Talk:Roman Polanski

Possible sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

• 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

Sexual assault case summary

Here's my suggestion for rewriting the section. I've tried to stay at a pretty high level on the matter. It's based off of the lede from the detailed article, which is what Benjiboi's revision was also from. I feel it covers the major parts of the case thus far, and strongly pulls the reader into looking at the detailed article ("Hmm, the lawsuit was settled, but how?").

In March 1977 Polanski was arrested and charged with a number of offenses against Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl.[39] He was charged by a grand jury 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.[44] Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges.[45] Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain that was accepted by Polanski. This deal dropped 5 of the charges, with Polanski pleading guilty to a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse (synonymous under California law with statutory rape). The arrangement also required he spend 90 days in a state prison for a psychiatric evaluation.

The judge received a probation report and the psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time. Despite expectations and recommendations that he would receive only probation at sentencing, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys" that he would imprison and then deport him.[51][47] Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[44] As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition to the United States.[52] Since then, Polanski has mostly lived in France and avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him.

Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. The case was settled in 1993. In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival.[55][56] His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court.[57][58]

The reference numbers are pulled from Benjiboi's post, and would, of cource, need to be updated. I spot checked a few of the sources, and tweaked things a bit from that. I have not gone through the detailed article carefully, looking for any major points that are missed, but I didn't see any with a cursory glance. I would include a sync tag, just to make sure it gets looked at. The other part is we need to make sure that anything in the long version that's not in the detailed article be moved over to there.

Thoughts on this, and especially alterative suggestions. Ravensfire (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[P77 highlights] Quickly highlighted in green parts to discuss. (1st inaccurate, 2nd the long-standing muddle prison/deport) Further comment later.Proofreader77 (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I read through the source [1] for that first part, and agree. Hmmm, drop the last sentence in the first paragraph, but need to tweak the beginning of the second paragraph.

"The judge ordered Polanski to serve a custodial sentence as a state prison for evaluation. He was released after serving part of that sentence. "

"Despite multiple reports and the victim recommending probation only, the judge suggested to Polanski's attorney's that he was considered more jail time and deportation [2]. Shortly before the sentencing hearing in February 1978, Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced. As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition to the United States. Since then, Polanski has mostly lived in France and avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him."

:: And there I'm getting stuck - it does get confusing at that point. I think what needs to be said is that the evaluations recommended probation only, but that the judge controversially decided to impose jail time on Polanski. Shortly before the sentencing, Polanski fled the United States to Europe. And then "As a French citizen ..."

I've gotta say - the sub article is a MESS. Duplicate references, non-working references and things not always exactly as the sources would say. Definite BLP concerns in there. Ravensfire (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Found a source and came up with some phrasing. Ravensfire (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Can we replace "dropped" with "dismissed" in the first paragraph regarding charges? "The agreement included dismissal of the five, more serious charges, with Polanski pleading guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse (synonymous under California law with statutory rape)."

I concur that the fact that multiple sources recommended against harsher sentencing needs to be addressed. Oberonfitch (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• There's a few areas where there have been questions/concerns raised about how the 77/78 progressed. We'd be remiss if the existence of those questions wasn't mentioned here. So ...

"In March 1977 Polanski was arrested and charged with a number of offenses against Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl. He was charged by a grand jury 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. Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges. Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain that was accepted by Polanski. The agreement included the dismissal of the five, more serious charges, with Polanski pleading guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse (synonymous under California law with statutory rape). The judge ordered Polanski to serve a custodial sentence as a state prison for evaluation. He was released after serving part of that sentence."

"Despite multiple reports and the victim recommending probation only, the judge suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he was considered more jail time and deportation [3]. Shortly before the sentencing hearing in February 1978, Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced. As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition to the United States. Since then, Polanski has mostly lived in France and avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him. Questions have been raised about how the case was handled and about some of the decisions by the judge."

"Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. The case was settled in 1993. In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival. His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court. Polanski is currently in jail in Switzerland, waiting for the official extradition request and hearing."

Obviously refs need to be added for anything that might be controversial (if it's been discussed here, probably needs a cite). I left the link in for the one I used for the judge talking about more time/deportation. The last sentence will help bring the reader to the hear and now. Busy all tomorrow, so hope to see a good summary in here next time I check, and the start of reworking the sexual abuse article (oh, it's bad, bad, bad in there!). Ravensfire (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see either at the end of the sentence about avoiding countries likely to extradite, or in the following paragraph where he is arrested in Switzerland, that he owned a chalet there, and had come and gone from Switzerland repeatedly without arrest. As for the sexual abuse article, I'd probably have apoplexy if I went over there. Perhaps when I am feeling stronger....Oberonfitch (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha..me too, thanks for teaching me a new word, Apoplexy Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. FWIW, I would leave all the "extra" references for now unless they are simply irrelevant to the content. The main article on this case is a big mess so for our readers' sake I would prefer to leave extra resources for them as to this content. It's reasonably well-written and in a contentious area so extra sourcing is provided. We can always remove them when things die down a bit if we still feel the need. Another option, of course, is to combine several into one ref if it's simply a matter that one ref at the end of a sentence looks better than four, etc. -- Banjeboi 00:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The version of the entry before the NPOV dispute handled this topic, without the errors being rediscovered.

1. The 90 day 1203.03 diagnostic evaluation was initiated under statue at the discretion of the judge, under the authority given to Judges. It was never part of a plea bargain or condition thereof.

2. The plea deal only included dropping of charges if Polanski plea guilty AND was sentenced period, full stop. There are no other plea deals, anything else being asserted is not within the court records. Discussions in chambers with a Judge are off the record, and used as posturing by officers of the court. It only counts when done in public court.

3. The charges would have been dismissed, they have not to date. Because Polanski fled country, he actually fled on the plea agreement, and all charges remain unsettled. If they sentence Polanski on the plea deal the others will be dismissed. But as Wells said for the documentary, when he fled he threw everything out the window.

4. Polanski lost the civil case, which is removed in the versions above, and he agreed to give her half a million dollars, which is significant...why removed?

6. The 90 days was not a sentence, and he was not released from sentence. He officially is waiting for sentence.

7. Saying questions have been raised about the case and judge is pretty dam obvious, a real waste of a Precious line, consider the details I added about the judges removal and why, fully sourced, was removed.

Somehow I think the hexagon is a poor reinvention of a working wheel. We had a fact checked, contemporaneously discussion pounded out version. A single handed ambiguous NPOV orchestrated its deletion --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment re: 3 (above). Wells has already been dismissed as being a liar. His legal opinion, given either his stated illegal participation in the case, or his withdrawn statement of participation, cannot be considered. You may well be right that the whole case begins again, but that is conjecture. It appears that the case may need to be prosecuted without the victim's testimony. What you have offered above is legal opinion on a number of matters. A simplified article is appropriate until the case unfolds further. Oberonfitch (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Assault: adding Nastassja Kinski info

I wrote the following edit for the Sexual assault section.

While Polanski was involved in a romantic relationship with the 15 year old Nastassja Kinski, he was arrested in Los Angeles for the sexual assault of Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old, on March 11, 1977.

I wrote the following for the reasons why. (Added Polanski’s POV about sexual relationships with young women. Polanski was involved with Kinski before and after the arrest. This relationship was well documented by the press during the times.)

This edit was undid by Alandeus, with the following reasons. (That part of the story belongs elsewhere)

My inclination is to re-insert this edit

1. As I believe it conveys Polanski's POV and gives a defense to why he thought it was OK to have consensual sex with a 13 year old.

2. The facts of the edit are not disputed.

3. Being engaged in sex with a 15 year old was legal in France.

4. It shows that his engagement with Geimer was not a one off situation.

5. Kinski would later join Polanski in press conferences (1979) regarding Geimer, and gave interviews defending Polanski actions.

6. It is reflective of the responses given by Polanski after his arrest. (i.e. claiming he did nothing wrong etc)

7. The reactions by the public took into account his well reported relationship with Kinski

I would like feedback in talk, before I do another edit on this. Thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not me, as you say, you believe it conveys polanski's pov...also it is nothing to do with the sexual assault. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Its more about rape, then it is about the age of the victim. Didn't the arresting officer note how nervous he was? Does anyone believe he did not think what he was doing was wrong? I don't see how mentioning someone else who was a bit older matters in this case. Dream Focus 15:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nervousness when under arrest is not an indicator of guilt. You can use his plea, but you can't use his nervousness which, in my opinion, was a perfectly normal reaction, and is probably common to most of the population except recidivists. And, no, I don't think he believed what he was doing was wrong at the time. Not that it matters a bit. And, although you were not here, DF, when we had the witch hunt involving Kinski, Huston, Nicholson, and every creative who signed in support of Polanski, I remain opposed to the naming of names just to bolster the case of wickedness and licentiousness in the creative community.Oberonfitch (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to feedback so far:

1. Polanski only pleaded guilty to sex with an under 14 year old girl. He also said it was consensual. So this more relates not to all the charges against him which he first plead not guilty, but to why he plead guilty to the single charge. That he was in a current relationship with a girl in France, yet underage in by California laws goes to show his state of mind. His actions reflect his POV.

2. This is a better entry than comments by Vannater, his actions show......much better than an appraisal of his mindset. If we are not going to include the Vannatter remarks, I would likely to concede the need for this edit based on feedback. If the Vannater remarks are to be used, I will strongly argue this language of this relationship in the alternative.

3. Kinski is an exception to all the others, because this is whom he had an ongoing relationship with. As the Prosecutor raised in court. She was at the Press conference with Polanski near the time their relationship ended in 1979, when Polanski said he would come back to face the sentencing.

4 The relationship with Kinski as his direct and after the fact actions, reflect what Polanski used as Defense prior to use of the Plea deal. There were many remarks in the time frame between charges and the ultimate plea deal. Kinski was the woman he was with during this time. Here age in California was illegal, though not in France.

Summary, without the need for Vannater's appraisal of the inner thoughts of Polanski (they are not in the current version), it will be sustained that this area of information will not be in the Sexual Assault section. However if Vannater's remarks are offered for inclusion, I would then strongly go back to the need for these first hand actions rather than a 3rd party's subjective appraisals. The rational for showing Polanski's POV via his actions, is much stronger than an interested 3rd hand parties guesses 30 years after the fact. NPOV benefits from showing Actions instead of Opinions.

More comments on this are very welcome. Thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. IMHO this brings up a couple points. Presently that content goes to the sub article - actually it sounds like it must be there. Likewise add more context if this sort of thing was relatively common in his circle. As presented above is too compacted and feels wedged in, understandable but counter-productive. If this relationship was indeed covered by reliable sources as relative then we should state that rather than just that it existed, in this way we show its notability. -- Banjeboi 21:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It was covered by Reliable Sources contemporaneously, as being relevant to Polanski's well known penchant to have sexual relationships with young girls (below 18). The context of his penchant and the ultimate crime plead to, is obvious. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

She is now mentioned like four times so I think it's fair to say it's included. -- Banjeboi 15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

I think a sentence about this documentary should be included. Something like - Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a 2008 documentary about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of [the] conviction" and won both a Sundance and Emmy award.(2008 Film Plays Role in Polanski Case) It may also make sense to cite how it re-ignited interest in his case or that it is currently cited in the appeals process. Obviously the sub article can include more but I think it's relevant enough to mention here. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The awards imply the documentary was not controversial for its content, which was disputed by the LA Judicial Branch, in letters to HBO. Others suggest it was cherry picked information, dwelling on making the Judge look like a buffoon. (e.g. Not stating Rittenband graduated at 19 from New York University law school, then Harvard summa cum laude) Simply said, the award comments are not needed. So I can see the following for inclusion.

In late 2008 a documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was released about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the case's handling post conviction."

I would also suggest the possible inclusion of a line like:

"The interviews from this documentary were later used in Polanski's 2009 court motion asking for dismissal of the case" --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I added the low sales comment as the NYT noted it as relative, likewise the awrds which help explain why a box-office bomb had some surprising impact. Current:

“ Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a 2008 documentary about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of [the] conviction"; the New York Times noted it had low sales but won both a Sundance and Emmy award and re-ignited interest in the case.(2008 Film Plays Role in Polanski Case, Waiting to come in from the cold) Interviews from the film were also cited in Polanski's 2009 court motion asking for dismissal of the case. ”

Does this get us closer? -- Banjeboi 21:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying as a broad generality (where the prosecutorial part, i.e. Wells, is no longer applicable) is not, I say, the way to "package" the info from Gunson and Dalton. Whether it can be used as I would like may require verification in other forums. (But have confirmed doc is RS secondary at RSN - may be quoted or summarized). Proofreader77 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, that pushes it all the way out.

1. The documentary was not about the legal case, it was about Polanski, and included the legal case. Much is talking about his wife, Poland, has clips of his movies. The entire "Desired" portion is not about the case.

2. The documentary is not alleging anything. It is supposed to be demonstrating what happened. Some of the interviewees make those allegations...his lawyers. If you wanted to say Polanski's lawyer's gave interviews that allege judicial and prosecution misconduct, that would be accurate. But its second hand. Why not just make those assertions on what Polanski's attorneys did when they filed motions. (My suggested sentence above I see has the same problem I am raising here)

3. The awards given to the film are of no matter, and only confuse. It needless give the reader the impression that the awards give greater merit to biases of the film. It is already know that the many of the people who vote for the awards are the same people who signed the petition for Polanski. The wiki reference for the film itself does talk about the awards.

4. If you want to say that the Documentary became the impetus for Polanski's lawyers to file motions with the court, that is fine.

My best take at doing what your are trying is " In 2008, a documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was released about Polanski,his life, the sexual assault case. Interviews from the film were later used by Polanski's lawyers for a motion to dismiss legal case against Polanski. Those motions were rejected, and are currently being appealed. "

Only thing that needs communications, if that, is the interviews from the documentary ignited legal motions by his lawyers. His lawyer gives the biggest interview in the film, FWIW. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

re: 2 "second hand" - Disagree, but generally propose that (Tb321 v P77) disagreement's which other editors here can't resolve, be presented at appropriate noticeboard where more eyes can help determine legitimacy of either perspective with respect to WP policy rather than personal theories of inclusion/exclusion. * For the moment I present this response to a question I raised at WP:RSN, and note that W&D conveys parts of the timeline previously unavailable via description by some of the key participants. How usable to be clarified. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am specifically opposed to creating some special format other than editorial consensus of this talk page. This wikilawyering really should not be continued. The timeline of the film is entirely available from other sources. The in chamber conversations are also documented at the time. In chambers conversations with a judge are not binding, as a matter of fact. Chambers are not Court. The film makes assertions that the plea bargain had a factor of "time in custody" as part of it, are false. The assertions that the judge was bound by the various reports, are false. The court records are clear to the publicly offered plea bargain. The film was funded and created by Polanski's peer group, and this same peer group does the voting for all awards. The director of the film is a biased participate, whom is linked to her subject through profession and its circles. "Despite what he did, Polanski was screwed over by the judge, he fled because the judge pulled the rug out from under him," Zenovich says. She is not disinterested. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. I haven't seen the film so am only going on what reliable sources have said about it, looking at Wikipedia's article on it certainly doesn't indicate it was about anything but the case. Someone who has seen the film please feel free to fix that article. I think the awards are quite releative and bundled with the low sales help explain why it was a low sales at box office yet was influential. Likely we should mention its rotation on HBO. As for tweaking the film vs the lawyers "allege"? Seems little difference, but if we want to quibble it we need a source to state that only the lawyers did and that the film either made no conclusions or their account was disputed in the film. Likewise, we could leave it close to how it is and add a follow-up that testimony in the film is being disputed and cited in the current cases. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The documentary as RS (secondary) for timeline events

I have received confirmation re W&D specifically as source for in-chamber timeline events. (A follow-up to original answer at WP:RSN). I.E., the documentary may be described by other sources by some denatured generality, but the doc is RS itself. If disagreement on that point, let us agree to take the matter to WP:BLPN (where the NPOV aspects of exclusion of sourced information from a BLP may be analyzed in this case). Proofreader77 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be going the way of generating original content. The documentary is not available as a source as far as I know on the internet. There are sources of the text of the documentary. The documentary has been reviewed by reliable sources as being flawed and biased. For example one story is of a son recanting what he father heard in the bathroom. This person later went into business with Polanski. The interviews are what they are. I would object to summaries being done without a reliable source doing it. I would be opposed to generating original content. Since the reference is not able be viewed freely, and there is not a reliable source summarizing it accurately, I don't think it should be used, currently. Of course the documentary is relating many events that have ample readily available sources.

I have a feeling that you intend to raise many of Polanski's lawyers legal arguments before the court. This would be improper, most likely. The arguments of Prosecutors placed. As opposed to writing out legal arguments....It would be proper to write about which motions are filed and what is there current state. For example you can write that Polanski is getting heard in the appeals court in December, and state what there overall attempt is, without cherry picking what legal arguments you want to present.

Again, this seems to be going towards cherry picking. If NPOV questions are to be raised they should be done in this talk. No need to dispute before the questions and topics are raised. --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow the two links in my message above. (Note answer is by someone who helped write relevant policy.) Available online is not requirement for RS. (For working timestamp copy, subtitles are available). And yes, I do expect WP:BLPN discussions will be required at some point. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have the subtitle text of the documentary and extras, that is publicly available please provide the link.

It counter productive to consensus building of editors, to be raising notice boards, prior to any discussion. Lets just deal with what is presented. Proofreader77 no one WP:OWN 's this topic. The documentary is full of factual errors, the director is slanted. "Despite what he did, Polanski was screwed over by the judge, he fled because the judge pulled the rug out from under him," Zenovich says. Polanski's lawyers were highly involved with its production, and used the production for court arguments. Polanski's lawyers refused to allow their interviews to be included until the final film was reviewed by them.

So the content and release of the film was controlled by Polanski's active legal staff. If there is to be an assessment of independence of the film, we should address it in talk prior to going to yet another notice board. We can discuss here the evidence that this film is "advocacy" film. Its not your standard documentary.

Which is why your taking the questions to the notice boards without reviewing it here (in discussion) first, is a problem. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason for going to notice boards (which we should have done a long time ago), is to get clear answers (not loops of personal argument unrelated to policy). For instance this question to you at ANI should be illuminating, and the clear answer I got from WP:RSN is not mired aforementioned loops. Policy has specific effects in the context of BLP NPOV, and the noticeboards are where to go when there are policy disagreements. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's completely fine to go to a noticeboard as we're all working on Wikipedia, actually it helps show that one article, or a set of articles is treated the same as all the rest. The documentary can be used as a source, we simply cannot make a novel synthesis that he documentary does not. As I was quoting the NY Times I rather doubt I was. -- Banjeboi 15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Joining...As stated elsewhere, the raising WP:RSN of Wanted and Desired, was done in a vacuum, without talk review or alternative viewpoints, its disputed in principal, for large sections of the commentary within, but its moot until actual content is written based on it. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

Now that some of the mystery has been sorted I've added what I think is some relevant and NPOV content adding some context of Polanski's actions. That he was on assignment for instance seems quite relevant and that he had many casual sex relationships with teenage girls also seems like it should be mentioned. I've boldly added this while removing the NPOV tag and archiving the growing mountain of words that didn't seem to be making anything clearer. Of course anyone can re-add the tag but with appropriate and, of course, on point and concise points of content they feel should be added, changed or removed in it's own talk section. -- Banjeboi 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(technical signing so bot will archive, but while typing) Beginning by removing the POV-section tag, then getting rid of the separate section for Sharon Tate's murder (burying it in Personal life between first wife and Kinski) is quite a non-consensus leap forward ... clearly on a trajectory for BLP NPOV dispute of a higher kind. But such is to be expected in an article like this. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Proofreader you keep on pounding the drums of dispute (even saying of a higher kind now). Please just participate in the discussion.

For the substance, I think the Sharon Tate Murder section removal is a dramatic change without much discussion, also.

This event was highly public and well covered, it being very historically significant by that on it self. And Polanski the object of this entire entry would say that this event changed him profoundly. (There are many citations of how significant this event was on him, including his invigorated interested in young girls).

I believe the context of Polanski's wife, and child being murdered in the Manson murders, the profound effects and consequences are under represented in the Polanski entry. With the previous versions being better than the current. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to see we agree that the Sharon Tate murder should have retained its own section (ignoring tactical rhetoric and focusing on useful content, e.g., signs of consensus). -- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tate murder section was not removed or downplayed and now that it has been integrated it made sense to restore its very own section title. To beef the section up please lean on what sources state. -- Banjeboi 15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

the real reasons for the plea bargaining

It mentions that he plead not guilty, but didn't list why he changed his mind. He originally rejected any plea bargain, then his lawyers saw the evidence of the girl's panties, proving sex had happened. It currently reads In an effort to preserve her anonymity, Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain which Polanski accepted, and, under the terms, five of the initial charges were to be dismissed. They weren't preserving her anonymity since everyone knew her name, the foreign reporters stalking her and publishing pictures of her everywhere in the European news media. Both the panties, and mention of the harassment by the reporters, was mentioned in the documentary Wanted and Desired. So there should be some rewording to make it accurate. Or perhaps to protect her anonymity in America, since going to trial would reveal her to more harassment this time by American reporters, her lawyers offered a plea bargain. Dream Focus 16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is based on ref. But yes, "Wanted and Desired" tells more: Silver initiated idea (stated reason was anonymity); both prosecution (did not fit policy) & defense (no sex evidence at that time [aside: rape exam had been negative]) first rejected plea idea; then panty stains found + analysis; Dalton ready for plea; Gunson goes along (accepting lower plea than policy, note: victim's attorney wants no trial). See Silver's comments 00:50:55+ ("anonymity") and in court 00:56:27+ "A stigma ..." ... i.e: "anonymity" was stated reason. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(smiling) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(If above refers to my message) Seeking clarification for assertion of OR (to advance a position) in this instance. I have been informed that W&D is RS secondary. If summarizing from W&D as ref, "anonymity" would still be stated basis of attorney Silver (as current print ref says). That said, the implications of "advances a position" is certainly a key idea that must be addressed in this article's editing—but would add that my focus is more on making sure that timeline information supporting Polanski's defense is not excluded. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Find a source with a timeline (or the timeline asserted by his defense), otherwise there is too much likelihood of drawing an OR (or worse) slant/take/outlook in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The documentary is the source for the description of the missing parts of the timeline as described by the prosecutor Roger Gunson (in concurrence) with defense attorney Douglas Dalton. No previous source contained those parts (re: in-chamber discussions prior to in-court events). Will stop there for the moment, other than noting the unique character of this particular situation. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's all that unique, but it is WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(smiling) It's unique to not-nearly-so-wiki-experienced me. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but you're fast pushing your 10 post/day limit. Talk about this on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As per Proofreader77, the use of "anonymity" is in keeping with the source, so it should probably stay unless there's an equal source available that contains more detail. I do recall that there was something about protecting the child from the trial as well, but I can't recall that, and I suspect the source may not have been sufficiently reliable. On the other part, unless there's something very specific saying that the additional evidence convinced Polanski of the need to accept the plea bargain I'd be inclined to leave it out. Mostly per OR, but also because such isn't necessary - given a choice between the initial charges and what was offered, Polanski's lawyers would have been foolish not to accept the deal. So I don't think we need to surmise anything more than the lawyers recognising a good thing when it was put before them. I also suspect that if we wish to extend this, the place to do it is in the full article. - Bilby (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with what Bilby has said above. Timeline information is available in many RS publications. As far as the original topic by Dream Focus, it is well understood that the lawyer for Geimer created the impetus for the plea bargain, as acknowledge by the DA in court. So that part should remain. To address you other points I would suggest a phrase like: " and responding to mounting evidence"

So the line could be---- : In an effort to preserve her anonymity, Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain which Polanski accepted under mounting evidence of the case. The plea bargain's terms were five of the initial charges were to be dismissed, and Polanski admitting guilt to the charge of having sex with a person under the age of 14.

Wordsmithed any which way. I think there is a bit of a run on sentence in the current version.

Yes the information on the documentary, unless offered specifically, is OR Original Research. Beyond OR, the taking to a notice board was very premature, while the general question may have been addressed, there is no showing that W&D is a traditional documentary, or its independence. If there is any copyright legal text of the full documentary and extra features, I would love to see it. Its not on HBO which is the rights owner.

Further the Weinstein Co, who is currently the most significant public advocate for the Hollywood industry in Favor of Polanski, is also a rights holder. The film was created by the friends of Polanski, with editorial control by Polanski's lawyers. I am not aware of any legitimate documentary, where participants of the majority of the interviews, control the release and use. Without the consent of Polanski, who's lawyer's owe a fiduciary duty to, the content of the film in its FINAL version would not be released. Because of the duty to his client, his lawyers were not free to disclose any information not favorable to his client, this duty is undisputed, further his lawyer was not free to speak without the expressed consent of his client. Thus Polanski maintained editorial authority of the films content.

Long story short, the "documentary" is a construct of Polanski, and his attorneys, and friends, with an agenda driven outcome, who's content was used in legal motions by Polanski --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the "responding to mounting evidence" idea. I agree that the film is a pretty slanted view of things, but that's nothing new. It's not OR for the FILM to come up with ideas that are included (properly source) in the article. I'd be really careful about including something from film for the reason that Tombaker321 said (film with an agenda). There might be a good paragraph or two for the sub article going over some of the concerns raised in the film though. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref improve template

I don't understand why this article keeps getting re-'plated. All the material seems thoroughly ref'd up. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit frustrating but there is a valid point that although some of the sections are well cleaned up and referenced, others seem absolutely devoid. The article needs more clean-up and likely someone with a copy of the best books about him to plod through and ref up a bunch of content so all can see what is verified and to what sources. -- Banjeboi 13:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The subsuming of Sharon Tate murder subtopic into Personal life

(Which removes link to main coverage.) The diminishing of significance of Sharon Tate's murder with this edit is noted in the context of BLP NPOV. (Playing down the brutal event which profoundly effected Polanski—burying it between first wife and Natashi Kinski.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, it does not seem appropriate to be buried like this. Gamaliel (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think this points to a problem of removing this content into a "personal life" section. If you read the career section there is this chasm where the Tate murder content should surely rest. Instead the text talks about his post-murder career absent context. The same impact likely cannot be made - certainly without some sourcing - that his third marriage or the Vanity Fair case affected his work in some way. I think we need to step back and look at how disjointed this all is. Likely the whole "personal life" bits should be integrated. If nothing else, chronologically. As for Sharon Tate#Death and aftermath link it points to a subsection of an article already linked. I may make sense to see if there is anything there that needs to be added here. -- Banjeboi 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The brutal mass-murder killing (already played down since current events) of his wife is not "personal life" bits. The current treatment is playing it down (including removing the clear direct link to the full coverage.) There is not consensus for that. (Note: Trajectory toward this diminishment noted previously in this archived topic. ) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Sharon Tate murder - which had a great impact on Polanski's life and which was a major notable event in its own right - should have its own section. The problem is how to achieve this now that someone (Benjiboi?) has moved the "Early life" subsection to a different place in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Note (easy to see, but initially confusing): User:Banjeboi is a doppelganger account for User:Benjiboi. The use of Banjeboi on Talk and Benjeboi to edit is stylistic choice of sorts ... but in any case, the 19 consecutive edits (last time I counted) have been presented, as usual, as a fait accompli without prior discussion ... and defended with unpersuasive (to me) rationalizations when met with consternation—rather than what I would do, undo overreaching without complaint. So: Tactical rather than consensus-ual, but not surprising given the givens of contentious current-events article. BLP NPOV will resolve eventually. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am not a fan of "personal life" sections as such because the personal and professional lives are often entwined and each impacts upon the other. When looked at separately the context is lost, the connection is undemonstrated and it creates two distinct chronologies. If you read a biography of a person in book form it usually starts before the person's birth and moves through chronologically to either the present, or to a point after the subject's death. I understand that some readers prefer easy to spot snap shots within an article, and that this type of segregating of information can make particular points easier to pick out, but looking at the entire article as a whole, it becomes disjointed. Looking at the career section there is an unexplained jump from 1968 (Rosemary's Baby) to 1973 (Chinatown) and it strikes me as a serious omission that there is no mention of the event that took place between these two films, and which Polanski has said was the biggest "watershed" of his life, and which has shaped both his professional and personal life ever since - ie Tate's murder. I completely agree with User:Benjiboi's comment that "Likely the whole "personal life" bits should be integrated. If nothing else, chronologically." I'd support that.

On a secondary note, I also agree that there has been a move to diminish Tate's murder. I remember several weeks ago, when Polanski was a very hot topic, some editors were saying that her death was of little significance, because his notability rests on his sex crime, and Tate has her own article etc etc. I never have, and never will, buy that. It would be like writing an article on Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and saying the assassination of JFK is not relevant because Mrs Kennedy wasn't killed (and JFK has his own article). I think there has been an attitude conveyed by some editors that has resulted in anything that may humanise Polanski being removed, and I'm not sure if that attitude still prevails. The murder case was a much "bigger story" than the rape case, (and I know it's not a competition, both are highly relevant) in its time, and it has resonated for over 40 years. Polanski was probably the one survivor most destroyed by the murders - not only did he lose his wife and unborn child, but also two friends who were in the house caring for Tate at his request, because he failed to arrive home. Some news reports following his recent arrest, have noted that following the murders he embarked on a self-destructive and hedonistic lifestyle far removed from his earlier lifestyle, and that it was the beginning of what brought him to ruin. Bearing all that in mind, it's given almost no weight at all. There are various elements of his personal life that are not presented in any kind of overall context, and I think the problem relates to all of these points, rather than specifically to Tate's murder. Rossrs (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the Tate murders are highly meaningful in RP's life and that this easily can be sourced as such, that he was a surviving victim of one of the most widely noted murder sprees in US history. Moreover, I've never liked "personal life" sections in en.Wikipedia biographies. "Personal" and professional lives are indeed very entwined and deeply linked, maybe even more so for those in creative fields. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the Tate murders should be better contained than the current (and recently reverted) version. I do not see any consensus present for the subsuming of this content as was done by Benjiboi, nor any consensus to revert it back to his version. This is arbitrary and counterproductive. Because there was consensus to attempt to integrate the personal life into the article as a whole does not represent consensus to remove emphasis already given in the mean time. Sorry, the reversion to the chopped down version was wrong, at to my view, not consensus driven in any way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the original pre-edit version of the personal life section by hand (sure wish it could have been by a single revert). For the following reasons.

1. Split section illogically apart. Started with early life personal section, went to career, then went back to personal life. Original version contained a career block, then a personal life block. Which is more readable and better laid out.

2. Restores Sharon Tate Murder section, instead of a merged single block. Tate's murder is what Polanski said was the most significant impact to his life and future career. (paraphrasing) This was the loss of his wife, and viable child. The separate section give it the proper impact, as well as restoring the detail linking, which was removed for unknown reasons. This event was hugely note worthy, and captivated the nations for many years, and to this day.

3. Edits were large, the description of the edits on the history pages was very vague.

4. All commentary except that of the editor, had concerns over the New version.

5. New version lost information, i.e. the edit was only deleting and reorganizing, no new information was gained. ( Photo references was new, and was retained in restoration) Because the restored version has all the information of the edit, the restoral should not be controversial, as talk for deleting items is still possible.

6 It is the view of this editor, that besides the concerns of others voiced in talk about the edits, the restored version is a better document for this entry in Wikipedia.

--Tombaker321 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the separate subsection heading for Sharon Tate's murder and integrated all of the personal life section into the main text chronologically. I hope that all editors can see the glaring problems that, at least on this article, a "personal life" section can cause. We essentially have only one sentence for his first wife, which may be fine. Now the Tate section, Tate being his second wife, delineates between his work pre- and post- murder. No one disputes the event was likely the most impactful on him, correct? Thus it now weaves into the rest of the narrative on what he worked on and where, and explained the why to an extent without the disconnect. His third, and present wife, also has like one sentence.

Sharon Tate#Death and aftermath, BTW, is not appropriate for a {{Main}} link, IMHO as that's rather nihilistic of us to further limit her notability down to her murder only. Instead let readers look at her whole article and if they wish to jump ahead on that article they can. On this article we should delve into why Tate was so notable to Polanski, not why her murder was particularly gruesome. Instead explain her murder was gruesome and was international news for months even after the Manson family was arrested. Similarly the sexual abuse case is better integrated to show why Polanski's post-case life was without return to the US. In context we better serve our reader's needs vs. other agendas. -- Banjeboi 15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I like it, the new time-line is very clear and easy to follow. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have restore the article to its consensus format. Benjiobi you are into the area of WP:OWN You state in your edit that there is no consensus for move back to the text prior to your edit. This creates the glaringly obvious fact, by your own logic, that there was no consensus to your method and content of edits of the entire article before you made them.

This is particularly troubling since it was just of the feedback of the ANI board. And removal of the NPOVD combined simultaneously with new controversial editing of the Sexual abuse case.

The newest format defined time by movie releases, and disassembled organized sections within the context of movie time. Making facts much less accessible.

Your view that the death of a man's wife should not be shown for the historical significance of its fact, to the mire linking to a an article on its details, is editing for social engineering sake, which is counter to goals of encyclopedic entries.

Moreover, that these wholesale changes are done, then put under the banner of consensus changes is very troubling. The were presented as boldly changing, which is true, they boldly dissolved the collaborated talk discussed version as was being written by all editors of this entry.

As you state you are now witting a Narrative on Polanski we have even further departed from the goal of a Encyclopedic entry. Readers needs are not served by creating as you state a Narrative direction. The Narrative is now your OR, and attempt to explain the WHY without RS is a goal that should not be served, certainly not without review. For such significant changes away from time built entire entry, PLEASE review in talk, and please give enough time for other editors to respond.

--Tombaker321 (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please dial it down. First off I started that ANI thread and it had nothing to do with this subject so maybe drop that, ok? Secondly the issue cited by this thread is in some way lessening the impact of Tate's murder by dropping a section heading (!), I found that a bit much but in fully integrating all the personal life content into the main text there's indeed a need for the section title to be re-introduced ... and that's exactly what I did. You may feel there is some broad conspiracy to suppress, mitigate or other diffuse "the truth" but I can assure you I'm not involved. I'm here for our readers who deserve a good article that actually makes sense. Having a career section that talks about his post-murder career and then goes into " ...Unwilling to work in the United States after 1978 for fear of jail" is illogical and generally bad form. And now you're edit-warring (sigh). -- Banjeboi 19:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I make no assertion there is any conspiracy. I am concerned about a single editor changing an encyclopedic entry into a social engineered viewpoint Narrative. I have raised a NPOV Dispute. Please do not reinstall your comprehensive editing without peer review, or consensus. Your wanting to create the Narrative to make sense to the reader belies the fact based origins of the an encyclopedia. The facts should stand, and the what the reader understand should be their decision base on a fair presentation of the facts. Your new single handed narrative is not that. Time is not defined by Chinatown. Please respect the contributions of other editor before make wholesale changes without review in discussion. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there are now several editors pointing out similar issues as I have mentioned. You seem to be saying that by putting all the content into chronological order rather separating several section into a "Personal life" vs. "Career" section there is social engineered viewpoint Narrative being pushed or created. I'm missing what you mean by that. Perhaps it would help if you checked out Category:FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles, some our best articles in this subject area. You'll note that all of them integrate personal information to illuminate why we're even including it. If someone is Jewish we explain what sources have to say on how that impacted them, likewise other life events. We don't simply say X was upset over Y's murder, we show they were upset. we add context and let the reader decide for themselves what to think. -- Banjeboi 20:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that there is any NPOV issue relating to the presentation of material in "narrative" form rather than "encyclopedic" form. (Define "encyclopedic", what exactly do you mean?) If the content is the same but in a different structure, that does not fall under NPOV. All it does is create a timeline in which key events can be related to each other. Polanski has lived one life. He has not lived a professional life that is a separate entity to his personal life, and yet the article structure gives this impression by offering his story twice. I also suggest looking at other articles, specifically Category:FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles that have gone through more scrutiny than this article. You will see that the use of a narrative/chronological format is commonly used. The current dual timeline is used in many articles too, but it is not standard. Rossrs (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Benjiboi: When I stated social engineering I was referring to your statement and editing out of the link to the details of Polanski's wife murder.

"Sharon TateDeath and aftermath, BTW, is not appropriate for a Main link, IMHO as that's rather nihilistic of us to further limit her notability down to her murder only. Instead let readers look at her whole article and if they wish to jump ahead on that article they can. On this article we should delve into why Tate was so notable to Polanski, not why her murder was particularly gruesome. "

Removing of the link to a more detailed link to serve a need for portrayal is controversial. The facts in the removed citation are of a peer reviewed encyclopedic entry on his wife death. To exclude simply the link seem undue, and particularly given objections. Sharon Tate is not by herself a separate entity. She was bound to Polanski as his wife and mother of child. Polanski was clear her death was significant to him. Actively removing the link, seems like, deletion for the sake external sensibility over the facts, and needs of independent readers.

Re Rossers Definition of encyclopedic responded to in other section. Its the definition we all use. Regarding the timelines and compacting of information into Movie Release timeframes. I think it simple to be too novel. Chinatown became its own timeframe, with events folded into it. Polanski has two significant histories. That of his professional and personal life. But beyond that his life is marked by significant events. While Chinatown is one of those, it is not a group. Also the entire edit created a new dual format. This time not with career and personal life, but with arbitrary time grouped sections with events folded inside, as well as event driven groupings with their own timeframes. The mixture makes it hard to find events, and unsure of which grouping method is being used. Groups of time, do not have year ranges. Basically this is a major change, of how we were all working, and needs review. With the elimination of links, the NPOV became in question. The speed and insistence that Benjobi rejected the feedback of other contributors also seemed aggressive consider the impact of the self styled changes.

Please also see objection of the en mass changes by Wildhartlivie and others above. If nothing else the discussion of the changes could have been done first, rather than a here is the new version, how about trying to correct it now, approach. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

re Rossrs' FA article comments (What structure's best for this?)

Surveying FA-Class (actors/filmmakers), notice general absence of "famous" directors. Aaron Sorkin's mostly a screenwriter, and he *has* a "Personal Life" section. (Note also Sharon Tate is FA class —with unusual structure: 42% of article about "Death and aftermath.") Film directors long-gestation projects are usully *not* related so clearly to life events as Polanski's. And even in Polanski's case, the "special" personal life sections may be more clearly related than the post-event movie themes. Point: Not yet clear which structure is best for Polanski. Ponder. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also note: Sexual assault case has "2 or 2.5 acts": 1977-78 / interim / 2009 arrest+ ... With a full narrative timeline, you'd need to scatter those out (particularly messy regarding the "interim" -e.g., civil suit settlement and attempt to dismiss). So it would seem that in this case it would seem pure narrative sequence is not the way to go. (Pondering, though) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sharon Tate is an unusual case. Her notability is mainly associated with her murder and the events that followed, especially in relation to her mother's work for victims' rights. Her acting career would have been reason for notability in itself, but it was a minor career. Some of her films failed to attract an audience until after her death. A couple of observations - Satyajit Ray is structured with a chronological blending of professional and personal life, and seperate sections relating to legacy and general discussion of his craft. I think it's a good structure. Jack Warner has a seperate section for personal life, and it's not bad, but it could be argued that Warner's personal life didn't impact on his professional life to the degree that Polanski's did. I think there is enough interrelation between Polanski's professional and personal lives to justify putting the two together. Ray's article uses years in the headers to make the chronology even clearer. Something like that could work here too. Rossrs (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent information and perspective (above and below), thank you, Rossrs. (Will take time to carefully study what you have provided here before further comment.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up - Rossrs, thank you again for your careful attention to the structure issue. Yet looking at all the examples, I still return to idea that Polanski's sui generis. No director has had a crime hanging over them for three decades. And the three crime/legal issues have interconnections suggesting they be grouped in same section. Now, 2.1 Early life [already moved] and 2.2 Relationships might be flowed differently, but crime/legal should be together. Especially time-leaping Sexual assault case. (In pure narrative timeline, you'd have to mix in several pieces at different points in timeline, add section at bottom for 2009 arrest.) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is what we had and is currently restored ( but with Early life moved up [good?]). Note I have aksi added a new subtopic 2.5, for discussion—pondering ways to best deal with information from the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired which many find controversial, but clearly has impacted events.

• 2 Personal life

• 2.1 Relationships (lifetime)
• 2.2 Sharon Tate's murder (1969)
• 2.3 Sexual assault case (1977-1978, 1988+ civil suit, 1997 offer)
• 2.4 Vanity Fair libel case (2004)
• [2.5 A documentary, appeal, and arrest (2008+)]

Again, I allude to some interconnections between 2.2-2.4 which suggest they be kept together under Personal life rather than scattered across a full narrative timeline. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally (tonight) I specifically highlight that if you stick the 2.3 Sexual assault case section in the middle of a full narrative timeline, it "doesn't fit" in the timeline. It spans time which overlaps whatever sections come after. And, e.g., mixing the Vanity Fair libel case into a full narrative flow is to lose it, and it's clear organizational relationship to 2.2 and 2.3. Bottom line: As theoretically elegant/appealing a pure narrative timeline is, it is simply not suitable for Roman Polanski. There is not sufficiently good reason to change from the form this article has. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary of "personal life" or similar sections in these FA articles

As there have been suggestions that structuring articles with distinct professional and personal sections is the accepted standard, I'll note the structure used in the FA-Class (actors/filmmakers). There are 43 articles.

Personal life section: 27 articles - Kroger Babb, Eric Bana, Joseph Barbera, Jackie Chan, Noël Coward, Kirsten Dunst, Jake Gyllenhaal, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Anthony Michael Hall, William Hanna, Phil Hartman, Ethan Hawke, Katie Holmes, Angelina Jolie ("relationships" rather than "personal life", but it's the same thing), Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy, James Nesbitt, Austin Nichols, Miranda Otto, Nancy Reagan ("Marriage and family"), Ronald Reagan ("Marriages and children"), Aaron Sorkin, KaDee Strickland, Jack Warner, Emma Watson, Reese Witherspoon, Preity Zinta.

Personal life aspects incorporated into main text: 16 articles - James Thomas Aubrey, Jr., Rudolph Cartier, Bette Davis, Karen Dotrice, Judy Garland, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, Abbas Kiarostami, Vivien Leigh, Kylie Minogue, Sydney Newman, Satyajit Ray, Sebastian Shaw (actor), Tōru Takemitsu, Sharon Tate, Anna May Wong.

This suggests to me that both formats have wide support in the general editing community and these article represent a diverse range of subjects, and, I would expect, a large number of editors. It therefore seems to be more a question of stylistic choice rather than convention or policy. Rossrs (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a lot of work to assemble that, thanks. I see Polanski as having two main areas, his professional career and his personal actions. Each being significant, but not entirely intertwined. I prefer the current layout. The problems of combining everything into a timeline mix, is picking points of reference for markers, e.g. Chinatown was an era, in the example used. I just believe the accessibility of the information to readers is better served by the current layout.--Tombaker321 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I have solved the style change question. Per the guidelines WP:STYLE which is the section addressing the style choices for all articles.

Stability of articles: The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

1. There is not substantial reason beyond choice of style. (none stated by editor who changed)

2. The editor who changed the style insisted on continuing to revert it back in. An outcome already anticipated by the policy of the Arbitration Committee, and which the policy seeks to avoid.

3. There is clear disagreement on which style to use.

4 So we should defer to the style used by the first major contributors. Q.E.D. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor gave reasons. "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason" - not applicable. Reasons have been given. So you have not solved the issue. Rossrs (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have the time still, can you give a link to these reasons that were given before the changes went in. Or the topic section where the reasons were given? What makes this not a simple style choice? You show two type of choices in your analysis, yes? What is the substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style to make the change? As the majority of your analysis shows that 63% (nearly 2-1) use the format we already have, how can it be argued that there would be a substantial reason to change? If you have moved on, no worries. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I probably will continue to comment here. The reasons should have been given before the changes, you're correct there, but the point is the reasons have been given since. If improving the quality of the article is what we are aiming for, the reasons are equally valid regardless of when they are given. Banjeboi and I have both commented that a dual chronology creates a fragmented/disjointed result, and Gwen Gale has also mentioned that she doesn't favour personal life sections. It's largely a style issue but not entirely. It becomes a content issue when points that should relate to each other, don't. Polanski's professional life has been influenced by extreme events in his personal life, and the decision to place them side by side or apart is not a style choice. The overall meaning and context is different with each option. This has been said before, so if you are asking why it's not a simple style choice, I can only assume that you've read these comments made in other sections, and simply disagree with them. With regards to the analysis above, I didn't know what the result would be until I went through and looked at each article. It doesn't have to be 50%/50% to indicate that there is support for either style. The style in each of the articles in the list has been supported and endorsed by large numbers of editors in FA reviews etc. The question is "which of two acceptable styles is most effective and useful for this particular article?" I don't think there is an easy answer, and I don't think we have yet come close to exploring the possibilities, and we should all be open minded enough to look at the possibilities and see which one fits. I've commented above that Satyajit Ray employs a style that I think is suitable, and I think his is also the most similar to Polanski's of all the FA articles on that list. He's an international director, with a foot in different cultural camps, is considered influential and in some ways revolutionary as a film maker. He doesn't have a murdered wife or a sex crime over him, but that doesn't mean the format isn't equally suitable for either article. I'll look at that in more detail later, but I think it's best to keep looking at possibilities, rather than declaring the matter "solved" because a bit of policy may apply. Rossrs (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research?

So the WP:original research concern is raised in context to support the reference improve clean-up tag. This seems rather misplaced. Either we have original research problems or we don't. Pending the alleged OR problems being listed here i think it's time the improve sourcing tag is removed as this article has lots of sourcing and I'm not seeing a lot of exceptional claims that would normally raise a sourcing flag in my book. Could anyone help point out any original research issues so they can be cleaned up or otherwise addressed? -- Banjeboi 16:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It was originally put there by an experienced editor as there are sections without any citations and looking at it there are still sections of uncited text, I can't remember it haveing anthing to do with OP, I put it back recently when it was removed, there was some hidden text, please leave this refimprove but it has gone? Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do hear you but clean-up templates aren't a badge of shame and actually should be specific enough to drive constructive editing. If there are actual statements that need sourcing - that is not that they aren't sourced but that someone actually disputes the content - then it's much more constructive to simply point out what those specific statements are rather than allege the whole article is questionable because it lacks sourcing. Let's be specific what needs to be fixed and address those issues head-on rather than vaguely assert problems. -- Banjeboi 17:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, If I could be bothered I would look through the history to find the editor that added it, perhaps I will later, there are whole sections of text with no citations. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This was there on the 27 september... -- This biography of a living person (WP:BLP) is severely under-sourced, and needs many inline citations (wp:cite). Thus, it carries an article flag cautioning about WP:OR. Please do not remove this flag until the text has been thoroughly and reliably sourced (wp:RS). This flag has little to do with any fact-flags which may be scattered through the text, but is a warning about the article as a whole. Please seek wp:consensus before killing the flag.-- Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, citing OR concerns but not actually showing any specific OR problems. Let's see if anyone has any OR concerns first then look to removing the tag. In theory there is almost no article that couldn't have some clean-up tag but that doesn't mean we sould liberally apply them. Instead we should shoot for specific issues that need clean-up so that those interested will do so. There are editors who specialize in every area of clean-up so general tags asserting vague problems seem less than desirable. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not one way or the other regards the tag, I don't see any OR in the article but there are citation issues..this section has no citations at all? . Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I raised citation needed for items that appeared simply unsourced or at worst case (not as likely) original research. Those need for citation points seem entirely rejected by this topic author. I am perplexed when a request, is given some attention, that the requester dismisses the feedback. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You added citation needed to items that have already been cited. That Polansi was hired to do a photoshoot of adolescent girls is quite clearly in the source cited, i wouldn't have bothered to add it if it were not, etc. And i find your characterizing me as a topic author incredibly insulting. I edit on hundreds if not thousands of articles across a wide-range of subjects. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Proposal to attempt to raise Roman Polanski from Class B to A

While this might seem an odd time to consider focusing on quality (amidst contentious current events), I asked someone heavily involved in WP:FA if that might be a reasonable idea. His answer was this: including thoughts on FA status beyond that: "It would be a test of WP's ability to be NPOV." That sounds like a beautiful challenge. What do you think? Proofreader77 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Let's try. (initiator signing) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Entire Article NPOV Dispute

I have added the Tag for a NPOV Dispute for the entire article.

1. Wholesale changes made by single user.

2. No consensus for changes.

3. Changes constituted the change from an encyclopedic entry to that of a stated Narrative by single user ignore the entire baseline of multiple editor consensus built entry.

More to follow --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's doesn't seem to be a content POV dispute. Could you please state specific and actionable content changes you feel must be made to align the article with our NPOV policy. In this way other editors can discuss the merits of any of the stated concerns. -- Banjeboi 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As stated more to follow, please see the other discussion about single user WP:OWN changing of entire article format and content to create a Narrative rather than encyclopedic entry. Start specifically with your changes to the entire article which is already flagged prior to this flag, without passing it through talk first. Please acknowledge that when you reverted your changes back in that you said there was no consensus, thereby making your wholesale changes to the context of the article, self admitted to, without consensus --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the recent changes from Benjiboi. When a neutral editor makes an improvement to an article you should be grateful, claims of no consensus for change have no weight to a situation where there has been constant minor change, the truth is that although there has been nothing new to add to this article there has been a couple of single purpose account editors that slowly day by day edit a word here and a word there until after some time they alter the article to their point of view, it is tiresome beyond wikipedia point to the verge of disruptive editing. I strongly support Benjiboi's neutral improvements. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The classification of a single editor as being neutral above the rest of the collaborative editor is objectionable on its face. We don't own this entry individually and should act in collaboration rather that appointment of editors for dictate. See WP:OWN Consensus should be sought prior to the type of changes you acknowledge, are more significant than the minor changes being flushed in over time and review. The editor you support has stated this entry to now be in a Narrative format, which is counter to the encyclopedic entry we as a group have edited. While I appreciate your POV, changes of such impact need review, and enough time for other voices to be heard prior to large revisions. Lastly time, is not delineated by movie release dates. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wp own about it at all, it is tiresome when single propose editors continue repeatedly with their point of view. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I support Benjiboi's changes as well, and do not see the changes as creating a NPOV problem. It would have been more productive to have allowed the changes to stand for at least as long as it took for other uses to comment. I'm concerned that a term such as "encyclopedic entry" is being used when different editors may have different meanings for such a term. What is yours? Rossrs (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Request_for_Page_Protection_of_Polanski_Page. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Offrirob. I do not believe it to be my point of view to request that large changes to the entire entry by a single hand be done without first seeking peer review of other contributing editors who in their own good faith have been working with other editors to build an entry. I believe it simply to be policy and SOP. Reformatting time to be that of Movie Release dates and folding other content into those movie dates, is novel. But that novelty will likely make the entry less accessible to new readers. At the least its worthy of discussion prior to its unilateral decree as being the baseline. I believe other editors with different opinions are acting in good faith, and I think your remarks should reflect the same.

Re: Rossrs, I think that major changes should be reviewed prior to installation. Benjiboi, has asserted a self neutrality (stated in their notice of edit war) that questions needlessly the good faith of existing contributors. As clearly as Offriob just challenges mine. Neither I believe to be productive or granting the assumption of good faith.

Re Rossrs re: definition of Encyclopedic definition in use by myself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents.

Which I would expect to be yours as well. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't presume to "expect" anything of me, and I'll take Wikipedia lessons from editors that have edited substantially more than one article. OK? I'm happy to read your opinions and respect your right to express them, but I'm less happy with you telling me what I should be thinking. Now, you haven't answered my question. You've given a list of aims that should apply equally to all articles written in "narrative" or "encyclopedic" style, but although you assume that we all have the same definition of "encyclopedic" that's not the case. Let's call it your preferred format and not try to legitimise your personal opinion by hiding it behind a euphemism that implies universal support. You have not explained how changing the style to a narrative style, diminishes the effectiveness of the article, except that some points are not as easy to find. This is not a NPOV issue. It's an issue of stylistic choice, and you know what - there is not a right and wrong about it. I agree with you that major changes should be made with consensus, but I also think that immediately reverting someone without giving them the benefit of the doubt that they may be taking the article into a good direction, is not guaranteed to achieve the best result for the article, especially when other comments on the page support the direction that was being suggested. I also think that blind reverting is not always the ideal choice. Sometimes a partial revert will at least save some improvements that are not controversial. Finally, you've spelt my name incorrectly, three times on this talk page, and that makes me feel that your attention to detail is not what it should be, and that makes me wonder if you've read the comments of editors carefully, and if you've bothered to look at some of the other articles suggested. That you've maintained your opinion that folding events into a single thread is "novel" makes me suspect that you haven't looked at too many other articles. It's not novel at all. Rossrs (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A. You asked for the definition of encyclopedic, I gave you the one that Wikipedia states, I expect everyone to use it.

B. Perhaps the definition of COMPENDIUM will get us closer. A compendium is a concise, yet comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge. A compendium may summarize a larger work. In most cases the body of knowledge will concern some delimited field of human interest or endeavor (for example, hydrogeology, logology, ichthyology, phytosociology, or myrmecology), while a "universal" encyclopedia can be referred to as a compendium of all human knowledge. This is an encyclopedia, nothing to dispute.

C. I have read the information, and am sorry for misspelling your name.

D. We are not creating a narration of a story. That is a job for a journalist. We are presenting details of topics in an organized and well cited manner. "Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here". We are not narrating a story as some sort of tour guide. I didn't think we would even stray into narration, as I expected this would be simply the means of style layout layout.

E. The entire style was changed without any notification or explanation. It was pretty became lets toss this at the wall and see how much sticks. When it was first noticed (5) editors immediately objected. Suggesting we should accept an unnoticed large scale change, with zero upfront discussion, I don't think holds water.

F. WP:STYLE is our resource. --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you misinterpreted what I asked. I would never ask for "the" definition of "encyclopedic" when I can look it up as easily as you can. I asked for your definition of it, specifically in relation to "encyclopedic" vs. "narrative". When you replied, I commented that the points you made applied equally to either format, so it didn't serve to clarify your position or to answer my question. I was wanting to know why you disapprove of the narrative format, and you have now given something of an explanation. I think you are bringing your own bias into this. The narrative form does not exist only "for a journalist". If that were true, no featured articles would employ such a format, but given that a significant number do, it's clear that the format is acceptable. To say it's not acceptable is your viewpoint, and you're entitled to it, but please don't try to say that it's more than your own opinion. Another example (aside from those on the FA list described above) is Zelda Fitzgerald, a featured article in narrative style that was recently featured on the main page. During the 24 hours that it was one of Wikipedia's most visible articles, more than 100 edits were made to the article, but nobody attempted to restructure it away from its narrative style, and nobody commented on the talk page that the style was more suitable for a journal than an encyclopedia. In fact nobody commented at all, and you would have to expect that if it attracted 100+ edits, it must have attracted many more editors who simply looked at it without editing or commenting. Your comments at point D, are not supported by either policy or convention. It's simply one approach, and obviously the one that you prefer. As for WP:STYLE - yes it's our resource, but it doesn't compel the use of one structure over another. I've commented elsewhere that it's not entirely a style issue in this case, so I think it's important to note that "the entire style was changed" is only part of the story. In the eyes of some editors, myself included, the changes made the article as a whole easier to read, as opposed to easier to find specific points. That's a different thing. Rossrs (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain how much of the style change was related to narration, as a new goal for the article. (5) editors objected to the changes when first observed. Narration puts a burden on the narrators to be impartial for an encyclopedia, other narrators can start with a POV and guide the article along those lines. Since this subject is very controversial the burdens on editors to not insert their interpretations and opinions are increases. I don't think narration for a controversial topic is best. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ending and Removal of NPOV Dispute Tag

The basis of a NPOV Dispute Tag is that it is an out of order situation that should be remedied as soon as possible. The Tag itself should not just be left up.

1. My basis as I hope was reasonably state was the single handed removal of a links to further information about Polanski and his immediate family. Specifically the well documented murder of his spouse. Whom which there is no dispute had a profound impact on Roman. The reason by the editor for this removal was in order shape the path of exploration of the reader base on the the outside sensibilities concerning his spouses murder, how it reflected on her memory.

2. Secondly the reason for the NPOV was a profound change in the entry's lay out and organization. In my view the organization confused the entry and made it harder to pull out information, unless you were already specifically versed in Polanski. Others had other objections to changes, that I will not characterize, other than objections were lodged in the discussion page. It is my view that the rapid and dramatic changes did not consider the contributions of the broad collaborative editors who had worked on the page. I think the changes should have been reviewed and discussed since they emphasized and de-emphasized content which was built over time.

3. Banjeboi has raised a flag on myself about edit warring. Which I do not think is a fair remark on my actions, especially since they don't acknowledge how they are being controversial in their edits. It will be sorted out soon I suspect, but this is my first occasion to be on that notification board.

4. As I have essentially through the actions being called out as edit warring, reverted the article to its pre-single handed reformatting, and content changing. I have essentially solved the problems I have raised as the dispute and can not fairly maintain a dispute with the current state of the article.

5. Lastly the issues related to the NPOV dispute are contained in talk, and the collaborative process will continue. As a single editor I have one vote only. I believe the concerns of myself and others regarding the large changes of origination and content re-focusing should be address first in discussion, the put into implementation. We had implementation, without review, and then asked to review and comment on the changes, which again did not consider the contributions of the entire set of editors. The talk page has my concerns and others regarding the changes. Honestly it was not simply me, who objected to large changes. The talk pages should be able to resolve this. I would simply hope the changes are not just slammed in again.

So I remove the flag I began, while still maintaining the need. If this is viewed as an editor slipping and falling upon their own sword, okay.

I remain comfortable with what my approach was here. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Category French Rapist

How is Roman Polanski not a french rapist, when it is defined by californian law, that you're one if you have sexuel intercourse with a girl who is 13 years old? Andj2134saeo23412 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell he was not convicted of Rape by any court. So unless you can show a conviction he is not a rapist. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But rape is considered in California by law, when an adult has sex with someone who is 13 years old, if the victim is willing or not. And Polanski declared with his guilty plead that he had sexual intercourse with a 13-year old girl, so he is a rapist! Look here: "He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse, a charge which is synonymous under Californian law with statutory rape."

Andj2134saeo23412 (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Be aware.. the same protection that applies to the article as regards BLP protection applies here, please stop adding controversial material here about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a legal step but for our purposes his declaration simply remains a statement made in a legal case rather than a conviction. We err on the side of caution. -- Banjeboi 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add the right categories here, and because the law declared him as a rapist it can't be false to do it here also.

From Wikipedia Article Rape:

"Valid consent is also lacking if the victim lacks an actual capacity to give consent, as in the case of a victim who is a child, or who has a mental impairment or developmental disability.[...]

The law would invalidate consent in the case of sexual intercourse with a person below the age at which they can legally consent to such relations. (See age of consent.) Such cases are sometimes called statutory rape or "unlawful

sexual intercourse", regardless of whether it was consensual or not."

Andj2134saeo23412 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop adding this controversial content here about a living person, this topic has been well discussed and is well covered in the archives. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

California did not declare him a rapist. To do that they would have had to convicted him of rape and that has never been done, so that category is incorrect. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

He was convicted of a crime though. There are many people who are listed as rapists within Wikipedia that were never convicted in any court in the United States of America. Should they be excluded from any list of rapists within Wikipedia? What one culture considers rape may not be the same thing in another country. In one country what Polanski did might be considered rape in another it might not be considered anything. If ~~ GB fan ~~ is making the argument that Polanski not be listed as a rapist here then by that logic there must be thousands of other pages that need to be changed so that they comply with one specific set of cultural standards. Most USA citizens would probably consider what Polanski did commit as being rape because of the specific circumstances regardless of the legal definition of the conviction he received. In any case, he would still be considered a sex offender in the USA. Imagine a person who stole something, would they be called a theif or would they be called something that is more in line with the specific crime that they commited, like say grand larcenist or petty larcenist. A title sometimes depends on the individuals giving the title rather that the person receiving it. What one person condiders a crime another may see as a heroic triumph. In this case I hope that we can all see that Polanski commited a terrible crime to a child and that he deserves an appropriate title with regards to that act. While he could also be certainly be considered a rapist by many standards, he is currently listed as a sex offender, and this seems to be apt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says he is listed as a sex offender? My personal opinion of what he did does not matter, what matters is what reliable sources say about him. Also if a jurisdiction convicts someone of rape, then they are a rapist for the purposes of wikipedia, if no jurisdiction has convicted the person of rape then for the purposes of wikipedia that person is not a rapist. People might consider him a sex offender, but does any jurisciction say he is a sex offender? ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, this would place him in the sex offender registry. Since he has not been sentenced and the case not completed I don't think that he is yet in any registry but he is considered a sex offender in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So you agree he is not a registered sex offender at this time? Wikipedia only reports what reliable soures say about people and since no reliable source will say he is registered sex offender, wikipedia can not say that either. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many people in the USA who are sex offenders are are supposed to be in these registries but are not. He still fits the legal defenition of a sex offender and is considered one by the law. He was convicted of his crime but was never sentenced. Just because he is on the run in another country does not mean that is is still not considered a sex offender by the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because you say this is true doesn't make it verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. There needs to be a reliable source that says this and then we source the information to that reliable source. If you want to add the information in, the burden is on you to show a reliable source that says that he is a sex offender. It can't be a source that says he pled guilty to a crime and from that we conclude he is a sex offender. This is what you are doing right nowm taking a piece of information and making your own conclusions about what that means. That is not Wikipedia's job, we only report what reliable sources say. This is a dead issue with me, unless you provide a new source ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Most every source within Wikipdedia can be denouced the way that you have just denouced one. Here is another source that can be used in place of the one that I did http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html. Here is another one http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Polanski-conviction-details-revealed/article-592814-detail/article.html There are several other sources already in the page that cite his conviction as well.

Here is also the legal definition of a sex offender

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sex+offender —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition, after closer examination he seems to fit nearly every defenition of sex offender that I could find. It appears that it is an apt term and should be a part of his description in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To the other editors who have been on this page since the arrest: Because we have so much historical material, and posts like the one immediately above by the anonymous 129 keep coming up (just how many times can I stand to read this same stuff?) would it be possible to put a list at the beginning of the talk page stating the areas that have been covered ad nauseum with a link to the archival material? I sense that there must be a better way. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some talk pages have a small FAQ at the top, such as Talk:Fox News Channel, which identifies frequent areas of contention like this one. Perhaps we could have one here as well. Gamaliel (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page consensus does not mean precedent, it can shift, it's ongoing. There is no way to lock down a consensus which may have happened at one time, to stop a consensus which may come later. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change, and such a notice caannot prohibit that, but it can document current consensus and identify points previously raised. Gamaliel (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a notice would only mislead. Today's consensus is not tomorrow's consensus. If the article isn't stable, editors who want stability must somehow find text and sourcing which are more stable. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mislead? Informing users of the current consensus does nothing to alter the fact that said consensus can change, and such notices have been used on other articles with no ill effect. Gamaliel (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Who will update that notice day by day? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly think the consensus on this matter will change daily? Seriously? If such an occurrence comes to pass, that would be a reason to remove the notice, but no one would consider a notice for issues in flux. Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What consensus? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this had, in fact, been hashed out and that the current editors did feel that the tag was inappropriate, although they could agree on almost nothing else. But of course, I could be wrong. Oberonfitch (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Statutory_rapists

This category documents cases of statutory rape, that is, cases involving sex between legally defined children and legal defined adults in violation of government statutes.

To this regard, Polanski has plead guilty to the crime. With our definition reflecting Statutory rapist.

This certainly was disputed as being NPOV in the past, with pedophile, child molester, rapist, child predator, all being objected to. I think Statutory rapist, is 1+1+1=3, Adult, child, sex = Statutory rapist. Many of the objections related to his lack of sentencing, and that the plea deal was enforced via actual sentencing. Their logic is that because the the sentence was never imposed the trial is still going, so he gets the presumption of innocence still. Whether that legal opinion still is a strong reason is a ? --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that under US law you are not convicted until you are sentenced and Polanski never was. Polanski is not a convicted rapist. Part of the problem is that he wants to withdraw his plea and enter a new one, but the Californian DA won't allow this unless he appears in person. Legally he's only at the point where he has been charged with statutory rape. Betty Logan (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

About this comment "under US law you are not convicted until you are sentenced" by Betty Logan, you are incorrect about this. Please see http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/conviction.html

Legally final judgement isn't delivered until sentencing. If Polanski was convicted by simply entering a plea then there would be no legal provision for withdrawing a plea. He would be seeking a pardon or an appeal rather than having the charges dropped. I know a few newspapers have erroneously claimed he was convicted (on the basis of him entering the plea) and since Wikipedia's policy is one of verifiability then it is acceptable to include the categories provided the 'conviction' is referenced within the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Erring on the side of conservative approach until/if he is convicted is the proper thing to do, if only to prevent litigious possibilities. The categories should stay out until such time as they are incontrovertibly correct. Oberonfitch (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oberonfitch you seem to have changed your mind rather rather quickly about this,"There was a guilty plea, and a conviction, he fled previous to sentencing to an unlawful underage sex charge, there can be no dispute, we are not lawyers we use our common sense and discussion, we are not supposed to be experts, the cat of stat rapist was judged after lengthy discussion to be the lesser of many evils. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)" Care to change your statement here?

Polanski can definitely withdraw his current plea. The DA would then be free to put Polanski at trial for all 6 of the Grand Jury charges. The plea deal was done on the eve of that 6 charge trial. All the rulings by Judges even on appeals (December 10th is another hearing) have said that Polanski must be present for the court to do anything at all. Its a debate if Polanski will ever make it back to the USA. They are about to decide if he can go out on bail. If he gets bail, the odds of his escape to France are high. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest edit war

Added several cite needed tags erroneously and removed an award in addition, of course, to rolling back all the integrating of the one article back into two sections. I've asked for more eyes at 3rr but need to break for RL now so if anyone else is wondering where things are presently. -- Banjeboi 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tombaker321_reported_by_User:Benjiboi_.28Result:_.29 for both sides of this dialogue.

The cite tags are related to the documenting the NPOV dispute I have raised. Many of the changes installed by Benjiboi, done en mass without review, are indeed without proper citation. At least the merits of need of citations should not be controversial in the long run. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Good news, at least I my response was anticipated by standards already in place. Your complete article format change is foreboden as a manner of course.

Stability of articles

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

See WP:STYLE There was never a substantial reason, and certainly none stated. --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I give up for now

When the two editors who seem to have a stranglehold on this talkpage, and thus the article, have either moved on or at least stop digressing every thread into tangents thus repelling other editors away and insisting that every change they don't like be sent through their preferred processes I'd be happy to offer opinions and clean-up efforts again. Frankly, if the wisdom of covering a subjects early life at the beginning of their article is edit-warred on I don't see much point in remaining. IMHO, it's a disservice to our readers as well as common sense. I offer my best wishes to those who remain. -- Banjeboi 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi you changed the entire layout of the article, removed wiki-links to detailed articles, to spare readers the details of how the mother of Polanski's child was murdered. and removed over 250 words in the Sexual assault section in one massive edit. There are rules against changing the layout, as a snap, "hey it would be nifty if I slammed this in." The whacking at the weeds (your phrasing) was a large blast against, at what was becoming stable content. Instead of hearing the response to that large deletions of content, you decided to take editors into the Admin Notice Incident forum.

Saying the changes were just moving early life to the top is a charade to the truth. The article was split into strange time zones, with Chinatown being a period of time. Previously organized and grouped content was then dispersed into these time buckets. Do I check Chinatown? When did Chinatown end? Its a coin flip for the reader. So lets just mush it around so the reader must read the entire article. That when called on your actions, you chose to bug out, and state a swan song, okay. Don't let the door... Proofreader said in talk he thought the Judge stepping down was important for NPOV sake, I added it, and referenced it with solid citations. Congrats. Yet in just 2 days a single mass change, wiped that effort. You said whack at the weeds, ah...butchering by any other name is still.....

And all that just to wipe a paragraph or so, of solid source factual information. Did you think that the content that was in the article, had not been hardened and fact checked through the talk pages? Rewording, moving of sentences sure sure, but instead you chose to just cut out 25% of the content. I have to think you did not consider the other collaborating editors. OWN

I certainly have many issues with Proofreaders approach, but it at least for the most part contained in talk, and refraining from slamming his ideas in, and make no mistake, he has a ton of things he wants to put in. I was also surprised to see that your 25% elimination of content of the sexual assault section, was done before you said you were not familiar with the documentary. There is a lot of innuendo and sequencing problems in the documentary, and the sexual assault section addressed some of those. Everything I put it was Bilby checked, and he has solid rigor, with a couple of rejections. I am just saying if you are not familiar with the documentary which created perceptions, a legal case, and impetus to his later arrest, how can you presume to know which part of the 25% you cut out. Sorry you don't see much point in remaining, its not like we can not come together and agree on some things still.

Best wishes to you as well. --Tombaker321 (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't pretend you were doing anything but edit-warring - you reverted 5 times in eleven hours instead of even allowing other editors to voice if they thought the changes needed to be rolled back. You have also insinuated that by removing one {{Main}} wikilink to the middle of the Tate article I have committed some major offense. I have not, and I explained my reasoning above. If the other editors here endorse you as the gatekeeper and spokesperson then they indeed deserve whatever leadership you provide. I somehow missed that vote myself but as far as I'm aware we don't have hall monitors to thwart article clean-up. This article is flawed in narration because of its structure. It talks about his early life after explaining his accomplishments over 60-70 years; it talks about his work after Tate's murder before talking about the murder itself; it talks about moving to Europe for fear of arrest before talking about what the arrest would even be for. Ridiculous! The content I had trimmed previously was because it was needless WP:Undue detail for this article, it may be fine for the main article on the subject. And one does not have to see a documentary to know what details are likely needed or not. But no, I will not play wikilawyering games and I certainly won't edit-war. If the other editors here support your actions then they can live with them. -- Banjeboi 18:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A. After your report I did receive a notice for edit warring. It takes two to dance.

B. I did not insinuate anything, I stated. When asked for more clarification I gave more information.

C I am not a gatekeeper or hall monitor, or leader, or spokesperson. I am an editor, who is collaborating. I am doing nothing by fiat.

D. When you say narration, are you are talking about guiding the reader (defining a path) through the areas you believe to be most important?

E. I do not recall you ever raising the issue of WP:UNDUE whacking at the weeds for established content for unstated beliefs of UNDUE weight is problematic still. UNDUE should not be confused with comprehensive.

F. The entire style of the the entry was changed, with zero notice any of the rest of the collaborating editors. When it was first noticed. (5) editors immediately raised concerns and objections. There was never a consensus for change. And there was no reasons given for the change, beyond a post-event "I like it better this way OK"

G. WP:STYLE specifically prohibits the actions you have taken. Your expectation that other editors need to just accept it...avoids the guidelines. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can not believe, Tombaker321, that you can say no reasons were given for the changes. Several editors have given reasons, including the editor that made the edits you are so upset about. Let's get one thing clear. Nobody has nominated you as gatekeeper, and although you seem to think any change is subject to your approval, that is not how consensus is obtained. You seem to be looking for loopholes and bits of policy to quote and yet you ignore much of the comment made by other editors. This seems to be the only article you've edited. Some of the other editors here have edited thousands of articles over the course of several years, and you seem to lack to the humility to consider that some of them may have a good idea of how articles are structured, and disregard everything that doesn't comply with your own biased view. You may have a better grasp yourself of how Wikipedia works if you didn't exclusively edit around one article. If your aim is to claim ownership of this article, and alienate other editors who may have something to contribute, you're doing a great job. I for one, am disappointed that Benjiboi has given up, and frankly, I can't be bothered with this article any further either. Do whatever you want with it as far as I'm concerned, but it's a very badly structured article right now. Rossrs (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Believe it, show me the section where the reasons for the changes are given before the overhaul? Show me the section which explains the reasons afterwords. I see some drips or reasons, but its mostly that Benjiboi likes it better. Which topic section covers the changes? There are currently 15 topics which one is addressing the entire Style Change?

2. I am not your leader, you don't need my approval, I am not the gatekeeper. I only participate as one editor.

3. The rules for article style changing are clear. WP:STYLE The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

a. There has been no offering besides mere choice of style for the changes. I have not even seen a topic section addressing the style reformat specifically.

b. If there is a dispute the Arbitration Committee has already ruled. And they guide specifically to the use the format of the first major contributors. Something I have read wrong?

c. There is absolutely no offering of Substantial reason to change beyond just for style sake. What is the Substantial reason? If you want to write it up, you will be the first to address it. What you have done so far is show the style currently in place is well represented, well used. Its pretty much going to bottom out to mere choice of style. And we already have a ruling for that.

4. I do my best and believe that others do as well. I can count the amount of edits done by anyone, but I don't see why you think its so noteworthy or difficult. I tend to think Quality over Quantity, you are certainly able to disagree.

5. That you hear me clearly should not be confused with ownership. I am aware of WP:OWN

6. Yes it is clear I felt it necessary to keep the time built consensus version of the article, instead of simple acquiescing to an editor what re-styled the article independently to their fancy. I believe in collaboration and consensus. The style overhaul had neither. Do you want to dispute this? It won't hold water.

7. I am sorry that needs of collaborative editing, guidelines, and consensus are more not worth the trouble to you, for this entry. Don't let the door.... remember its not closed off.

8. I don't understand why you think the article structure is so terrible as it has stood for months. Substantially? Really? Even with all the other biographies that you identified as being the same WP:STYLE

9. I am just an editor contributing, but I do think rules are important. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is kind of a tit-for-tat exercise, so I will answer your points, and then I would like to resume looking just at the article. 1. I've answed this elsewhere, and as I've also said, it's less important when the reasons were given if the main objective is to improve the article. Simply, the comment made by more than one editor is that a dual chronology creates a disjointed effect. Nobody has convinced me otherwise, and I can't see an argument anywhere that says "no, it's not disjointed". 2. I agree that you are not my leader, but you certainly seem to comment on everything and you keep on going until other editors give up and move on. That can't be good for any article. 3. I think you are misreading WP:STYLE. It doesn't address the specific layout or structural issues under discussion. Further it is a 'guideline' only, meaning that even those things that are explicitly stated are not mandatory if editors choose otherwise. Most of what is covered under this style guideline are topics such as naming conventions and maintaining consistency within a given article. Nothing says that the structure can't be changed. What you really should be concerned about is WP:CONSENSUS, something we clearly do not have. 4. I agree with "quality over quantity". I also feel that a fairly inexperienced editor who has only contributed to one article, should at some point ponder "maybe I don't know everything". You're throwing comments at editors who have edited over a long period of time, over a range of article types and who have seen numerous articles and talk page discussions. You seem a little too sure that you have all the answers, but I don't doubt that you have good intentions. 5. I am glad you are aware of WP:OWN. 6. The edits had no consensus. I've not disputed that, so please do not invite me to now. My comment was that if you had allowed the edits to stand just long enough for people to comment, it might have allowed the article to advance. Instead you put it back to where it was, and whatever chance there was of something being built from it, you knocked it on the head. It wasn't necessarily the wrong thing to do, but it wasn't helpful either. Sometimes it's useful to look outside the square and outside the policies, even if you ultimately return. 7. "collaborative editing, guidelines, and consensus" are important to me, and I've been around long enough to know what they all mean, and to have participated in them on numerous occasions. I never said I didn't think them worthwhile to continue with here, so please don't put words in my mouth. And thank you, I'll be sure not to let the door hit me in the arse if I walk away. 8. This is a major point. Just because the article has stood in a certain way for a period of time, doesn't make it right. I've seen 100s of shoddy articles stripped bare and rebuilt over the years I've been here, and we should be thankful that they didn't remain in a particular shape just because they'd always been so. That's a counterproductive way of viewing any article. You are very one-eyed about it though. Yes, I identified several articles that use a similar structure, but you fail to mention I found almost as many that don't. I'll explain why I think the structure is a problem, but I'll comment in a separate area, so that if anyone wishes to comment, they can. 9. So are we all, but you seem to be setting yourself up as the editor who must be satisfied before anything can be done. Rossrs (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I read your reply --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consensus among editors here, at least for now, to go with the article structure contributed by User:Banjeboi? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think where we're at now is that we have a clear choice between the two structures. (See Rossrs new info above.) Intermixing the professional and person in pure narrative may have special complexity (see my comments above) with respect to Polanski and especially the Sexual abuse case. I.E., May we say the two structures are under intense analysis at this time. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Item: Note that in Banjeboi/Benjiboi narrative structure, the "Vanity Fair libel suit" subsection topic has been subsumed into the section "The Pianist, honours and post 2000 work." Not clear this is a good idea. (Personal life was agreed structure for a long time. Let us not leap to change, without careful consideration of implications.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• When the changes where first noticed (they just appeared), five editors objected quickly. There has never been a presentation of what this new structure style is. Its a novel hybrid that marks time by movie release dates. Moreover, in light of Arbitration Committee's standing ruling, these style changes can not be made, and because our disagreement means we should defer to the original style of the first major contributors. We are effectively just looking at one of two style choices, optional styles. There has been no presentation of reasons why to change. (emphasis on presentation or overview, or general rationale). And the stray comments are related specifically to simple choice of style notions. The bar is however set much higher, there need be SUBSTANTIAL REASON. Until such are made, then determined substantial WP:STYLE is clear, re: Stability of articles...the changes can not be made, unless it is desired to toss out process, make changes by fiat, and reject the Arbitration Committee's Ruling. (5) editors objected when the single handed changes were done. Means, manner, and method have never been presented for this novel structuring. I personally doubt the rationale would be significant, but as no offering is done, who can say. I am on record against short circuiting rulings and guidelines simply for expediency. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are misreading WP:STYLE. There is nothing to say that the structure of an article is set in stone. The main thing is that there is no WP:CONSENSUS to change the structure, but the style guideline does not preclude it. Why do you continue using the word "novel" to describe the other option? It is clearly an accepted format as evidenced by the number of featured articles that employ this style. The style is represented in approximately 40% of the featured articles listed at Category:FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles. You've made it clear you don't like it, but you can't keep calling it "novel", like it's some kind of aberration. And please, it's only you that requires a "SUBSTANTIAL REASON". The issue requires consensus, but if you, as a single editor, demand a "SUBSTANTIAL REASON", that does not suggest a very open approach. Rossrs (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The language is substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style. Its not set in stone, but it has a high bar for midstream conversions. As far as good example the non-personal life methods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Jackson is done well IMO. Notice how it clearly shows the years of the groupings, while still labeling the eras. Why I said novel hybrid design. It used movies as timeframes and those movies time zones included other movies in the same group. Tate Murders and the Sexual Assault Case did not follow the timeline, can be folded into year groupings. The sexual assault is 1977-1978 1997 2009. The way the style was changed became a dual approach, with odd time markers. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I think the answer is "no". Rossrs (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was actually astonished by the change to the new format (and back and forth and back). I do see some problems with "new and improved" as it calls out certain films, notable for awards, but misses others completely, and unrelated information is added where it ought not be. On the other hand, the time travelling manner did bother me of the original article (and as it may or may not stand now), especially in the lede, but also throughout. Although I had gotten used to it after reading it a hundred times. Never mind. I would suggest as an exercise in (possible) futility, because observations have been made on both sides that are fundamentally sound, that we construct a timeline on this page that reflects the chaotic events of P's life. Then evaluate the better method or perhaps even come up with a third! And I still want the photo cropped. You cannot possibly say that this is a neutral article if an insulting picture of the man with a wet crotch is illustrating it. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a shadow. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no law against cropping it. Yes, it's a shadow, and I never noticed it until Oberonfitch mentioned it, but ... power of suggestion perhaps... I see "wet crotch" too. Rossrs (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight to legal cases

The 3 sections dealing with legal cases take up 28% of the body (i.e. excluding filmography, etc.) of the article. There are already links to articles for those, such as the sexual assault case, which is 46Kb long! Since this is supposed to be a bio about a movie director, I think that those matters should be reduced significantly and all of the Perry Masons out there can use the case links to expand any more. I have seen a number of director reference books and all of them have spent only a few sentences summarizing them, with 99% of the bio discussing details of his films. Can we take a straw poll to reduce those sections?

Reduce:

• -Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oberonfitch (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Case for Keeping As Is. Unfortunately the legal cases are very significant to Polanski. Polanski is a current event, readers will be coming to this link for information. Compressing the information is not needed, we have the resources, we have done the checking, and the inclusion of some ASCII text is hardly a resource drain or bandwidth hit. "As Is" is already a compromise, that is working well enough for now. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not about resources or bandwidth, it is about the appropriate level of coverage in a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As Tombaker321 makes clear, "Polanski is a current event, readers will be coming to this link for information." In other words, when the current event has passed, this article as an added source for news will no longer be of use. It's also apparent that the earlier consensus, when it was a World News story, was most likely biased toward those wanting instant gratification for sex news (and you could keep any biographical details near the end.) If any of that seems reasonable, then it's also reasonable to treat those earlier news-focused opinions as no longer valid or relevant. I've seen that kind of change happen to other articles where it also undermined and quickly refocused the organization to satisfy anxious news junkies. (Note the few votes in this poll, for instance.) And those articles, like this one, became deservedly depreciated as a biography.

I have a half-dozen large references on directors specifically and they all devote on average less then 1% of his bio to the Manson murders and his sex case. In comparison, this bio, and by extension other Wiki bios, becomes an excellent example of what a biography should not look like. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that WP is a new place for news, its where people who read news will want to see information without bias, or simply more information. I don't think people are getting any sex thrill out of this entry either. Arguing that some directors don't have enough interest for WP editors to contribute, and their biographies are short or lacking, is little reason at all. Polanski just received a lifetime achievement award, are the other directors being held up like that? Obviously not. Books and movies have been written about Polanski. Thinking that 3 vs 5 pages is significant, is remedial. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep as is:

• --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• -- WVBluefield (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Narrative vs. non-narrative form and other suggested changes

This is long, but please be patient.

Currently the article is broken into sections and subsections that are individually easy to read. If someone comes to the article and wants to read only about Sharon Tate's murder, or only about the sex crime case or only about a certain period in Polanski's filmmaking career, the article accommodates that reader and they can read what they want and then leave. I don't think the structure is "terrible" but I think it is less successful when read from the start to the end.

Imagine someone who is not very familiar with Polanski, visiting the article and reading it from the beginning to the end. Forget the lead, just for now. It's basically OK. They start reading the article. A bit about his early life. His film work. He seems to have done nothing between 1968 and 1973. Interesting. 5 years of nothing. Then in the "Return to Europe" section, the first sentence ... "Polanski's first feature following Sharon Tate's murder ..." What ???? Sharon Tate was murdered??? But wait, she starred in one of Polanski's films, so why would he be concerned? It's not like they were married or anything... at least, the article doesn't say they were. Last we heard of Sharon she was in the "Gérard Brach collaborations" section, where she was happily starring in The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967) and now it's 1971 and she's been murdered?? OK, keep reading. Now I'm confused. In the last paragraph he made Chinatown in 1973, and now he's in Europe making The Tragedy of MacBeth in 1971? Did he get there by time-machine? And what of "clearly intended to evoke the Manson killings"? Manson who? Back to the Tardis and he's having a second 1973, and making another film. Not Chinatown which he made a few paragraphs ago, but something called What? So by now I'm not thinking What?, but I am thinking WTF? Finally, it's 1976. So Polanski makes a film called The Tenant (1976).... then "Unwilling to work in the United States after 1978 for fear of jail, Polanski continued to work in Europe." I'm surprised that they'd want to put him in jail for making The Tenant. (I've seen it, and ... yes, maybe they should put him in jail!) OK, keep reading.... "to the memory of his late wife, Sharon Tate." So we find out she's dead before we find out they were married? Later - "Polanski did not attend the Academy Awards ceremony in Hollywood because he would have been arrested once he set foot in the United States." Why are they still chasing him? And then, "Prior to his September 2009 arrest in Switzerland...." OK, they got him, and we still haven't spilt the beans about why. Agatha Christie would have even given a clue, and somehow we forgot to read the lead section, probably because we thought we could just read the article. So keep on reading... well he's been married a few times, and for those of us who were wondering who Sharon Tate was, finally an entire paragraph about her. So that odd sentence at the beginning of "Return to Europe" was right after all, and all that blood in The Tragedy of MacBeth was about Sharon. Makes sense now. Keep reading. "Sexual assualt case". Well no wonder he was so anxious about being arrested! And oh, he sued Vanity Fair a few years ago. Big deal. Now that's a crazy stream to have to wade through, and I've intentionally pointed out the absurdities, because, to me, the structure is absurd.

At the end of the career section (2009), we jump unexpectedly back to 1959 to his first marriage, and then discuss two keys episodes in his life. The 1969 murder of his wife, which is mentioned but not explained in the early section of his article, and the 1977 sex case that ruined his life which is alluded to a few times in the career section but not mentioned. I think a narrative form would allow the article as a complete entity to make sense. It currently doesn't make sense unless you feel inclined to jump from section to section each time someone is unexpectedly murdered, or the police start chasing Roman for no apparent reason.

I think it needs more than moving a few sections here and there, and this is what I would suggest:
1. The whole article is all over the place, like nobody has ever read it from start to finish. It needs work. We need to go through from start to finish and ensure that everything is easily understood.
2. Move the "Sharon Tate's murder" section to sit after discussion of Rosemary's Baby and maintain the header. In the paragraphs discussing The Fearless Vampire Killers, mention that Polanski and Tate began a relationship during this time and were subsequently married. Her murder is echoed in The Tragedy of MacBeth and it would not be inappropriate to mention the bloody nature of the film in a more specific context than that offered by Pauline Kael. These changes would connect Polanski and Tate professionally and personally and would give some context to the impact her murder had on Polanski.
3. Look at the key points contained in "Sexual assault case". The main part of it - ie the crime and Polanski's flight from justice takes place between March 1977 and February 1978. If this part of the section - retaining the header - was placed before the sentence that begins "Unwilling to work in the United States after 1978 for fear of jail", it would achieve a couple of things. Firstly, the "unwilling to work" sentence would make sense, but more importantly it would establish that his choices and options regarding where he worked and lived from that point on, were a direct result of these events. It's safe to assume that his career would have taken a different path, so this is a key event, not only in his personal life, but in his career from that time on. The other points relating to the lawsuit of 1988 and Polanski's 1993 agreement are important, but too brief to be given a subsection header. They are secondary points, and I think could be dealt with in one of two ways. a. Subsume them into the article without header, but within the context of the time in which they occurred, or b. Have a section dealing with his 2009 arrest, with a subheader. A paragraph discussing his arrest could refer back to these points. I'm not sure which way would be best, but to maintain visibility, I think option b.
4. The Vanity Fair case - this is not a key event in his life. It could be included in his article within the appropriate timeline. Nothing really hinges on it. It doesn't need a section that implies it is of equal importance/relevance to the other sections.
5. There is too much WP:OR in the discussion of Polanski's films, and not enough sourcing.
6. If all these changes were made, the section headers would need to be updated. Satyajit Ray, Janet Jackson and Michael Jackson are all featured articles that use dates within the headers. This may be useful, and "Sharon Tate's murder", "Sexual assault case" and "Arrest in 2009" (or "Arrest in Switzerland") could be suitable subheaders that would ensure these points are still easy to identify, and are not diminished by being subsumed into the article text.

These are just a few thoughts, and any comments are welcome, of course. I truly believe this is not currently an article to be proud of. Rossrs (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Again, Rossrs, thank you for significant attention and careful analysis. For now, I will link up to my comments higher up the page in support of the separate Personal life section (with special focus on keeping the crime/legal items [which are related] together — and yes, the Vanity Fair libel suit is significant because the libel issue was re Polanski's behavior at his wife's funeral with implications related to Sexual assault case. The fact that many thought it outrageous Polanski would sue for libel in such a matter, highlights significance of his winning (note: without being present in court...). Proofreader77 (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the current structure is still workable, and can still be worked to improve. The problem I think is the content needs more work than the groupings. If we want to cut down size we can significantly in the career section. Repulsion, Cul-de-Sac, The Fearless Vampire Killers, are basically just film reviews. You could cover them just writing a single sentence and with normal wiki-hot-links. To a lesser extent other movies as well. What should be in there is what Polanki did, or why he did vs storyline of movies.

EXAMPLE of removable film reviewing content:

"The film opens with Dickie pushing their broken-down car along the tidal causeway of Lindisfarne island. It is implied that the shootout which occurred during the heist had left Albie bleeding and paralyzed, and Dickie, who is also wounded but still mobile, now seeks to contact their underworld boss, Katelbach. (Like Beckett's Godot, Katelbach is frequently alluded to throughout the course of the film, but never actually appears.) As he searches the island, Dickie discovers that the famous medieval castle is inhabited by an eccentric, effeminate and neurotically excitable middle-aged Englishman named George (Donald Pleasence), and his adulterous, nymphomaniacal young French wife, Teresa (Françoise Dorléac, Catherine Deneuve's older sister). A series of absurd mishaps, both farcical and tragic, ensues when Dickie decides to take the couple hostage in their castle as he waits (in vain) for further instructions from the mysterious Katelbach."

Many of the concerns seem able to be resolved by just moving the entire Personal Life Group to be before the Career side. But of course it may create new concerns. Right now in a below topic there is a proposal to cut and paste the Early Life section to the just before Career. I see that as a conservative change that seem beneficial to some concerns, with no negatives.

I think the content needs work, and the work needed to be done is independent of style. Pulling off both at the same time seems too hopeful. I do think the sexual assault info needs its own grouping. Vanity Fair be rolled into Sharon Tate section, as it is a lawsuit because of that.--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you make some good points about the film discussion. When discussing the work of a director, it's sometimes important to discuss themes, especially those that are typical or recurring, or that attract comment, but a lot of the comments in this article are not theme related, but plot related. Most of it looks like WP:OR to me, because it is unattributed to any legitimate reviewer or commentator, and sources are not provided. I think you are right in saying it could be condensed. I read a quote recently that said the key to good editing is not knowing what to add, but knowing what to remove (I wish I could remember who said it). I also agree that moving "Early life" to before career, would be a good first step. "Pulling off both at the same time seems too hopeful" - yes in the short term I agree with that too. A lot of work needs to be done, but I'm confident that if we take it step by step and gradually fix the areas that need fixing, we can end up with a good article. If we tried to jump in and fix it in one day, it would be doomed to fail, but as long as we keep moving forward, we'll eventually get it right. Michael Jackson and Ronald Reagan are both featured articles despite the sometimes controversial aspects of their lives, and the disagreements of editors that worked on those articles, so if those articles can be raised to such a high level, we can do the same here. It will take some time, but I think we all should remain positive that we can do this. Rossrs (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

the statutory rapist category

The statutory rapist category has been removed after lengthy discussion here a few weeks ago by multiple editors, also the French and Polish sex offender cats, soon he will be an innocent man, could someone dig out those discussions about the cats so we can open it back up again? Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

He plead guilty to statutory rape, so we agreed that category would be there. He admits to having sex with the 13 year old in his biography even, and this in a state where that was legally defined as statutory rape(but called by a different name). Dream Focus 15:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 results when I search the archives for the word "category" [4]. Dream Focus 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree Dream focus, there was a extensive discussion regarding this issue and a strong consensus was settled on these cats, thanks for the link, ill have a good read. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The pertinent question according to the policy on biographies of living persons is whether he has been convicted of a crime. The policy states:

"For example, Category:Criminals (or its subcategories) should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

The incident is relevant to his notability. The incident has been published by reliable third parties. The article never uses the word convicted, it does say "Because he fled prior to sentencing, all six of the original charges remain pending." That means to me, the case was never closed, so no conviction. Based on this information those categories do not belong in the article, unless we are going to ignore that policy to make the encyclopedia better. I do not see a way that stating that someone is a rapist when they haven't been convicted of a crime makes the article better. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a guilty plea, and a conviction, he fled previous to sentencing to an unlawful underage sex charge, there can be no dispute, we are not lawyers we use our common sense and discussion, we are not supposed to be experts, the cat of stat rapist was judged after lengthy discussion to be the lesser of many evils. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If he was convicted how come the article doesn't state that he was convicted? Even more important are there any reliable sources that say he was convicted, I have looked and can not find any. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am wrong, found a reliable source http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/movies/28polanski.html that says he was convicted. Sorry for the trouble. This should be worked into the article so that this question stops coming up. Since the article currently does not say he has been convicted. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also left a message on the BLP noticeboard asking for input. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Early life too late

It's unbelievable that anyone would want to put an "early life" section after his career. What's even more perverse is to have his early life, about which there is tons of information, and is a source for much of his future film career inspirations, as only a fraction of material dealing with his personal legal issues.

Having recently seen the article and some of the discussions, it's pretty obvious there are two kinds of philosophies at work: 1. That he was a leading international film director/producer/actor; and 2. he was a sex-offender, rapist, fugitive from various places, criminal defendant, etc. This 2nd group is defending their view based on over-valuing current events "news items" and are basically creating a narration of personal life incidents. This would be equivalent to taking any Hollywood actor and adding overweighted sections dealing with their divorces, court cases, extramarital affairs, drug-taking, alcoholism, etc., of which the gossip sections of any hollywood paper or women's talk show can provide and endless summer of detail.

There is already a separate "main article" about these cases, one of which, at 46KB, which is longer than the bios of most American celebrities or directors, and longer than the "career" section here, is support for this opinion. The bio of John Huston, for example, one of the world's greatest and most prolific directors, is less than half the size of Polanski's sex-assault article.

It's obvious that those from group #2 have a strong personal desire to put as much of these "personal" legal, crime issues into the bio, and that the bio now resembles an issue of "Hollywood Reporter" with an introductory section about the person's career. Note that a category for "American film director" (aka "director of American films") was removed in favor of "rapist," "prisoner," "fugitive," "sex-offender" categories. As a result, the 2nd group seems to have undermined the definition of a bio based on the key source of his notability and diverted it into a sex-focused crime investigation from a single event — celebrity-worship at its worse manifestations.

Because it looks ridiculous to have an "early life" section mixed in with longer, multiple murder, sex, magazine-lawsuit cases, it should be placed before his career. Topics should be in a logical chronological order, rather than haphazard or based on current-event news value order. Hopefully there are a few of the group #1 crowd around that might agree. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree but editors seem exhausted with the situation here, I am in support of Benjiboi's reduction also and the correct chronically ordering of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out the consensus that decided he was not an American film director, producer, screenwriter or actor? Did the consensus also decide to take back his Academy Award? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. I think it's unfortunate that the discussion has been so huge that there are numerous sections, most now archived, that discuss this issue in one way or another, but because it's so large and so scattered, I doubt anyone would have the energy needed to wade through it all. Rossrs (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Notes re Rossrs's comment (archive etc):

(1) All talk page discussion prior to Sept 27 2009 arrest is in the first archive Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_1,

(2) Most of talk since then has been what one would expect, but did find this about structure in Archive #2. Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_2#Film_works_ahead_of_Personal_life

(3) The organization of the page just prior to arrest

(4) The article looked like this one year ago 18 Nov 2008

(I'll check through again, but structure does not appear to be much discussed on talk.)-- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• A. Its unremarkable that their is career section and personal life section. This delineation is common.
• B. You believe there are 2 groups and advocate for 1-side.
• C. Many editors believe in egg. There is a yoke, and the egg white, there is one egg, not two sides. Believing it should be all yoke, is a joke. I see eggs.
• D. I have no objections, and do not believe there are arguments against it by any editors currently, to putting his early life ahead of his Carrier section. Should be do-able Let's open the question first. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

About to move Early Life, to before Career, Objections?

Its been raised to move the Early Life portion of Personal Life to being Ahead of the Career grouping. The change would be pulling intact that entire section, and placing it above. Any Objections? --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Support:

• --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline

• Wait - It's been put up there twice and taken down (due to confusion), but given structural flux/decision, let us pause ... to look at how it came to be where it is (in the history). In Polanski's case, yes, there is a reason for it to be "down there." But again, since there has been so much contention, let's not muddy the water ... for the moment. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  I don't believe it has been put up for discussion prior to it being done. However it was also done previously it the middle of all sorts of other changes. This is a request is a straight forward move of content intact. The early life predates both the career section and the rest of the Personal life section. The Personal Life section is unchanged beyond this. Its a straight cut and past. The request to move seems reasonable to me, and I don't see in archives this being done, like this. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Against - I agree with the career and personal life split. That's how it's done in print encyclopaedias. It is Polanski's career that makes him notable. Chronological biographies are amateurish, and the subject's most notable aspect of his life should be the prominent feature of the article. If Polanski weren't a renowned filmmaker it's doubtful he would even have an article on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

By which Wikipedia policy or guideline are chronological biographies "amateurish"? Rossrs (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was indicating my preference, which I believe is what we were asked to do. I was pointing out that's how it's done in reputable print encyclopaedias. Internet based biographies are quite often written with a chronological perspective, but they are usually written by amateurs and it is a practise uncommon in professionally written encylcopaedias. Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to get picky about it, I believe we were invited to comment, and nobody was asked. Everybody is indicating preference and did I suggest that you weren't entitled to? I asked you to clarify your comment. A lot of featured articles use the chronological format, and in terms of putting the "early life" sections first, most of them do, even if there is a distinct "personal life" section later in the article, so by Wikipedia standard they are not considered "amateurish" despite being written by "amateurs", and are considered among the best articles on Wikipedia. Rossrs (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• These misguided votes do nothing but muddy the waters and are confusing to editors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Request for comments from uninvolved editors

Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Other opinions sought to review balance of this bio. See above discussions for key issues. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this dispute for the last couple of days and believe the article is being altered at such a pace that it can't possibly have been edited by consensus. It seems to me that without dwelling on the details the framework of the article first needs to be addressed. If the sequence of the sections and what sections there should be can be agreed upon then at least that's a start, and each section can then be methodically worked through. Betty Logan (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this Request for Comment, and agree with Betty Logan, especially the appraisal on sections. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a broad comment, there has been some editing and there was some reverting to the original position could you clarify and please provide a couple of comparison edits so we can see the difference that you are talking about.Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm perplexed. I started a section Talk:Roman Polanski#Narrative vs. non-narrative form and other suggested changes in which I went through the article from start to finish and commented on possible use of sections and structure, and I'm perplexed that there are editors saying the sections need appraisal, while ignoring a discussion that was started specifically to explore that issue. Rossrs (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rossrs, read through your suggestions. Will respond to your excellent points. Oberonfitch (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Polanski widely known as Sex offender

I feel that it is time that the title sentence of the Polanski page include the term sex offender along with other terms like director and writer. This is something that he is most known for and is a large part of his current and past noteriety. Many famous criminals profiles on Wikipedia comment about the crime that was commited in the very first sentence of the text. As Polanski is widely known to be a sex offender then why shouldn't this be how he is introduced in the text of this page? Many people know him only because of his fame for the rape of a 13 year old girl and not his work in film. There are already many reliable sources about this topic listed in the page and in the discussion page so the fact of his crime and the noteriety he has received for it place him in the position of receiving this title in the first line of text like many other people famous for the crimes that they commited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.31 (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not going to happen. See, for example, this entry from William S. Burroughs:

William Seward Burroughs II (February 5, 1914 – August 2, 1997; pronounced /ˈbʌroʊz/) was an American novelist, essayist, social critic, painter and spoken word performer. Much of Burroughs's work is semi-autobiographical, drawn from his experiences as an opiate addict, a condition that marked the last fifty years of his life. A primary member of the Beat Generation, he was an avant-garde author who affected popular culture as well as literature. In 1975, he was elected to the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters.

Note that it does not say, anywhere in the lead, that he shot his wife (and mother of his son, arguably destroying the younger Burroughs's life), killing her instantly after suggesting that they play William Tell with a gun that he knew sighted low during an afternoon of drinking in a bar in Mexico. Now, clearly that is a more objectionable crime than what Mr. Polanski was accused of (perhaps convicted of, hard to say given the depth of the Judge's transgressions whether anything is going to stick). Thus, I am afraid, although you anonymously wish to focus on Mr. Polanski's ill-advised sexual misadventure, it is not going to be in the first sentence. Sincerely, Oberonfitch (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

POV tag notice

Based on recent edit warring and discussions, I posted a POV tag with an explanation at WP:BLP/N#Roman Polanski bio being undermined posting. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article about the neutral point of view here Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F and explain your issues. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

See discussions over last few days above and click on link to BLP. I assume we prefer avoiding redundant statements. Yes, I read the rules in your link. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)