Talk:Zack Polanski

GPWiki1969, you keep removing "David Paulden" from the lead paragraph while marking that as a minor edit. Please read WP:MINOR. That is not a minor edit. It is misleading to label it as a minor edit.

If you think the lead should not say "David Paulden", feel free to explain your reasoning here so that we can have an open discussion about it. Bondegezou (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I did think for a moment it could be a privacy thing perhaps, but the fact it is mentioned by reliable sources, and seemingly that Polanski changing his name seemed to be a point of pride as opposed to something he choses to keep personal indicates to me that it's unlikely to be a privacy issue. Bejakyo (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that the 'politics' section should be split into two headings such as:

1. Political career
2. Political beliefs and views

Flarehayr (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It can't have been 2016 when he stood for them in 2015, surely? ParallelSmokies (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bejakyo: Why have you restored the "other ventures" section? As I explained when I removed it, MOS:BLPCHRONO tells us to present information in chronological order. SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

MOS:BLPCHRONO is reffering to us to making sure events are laid out chronologically within sections. Bejakyo (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

No it is not: In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. SmartSE (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Here: Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. Bejakyo (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes it read that, but the sentence I quoted says that the entire article should be chronological. SmartSE (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Not quite. It's saying broadly a biography is chronological, but that the content within sections. It's pretty common for bio articles to not have sections ordered broadly in that regard by not strictly so. I don't recall ever seeing an article where contents within a section are not-chronological however. This makes sense as the MOS says Bejakyo (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous - the meaning is very clear. Just look at Keir Starmer, Boris Johnson etc. The only sections not chronological are political positions and personal life. There is no good reason for this period of his life to be buried in "other ventures" instead of prior to his political career. SmartSE (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Smartse. This article should be structured like other politicians'. Bondegezou (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be accidently missing some comparisons. While one article you mentioned is indeed as you say. Many articles have a non-chronlogical order of sections, there's also other sections such as Boris Johnson having a section on "public image". Siân Berry has a section regarding her advocay. Nigel Farage has a section on his broadcasting bellow his political positions and above his personal life. Richard Tice has a seperate section on his election results. Caroline Lucas her writing at the bottom. Most Notably seems to be Ed Davey which also has an Other Ventures section. Just to name a couple. It's clear that the guidence is primarily about a chronological outline of content within sections, and all of these articles comply with that, focusing on the topic of notability. Bejakyo (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

So what? None of that seems like a relevant comparison. We're talking here about a bunch of things Polanski did before entering politics that can be presented chronologically, as is the norm on other articles. Bondegezou (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree we should have stylistic consistency between one article and the next, but as it stands this is already the case if you look at other politicans articles. Bejakyo (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. In none of the examples given are those sections covering the person's biography prior to entering politics, which is how the section is being used on this article. That is clearly inconsistent with other articles. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It is indeed the case. I'd encourage you to revist the articles listed. The advocacy section on the article on Sian Berry for example takes place prior to the career in the Green Party, but is obviously not the cause of her notability. It's consistent with other articles Bejakyo (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Berry's work as a medical copywriter and then a roads and sustainable transport campaigner for the charity Campaign for Better Transport are under early life. Polanski's work as an actor and hypnotherapist should likewise be under his early life. I've edited the article accordingly. Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have missed what's being reffered to here. Again taking just the Sian Berry article (which, as you're aware, is not the only article on a politican) has the section on advocacy. The section to which I am reffering can be seen here Siân Berry#advocacy, and again is not the only example of such an article. Priority is given to the cause of notablity which is their role as political figures I've reverted for the time being accordingly to align with other articles. Bejakyo (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned with where we describe Polanski's pre-politics jobs. On Berry's article and most every other politician's, these are done early in the article, chronologically. Bondegezou (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

He mentioned on BBC Newsnight having a partner of 8 years, Richie, who works in palliative care. (Richie joined him on stage at conference in 2023, and Zack also thanked him in his leader victory speech). Would this be considered “relevant”? ThatOtakuGuy37 (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I've thought this too. I don't recall coming across any written source talking about it, thought have seen it in broadcasts as well as social media videos from Polansi. I'm not sure we can source broadcasts for this stuff either way (mostly as I normally only use written sources). If we can get a written source I believe it's relevent for a brief mention.

Would encourage anyone who knows about citing broadcasts to add their input Bejakyo (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Source here: Pink News. I think it meets the criteria under WP:PINKNEWS as a reliable source. Orange sticker (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I was of the understanding that prior names get bolded in the lead, as the common name of someone does. I may be misunderstanding so happy to be corrected if so Bejakyo (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

MOS:B applies. "David Paulden" redirects here, so under MOS:B could be bolded, but it's not a requirement. I won't debate the point if others feel it is better bolded. Bondegezou (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah gotcha. In that case, I'd say either way is ok Bejakyo (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

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)