deadnaming" clearly does not apply and we have a consensus. Can we stop all this silliness now? I don't know about y'all, but I'm so sick of this cancel culture crap I could just scream. His alternate name is well cited and should remain in the article just like the many, many other articles whose subjects have been or are referred to by an alternate name. Johnnie Bob (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I have re-added his original name to the opening sentence, as it was. We could re-word so that it doesn't begin with his old name, maybe as done with Gerald Ford? Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

How about just "Zack Polanski, also known as ..." (like it is in the cited source)? Johnnie Bob (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The Barnet election source says "PAULDEN David (Commonly Known As: Zack Polanski)", so I've changed the opening sentence to, "David Paulden, commonly known as Zack Polanski". Good? I couldn't work out a good wording the other way around. Bondegezou (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. — Czello 07:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles to include - Discussion

Polanski listed as spokesperson here - https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2021/06/07/green-party-reveals-new-team-of-spokespeople/

And Polanski's work here - https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/zack-polanski/mayor-has-failed-to-consult-on-silvertown

And - https://www.citymatters.london/calls-to-expand-tfls-cycle-hire-scheme-to-reduce-emissions/

Seems odd not to include these but please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonie_Cooper or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sem_Moema for instance who do have City Hall press releases and personal websites included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1082:3B50:6108:E419:20A5:E37C (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

See also - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Devenish who has external links to his personal and city hall website. - Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1082:3B50:6108:E419:20A5:E37C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:1082:3b50:6108:e419:20a5:e37c (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)