Jump to content

Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Contentious Sexual assault case (summary) vs the lonely Sexual abuse case (article)

As many of us know, there has been *much* energy devoted to very few words of the summary. Desire to "get everything in there" is understandable, but doesn't produce a good summary. There may well be different kinds of summary (other than high points of the narrative) that are better, but for now, sequence is consensus.

Perhaps only when Polanski case is resolved will we be able to attempt to improve bio (Feature Article?). That is what Wikipedians should be trying to do, not "summary cramming." Proofreader77 (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Contention with contempt for quality
  • Current summary has absurd flow—with two quotes from future inserted between Geimer's grand jury testimony, and charges ... with Polanski's assertion of "consensual" "sex" immediately following list of *all* sexual acts (he's never admitted to anything but intercourse) followed by repetition of Geimer saying (in future) what was covered clearly in grand jury testimony (apparently on assumption that if Polanski gets a quote, then Geimer must have another one—despite her testimony being clear about consent.)

    And yes "denial" re Vogue Homme is back, although mention of assignment's deleted. [removed]

    Contention hash = bad quality. Proofreader77 (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use the live active system as a personal sandbox and soapbox. (As done above) It is hard enough to edit this entry with all of the required references that clutter (I do not disagree for the citing of sources here). The edits you made then reverted are truly problematic. Instead of showing facts as they are, you are making legal arguments, that are not those of the attorneys involved.
  • Saying a woman was pretty, is not mitigation for a rape. Offering that is to the readers for a stated reason of changing the readers mind to events, is wrong, and exact purpose of rape shield laws. A woman's appearance does not give anyone the right to rape them. Her being 13 are the court records in all matters. And Polanski specifically under oath said he knew she was 13 at the time of the assault.
  • Using first hand written statements of the individuals in the case, is far superior to using paid lawyer's statements, with fiduciaries obligation. 2nd and third hand sources and their opinions is very questionable.
  • Polanski's plea has never been retracted. Polanski and his lawyers had and still have that right. Currently as a matter of fact he has plead guilty to one charge, of unlawful intercourse with a minor.
Even reading your proposed edits, the problems with them are significant. Again there are real sandboxes to use. -- Tombaker321 (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • We already had this discussion. Polanski said he understood she was 13 at the time. There is no possible reason to mention how old other people said she looked. You are going to argue nonstop, and keep adding in the same crap, to try to make the crime sound less severe. Its been weeks now, I return to this article, and see the damn thing happening yet again. Dream Focus 16:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I filled a complaint about this here [1] If anyone wants to look through the archives and point to just how many times the age thing was brought up, and post links to it, that would help. Dream Focus 17:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of this Wikipedia entry (claims of two sides, deleting content, mission of a BLP, asserting bad faith, unpleasant nature of the facts)

I have recently seen three very public topics on the good faith of editorship of the Roman Polanski entry. The first was done through a combined edit, with raising it to the notice boards. The second was done with noticeboards and NPOV drive by tagging. The third is being done right now.

1. This is an encyclopedic entry of a biography of a living person. (all definitions being used, are Wikipedia's own, and rules)
2. This individual is a public figure.
3 This individual took pornographic pictures of a child seized by the police.
5. This individual is very involved with Hollywood and its entire spans.
6. This individual was arrested for drugging and anally raping, and more of a 13 year old child.
7. This individual pleaded guilty of having unlawful intercourse with a minor
8. This individual fled the court system and is now attempting to be extradited.

The above are facts, I don't believe there is any dispute to the above, certainly more facts can be entered. Some may find these facts not easy to think about.

There are repeated claims that editors are either for jailing Polanski or not. This is a false assertion on the aggregate, and labels all editors as having a bias.

There are repeated claims that there are earnest biographical editors and those that "undermine" This again is false as it a casting of the entire group of editors. Such sweeping statements are always false.

The facts of this case are grim, disgusting, and not pleasant. The matter is still very much at issue.

The job of this BLP is to correctly put factual information down on the subject. Eliminating information that is factual just for the appearance of being an impartial juror is not the job of Wikipedia. Further as a resource and having the rigorous editorial review, its a good thing that we provide authors and other readers with solid information. There is much poor journalism on this topic. For example many journalist assert there was a sentencing plea bargain, this never existed, as some strong journalist have analyzed the court record.

It is not our job to frame history or events in a light that is either positive or negative. But we should reflect events as they are, and accurately.

Some editors continue to remove items from this article that are well sourced and verifiable, and germane to the BLP. These often are removed simply saying the text is too long. Not that is biased, not that it is accurate, but just listing as the justification of removal is they don't want to see another sentence. This is wrong. Further when removed, the editors removing to not then place them where they say they should go, they seem just to delete.

We are not on two sides. Certainly personal opinion are gray scales. But as to the accuracy of the article and the well cited information, it should not simply be removed to serve any exterior purpose. For example again: When Polanski plead innocent to all the charges, and continual stated publicly and in his autobiography the the sex was consensual. This was removed because the editor thought it was not something they wanted known. This is wrong.

Good faith edits, that are accurate, and germane should not just be removed because of length issues. There is no requirement of length. Deleting content and claiming there are pro and anti Polanski sentencing, is not serving anything. Multiple assertions of bad faith, should not be the status quo of any editor. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We only have the complainants words that this is what happened, there were no injuries at all, if you were thirteen and your mother, the pushy mother that had allowed a thirteen year old girl to go alone to a photo shoot was interrogating you as to what you had been up to with that photographer and she got it out of you that you had anal sex with him you wouldn't tell your mother that you let him and you enjoyed it would you? no you wouldn't, you would say he forced you to do it. You seem to choose to display everything from the point of view that you believe only the worst case scenario in regard of Polanski..and yet you continually forget to consider that we have her words saying that previous to this incident she had on more than one occasion already taken and enjoyed Quaalude and also that as a thirteen year old she already had experience of sexual activity and has said herself that she was not a virgin at the time. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As a factual matter of law, it is against the law in all of Europe, and certainly in America to have sex with a 13 year old. No matter whatever the consent, a child can not consent at 13, as a matter of law. She was drugged. She objected. Forced intercourse is rape. Rape is not defined by conviction. Unconvicted rapists do exist. The crime he plead guilt to is Statutory Rape, we call it that now, back then it was called illegal intercourse with a minor. Polanski being not brutal to the drugged girl, is consistent with her story. Polanski was taking child porn photographs. As I said above we should stick to facts. I hope the larger content of this topic is not lost. --98.210.90.109 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
A thirteen year old who was already a sexually active and who had previously taken drugs, we are not tallking about some innocent young girl here, so there was no injuries at all consistent with rape or resistance of any kind not even anally....Her comments being the only evidence to support your position, he is saying he had sex with her and they it was consensual, actually there is a lot of evidence in support of this claim. Anyway her and her mother got a lot of money in compensation for their claims so I expect they are happy about it now. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

_____________________________________

We note the SPA's clear POV.

Samantha disagrees, she begs us stop

examining old panty stains. You see?

Remove the plastic gloves and grab a mop.

Wring out the angry ache for justice missed

because a judge went wild and joined the mob

of media. Add one more to the list

corrupted by Arendt's "the social" blob.

Society says Roman can't escape

the wages of his sins, or we'll go mad.

The system will be soiled if law lets rape

of one young girl not lead to jail for cad.

HerLawyerSpeaksForHer: There's harm to me.

ThreeDecadesIsEnough — Please let this be.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

She actually said she was having health issues, from having hundreds of reporters calling her constantly, this forcing her to relieve the horrible experience, and she not able to handle the stress. And this discussion was already had previously. Dream Focus 17:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Dream Focus. I assumed all of us are watching the news intently. If you follow the ""You see?" link in line 3, you will find that the preliminary poetic reference is to the 10 December 2009 California Second District Court of Appeals oral argument by Geimer's attorney Lawrence Silver, which we may assume has not been previously discussed. The closing couplet of the sonnet refers directly to that part of Silver's comments. (The fact that Geimer was listed as a party to the hearing was mentioned earlier on the page with links to CA Court of Appeals information on the matter. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Geimer is not a litigant, its the State of Califoria against Polanski, when Patti Hearts was kidnapped she bonded with the kidnappers, see Stockholm syndrome. --98.210.90.109 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Comparing Geimer to Patti Hearst is absurd. Geimer at no point said that she had bonded to Polanski. She has described him as a disgusting little man. She sued him. These are not the actions of a woman who is enamored. Please stop asserting psychological diagnoses to Geimer of which you have no proof. Not every victim develops SS. She has said that she has been damaged more by the media and judiciary than Polanski. She wants it to stop, hence her assertion that it should be dropped in court.Oberonfitch (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent events regarding the bail

User tombaker has removed the timeline major points that were very well cited and very relevant, the new edit that is left removes the whole story and makes it appear that Polanski was arrested and bailed, this has removed the dates regarding the two months that Polanski spent in jail, the previous edit was well written and well cited and explanatory, the new edit is worse than what was previously there. Off2riorob (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

this is what he removed ..

In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival.[1][2] His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court.[3][4] On November 25, 2009 a Swiss court accepted Roman Polanski's plea to be freed on $US 4.5 M bail. The court said Polanski could stay at his chalet in the Swiss Alps and that he would be monitored by an electronic tag.[5] The Swiss authorities announced on December 4, 2009 that Polanski had been moved to his home in the resort of Gstaad and placed under house arrest .[6]

and this is what he left...

On September 26th 2009, Polanski was taken into custody of the Swiss police under a 2005 international arrest warrant against him, at the request of US authorities, as he traveled accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival.[7][2] Polanski was allowed to be confined at his Gstaad residence on $US 4.5 M bail, as he awaits resolution on appeals filed in the Swiss court, fighting the US extradition. [5][8]

The original edit is clearly more informative. Tombakers edit has completely removed the fact that Polanski was held for two months. Off2riorob (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any support here for Tombakers edit? Off2riorob (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No. Would elaborate but must get to bed. Oberonfitch (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Off2riorb and Oberonfitch. No. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The edits are based on this guideline.

  • News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all newsworthy events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) The same information is conveyed, in half the sentences, and does not require updating as every drip drip drip of news occurs. The current version includes, true date and location of the arrest, reference to appeals fighting extradition, that are omitted in previous version.

Current:

On 11/26/09, Polanski was taken into custody at the Zurich airport by Swiss police at the request of U.S. authorities, for a 2005 international arrest warrant, as he traveled to accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival.[9][2] After initially being jailed, Polanski was granted house arrest at his Gstaad residence on $US 4.5 M bail, while awaiting decision of appeals fighting extradition. [5][10] Tombaker321 (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in the longer term the section will get a rewrite but right now the section is well written, well cited, BBC reports and very informative, there is no support here your alteration to the comments or any alteration to the section at all, I suggest if you want to rewrite any sections that you first look to see if you have any support for your position here on this talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I see no explanation undoing the edits beyond thinking the original is perfection and should not be touched. Reversion of edits does not seem to be related to content, and focuses solely on the editor, both here and within the edit explanation.. Instant consensus pronouncements are troubling. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Constant attempts by a Single purpose account WP:SPA to rewrite the content to his declared point of view is what is more troubling. Off2riorob (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I am a rational observer of facts, and edit accordingly, I do not have a statement of POV, alleging I do, does not make it so. The content and information edited in this section are objective facts, nothing POV about it. To what is objectionable remains unknown, beyond ad hominem attacks. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The shorter version by Tombaker [[2]] reads better and has more appropriate balance for an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is a tertiary source -- readers interested in more details regarding the arrest can follow the links to the primary/secondary sources. Gerardw (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Restored prior version -- more appropriate for an encylopedia. Gerardw (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
In what way is it better you have again removed detail that is totally relevant, without any consensus here on the talkpage, what is wrong with mentioning the fact that he had attempts at bail refused and that he is electronically tagged? I look forward to your reply. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS Gerardw (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
So remove the bail altogether, yes? That is news. And, of course we won't mention the Appeals Court hearing in which the vitim's lawyer spoke to drop it, that is news? ... How WP:NOTNEWS applies (especially in this unusual case) is up to interpretation. Acting as if a link and a waving of hands is a sufficient response to the current editors of the article is profoundly rude. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

<redent I'm so thoroughly sick of this that I am leaving my seat and allowing Gerardw to occupy it, whilst pointing to the copious archives that perhaps he would like to peruse in his spare time. (No offense.) It's been fun boys. 21:36, 16 December 2009 Oberonfitch (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Being held in jail and then released for House Arrest is another way of saying granted bail, its just more specific. Electronic monitor is associated and commonly assumed as part of house arrest, which is addressed in the link. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Inserting future quotes into 1977 events

  • I wish we could all rest for the holidays. Nothing about the narrative events is going to change for a few more weeks at least. The Sexual abuse case doesn't need to be fiddled with. It is a contentious narrativ.

    I've put the beginning back to the condensed version that has consensus. (A consensus that was enforced with a block against edit warring against it.) Let it be for now. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you reverting good faith edits without justification, repeatedly. That Polanski stated contemporaneously and also within his autobiography that the "sex was consensual", has been within this entry for months. You removed the content by saying "NOTE: Placing 1984 Polanski assertion that "sex" was "censual" implies admission to all acts." You have been deleting without justification the historical record, of Polanski's first hand remarks on the very topic of this section. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Consensus is concise summary in chronological order. (One editor blocked for edit warring against summary size. Continuing contention against consensus evident.)

    No consensus for inserting information from future interviews into middle of 1977 chronology.

    No consensus (and absurd) to duplicate information already conveyed by current information. E.g., Geimer's version of events is conveyed by summary of grand jury testimony which unequivocally conveys not consensual—absurd to duplicate that information with quote from 2003 within same paragraph.

    Polanski's guilty plea to "unlawful sexual intercourse" (rather than rape) implies sex without force. Polanski's attorney said Polanski plead guilty to consensual sex. (W&D)
    -- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where you coming up this stuff. A first hand report by the victim talking about 1977, is still first hand information about the topic in question. Her quotes here are particularly illustrative because they come from an Op-Ed she wrote fully intending it to be understood. The charge defined by Polanski's lawyers and the a statue, is unlawful intercourse with a minor. As has been in the article for month's, this charge is synonymous with statutory rape. As you say, "Polanski's attorney said Polanski plead guilty to consensual sex. (W&D)" This is however what you are deleting. Polanski asserted this consensual argument over and over, and Geimer sought out to specifically address it. Deleting these first hand accounts are harmful to the general entry. Rape is not defined by level of force used, or how much drugging is used to get the victim to comply. I quoted what you said was the reason, when you deleted the content. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
1) What Op-Ed piece? (I missed something, weren't there arguments that she had never written about this a couple of months ago? 2) Did you mean "statute?" 3) I thought that this stuff was supposed to be in the sex assault case, which no one is working on? (There it sits, forlorn, knowing full well that it will be AfD'd soon as an orphan, so sad.) Surely, some brave editor could rescue it? Any chance of this getting locked again? Maybe in time for Christmas? Oberonfitch (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The op-ed is a cited reference here, which Geimer wrote at the time Polanski was being considered for the Oscar. They are here words, not a reporters sampling. She wrote it to be published. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

This is to let editors know that there is an ongoing discussion of edits made to to this article at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tombaker321_single_purpose_account_at_Polanski --JN466 11:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So do we talk content here or there? Gerardw (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand support for most recent edit. Context it takes place in, however, is all others, and patterns of behavior. At the moment, you'll find relative exhaustion from discussion in context of all that's happened since arrest of Polanski at end of September (including exhaustion from conversation with one participant).

Note: flood of current events responders (heavy "child rapist!" POV required multiple locks ... with a one-week one from Oct.1 to 8).

I've been BLP/NPOV "currentevents wrangling" since 10/4, and have knowledge of editing patterns of all participants (including dynamic ips).

Bottom line: ANI is NOT about last edit—but all before. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This ANI was about a specific edit, and the ANI was concluded. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Serial killer attack

I saw the timeline on AOL which says that Polanski was attacked by a serial killer when he was 16. Anybody know anything about this? I turned to Wiki for more information, but there isn't any.

Post a link to the AOL location and we can possibly add it to the article. Gerardw (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Check this: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rower_(film) and this: http://web.archive.org/web/20070308045158/http://www.thestickingplace.com/books/dick_cavett.html

Appeals court activity

The following discussion appears on the Appeals court discussion page, and has application on this page for a better understanding of what's going on in the courts, offered by a lawyer: JohnClarknew (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Roman Polanski rape case, the news is that the justices of the 2nd Circuit here in L.A. are giving advice and suggestions about the handling of Polanski's case, and how he could avoid jail time. Is this proper? Nothing in the article suggests that this is within the job description scope of a U.S. appeals court. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No, they were discussing hypothetical situations in order to evaluate whether the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies to him. Appellate judges play devil's advocate all the time at oral argument. They'll throw out weird hypothetical situations, that is, legal curve balls, just to try to knock an attorney off balance. The point is to force the advocates to sharpen and refine the exact legal points they're making, which in turn helps the judges figure out what they are supposed to be deciding. In this case, the handling of Polanski's case is relevant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine because his lawyers need to convince the judges to allow him some narrow exception to the doctrine based on the alleged misconduct in the lower court. In turn, the judges need to pose hypotheticals about what Polanski could have or should have done in response to the alleged misconduct, in order to force his lawyers to clarify the exact dimensions of the very narrow exception to fugitive disentitlement which the judges would need to adopt to grant him the relief he seeks. But it's easy for laypersons and journalists to mistake such hypos for actual advice. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, layperson here. This one thought that Courts of Appeal are created for the purpose of appealing the result of a lower court ruling. That is, after a case has gone to trial. Are you saying that the court is open to petitions and oral arguments prior to a trial? A kind of "what if?" game? JohnClarknew (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
But if a court dismisses a case before trial, or refuses to hear the case for some reason, then there is no trial and the decision refusing to allow a trial is itself a final adverse judgment that is appealable. For example, a huge number of reported appellate cases today (probably almost two-thirds) are based on the grant of summary judgment to one side or the other, meaning by definition, there is no triable issue of fact as a matter of law. That is, the plaintiff must be able to present admissible evidence in support of each and every required element of his case. If the plaintiff, after sufficient time for discovery, can't present such evidence, then there's no need for a trial. The reason is that during a trial, at the end of plaintiff's case-in-chief, the defense would be able to move successfully for nonsuit or a directed verdict, meaning the case would never go to the jury because there is no issue of disputed factual evidence for them to decide---indeed, there's no evidence at all. The idea is that if you can't support one element of your case, the rest of it becomes irrelevant. Each and every element must be supported by factual evidence in the record for a jury's final judgment to be affirmed on appeal. So why waste a jury's time? Anyway, after an MSJ is granted, the party denied a trial (usually the plaintiff) then appeals and asks the appellate court to reverse and remand for trial. If a MSJ is denied, then a case proceeds to trial, and the parties almost always settle on the eve of trial, unless there are millions of dollars at stake that would justify the typical investment of $100,000 (or higher) to put on a show for the jury.
In this case, Polanski is appealing the trial court's refusal to hear his case on the merits because of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The court issued an adverse ruling basically saying "I'm not going to hear you because you fled the jurisdiction and failed to cooperate with the court," which itself is appealable. If the Court of Appeal finds some reason for why fugitive disentitlement should not apply and issues a writ of mandate overturning the trial court's ruling, then Polanski can then force the trial court to hear whatever motion or writ he wants to present to challenge his original plea bargain and sentence. If the Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's ruling, then Polanski can't do anything until he is extradited through the appropriate channels and remanded to the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to serve his original sentence. Once back on California soil, he's under the jurisdiction of the California courts and can, in turn, challenge their jurisdiction over him through a collateral attack, a writ for habeas corpus. Though even then, that will be extremely difficult because judges are sick and tired of reading frivolous habeas petitions from prisoners who have nothing to do all day but draft frivolous petitions. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

Offriorob, is continuing to revert well cited and appropriate edits. He has been brought to Administrators for his actions on these pages, and he has halled myself into the ANI forum, along with his cohort Proofreader77, to continually revert as a team, content they want to WP:OWN this WP entry. These continued bullying attempts will simply not be rewarded. Recent edits of content which is long established and been in the entry previously will not be removed by the teaming of editors to declare a consensus, which is false in fact, and in its assertion.

1. I am putting back the reversion which includes Polanski statement that the sex was consensual, something that is well sourced and pertinent to the topic. And Geimer statement of the her view on consensual. Polanski wrote this publicly in his own autobiography which shows the LP thought it important enough to write in his own auto-BLP.

2. The publisher of Vogue Homme denied that Polanski was on any job to take pornographic pictures of girls. As the pictures of the Geimer were illegal, and lead to a sexual assault, it is conjecture to say that Polanski was working a job, rather than doing a Hollywood Casting Couch. Leading with the unsupported claim, as if fact, is not supported by the best information we have in citations. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be a duo tag-teaming. The content you are removing, and just removed within minutes of each other, is well established, well cited, and appropriate. Instead of continuing to engage in reverting, take the content dispute to an appropriate channel. You both have a stated position of POV on this article, your POV is no justification to removing facts, that are well cited. Neither of you WP:OWN this article, while both of you seem to be attempting to ride rough shot by not adding any content, but instead only removing others content. If you have a content dispute, use the appropriate channels. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Should the following text be included in the description of the sexual assault case?

In Roman, his 1984 autobiography, Polanski insists the sex in the 1977 case was consensual. Geimer would write: "It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do."[11].[12][13] Gerardw (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Extended comments by Proofreader77 (re issue already discussed)
1. Re: Inserting quotes from years (and decades) later into 1977 SUMMARY: If you want to add more information go the the full article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. The short chronological sequence is all that is needed here. (Also note: Picking quotes is always rhetorical selection, and there are many quotes that could be used — all contentious. Save that contention for the article on the case.)
2. Geimer's grand jury testimony has just been provided. It is ridiculous to duplicate that in a statement from an op-ed from 2003 two sentences later.
3 The reason you don't stick a quote from a later autobiography saying "the sex was consensual" into the 1977 events between (or after) pleading not guilty and accepting the plea bargain to unlawful sexual intercourse (which implies consent - as Roman Polanski's lawyer has said in Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired) is "duplication of information" and rhetorical implication of covering all acts in the grand jury charges.

BOTTOM LINE: This is a short summary of a topic with it's own article. We do NOT duplicate information that is already here. AND the structure of this summary is chronological sequence — poking in quotes from the future is not sensible in this case. You want to discuss more quotes ‐ including Geimer's wanting the matter dropped, go to Roman Polanski sexual abuse case and discuss it there. But even there, loading up on quotes may cause problems of NPOV.
--Proofreader77 (interact) 01:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Include quotes from 1984 and 2003 in 1977 summary paragraph [or anywhere in summary]?
  • No - Although Polanski had been pleasantly quiet as of late following the last round of admin attention, it seems as though the perennial question on the subject of consent has blossomed forth. The reason this has been rejected in the past is that once the Polanski statement regarding consensual sex, and Geimer's contradictory statement, that it was not, are played, the article has no chance of being considered neutral. The Polanski statement, from the book I am holding on my lap as I type, cannot be considered a secondary source, primary sources to be discouraged, and the autobiography is chatty, witty, and presumably paints the situation in the best light for the author. Further, Geimer was not of an age to consent, therefore whether she yelled it or not is a moot point. (Although, according to her, she did not yell it.) The fact that the parenthetical information has been addressed relatively recently indicates the extent to which these subjects have been microscopically examined.
To summarize: This has all been discussed before. If we let in the subjective information, the article will deteriorate to the point where it is no longer encyclopedic. That the SPA Tom Baker wants to include the information and holds it so dear indicates an unfortunate attachment to the subject. There is an article for dealing with this matter in full. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Collapsing aspersion on other editors - Proofreader77 (interact) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Voting Block" forcing content removal.

Part of the dynamic that causes the need for RFC, is a voting block set. See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Recent_events_regarding_the_bail Oberonfitch, Off2riorob, and Proofreader77 will configure in rapid fire order, and then attempt to gavel any discussion that is counter to their grouped opining. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside Feedback

Photo shoot (smoking gun ref)

Photo shoot (smoking gun ref)

This edit is repeatedly being inserted and removed, what are peoples opinions on this issue, it is in the lede with is high profile. The terminology and the weight of the expressions used is worthy of comment, I also think that quatity of the citation should be discussed. Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The version that is long term..

In 1977, Polanski visited Los Angeles again to shoot photographs for Vogue magazine and was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old in Los Angeles, and later pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor [3]

The desired alteration...

In 1977, Polanski photographed child erotica he said was for Vogue Homme, a French men's magazine, and then was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old in Los Angeles. He later pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor .[4]

Comments
  • 1. Are there RS which classify Vogue Hommes as a publisher of "child erotica"?
    2. Could the photographs of Geimer be classified as "child erotica"? ...
    3. Is the smoking gun "RS" for its "commentary," or only as RS of, e.g. leaked documents? ...
    (Further comment upon request) -- Proofreader77 (interact) 00:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Cannot accept "child erotica" in the lede. Which pictures would have been used (clothed, partially unclothed, in water but above breasts), how they were cropped, the context if they had appeared in the magazine, the prevailing cultural norms in France at that time would all determine whether they fit or did not fit that category. Since none of these criteria are fulfilled, the stigmatized "child erotica" should not appear; it was not a fait accompli. 20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)
Polanski took nude photographs of a child (13), this is the definition child pornography or child erotica. The line above reflect that well sourced information by saying "Polanski photographed". He said they were for Vogue Homme, which is not Vogue, but a men's magazine much like Maxim magazine is today. The rest of the sentence are simple timeline facts. As to why to include...its an abuse to photographic little girls naked, and France sees this no differently than the US, Polanski explanation that he was hired to take pornographic images of a 13 year old does not stand up to common sense, and certainly is not reflective that the magazine denied he had a job doing it for them. This is why we can only say "he said" verse some sort of affirmative tone saying it was the case. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rollback article structure

Sometime in mid-2009 the article was still integrated showing how many/most of the items in Polanski's personal life section influenced his career. The article used to ingrate all these life developments chronologically, which to me is intuitive but not all biographies are structured that way. As is, we jump through his entire then rewind to give a "best of" tabloidy coverage. The sexual assault section has again been rather twisted to be bloated and POV but that is a separate issue that also needs to be addressed. There was an editor who strongly resisted these changes, or to be fair, changes they didn't agree with, but they have since been moved on. Other editors who were active here left because of what seemed to be a frustration of efforts. I hope those interested in improving the article will return. My goal isn't to push for GA status, although that would be lovely, as much as removing what I see as glaring article flaws that are both a disservice to Wikipedia and our readers. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 18:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately my recollections on this are very clear. The article was never organized in the manner which you state, until by your single hand you completely revamped and changed the entire article structure. I had to point out that as WP:STYLE calls for, the entire layout of the article needs to have substantial cause and rational to do a change. It seems clear you want to put your version in the place of all the collaborating editors that went before. As you say above people resisted and disputed the changes you put in, and to which you are now advocating for. As to not do that again, see: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:STYLE#Stability_of_articles
The layout of the article is not nearly as important as the content within the article. Much about the movies is in the form of movie reviews, when those films have there own WP entries. I don't think anyone has objection to improving the content, and regardless of the style that work needs to be done.
Regarding Polanski's history in the criminal courts: that historical record is not counter to BLP, and the facts of it...are proper. While it seems fashionable to call out anal sex with a drugged child aged 13 as she protested---> as tabloid, it remains ...and is the subject of an international extradition involving France, the Swiss, and the USA.
You have said in various admin forums recently, that there are BLP problems with this WP entry. You again state this as it has some sort of weight. I would welcome the discussion of what you feel are BLP violations.
I certainly don't want to sign off to the kind of changes you did before, and at least you have raised this time be just doing it. There were a lot of discussion talking about style to have the article where it is now. You can certainly review those also.
I am not sure what you want to be the POV of the sexual assault case. I believe it should be factually and historically correct. It is far from bloated considering that it is a true international incident involving appeals courts in two countries, and documentary film makers making statements to Judges. Recording historical events is not best served by being hyper focused on 400 vs 550 words. --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Prior to the whole sexual assault case, and the related movie about the case, The early life section and everything else was chronological. It has been changed a few times back and forth since them and frankly everyone seemed to give up as changes were met with this kind of opposition. This proposal would move the ealy life section back to where it was before the sexual assault case was made widely known again. This would put Tate's murder section chronologically showing how it influenced his work/career afterwards. Same with the sexual assault which you so colourfully describe as "anal sex with a drugged child aged 13". We do misrepresent the facts as we know them by reliable sources - both the source and content that he was doing a photo job for the French edition of Vogue has been removed, even the tabloids would include that. Regardless the case itself influenced his career yet we separate the two as if they didn't. The big outcry against it last time was that the change didn't go through a big process first but that editor has since been banned. Can you justify keeping his entire personal life separate when there is no doubt that his personal life greatly influenced his career? If not I think we should look at what a change might look like and how to move forward. -- Banjeboi 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1. The biggest problems I personally had with your major revamp was the sectioning removed. The entire document became interwoven to where you could not easily pull out information. By having section on groupings like the Vanity Fair, or his movies, or his wife's truly horrific murder, we give readers accessibility. I have no objections, at all, to reorder the intact sections. For example his early life, as a block, can be moved anywhere where felt most appropriate, but I believe it critically important to have the blocks as they stand.
2. Regarding showing how events may have effected Polanski, this is all Original Research. If we have sourced information, certainly its appropriate to use. But concluding that event X happened first, means that event Y was reflective of even X is Original Research. Polanski wrote an autobiography talking about what motivated him, I have no objects to using that as source material. We simply do not know how his personal life effected his career, beyond that he was not able to return to the UK and USA. Again if you want to move titled blocks, intact, in a different order, I think that is entirely reasonable, and would think a well reasoned proposal with gain easy support.
3. The Vogue section still appears in the first paragraph. I have a problem with this being included there, without the NPOV counterbalance. Polanski was taking child (under 14 years of age) pornographic images, there is no dispute that the images were taken. The magazine itself denied, at the time, to investigators, that Polanski was on any assignment for them. Certainly the child nudes being taken were not suitable for any magazine, international or otherwise. The is something well known practice in Hollywood were producers and film makers use a casting couch to have sex with the participants. Polanski's ultimate actions are more reflective of this, rather than to be working a real job. I have made no attempt to include this, but lets get real, he abused his position of authority to compromise the girl who thought she might be cast for a role. To explain that he was working on a photo shoot without explaining Polanski's actions of creating child pornographic images is a disservice. Since the magazine specifically denies Polanski was working on something for them, it is further not appropriate to include the information without it being counterbalanced to be impartial.
See: Child grooming, in the context of this article, refers to actions deliberately undertaken with the aim of befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, in order to lower the child's inhibitions in preparation for child sexual abuse. Child grooming is also used to lure children into sexual exploitation such as child prostitution or the production of child pornography.
4. Continuing to assert that Polanski sexual assault section is somehow not proper is counter to what you say the goals should be to the reader. Polanski conceded under the advice of attorney that he had sex with a 13 year old girl, to which he was fully aware of her age at the time of the event. We know what was testified as to what sexual acts were committed. While the court case may have been placed into limbo, the actual events do not have great dispute. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see these problems in the article at all, there is a fair NPOV in the article now and multiple changes for this unspecific (non existent) issues would only assert someone else's' POV on an article that is pretty fair as it is and that has been fought over repeatedly to bring it to this pretty stable state. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree, that others give up is not the best way to stabilize an article. And I certainly don't see the assault section as NPOV but II'd rather fix the more glaring problems in hopes that they best way forward on retrimming the assault section could again be looked at. We have an entire article devoted to it but our choices of what is summarized here is a bit suspect IMHO. -- Banjeboi 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1. I do not understand your entire reason to trim the assault section. It seems you want to remove details, but are unclear on why. You continue to assert here and in other forums that the assault section is not NPOV. Why is that? Should be something be added, is something not correct? I have some concerns in what was recently added about Geimers Op-Ed because its factually wrong, and is attributed to a 3rd hand summary, when the actual document exists. HOWEVER, everything else in the Sexual Assault section is just simple facts, what happened, and when. I suppose you could argue that we should not say the 13 year old girl was protesting during all of the sex acts, but what does that serve? The victim even as adult never recanted her story, and always maintained the sex was not consensual. And that is what she said in her Op-Ed, not that he should be allowed to accept an Oscar, which was not yet determined. (details, she simply thought he should be allowed to come to the USA to attend)
2. So with that one exception of the Op-Ed characterization, I don't see how the Sexual Assault section is anything except the factual records. I also see that this section is very brief considering the complexity of the event. Se how brief it is in comparison for example to an entire 2 hour documentary on the topic. If the only goal is to peal of 3 sentences, that has nothing to do with NPOV. If there is a NPOV problem it remains totally not spoken to. Continuing to assert a NPOV problem here and to various Administrator forums, is a disservice to Wikipedia and its editors. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is long term stable and has support for its general situation and content, I don't support any major changes at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob while I appreciate your opinion that you think this article is set in stone, it is not. I suppose that since you say major change, you are not adverse to changes that improve the article. You have a tendency, by examination of your edits, to attempt to want to be a gate keeper and owner of this article, with your only contributions being reverting. I need to remind you that you do not WP:OWN this article, and that reverting as you do often, moves to edit warring.
As I said to Benjiboi I think that an entire reweaving of the article to intermingle sections as was done before is too much of a jump to take as was done before.
HOWEVER, I fully support Benjiboi in any desire to move intact sections into new sequencing (for example moving early life to the top of the article). If Benjiboi wants to add content I will likely support it, provided its balanced. I will continue to tend to not want to have content deleted, solely for brevity purposes. Removing redundancy or rewording to make sentence less wordy is always fine. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with Benjioboi's comments. I also agree that the article is not set in stone. Consensus changes, and the apparent stability of the article could be the result of a lack of objection, rather than unqualified support. Who knows? I generally favour a chronological approach. I think the article should intermingle his personal and professional "milestones" (for want of a better word) as they are clearly intermingled in his life, at least to the degree that everything makes sense to the average reader. For example in the middle of the career discussion is "Unwilling to work in the United States after 1978 for fear of jail, Polanski continued to work in Europe." Unless you already know about Polanski's sexual assault case, the placement of this sentence makes no sense because the details of his sexual assault case are covered later. On the other hand, if the sentence is removed, there would be nothing to suggest that his career was hampered by his exile. It's a tricky thing, but if we just give a rundown of his career, it doesn't address the very unique circumstances under which he worked. Some time ago, I updated the career section to place the murder of Sharon Tate into the context of his career. It's still there, so I guess nobody objected to it enough to remove it. Maybe something similar is needed so that the timeline and the cause/effect aspect of his work/personal life of this period, is clear in relation to his sexual assault case. Maybe the career section could be broken to pre-sexual assault case and post-sexual assault case. I'm not sure what would be the best approach, but I don't there we are there yet. Rossrs (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Roman Polanski → Roman Polański — A search of the talkpage archives turns up no recent discussion of this. I think the page should be moved to Roman Polański. Here are the various relevant details:

  1. His career first took off in Poland.
  2. He lived in France to age three, a few years around age 30, and since age 45. He lived in the UK and US for about 15 years in his 30s and 40s. Otherwise he lived in Poland, including his formative years.
  3. From the article: However, Polanski found that in the early 1960s the French film industry was generally unwilling to support a rising filmmaker whom they viewed as a cultural Pole and not a Frenchman.
  4. Other language Wikipedias seem more or less split on this matter.
  5. Another photo of his signature with kreska (here's the one from the archive)

— ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is the first time I have seen his name presented in any other way. It is possible that I am being swayed because the proposed new version just appears on my screen with a box, which I find rather annoying, but if my computer can't support this diacritic then this is probably the case for other people. PatGallacher (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • wiggles fingers Agree if there's a redirect from the current spelling, but the link and article could be easily be make to work the other way. Most USAians are not going to type the diacritic mark (heck, most of them don't know what one is, let alone that there might be one in his name!) htom (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whether anyone has a hard time rendering a ń is irrelevant. The question is whether there is a convention in English-language sources for writing his name. There is, and it is without the accent. Britannica, for example, uses the accentless version[5], while in the same article writes Kraków for the city he grew up in. It also omits the accent in his name on the same page it retains it for Pedro Almodóvar[6].--Atemperman (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per current spelling being the common spelling of the person's name. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Obvious. . .

In 1969, Polanski's pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered while staying at the Polanski's Benedict Canyon home above Los Angeles by members of the Manson Family.

should be:

In 1969, Polanski's pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered while staying at the Polanskis' Benedict Canyon home above Los Angeles by members of the Manson Family.

M. Walther69.217.49.249 (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The last name is "Polanski" and does not end with an 's'. If it ended with an 's' - "Polanskis" - *then* the apostrophe after the 's' would be appropriate. As it is, the apostrophe placement is correct. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The "s" is there to make "Polanski" plural. The correct way to form the possessive case of a plural noun in the English language is to put an apostrophe after the "s". "The Polanski's home" is equivalent to "the home of the Polanski", which is obviously not what is meant. "The Polanskis' home" however means the same as "the home of the Polanskis". The earlier poster is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Would someone who is able to do it mind moving the apostrophe to the end of the word, where it belongs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.121.207 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose trimming lead

After mentioning his assault case in the lengthy lead, the following material, with numerous cites, is added, which goes beyond the "summary" purpose of the lead.

"To avoid sentencing, Polanski fled to his home in London, but quickly moved on to France the following day, and has had a U.S. arrest warrant outstanding since then,[6] and an international arrest warrant since 2005.[7] Polanski avoided visits to countries that were likely to extradite him to the United States. In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police, at the request of U.S. authorities, when he traveled to receive a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival.[7][8][9] The United States formally requested his extradition on 23 October 2009.[10]"

By including such news-related trivia in the lead it distorts the tenor and focus of the article. I propose removing this excess material, which is already in the body in any case, with even more cites.

  • Support --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are four paragraphs in the lead. All of them show what he is most well known for. His starting career and who he is, the murder of his wife, his rape of a 13 year old, and then what he has done since then. It doesn't make sense to erase only the paragraph which contains information most people are looking for. The number of hits this article got after that was in the news, did increase dramatically. And the lead does as a lead should, telling you who the person is, and what they are most well known for. Dream Focus 08:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Note that WP:Lead actually says the lead should include any notable controversies. Dream Focus 08:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead generally needs trimming - too much detail all round. It should be a summary of the information in the rest of the article, so it certainly shouldn't need citations. But I don't think the solution is to remove this particular passage in its entirety.--Kotniski (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Lead mentions his movies too much, while some of the highlights may be listed, or just a sentence with all the films, each seems to to want to have it mentioned as unique. How it could be re-written while doing jusstice to significant films to film historians, I don't want to say. However the first and second paragraphs are on films, the first goes over the Pianist, and the entire 4th paragraph is repeating but in more detail what the first paragraph says on the Pianist. The duplication of the Pianist information lead is low hanging fruit for shortening the lead.
As to the specific quoted section, to which is the topic which Wikiwatcher has always wants minimized in size....here are what I think can reasonably snipped out from the Lead.
Removing the text in BOLD NEW TEXT IN ALL CAPS
"To avoid sentencing, Polanski fled to FRANCE his home in London, but quickly moved on to France the following day, and has had a U.S. arrest warrant outstanding since.[6] then, and an international arrest warrant since 2005.[7] Polanski avoided visits to countries that were likely to extradite him to the United States. In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police, at the request of U.S. authorities, when he traveled to receive a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival.[7][8][9] The United States formally requested his extradition on 23 October 2009.[10]"
So it would be this vs the first quoted:
To avoid sentencing, Polanski fled to France, and has had a U.S. arrest warrant outstanding since.[6] In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police, at the request of U.S. authorities, when he traveled to receive a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival.[7][8][9][10]"
I think all the cites should remain. The logic is he was traveling through London, it was not his destination. The information on the warrant does not need the deI tail of the international side, he had a valid arrest warrant on him from the USA, that is all the reader needs to know. It is unclear and not well sourced if Polanski did much beyond avoid the UK and the US, he clearly went to Switzerland which does have an extradition treaty, so saying he avoided these many countries, is not born out, and without enough strength for meaning to be in the lead --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


I think that in the beginning of the paragraph it should state 'In March 1977...' and then when it talks about his leaving before sentencing it should be added somewhere that it was in August 1977. As it is now, it sounds like he immediately left the country and that is not what happened. He did 42 days of 90 in a psychiatric jail and was released pending the sentencing.

Contradictory new allegation

Right now, actress Charlotte Lewis is cited with having been molested by the directory when she was 16 years old, and 4 years after Polanski had fled to Europe. According to this article, Polanski fled in 1978, so 4 years later would mean 1982. Lewis was born in August 1967, thus reaching the age of 16 only in August 1983. What do we do with those obvious contradictions? Are there any wiki policies tackling regarding such problems? --Catgut (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

After waiting for about 48 hours and without having provoked any answer, I've decided to remove the paragraph the credibility of which seems to me rather unclear. I think WP:BLP is to be respected: "BLPs... must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Btw, the possible harm could also include actress Charlotte Lewis. --Catgut (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Whip it out and we'll talk about it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This well sourced article gives specific quotes from a previous article where Lewis specifically denies and gives alternate versions of what she is saying now. The context of what she said in the previous article is very much related to a sexual relationship. Given these loud contradicts, there is no way the current charges, should be shown without referencing her prior statements. Her lawyers says clearly that charges were never made back at the time, saying its unknown is not correct. Lewis would clearly know what was done, and she denied it to her lawyer. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/324256,polanski-accuser-gave-different-version-in-previous-interview.html Long story short...at this time these allegations do not have enough substance to show, when they do, it can be addressed then. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems rather ridiculous to remove mention of Charlotte Lewis altogether. After all, the allegations were made by Lewis herself, so the suggestion that including them would somehow be harmful to her is silly. Secondly, given Polanski's history and his current legal situation, a person making such public allegations should certainly be included in the article. It does not seem to me that including material that is now appearing in multiple news outlets in any way violates BLP. Off2riorob's concerns that it could violate BLP are unjustified, and Tombaker321's argument that "these allegations do not have enough substance" to be included is clearly contradicted by the general newsworthiness of the comments themselves. It's also fairly silly since the allegations are mentioned at both the articles for Lewis and for the film itself.144.81.85.9 (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Which of Ms.Lewis' public comments would you have to be included. The ones where she said she would have liked to have a relationship with him, but did not. Or the one where she says she seduced him. There are 3 stories, no police reports, and Gloria Allred refusing answer the basic question if her client is shopping a book deal. Its all very suspect, as well as the very very late timing of the disclosure 9 months after the event. I am no defender of a confessed child predator, but this woman motivations and contrary remarks, do not have enough weight. If she testifies as an impact witness in a court case she may well rate more consideration of inclusion. It would seem at the current pacing that the Swiss Judges are going to not extradition, as the food dragging seem to be more purposeful that required by the internal bureaucrat slow process.
See http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/so-thats-three-different-stories-from-polanskis-latest-accuser-20100519-vf36.html --Tombaker321 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The Guardian clears things up rather well. [7] Sometimes young rape victims end up in a relationship with their abuser apparently. And she'll deny anything happened, that common for abuse victims to do. The fact that she once had a teenage girl crush on him, and wanted a relationship, doesn't mean she'd consent to sex with him. We should report someone who provides a balanced detail, not just taking one side or another, but instead like the Guardian did, explain they don't know what happened yet, but you can't dismiss it outright based on certain things. Dream Focus 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The whole Gloria Alread thing messes up any use of this reference given she has had multiple stories in interviews in the past. If she wanted to help the police in the current case she could have given testimony to the police and just done that. Instead she goes up their with Gloria to do a press conference. Reflecting every accusation won't do, and this one was done by a lawyer not in the court, but a lawyer trying to sway public opinion. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Instead of a link to a YouTube video of the 60 Minutes interview with Roman Polanski, there should be a link to where it is officially legally hosted at the 60 Minutes site. [8] A lot of their stuff is on there. Lot of stuff to sort through to find the right one which is the appropriate interview. I don't think you should use YouTube links when there is a copyright violation involved. Dream Focus 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to find a link, although this is an older interview. But are you saying for a fact that any YouTube recording of a TV show is always a copyright violation? My understanding was that YouTube (Google) had their own system for removing copyrighted material, so that it was at least reasonable to have a link to a program under a presumption of acceptability. I sometimes add links when they provide a reliable source of information to support an article, so the question is important. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
News sources such as CBS place these old interviews into the public domain by choosing to not cause the removal of them from Youtube and other "tube" sites. There are ample means for CBS to check and remove content they dispute, and with stored checks, it won't more than only part of one employees time to check. For content they want on Hulu.com or there own site, they do cause the removal. So without CBS hosting the bandwidth themselves, and it not on the 60 minutes website, I see no issue with the inclusion of this type of link. As it is an interview he granted, it seems appropriate. --Tombaker321 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The name of the Swiss Minister

{{editsemiprotected}} Someone please change Eveline Widmer-Stumpt to Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf!!! It's embarassing. Fabiovh (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done: However, you're an autoconfirmed user, so you could have edited the article yourself. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse Section - Swiss Rejection of Extradition Request.

The current information in the sexual abuse section give great detail on portions of what the Swiss said was there basis for the denial of the US request. However it is not at all balanced by the US perspective. This makes it appear not NPOV in my view. Problems include. 1. There is a dispute of whether the documents were requested or not. 2. It a large change from standard extradition requests, the Swiss evaluated the merits of the case, and the punishment used. They speculated that the 42 days of evaluation could have been the entire sentence. That speculation is defense argument for matters that have not been determined in the courts. In this way the Swiss became a judge of the case, to which the US was not allowed to argue against. This deviation from standard means of handling extradition requests is already being speculated to have a lasting impact on other cases.

Here are some of the concerns on the other side of what is currently written:

The Swiss government said its decision to reject extradition was partly based on U.S. authorities' failure to turn over transcripts of secret testimony given by the attorney who originally handled the director's case. The testimony "should prove" that Polanski already served his sentence with the court-ordered diagnostic study, the Swiss Justice Ministry said.
The main issue appeared to be how the Swiss government expanded its focus beyond the formalities of the American extradition request to pass judgment on allegations of misconduct by Los Angeles authorities.
"This was an admission that when higher interests are at stake, not everyone is equal before the law," wrote the widely respected Neue Zuercher Zeitung newspaper. "Some are a bit more equal."
Another Zurich paper, the Tages-Anzeiger, called the Swiss decision "shaky."
"It breaks with the tradition of only examining the formal correctness of extradition requests," it said. "Perhaps the new practice will in the future also benefit detainees who have less of a lobby than the world-famous director."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwv8qKQSMIhfdh2oT7hD0TeXDMpgD9GUC3O80

ALL of this does not explain why Polanski skipped out of his sentencing hearing, if he believed he had served his sentence, and when he quite capable lawyers representing him before the judge.

So I see the rational used by the Swiss to be controverted and biased to the defense agreements, which have never been tested before a court of law. To where these arguments were argued, the Judges refused to grant their merit. The method the Swiss used to determine the extradition request is entirely new. So I believe these sentences in the section either need balancing of the two sides, and or pared down. Others thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, write to your MP or get a soapbox. Apart from that, we should add that he has has all his bail conditions removed and he is free to move around Europe as he desires, he has also been given his millions of dollar bail bond back and that Americas claim for extradition was so failed and weak the the judge also told them they could not appeal. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Absolute rubbish, law courts gave preferential treatment, utter twaddle Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. You say it's twaddle. But many media organisations are giving coverage to the view. Which should take precedence, media allegations reported or the opinion of Off2riorob? I would have thought the former. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to carefully cite them. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It will all be worthless opinion, the story is , extradition request, sent to jail, appeal, lawyers, result.. adding jonnys opinion that this and that is all rubbish imo and irrelevant. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Says you. Let's see what the sources say about how the Swiss have handled the Polanski criminal charges saga over the coming days. I agree with the editor above that this is likely to bring more NPOV to the article. This is a very controversial subject and US views of what has happened are as notable European views. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Carefully cited quotes from reliable sources as to widely published controversy about a BLP are allowed. The original research of editors is not allowed. Cite sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I would also be highly, highly wary of characterizing any outlook as "European" or "American" without a straightforward citation to a source. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, nor would I do so in the article without sourcing - here, I was referring to the media snippets discussed in this segment immediately above. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
An editor's original outlook on a BLP isn't allowed on a talk page, either. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Was that last one aimed at me specifically Gwen? I have understood the point about not using the R word. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the pith is, you can't put forth your own original thoughts, in any way, on the talk page of a BLP. If you have more questions about this, please post them on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gwen: You are being needlessly cryptic with your recitation of rules, while at the same time not reading the sourced and quoted information above. It's obfuscation to this discussion, to speculate what editors could do - but is not happening now. Original research OR is clearly defined, as is BLPTALK related to making content choices.

Gwen: Please read the sourced and quoted material above. That is the discussion for here. There is a clear controversy about the method of the Swiss decision, and its unique special treatment, which may set precedents for other extradition requests. After you read the sourced material in this topic, I would welcome your contributions beyond that of rote recitations, as if bot. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Tombaker, if you have questions about the BLP policy, you're also welcome to ask them on my talk page. You're also welcome to cite sources which have published reports as to any controversy. Meanwhile, please don't make rash assumptions as to what I may or may not have read. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, again, the discussion here is the manner of balancing the NPOV of this article as it stands. The source and points are listed above, yet you have not offered any contribution to the specificity of them. You are simply not working in this talk space for the betterment of the article, (ie you are not remarking on the specific discussion, and don't understand the context), then it would be most proper to share referrals to policy pages, only on individuals talk pages, rather than this working group. Perhaps you can have a peer or mentor, read your interaction here, to help you understand. You are certainly squashing the dialog by using your admin role, in this stifling manner --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. For what it's worth, the Swiss newspapers had mixed views regarding the decision. Generally, the French-language papers praised it (but the Geneva paper criticized it), while the German-language papers criticized it. I heard (but don't have citations) that there was heavy criticism in the US papers. Maybe that should be summarized in the article, with appropriate citations. Separately, this section is pretty much identical to the separate article Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case. Wouldn't it be better to give the detailed account in the separate article and only a summary here?--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Liebling / Polański

This aricle contradicst itself. The lead says Polanski is an "artistic" name, which – I suppose – means a pseudonym. The lead and the infobox also suggest that his birth name is Liebling. The Early life section says he was born Polański and that his father had changed his name from Liebling to Polański before Roman was born. Could someone please check the sources and correct this? — Kpalion(talk) 19:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Did some checking:
"He was born as Raymond Polanski, because his father had discarded his own original name, Liebling. . . . For most of the Nazi occupation he was known as Roman Wilk (Wolf), a suitable name for the little Catholic he would become when hidden by Polish families." Roman Polanski: the cinema of a cultural traveller By Ewa Mazierska p. 15.
The same name details are confirmed in Roman Polanski: A Life in Exile By Julia Ain-Krupa, p. 1:
"His father, Ryszard (a Polish Jew who worked in plastics and who was an aspiring painter,) had moved to France not long before (he was now Polanski, but had formerly been Liebling, another word for 'darling.' He fell in love with and married a Russian Jewess names Bula Katz, who was divorced just as he, and had a daughter, Annette, from a previous marriage. Together they had Roman, making the family complete."
Can modify with consensus --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ name="Verschuur2009-09-27">Verschuur, Paul (27 September 2009). "Polanski Arrested in Switzerland on 1978 U.S. Warrant". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 27 September 2009.
  2. ^ a b c Agence France-Presse (27 September 2009). "Polanski arrested in Switzerland: festival organisers". AFP. Retrieved 27 September 2009.
  3. ^ "Film director Roman Polanski refused bail in Switzerland". London, UK: Telegraph.co.uk. 6 October 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-08.
  4. ^ Federal Criminal Court of Switzerland, Entscheid vom 19. Oktober 2009, II. Beschwerdekammer, Geschäftsnummer: RR.2009.308
  5. ^ a b c "Swiss court grants Polanski bail in US child sex case". The BBC. 25 November 2009. Retrieved November 25th, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  6. ^ "Roman Polanski begins house arrest at Swiss chalet". The BBC. Retrieved December 4th, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  7. ^ name="Verschuur2009-09-27">Verschuur, Paul (27 September 2009). "Polanski Arrested in Switzerland on 1978 U.S. Warrant". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 27 September 2009.
  8. ^ "Roman Polanski begins house arrest at Swiss chalet". The BBC. Retrieved December 4th, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  9. ^ name="Verschuur2009-09-27">Verschuur, Paul (27 September 2009). "Polanski Arrested in Switzerland on 1978 U.S. Warrant". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 27 September 2009.
  10. ^ "Roman Polanski begins house arrest at Swiss chalet". The BBC. Retrieved December 4th, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  11. ^ Geimer, Samantha (23 February 2003). "Judge the Movie, Not the Man". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 7 December 2009.
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference WTCIFTC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Roman; Roman Polanski, Pan Books, 1984; ISBN 0330285971, 9780330285971.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_12&oldid=1137162484"