User talk:Szmenderowiecki/Archive 2023

Arbitration case notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello Szmenderowiecki,

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Mark Milley apology close

Hello Szmenderowiecki, thank you for closing Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Mark Milley apology. You said that there is clearly no consensus to retain the fragment. I construe this as a call for removal. Can you please execute the removal of the sentence? I would do it myself, but it's contentious article, as I'm sure you know, and I don't want to step on any toes. Thank you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, why not Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(Moved from Talk:Donald Trump) @Szmenderowiecki: You wrote that WP:ONUS dictates that it is up to those seeking to include content to rally consensus. As of the moment of writing, the sentence is included in the article. A discussion preceded this RfC. Were you under the impression that the sentence was added recently since you mentioned the discussion that took place a month ago? The sentence was added to the section almost three years ago. WP:ONUS says that "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That's a bit vague but I read that to mean "those seeking to add disputed content." The proponents of the RfC were seeking to remove long-standing content. The RfC proposer's question "Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now)" may have led some readers to believe that it is recently added content. The proposer should have asked whether "the sentence below should be removed from the article." Also, this cute move, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, really? I haven’t decided whether I want to do something about this or not, so for now I’m unarchiving the RfC to see what other editors think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, thanks for the concerns you mentioned.

At least from my perspective, when the question is: "Include or exclude?", as it was in the case of the RfC I closed, WP:ONUS is clear that those seeking to include the content must achieve consensus. Whether it is longstanding is not very relevant (as you can read in the following paragraph).

First, even though long-standing content has presumed consensus for it, it disappears the moment the fragment is challenged and only reappears if the challenge is rebuffed. Note the policy does not mention "add" but mentions "include", and these mean slightly different things (longstanding content is already included but was not added recently).

Second, the part of policy explaining the no consensus closures says that normally "no consensus" closures indeed result in status quo. But it also says that in discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. I actually did not quote that sentence for some reason (I should have), but there you go. You should present some very good reason why the result of the "no consensus" closure should be the return to status quo. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: in response to your "cute move" comment, I asked the Szmederowiecki to remove the sentence because I was not 100% confident if the close was dictating for the sentence to be removed. I figured that is what was meant, but I would rather not misinterpret the close rationale and I know the closer themselves knows exactly what they meant. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This belongs at the article talk page please reinstate it there, where I will add my voice to SpaceX and ask you to reverse your close and let an experienced Admin do the honors. This was a bad close. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Reading this editor's talk page, I am surprised that this editor would consider that they were qualified to close a Trump article. I don't mean to say that they are not a good editor, just that they need more experience before they should feel ready for such a task. Sectionworker (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the hiatus in my editing, my IRL duties diverted my attention from this discussion, so I couldn't respond quickly.

In response to SPECIFICO and Sectionworker:

• I moved the discussion to the talk page as WP:CLOSECHALLENGE generally says that (in this case) you should contact the editor who closed the discussion so that they could explain themselves. Because there were two discussions going at the same time about the same topic, I just moved the later one (at Talk:Donald Trump) here. It is easier and more convenient for me to track discussions on my talk page than on the article talk page, at least because any edit to my talk page automatically generates a ping and a yellow banner saying that someone posted something here.
• I am ready to hear concerns about the closure, and I can amend it on request, but generally I expect you to state some reason why you think this closure was bad; it's not enough to just say it is without further proof. In particular, I disagree with Sectionworker's suggestion that I am not qualified to make closures about Trump (what's the threshold you propose, then?) If you believe that closure was bad, explain what in your view should be the closure in light of the discussion.

Preempting some questions: I think I accurately reflected arguments present in the discussion and specifically highlighted those to which there was no good rebuttal in the discussion (the article shortening issue and the proposal to use other sources than the apology by DFlhb). In fact, I believe that the "no consensus" reading is actually pretty charitable for opposers, because the 2-to-1 margin along with other factors as outlined in the closure would make reasonable editors think about "rough consensus to exclude" closure. Since WP:NOCON says that BLPs normally do not tolerate inclusion of content for which there is no consensus, from the point of view of article content, the result of both closures is normally the same. The only practical differences of "consensus to exclude" vs "no consensus" closures would be that repeating the RfC would be considered highly disruptive in the first case and less so in the second, and that the first closure could be interpreted as saying that no mention of Milley should be there. In my view, "no consensus" is safer because even those who opposed the inclusion of Milley acknowledged he could be mentioned in the previous sentence or that he could be mentioned with other sources that say outloud that Milley/scholars/whoever were critical of Trump's abuses of power.

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland, has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The Arbitration Committee formally requests that the Wikimedia Foundation develop and promulgate a white paper on the best practices for researchers and authors when writing about Wikipedians. The Committee requests that the white paper convey to researchers the principles of our movement and give specific recommendation for researchers on how to study and write about Wikipedians and their personal information in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.
  This request will be sent by the Arbitration Committee to Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability with the understanding that the task may be delegated as appropriate.
• Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:
  All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.
• François Robere is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• My very best wishes
  • is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Volunteer Marek
  • is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is limited to 1 revert per page and may not revert a second time with-out a consensus for the revert, except for edits in his userspace or obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• François Robere and Volunteer Marek are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, posts and comments made by each other, subject to the normal exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• The Arbitration Committee assumes and makes indefinite the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Piotrus is reminded that while off-wiki communication is allowed in most circumstances, he has previously used off-wiki communication disruptively. He is reminded to be cautious about how and when to use off-wiki contact in the future, and to avoid future conflict, he should prioritize on-wiki communication.
• The Arbitration Committee affirms its January 2022 motion allowing editors to file for Arbitration enforcement at ARCA or Arbitration enforcement noticeboards. In recognition of the overlap of editor interest and activity between this topic area and Eastern Europe, the committee extends this provision to that topic area. It does so by adding the following text in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe:
  As an alternative to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
• The Arbitration Committee separately rescinds the part of the January 2022 motion allowing transfer of a case from Arbitration Enforcement to ARCA, in recognition of the now-standard provision in Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee. It does so by striking the following text in its entirety in item number 7:
  In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.
  [archive / log]
• When considering sanctions against editors in the Eastern Europe topic area, uninvolved administrators should consider past sanctions and the findings of fact and remedies issued in this case.

Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at ARCA or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

References for the Pont-Duplessis

It is fairly known here that the Pont-Duplessis was named after Maurice's father, Nérée. It's not so obvious for outsiders, and it becomes a common mistake. No idea why toponymiequebec, who should not make mistakes, are confused in their references.

Here are some strong sources that affirm that the bridge in question was named after Nérée Duplessis: 1 2 3

Congratulations on the translation of the french article. Duplessis is a huge part of our history and I'm glad the english article will also reflect it. Good job! Witcher of Izalith 02:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Witcher of Izalith I think you must have mistaken the Pont Duplessis in Trois-Rivieres, which is mentioned in all three articles and which collapsed in 1951 (see Premiership_of_Maurice_Duplessis#Societal_issues - you must be speaking about that one) with a bridge in the middle of nowhere somewhere in the wilderness of North Quebec, which is the bridge shown on the photo and which link I posted in the edit comment. These are two different bridges, so I think I was correct.

Anyway, thanks a lot for encouragement. I am practicing my French translation skills. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki Hello there! Just to quickly wave off the possible confusions:

1)Two bridges are at stake here: Pont Duplessis and Pont Maurice-Duplessis

2)Pont Duplessis is at Trois-Rivières, Pont Maurice-Duplessis is in the far north of Québec.

3)The picture I'm removing is the one from Trois-Rivières.

4)As per the sources I've provided, the Pont Duplessis (Trois-Rivières) is named after Nérée Duplessis, Maurice's father. It was built in the 1940s when Maurice Duplessis was Premier of Quebec.

5)The Pont Maurice-Duplessis, well, is named after Maurice Duplessis himself and was built long after his death.

6)Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, the link you are referring to (this one) actually does not say the bridge was officially named after Maurice Duplessis. The proper translation is : "The name of the bridge makes you think of Maurice Duplessis ... and his father Nérée Duplessis ..." This is not a reliable source as to the official name for the bridge. The reliable sources are the three I've provided above (reposting them here: 1 2 3). I've checked, and you won't find a source that says that the Trois-Rivières' Duplessis bridge was named after Maurice Duplessis. What you will find are sources that will tell you what I've just said in the 5th point of my argument.

7)I'm open to arguments from both of you if they are backed by solid sources that affirm facts rather than say vague things. I'm also open, if it comes to this, that the picture be reinstated in the article but with the proper explanation. It can also be put elsewhere in the article. Or neither of those options and the image is redacted from the article.

8)As a Québécois myself, I am fairly curious as to what would push a citizen of Poland to work on a Prime minister from Québec - Maurice Duplessis, atop of it all. I find it quite charming and I just want to say that I am here for the good reasons and I'm really not trying to mess up the good work you've put in the article. But for that little thing, I need to impose myself a little bit.

Cordially.--Witcher of Izalith 02:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, so I've checked the photo and it indeed appears to be Trois-Rivieres, you are right. I wonder who changed it in the meantime. I was speaking of this one. So I will restore the gallery entry, but I will just put the right one there. Fine with you? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Note. I ultimately kept out the photo of Trois-Rivieres bridge but I just moved the Commission of toponymy refs. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

All fine by me! I’m glad we found a common ground! Congratulations again for the great article! Witcher of Izalith 10:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Quebec elections

Did you ever get that issue you were having resolved. Excited that somebody is working on Quebec. 23:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby I think no, and it appears that the numbers on the page of the govt of Quebec, when you sum up all numbers in the excel column, does not match the numbers presented on the page of the National Assembly. Also, I don't see where they got the turnout and invalid votes figures, so it looks a bit like OR to me. I'd rather use the compiled version of results. I won't have much time now, so if anyone is able to redo the table, it will be great! Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

My hands are pretty full right now. but I have previously described the Quebec topic area as "a vast wasteland of nobody working on it" that I should try to get to. It does somewhat overlap the vast project of untangling the civil law legal system from common law, but as a special case because of the timeline. And there is so much more to Quebec than just the seigneuries. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz just made me aware of a whole swath of business history of which I had known nothing, so now that I've encountered *two* editors interested in Quebec, maybe I should introduce you.

I might be able to look into some of this when I have had enough for a while of the economics of genocide, but what is the scope of the problem as far as we know? That one 1935 election? All articles on Quebec legislative elections? I also wasn't entirely sure whether you were saying that the government websites also contradicted one another, or just that the wikipedia article seemed to differ from what are presumably the official records of the results. Serjeant Buzfuz and I just got done telling one another that we'd like to get to a different interesting problem but were busy right now, so let's all just say no promises but we (or at least I) will individually try to incrementally address it. Is there a Quebec project somewhere that I should have been aware of? I do speak very good French, should you find yourself in need of that, and I would prioritize a quick translation question. Thanks for the reply. Elinruby (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, so I'm not working on Quebec specifically, I just like translating stuff from French. I am going to take Le Touquet, which is an FA on fr.wiki but I think it is a total mess that needs restructuring. I hope to do just that when doibg a translation. Sadly my RL duties take a toll on WP activity so don't expect anything substantial from me.

As for the elections, it appears that summing up the columns in Excel gives a different result from that presented on the official webpage of the National Assembly, so it is likely that we are speaking of contradictory data. Even though WP:CALC generally allows routine calculations, I think we should be much more careful when two sources contradict each other.

When you have time, let me know if you can vouch for the results as presented in the tables. I need them for the electoral performance of Maurice Duplessis. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Andy Ngo closing

Szmendarowiscki, I think you did a generally very good job with the Andy Ngo closing. That was a long discussion and not one that was easy to dig through. Of course, as you predicted someone was going to ask about it... I don't see that the discussion put much emphasis on if it was or wasn't appropriate to say "journalist" in the opening sentence or not. I'm not sure that question was asked or should have been answered. If there was no consensus wouldn't the placement follow where it already was? Thanks (and again, it is clear you put a lot of effort into the closing). Springee (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It felt to me that a lot of folks were arguing about the first sentence only because the word "journalist" only appeared there (before it was removed), as few folks even bothered thinking that maybe the lead should be longer (it should be).

In my closure, I linked the guideline that one of the users successfully quoted to argue that the term does not belong in the first sentence. But, as you can read later, it's fine if you put it somewhere later as appropriate, because your side demonstrated that it belongs there.

This being a BLP article, you need consensus to include, restore or add content (WP:BLPRESTORE). No consensus should mean the content is out, or that the change is not carried unless it means removing contentious/poorly sourced passages. That's policy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

While I would agree that consensus is needed for someone like a disputed label, where that label is in the lead doesn't seem like the story of thing where nocon means remove from first sentence. I also don't think it was appropriate to decide on the location given that wasn't asked on the RfC. It seems odd that we are here is primarily called a journalist (vs writer etc) but we can't put that in the first sentence. I do think that conclusion should be struck from the otherwise very good closing. Springee (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we are speaking past each other.

The question was whether the label journalist stays in the lead.

There is rough consensus that it should be there, so there, the yes side won the argument.

The question does not mention "first sentence", and you are right here, but there was some specific discussion on that (look up Davide King's comments from 1 September and Coffeeandcrumbs's comment).

The latter user mentioned MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, a guideline which is very clear we ought to omit labels that are contentious in the first sentence of the lead. Nobody seemed to address that point, and because the discussion showed that the label is contentious, for me, that argument was what tilted the result towards no consensus territory for this particular case.

Of course, if you start with the premise that he is a journalist and this unequivocally belongs (as you do in your comment), then indeed this is a seemingly odd situation, but we had this discussion for a reason to see if it belongs.

That's why I think this evaluation was appropriate here. It's not that I took this out of the blue.

As to whether WP:NOCON can influence the place where content appears, that part of policy says that for articles about living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. There is no consensus to retain it in the first sentence, so this goes out, but generally, the yes side managed to get rough consensus for it to be used in the lead.

I know that in the previous RfC, Chetsford decided that because the yes and no sides deadlocked, the content was kept. But I don't think you can just say in this case "well, then leave it as it is" without any further explanation why, as I think happened there, because NOCON suggests that normally the opposite should happen in BLPs. I see no reason to create an exception here because there is rough consensus that you can use it in the lead, so go ahead and do it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The latter user mentioned MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, a guideline which is very clear we ought to omit labels that are contentious in the first sentence of the lead.

I believe this is a misinterpretation of MOS:BIOFIRSTSSENTANCE. The word "journalist" itself isn't a contentious value-laden label. It's just an occupation. I suspect some people hold that occupation in high regard which is the root of the dispute, but either he is a journalist or he's not. Nemov (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, by itself "journalist" is not contentious, though some attach a certain prestige to that title. But this is beside the point. Contentious means causing, involving, or likely to cause disagreement and argument, and the term in this case causes disagreement. I don't see how MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE limits "contentious terms" only to terms that are contentious per se - and anyway you are always looking at how the term is applied to a particular person in question.

Ultimately this all comes to the rule in WP:NPOV that you should avoid stating opinions as facts. Because reasonable people (I mean sources, editors' opinions aren't worth as much) disagree if what he does is journalism, this normally factual determination starts to become a clash of opinions where people decide who and when a person gets to be called a journalist. So it's opinion.

It's a fact that he at least some time ago did what would be normally described as journalism, so we should summarise this period. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I know the definition of contentious, but the policy links to "contentious labels." It has zero to do with a disagreement about an occupation. There's tons of RFCs about what to say in the lead sentence. Using your definition of contentious, anytime there's a disagreement about an occupation it should be removed from the lead sentence. Anyway, it's fine with me not to have it in the first sentence, but I just thought that justification doesn't make sense. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Nemov here. I also don't think it's logically consistent to claim that "journalist" is a contentious label thus cannot be in the first sentence but can be in the second sentence. If we have consensus that he is a journalist per RSs then we aren't dealing with opinions and stating opinion as fact shouldn't matter. Also, I think when we zoom out there is still the issue that the majority of editors didn't discuss inclusion in the first sentence vs later in the lead. Such questions are often asked so we can't say it would have been outside of the scope of a possible RfC to ask such a question. Since that question wasn't asked and most editors didn't discuss it, the RfC closing shouldn't dictate it. That moves from stating what consensus was to applying the opinion of the closer to the question itself (Strong note: you took on a long RfC and did a thoughtful analysis of a lot of information so I want to emphasize that any criticism I have of the closing is that of a good faith close). I'm asking for the first sentence aspect should be struck from the closing. Springee (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Springee Let's start with the "lack of jurisdiction" argument. I double-checked advice for closing discussions just to be sure, and I find two sentences here. One says that there may be consensus on an issue that was not actually the question being asked, since the question the participants discussed may differ from what was literally asked in the RfC prompt and the other that Another part of not interjecting your own opinion is not making a close that is wider than the scope of the question (after all, if the editors didn’t discuss it, they couldn’t have come to a decision on it)

The first sentence clearly says that the discussion may end in a closure that does not necessarily answer the question as asked if participants discussed the topic even though it may be seemingly unrelated to the question asked. The second sentence affirms this - if editors discussed a certain topic within the RfC, it may be evaluated for consensus. It need not be the main topic of the discussion. Besides, it is clear that when we are speaking of the lead as a whole, we are also speaking of its first sentence, so if editors want to voice an opinion about the first sentence there, it's fine. My duty is to summarize these comments if they have sufficient support and/or strength. I pointed you to comments that mentioned the first sentence specifically (see also TarnishedPath's comments from 22 September, where they argue that MOS:FIRSTBIO prevents the word "journalist" from being in the lead because it's not Ngo's main claim to fame. I did not mention it in the closure because consensus was not likely to develop either way as to whether this guideline even applies here). In short, I believe that the part with the first sentence fits within the general question asked, and even if it didn't, I am not bound by the RfC question but by the content of the discussion (unless participants misunderstand the question, which is hard to do here).

Addressing the apparent inconsistency of the summary of the discussion, I would like to note a couple of things. You say that if we have consensus that he is a journalist per RSs then we aren't dealing with opinions and stating opinion as fact shouldn't matter but that was not the finding in the closure - in fact, I wrote there that it was demonstrated that sources cannot agree on whether to call him a journalist or not. Slim majority of sources is not consensus of sources. So this argument is relevant. (Note: I relied on whatever you chose as sources, so all the caveats apply: that the selection may not be representative, not all sources are reliable, in addition to those concerns I mentioned in the close.) Then you say that I also don't think it's logically consistent to claim that "journalist" is a contentious label thus cannot be in the first sentence but can be in the second sentence. I explained in the close what I see as the consensus of editors that where relevant, i.e. when describing his career and controversies, the label can be in fact used. If he was employed as a journalist and that was a significant part of his career and that is in the body, then indeed you can mention it because that's a strong argument to include this in the lead. The discussion around his journalistic ethics is relevant. But mentioning it in the first sentence has no consensus because there is another strong argument that calling Ngo a journalist is contentious, as evidenced by the diverging labels that reliable sources use to describe Ngo. So even if it were in fact inconsistent, that was the balance of arguments and I reflected it well. But I think the closure is consistent and its implementation will comply with relevant policies and guidelines and the consensus that was reached in the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a RfC can sometimes close with an answer that isn't specifically what the opening question asked. However that typically happens after there is a clear discussion of the alternatives. This was a long discussion yet almost no one said, "I would be OK if this were in the second but not first sentence". Basically I don't see that location in the lead was any significant portion of the discussion thus shouldn't have been part of the closing. I am likely to take this portion of the closing to AN for a review (not the closing as a whole). Springee (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Close review has been opened

Szmenderowiecki, Nemov, I've opened a close review related to where the term can appear in the lead[1]. Springee (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK

Hi. I have updated the article according to your suggestion. Can you please review Template:Did you know nominations/Malayalam softcore pornography? Thilsebatti (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel strong enough to review this article as I have no idea at all about South India besides the fact it exists and that Kannada is not Canada. So wait until the next reviewer comes. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:RX

Thanks for the help, but I am afraid that va.cat does not work at all. It doesn't download anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I sent it directly to your email. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, received. As it happens to be, I also greatly expanded pulsar planet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That's great! Keep going Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Cześć

I think your comment here was intended in the sense of "Glad that the conversation is progressing constructively", but literally, it sounds like a suggestion that I wasn't listening. Wikipedia discussions are !votes. If several people say similar things, then the possibility that they are right and I am wrong has to be seriously considered, but that possibility has to be checked properly. I will happily acknowledge errors, but truth (or verifiable information in the Wikipedia sense) is not decided by votes, and generally not by a rapid conversation. Listening does not mean agreeing with invalid arguments or fallacies. Boud (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

In that comment, I was only referring to your acceptance that an RfC is premature and that we need to sort out the details first.

I told you my opinion on this, if you wanted it. I get your motives, it's that I just don't think you are applying the right weight to the criteria of what belongs and doesn't belong in the template

. I will happily see any change to the template, and preferably an RfC that shows before/after state. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your explanation about the wording. I think the tricky thing was in the different connotations of "listening". In the counterfactual case of what you could have written in a brief form while avoiding the connotation that I was unlikely to listen to the others, I don't see any really brief way that you could have said it - I guess something like "Thanks for accepting to shift this to a pre-RfC stage" would have avoided that, but that would have been a bit longer. In any case, you've explained - thanks :). Boud (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

What about Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945) and resulting states like Slovak Republic (1939–1945)? And I am sure we are forgetting about something else too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I know Slovaks had a "bit" of problem with Tiso and the Hungarians, and the Czechs with the Germans, yeah and then the Zaolzie thing with Poles. I'm not sure there is as much animus about that, but all I can say is that Edvard Benes was a big troll when he said something like "you [Sudeten Germans] wanted to be in Germany. Your wish is our command. GTFO of Czechoslovakia and go to that Germany of yours". I'm just not aware the Czechs otherwise have as much animosity about their northern neighbour. The Hungarians and the Jews - yeah, here there is more controversy about that.

And if that obvious thing is the Commies - yeah, it's pretty big in countries like PL and the Baltic States, not sure about other areas though. At least the Partisans in Yugoslavia appear to be not as controversial.

In any case, yeah you are right, Eastern Europe as a whole is hell of a pain in the ass. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)