Talk:Zack Polanski

Making a note here for potential future re-addition, mention of Act Now: A vision for a better future and a new social contract removed here for now Bejakyo (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems to merit a mention somewhere, but haven't figured where yet. E.g. Polanski, who represents a new, more radical version of the once-mannerly Greens from the Irish Times, It also gives us some idea of how easy Polanski will find it to achieve his goal of moving the party in a more radical, left-liberal direction. from The Conversation and The Green Party’s newly elected leader Zack Polanski has branded himself as an “eco populist” promising “a vision of a real radical alternative” from The Standard. SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I added a few words to note that Polanski's apology for The Sun hypnotherapy article came several years later. Bejakyo reverted, with an e.c. saying, "restoring Flarehayr's edit. Important to recognise it was not years later". I've reviewed the citations given. They all show the apology as coming years later, once Polanski was politically active. They do not, as far as I can see, show that he gave any apology at the time. Bejakyo: you appear to think differently. What are you seeing that I'm not? Bondegezou (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I agree it should explain when the apology came. Also it should explain what he was apologising for - the swlondoner source has him stating: The apology is to recognise that issues of misogyny and women’s body confidence exist in society and articles like that in The Sun are not helpful. SmartSE (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

None of the sources show the apology as years later. I'm not too sure where you've gotten this claim from. @Flarehayr:'s edit here was correct in removing your claim. Bejakyo (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

None of the sources show the apology was done at the time. The offending article was in 2013. All the sources cited describe apologies many years later, but I accept the exact timeline is unclear, and there seems to be some he-said-she-said disagreement.

The SWLondoner article says, "The 2013 experiment was featured in a national newspaper and Mr Polanski’s failure to disclose the article prior to running for the Greens may have ruffled some feathers." That is, Polanski hadn't talked about it before running for the Greens, which he first did in 2019. I think we need to cover this timeline, but if you don't like my prior wording, we could use something closer to the SWLondoner article, saying "Polanski had not disclosed the article prior to being a Green Party candidate." Left Foot Forward also say this.

While I am here, the Left Foot Forward article also says he was paid, while Polanski says he wasn't. Lots of other coverage says Polanski said he didn't charge. As per WP:BALANCE, should we note this disagreement? Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm this is quite complicated! The Big Issue says I went on the BBC the next day to explain that it didn’t represent anything that I was doing, it certainly was not something I’d charge for. That was meant to be how the Sun was going to write it up, but there was a misrepresentation and The BBC says Asked about the piece following his win, Polanski said his time as a Harley Street hypnotherapist pre-dated any of his political ambitions and he had immediately apologised Those certainly imply he made some form of apology at the time, but that is quite hard to square with him calling the original article "a feature" on his own website and the LFF source makes no mention of him apologising for anything at the time, only to "correct any misperceptions". I think LFF probably have misunderstood the original article RE being paid - it says that he charges £220 for a session, not that he charged for the session in the article. SmartSE (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for those additional sources. Bondegezou (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Your recent bold edit seems sufficient. Reliable sources like the BBC note "he said" but don't seem to mention otherwise.

On the note about disclosure, I think your first suggested phrasing of "Polanski hadn't talked about it before running for the Greens" is likely best. Though I think to avoid risk of vios (particularly with the increased risk of citogenosis, Independent basicly took whole sections of the article!) it's best for us to get a RS for the claim if possible? I'll take another gander, but I believe the only time I've seen it is in the LFF newsblog, and in SWLondoner

I think SmartSE is probably right regarding LFF misunderstanding Bejakyo (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The BBC's McKiernan in her article that I referenced states "Asked about the piece following his win, Polanski said his time as a Harley Street hypnotherapist pre-dated any of his political ambitions and he had immediately apologised." (2025, para.8).https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyrev00lwno Flarehayr (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bejakyo, in this revert you said "restore from unnecessary deletion; backed up in body". Please point out where in the body it supports that he links "high costs of living and the climate crisis with increasing wealth inequality". -- DeFacto (talk). 14:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The sentence has been reworded now and is supported by sentences that cite sources 31 and 46 as per current revision. Orange sticker (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Orange sticker, thanks pointing that out. @Bejakyo, ideally you should have self-reverted when you realised your mistake, and with an appropriate edit summary, then made a new edit to add the corrected info, and again with an appropriate summary, rather than just doing this with no edit summary at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The prior text was supported. Nevertheless glad to have reached a consensus Bejakyo (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

His educational claims are extremely dubious. There is only one (dubious) source that says he attended Aberystwyth university and that says he attended not that he graduated. Nobody seems to know what he studied there or when he graduated. The Guardian article doesn't even cite Aberystwyth. I would argue that it's extremely important that we know the educational background of a prominent politician - including that he was booted out of school and then went to a local 6th form college, because all of this tells of his character. As per the Guardian article: "He hated it, got kicked out, and went to a sixth form college. “He went to Stockport Grammar, a private school, on a scholarship. I remember absolutely loving it and thriving, and suddenly going, ‘Oh, this is what diversity feels like. This is what it feels like when everyone’s not homogeneous.’” Then he went to drama school in Atlanta, Georgia, a pretty random place to go to do a Shakespeare course, which he has no answer to, except that it sounded fun." which was taken from an interview with him.Similarly his job claims are all undated and vague. This gives an impression of someone hiding their professional life and education and is clearly inadequate for a biography of anyone - simply not up to standard. The whole article reads like a whitewash of a very dubious character. The fact that there are people on here arguing that The Sun story about his hypnotherapy 'career' should be deleted shows that this biography is being written by his PRs and supporters and is not independent or balanced. I want to know when he graduated, in what subject and preferably if known what grade he got. I also want to know what jobs he did and when and for how long. This is basic stuff. And we need to ensure it's clear that he was asked to leave the 6th form - he didn't choose to do so. This all speaks to the man's basic character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35155-98 (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

We are not here to do private sleuthing. That is original research and we can't do that. It is clear that you want us to try to dig up dirt. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a British tabloid newspaper. We don't do that. You can regard whatever you like as "dubious" but that is not an issue for Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The hypnotherapy bit does not seem to merit its own section unless there is considerably more to it than we currently have. It doesn't say anything about where he worked or for how long. To use the word "career" seems ludicrously excessive. It seems solely as a WP:COATRACK to hang The Sun's sting operation on. I propose that we remove the heading, keeping the coverage. If we have sources for it, I think we should probably explicitly describe it as a sting operation but I wouldn't expand it beyond that. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I see that the heading has now been removed. I'm happy with that but the thread remains open if anybody wants to say anything else on the topic. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence for or WP:RS commentary describing The Sun's article as a sting operation. Polanski was not involved in politics at the time: it doesn't make any sense to imagine it was a sting operation. Bondegezou (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

in the early life section, it only says "eastern european" for his family heritage. However, he has directly said his family started in Latvia and moved to Ukraine https://greenparty.org.uk/2025/10/03/green-party-leader-zack-polanski-speech-to-conference-2025/ ~2026-23965-8 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

No mention of his Jewish school education GerryGiraffe (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I accept the comment on BBC Sounds perhaps isn't noteworthy.

The apperance on the Rest is Politics is noteworth and he has commented directly about to the Finacial Times it also generated significant coverage.

The continued removal of its significance but leaving puff pieces such as the Times Magazine article (not sure that's balanced to be quite honest) are I believe a deeply concerning issue.

If it wasn't worthy why did the Financial Times cover it twice? Greenpark79 (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't about the RiP itself, but about both the potentially undue weight given unto it, and the lack of indepedent sourcing on it

Could you explain your concern about the Times Magazine piece I'm not sure I follow?

Also a courtesy ping to @Pretzel Quetzal who's been involved in editing here Bejakyo (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I provided a number of indepedent sources and can list them here:

https://www.ft.com/content/de7ebc9f-b7b5-4872-8713-c67190d5e8f4

https://www.ft.com/content/37b8ae3e-cec4-4ac0-94d7-b2917de76365

https://thecritic.co.uk/zack-polanski-is-a-post-literate-politician/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/07/am-i-at-peak-popularity-i-hope-not-on-the-road-with-zack-polanski-from-protest-to-podcast-to-heaven-nightclub

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/zack-polanski-accuses-chief-rabbi-of-speaking-for-israel-instead-of-british-jews/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/polanski-is-an-economically-illiterate-populist-like-farage/

https://capx.co/we-need-the-obr-more-than-ever

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/uma-kumaran-green-leader-zack-polanski-care-workers-labour-b1261995.html

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/greens/2025/12/the-case-for-zack-polanskis-economic-plan Greenpark79 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Bejakyo; @Pretzel Quetzal; @GearsDatapack

I've sent a report off for dispute resolution hopefully we'll come to a resolution on this. Greenpark79 (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Bejakyo and @Pretzel Quetzal,

I hope you are both well, I do wish to update the article with the above coverage regarding its impact.

In terms of BBC Sounds interview I think it should also remain as it refers to his reoccuring criticism of GDP. See his hustings: https://www.greenhousethinktank.org/responses-for-candidates-for-leader-of-green-party-of-england-and-wales-green-leadership/ Greenpark79 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I have to agree with the comments that @Black Kite shared whilst reverting my edit really Bejakyo (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Unless there's significant coverage of the BBC Newscast interview from reliable sources, it shouldn't be included. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pretzel Quetzal @Bejakyo @Black kite why is this article featured? https://time.com/collections/time100-next-2025/7318841/zack-polanski/

It's nothing more than puffery/peacock and there isn't suficient coverage of it either. They even state: "Our goal with each project is to provide a snapshot of the moment and to recognize those who we feel are truly changing the world this year." which isn't in any way a good criterian or reputable. https://time.com/7319452/how-we-chose-the-2025-time100-next/ Greenpark79 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@GearsDatapack I'm not getting anywhere and why does the edit have to be removed instead of amended? Greenpark79 (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Greenpark79: please stop trying to re-add the same content before a consensus is reached. Your latest change goes into an excessive amount of detail (we don't need timestamps for every statement), and the entire first paragraph is only sourced from the podcast itself, which is a primary source. You can include details that were commented on by other reliable sources, but try to summarise the key points and not give it undue weight. I would suggest working on a version of the added content here on the talk page first, to avoid edit warring. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 13:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there is undue work and onus being put on me it make the edits – presumably no other editor can amend it?

This is completely unheard of for the rest of the aricle. The constant deletion is unparalled in contrast to other copy on the page. I will be pursuing Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Edit warring as I have sought consensus and every single time had been met with a complete removal instead of editing. Greenpark79 (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You haven't sought consensus. You've mentioned it here, then reinstated your edits without the approval of other editors. That's not what consensus is. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 13:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

They haven't replied. As i pointed out to you. You're not exactly helpful either. Greenpark79 (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

As I said I'm going to escalate this to dispute resolution as being ignored and having the edit completely removed because it's not liked isn't sufficient.

Notably you haven't put forward any suggested copy with citations to be employed in order to resolve this issue. Greenpark79 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Greenpark79 I recommend you read the essay WP:1AM if you have not already. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, in light of that please see Wikipedia:Awards and accolades Greenpark79 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you trying to make the point that his place on the Time 100 list shouldn't be included here? That guideline says these lists are considered notable if there is an article about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_100#Time_100_Next_list I think that sets it apart from your normal "space filler listicle". Orange sticker (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• It's not the interview is un-notable, but generating two massive paragraphs on the basis of it is completely WP:UNDUE. We don't care what "Critic magazine" (who?) thinks. We don't care what Europinion think. We definitely don't care what the increasingly unreliable Daily Telegraph thinks. We don't care what CapX (who?) thinks. And so on. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Talk:Zack Polanski#c-Bejakyo-20260301201600-Greenpark79-20260301200000 Greenpark79 (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't appear to be a reply to my comment. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  It is one? I'm not sure I follow. Greenpark79 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  The copy and citations could be edited? By another editor in that case? I'm not sure I grasp the point here. Greenpark79 (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The paragraphs you've added here are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You've written a review/synopsis of a podcast appearance then shoehorned any mention of that appearance into a meta-analysis of it. While the sources refer to the podcast, they're about Polanski and his politics more generally, so framing it that way is your own interpretation of the sources, which individually seem fine to use in this article in the correct context. Orange sticker (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Why was the coverage removed and in that case why wasn't it edited? No other contribution beyond those which are solely favourable have been treated like this. Greenpark79 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes it's better to be bold and delete content rather than endlessly tweak it. You wrote "His appearance on the show generated a number of articles in the press" which simply isn't true, those articles are primarily about other things. When something is that far off the mark, removal is the best option. Don't take it personally. Orange sticker (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I was asked to provide sources I did.

No other contribution on this page has been continually removed. Furthermore those sources refer to the episdoe in question and yes feature other things. If the threshold is that high why was this ever added without any issue: https://time.com/collections/time100-next-2025/7318841/zack-polanski/

I've since removed it but why was it there? Greenpark79 (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

re: synthesising: I didn't state a conclusion, I summarised a transcript and provided the time codes for verification. Further to the point Stewart did state he was horrified in the video which can be watched, listened to and reviewed via their transcrtpts. Why wasn't it amended by other editors instead of being removed including its coverage in is entirety? Greenpark79 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

But have you actually read WP:UNDUE? Should we have 6,000 bytes of information (over 10% of the entire article) about a single interview? It should be obvious that the answer to that is no. That's not to say it can't be mentioned briefly. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think a podcast which refers to macroconomics is and I quote from Wikipedia:UNDUE "...specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space".

Questions about monetary policy would affect the entire population of the UK? Greenpark79 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Presumably Black Kite is not referring to that part of WP:UNDUE, but the following: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, ... {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 15:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

All of which could have been taken on board with a single edit. Greenpark79 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

My point: why couldn't it be allowed and then amended with those policies in mind. No other contribution has been consitently removed without amendment or editing.

Monetary and fiscal policy aren't fringe views btw.

Let's take a look here:

Polanski has stated that, under his leadership, the party will focus on "redistributing wealth, funding public services, and calling out the genocide in Gaza". Polanski repeatedly linked environmental, social, racial and economic justice.

It follows that readers want to understand and grasp the economics about how he attempts to deliver it. I don't think then that's providing undue weight to a minority view as that is what he himself has said he will campaign on? If anything it provides context. Greenpark79 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The section of the WP:UNDUE policy (which comes under WP:NPOV) which is probably most pertinent here is WP:PROPORTION, in particular: "For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Polanski has been in the public eye for several years. We cannot include every remark he has ever made on the record - and that would be a violation of WP:OR anyway. These policies are there to stop editors editorialising. It is not for you do decide what you think readers want to see. Orange sticker (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Where was the consensus about a single arbitrary award in Time Magazine with no external impact beyond a single news article? Greenpark79 (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

In this thread. You bought it up. More than one editor reinstated it. No one agreed with you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Orange sticker (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm stating it doesn't meet the policy standards which have been raised. Agree it's collaborative but it doesn't aoppear to be the case on this page. Greenpark79 (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Enough. What you're doing is now bordering on disruptive editing and WP:BLUDGEONING. I think you should also familiarise yourself with some basic policies such as WP:CIR and WP:CONSENSUS if you don't want to end up being blocked. Orange sticker (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm adherting to Wikipedia:CIR, but as it's been raised it is also works in conjunction with Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility.

Asking for citations is within the criteria of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations. On that point verifiable citations such as the Financial Times and the Guardian were removed without any discussion. THe consensus above changed the context of the edit each time. The page also has elements of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery which should be amended in due course.

I won't be be adding anything further to the page and will continue to edit elsewhere in a productive fashion. Greenpark79 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

"...nor prohibited in any article" Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations Greenpark79 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, citations are not banned from the lead, but as the claims in the lead are cited elsewhere, there is no need for {{citation needed}} there, which was what the reverted edit added. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 15:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

See User talk:Black Kite#Concern over Zach Polanski. I believe this was appropriate, and mistakenly removed. Scientelensia (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The removal was appropriate, as are Black Kites concerns. Additionally it's incredibly difficult to parse what you're trying to suggest in that talk page Bejakyo (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought that this edit to the lead looked okay. The penis issue should be dealt with separately. @Black Kite and Bejakyo: can you explain what you object to in this? Black Kite thought that some text had been removed, but it hasn't - it has just been moved to the end of the third paragraph. SmartSE (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Smartse - I think what you say sounds reasonable in all respects. I moved the text to the end of this paragraph because in other political articles the views are mentioned in the same rough sequence as here. Scientelensia (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to press @Smartse@Black Kite would you agree with me restoring the lede as it was (without mention of anything else)? I only ask since the relevant discussion on Black Kite's talk page seems to have been archived without further response. Scientelensia (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Scientelensia's longer lead text looks good to me too. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the longer version. SmartSE (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

"Polanski describes his political views as eco-populist, linking issues such as high costs of living with climate change, and supporting a wealth tax in an effort to reduce wealth inequality." is extremely vague and ambiguous. We should not be using such vague and ambiguous statements in BLP's, especially not in the lead.
Also, this -
"Born and raised in Salford, Greater Manchester, Polanski studied drama at Aberystwyth University from 2003 to 2006. Subsequently, he attended a drama school in Georgia, United States and worked as an actor, school activity provider and hypnotherapist. Polanski joined the Liberal Democrats in 2015, and stood as a candidate for the St Pancras and Somers Town by-election to Camden London Borough Council that year. In the 2016 London Assembly election, he stood for the Barnet and Camden constituency."
- is not due weight for the lead, i.e. it’s not of enough significance for the lead. Is one of the major things about someone their birth place or political affiliation before becoming well known? No. Helper201 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This is due weight for a lead, and frankly your suggestions are growing slightly hard to be kind to...

For instance, see (other leads including early life and/or early political action (sometimes different to what they became known for)/birthplaces/where they were raised):

• Boris Johnson: "In his youth Johnson attended Eton College and Balliol College, Oxford, and he was elected president of the Oxford Union in 1986. In 1989 he began writing for The Daily Telegraph, and from 1999 to 2005 he was the editor of The Spectator. He became a member of the Shadow Cabinet of Michael Howard in 2001 before being dismissed over a claim that he had lied about an extramarital affair."
• Keir Starmer: "Born in Southwark, London, and raised in Surrey, Starmer was politically active as a teenager. He graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Leeds in 1985 and received a postgraduate Bachelor of Civil Law degree from St Edmund Hall, Oxford, in 1986. After being called to the Bar, Starmer worked predominantly in criminal defence, specialising in human rights. He served as a human rights adviser to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, taking silk as a Queen's Counsel in 2002."
• Theresa May: "May grew up in Oxfordshire and attended St Hugh's College, Oxford. After graduating in 1977, she worked at the Bank of England and the Association for Payment Clearing Services. She also served as a councillor on Merton London Borough Council. After two unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the House of Commons, she was elected MP for Maidenhead at the 1997 general election."
• Dominic Raab: "Born in Buckinghamshire, Raab attended Dr Challoner's Grammar School. He studied law at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford and went on to study for a master's degree at Jesus College, Cambridge. He began his career as a solicitor at Linklaters, before working at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and as a political aide. He was elected for Esher and Walton at the 2010 general election."
• Liz Truss: "Truss studied philosophy, politics and economics at Merton College, Oxford, and was the president of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats. In 1996 she joined the Conservative Party. "

Furthermore, it is not unusual for a lead to say political views or objectives at a glance:

• Theresa May: "May is a one-nation conservative."
• Rishi Sunak: "He outlined five key priorities: halving inflation, growing the economy, cutting debt, reducing National Health Servicewaiting lists, and stopping small-boat crossings of the English Channel by enacting the Rwanda asylum plan."

You @Helper201 have been making unhelpful and ill-reasoned contributions at this page, please desist, or try to understand my arguments, if you agree with them. Scientelensia (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Scientelensia. Those arguments are rooted in WP:OTHERSTUFF. The institutions and/or careers above are typically of high notoriety and/or with larger public profile. If one was to use the same line of argument, I could equally bring up that Nigel Farage's lead says nothing of him being a commodities trader as his prior career, nor his 14 years as a member of the Conservative Party. Polanski going to Aberystwyth University is of no major significance to what he is known for, neither is him attending drama school in the US. Similarly, he was not publicly well known as a Liberal Democrat, nor does it appear that he was ever elected as one.

His political views are a different matter. I never said his political views cannot or should not be in the lead, just that what is there is extremely vague and ambiguous and that should not be included in the article, much less the lead. Any political views should be far clearer and better explained. Helper201 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This is about established conventions in how leads are structured across biographies, particularly for politicians and public figures.

Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should summarise the most important aspects of the subject’s life and career. That routinely includes early life, education, and initial political involvement—not because each detail is individually “defining,” but because together they provide necessary context for how the individual emerged into public life. This is standard practice across a wide range of BLPs, not an exceptional one-off.

Your threshold for “significance” is set far too high for lead material. If we followed that strictly, we would end up stripping most biographies down to a single sentence about current notability, which is not how Wikipedia operates. Attending university, early career paths, and first steps into politics are all part of a concise but informative summary of a person’s trajectory.

The point is that my format is widely done, so there is no reason for removal. It doesn't matter if some articles don't do this (this is a moot point).

Also – Yes, you did (or at the very least heavily implied it)!? "Is one of the major things about someone their birth place or political affiliation before becoming well known? No." See what I said about Liz Truss again – this is worthy of inclusion. Thanks. Scientelensia (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

"Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should summarise the most important aspects of the subject’s life and career", exactly. Him being "Born and raised in Salford, Greater Manchester, Polanski studied drama at Aberystwyth University from 2003 to 2006" does not fall under that, nor does him attending drama school or running for election and not being elected before being deemed as a notable person (he wouldn't have qualified for a Wikipedia article as a Liberal Democrat candidate, so that's really not notable).

Taking this content away still leaves two paragraphs, one of which is fairly large and definetly still a decent size for his level of notability.

Please try reading that again, I never said his political views shouldn't be in the lead, just not what is currently there due to its vagueness and ambiguity. Helper201 (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking about affiliation too. Scientelensia (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Please read the beginning of this discussion (the part that predates your contribution). thanks again Scientelensia (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I just have, I'm not sure what your point is though. Helper201 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Scientelensia please read WP:BLP. It clearly states, "Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Everything about the hypnotherapy claim is based upon the The Sun source, which is deprecated. Take that away and the whole basis for the claim is gone and it all comes down like a house of cards. The other sources don't matter because they are based off of the original claim from The Sun, which is deprecated. BLP content guidelines are very clear not to allow poorly sourced or questionable content. Helper201 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Read it yourself, and cease with these ill-done contributions. I refer to what @Bondegezou said: "The claim does not originate from The Sun. The offending article was in The Sun, but this article [and hence this paragraph here too] is about the controversy and the controversy originated elsewhere and does not depend on any citations to The Sun. It is a misuse of WP:THESUN to use it as an argument against this article."

If you will, remove the Sun source, but not the others (as @Smartse said in an edit summary: "replace reliably sourced content - if you think the sun ref should be removed, do that, but do not remove everything". I can even remove it if you would like, but by no means would the rest come down "like a house of cards" – such a suggestion seems rather silly to me! Scientelensia (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Scientelensia would you be so kind as to tell me where the claim originates if not from The Sun? Helper201 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Other articles report on it (e.g. BBC, LBC). I understand what you mean, it's just you don't fully grasp the situation, i.e. you are missing the point. If multiple reputable outlets have subsequently reported on the claim and the resulting controversy, then it is no longer dependent on The Sun as a source. At that point, the focus shifts from where it first appeared to whether it has been independently verified and is now part of a wider, reliably sourced discussion. Please read again the two user quotes I provided above, and see if you get the nuance here.

Finally, for your reference and benefit, I removed the Sun source. Luckily, the paragraph didn't collapse like a house of cards, so I struggle to see what objections remain. Removing well-sourced content that is verified by other outlets is not consistent with policy. Scientelensia (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

So it did originate from The Sun, the other articles are subsequent ones based off the original source from The Sun; that does not make the subsequent sources reliable. If there is doubt the ruling is clear, it states even if questionable it should be removed without discussion. Helper201 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

That is not what that means. This isn't some sort of 'gotcha' moment. The other articles are reliable. You are not invested with the power to determine that they are not, in this case. The wikipedia policy doesn't extend to policing what other independent outlets said. Please ask others to explain for you seeing as I really have tried! Scientelensia (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, this is a misunderstanding of policy. You are abusing what WP:THESUN means. The Sun is deprecated as a source. We should not say write things based on what The Sun reports. However, that does not mean that we ignore the existence of The Sun or what it does. That Polanski wrote this article is not in doubt. That this has subsequently caused controversy is not in doubt. We can source all that to very reliable sources. Your position here is unsustainable. Bondegezou (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yup exactly what Bondegezou said (Polanski did not write the article, but yes the existence of the article is not disputed) The information here is not based on the Sun article, but rather is about the creation of the Sun article based on reporting from reliable sources, which do report Polanski's disagreements with the article. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it's slightly bizarre not to have a citation to the subject of these paragraphs, especially given that it is available on the internet. Yes, it's a tabloid and comes with the attached baggage, but are we to believe that 100% of the comments attributed to Polanski in the article are bogus? Personally I think there is good motivation to point explicitly to the source of the whole controversy, but I don't have the edit permissions to do it myself. JakeSkelton (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Me and @Pretzel Quetzal are engaging in a talk about WP: However and other issues here. User talk:Pretzel Quetzal#Polanski. Is there any way this talk between me and Pretzel could be resolved? Could I possibly inconvenience editors @DeFacto, @AirshipJungleman29 and @Smallangryplanet to check out our discussion and share your advice, when you have a moment? I only ask you because you have helped out at this page recently. Scientelensia (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you can talk to them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I have done so (as per Pretzel's talk page), but seeing as Pretzel suggested taking this to the talk page, I was hoping for a secondary opinion. Thanks! Scientelensia (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No, Pretzel said (correctly) that content issues to do with an article should take place on the article talk page. They did not say "ping three editors who happened to comment recently and ask them to weigh in to a discussion you started at the wrong place". See the difference? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

indeed Bejakyo (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've pinged a random selection of editors.

I agree with the points that Pretzel Quetzal has raised Bejakyo (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This selection of editors advised in the previous section. How would you argue against the specificities of my points Scientelensia (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussions raised about the content of this article should take place here, on this article's talk page. Otherwise watchers of this article may not be alerted to them. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed – what do you think? Scientelensia (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you summarise the discussion here for us please so it's in the open and others might see it too? Then you might get others chipping in. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not the first time Scientelensia has went to user talk pages rather than this one. I'm just going to move that discussion here. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Scientelensia (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion moved from user talk page

Moved from User talk:Pretzel Quetzal § Polanski

Thanks for your edits, appreciate you are trying to trim.

but ‘allegedly’ Isnt forbidden. At the same time, I don’t think Polanski’s voice about what he underwent is merely trivia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia- if people think it’s trivial, they can ignore it. It’s for the reader to decide. Scientelensia (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Scientelensia, I cut the phrase claiming the sessions were "allegedly" £222 as it seemed like an undue detail and either way was only mentioned as "alleged" in the cited source. I checked other sources and most attributed that number to the Sun article itself. So it's not well sourced and either way not a significant detail to include in the first place.

Similarly, I really doubt details about other body parts is a significant detail or due coverage, despite your repeated attempts to add it to the article. I think it's a trivial detail and overall not something that needs to be mentioned in a brief paragraph describing the situation.

I'm going to revert your re-addition of "however", it's best to use the neutral wording. As WP:HOWEVER states, the phrase often calls the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second, which would be a concern for WP:BLPBALANCE.

And in future I'd prefer if you'd pinged me on the article talk page and have the discussion there, where there are similar ongoing discussions about the lead with other editors. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pretzel,

I can accept the first thing. However, I don't think what Polanski himself said about the argument is simply irrelevant (or 'trivia', even if not everybody agrees with what he said, and whether he mentioned 'body parts' or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and people who don't want to read this can ignore it.

Also, the BBC article explicitly denies Polanski's argument. WP: However states that "More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." Nonetheless, in this case, the BBC source does intentionally call into question the credibility of Polanski's statement, making the addition of a word such as 'However' valid. This is what I try to explain to you in my edit summary.

Think about how a reader might approach the text (with no foreknowledge of the situation) now, without the word 'However'. They might take Polanski's statement as fact (when in fact it was proved to be false), and miss the nuance that the BBC source provides (i.e. that they said Polanski's prior statement was false). I hope that makes sense!

I'm going to raise this at the talk page and see what people think. Scientelensia (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, just to add:

I’d push back on the idea that what he said about the emails is 'undue'. Wikipedia isn’t just a minimal summary; it’s an encyclopaedia, and part of its function is to document what reliable sources have said, even if some readers consider those details trivial. In the same way, on Polanski’s own account of events, I’d strongly disagree that it should be trimmed down to the point of near absence. His account is central to the controversy, not incidental, and including its substance isn’t giving it undue weight. Scientelensia (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That is a disappointingly bad faith argument. Polanski's account of events, that he has continually repeated to the press, is included in the article: Polanski has apologised for his involvement, saying that the idea came from the client, that he did not charge for the session, that the therapy was meant to help with bodily self-image rather than physical enlargement, that the article did not accurately reflect the situation, and that he had apologised at the time.

What would be undue is including a small detail about body parts, which originates from a throwaway line in a 6-year-old blogpost he wrote, that you have repeatedly tried to shoehorn into the article for nearly two weeks. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

bad faith? Scientelensia (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

also, I've trimmed the detail, it hasn't been a consistent theme for nearly two weeks Scientelensia (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

anyway, you seem unable to contradict my WP:However argument. Scientelensia (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You've just repeated the same argument but I'll restate my point again. WP:HOWEVER is very clear this word would put undue weight on the BBC's account while questioning the validity of Polanski's account. This violates WP:BLPBALANCE hence neutral wording should be used. Deliberately trying to lead the reader to conclude Polanski's statement was false, as you've described, would be pushing one POV over another.

Also, there is no requirement for anyone to contradict your arguments or restate their opinion beyond requests for clarification. You've replied to multiple users restating your arguments or asking for rebuttals, and I'd be wary of crossing into WP:BADGERING. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, the most neutral way for us to present it is to simply state that the BBC Humberside interview re-emerged, without us inserting "However". This allows readers to draw conclusions without us forcing them to one or another, something particularly important on a WP:BLP as you point out Bejakyo (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Scientelensia (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't intend to, but be mindful of WP:Bludgeoning by replying multiple times to the same comment, replying very frequently, or repeatedly making the same argument. Bejakyo (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Bejakyo, in this edit your restored the capitalisation to Polanski's office names:

• "the leader Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales"
• "the deputy leader Deputy Leader of the Greens"

I think that contravenes MOS:OFFICE which gives the following examples of where the non-capitalised version of the office names are appropriate:

• Mitterrand was the French president
• Richard Nixon was the president of the United States
• Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom

Why do you think that lower case should not be used for Polanski's roles? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the "the"s as in line with articles like Theresa May and Nigel Farage Bejakyo (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Given that more and more text on Polanski's views keeps appearing in that section and will likely continue to do so, I believe we should consider structuring that area like in most major politicians' articles depending on each specific issue, like "economy", "LGBT rights", "foreign policy", etc. Pinemelon7 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

For instance, Political positions of Keir Starmer, just without its own article Pinemelon7 (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me! Orange sticker (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Yep, sounds like a good idea {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 18:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion. I might go a bit broader than your suggesting: Domestic vs foreign policy is probably how I'd section it for now with the domestic section likely being split up into a section economics, a section on constitutional stuff/government conduct, etc. I think splitting in domestic affairs and foreign affairs makes sense for now rather than having some subheadings with only a sentence or two in them. Ultimately not a big deal though as it's hardly uncommon Bejakyo (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, and given that there's no objections in this discussion, would you (or someone else) be able to do it? I don't know how to, not an experienced editor Pinemelon7 (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I've now done now Bejakyo (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

New Times article says:

“Zack Polanski falsely claimed to be British Red Cross spokesman

“The Green Party leader was also not a full member of the National Council of Hypnotherapy” ~2026-15498-92 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The Telegraph

You forgot to mention he also falsely claimed (i.e. lied) that he worked for the Ministry of Justice ~2026-27181-64 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe Zack's impressive CV is now getting big enough for it's own subheading. Halbared (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. In all seriousness if these stories continue and more falsehoods come to life it maybe worth a mention.

I’ve gone over the whole article and it reads like a puff piece, positive fan work. ~2026-27181-64 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I had added a few political positions to the lead but this has caused some back-and-forth, so bringing this here to decide which positions are lead-worthy, as it seems odd to have the ideology of a prospective political candidate so vaguely put, despite it having an entire section of the article (WP:LEAD: a summary of its most important contents). Listed below are the prominent positions we have in § Political views. [Beyond the wealth tax and net-zero position already discussed,] He has additionally advocated for:

1. proportional representation;
2. the abolition of the House of Lords;
3. the Supreme Court's definition of man and woman and related guidance;
4. the independence of Scotland and Wales;
5. the abolition of the British monarchy;
6. the legalisation and regulation of all recreational drugs;
7. the withdrawal of the UK from NATO;
8. the end of Israel–United Kingdom relations.

Additionally, I had added quotation marks to eco-populism, as it is not a common term and seemingly invented by Polanski himself, although in hindsight it would be better italicised. I feel 4, 5, 6, and 7 are the most relevant positions and those primarily discussed; 1 is also highly relevant to the electorate. 2 is a position taken by all politicians who it does not benefit, so not really worth noting; 3 may be DUE due to his strong stance on LGBT rights, but he has no power to change what the Supreme Court decide; 8 is prominently discussed in the article but a very specific take on foreign policy, rather than the far more broad and impactful position on NATO.

A separate note while reviewing the article: we have no mention of his positions on immigration. This is arguably the biggest factor in the present UK electoral landscape, so it seems odd to have it completely omitted. "Embracing migration to the UK" certainly belongs among those above, given how widely discussed it has been by commentators, as well as his own opinion pieces. MB2437 21:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)