Talk:Roman Polanski

Notice of continuing early, and prudent, discussion archival

Due to excessive disorganization and material volume some current discussion and open issues have been archived.

As always, conscientious editors are directed to the archives indicated on this page, including the most recent[1][2][3] and asked to familiarize themselves with the community discussion on the topic, and any previously researched references of potential use.

Re current bot archiving, see #Archiving of talk page (performed by bot) below (with more elaboration at #Archive).

(Reminder) Do not manually archive large chunks of talk page indiscriminately. Let the bot handle that by timestamps. (Specific topics may, of course, be handled on a case by case basis by, e.g., administrators for specific cause.)

(Note: Temporary very low "old" parameter will soon be adjusted up from 3 days to 5 or 7, depending upon discussion traffic load.)

Poland/Soviet history mentions

Amidst relatively unsourced recounting of European history in the article, I have reverted completely changes made under an edit summary saying they were to correct "anti-Soviet bias" which removed Soviet mentions.

My edit summary was:

“ (rv changes which removed mere mention of Soviet co-invasion of Poland (which facilitated the German success) It is not "anti-Soviet" to factually record history - including (in passing) the imposition of communism /I..E. rv "no-Soviet" whitewash) ”

NOTE: While the information added (while "Soviet" was subtracted) may be accurate, there is no source provided, so let's not continue writing our own versions of World War II history without sources as we may have been slack about so far. ALSO NOTE: I restored a version of the page before two consecutive edits of the changer even though the second was apparently innocuous—an imperfect procedural choice, but treating the two edits as being ostensibly under the banner of the initial "anti-Soviet bias" edit summary, chose to simply revert to page before changes etc etc).

The Partitions of Poland issue has already been raised above, and I am not well-versed in controversies around the phrase "Roman Catholic," so there may be discussable matters here. My action in reverting was prompted simply by the erasing of "Soviet" from a context where Soviet should not be erased—not because of bias, but simply because of historical fact. yada yada yada

No intention to start a long discussion of those matters here (plenty of more recent controversy to deal with) ... but whatever. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct reverting the removal of historical information. WW2 started with the invasion of Poland by the Nazi Germany and allied with Hitler at the time - Soviet Union.--Jacurek (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless the parts of Poland where Polanski lived were under soviet occupation, this has what to do with the article? Also, the soviet union was NEVER allied with hitler. The Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Hitler. If they were allied, then the soviet union would have entered the war against Great Britain. WookMuff (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

See Invasion of Poland (1939), and respectfully suggest that unnecessarily combative responses regarding information already in the article be drowned in coffee or alcohol rather than spilled onto the talk page. (Personally, I write my harshest rants in a sandbox to save the community from too much of me. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see also [[4]]--Jacurek (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Learning so much tonight. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In neither of those links does it say anything about germany and russia allying. Again, it is a non-aggression pact. Even the secret part says nothing about an alliance of forces, production, ever common will. The secret part says "if somehow these things happen, well we will make sure that the border is here" WookMuff (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

“ From the beginning, the German government repeatedly asked Joseph Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov to act upon the August agreement and attack Poland from the east.[60] Worried by an unexpectedly rapid German advance and eager to grab their allotted share of the country, Soviet forces attacked Poland on 17 September. It was agreed that the USSR would relinquish its interest in the territories between the new border and Warsaw in exchange for inclusion of Lithuania in the Soviet "zone of interest".

By 17 September 1939, the Polish defence was already broken, and the only hope was to retreat and reorganize along the Romanian bridgehead. However, these plans were rendered obsolete nearly overnight, when the over 800,000 strong Soviet Union Red Army entered and created the Belarussian and Ukrainian fronts after invading the eastern regions of Poland ...

”

More? (Perhaps someone can read the articles to you? :)Proofreader77 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"the German troops handed operations over to their Soviet allies.." is actually a much better quote, showing the two forces working cordially together, which is what I was after. What you quoted was "two countries attacked a third country at the same time". So, unless the soviets took over Krakow in the invasion (they didn't) then this is still completely irrelevant. The Post WWII Eastern Bloc stuff, sure, but not the invasion. Germans invaded Krakow, Germans put Polanski in a ghetto, Germans sent his parents to concentration camps. Soviets did lots of other bad stuff, but it wasn't to Roman Polanski. And again, please stop trying to bait me, its against both WP:TPG as well as WP:CIVIL. I am sure you think you are being clever, but you really aren't. WookMuff (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully suggest you spend more time there to save the community from too much of you. WookMuff (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the last part of the change of Abram Schlimper, reverted by Proofreader77. I earlier gave my comment on this matter:

"The addition "During the Soviet imposed communism in Poland," (Jacurek, 29 dec 2008) is off-topic and should be removed. No relevance of this addition to this biography has been shown neither is it evident. This addition drags the article without reason into the East-European political problem zone. Otto (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)"

The same argument goes for the revert from Proofreader77. Otto (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski's life includes:

• Childhood under Nazi's
• Later under (Soviet-imposed) Communism (i.e., behind the Iron Curtain)

Poland was invaded by Germany and the Soviet Union—we are not dwelling on the matter, but it is absurd (or other descriptor) to remove "and the Soviets" from that reference (especially with a rationale of "anti-Soviet bias.")

Yes, I was surprised to find this kind of contention here, but so be. Falsifying history is not the way to deal with contention.

Relevance (bottom line): Polanski's early life was affected by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union—to delete "Soviet" references cannot be justified.

As for historical additions ... insert them with references, AND with an appropriate edit summary (i.e., not implying history-erasing "bias"). [EDIT TO ADD: My underlining of "with references" was not to say I am a stickler for references on every sentence (although that is perhaps the ideal), but rather to stress the special importance of them when the edit summary and elements of the edit indicate a bias—which would reasonably lead to the impression that anything changed should have a reference to check. END EDIT]

As for a mention of Partitions of Poland, I noted the earlier objection (which was objected to) ... and my first thoughts were that yes, mother born in Russia but not Russian (but Polish) how to say that best ... and it struck me that the mention of Partitions of Poland handled that matter. The best way? Still open to discussion. So we disagree. (And someone else disagreed I believe—will check the archive) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [EDIT TIMESTAMP: Proofreader77 (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)]

@Proofreader: My point was specifically the last part of your revert about "soviet-imposed communism". You give no explanation how this circumstance influenced his personal development. He made "The pianist" about the Nazi-occupation, but no reflection is mentioned about the political situation in post-war Poland. He was one of the privileged able to travel to the West. Since a justification is lacking this biography is now abused for anti-soviet rhetoric. Otto (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason Polanski left Poland was the Soviet imposed communism there. He left just like other millions of Poles to look for a better future outside the iron curtain. Also, all Poles, unlike others behind the iron curtain were able to travel abroad.--Jacurek (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

@Otto (Quick response for now, must go offline) - Inclusion of information about someone's life does not require a rationale of how it affected their life. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

please continue discussion (except current responses) in fresh subsection

Discussion re "Soviet" [and "communism"] information inclusion (cont)

"Soviet" information is necessary due to the fact that it was the main reason Polanski left Poland back in 60's during communist times. If he stayed in Poland his talent would be most likely lost due to communist censorship and overall communist oppression. His mother was also born in Russia because Poland did not exist at the time due to the partitions and Russian domination. Second World War also started with the invasion of Poland by the Nazi Germany and (lesser known fact) the Soviet Union. Did Polanski's family fell under the Soviet zone in 1939 they would maybe survived the Holocaust in Siberia. All these facts are necessary for the greater picture but if editors decide to re move this historical details I would understand. I would also like to point out to the editor who described this as anti-Soviet undertone that these are just historical facts not aimed and anything.--Jacurek (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence Polanski left home country for mostly political reasons and not, for example, to pursue his career on a larger European stage? That could be so, but there is certainly nothing, as the article presently stands, to back up that assertion. And most importantly the article shouldn't try to educate readers about World War II or Occupation of Poland, but only mention these events as they relate to Polanski's life. Does it matter where Polanski is concerned whether the Polish regime was Soviet imposed or not? None at all. This is such wording that creates the impression of the anti-Soviet bias I'd mentioned.

The Soviet entrance into the German-Polish War, and it is well established, made no impact on the outcome of the war and came after the Polish army had been crushed with only few separate pockets of resistance remaining and no chance of fighting Germans back. Had Polanski's family lived in Lwow, Brest, Wilno or other town annexed to the Soviet Union or Lithuania, then, yes, their lives would have come under Soviet influence and that should have been covered in the article. But in Krakow, whether the Red Army entered Poland or stayed put had no influence whatsoever. Moreover, «Poland was invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.» as the sentence goes, implies simultaneous German and Soviet attack, which is simply misleading.

Abram Schlimper (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• [NOTING TECHNICAL "EDIT CONFLICT" WHEN INSERTING THIS ITEM: Jacurek had posted his comment above while I was writing this item]
  Item: Polanski's probation report. (Just noting this quickly for now due to my familiarity with current issues.) As described by the New York Times Arts blog: "the probation officer went on to describe a culture clash that occasionally occurred when creators from Europe fled the Nazis and Communism to reside in Los Angeles." NYT (NOTE: I must now turn my attention offline, will return later) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland phrasing

Siebert's response/analysis and proposed phrasing(s)

Re: "From the beginning, the German government repeatedly asked Joseph Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov to act upon the August agreement and attack Poland from the east" This phrase from another WP article [5] is supposed to be supported by the document from the Avalon project[6]. However, this document (von Schulenburg's telegram), as well as other Avalon documents, is a primary source, so it can be only quoted. No interpretations of primary sources are allowed in WP.

Below is a full text of this telegram:

"No. 317 of September 10
Supplementing my telegram No. 310 of September 9 and with reference to telephone conversation of today with the Reich Foreign Minister.
In today's conference at 4 p. m. Molotov modified his statement of yesterday by saying that the Soviet Government was taken completely by surprise by the unexpectedly rapid German military successes. In accordance with our first communication, the Red Army had counted on several weeks, which had now shrunk to a few days. The Soviet military authorities were therefore in a difficult situation, since, in view of conditions here, they required possibly two to three weeks more for their preparations. Over three minion men were already mobilized.
I explained emphatically to Molotov how crucial speedy action of the Red Army was at this juncture.
Molotov repeated that everything possible was being done to expedite matters. I got the impression that Molotov promised more yesterday than the Red Army can live up to.
Then Molotov came to the political side of the matter and stated that the Soviet Government had intended to take the occasion of the further advance of German troops to declare that Poland was falling apart and that it was necessary for the Soviet Union, in consequence, to come to the aid of the Ukrainians and the White Russians "threatened" by Germany. This argument was to make the intervention of the Soviet Union plausible to the masses and at the same time avoid giving the Soviet Union the appearance of an aggressor.
This course was blocked for the Soviet Government by a DNB report yesterday to the effect that, in accordance with a statement by Colonel General Brauchitsch, military action was no longer necessary on the German eastern border. The report created the impression that a German-Polish armistice was imminent. If, however Germany concluded an armistice, the Soviet Union could not start a "new war."
I stated that I was unacquainted with this report, which was not in accordance with the facts. I would make inquiries at once.

SCHULENBURG"

I see nothing in this telegram that contained any references on August agreements.
I'll remove this sentence as OR and unsupported by the source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the desire of some Polish editor to put an emphasis on the not very well known fact that Poland was invaded by both Germany and the USSR, however, sometimes this goes against a common sense. The present text:

"The Polański family moved back to the Polish city of Krakow in 1936, and were living there in 1939, when World War II began. Poland was invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
German Nazi racial and religious purity laws made the Polańskis targets of Nazi persecution and forced them into the Kraków Ghetto, along with thousands of other Polish Jews."

is simply confusing, because it is not clear who occupied Kraków, the German, the Soviets or both. In my opinion, it would be more informative to write that

"The Polański family moved back to the Polish city of Krakow in 1936, and were living there in 1939, when World War II began. Kraków was occupied by Nazi Germany whose racial and religious purity laws made the Polańskis targets of Nazi persecution and forced them into the Kraków Ghetto, along with thousands of other Polish Jews."

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would make one slight change, changing "when World War II began. Kraków was occupied" to "when World War II began. Poland was invaded, with Kraków occupied by the Germans" or (if this doesn't please) "when World War II began. Poland was invaded by both Nazi German and Soviet forces, with Kraków occupied by the Germans" WookMuff (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't see any fault with Paul Siebert's original suggestion, and unfortunately can't at all agree with Your "Poland was invaded by both Nazi German and Soviet forces.", for it's simply incorrect. Poland was attacked by Germany (and a small Slovakian force was also in tow); the Soviet Union popped in, when Poland had already been in death throes, to grab its part of the loot. Your version misconstrues it to look like Germany and the Soviet Union had an equal share in the dismantling of Poland. Abram Schlimper (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My issue with Paul Siebert's original is that anyone simply reading it doesn't know poland was invaded, as the invasion is mentioned in a link. Hence my suggestion to mention the invasion then mention the german occupation of krakow. My second suggestion was an olive branch to people who are stuck on pointing out that the soviets took control of half of poland even though that is of no importance to this article. Please try to assume good faith. WookMuff (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say, occupation sort of implies invasion, but upon thinking about it, see that you were probably right and there was need for clarification.

Can't withstand the temptation of offering my own variation on the Paul's version:

The Polański family moved back to the Polish city of Krakow in 1936,[1] and were living there in 1939, when on September 1 World War II began. Within the first week of the war, Kraków was occupied by the invading German Army. German Nazi racial and religious purity laws made the Polańskis, targets of persecution and forced them into the Kraków Ghetto, along with thousands of the city's Jews.

Even if I could assume that they are acting in good faith, their insistence on dragging barely related political issues into the article violates the neutrality policy, hence making it impossible to accept it. Abram Schlimper (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

@Abram Schlimper Do you assert:

• Do you assert that ~800,00 Soviet troops did not enter Poland around September 17, 1939 (after the Germans invaded around the 1st, having agreed about a rough division of Poland between them six days before? Whether that agreement did or didn't exist actually is little consequence to me. Divvying up Poland by agreement had been historically popular, but without agreement could have the same result ... and add the sporting element of who gets where first, gets it. :)
• Or, do you assert that their entry was to defend Poland from further German invasion?
• Do you assert that the Soviets had no interest in bringing about a communist government in Poland?
• Or do you assert that, yes, but in a good cause, and the Polish people approved of the choice and so cannot be said to have had communism imposed on them?

I joyfully admit ignorance of history in this matter ... and only am interested in this topic because I learned on this page that the Soviet Union sent troops into Poland, too. (For whatever reason.) History has not been kind to the Soviet's choices ... but history may not be kind to the United States either (since it displays not only ignorance but stupidity of many a profound kind). Which is to ask (strangely and long-windedly) for you to make me less of an ignoramus. (laughing, but seriously). Proofreader77 (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

@Proofreader77 Though your questions are hardly related to our main debate, I'll answer them:

1. No, the Red Army did cross the Polish border on September 17, 1939

2. No. The Soviet Union was concerned that Germans would occupy all of Poland in spite of the agreement.

3. The Soviet Union was interested in a friendly Polish government, Communist or otherwise.

4. Only in the same sense as Christian Democrats were imposed on West Germany and Italy. Poland had a long standing Socialist tradition and war devastation created highly favourable conditions for the upsurge of radical left not only in Poland but in many other European countries. Abram Schlimper (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

@Abram Schlimper Thank you for putting up with my odd set of questions. I was trying to understand where we disagree about facts (although my understanding is only from vague remnants of my education in the United States). For an "American" to say "Soviet-imposed communism" is, as you might guess, not imagined to be anything other than stating a "fact." For example, I only recently Googled up this New York Times article, and, I think can see, that the idea of Soviet imposed communism in Poland is as normal as the idea that the sky is blue.But, because of your response, I have read more carefully (here on Wikipedia), and I understand a bit more—but I have to admit that the bits I've read in Wikipedia would not yet dissuade me from the phrase... but I've got a lot to learn . While I am certainly not happy to have raised the specter of an ugly bias (however unwittingly), I have learned much from the simple fact of how vividly you saw a bias that was invisible to me. (EXCUSE RAMBLING) Subtracting the mention of "Soviet" from the article STILL feels wrong to me. "Communism" is mentioned in passing in Polanski's probation report that recommended no prison. Hollywood as community of artists ... escape from the constraints of Communism etc (something like that). An American thing. But so is his trial. So ... the bias lies in America. Repeating, but again, Polanski is now "at the mercy" of America ... which ponders his life as having been partly shaped by "Soviet-imposed communism. lol (haha Thought I was through rambling). Again thanks,and I hope I've made clear where my bias comes from, and why the article may not escape some of it ... because Polanski is bound by America's perceptions—and even when "biased" some perceptions cannot be simply wiped away. (Think I need to finally go to bed.:) Thank you again. Proofreader77 (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

@Proofreader77You are most welcome.

I reckon that probation report is your pet find, but seriously it doesn't make for an applicable argument. It does mention people fleeing from communism and fascism in broad context of famed Hollywood diversity. But we know Polanski didn't have, figuratively speaking, to hike mountains to leave Poland. So far, the only thing he had run away from was not Polish "Communism" but American Law. ;-) Moreover, I would say, it's far more likely his habits and attitudes stem from having bohemian parents and then hanging out with the artistic circle of Paris than from growing up in Poland.

If you think "Soviet imposed Polish Communism" is so common knowledge (and that's probably how it is) then it's even less explicable why you are positively bent on retaining it against objections of several contributors. Abram Schlimper (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

@Abram Schlimper (1) New York Times arts blog) quotes the probation report's mention of "communism"—this was part of the argument for granting him leniency in an American trial.

"the probation officer went on to describe a culture clash that occasionally occurred when creators from Europe fled the Nazis and Communism to reside in Los Angeles."

(2) For his early films he had to get permission from the Office of Censorship (I'll find thesource) while American film artists could be blacklisted for appearing to be communists. :) (1+2=3 not SYN, lol) Americans care very much "communism" (duh), and so artists who were subjected to it and escaped it have that mentioned with respect to them. That mentioning is PART OF HIS STORY ... as he faces the reach of American justice. (Stopping there for now ... ) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

@Proofreader77 That's a trick phrase, a clever art many lawyers, journalists, and politicians are used to employ. Look at it closely and You notice there is only an allusion to Polanski but he is not mentioned specifically by name. And for the simple reason that it would make the statement untrue.

Before the mid-60s censorship was a remarkably common beast: BBFC in Britain, Breen's Office in the United States and etc. Not a state censorship, of course, but the difference was mostly not in the result. And, of course, to paint a complete picture we shouldn't forget notorious producer interference. Polanski was fortunate to arrive in Hollywod just at the time of major cultural shift that significantly loosened things up. Overall, creative freedom was just as rare commodity in Hollywood, as in Poland, and those who don't believe it just look up what happened to Welles, Orson. Abram Schlimper (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

@Abram Schlimper You would have to indicate which phrase is "trick" to interpret your response, but assume you mean the NYT's summary from the Probation Report which is a document recommending no incarceration for Polanski, so we can assume mentioning is meant to apply to Polanski—and it is not Polanski's attorney or a journalist mentioning it, but the probation officer. As for mention of the censorship office, do you assume Polanski was exempt from having to call it to get script approval? (And I myself mentioned the existence of other censorship of the period.)

But in any case, you do not have my agreement (for reasons I have stated at great length) ... but we can take this to dispute resolution later. Your removal of "Soviet" mentions is noted for the record (contrary to the historical record). NO FURTHER COMMENT AT THIS TIMEProofreader77 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

@Proofreader77 The phrase I was referring to is: "...when creators from Europe fled the Nazis and Communism to reside in Los Angeles." It doesn't matter to me but by all omens it does to you: These are not the words of the probation officer; they belong to NYT journalist Michael Cieply. The actual report says nothing of the kind. One way or another, I wish to reiterate — Polanski hasn't "fled Communism." If you believe otherwise you either have to find a passage in the current Wikipedia article to support the contention, or to bring in outside evidence. Cieply cleverly uses the plural "creators" as it can be interpreted as a group which both include and doesn't include Polanski. Certainly he means readers, who are not familiar with details of Polanski's life, to assume the former, while the latter is the truth. And, of course, the phrase is designed to trick unaware into believing it to be part of the report.

I've never claimed Polanski was exempt from Polish censorship, you wrote I did; merely pointed out that the American film industry (you've only mused on blacklisting) had been working under censorship conditions for more than 3 decades, and even after censorship was replaced by the current rating system, directors still must find a producer and financing before they can shoot a film. And then money people and producers would posess clout to interfere with the director artistic vision and a final say about how the film would look like in the theater, the phenomenon of director's cut releases is just a ready proof of that. To sum it up, lack of creative freedom couldn't be Polanski's motive for leaving Poland as he would be dealing with essentially the same hurdles had he went to France, Britain, or USA. You need to come up with something far better then that to support the persecution and escape assertion. Abram Schlimper (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• @Paul Siebert Excuse my slow acknowledgment of your carefully researched response. It is delightful to see an elegant intellectual move in the discussion—unfortunately I have just now (at 3:AM) had time to notice it ... and I will need sleep before I ponder it. For tonight, I will simply say thank you. Proofreader77 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  Follow-up: Still pondering/reading/learning. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• @Paul Siebert Let me put it this way. Yes, you are right. BUT (there always is one, isn't there), if someone had not erased "Soviets" from the sentence here on Wikipedia while I was watching ... I would know less than I know now. Yes, the little known fact of the Soviet troop movement into Poland (lagging) the German invasion ... was a "surprise." Surprises are good for the brain, even if the first thoughts may be dumber (in some way) than before.

  MY POINT, is (and yes, skim that slew words I've placed under Partitions of Poland somewhere on this talk page) ... that Germany AND the Soviet Union ... are the nations that had a profound effect on Polanski's life's trajectory during those years. Removing the word "Soviet" may lead to a less-prone-to-confusion sentence ... but such a sentence may not the best sentence for allowing an interested mind to learn something beyond the expected. (Too many words, as usual.) Still pondering the phrasing, but again bless you for bringing your insights and presenting them clearly. I am learning. You are helping. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• @Proofreader77The problem is I just can't find in the article or elsewhere nothing to demonstrate in any obvious way that the Soviet Union played a major part in shaping Polanski's life.

Let us consider, for example the war period, and let's imagine that the Soviet Union opts to stay put. How would that alter what had happened to Polanski and his parents in the years 1939-1945?

I wonder if the following version of the contested passage would be agreeable to you and we will be able to put the question to rest?

The Polański family moved back to the Polish city of Krakow in 1936,[1] and were living there in 1939, when on September 1 World War II began with the German invasion of Poland. Within the first week of the war, Kraków was occupied by rapidly advancing Wehrmacht. German Nazi racial and religious purity laws made the Polańskis, targets of persecution and forced them into the Kraków Ghetto, along with thousands of the city's Jews. Abram Schlimper (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. (See my response above, and all my previous comments. Our disagreement cannot be resolved by further filling the talk page in repetition. We can see DR later.) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputes, here we go.The matter will probably have to go to Dispute Resolution, though I find it remarkably profligate to waste all this time over what is really a minor edit.

The same relevance argument comes up again and again for the plain reason that you've never actually countered it other than saying that part of the article has been this way for the past 10 months!

Your position has problems on at least three levels:

(a) You were never able to how the Soviet annexation of Eastern Poland affected Polanski;

(b) If you considered the opening events of WW II so defining in Polanski's life as to advocate going outside the scope of the article and give the outline, then you'd have to explain why you were being so selective about what to include. French failure to help their Polish ally and attack German positions while the main part of German Army was engaged against Poles, for instance, was the only thing that could possibly save Poland from utter defeat, yet it's not mentioned. Soviet entrance, on the hand, had no bearing on the outcome of the war but was given prominence;

(c) As Paul Siebert pointed out, the version you want to be kept in the article is highly confusing for the average reader. Abram Schlimper (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

But, the soviet invasion of poland had absolutely no bearing on Roman Polanski's life at that time. The Soviets didn't occupy krakow, the Soviets didn't force him into the ghetto, or force his parents into concentration camps. The soviets took over AFTER they pushed the nazi's back in like 1945 or so. Until that point the Soviets had no bearing on Roman Polanski. Later on, when Polanski started going to Film School, the Polish United Worker's Party had been ruling Poland for almost 10 years and, while they were surely a stalinist organization, and no doubt had their puppet strings pulled from Moscow, that is still neither here nor there. Unless it can be proven that communists from the Soviet Union had ANYTHING to do with Roman Polanski, it is incredibly irrelevant. WookMuff (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Irrelevant," again? Your thoughts are hung in a loop. Try writing putting your thoughts in sonnet form. The rhyme shall set you free. (Hopefully. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Film school (under communism?)

The mention of communism in the sentence about film school is under contention. (Recently brought to that condition by the removal of "Soviet-imposed communism" as "anti-Soviet propaganda.) NOTE: There is some discussion of this in [bottom of this main topic] notes on edits made while the discussion is underway, but that is for annotation of [editing] events rather than discussion, which we will have here.

Rationales for removing mention of (Soviet-imposed) communism from sentence on film school have been:

• "Anti-Soviet bias"
• "Irrelevant." "The fact that communism was forced on the poles, while true, verifiable, and npov, doesn't belong in this article. This article is about ROMAN POLANSKI." [Edit summary:] "Incredibly irrelevant. Spielberg and Lucas studied in the late 60s/early 70's but neither mention nixon/civil disobedience/hippies"

Rationales for keeping mention of (Soviet-imposed) communism from the mention.

• Biographical fact (i.e, it is a fact of his life that his film school education was under communism.)
• Effect of communist policy/ideology on art schools. (And art schools under communism have somewhat different contours than those in Los Angeles. etc Consider "socialist realism" and other communism-related concepts in 1954.
• Probation report mentions "communism"

Pausing there for the moment. (Quick first draft of this). Proofreader77 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Partitions of Poland" mention (why?/because!)

“ His father was a Polish Jew and his mother, born in Imperial Russia due to Partitions of Poland, was brought up as a Catholic as she had a Jewish father and a Polish Roman Catholic mother.[18][19][20] ”

The underlined has been deleted recently with the argument that since it refers to a 1700s events it is irrelevant.

Even if it couldn't (as it can) also allude to other divvying up of Poland between nations, it makes you pause and figure out something you won't if you just read that his mother was born in Russia. His mother may have been born geographically in Russia, she wasn't meaningfully Russian, but Polish who happened to be on the other side of a dividing line of authority.

Imagine an inquisitive student reading along. His mother was born in Russia. The student will be led to a false assumption. As I would have been if that line about Partitions of Poland hadn't been in there.

Removing the mention, creates a misleading impression. Damages the article.

But look back to "Even if" and look at the introduction of Partitions of Poland where it says "4th" which can refer to later divisions—including the one dividing Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939.

ONE passing mention of Partitions of Poland alludes to something that is appropriate to understand—Poland has been contested territory historically ... and the affects of that contesting caused mother to be born on one side of an arbitrary line ... father on the other ... and both be Polish. And though they ended up Paris somehow (which I haven't read yet), they went back to Poland ... to face getting in the middle of another PARTITIONING ... in which the two splitters would both affect Polanski's life.

I assure you no good biographer with any sense of telling the story well would omit that if they knew. YET here on Wikipedia, the mere shout of "irrelevant" deletes what would inspire many to understand far more than they would ... by that simple link (now gone).

For shame. Yes, for shame. The 'beauty of Wikipedia lies in the ease which a few surprises can come your way, by way of a simple link. The deletion is not evil, but it is ugly—and, of course, easily transcendenable.

NOTE: I have just fallen into this bit of knowledge, and I may have some things wrong. I'm sure someone will tell me if I have (if they have the patience to read all this. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that, though, is that it really IS irrelevant. Wikipedia uses hyperlinks just so that every on-topic piece of information that doesn't belong in the article may be accessed, rather than thrown willy-nilly into articles where it isnt needed, such as mentioning the invasion of poland rather than the invasion of poland by german and soviet forces. Furthermore, I don't think that we should even LINK to articles that are completely off topic, as with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact link that I deleted the other day. WookMuff (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I graciously extend to you the opportunity to re-read what I have said. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(Ref) Notes/comments re edits made amidst "Soviet"/"communism" discussion

[keep this sub-section at bottom of main topic]

Collapsing edits-made-during-discussion contention notes

Note - Edit with attack edit summary (Reverted) Edit made with attack edit summary (asserting bad faith - and itself indicating bias), has been reverted. All elements of factual change will be discussed. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Please stop reverting over this, ask for a third opinion or a RFC or whatever if you can't agree. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC) (My) Reversion was for edit with attack edit summary. (Another editor reverted the non-attack edit summary revert). I (too) have made a 3RR advisory—and will now invite the editor to this talk page discussion.Proofreader77 (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Ok, it would be a pity to see the article locked down again. I am lucky as I have no idea what the problem is, well I know it is a nationalistic issue but that is all. have a chat, find a compromise. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Note - WP:POINT edit to article (see edit summary) by 99.142.x.x The un-sourced commentary may or may not be accurate. The edit summary is asserting it should not be in the article. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [EDIT TO APPEND]: follow-up edit to insertion - re "Anne Frank" Proofreader77 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Note - re-removal of Partitions of Poland mention by 99.142.x.x without talk page participation. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC) My edit dealt with events of 1795 unrelated to Soviet Russia. Are you now arguing that this is Polanski related? Are we to discuss Polish national history and old debate about whether it even existed in 1795? Many RS and verifiable references state that Poland was an artificial state created in the 20th century. Is this really necessary here? 99.142.8.221 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC) That issue is also under discussion (see my initiating message for this topic). And advise slowing non-stop multiple edits. AND You may soon be subject to WP:3RR violation. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC) I see nothing there. Please spell out how events of 1795 are either Soviet or Polanski relevant here.99.142.8.221 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [YES, WAS LATER RESPONSE/COPYING HERE] "As for a mention of Partitions of Poland, I noted the earlier objection (which was objected to) ... and my first thoughts were that yes, mother born in Russia but not Russian (but Polish) how to say that best ... and it struck me that the mention of Partitions of Poland handled that matter. The best way? Still open to discussion. So we disagree. (And someone else disagreed I believe—will check the archive) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [EDIT TIMESTAMP: Proofreader77 (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)]" [SIGNING COPY: Proofreader77 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)] While going to change the partitions of poland thing (I was thinking to handle it in a similar way as, say, george washington's page (on the family's Pope's Creek Estate near present-day Colonial Beach in Westmoreland County, Virginia.) when I looked at the references given. I couldn't find any mention of his mothers birthplace in either of those references (though as one editor pointed out I had a habit of skimming). Also, the second reference, on which a whole lot of the religious information is based, appears to be a website of religious citations, which are totally useable, but we should be careful about using any summarization or synthesis from the article itself. WookMuff (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC) NOTE - Removal of information under discussion by WookMuff (Note edit summary - and removal of time frame from beginning of sentence.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Follow-up I have reverted the edit by WookMuff My edit summary is: "Undoing edit removing mention that Polanski attended fim school under communism NOTE: Edit summary when removed: "Incredibly irrelevant. Spielberg and Lucas studied in the late 60s/early 70's but neither mention nixon/civil disobedience/hippies" Proofreader77 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Follow-up WoofMuff has undone the reversion Proofreader77 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Follow-up I have reverted (2nd) WookMuff's undoing. My edit summary (please excuse misspelling of "WookMuff"): "(2nd reversion of Wuffmuff's new undoing- Information has been in the article (I believe) for most of past 10 months. How to phrase this is discussable, but deleting mention as irrelevant is absurd. e.g.,"Communism" is mentioned in Probation Report.)" Proofreader77 (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Follow-up WookMuff has reverted (2nd) my reversion. Edit summary: "Still irrelevant" Proofreader77 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Note If you spent less time whining and pointing out things trying to get people in trouble, you might be able to improve the article. WookMuff (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Your removals: Removing information from the article as you are doing is not improving the article. Documenting what is happening is part of the process. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Note - WP:BB. The fact that communism was forced on the poles, while true, verifiable, and npov, doesn't belong in this article. This article is about ROMAN POLANSKI. WookMuff (talk) 00 15, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Why isn't the fact that Polanski attended film school under Soviet Communism relevant? It could have shaped the skills he has in making films. Why I see no need to expand on that issue(unless Polanski has), I see no reason why the line "During the Soviet-imposed communism in Poland, Roman Polanski attended the Polish film school in Łódź, and graduated in 1959" should not be added. DD2K (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC) (re WookMuff)False/Absurd Your assertion would only be true if Polanski was, e.g., Australian, and his family was from a long line of rabit hunters. See my note about the probation report—even that mentions "communism." The circumstances under which one grows up is part of someone's biography. Germany and the Soviet Union BOTH affected his life—he was born 3-years before the invasion by both nations ... and his life's path was shoved around by two nations. I.E., Don't be absurd. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I find your anti-australian bias High offensive. WookMuff (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC) (Noted) That the mention of the honorable work of rabbit hunting is considered a slur on those so-employed (of whatever nationality). ;)Proofreader77 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Note - Please don't forget to answer the question “ I see nothing there. Please spell out how events of 1795 are either Soviet or Polanski relevant here ) ” I am seriously interested in why you seek to include OR regarding the events of 1795 in a Polanski article.99.142.8.221 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Question(s) (re Partitions of Poland issue) (to begin response/examination of issue) [1] (Wondering) Did Roman Polanski's mother speak Polish? (If so, why?) (Now, I must go offline for awhile) NOTE: If someone suggests that information about someone's mother does not belong in their biography, I will again again respond: "Absurd." :) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC) (Don't answer my rhetorical question down here - see new sub section above edit notes)

Rapist categories

Consistency again As noted above, there needs to be discussion about Category:French rapists. Here are my thoughts:

1. If he is in Category:French rapists, then he should be in Category:Polish rapists. This seems entirely non-controversial.
2. There is some misunderstanding of what constitutes rape—specifically statutory rape. I have been told on some talk pages that "[s]he came onto him... which makes him a paedophile, not a rapist." This is irrelevant to statutory rape. Also, someone else has told me, "he is not a convicted rapist" therefore, he should not be in these categories. As far as I'm aware, this is also irrelevant, e.g. Category:Murderers reads "The following lists people who have allegedly committed murder." Since he has been alleged to have committed rape, as far as I'm aware, he belongs in these categories. Whether or not he is a convicted rapist is contingent on the legal relationship between "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" and statutory rape. I do not know what this is, nor is it apparently relevant, unless he is going to be put in Category:Convicted rapists (which does not exist.)
3. Since the intro text to Category:Murderers and Category:Rapists appears to be in contradiction (i.e. is a conviction necessary? What constitutes "most historians [concluding that the subjects] have committed the crime?"), there should be some discussion and consensus about these criminality-based categories.

If you need to respond to my comments and get my attention in particular, please post on my talk. I only plan on checking in on this discussion occasionally. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

He is not a rapist so it is irrelevent, he is neither a polish one or a french one. Someone should make a satutory rapist cat, otherwise he is out of the rapist cat. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No You are contradicting yourself as all statutory rapists are rapists. Therefore, if he is a statutory rapist, he must be a rapist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What? Statutory rape is a catch-all term which had no legal meaning in 1978 in california. Denied. Is Polanski a rapist? sure. Can we say that in a category? Nope. It is possibly libelous, and as such goes against WP:BLP WookMuff (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, I'm gone for five minutes and an edit war pops up. I love it when this happens! OK, how about we leave all the accusations of rape out until it's officially, definitively proven? I mean, in this situation, the least controversial option seems to be the one to go for simply to avoid... well, you all know what happens when you call someone a rapist. So, let's go for the least controversial. Avoid calling him a rapist until it's proven. Or does this option prove impossible for those who hate the idea of him being anything but a complete monster in their eyes? --LordNecronus (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith, Lord Nec, after all I think he is a complete monster but I deny this category belongs here. WookMuff (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

He's not a complete monster. If you think this guy's a complete monster... well, I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, so I'll just mention Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin instead. You think Polanski's just as bad as them? --LordNecronus (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A dude once said "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me". I don't think that its about degrees. I don't think that being less of a monster than Pol Pot means you are a little ray of sunshine. John Wayne Gacey was a birthday party clown, and he raped and murdered young men. But because he isn't up to your standards he is a groovy fellow? WookMuff (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not a contradiction, it is a legal issue, he is not a rapist, he has been found guilty of unlawful sex with a minor, actually that is the cat that would be fitting, however people who are under the legal age of consent are considered to be unable to give consent so there is a term to express that and it is stat rape, however it is muddy ground and not what he was convicted of, rape, where I come from is attacking a woman and forcing yourself on her, usually involving violence, otherwise where is the forcing. Polanski is not a rapist by that definition, not by a long way. Off2riorob (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. See, at least someone has the right definition of "rapist". --LordNecronus (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, re: the example with category:murderers, go look at O. J. Simpson WookMuff (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Using drugs and alcohol counts as rape. Having sex with someone below the age of consent counts as rape. He is a rapist. Different states may call it by different names, but it clearly the same thing. And she did not come onto him, so stop trying to blame the victim here. If you feed alcohol and sedatives to a 13 year old then have sex with her, you are a rapist. Rape is defined having sex without consent, and consent can not be given if the person is drunk, drugged, and underage. Dream Focus 03:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

thats certainly one definition. WookMuff (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Its how the word is defined in every dictionary I know of. [7] with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent Dream Focus 03:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Statutory rape" is by definition rape. He was convicted of having sex with a 13-year old, which is legally considered rape because a 13-year old cannot legally consent to sex. "Statutory rape" (which is not a legal term) is not something different from "rape-rape" (not a legal term either). There's no question he's a rapist in the legal sense. He is widely described as a child rapist by reliable sources as well. Urban XII (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Most any definition of rape includes the denial of consent to the act by the victim. The girl that Polanski raped said no, therefore consent was not given and the act can be clearly defined as rape. If Polanski raped someone he can then be clearly defined as a rapist. This does not apply any subjective definition of rape, but an objective one. There are many legal definitions with the American justice system, but this site is not a part of that justice system. Calling him a rapist is merely an apt term. This does not say that rape is right or wrong but just that he is a rapist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.111.77 (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: IP99 got a 31 hour block for repeatedly inserting the child molester cat [[8]] without consensus.Off2riorob (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

He got it for reverting edits too often, there a 3 revert rule. The punishment has nothing to do with the content of what he added. And I believe consensus is now that it should be there, I reverting someone who removed it. Dream Focus 10:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all. I would suggst that no one inserts it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Do yo still deny that the guy is a rapist? Have the arguments of those above convinced you? Dream Focus 10:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You reverted back "Category:Convicted child molester". He was not, as previously discussed, convicted of child molestation. He was charged with it, but was convicted of the lesser "unlawful sexual intercourse", aka statutory rape. The question as to whether or not "Category:Convicted rapist" can be inserted, which is what is being discussed here, is a different issue, and depends on whether or not statutory rape can be equated with the "rape" in that cat. - Bilby (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rapist is a word charged with a lot of meaning, its a lot stronger than say "person convicted of statutory rape". It may be true, but its also incredibly imflammatory, biased, and against BLP WookMuff (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We also need to consider whether [Category:Statutory rapists] should be added. WP addict 0 (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems worth noting that a great many of the sources used in this article specifically do use the word "rape" to describe his actions. Moving Category:Rapists to Category:Convicted rapists specifically to avoid placing it here seems ridiculous, especially in light of the fact that no one seriously disputes the events or conviction in question -- the quibbling, it seems, is entirely over definitions, and seems to be dominated entirely too much by people pushing a variety of agendas. Now, I note that "unlawful sexual intercourse" redirects to and is generally described as "statutory rape" (see Google); I also notice that we have a category, Category:Statutory rapists. Indeed, this information is relevant to Polanski's biography, and indeed, such information would generally be included as a matter of routine on a Wikipedia biography. Still, I'm not sure how anyone can keep a straight face while arguing that statutory rape is not a form of rape... is Wikipedia a wiki? Is frictional force a force? Is aggravated assault a form of assault? – Luna Santin (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Are Canadians, Brazilians and other citizens of the Americas, Americans? Just to clarify, I'm not arguing either way here since I'm still unconvinced either way however it seems clear that to me that there are somethings which often aren't considered a subset of something else in English even if the name or simple logic may suggest so... Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a Tensor field a field ? Are hyperbolic quaternions quaternions ? Is false imprisonment an imprisonment ? In science and law, cases frequently arise where an expression is not a sub-sense of the principle word. We should keep to the definitions, not engage in OR. There are cases of statutory rape that are not rape according to usual definition, for example Matthew Koso. In the present case, this is both a statutory rape and a rape in the usual sense, but there are other factors to consider, those outlined at WP:TERRORIST. Cenarium (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll - how many people believe the rapists categories should be in the article?

Just say Include or Remove please. Discussions can be done in the section above. We need to decide on something that keeps getting added and removed by different people.

• Include. Dream Focus 10:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per BLP. WookMuff (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to belive, this is totally unsupported and has clearly been decided, the discussion on the talkpage of the BLP noticeboard was that this addition is wrong and that removing the child molestation cat is a BLP protection and void of a 3RR count. I suggest the user who inserted it self revert. Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hush, Off2riorob... its not like straw polls have even the vaguest legitimacy. Policy still says no. Consensus rarely beats policy. WookMuff (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This User Dream Focus has replaced the child molester cat after it has been clearly considered to be in violation of BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sysop Garion has removed it, it has clearly been decided that adding the cat child molester is in violation of the BLP policy and does not belong in the article, I suggest no one puts in back. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was decided or discussed where? He was convicted of having sex with a minor/child, and therefore is a convicted child molester. What's the problem here? Dream Focus 10:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem I believe is that child molestation was/is? a specific crime in California at the time, a crime which he was charged with but later dismissed when he pled guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a child" Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay after looking more closely. It appears the problem is that one of the crime's he was charged with initially but was later withdrawn is commonly called child molestation. (In charging, the crime is specifically called "lewd or lavacious act upon child under fourteen".) The crime he pled guilty to was "unlawful sexual intercourse" (with someone under the age of 18) and is more commonly called statutory rape not child molestation. There is therefore considered to be a difference between the two terms and it's argued he was convicted of statutory rape but not child molestation. Some sources may use both interchangeable or either term but it seems far from clear what's the best description. Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point - I was going by the Probation Officer's report] where P.C. 288 is referred to as "Child Molesting", when the proper name is what your referred to above. This makes it more complex, as he wasn't convicted of child molestation as such, but then he wasn't charged with it either. (If he had been charged with the exact wording this would be much easier). That said, the distinction you draw should probably be sufficient - he could have been convicted to what is commonly referred to as child molestation, but plea bargained in order to be convicted of what is commonly referred to as statutory rape. So I'm still inclined to say that he is a convicted statutory rapist (or possibly just a convicted rapist), but not a "convicted" child molester, even though morally we might want to put him in that category. - Bilby (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Do not includeper WP:TERRORIST (corollary of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:WTA), a word too loaded that doesn't adequately and thus neutrally describe the subject. It would be different if Polanski was widely named rapist by reliable sources, but this is not the case. Cenarium (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Do not include. I support the option below. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Include. "Statutory rape" is not a legal term. "Statutory rapists" are rapists as well. Rape is rape. Urban XII (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per BLP. Also, why not wait for the case to play out before making mass edits to the page? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a source for breaking news. We should also be wary in describing the crime. Words like Pedophilia may or may not describe the accusations. Since Pedophilia is described "as a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children", a more apt description may be Hebephilia, which "refers to an adult's sexual preference for pubescent youths; ...from pedophilia, which refers to the sexual preference for prepubescent children". The crime was committed in the United States, and the law states that persons 13 years of age cannot give consent for sex, which makes even the Polanski explanation a crime of "Statutory rape". For which he should have to answer for. There is a reason why the law differentiates between degrees of sex crimes, as well as homicide and other crimes. DD2K (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DD2K (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Include as it acurately describes the facts! "loaded" is not a reason for removal if it is true. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Remove. The category discussed below is accurate and fully complies with BLP and the facts. This one does not. It's not the same thing as statutory rape, and he was never convicted of non-statutory rape. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Statutory rapists

Resolved

Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment re "resolved" - There are arguments re the rhetoric of the name of that category, which should be taken up at the category. I.E., Yes, a category of those convicted for that is acceptable for this article. But the category name is debatable. (Please let me know if there is a link to previous discussions of that somewhere). Proofreader77 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned by User:WP addict 0, we also need to consider this category. IMHO it is appropriate since child molestation is complicated as discussed above but there seems to be agreement it's fair to categorise his crime as statutory rape at a minimum Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski is not a rapist and wikipedia should not label him as one, he had under age sex with a minor that is absolutally different from being a convicted rapist. Off2riorob (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier if someone went off to the cat creation dept and created a cat for what polanski is... Cat:People convicted of having unlawful sex with a minor There is clearly a voice here that does not agree that he is a rapist. Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not "absolutally" different, seeing as having sex with a minor led to his being convicted of a crime that's universally described as statutory rape. You seem quite emotionally involved, here; might be time to take a look at things from arm's length? – Luna Santin (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am cool, there is also a big difference between stat rape and rape, the condition of stat rape also I am told did not exist back in the day of the offence. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I can support this catagory. Statutory rape, as a kind of accepted legal term for polanki's crime. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) We seem to be getting off track here. It doesn't matter whether there's a big difference between rape and statutory rape. Let's leave that discussion above. There's currently some opposition to calling him a rapist. However whether he's a statutory rapist is a different issue and what we're discussing here. From what I can tell, many people (I thought you but apparently not) agree that statutory rapist is an accurate acceptable description (even if best avoided in the article) and suitable for categorisation even if they object to the rapist cats. The problem is that cats by definition generally simplify things. Many jurisdictions lack either crimes called child molestation or statutory rape. However some crimes are generally considered equivalent if described as such by reliable sources (particularly ones with a more legal consideration) even if they aren't called such. In the article, it's often better for clarity to use the precise words used but this isn't possible with many categories. I would note however we say he was charged with child molesting even though that's not what the charge was called as I mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite strongly support this catagory, at first I did not see the title of this sub thread, that was the confusion...and really if the child molestation accusation is inhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Button_lower_letter.png the article as you mentioned it should really be altered there even though it is probably citable. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Statutory rape" is not a legal term at all. It's rape and legally no different from "rape-rape". Urban XII (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This cat is a subcat of Category:Rapists, which means that Wikipedia considers all stat rapists to be rapists. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a link but I havn't got it, it is not recommended to speak for the Wikipedia, looking at the cases in both those cats, Polanski clearly belongs in the Statutory rapist cat. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski, a wonderful director, happens to be a rapist, not just someone who slept with an underage girl. Yes, he plead guilty to sex with a minor but he committed and was accused of drugging and raping the girl. That is what some people call "rape-rape" regardless of her age! Str1977 ^(talk) 18:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What have accusations got to do with it? Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and not a place to express a certain WP:POV. Being accused or charged with a crime isn't the same as being convicted of that crime. Wikipedia must base entries on facts, especially when it involves a WP:BLP issue. Roman Polanski plead guilty to [sex with a minor]. The rest are just allegations and have no place in Wikipedia. DD2K (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

He plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor which is legally considered rape because a 13-year old cannot legally consent to sex. Sex that is not consensual is always rape. Urban XII (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what was written? Statutory Rape is a form of rape, but has it's own category for a reason. Just like there are various degrees of assault and homicide, there are degrees for sex crimes. When one pleads guilty to [Involuntary Manslaughter], Wikipedia doesn't let editors claim that he was convicted of [Voluntary Manslaughter]or [First-Degree Murder]. I think everyone can agree that a 13 year old cannot give consent to sex, and that at the very least Roman Polanski has admitted to this crime. Although you can claim that 'rape is rape' and hold that WP:POV as your own, you are asked by Wikipedia to only edit to include facts, not assumptions based on evidence, or the lack thereof. DD2K (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already suggested that the "statutory rapists" category should be replaced by the rapists category, because this is not a legal term. The comparison with degrees of assault and homicide is really not relevant. Urban XII (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You can keep claiming that Statutory Rape is not a legal term, just as you claim 'consensus' when there is none and vandalism/personal attacks that are not there, but it doesn't make it true. Statutory Rape most certainly is a legal term. Try [here] and [here]. In any case, the overwhelming consensus seems to be to excluse the 'rape is rape' meme and replace it with the more apt Statutory Rape category. DD2K (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to delete Category:Statutory rapists then you should do a CFD. As long as the subcategory exists, then you don't seem to have provided any policy supported reason why Category:Rapists is better then Category:Statutory rapists. A good reason would entail explaining why Category:Rapists is more appropriate in this particular instance perhaps with subsequent explanation of what belongs in Category:Statutory rapists and why this article doesn't fit there. As long as the subcategory exists, then you don't seem to have provided any policy supported reason why Polanski doesn't belong there. Note that AFAIK, adding him to Category:Statutory rapists doesn't necessarily preclude him from being added to one of the nationality based categories (see also Wikipedia:Categorisation). We should avoid overcategorising but the French/Polish rapists categories can replace the sex offender categories if consensus is achieved for that. I would also emphasise Category:Rapists doesn't contain any people solely other subcategories so suggesting we add him to that parent cat directly doesn't make much sene. And again, let me repeat, your belief that the category should not exist is not a good reason and any arguments of why it is inappropriate as a category in general should be taken to the category talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Support the use of this category. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

He confessed to doing it (legally, in a court, to the relevant parties). It's a completely neutral action to put him the category. I see no possible problem. The Squicks (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I've been bold and added the category. I won't revert if it is removed. But so far, it seems both sides generally agree it is appropriate. If there's nothing else relevant I suggest we mark this as resolved and move on to unresolved stuff like the nationality rapists cats and child molestation cat. The addition of this cat should not be taken as precluding or preempting any discussion about the other cats. Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the encylopedic value of being able to summon up a list of statuatory rapists? What's next, Category: People arrested in Switzerland, Category: Things that are yellow, Category: Amateur golfers.... Pawsplay (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We do have Category:Prisoners and detainees of Switzerland which this article is a part of, Category:Swedish criminals and Category:Amateur golfers. All of these are only added when they are relevant to the subjects notability (for amateur golfers this would generally only be people who have competed in well known tournaments) and obviously we need articles on the people (i.e. they need to be WP:notable) Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Trying to call it something else to downplay what happened, is something I'm against. That does seem to be the only reason for this, some supporting stating that he wasn't a rapist. The definition of the word rape, as I've already said, clearly indicates that he was. He admitted to having sex with someone below the age of consent, so its a rapist. As for any side category beyond that, that's up for debate. Since she was just a 13 year old child, child molester or child rapists may apply. Dream Focus 18:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• • As I've said several times, this is solely about whether we should include him the in Category:Statutory rapists. If you want to delete the category, you should nominate it. In the mean time, the category does exist so the only question is whether he belongs in it. Your belief that it is downplaying his offenses is largely irrelevant. And may I also repeat that this is not precluding adding him to some other category but that discussion should not take place here Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits re: medical examination info from primary

Note this topic is now an issue for the article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case

Alderbourne just re-added, (sorry) his "she was lying" information to the article. Just like to Note that. WookMuff (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The findings of the medical examination to which I refer indicate very strongly that his alleged victim is a liar. If you have any interest in both sides of the argument being given, I think you will let my comments stand. It would certainly be appreciated if you would.

alderbourne (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Having just read the probation report section of the reference for the information Alderbourne reverted into the article, I gotta say I couldn't find any conclusions about the information given, just that the information was there. Is the analysis somewhere in the movie script thats also in the reference, or is it in the probation report? If its not in there then its OR Primary Sources can only be used to give information, not for analysis WookMuff (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you post the link here so that people can have a look at the information please WookMuff. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

NO, I AM VERY LAZY!. I just closed it, so lemme find it again. [9] This is the reference that is used, its the motion to dismiss from last year. Watch out, its a PDF, its VERY long, and its is just scanned, so you can't search for text. The medical information is in the probation report, which is one of the exhibits. WookMuff (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If the analysis is Polanski's conclusion it should be represented as such. If it's your conclusion it shouldn't be in the article as per OR. Gamaliel (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Here See [10], pp. 80–81...Page 80-81 you don't have to read it all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What? I know, I read that part... I meant the part where Alderbourne uses that to deny that it was rape. WookMuff (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

re pdf motion The motion includes a copy of the Probation report (which you can perhaps more easily read at smoking gun). Proofreader77 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You are of course right that the information is in the document while the conclusion is not; it is my own. However, I would argue that it is really an observation rather than a conclusion – a simple, plain, commonsense observation. To complain that it constitutes "original research" is surely going a bit far!

alderbourne (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ORand again I say that I think your rape-denial is inappropriate. WookMuff (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This..

a medical examination of the girl discovered no blood on her clothes or body, no anal lacerations and no sphincter tear – nothing, in short, consistent with her story of being drugged, raped and sodomised while putting up "some" resistance and saying "no" repeatedly

So the bold is in the cite and the unbolded is a bit of OR? I suggest removing it if it is and keeping the other details somewhere if they are well citable.. we shouldn't draw our own conclusions. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok as Alderbourne says to make simple plain commonsense observations? Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. WP:PRIMARY (Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation). Its sleazy, for one thing. It is quite literally saying "She wasn't physically hurt so she wasn't raped". If other reliable sources say that her lack of physical injury means she wasn't raped, groovy. I especially like the part where no blood or lacerations means she didn't say no repeatedly. WookMuff (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it since that is original research, stating your conclusion. Obviously, if she was drugged and intoxicated, she wouldn't be fighting too hard. Many rape victims are too scared to fight back at all, knowing they couldn't fight off someone larger and stronger than them anyway. The same document also says when they went to arrest him, police caught him trying to destroy the same type of sedative that was used on her. Why would he run and try to do that, if he wasn't destroying evidence? Saying no, and being in condition to fight back, are two unrelated things. Also she is 13! He is a rapist. The court has made its ruling. Anyway, since there is a bit casting doubt on the use of drugs, I added a bit to counter that, keeping the article fair. Dream Focus 01:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• General comment on primary/secondary and this case - The original documents were sealed for a reason. There was no trial—for good reasons. The more frequent quoting of the grand jury transcript by secondary sources over the probation report (which would outrage their readers) presents a challenge. NPOV would demand presenting both. We would do well not to quote either. (Will stop there for now—and no intent to debate it at the moment.) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• re: accurate edit summaries: Again, strongly advise not attempting to construct a trial in this article when there was not one. BUT: If you are, be sure to be scrupulously accurate in the edit summary with respect to what you're doing. E.G. this edit replaces an element from one side's argument with the other side's. That's fine—but don't imply it is simply adding information, when information is being swapped. Say what is being removed, and added, and why. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  I agree. I should've erased the original research about the victim not having bruises(too terrified, intoxicated, and/or drugged to fight back) and this someone cast doubt on her claim for some people who don't consider it rape unless you are strong enough to put up a great fight and get bruised up. And then after that, done a a second edit to add the counter argument for the denial that drugs were used. I certainly wasn't trying to mislead anyone in the edit summary or anything. Dream Focus 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry to single you out (I'm guilty of writing book-length edit summaries lol. Too much contention management lately.) Thanks for gracious response. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no trial for the very good reason that he plead guilty to one charge in exchange for the State dropping the other charges. htom (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The offer to drop the charges [offer the plea bargain] was made because no one wanted to put any of this information under adversarial examination—which is what we appear we're going to do in this article. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that my contribution to the article has been cut. It is evidently all right to include the following:

Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.

but not:

a medical examination of the girl discovered no blood on her clothes or body, no anal lacerations and no sphincter tear – nothing, in short, consistent with her story of being drugged, raped and sodomised while putting up "some" resistance and saying "no" repeatedly.

either with or without the appended observation that some of you insist on dismissing as "original research". I think that says a lot.

Furthermore, while it is true that Polański had Quaalude pills in his possession when he was arrested, it is also true, I believe, that his alleged victim admitted to having often used the recreational sedative. In his autobiography he says nothing about drugging her, though he does mention that they both had some champagne.

alderbourne (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

She stated she was afraid of him, so didn't physically fight back. Saying "no" repeatedly, doesn't make bruises appear. He doesn't admit in his biography that he drugged her, just that he got her drunk. Why would he admit to that? What is this nonsense about her using those types of sedatives recreationally? Do you have any reliable sources to back that up, and how do you explain the police report that when they went to arrest Polanski he was trying to destroy sedatives? Stop trying to blame the victim and whitewash what the man did. He is a convicted rapist, who admitted to having sex with someone too young to give consent. Dream Focus 14:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[RHETORICAL OBJECTION] The characterizations of "blaming the victim" and "whitewash" are improper characterizations for the actions of editors attempting to achieve an WP:NPOV version of the events. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets see. We have the same people who keep trying to show information to make it look like the victim was lying, or that it was her fault somehow, and that surely he didn't do anything wrong. And that despite the definition of the word rape in every dictionary out there, what he didn't wasn't real rape at all, that making him sound like a bad person. Dream Focus 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The victim's testimony (the prosecution's case POV, uncrossexamined), is being included in the article. There was no trial. The grand jury transcript was sealed until 2003. The fact that it is unsealed does not mean a one-sided presentation of the events is allowed here— NPOV says otherwise. It would appear better not to wade through any of the documents (the victim wishes the matter dropped—we would do well to honor her wishes), but if wading through the details is insisted upon, then yes, information from the probation report should be included as well. Allegations of "blaming the victim" and whitewashing are improper. Polanski did not plead guilty to the six charges of grand jury indictment—if he had, then quoting of the grand jury transcript would not require "another side." But he did not. He plead guilty to one crime—and while consent is not at issue in the crime Polanski plead guilty to (it is immaterial) ... Wikipedia is NOT a court of law. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—with a foundational pillar of NPOV. Again, the victim does not want this rehashed. I agree. Many do not care what the victim wants. So be it. BUT do NOT make allegations that creating a balanced presentation of the information is somehow incorrect. This is a WP:BLP. WP:NPOV required. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You said "and while consent is not at issue in the crime Polanski plead guilty to (it is immaterial)". The crime he plead guilty to was having sex with someone too young to give consent. He is therefore a rapist. Listing what she accused him of, what he plea bargained down to, and then he fled the country is relevant. She claims he used a sedative with alcohol and raped her, he admits he used alcohol and having had sex with her, and was arrested trying to destroy the same type of sedative he was accused of using. That is all valid for the article. Dream Focus 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The initial charges are certainly to be included. The quoting of her grand jury testimony is the issue. Consider that the grand jury transcript also contains the following exchange:

   Q. Why do you believe that you were under the influence at that time?

   A. I can barely remember anything that happened.

NOTE: The primary/secondary NPOV issues of this case are complex. My point is that victim's testimony is testimony. Sealed testimony—now unsealed inspiring the online simulation of a trial with one side only speaking. A complex matter which will require much discussion. (i.e., We will not resolve it here in this topic.)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually it is a waste of time and effort to reply to postings such as yours, Dream Focus. But in this case a few comments might be in order. (1) She claims she put up "some" resistance. (2) The medical examination to which she was subjected discovered no blood on her clothes or body, no anal lacerations and no sphincter tear – nothing, in short, of the kind one would expect if her story of being drugged, raped and sodomised while putting up "some" resistance and saying "no" repeatedly had a grain of truth in it. (I emphasise the and since you appear to have overlooked it.) (3) He does not say that he got her drunk, only that they both had some champagne. (4) The fact that she had taken Quaaludes before is mentioned in her grand jury testimony of 24 March 1977, on page 389 of Roman by Polanski and about 25 minutes into the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. These sources differ, however, as to how often she had taken them. (5) When the police arrested Polański he had a Quaalude pill actually in his hand. Understandably, he tried to dispose of it. (6) Suggesting that the so-called victim is a liar is not equivalent to blaming her. (7) If Californian law supposes, as it does, that a girl of 13 is incapable of giving her consent, it is in the immortal words of Mr Bumble "a ass – a idiot". Indeed, in some countries, Spain for example, the age of consent is 13.

alderbourne (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You believe its stupid for 13 year olds not to be able to consent to sex with dirty old men. Great. No sense trying to reason with you. I just reverted Alderbourne's link to someone's personal website where he claims women regularly lie about rape when they want to get something from you. Dream Focus 03:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How little interested you are in letting Polański have a fair hearing! The website in question, which I created, can be found here. I invite others to take a look at it and judge for themselves whether Dream Focus's characterisation of it is honest.

I have restored the link. No doubt it will soon be removed again.

alderbourne (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Note this topic is now an issue for the article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case

"Young girls" interview

(Note: quote has been moved to Roman Polanski sexual abuse case)
(note: not by me) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

While the text is not at all appropriate for the lead (Is there editorial consensus there? I think so...), I believe that it would be okay in the approripate section in the main body text.

The article currently includes=

In 1979, Polanski gave a controversial interview with the novelist Martin Amis in which, discussing his conviction, he said “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!”

Thoughts? The Squicks (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It definitely belongs here. I think that not only is this important in the context of the assault, but also of Polanski's view of his detractors and even his opinion on his own guilt, and his seeming inability to keep out of his own way. Also, I have heard someone say that he was drunk, to which I quote "In Vino Veritas" WookMuff (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It may belong somewhere, but I don't think it belongs in this article. I think a lot of the existing info here ought to be moved to a separate article, because the sex offence is getting too much weight on this page. Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, this is a very important insight into the mind of the man, thats what I meant. It definitely belongs in this article, as well as any article about the 1977 assault that may be started WookMuff (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It belongs here. Its something he is well known for, plenty of news coverage. Dream Focus 09:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a 30 year old interview, taken out of any possible context, that is being tossed in to show his attitude to the crime. At best, it shows his attitude in 1979, when (or so I had gathered form the earlier discussion) he may have been drinking. It's not the most neutral method of presenting things. - Bilby (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How exactly could that be out of context? It has reliable sources commenting on it, which makes it valid for inclusion in the article. He admitted in his own biography that he had sex with the 13 year old, and he lived with an actress afterward who was 15. I think this sums up his character quite well. Dream Focus 10:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess because, at the moment, all we have is the knowledge that he said it. We don't have the context of the discussion in which he did so, why he might have done so, or, indeed, whether or not it relates to his actual opinion either then or now. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included, but it makes me nervous, and is why I'm generally nervous about picking quotes from primary sources. - Bilby (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

They have a Wikipedia policy somewhere about verifiability not truth. You don't prove something is true or not, just that you can verify it was mentioned in a reliable source. Dream Focus 10:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was an interview, which to me means he wasn't exactly expecting it to be on the downlow. WookMuff (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about verifiability, this is about NPOV. And I'm not completely against including it, it's just that we're doing so without context, and this is especially a risk with primary sources. It does say interview, so you're probably right, WookMuff, but I'm still curious about how it fits into the interview as a whole. Maybe Gamaliel can help there. - Bilby (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How exactly could a statement like Polanksi's be defended by putting it into context? What context would make "fuck young girls" suddenly become an okay thing to say (especially publicly to someone functioning as a reporter)? I share people's WP:BLP/WP:NPOV concerns, but this is getting a bit silly. The Squicks (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote shouldn't be in the lead, but if it is reliably sourced it should be somewhere in the article. It reflects Polanski's mindset and attitude. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Quote moved to Roman Polanski sexual abuse case (note: not by me) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A tad undue/unbalanced etc.

Resolved

 – Second article has absorbed much of the "extra" content and editing continues to improve both articles. -- Banjeboi

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The whole Sex crime conviction section needs clean-up, especially the extensive quotes which seem to be making the case that a judge already did. This is where better summarizing would likely help. I imagine that entire section will have to be razed and rewritten but just as an outsider piping in thought another opinion may help. In contrast Manson murders section seems to the point, clear and ties in with the rest of the article. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I agree. There are 17 paragraphs and 1,930 words in the Sex crime conviction section, while the Manson murders section has 1 paragraph and 203 words. We need to drastically reduce the size of the Sex crime conviction section, it's become a battle of edits with each side adding their own explanations. Perhaps some help or guidance from Wikipedia:Administrators is in order. There is no need to get into the minute details of the case within the Roman Polanski entry. I suggest cutting out a great portion of the entry to make in more in line with the Manson murders section. DD2K (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I think the section is fine as it currently stands, and perfectly appropriate. The murder of a different person is not a comparable incident, Sharon Tate has her own article. Roman Polanski was never murdered, he wasn't even in the country at the time. Urban XII (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I wasn't comparing and contrasting the two sections as much as showing how a good section in the same area is certainly possible. The murder of Tate was much bigger news than this was and was subsequently covered in books and movies. The current section on the rape goes into needless digressions and details making it just a bad read overall. We can state he's guilty without overdoing it. -- Banjeboi 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not questioning that the Manson murders were a notable incident, only pointing out that Roman Polanski was neither the perpetrator nor the victim of these murders. Of course we need to mention that a family member was murdered, but these murders should mainly be dealt with in other articles than the article on a family member of a person who was murdered. A case directly involving Polanski, i.e. something he did (he's currently the one in prison in Switzerland) is much more relevant to his biography than something that happened to his wife. Urban XII (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC) That accounts for the first two or three well-written paragraphs, not seventeen. WP:Undue means we present all information with due weight, we're going waaay overboard here. -- Banjeboi 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC) This is a quite long article which gives his film career due weight. Most of the article is about his film making, after all. I happen to agree that the "Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disagreed" paragraph should be removed, but for BLP reasons (it's an unfounded accusation against the victim, also, there is no such thing as "consensual" sex with a 13-year old in the US). Perhaps the "Conviction and subsequent fugitive status" section could be a little more concise. But three paragraphs on the rape case would be way too short. Raping a child is a very serious matter in most of the world, and many people associate him primarily with this case. He's currently in prison, he's currently primarily discussed in connection with the case, and the case is likely to affect his life for a very long time. Most people who read this article these days do it because they are interested in the rape case. Urban XII (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I agree that it's due weight. But I also think that Polanski's dogged insistence that she really did want it (which you can read in his biographical book, referred to in the citation already in this article) is relevant, as it demonstrates a central, notable fact= Polanski is un-remorseful and un-repentant about the incident even year later. The Squicks (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC) You have a point there, of course. Nevertheless, I think such an attack on his own victim (accusing her of willingly being raped) is problematic due to BLP, and we should at least consider this aspect. Urban XII (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC) And I must echo about the Manson murders, this was a major issue in his life only in a specific limited context. There's no point in going into details about the case because that is not pertinent here. The only information that should be in this article is how the murders effected him and that information is already here (e.g. The murders turned him from a Jew into an atheist). The Squicks (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I think you both are missing the gist of my criticism. I'm in no way suggesting that content or context be removed. Instead tighten up the writing to state what you just did here with far less volume. Show that he remains non-remorseful but do so clearly and concisely with due weight - trim the rest away and folks actually may read the whole thing. My point with the Manson murder is that it fits into the narrative of the subject's life. We could have five or six paragraphs on Manson but we don't. -- Banjeboi 17:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Wasn't Sharon Tate Polanski's wife, and wasn't she carrying his child? If you ask me, the murder of one's spouse and unborn child in such a gruesome manner bear's the same mention as the Statutory Rape committed. Also, of course it matters if there is force or coercion, that would turn a Statutory Rape conviction into a more serious Rape conviction. The facts, as of right now, say that Roman Polanski has been charged and convicted of Statutory Rape. The other charges were dropped due to a plea agreement. Of course a 13 year old cannot give consent, which is why there was a deal for a Statutory Rape conviction. That is all that should be included in the Wikipedia entry for Roman Polanski, the rest violates WP:BLP and WP:POV standards.DD2K (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) You seem to be missing the central point= He doggedly insists that she wanted sex and consented completely to it, while she said that she was screaming 'No'. He would have been charged with rape, but he decided to plea guilty to a lesser charge. The Squicks (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC) It's manifestly unfair to Polanski not to mention that fact that he believes Samantha lied and that he still strongly defends his innocence. If he says he's innocent, than that is notable. The Squicks (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) How in the world is that the 'central point'? That's a "he said/she said" accusation that has not been tried in court. As Wikipedia editors it's not our jobs to decide who is telling the truth and who is lying. I'm sure we all have our own POV(most will believe that Polanski is a liar, or it doesn't matter), but we should not let that reflect in the edits made. The fact is that Polanski plead guilty to Statutory Rape and that is all that should be noted as far as the minutia of the entry is concerned. Legally, the State accepted the version of consensual sex with a minor, which reflects in the plea deal. And that is what you, and a couple others, seem to be missing. Whether you believe Polanski or Geimer should not matter. DD2K (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC) On the contrary, I certainly don't/won't like my personal feelings about Polanski reflect my edits. My point is that I vehemently oppose removing the fact that Polanski maintains his innocence from this article. It's unfair to him. The Squicks (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC) As well, details about the case- e.g. why he entered into a plea agreement and what exactly Samantha charged in her statement- should be mentioned. Scrubbing the section down to nothing more than the bare "He entered into a plea agreement..." is both unfair to Polanksi and to the reader. The Squicks (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I agree. One of the sources says that the bargain was agreed to in order to protect Geimer from a trial, in which she would not be able to stay anonymous. I'm not sure if the second part fully encapsulates why, but the first is certainly accurate enough. So I've added that. At this stage I can't recall a source saying why Polanski agreed., but if there is one it would be well worth including. - Bilby (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC) comment: re "what exactly Samantha charged" She testified (in a sealed document) in response to the prosecution's (leading, obviously) questions (obviously, without cross-examination). The fact that the transcript was unsealed (around 2003?) makes it available to us—but not to quote without countervailing assertions (see: probation report). Which is not to say we should do so with either. NOTE: She has asked that this be dropped. She did not face cross-examination then, nor should she face it now. BUT if it is insisted that that testimony which was sealed to protect not only her identity (no longer an issue) but to leave it intentionally un-crossexamined, THEN NPOV demands the prosecution's case be countervailed with the other side. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Do you have anything to support your Original Research that her testimony was sealed "to leave it intentionally un-crossexamined"? Is Wikipedia, and you an Administrator at that, really the proper place for such a callous and heinous piece of BLP-violating character assassination? Completely unacceptable - please retract your BLP violation.99.142.8.221 (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC) (objection noted. considered. dismissed.) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Your bias regarding the victim and her rights under BLP is also noted.99.142.8.221 (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) BLP concerns may be addressed at WP:BLPN. (Assume known, but covering the bases.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Actually the initial query of mine that you so eloquently "noted. considered. dismissed." was a standard request for reference "Do you have anything to support..." But I guess citation's are "for the little people" when one is on a mission.99.142.8.221 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Your allegation—"a callous and heinous piece of BLP-violating character assassination? Completely unacceptable - please retract your BLP violation"—is incorrect. No negative information is raised. Hence no reference is required. If you disagree, report it. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC) "to leave it intentionally un-crossexamined" Your Original Research that it was intentionally done implies only one thing - underlined by your follow up conclusion, that Wikipedia must then "countervail" the prosecutions case. The BLP violation is a direct result of your Original Research in which you seek to assassinate the character of a child. _99.142.8.221 (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I disagree your comments are accurate. WP:BLPN Proofreader77 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Move detailed coverage to new/combined article (1977 events/2009 arrest) Getting back to the point, the amount of coverage of this event in the article at present is a clear case of WP:UNDUE in my opinion. We need to maintain a sense of perspective. The offence committed by Polanski occurred thirty years ago, and if he hadn't skipped the country it appears he would have got a slap on the wrist for it, in the shape of 90 days or so in the slammer, and that pretty much would have been the end of it. To put it another way, it would be a largely forgotten episode in a distinguished career of forty years or more. Of course, the fact of his skipping the country and his recent arrest have made it topical, and some allowance can be made for that, but its current degree of coverage in this article smacks very much of WP:RECENTISM. I think we need to move some of the material into another article, called something like "1977 Polanski sex offence and 2009 arrest", where it can be dealt with at length, and in such a way that it doesn't overwhelm the basic bio. Gatoclass (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I do agree with most of your suggestions and observances on this topic. Other than the fact that because Polanski would have been treated in 1977 in much the same manner that Debra Lafave was treated in 2004, does not mean he would not be remembered for(at least in part) for his Statutory Rape of a 13 year old girl. Saying that, it's obvious that your suggestion that another entry(which could be the title you suggested "1977 Polanski sex offense and 2009 arrest") which could be combined with the current 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski entry, should be strongly considered. The main article, Roman Polanski has far too much about this issue cluttering up the piece. There is no way that there should be that much dedicated to the incident. DD2K (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I suspect that a dedicated article will be the way to go. If nothing else, it doesn't make a lot of sense having a dedicated article about his recent arrest, but not about the crime that caused it, when the latter is as least as notable as the former. - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Agreed, make one dedicated article and all the bloat can be vectored there - 1977 Polanski sex offense case? I don't think the title needs the 2009 part added in, it's simply the latest chapter and that article itself is bloated with recentism bits. -- Banjeboi 08:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC) (Straw) Agree/disagree with proposal re combined article (1977/2009) Agree with proposal of combined article. Soon would be good. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I agree, we should have a single article covering the 1977 events and recent events. It may not be very easy finding a suitable title, how about "Roman Polanski sexual abuse controversy"? PatGallacher (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC) While still agreeing, I would sound one cautionary note. Roughly, this article has 14 screen pages on his screen career, and only 8 pages on the sex abuse incident and its aftermath. So if we split the sex abuse case off to its own article, maybe we should do the same with his screen career. However, let's take things one step at a time. PatGallacher (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I'd be inclined to argue that we do have other articles that cover his film career - specifically each of the entries on his movies. So in that sense they've already been split out. Depends on how you look at it, I guess. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Agree with combining the 2009 arrest with the 1977 controversy. Condensing the Roman Polanski entry to include the central points, and then directing those who want to read more to the combined entry is a very good idea and would help [Wikipedia]] and those who use this site. DD2K (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I'm with Pat on this (on both points, with both spin-off articles being created). But I must add that the appropriate process would be to create the other article first, and then we have a reasoned debate here on this page about what to remove part by part. I would prefer not to be a sudden, dramatic removal of large sections of material in one swoop. We can work it out. The Squicks (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed external links

PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT IN THIS THREAD (as that will archive it)
Our External links policy is pretty strict; links should significantly add to our reader's understanding of the subject if the article was written at a Featured article level. The following links might be wonderful Reliable sources for the article itself but should be used as sources not as an ever-growing link repositorium. -- Banjeboi

• Roman Polanski bibliography (via UC Berkeley Media Resources Center)
• March, 1977 Grand Jury Testimony of Polanski's victim
• Media coverage of the Polanski rape trial
• Interview with Samantha Geimer
• Roman Polanski site by French writer Alexandre Tylski
• Interview with Roman Polanski (Defunct as of 9/09)
• Watch Knife in the Water
• The Guardian profile: Roman Polanski
• Interview on the Charlie Rose Show at Google video.
• Cinema Retro Presents a Polanski Guide to Urban Living

crime moved to another article. Brief description of what belongs here

It describes what crime the victim accused him of, what six charges the grand jury decided to bring against him, that a plea bargain was offered to spare the victim the stress of the trial, and that he agreed and what charge he plead guilty to. And that he decided to run, and how recently they caught him. Those are all important things to have in there. Making this spot here to discuss it. Dream Focus 14:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Early life from Martin Amis interview

After the war he was reunited with his father

I have a copy of the Martin Amis book with the Polanski interview (signed Tatler 1980), so I checked it against the article section Roman Polanski#Early life. The Amis interview implies the war was still on when Polanski saw his father again, contradicting the article's "after the war" claim. The limited preview of the 2005 book Roman Polanski: interviews by Roman Polanski and Paul Cronin also does not exactly support this claim. I wonder whether the single line on page xv has been mis-interpreted as meaning "after the war" when in fact the war was still in progress? Or, that there was a longer reunion, but after 1980? Or maybe that Amis over simplified? Each of these (excluded from the preview) pages mentions his father: 102, 180, 199, 200, 204, 205, 206. Could anyone that has the Cronin book check?

Here is what Amis has:

• "1941 both his parents were taken into concentration camps. Just before the ghetto was finally overrun, Polanski escaped" ... "One day, outside the ghetto, I saw people marching in a column, guarded by Germans. My father was among them. I walked alongside for a while but he gestured for me to run away." ... "He survived four years in a camp - but that was the last time I saw him."

Here is all that I can see from the 2005 Cronin book's Google preview:

• "1945 Reunited with his father." (page xv)

I read pages 195 to 198 (the rest are omitted from the preview) from the Cronin preview (chapter "Memories of the Ghetto") and did not learn anything more about his father.

• Cronin, Paul; Polanski, Roman (2005). Roman Polanski: interviews. page xv: University Press of Mississippi. p. 211. ISBN 978-1-57806-800-5. Retrieved 2009-09-29. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Amis, Martin (1994). Visiting Mrs Nabokov and Other Excursions. London: Penguin Books. pp. 246–254. ISBN 0140238581.

-84user (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

At issue here is what exactly the term "re-united" means. It could mean that the two fleetingly saw each other. Alternately, it could meant that they re-established their relationship then and there. Unfortunately, I do not see how we can disentangle the two. It is possible (prehaps even likely) for two people to be "re-united" twice- they met briefly as the war went on and then again, for a longer time, later on. The Squicks (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Amis interview quote removed(?)

A unknown editor removed the "young girls" comment, and I re-instated it. I didn't see any clear consensus for removal. I saw that editors stated that context is needed, which is a valid point and I'm looking for context. But I didn't see, and I don't see, anyone screaming "Remove it". Thoughts? The Squicks (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote has been moved to the article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Extradition request ?

Has anyone got any cites for this, they have I think 40days to present the full details of the request, he has been 18days in custard and nothing from america yet, they seem to be dragging their heels, anyone know anything about this situation? Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV)

I have (perhaps temporarily) added a blockquote to the main article version of the sex crime coverage:

In 1977, Polanski was arrested and charged with several sex and related offenses against a minor—a thirteen-year-old, Samantha Gailey—during an incident the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson. Polanski's arresting officer would later be summarized in the probation officer's report: Sergeant Vanatter stated, "I have no doubt the events happened." He described the defendant as "extremely hyperactive." He described the victim as looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting only as if she were 13 or 14 years old and, "not really knowledgeable." Gailey testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and despite her protests and being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy. A grand jury decided to charge him with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. . . ....

I understand this will most likely be contentious, if for no other reason than it is too long for the main article (and as WP:PRIMARY cannot be anything but quoted, assuming even that can be justified ... amidst all the screaming of WP:OR yada yada yada. (more later)

Collapse further elaboration of my previous comments on this

Which leads us to the much more complex issue best illustrated by the vast coverage of the grand jury testimony (the prosecution's case in the form of the victim's testimony under questioning). The probation officer's report is much less popular and appears to have (with great trepidation and mentions of how "offensive" it is to readers of our time) only poked its offensive head out of the the New York Times arts blog. Let me not repeat the general case of this complication again, tonight (althoughs ignificant discussion somewhere in Wikipedia should take place) ... other than WP:NPOV is required ... and this odd case of sealed then unsealed documents ... makes for an interesting case study. Bottom line: The grand jury testimony is one side of the case. What he did is "gross" (the victim's word), and "vile" (an artist should have greater empathy not less, and sensitivity for an abuse of power of any kind) ... but perspective is required—a clear conveying of the what happened. Screaming: "He raped a child!" is not telling the truth. He used his force of will to make a young teenager (who looked older, and was about his size) comply with his transient desire. The petition to dismiss highlights a quote from the UK Telegraph that said that at the time he was supposed to be sentenced, no one had been given any jail time for a similar crime in California for the previous two years. Such are points made in WP:Primary documents—other than the grand jury testimony.

Meanwhile: I will seek secondary sources for facts conveyed. For example, the "looking between 16 and 18 years of age" part of the quote was included in a Los Angeles Times article from 1977 (See this Google news archive search) which lists a (pay per view) article: "Mental Tests for Polanski Ordered" (Sept. 20, 1977)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll bite. :) The problem with the addition isn't that it can't be used, nor that you're wrong about using the block quote, but that it doesn't seem to add anything to this article. (Well, that and it is in the wrong spot, but the latter is a minor concern). All that it provides to the reader is that someone on the periphery of the case believed that something happened based on how the two people behaved when approached a day later. Yet we know something happened already, as far as we need to be concerned, because Polanski was convicted. I suppose it also let's us know that the girl appeared older, but I don't think anyone has claimed that Polanski was unaware of the girl's age. Given that we're just presenting a short summary here, it is probably more suited to Roman Polanski sexual abuse case, where there's room for these sorts of secondary details. - Bilby (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  While for conviction of "unlawful sex with a minor", the age is the only thing that matters—from the position of BLP, the fact that everyone (including the judge) affirmed she appeared to be older than 13 makes a significant difference. In reccomending that Polanski not be incarcerated, the probation report includes that fact, for that reason. (Let me stop there for now. :)Proofreader77 (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggesting that she looked older than thirteen is questionable on its surface. Because of the Hollywood reverence given to Polanski by the court, psychiatrists and probation officer during all the affairs back then, the court records themselves are questionable to the girls appearance. Indeed the Probation report claims she was physically mature. The problem is the evidence of her appearance is available for the period of time back then. See

http://patterico.com/files/2009/10/Polanski-Victim.JPG These photos show her her to be simply a little girl. These photos were included in the documentary.

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m2/jul2005/0/7/000F1158-BDB0-12E4-A7580C01AC1BF814.jpg This photo is of her at 13 which was included in a UK Mirror article about here. See http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2005/07/25/exclusive-polanski-raped-me-when-i-was-13-he-is-a-creep-115875-15775812/

Thus if we are to use the probation report for its statement, I would argue we would be better served to look at the source material. The actual pictures of the girl. The Probation Report is a flawed document. See http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman27.html it states "the victim was not only physical mature, but willing; as one doctor has additionally suggested there was a lack of coercion by the defendant..." From the pictures at the time, you can see she was NOT physically mature, and to suggest there was a lack of coercion by Polanski ignore the Champagne and the Quaaludes that he plyed her with before raping the 13 year old. Please also remember that Polanski during he plea to to the court said he knew at the time she was 13 years of age.

For any suggestion that this 13 year old girl looked anything other than a 13 year old girl, I would want Wikipedia to include the picture of her. The only people that thought of her as older were simply trying to make reason out of why Polanski was having sex with her. Meanwhile the elephant in the room, is this man was sexual attracted to teenage girls.

Also to your rational as to why 16-18 was important because of the defenses analysis that "in a California in which no one had been sentenced to jail for a similar offense in the previous two years" (this is what the defense attorney said they analysized. The problem is that there was no other equivalent case for this case. Nothing was similar. First it was commonplace to drop the lower charges and keep the higher ones. District Attorney John Van de Kamp said at the time that he struck the unusual plea bargain with Polanski because he wanted to spare the 13-year-old girl from testifying during a trial that “could victimize her a second time.” Because of the unusual nature of the plea deal, and keeping the lower charge. There is no basis for the defense analysis of other similar cases, not going to jail time.

Other than using the actual picture of the girl, there should be nothing asserted to make a case for her being anything other than a 13 year old girl. She was not mature. She was not willing. Please look at the picture links above. Your eyes are not lying.

To give this even more context please note the following argument proffered to the court by Polanski's attorney Dalton:

“This particular offense doesn't have the connotation of rape. It's not even an offense, a criminal offense, in about 13 of our states and in many places of the world… this is a crime that's been committed by policemen; it's been committed by probation officers assigned to counsel girls at a detention school; it's a crime that's been committed by people that have a far higher trust to their victims than did Roman Polanski… I feel he is a criminal only by accident; and that there are many complex social and psychological factors that were involved in this situational event which otherwise was a complete departure from his normal mode of conduct.”

I am afraid that the information and arguments in the below "extended commentary" are nothing other than creative justification for Polanski's actions. It is a blame the victim methodology. You want to know what she looked like? See the pictures I have linked above, all the speculation becomes moot. It's not a bird, it's not a plane, it's a 7th grader, for G_d's sake.

She was a child, and the savoring eyes of the molester, Polanski, can not for their wanting, create this 13 year old CHILD to be anything other that what she was, a thirteen old child. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's do this slowly:

1. Do you assert that Sergeant Philip Vannatter (this guy) (later detective, and notable during the OJ Simpson case) was lying with regard to the appearance of the victim? (Or do you assert the probation officer was lying in summarizing his words?). Proofreader77 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

“ “This man committed a rape, committed a bunch of other atrocities and got away essentially with nothing,” says Philip Vannatter, a former Los Angeles police officer. “And I don’t think that’s right.” ”

P.S. That is the police sergeant who investigated the crime scene and arrested Polanski ... and said she looked between 16 and 18. He is a liar? Proofreader77 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's get slower still, really slow now. Please read my original reply again. There is no need to make any assertions of lies. You are creating a false dilemma There is no need to try to assess what caused a person to say what, and what biases they may have had in making those assessments. The girl was 13 and the evidence will show she looked exactly like a 13 year old. Here is the evidence, here is the picture of the girl that is used in the documentary, and the promo video you linked. This is what even Polanski most ardent supporters say is what she looked like. Please look at http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pyylukR2xyI/SsJJ8xGmsKI/AAAAAAAAAMQ/MGF1S9ockLc/s1600-h/samantha+gailey+polansky+rape+1.JPG Does that look like an 18 year old to you? Get real. The proof is not in the reading, its in the seeing....LOOK at the pictures. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(continuing item by item—I had already answered them, but decided not to post a stream of argument)

2. Photos are what you see. How tall was she at the time? (Compared to Polanski?) As for what people see in photos, remember the weekend of the Kos rumor about Palin? The photos supposedly proved a rumor—they did no such thing, but people were screaming "Look at the photograph! Can't you see?" No, I didn't see that. Contacted the photographer, he confirmed what I thought. I can see.

What of the above Geimer photo? You need a photo of her beside other people: Something like this. (A sweet-faced photo does not prove she didn't look physically like a sweet-faced 16-18 year old).

(AGAIN)
The police sergeant who investigated the crime scene and arrested Polanski is described in an official court document as saying the victim looked between 16 to 18 (physically). Polanski said she looked older than 13. Houston said she looked older than 13—and said she looked "tall." (Consistent with the full-length photo from the video above, which is only an example of the kind of photo that might illustrate something about the matter at hand)

The judge said: ((source: The Spokesman-Review, 9/20/1977)

“ The probation report discloses that although just short of her 14th birthday at the time of the offense, the victim was a well-developed young girl who looked older than her years ... ”

He said that (and further details) did not matter with regard to the criminal charge ... But it does matter with respect to NPOV of a WP:BLP. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above the Probation Report is a flawed document as the Judge indicated. The interpretations given in the Probation Report, yes I have read it, are glowing a fawning over Polanski. The author seem truly enamored with Polanski, taking at the very end about forgiveness bases upon his "artistry" by letter he received from around the world. Everyone involved with this case was getting their bread buttered by the Hollywood circles. This was in Hollywood and Polanski was a Director. All indications were that Polanski was given every break in the world. There is nothing Neutral about the Points of View you want to raise. The only reason to suggest she looked older is agenda driven. As I said above, the relationship to what others in California were sentenced to was analysis by the defense attorneys. But nothing about the Polanski case was equivalent to this case, as Van De Camp said. The Polanski case was exceptional in every way, making any attempt to analyze what would be a comparable sentence...folly. Thus the entire premise of your wanting to conclude she looked older is of no importance. Its at least of no importance as to the reasoning you have put here as to its need for inclusion.

Going back to the probation report you want to view as gospel. It also said the following ""the victim was not only physical mature, but willing; as one doctor has additionally suggested there was a lack of coercion by the defendant..." The picture of her at the time show her to be nothing close to physically mature. The probation report says she was WILLING. This conclusion is against all the facts. She plead for him to stop. Yet the probation report says she was willing. How can you want to rely on this. How does this conclusion show its has a Neutral Point of View? Its view is taking the position directly against the Grand Jury testimony of the girl. It calls her a liar in no uncertain terms.

The Probation report says there was a "lack of coercion by the defendant". How is that even possible to conclude without overwhelming bias and sympathy for Polanski, to which it drowns out any semblance of honor to the truth. Polanski drugged the girl and plied her with alcohol, then continued as she protested. Somehow that is not coercion? In what world?

So put the 13 year old child in a Jacuzzi and then take pictures of her as Polanski did. See http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pyylukR2xyI/SsJJySspEhI/AAAAAAAAAMA/Dq6zNHAX9q8/s1600-h/samantha+geimer+polansky+rape+2.JPG Do you think she is a mature 18 year old. Fair game? Really? Make no mistake now, this is the way the child of 13 looked on the day that Polanski anally raped her. Get whatever person to say whatever...but this is it, this is her, this really is the little girl in the Jacuzzi. Polanski raped what you see here, in these pictures, as she was then, there is nothing to interpret, this is her, this is then. This is how she was before Polanski took her

How many more facts do you need before you believe your own eyes? Look at her pictures. She is simply a 13 year old child looking every bit the part. Polanski sexually pursued underage girls, that is well document prior him raping a child in 1977. Given that, you should understand that in no way would have looking 18 been operative for Polanski. Polanski was simply a child predator who sought out to have sex with girls who looked 13. If looked 18 how would you figure Polanski would be attracted to her.

again: this time with more feeling too: She was a child, and the savoring eyes of the molester, Polanski, can not for their wanting, create this 13 year old CHILD to be anything other that what she was, a thirteen old child. --Tombaker321 (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Note I have removed the blockquote BUT I believe it conveys ... in the words of police officer who knew what she looked like, and experienced her behavior—things that are important to have in mind before "she speaks" ... and does so far better than any edged-in parenthetical phrase. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended further commentary on why "looking 16 to 18" is important

Follow-up comment: With the probation report info re "looking 16 to 18" as phrased by police sergeant (with balance maintaining young behavior), some elements of the case are clearer, E.G: victim + her mom + psychiatrists + probation officer all were saying "no jail." And a (surely contentious) terse parenthetical, e.g., (appearing "16 to 18") does not capture all that needs to be captured here. Note that the judge said many ruder things about the implications of the probation report (e.g., the victim's 17 year old boyfriend ought to be put on trial, too). Bottom line: As elegantly as possible, the victim's appearing older should be mentioned—not that it is an excuse, but that it makes it more understandable (to many of our outraged eyes) why—in a California in which no one had been sentenced to jail for a similar offense in the previous two years—the idea of probation is understandable (as it clearly was to many of the participants). I.E., "looking 16 to 18" is not of secondary importance, but primary—something you need to know the moment you see "13"—because the sexual offense was not performed on an abstract number that Polanski knew, but a person appearing older. The medical report read: "Adult female." No she wasn't. But neither was she "Child."-- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources re probation report

• "Prison Ordered for Polanski" - "The probation report reveals .." The Spokesman-Review (Sept 20, 1977)

  Comment: It is useful to read an account written at the time. This one does not require purchase. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Google news archive result showing "looking between 16 and 18" quote "Mental Tests for Polanski Ordered," Los Angeles Times (Sept 20, 1997) [pay per view] Proofreader77 (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• If there is no doubt him knowing she was only 13, then why is the rest of this mentioned at all? How old some people thought she looked, is not relevant in any possible way, and has no place in the article. As for they saying no jail, that is because they didn't want to have the ordeal of a trial, this guy famous, and the media attention would be something most unpleasant. It doesn't mean they didn't believe he should have done jail time. And whether she had sex with her boyfriend previously, is not relevant in any possible way. Mentioning that just biases some people. That's why we have rape shield laws in this country, and the question of whether or not the rape victim was a virgin or not at the time, is not allowed to be mentioned. Dream Focus 11:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, she was not a virgin, that means she had had sex previously to having sex with Polanski and she had previously taken drugs as well, all this is totally relevent to this article and totally citable. Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Removal of Citations and References to Reliable Sources

Anyone reading this.....knows about the controversies related to this Wikipedia entry.

For anyone to contribute to the Polanski entry, they have needed to reference and cite from reliable sources, up the proverbial ying yang. In fact because of the Documentary and the various contentions of fact, contributors have felt it necessary to give two or more unique citations for individual lines of entry. While this is a burden for contribution, it is what it is.

I am suggesting and urging that removal of multiple unique citations and references be stopped.

Removing the multiple citations in now way helps this Wikipedia entry. As we are electronic, nothing is saved or gained by their removal.

Specifically there was a removal of citations which were considered duplicative by one individual. The problem with their removal, was that these were citations back to original Probation Report and Grand Jury testimony (copies of the originals unedited).

So as long as the references are to unique reliable sources, I believe all the citations should remain, instead of being removed and pared down.

Is there any reason why this manner of course should not be followed? --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the references that have been inserted are perhaps not really WP:rs there are too many citations, if it is a simple comment why does it require 6 citations to support it, we are not here to link to thousands of other internet locations where they tell their version of the story, we are here to write a wikipedia version which includes a collection of citations to support verifiability. Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob You are missing the point, its not a "perhaps", I am talking about actual WP:rs For example Off2riorob, you have stated that Polanski is not a rapist. You are saying that in the discussion area in an absolute sense. Not whether he is convicted rapist...you have said that he can not be considered a rapist period. As he confessed to having intercourse with a child, and that child has insisted that she pleaded repeatedly with him to stop.....a reasonable person can conclude...Polanski is a rapist, though still he may not be a convicted rapist. Your prior contentions that Polanski is not a rapist or Pedophile or a child molester, are ridiculous to me and others. These things are dictionary definitions that are being disputed. Forcing himself upon a drugged and sedated little girl of 13, as she pleaded with him to stop, as he injected himself anally into her, well yes, that makes Polanski a rapist, its just that simple.

Yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

But that my point. To overcome these objections whether reasonable or not, contributors have needed to cite and cite again reliable sources to get content added and kept. I maintain that removal of these actual WP:rs unique and reliable sources does nothing but diminish this Wikipedia entry at best, and at worst their removal goes to an agenda. Either way I want the citations kept and not boiled down to nothings --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish, the excessive citation to weak sources is what diminishes the article. I do appreciate your opinion regarding the wiki guidlines tom but I think it is relevent to point out that you have only 48 edits to the wiki and all of them are regarding this article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, well I really think you are still not getting it, you are really not understanding things. I am certainly not talking about "weak sources"...did you read the part I said about "original source" documents. I also laid out why citing and citing again was necessary. A couple real quick things now.... guidlines is spelled guidelines, and relevent is spelled relevant. Now what was the relevance of what you were pointing out about my 48 edits? Nah I am just joking....I really don't need to hear your opinion back on this one. Seriously spare me any self-justification for your remark. Really

My original requests here in this discussion section remain.--Tombaker321 (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks, if I have made a spelling mistake just feel free to correct it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I don't think that it helps the reader if we have too many citations that repeat the same material - I figure it is better to just link to the best source that fully supports what is in the article, and not add any beyond that, unless the material is controversial. In this case, one source, the New York Post article, fully supports the line. Of the other six references, one (USA Today) doesn't really relate to the claim it is being used to support, and one (the Salon article) is an opinion piece, so it adds nothing that isn't supported by the New York Post, and is less reliable. The remaining four references are all to the testimony, which makes them to a primary source. This is ok, but we're limited was to what we can do with primary sources, as we're not allowed to interpret them in any way. I'm also a tad nervous about linking to a copy of the transcript on a third party website, even though The Smoking Gun is, as far as I know, reliable with documents. If we were quoting the transcript, instead of summarizing it, then it would be a plus. But as the New York Post has already summarized it to the extent that we want, I'm more comfortable with just using that.

At any rate, I'm willing to keep the testimony, especially now that it is down to one reference specifying multiple pages rather than four distinct references, but I'd like to pull the Salon and USA Today refs for the reasons above. - Bilby (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've replaced one source with another from the article. The source was "Polanski Named in Rape Charge". I didn't think this would cause a problem, so hopefully it didn't, as the Roman Polanski Media Archive seems to be someone's collection of articles about Polanski put online. I'm concerned that this is a probable WP:LINKVIO, that the site is unreliable as the articles have been transcribed by the site's author, and that the site seems to be down as often as it is up these days. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Much of the information I have been using in my research has been from the defenses motion to dismiss. Its a 239 page PDF which includes just about everything, including a transcript of the documentary, extended transcripts of Wells interview not used in documentary, probation report, transcript of Polanski pleading guilty, letters from the victim etc. Currently its hosted at the NYtimes.com So I would believe it would be relatively a long storage, but I saved a copy for myself anyway.

see http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/Polanski.pdf --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the States rebuttal to the above motion http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/0106polanski_motion.pdf --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)