Talk:Roman Polanski

Notice of continuing early, and prudent, discussion archival

Due to excessive disorganization and material volume some current discussion and open issues have been archived.

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

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

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

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

Re: Use of the word rapist, and other titles of dubious reliability

To clarify an earlier post that an editor, not assuming good faith, reverted: Roman Polanski plead guilty only to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Therefore, as I see it, that makes him in the eyes of the law a convicted felon, and possibly in the current vernacular, a sex offender. As I understand the statute, it does not allow him to be called a rapist, a child molestor, or other such titles as a matter of course. Verifiable opinions as to Polanski's status as any of those things would of course, under WP:RELIABLE, have to be presented as opinion. That is all. WookMuff (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Most any definition of rape includes the denial of consent to the act by the victim. The girl that Polanski raped said no, therefore consent was not given and the act can be clearly defined as rape. If Polanski raped someone he can then be clearly defined as a rapist. This does not apply any subjective definition of rape, but an objective one. There are many legal definitions with the American justice system, but this site is not a part of that justice system. Calling him a rapist is merely an apt term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.109.182 (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Many media sources describe Polanski as a rapist and / or describe what he did to his victim as rape. Should this article use the term rape, statutory rape, or not use either term? WP addict 0 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple media sources referring to Polanski as a rapist or other such term would meet the bar for verifiability that he is described as such. Unless there is a reliable source disputing or discounting the description of "rape", or showing that the use of the word is actually contentious (contentious among the reliable sources, not contentious to Wikipedians, or contentious to members of the public), then describing it as rape or describing Polanski as "rapist" would be acceptable by WP policy, regardless of whether or not he was convicted. Although the article must not say "X was convicted of rape", unless that was the crime convicted of, it may say "X was a rapist", if that's what the sources said. If there is contention then "Has been described as a rapist", may be valid, but the article should not favor any point of view w.r.t conflicting reliable sources. --Mysidia (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see above: proposed edit - add Nastassja Kinski to main Personal life section

Please see my request above: Proposed edit - Add Nastassja Kinski to Main Personal Life section. I have submitted 5 additional authoritative sources. The information was reported in the Press then and in later reviews of Polanski' life, had as much public interest as many of his movies, and this relationship with Kinski lasted several years.

I am asking for a disposition, considering the additional information now provided, and the brevity of the factual information requested. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(casual aside) Due to the high controversy level which resulted in locking the article, no one who has authority to change the page is going to do too much until the waters calm. (The lock is set to expire in a few days, and how editing proceeds will determine if it gets relocked etc.) Please do not feel your request is being ignored more than anyone else is being ignored (except with regard to simple matters like a bad link etc).

(more formally) Requests to edit a locked page have a procedure using the {{editrequest}} template. But you would have to have "consensus" on what you want to add before using that. (COMMENT: Getting consensus on about anything at the moment is relatively unlikely. So, you may just want to wait a bit. If not ... you'll need to take a kind of bullet-list semi-poll to illustrate there is agreement with what you want to add—but again, please understand getting edits made when there is so much controversy the page is locked is probably not worth the effort.)

(step by step)

1. Write EXACTLY what you wish added (with references) and present on talk page.
2. Rfc (request for comment) on your addition
3. Adjust wording until you can get consensus.
4. When consensus is reached, add {{editrequest}} template to request an administrator to make the change.

(To avoid head exploding from frustration, see earlier advisory about waiting until controversy calms and page is unlocked:)-- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course the relationship between her and Polanski should be included in this article. Did the relationship occur in France? Was she legally old enough to consent to sex at the time - was 15 the age of consent at the time in France? Wiki editor 6 (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski pictures in front of home week after Tate murder

A report by Judith Reisman[4] has quoted a book as stating:

Polanski "posed at the entrance of the death house for Life magazine a week after the slaughter. He charged Life $5,000 for this picture."

The book, "The Roman Polanski Story", has been cited frequently.[[5]][6][7][8][9][10] This is quite notable.99.142.15.209 (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a notable event, and recorded in Wikipedia Biography's when people sell photo rights related to such a famous event - be it a wedding, baby pics ... or this.

It's very notability was the basis for, the US's most famous magazine at that time, Life Magazine writing a check for $5,000 1969 dollars in the week following the murder, and within days of Polanski's return from Europe.99.142.15.209 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It feels a tad gossipy. But that aside, it isn't well sourced - one small claim in one biography is very little to go on. - Bilby (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That is opinion. One small claim in a biography is verifiable, one editors opinion that it "is little to go on" less so.WookMuff (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's an opinion. And it was offered as such. But the "$5,000" claim is, as far as I can tell, sourced to a caption to a photo included in a single biography, at the moment. It is possibly true, but I think we'd need more to go on than that before we can add the $5,000. That said, as per Proofreader77, an expanded section on Sharon Tate's murder would, quite reasonably, mention the photography issue. - Bilby (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the post-er adding it to the article, or even calling for it to be added. I see the poster adding it to the talk page, a place to discuss the article, and letting people know about it. Sorry if it felt like I was being personally attacky with my "one editors opinion" btw, I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it and in hindsight it does look attacky. WookMuff (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries - given that we're all working on an emotive topic, you've been very fair throughout. As to the article, I agree it wasn't mentioned that the money should be added, but in that case I'm not sure why it was raised. - Bilby (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How the Sharon Tate Wikipedia article (sourced to his autobio) covers it

“ Life magazine devoted a lengthy article to the murders and featured photographs of the crime scenes. Polanski was interviewed for the article and allowed himself to be photographed in the living room where Tate and Sebring had died, Tate's dried blood clearly visible on the floor in front of him. Widely criticized for his actions, he argued that he wanted to know who was responsible and was willing to shock the magazine's readers in the hope that someone would come forward with information.[2] ”

An encyclopedia article is not the place to cast a vague aspersion on Polanski (which is what He charged $5,000 for a photograph of the murder scene! is). If the photograph is notable enough for inclusion (and "widely-criticized" for), then Polanski's response to the criticism is also to be included—as per NPOV (which is often misunderstood to mean no POVs included). Proofreader77 (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

as mentioned above, the poster ADDED A PIECE OF NOTEABLE INFORMATION TO THE TALK PAGE. I didn't notice them casting aspersions. WookMuff (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77 said it better than I could. Completely concur. It seems like we're just trying to hunt down things to make Polanski look bad at this point. Effort is better spent working on shoring up the section that is the main source of contention here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The passage referenced in the Tate article was written by Polanski and as such is a primary source which is suspect for being self-serving, incomplete and not at all contemporaneous. It was written in 1984 while he was a fugitive, it also make no mention of how the controversial $5,000 he charged for images of him at the bloody crime scene advanced his objectives.99.142.15.209 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The action of charging money for publicity photo's at the scene of one's wife's murder was quite notable at the time, and since. It has rated mentions in works about him - and rebuttals in works by him. It's notability is without question. 99.142.15.209 (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When I said, "it was written in 1984 when he was a fugitive". I was referencing the fact that he was writing at a low point, as such, the autobiography is likely to be heavily influenced by both his professional and legal pressures to brighten his image. Separately, I also note that his exculpatory declarations were anything but contemporaneous, coming as they were from a work written to benefit his reputation and thereby strengthen his ability to negotiate with the law or possible film partners.

Do not mistake period, for age. 99.142.15.209 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet many of us question its notability. You must substantiate it with references, not merely assert it. Gamaliel (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

For evidence of its notability, I point to his biography, the specific mention of the controversy in our Tate article, and the rebuttal to the criticism contained in his auto-biography. Additionally we have the regular and non-contentious inclusion of such events as the selling of photo's to celebrity's personal life events regularly included as notable here at Wikipedia.99.142.15.209 (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the selling of celebrity photos is an incredibly common and insignificant event. And not every event mentioned in his biography and autobio are notable. Why are we focusing on this particular event? What's the significance? I don't see it, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability is irrelevant, Gamaliel. You can question it til the cows come home, but if its verifiable, not OR, and and NPOV, it can be in the article, in theory. WookMuff (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with mentioning the photo controversy in the article, as long as it is done responsibly, but the amount of hyperbole expressed on this talk page does not indicate that such additions will be done responsibly. NPOV, BLP, am I starting to sound like a broken record yet? Again, I'm not saying don't add, but let's tone down the embellishments. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Theres the rub, aye. Almost everything that one side wants to add could be added if done so sensitively and with tact, but between passions running high and the other side shouting down anything and everything, its hard to keep that objectivity. WookMuff (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Hardly. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We simply can't toss in every verifiable fact we feel like. Gamaliel (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that, thank you. I said notability has no place in this discussion. Roman Polanski is relevant to roman polanski, so saying "indiscriminate" is, as the french would say, stupide.WookMuff (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Including every random fact about Polanski would also be stupid. I'm sure there's a french word for making decisions guided by editorial judgment. Gamaliel (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, while the lead paragraph of that policy link could be read to support your comment, when you read it fully you are completely misrepresenting it. Feel free to point out how adding this link makes the article any of the given categories. Note that they are not examples of what "Wikipedia articles should not be", they ARE in fact the policy. WookMuff (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking for a reason we should include it, and I'm not convinced by any of the so-called reasons already presented. I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you don't have a valid reason for including things, then the article becomes exactly that - an indiscriminate collection of information. Gamaliel (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have to follow the Gamaliel standard. Editors dont need to run things by you to see if you accept their "notability" which, as mention, is you either using the word badly or not understanding the policy. If Wilhelm Meis, who actually UNDERSTANDS wikipedia policies has no problem with it, then why should you? Perhaps you don't understand concensus either. Consensus isn't me winning you over, consensus I both sides attempting to come to a common middle ground. How about, instead of poopooing it, you sit and have a think about how a quote from a biography about Roman Polanski could possibly belong in a Roman Polanski article. WookMuff (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no call for this kind of tone. Talk pages are for discussion of article content, so let's discuss it. It doesn't have to meet my standard, but it does have to meet a standard, and that's exactly what I'm asking, what is the standard? What is the criteria beyond "something Polanski did once a while ago"? Editors have doubts about this material and want to discuss it, that's how articles are made, that's how you get that consensus you mentioned. I'm willing to be convinced on this issue, but I haven't read anything that convinces me, only assertions, and now rudeness. If you don't think I understand wikipedia policy, fine, but I suggest you start understanding WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in a hurry, because with this paragraph and with your horribly offensive comment to alderbourne, you're starting down a road that is going to end with you being blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been censored here, only the heading was refactored to tone down the POV shouting. The heading posted by the original poster read as POV-pushing. His/her comments were left entirely intact, however, as I have no interest in censoring anyone's comments on this talk page. It should be sufficient for everyone to get an equal opportunity to voice their opinions here, regardless of how strongly the editors assembled here may disagree with each other. There is no reason to elevate the volume to shouting at each other through contentious section headings. Let's all take a deep breath and respect the talk page guidelines. If we get so caught up in our emotions over this case that we lose all respect for the editorial process, this article will only get worse. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing/changing section headings that are lurid or otherwise potentially incompliant with BLP is standard operating procedure. Full support for what you did here. Accusing other editors of censorship, as the IP editor did, is incompliant with WP civility policies. Gamaliel (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You (or any other editor here) might want to add your thoughts to the IP's request of a block on you. 15:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Polanski Charged $5,000 for pictures in front of home week after Tate murder" looks factual, neutral and not in any way "lurid or otherwise potentially incompliant with BLP" to me. That being said, this is really a minor issue, and "Polanski pictures in front of home week after Tate murder" works fine as well. What is problematic is the habit of User:Wilhelm meis to start edit-wars, even over such ridiculously minor issues like this. It's not the first time, the article already had to be protected because of Meis' edit-warring ("Full protection, here we come!"). Urban XII (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way are verifiable, reliably sourced, specific issues which are directly germane to the article in any possible way a violation of BLP? It appears that policy is being used here inappropriately and abusively to bully discussion around. Short-circuiting discussion through false policy in order to censor and suppress discussion is an absolute violation. It is fundamentally wrong.99.142.15.209 (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your charges are absurd. Meis changed no content, just the header. This isn't censorship and your continual crying wolf is uncivil and unproductive. Gamaliel (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The header was POV pushing and altering it is nothing at all to do with censorship. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm quite confused. It was claimed by several users, including the admin who chose not to block Wilhelm meis for his 3RR violation, that the heading was a BLP violation. Alleged POV pushing is something entirely different. Users are actually allowed to state their point of view on talk pages (even if I'm unable to see how the section heading was POV in any way). Urban XII (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what this discussion is about (tried to work out but couldn't) but POV pushing about a LP is likely to be a BLP violation. Users are allowed to state their POV about how to improve the article, they should refrain from offering their POV about other issues especially of living people. Section headers should be neutral. Edit: Okay found out what it was about. I agree the the heading was problematic and the new heading is better. Also I forgot to mention changing talk page headings to comply with policy is allowed and is practiced particularly in the ANI etc boards. Nil Einne (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Should the article be blanked?

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:POINT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Note: Moved from section "Unlocking the article". Urban XII (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)) I support the article being blanked. Oberon Fitch 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs) The talk page is intended for the purpose of discussing improvements to the article. Please don't make disruptive comments. Urban XII (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC) And my feeling is that the paragraph that addresses the conviction is so full of problems and such an embarrassment to Wikipedia, that if it can't be fixed, the article should be blanked. I believe that I am entitled to my opinion.Oberon Fitch 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs) You are entitled to your opinion, OF, and it's not entirely without merit, either. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Page blanking is considered simple vandalism at Wikipedia. Using this section [Unlocking the article] to suggest that we should vandalize the article instead of improving it, constitutes disruption of Wikipedia. Please refrain from disrupting the discussion by such comments. Urban XII (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not read OF's comment as a statement of intent to vandalize. There is such a thing as courtesy blanking of articles that present gross violations of BLP policy (i.e. libel, invasion of privacy, etc.) which is decidedly NOT vandalism, and it was my reading of OF's comment that this is what he was referring to. A little assumption of Good Faith would go a long way around here. Notice one user has withdrawn all his comments and left the project. That should be a bright neon light that the tone around here has significantly departed from the way we try to do things on WP. I've tried to encourage SOME adherance to policy and I have been shouted down, reverted, accused of edit warring and treated uncivilly on my own talk page because of it. I'm going to go ahead and seek RfC on this article. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion to blank the entire Roman Polanski article is nothing but ridiculous and unconstructive. Urban XII (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an entirely valid position to take, with regards to the article, that it should be blanked, and valid reasoning was provided. I disagree with it. You may disagree with it also, but that does not make the suggestion invalid, or disruptive. On the contrary, it is disruptive to call legitimate discussion disruption. It is also disruptive to use bogus WP:FORUM or WP:POINT reasoning to suppress legitimate discussion. To be clear, it's perfectly valid to suggest an article be blanked on its talk page, if one can make the argument that the article in its current state is a policy violation or does more harm than good. --Mysidia (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In defence of Polański

Did any of you know that a medical examination of Polański's alleged victim, the findings of which can be read here, discovered no blood on her clothes or body, no anal lacerations and no sphincter tear – nothing, in short, of the kind one would expect if her story of being drugged, raped and sodomised while putting up "some" resistance and saying "no" repeatedly had a grain of truth in it? He may be guilty of nothing more than having consensual sex once with a 13-year-old girl who by her own admission was already sexually experienced but by Californian law was underage. alderbourne (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[removed personal attack] Any kind of synthesis that allows you to draw "consensual sex" from no blood or damage to the vagina and anus is a) OR and b) still disgusting. One last time, btw, consent is not possible under the age of 18, and especially not while under the influence of alcohol, not to mention ludes.WookMuff (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing in your purported copy of the defendant's filing regarding any medical exam, at all. Which page is it on? What is it's relevance? Do we have a reliable source asserting its notability? Do we have a verifiable copy this document? 99.151.164.51 (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• What the hell? An intoxicated and most likely drugged 13 year old child is too afraid to fight back, knowing it wouldn't matter, he too strong, and thus there weren't a lot of bruises. And whether she had sex before with her boyfriend or not, isn't relevant at all. Is it alright to rape a 13 year old, because they aren't a virgin, or too drunk/high and intimidated to fight back? Dream Focus 15:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

MOTION TO DELETE ON BLP AND OTHER GROUNDS.

This edit contains an unsupported claim - not found in the ref - which falsely impugns the reputation of the victim.

Further: The editor has plagerized this text[11], word for word, as well as these edits[12][13], from an entry in the comments section at the NYT's[14] website that is an explicit defense of Polanski - in which that author who signed as Eric Bond Hutton, states that he is motivated by personal experience of a false accusation. 99.142.5.86 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Be good enough to read the comment I have just posted on my talk page. It should help to clarify matters.

TalkLeft, the website to which I referred readers, was set up in 2000 by Jeralyn Merritt, the well-known criminal defence attorney. Its mission, as stated on one of its pages, is "to intelligently and thoroughly examine issues, candidates and legislative initiatives as they pertain to constitutional rights, particularly those of persons accused of crime". To this end it has made available a number of documents relating to legal cases. The findings of the medical examination can be read on pages 80–81 of the document linked to in my posting above. alderbourne (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical examinations are primary sources. Wikipedia policy is for us not to draw our own conclusions based on information stated in primary sources and place them in articles, that would be original research, and our conclusions aren't notable.. multiple verifiable (WP:V) sources reporting that particular defense, or that the matter was consensual would be required.. --Mysidia (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive

I suggest a mature editor/experienced editor archives or removes a lot of what is here on this page, as little of it is ongoing, a fresh start would be good, archive the lot. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Any comments or objections? Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A good idea, but maybe we should wait a day, and then archive most of the debate and start anew with the questions that urgently need a solution. Urban XII (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is just a thought as it is a bit messy here, imagine if the article was unlocked. I might do it later, I will remove only the sections that are stagnant or abusive and leave anything still ongoing, if anyone wants to keep any sections please comment, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A fresh start is exactly what we need. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The page has bot archiving (Tune the bot)

Tune the bot, rather than arbitrarily "fresh starting" an active talk page. (I'd already taken it down from 60 days to 7. Can be adjusted shorter given current activity level.)

Indiscriminately shoveling active and inactive discussions into archive is certainly easy and surely often appealing—but when you find a good topic you were participating in suddenly wiped into the archive by someone who isn't interested in that topic (or just wanting to wipe the page under the guise of doing something good and useful) yada yada yada ... Let the bot do it. If some topics are out of control, let an admin collapse or archive it for cause. "Fresh start" is not policy. :) Adjusting bot temporarily down to 3 day. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive bot update - FYI: Mizabot just snatched 10 threads into the archive. (Will leave it set to 3-day for another day or so, and then probably tune it to 5-day ... Will see how traffic flows) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The one beauty of the bot is that it is obviously above suspicion of Bias. WookMuff (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is no possible reason to do that, unless you wanted to cover up the discussions to try to reword your argument in a different way, and hope all those that spoke out against your actions didn't come back to post again. Only inactive discussions are archived, automatically, when the article gets too long. Dream Focus 15:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on inclusion of specific details of the crime

It seems that we've got a number of issues which are preventing progress, and the confusion in the discussions is making it hard to determine consensus. So I'm suggesting here that we focus discussion a bit on one issue (the one which led to page protection) and see if we can work out where things stand. This is not meant as a replacement for consensus building, but as a means of determining were the discussion currently sits.

To summarise, there has been discussion as to whether or not to include details about the actions performed by Polanski. Specifically, whether or not to say that "he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", as is currently in the article. The current wording is:

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

Followed by: (in the next subsection)

Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

There are three basic arguments that have been offered:

• The details of the crime are required in order to fully understand the extent of his actions, and they have been well publicised in reliable sources.
• Adding the details are an invasion of the victim's privacy, per WP:BLP, as the subject has stated that she would rather not have the details discussed [15].
• Specifically listing the details are not required, as including the list of initial charges can serve the same purpose.

Previous discussion can be found in the archives: 1 2 3 4 5

Three alternatives have been proposed. As per normal practice, please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your name to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. - Bilby (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The proposal to use this procedure, as well as the alternatives listed below, are disputed. Urban XII (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Polanski was arrested and charged[16] with six counts: "Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor", "Child Molesting", "Rape by the use of Drugs", "Sodomy", "Oral Copulation by Force" and "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse".... - 99.142.5.86 (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Option A: Retain both the specific details of the event and the list of charges

Leave the article as is, with "he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", and "Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor."

• Oppose. As I have said before, I think this is (or at least can quickly become) an unnecessary invasion of the victim's privacy and puts a level of focus on the prurient details that is improper in an encyclopedia. While it may not be a crystal clear violation of BLP policy, it is on the fringe of the letter of policy, and the way it was inserted and defended in discussion is decidedly outside the spirit of WP:BLP. I also do not see the need to restate the charges for emphasis, when even the "legalese" version is clearly understandable to most English speakers. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Wilhelm meis admits that describing Polanski's crime is not "a crystal clear violation of BLP policy". Finally we are making some progress. Urban XII (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse not a crystal clear violation with not a violation. Still, once information is removed for BLP reasons, simply reverting it back into the article without supporting it is a crystal clear violation of policy. Just so that is clear. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 03:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. With all due respect to the victim of Mr. Polanski's crime, what was done was admitted to by Polanski under oath in a court of law and is in the public record. I see no violation of the BLP policy in including the content of those admissions in this regard whatsoever as long as that information is adequately sourced. I do see attempts to have this information removed because people are uncomfortable with its content as a violation of our policy WP:CENSOR. The BLP policy is not to protect people's emotions from encountering the harshness of what can be a cold reality (NPOV problem here by the way). It is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for defaming people. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point you to WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, the section of BLP policy that deals with invasions of privacy, rather than libel. While I do not contend that the comments cannot be reliably sourced, they may constitute an invasion of privacy, as the victim is not WP:WELLKNOWN and has made public statements that the continued focus on these details in the media has done harm to her and her family. If she has come forward with these details to the court, where they became a matter of public record, but has never come forward with them in a statement intended for publication, does she still have a right to privacy? I would say the case is not crystal clear, but merits some sensitivity to her privacy. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should tread carefully. However, I do not see these charges as sensationalistic. Although they are graphic in nature, the transcripts of the grand jury testimony are WAY more graphic.[17] The Grand Jury testimony was recently unsealed, which perhaps should tell us that the concern for the victim's privacy at this moment in time does not overcome the public's right to know what happened.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support.I see no reason to remove either the description or the charges. What is done is done. It is fact. TheLou75 (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• As I have stated before on several occasions, I think the article needs to describe the crime itself in some way or another (in addition to the legal technicalities below). I'm quite happy with the current wording, although I'm open to discuss possible compromises. Urban XII (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - it makes the article more informative and we don't WP:CENSOR. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Limited Support I believe that the terms stated are bout as inoffensive and unsensational as you can get with those terms. I don't believe including them is any more an invasion of privacy than the case as a whole, and I believe excluding them is equivalent to bowdlerization or censorship. If, however, someone can come up with a way of stating the case that is as accurate but less offensive (ie: not the insipid "various sex acts") then I would support that. WookMuff (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sodomy technically includes oral sex. Although mentioning them both in the same sentence does draw the inference that the sodomy was not oral sex (or bestiality), the issue could be even further clarified (the Grand Jury testimony makes it explicit that Polanski had anal sex with the victim).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that people who find the phrase sodomy salacious and offensive aren't going to be fans of changing it to anal sex/intercourse/rape WookMuff (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Option B: Remove both the specific details of the event and the list of charges

Remove both "he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her" and "Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor", and replace them with a more generic description, such as "he performed various sexual acts". For example:

Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and, despite her protests, he performed various sexual acts.

Followed by: (in the next subsection)

Polanski was initially placed under a number of charges related to the crime. However, most were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Comment. I don't think it's necessary to sanitize the article to this degree, but I won't argue against it, as it is safely within any reasonable construction of BLP. But somehow I doubt there will be any shortage of argument against this approach. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's even necessary to argue against this solution. Have such a solution even been suggested before at all? Urban XII (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Option C: Remove the specific details of the event but retain the list of charges

Remove "he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", replacing it with a generic description, but leave the list of initial charges "perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor." For example:

Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and, despite her protests, he performed various sexual acts.

Followed by: (in the next subsection)

Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

• Support - Bilby (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: ?This is unclear. What is the exact proposal? The previous discussion has showed that there will never be consensus to remove the decription of his the crime completely. "He performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her" is a generic description, what do you mean by "a generic description"? What would the wording be like? Also, without a brief description of the crime itself, the list of charges (legal, technical terms) will not really make sense to many laypeople (non-lawyers). The description and the charges complement each other. If you oppose the specific wording "he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", I suggest you rather propose a different wording (an exact wording instead of an unclear term like "a generic description"). Urban XII (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Changed as per request. - Bilby (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• • The text above has been changed afterwards. I still oppose "performed various sexual acts" for the same reasons that have been stated over and over again by several editors (mainly because it grossly diminishes Polanski's crime). If some users continue to insist on "various sexual acts", we will never reach consensus. Urban XII (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Then propose an alternative. It would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I'm quite happy with the article (or at the least the section we are discussing) as it is, so it would be more easy if the opposing side suggested a wording (other than "various sexual acts" which was the direct reason the article was protected). As his crime is already described in legal technical terms, I don't really see the problem with having such a short and generic description as "oral sex, intercourse and sodomy". Intercourse is even stated in the lead (because it was included in his conviction) - using "various sexual acts" would obscure the crime to a larger extent than the lead section does (the worst thing about "various sexual acts", though, is its tone, it really sounds like it deliberately downplays the crime). Perversion, lewd and sodomy (which is already mentioned as a charge) are legal terms for the rest of the "sexual acts" mentioned, but if you don't speak legal-ese, it will be more difficult to understand. We write this article for the general public, not just lawyers, and we should not let readers wonder what perversion means. Urban XII (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think there is much doubt what "perversion" means? We are writing this article for people who do speak English. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The article perversion does not explain what perversion actually means in this context. Urban XII (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• What about something like this?

Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and committed various sexual acts despite her repeated protests. (Followed by the charges as listed above.)

It's a little more strongly phrased, clearly and concisely states what Polanski was accused of, and still remains respectful of the victim. That's all I'm asking for. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 03:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What, it doesn't even merit a comment? O well. J'ai fait mon possible. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure if this will help, but it isn't as if we're making great progress. :) And there's a hint in the discussions that were were reaching something like consensus, but it was hard to evaluate. - Bilby (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is unconstructive. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Straw polls are not a generally accepted procedure ("This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community"). We should continue the discussion, not starting premature votes with unclear alternatives that don't really solve the problems. Also, it's not like using the wording "he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her" is the only alternative (except removing any mention of what Polanski did), the main thing is that some sort of description of the crime has to be included. Urban XII (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Straw polls are commonly used, not to determine consensus, but to see what way things are going. This is not proposed as a means of determining consensus, but to focus discussion on one issue, rather than the mess of discussions we've been having. I would not support determining consensus from a straw poll. I would support using it as a guide to discussion.

I originally did not wish to add specific wording for exactly that issue. This isn't meant to determine how to word the article, but to (hopefully) make it easier to determine where we should be having our discussion in regard to wording. However, based on your comments, I've added proposals as examples, not as proposed edits in and of themselves. - Bilby (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I should add that anyone is welcome to add proposals, as per normal practice, or propose alternative wordings. This is just intended as a tool to help with dispute resolution, as described there.- Bilby (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I approve wholeheartedly of this straw poll as a signpost to where we need to move and how perhaps we can achieve consensus, which I presume is its entire point. WookMuff (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wasn't he arrested earlier?

The article mentions that he wasn't arrested in France due to the limited extradition with the US. Why wasn't he arrested in Poland or on any of his previous visits to Switzerland? Wiki editor 6 (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No one was looking for him, it is only recently that polanski's lawyers have upset the americans and the announcement that he was going to go was on the net so they thought they would get him now. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Be wary of WP:OR in which editors like to guess, wiki editor 6. You have a good question, here is a link[18] that might help from The New York Times. The story I linked to discusses the timeline of attempts to apprehend the convicted felon which ultimately led to the fugitive Polanski's recent arrest in Switzerland. - 99.142.5.86 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob's comments, while seen by many (including me) to be the case, are speculation. Many countries have extradition treaties with the United States that are limited, for example in the case of Poland and France, where they can refuse the extradition of a citizen. Also, in many countries it is required that a special request be made for that countries police to act on a warrant from a foreign jurisdiction. WookMuff (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

simple:Roman Polanski

Collapsing solicitation for participation in sister project version + unnecessary contention (Not this article)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Simple Wikipedia article needs a great deal of expansion. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) There is a great deal of his life still to describe here. It's a big project, the subject is unusually complex and deep. There exist significant and notable incidents in his life that have still to find their way into this article. As an example, his head was broken in by a man who robbed him in a deserted building and who was shortly arrested, it turned out that his attacker had killed others and was subsequently executed for two murders.99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Note: Not this article The message refers to project Simple Wikipedia. Follow the link. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC) FOLLOW-UP: I have never looked at Simple Wikipedia, but note this from the main page: “ We use simple English words and grammar here. The Simple English Wikipedia is for everyone! That includes children and adults who are learning English. ” (Since this topic is not about this article it may be removed from this page without my objection.) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I'd suggest we accommodate the good faith efforts of our fellow editors, be they children, newbies, challenged, or those who peak English as a second language. Nothing in this section requires suppression.99.142.5.86 (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Objection: To the characterization of reasonable and proper talk page management (e.g., removing topics not about improving this article) as "suppression" of "good faith efforts" of (LOL) "children, "newbies," "challenged" (LOL, What about huddled masses yearning to breathe free?) The technical term in rhetorical analysis for this is BS. Enough. Many incorrect things may be done in good faith, it does not mean the error must remain (even if performed by starving somehow challenged children, rather than a supposedly well-fed sister-project Wikipedian). This kind of rhetoric leads to a great deal of wasted time, and encourages behavior which results in editors being restrained from editing. META COMMENT I have been more rhetorical than usually warranted in this example, because this talk page has been overrun with inappropriate rhetorical tactics detrimental to the task at hand: writing the article as well as possible. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, I was quite sincere. I do find that it's important to assist and engage all editors.[19] As you might derive from the lost changes noted, my position on this matter is not posturing related to any local content disagreements.99.142.5.86 (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Objection unmodified by unresponsive (to issue of unhelpful rhetoric/misframing as "suppression" etc) response. Misdirection is a common rhetorical play, but not always successful, as in this case. MEANWHILE The article is unlocked (at this time). Edit responsibly. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the high level of controversy in Roman Polanski article here (en.Wikipedia), collapsing discussion re Simple Wikipedia article on this topic (etc). Feel free to explore Simple Wikipedia to discover project differences. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing long policy disagreement over collapsing - Take it to user talks, Village Pump, AN/I etc - Article talk is wrong venue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would really like you to show me the policy that supports collapsing on talk pages. I can't find any reference to it anywhere. WookMuff (talk) Feel free to discuss this with me on my talk page. Such a conversation is not about improving the Roman Polanski article (nor was what was collapsed), which is what this talk page is for. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Actually it was about this subject - and you collapsed discussion about content that I later added to the article and is discussed nowhere else on this page, and which is still currently retained in the article. Why the general and intrusive bossiness? Do you own this place or something? 99.142.5.86 (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Misleading bs: Mistakenly discussing something you added to this article in a topic about a sister project's article (not this one) is not an argument for maintaining the topic. But no further rhetorical analysis of misleading assertions will be performed here. Take it to a talk page or an appropriate forum. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) (BEGIN 4-hours-later exchange) So you first claimed it had nothing to do with discussion of Polanski - and now you claim it "mistakenly" discussed Polanski? Do you always so easily convince yourself that you alone are infallibly right, or does the gun and the badge just make it appear so in the mirror?.99.142.5.86 (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC) False assertion + False assertion = (?) As for the gun and badge, see my "General Suggestion" comment.Proofreader77 (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Your first comment: "Such a conversation is not about improving the Roman Polanski article (nor was what was collapsed)" Me: "Actually it was about this subject - and you collapsed discussion about content that I later added to the article" Your second comment, "Mistakenly discussing something you added to this article... " Mistakenly? Is it always everybody else's fault when you fail to comprehend the world around you? Please. Grow up, and be an Adult in your interactions with people. We're colleagues, not minions to be indiscriminately lied to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.5.86 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Hey, AGF 99... I am sure that user Proofreader77 doesn't lie indiscriminately. WookMuff (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC) “ The Simple Wikipedia article needs a great deal of expansion. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) There is a great deal of his life still to describe here. It's a big project, the subject is unusually complex and deep. There exist significant and notable incidents in his life that have still to find their way into this article. As an example, his head was broken in by a man who robbed him in a deserted building and who was shortly arrested, it turned out that his attacker had killed others and was subsequently executed for two murders.99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Note: Not this article The message refers to project Simple Wikipedia. Follow the link. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC) ” RHETORICAL ANALYSIS: Wiki editor 6 says the Simple Wikipedia article needs a great deal of expansion. 99.142.x.x (after undoing two other editors removing the topic for being off-topic) responds as if a statement has been made about things not covered in the en.Wikipedia article and mentions something he wants to add to it—i.e., yes, mistakenly thinks the topic is the current article not the small text at Simple Wikipedia. Proofreader77 tells 99.142.x.x that Wiki editor's 6 note is about the Simple Wikipedia article, not this one. After that point 99.142.x.x's responses are all BS—and all the time-wasting contentious noise that follows is belligerent distractions from the simple fact that 99.142.x.x was momentarily mistaken about a topic that two other editors removed, and a third informed him of his error about, to no avail. Still the BS continues. Two editors (recently blocked for improper participation) demanding this topic not be collapsed. Casting accusations and aspersions. Noise. Belligerent unproductive, time-wasting, noise. Oh, I have discussed something about the current article in this topic about Simple Wikipedia ... clearly that must not be collapsed, surely someone will look for my suggestion about adding something to this article in a topic inviting people to add content the Simple Wikipedia. Who gives you the right to not let me talk about anything I want to in a topic, use it as I will .. Free speech! etc etc To paraphrase President Obama: "That is bullshit, plain and simple." Proofreader77 (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC) (END 4-hours-later exchange) General suggestion Get the lay of the land, before bulldozing—or risk losing one's license to operate heavy machinery. (Take it to my talk page, or to a higher authority. My "authority" derives only from my history of demonstrating compliance with the standards of the community.—a community in which my actions on this controversy-heavy page would most probably be judged as reasonable and proper.) And yes, this too should be collapsed—as non-productive (to this article) contention. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Your disruptive deletions and collapsing on this article's talk page are certainly of interest to the article's talk page, Proofreader77, and decidedly against all policies I can find of talk pages, which discuss at length the inappropriateness of deleting another editors comments, and don't even mention collapsing them. I think my request for a link was polite, non-agressive, and as I have honestly made an attempt to locate such policies, I feel an answer is warranted if you continue to do so. WookMuff (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Noting removal of collapsed discussion formatting by recently blocked editor This is the second similar action by editor WookMuff. (Diff noted for the record.) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC) By all means, note away. It would probably help if you also noted exactly what policy I was violating by removing the formatting... what policy was that again? WookMuff (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC) What policy allows collapsing? (1) Any topic which is not about the editing of the article of the talk page may be removed or collapsed. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. The purpose of the talk page of an article is to discuss that article. (2) While the link to Simple Wikipedia would not normally inspire collapsing, its insertion into a high-volume contentious article talk page (where it can be confusing to new participants), and the nonproductive contention not related to this en.Wikipedia article is a distraction which needs no further continuation, observation, or commentary. (3) What "policy" says off-topic, nonproductive exchanges may be collapsed? That lies within the implications of the policy that Wikipedia talk pages are not forums, and other general rules of thumb regarding doing what is necessary to maintain consensus building discussion, and nip in the bud distractions from the goal of producing an encyclopedia—with somewhat greater latitude in the context of highly controversial pages temporarily plagued by nonproductive contention. (4) (As you have observed) Refusal to accept community standards with regard to such matters may result in constraint by the community to participate. BOTTOM LINE: Take it to an appropriate forum. This is not the place for this.Proofreader77 (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC) So then, no policy eh? Don't feel too bad, I am sure you tried your hardest. I couldn't find anything either, except about code samples but this is not that. Now, as polies such as WP:TPG state, stop editing other peoples comments. For the good of the community. WookMuff (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Take it to WP:ANI (etc), and ask for further clarification. There is sufficient above. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Follow-up by Proofreader77 I have re-collapsed the section WoofMuff un-collapsed ... but will refrain from collapsing the rest of this (which does not belong here) ... and refrain from undoing any further undoing by WookMuff. Further discussion at appropriate forums (certainly no more here). COMMENT: What a waste of time. Recently blocked editors should take a moment to consider their actions, rather than rushing to continue patterns that are not helpful. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) WP:AGF much? I asked a simple question which you disdained to answer. Also, re: WP:CIVIL, don't try to bait me by constantly referring to my recently blocked status. It won't work. WookMuff (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC) “ I would really like you to show me the policy that supports collapsing on talk pages. I can't find any reference to it anywhere. WookMuff (talk)     Feel free to discuss this with me on my talk page. Such a conversation is not about improving the Roman Polanski article (nor was what was collapsed), which is what this talk page is for. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC) ” In your opinion. Both I and another editor agreed that your disruption of the talk page of the article was of interest in improving the article, an assertion which you refered to as Misleading bs, which again is hardly civil or AGF. WookMuff (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC) “ Actually it was about this subject - and you collapsed discussion about content that I later added to the article and is discussed nowhere else on this page, and which is still currently retained in the article. Why the general and intrusive bossiness? Do you own this place or something? 99.142.5.86 (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)     Misleading bs: Mistakenly discussing something you added to this article in a topic about a sister project's article (not this one) is not an argument for maintaining the topic. But no further rhetorical analysis of misleading assertions will be performed here. Take it to a talk page or an appropriate forum. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) ” So your defense is that... you were rude to someone then told them to go away? Is that really a defense when someone says you are assuming bad faith or being uncivil? WookMuff (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC) “ I'd suggest we accommodate the good faith efforts of our fellow editors, be they children, newbies, challenged, or those who peak English as a second language. Nothing in this section requires suppression.99.142.5.86 (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Objection: To the characterization of reasonable and proper talk page management (e.g., removing topics not about improving this article) as "suppression" of "good faith efforts" of (LOL) "children, "newbies," "challenged" (LOL, What about huddled masses yearning to breathe free?) The technical term in rhetorical analysis for this is BS. Enough. Many incorrect things may be done in good faith, it does not mean the error must remain (even if performed by starving somehow challenged children, rather than a supposedly well-fed sister-project Wikipedian). This kind of rhetoric leads to a great deal of wasted time, and encourages behavior which results in editors being restrained from editing. META COMMENT I have been more rhetorical than usually warranted in this example, because this talk page has been overrun with inappropriate rhetorical tactics detrimental to the task at hand: writing the article as well as possible. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC) ” Discussion of how simple:Roman Polanski affects editing of Roman Polanski article (?) Collapsing my own windy preamble which most may not need (except disputants of the "collapsing controversy") The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. There is continuing disagreement with the collapsing of the Simple:Roman Polanski topic (leaving the linked title line)—an invitation to help enlarge that Simple Wikipedia article (which was removed twice from this page before it was misinterpreted as referring to this article, and the rest of what you see above followed). The "policy dispute" about the legitimacy of collapsing topics (at all, or simply this case) must be taken elsewhere, but since there is apparently still a demand for this topic, it behooves the two editors who disagree with the collapsing to illustrate what is to be discussed in this topic—other than outrage over collapsing topics. Please illuminate: What is to be discussed in the simple:Roman Polanski topic? Extra points if in rhyming verse. lol -- Proofreader77 (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS (smokinggun?)

EDIT TITLE: (specific issue) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the smoking gun a reliable source? Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, See this discussion[20] - or the many others like it. Summed up by, "Yes, it has a reputation for accuracy. The Smoking Gun is part of CourtTV (now renamed truTV), owned by Time Warner. It's not just some guy getting documents." -99.142.5.86 (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, saved me going there to ask.Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: WP:RS of WP:PRIMARY documents (smokinggun)

It would seem that is the main issue here. (Given the several cites directly to the grand jury testimony.) Yes, read the discussion linked to above. The issue of WP:PRIMARY in this article will certainly be further discussed... later :) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My defense of source doc's is limited to NON-interpretive uses, and not those uses which are specified as problematic or prohibited:

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

As a factual reference only, no argument from me for greater use.99.142.5.86 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving of talk page (performed by bot)

NOTE: Manually archiving is potentially controversial (and subject to abuse). The archive bot is being tuned to the traffic flow. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• See also Talk:Roman_Polanski#Archive above. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Top-of-page "Notice of continuing early, and prudent, discussion archival"

A temporary highlighting of archiving issue due to current-events/controvery overload. Would expect this to fade away at some point in the not too distant future. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories

The Jewish cats have been removed, and French rapists reinstated. I believe we need to discuss his status on these two matters. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

hehe Categories, I was very confused and thought "Jewish cats" was beatnik slang. Why have jewish categories been removed? He is not a a member of the Jewish faith, I don't believe, but he is jewish by birth and heritage (again, from what I know). WookMuff (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Polanski actually a Polish immigrants to the United States (i don't know how to link categories) if he never became citizen and he hasn't lived there for 30 years. WookMuff (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Category dispute

1) I thought that the category was removed due to Polanski not being american, not out of any bias. 2) Is convicted american child molesters a common category? I don't know how to check for that. 3) I don't believe that there is legalese that defines a child molester, so someone who is convicted of sex with a child would be a child molester, but probably not in a category name. WookMuff (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not being American might be sufficient reason to remove it. I guess it depends on whether you see that category as being for convicted child molestors who are American, or child molestors who were convicted in America. However, there is a legal difference under Californian law between being convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and being convicted of child molestation. The two are regarded as separate crimes, which is why, I suppose, one might plead guilt to the former so as to avoid the (more serious) latter. While not a reliable source, the Wikipedia article on Statutory rape draws the legal distinction. - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See this member of the category for a perfect fit:[21], "...pleaded guilty in 2005 to statutory rape charges stemming from her having sex with a 14-year-old student in 2004, when LaFave was 23 years old." ..._99.142.5.86 (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That only suggests that it should be removed from there as well. Californian law distinguishes between unlawful intercourse with a minor and child abuse/molestation. He was convicted of the former, but not the latter. Thus we can't use the legal category "Convicted American child molesters" as he was not convicted of that crime. - Bilby (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but was that the case in 1977? If there is one thing hundreds of hours of Law&Order have taught me, its that most criminal laws aren't backdated past their inception (of course, any legal scholars can correct me). So perhaps the law then was different. Either way, If the category is real, and he fits into it, then by all means he should be categorized as such. Any issues with it should probably be taken to wherever people go to discuss categories. WookMuff (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly knowledgable on 1977 Californian law. That said, we know that he was charged with child molestation, but that he plea bargined the initial charges down to a conviction for unlawful sexual abuse of a minor. That suggests that there was a clear distinction in law between the two. So he was not convicted of child molestation, and thus the category is inappropriate and, I suspect, a BLP violation. If we had a category "Americans charged with child molestion" it would be different, although that would be a massive BLP nightmare. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the cat is real and yes he clearly fits in with it. None of our cats are legally defined, we have 50 states each one having literally dozens of various sex crimes on the books. As with our one member, "pled guilty to statutory rape charges stemming from her having sex with a 14-year-old" another member of the cat for example, "...he was convicted of unlawful fornication ...". The defining thread seems to be sex crimes with minors ~ what we colloquially refer to every day as "child molestation" no matter the specific act with which convicted. _99.142.5.86 (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And what of Mel Hall, "aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child" Clearly a sex crime with a minor ... but not child molestation?99.142.5.86 (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I suspect that we may need to clean up a few articles then, although that depends on the actual convictions. Very simply, he was not convicted of child molestation. He could have been, as he was charged with it, but he was convicted of a lesser charge. Thus the category doesn't apply. The category might apply using your argument if there wasn't a legal distinction between the two in the state where he was convicted. But there was in California. It might also apply if it didn't use the legal term "convicted". But it does. - Bilby (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He was convicted of molesting a child, the specific type of molestation being the rape charge he pled guilty to. He fits with the members of the category to a T - LeFave and him are interchangeable. 99.142.5.86 (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski committing one or more offences in the US does not qualify him for the cat; you have to be an American to be an American x, y or z. WP addict 0 (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The US obviously begs to differ. The cat is proper, use this thought experiment to see why: What if a person had been above the age of consent in their country of citizenship, but below in their country of arrest? What if a person, and there are literally millions like this, was convicted in one country but was a citizen of another country - in which they had never lived?

The cat properly includes as members of the group those convicted in American courts.99.142.5.86 (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pending consensus that those convicted in American courts are convicted American offenders as opposed to those convicted in other courts such as this US citizen in the location neutral cat[22]. Added location neutral cat here for now, it's members also include one, "sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for having sexual relationships with teenagers."99.142.5.86 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope we've got some pretty solid sources that clearly state Polanski was convicted of Child Molestation before we slap that label on him. This has been discussed a thousand times on a thousand other BLPs, but it is worth repeating here, that there is no asterisk on the categories involving living people. It's a label, and it can create a serious BLP problem, so we have to get it right and have solid sources every time. We can't just slap a label on somebody that might fit, sometimes fits, fits in certain jurisdictions, fits in a certain sense but not in others, etc. I'm removing the label for now until we see Reliable Sources stating RP is a convicted Child Molester. That he is convicted of X and wikipedians believe X=Y is not enough to slap someone with label Y. I don't have a problem with the category if it can be supported by solid sources. If other BLPs have the same problem, they should be brought up at WP:BLPN, not just used as evidence of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Support removal of anything contentious that is challenged and is uncited, polanski is not/was not convicted of child molestation, he is also not American and I disagree that he is an American anything. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

CAT is entirely consistent as to members of the class being convicted of sex crimes with minors of all types, true for country specific cat and general cat. There are reams of prior consensus on this as seen through the cats and their members.99.142.5.86 (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any decision that we are allowed to skirt the fringes of BLP in reference to categories of living persons. Quite to the contrary in my experience. Can you at least link some support for this, please? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the cat is real and yes he clearly fits in with it. None of our cats are legally defined, we have 50 states each one having literally dozens of various sex crimes on the books. As with our one member Debra Lafave, "pled guilty to statutory rape charges stemming from her having sex with a 14-year-old" another member of the cat for example, "...he was convicted of unlawful fornication ...".

The defining thread seems to be sex crimes with minors ~ what we colloquially refer to every day as "child molestation" no matter the specific act with which convicted. And what of Mel Hall, "aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child" Clearly a sex crime with a minor ... but not child molestation? He was convicted of molesting a child, the specific type of molestation being the rape charge he pled guilty to. He fits with the members of the category to a T - LeFave and him are interchangeable.

The cat is proper, use this thought experiment to see why: What if a person had been above the age of consent in their country of citizenship, but below in their country of arrest? What if a person, and there are literally millions like this, was convicted in one country but was a citizen of another country - in which they had never lived? Look also at those members of the location neutral cat as child molesters. It's members also include one convicted [23] and , "sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for having sexual relationships with teenagers." 99.142.5.86 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Cats need to be well supported by cites, he is not a rapist and that cat should not be re-added. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Because this discussion has raised general issues with the use of the category outside of this article, I've raised the issue at WP:BLP/N. Either way, the use of the categories in other articles is probably a non-issue, due to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the other uses might be wrong, too. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ReadTheFuckingManual before throwing around acronymic shorthand --> "...these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc...the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project. "-99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I see this as an invalid use of the term, as per the essay. There are valid uses. But just saying "other articles use the category" is insufficient, given that those other articles may also be incorrect in their use, or the comparisons may be poor. - Bilby (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RTFM. It specifically criticizes exactly what you're doing, "problem arises when ... disregarding without thought because 'OSE is not a reason'".99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect, rather than cherry-picking parts of the essay, it might be better to look at the point being raised. It isn't enough to say "these articles use the category" - you need to present more. Specifically, is their use of it correct? Similarly, I shouldn't discount an argument that says "other articles use the category" simply because it employs a comparison. - Bilby (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is probably more an issue for WP:CfD than BLP/N, but I have been looking into this category specifically, and I found that it recently went through a CfD discussion, where it was processed with many broadly similar categories. While I agree with every other part of the decision that was made, I think the proposal to replace Category:Convicted child molesters with Category:People convicted of child sexual abuse may be worth a second look. I think the possibility that many people who better fit the latter may have been lumped into the former was overlooked. Probably worth moving the discussion from BLP/N to CfD. Oh, and if anyone wants to see the prior CfD, it's here. That was more what I was looking for in terms of links, by the way. Who else is in the category is just WP:OTHERSTUFF; what I am interested in is a discussion of how to apply the category, what are it's specific criteria for inclusion, and has ArbCom had anything to say about applying this category to Living Persons. Thanks anyway for discussing it. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Second look or not, we do have ample precedent and community consensus for the use of the cat here - as admittedly disagreeable as it may be to some - our intellectual honesty can no longer deny its current applicability.99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How can he be an American anything? He is Franco-Polish. WP addict 0 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the above that the Category:Convicted child molesters is inapplicable for inclusion, because Polanski was not convicted for child molestation and is not widely referred by reliable sources as convicted child molester, not child molester for that matter. While I greatly appreciate thought experiments, we should not engage in original research. Cenarium (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of "American ..." categories

Always eager to do research, I flitted around the pages of other famous people I knew of migrating. The results are interesting, to say the least. Two I found particularyl interesting were Rupert Murdoch and Natalie Portman, who are both described as being American and their birth countries (australian for Murdoch and israeli for Portman) as well as a variety of other categories involving both birth country and adopted home. Of course, Roman Polanski is not actually a US citizen, (I can't tell if portman is, but her mother is so probably) and never has been, but he lived there, had many notable events happen to him there, and of course will most probably die there. WookMuff (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that categories describing the subject as American only apply when the subject is American. Murdoch now holds US citizenship. Polanski has never been, in any sense, American; hence he cannot be categorised as an American anything. WP addict 0 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Immigrant / expatriate cats

I believe these apply even when the person later moves from the destination country. The expatriate cats would seem more appropriate than the immigrant ones. Therefore I believe French expatriates in the United States and Polish expatriates in the United States should be reinstated. WP addict 0 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He only lived in the U.S. for a few years before moving back to France. Lots of people move to another country for a few years for work or study. I think the "expat" categories are better used for people who make permanent, or at least long term, migrations.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Permanent moves or those for many years would likely be eligible for immigrant cats. Expat cats are present on some articles of people who have lived in countries for shorter amounts of time than Polanski lived in the US. In the case of some articles of sportspeople who have lived and worked in several countries for short periods, they have expat cats for several countries present. As these cats are not accurately defined, it is difficult to work out where to draw the line. WP addict 0 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The best way to handle this is to check the sources. Do we have any sources that call him an expat?   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I can only find one "news" source that uses the term[24], both in a story and in an op-ed.There are 32,000 google matches for "roman polanski" and expatriate, though. Also, the xpat cats seem to be in the present tense. I mean, would you have "blank Expatriates in blank" on the article for a deceased person? WookMuff (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe immigrant and expat cats apply even when the person no longer lives in the destination country. There are many WP bios of dead people which are in immigrant / expat cats, as well as those of living people who moved from the destination country years ago. For how many years did Polanksi live in the US? If that info was in the article, we could see if that amount of time falls within the definition of an expat. WP addict 0 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish categories

The Jewish cats have been removed, and French rapists reinstated. I believe we need to discuss his status on these two matters. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

hehe Categories, I was very confused and thought "Jewish cats" was beatnik slang. Why have jewish categories been removed? He is not a a member of the Jewish faith, I don't believe, but he is jewish by birth and heritage (again, from what I know). WookMuff (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated the Jewish categories for now, as this appears to reflect longstanding consensus. The editor who removed the categories pointed blankly to the talk page, which does not contain any serious discussion of the issue (not up to the point the edit was made) and certainly no consensus. --78.34.218.97 (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He would be a Polish Jew not French if you think this category is nessesary.--Jacurek (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I merely reinstated the categories from the time before his arrest, without particular opinion or prejudice with regard to further action. --78.34.218.97 (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He is of Polish Jewish ancestry so "French Jew" does not apply to him.--Jacurek (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why did you remove both categories? Please do not remove the categories again. Their inclusion reflects longstanding consensus. Therefore their removal, not their addition, needs to be qualified by rationale and consensus. --78.34.218.97 (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He is jewish, he is a french citizen, logic states he is therefore a french jew. WookMuff (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He does not self-identify as Jewish, is not Jewish by Halakhic, chose Catholicism - and is now a professed agnostic. 99.142.5.86 (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not as simple as that. May I refer you to Who is a Jew? --78.34.218.97 (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No. But you may argue how Polanski is.99.142.5.86 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion" Ding WookMuff (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No? Ok, in that case, do read Who is a Jew? before commenting on things you do not understand. --78.34.218.97 (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys are wrong. If the Jewish category is necessary in your opinion then Polish Jews is correct one. His parents were Polish Jews and Polanski has also Polish citizenship. French Jews would not apply to him.--Jacurek (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to check the literature on that. A couple of your base assumptions are incorrect.99.142.5.86 (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Which ones:)?--Jacurek (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mother was a Russian Catholic, not Polish or Jewish. Also, as you know, Polanski is equally a French national, additionally he lives there and strongly identifies with it as the place of his birth. If he were Jewish, both would apply.99.142.5.86 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mother was Roman catholic religiously, with a father who was jewish ethnically. From an ethnic point of view, Roman Polanski is 75% jewish, a clear majority :P WookMuff (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree wrt the French Jews category. But he is ethnically Jewish and therefore a category reflecting that fact is necessary and was logically included for most of the article's existence. Also, the timing of the removal of those categories is clearly no coincidence. The article was included in those categories for a very long time, up until his highly publicised arrest. The timing of the removal alone warrants a discussion, with the goal of arriving at a stable consensus. --78.34.218.97 (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski is also a french citizern who lived mainly in france. WookMuff (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But him being a Jew (he is not actually) has nothing to do with France.--Jacurek (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't let WookMuff distract you from replying to my points. --78.34.218.97 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Has he got Jewish citizenship? I support no jewish tags, unless he has self identified. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he does not, only Polish Jewish ancestry.--Jacurek (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

and he lives in france. Are you saying that any American Jew cats are illegitimate unless the person was born there? Also, that was either stupid or not helpful, Off2riorob. WookMuff (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish citizenship"? What is "Jewish citizenship"? --78.34.218.97 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking whether he applied for Israeli citizenship based upon the Law of Return and whether it was granted or denied - There are no such reports at all. One RS reported that a visit of his was canceled over extradition fears.99.142.5.86 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not able to discern the meaning of your reply. --78.34.218.97 (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Has he self identified as being jewish? He is a catholic, lives in france has become agnostic, furget about it, is this it, a poor edit war about cats, I expected more. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He is ethnically Jewish. Or at least he was, up until his highly publicised arrest. --78.34.218.97 (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not offering any solutions, but I'll note that Jewish categories have been a problem for years, due in part to the fact that they uniquely cover both a religion and an ethnicity. However a good principle for contentious categories is to pay attention to how the subject self-identifies.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He did not identified himself as a Jew, in my opinion these categories are not necessary at all.--Jacurek (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you 100% neutral on the issue? --78.34.218.97 (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course--Jacurek (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I do of course agree. But the rule of thumb appears to be closer to something along the lines of "if at all justifiable, an individual stops being Jewish when they become the unpopular target of highly publicised criminal investigations". It reeks of biased editing, seeing as the categories were never subject to contention as long as he was primarily the successful director. --78.34.218.97 (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Will's comment, these jewish cats and religious cats are nothing but trouble and no one even looks at them, the vast majority of people never get past the lead. The article has become under a lot more scrutiny since the arrest, that does not mean that bias is being inserted, just that more scrutiny is there. Those cats remind me of train spotters Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Greater scrutiny, yes, by neutral editors as much as by less than neutral editors. I was merely trying to make sure that the removal had actual consensus, since the editor who originally removed them did not provide any rationale. --78.34.218.97 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish category is not really necessary here. However if you guys decide on having this category then Polanski is definitely of Polish Jewish ancestry not French.--Jacurek (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

French Jew doesn't mean he is from a long and distinguished line of Jews who were french, it means he is a) a jew and b) french, in this case via french citizenship, which he has. WookMuff (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless Will amde another comment, misrepresenting "Jewish categories have been a problem for years" as "these jewish cats and religious cats are nothing but trouble and no one even looks at them" is not good form. WookMuff (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest editors read Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Both race/ethnicity and religion cats require "relation to the topic". Per BLP and others, religion specifically requires self identification. Based on the above discussion (his lack of self identification, his lack of involvement in any Jewish causes or organisation or groups, his religion/lack of it), the only relation I can see is he was a victim of the holocaust due to his Polish Jewish ancestry. However this doesn't seem that important since we have the Holocaust survivors cat. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Poland/Soviet history mentions

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

My edit summary was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see also [[25]]--Jacurek (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polanski's life includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please continue discussion (except current responses) in fresh subsection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "From the beginning, the German government repeatedly asked Joseph Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov to act upon the August agreement and attack Poland from the east" This phrase from another WP article [26] is supposed to be supported by the document from the Avalon project[27]. However, this document (von Schulenburg's telegram), as well as other Avalon documents, is a primary source, so it can be only quoted. No interpretations of primary sources are allowed in WP.

Below is a full text of this telegram:

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

SCHULENBURG"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note - Edit with attack edit summary (Reverted)

Edit made with attack edit summary (asserting bad faith - and itself indicating bias), has been reverted.

All elements of factual change will be discussed. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting over this, ask for a third opinion or a RFC or whatever if you can't agree. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(My) Reversion was for edit with attack edit summary. (Another editor reverted the non-attack edit summary revert). I (too) have made a 3RR advisory—and will now invite the editor to this talk page discussion.Proofreader77 (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it would be a pity to see the article locked down again. I am lucky as I have no idea what the problem is, well I know it is a nationalistic issue but that is all. have a chat, find a compromise. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Note - WP:POINT edit to article (see edit summary) by 99.142.x.x

The un-sourced commentary may or may not be accurate. The edit summary is asserting it should not be in the article. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [EDIT TO APPEND]: follow-up edit to insertion - re "Anne Frank" Proofreader77 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Note - re-removal of Partitions of Poland mention by 99.142.x.x without talk page participation.

Proofreader77 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit dealt with events of 1795 unrelated to Soviet Russia. Are you now arguing that this is Polanski related? Are we to discuss Polish national history and old debate about whether it even existed in 1795? Many RS and verifiable references state that Poland was an artificial state created in the 20th century. Is this really necessary here? 99.142.8.221 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That issue is also under discussion (see my initiating message for this topic). And advise slowing non-stop multiple edits. AND You may soon be subject to WP:3RR violation. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing there. Please spell out how events of 1795 are either Soviet or Polanski relevant here.99.142.8.221 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[YES, WAS LATER RESPONSE/COPYING HERE]

"As for a mention of Partitions of Poland, I noted the earlier objection (which was objected to) ... and my first thoughts were that yes, mother born in Russia but not Russian (but Polish) how to say that best ... and it struck me that the mention of Partitions of Poland handled that matter. The best way? Still open to discussion. So we disagree. (And someone else disagreed I believe—will check the archive) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [EDIT TIMESTAMP: Proofreader77 (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)]" [SIGNING COPY: Proofreader77 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)]

While going to change the partitions of poland thing (I was thinking to handle it in a similar way as, say, george washington's page (on the family's Pope's Creek Estate near present-day Colonial Beach in Westmoreland County, Virginia.) when I looked at the references given. I couldn't find any mention of his mothers birthplace in either of those references (though as one editor pointed out I had a habit of skimming). Also, the second reference, on which a whole lot of the religious information is based, appears to be a website of religious citations, which are totally useable, but we should be careful about using any summarization or synthesis from the article itself. WookMuff (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTE - Removal of information under discussion by WookMuff

(Note edit summary - and removal of time frame from beginning of sentence.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Note - WP:BB. The fact that communism was forced on the poles, while true, verifiable, and npov, doesn't belong in this article. This article is about ROMAN POLANSKI. WookMuff (talk) 00

15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

False/Absurd Your assertion would only be true if Polanski was, e.g., Australian, and his family was from a long line of rabit hunters. See my note about the probation report—even that mentions "communism." The circumstances under which one grows up is part of someone's biography. Germany and the Soviet Union BOTH affected his life—he was born 3-years before the invasion by both nations ... and his life's path was shoved around by two nations. I.E., Don't be absurd. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Note - Please don't forget to answer the question

“ I see nothing there. Please spell out how events of 1795 are either Soviet or Polanski relevant here ) ”

I am seriously interested in why you seek to include OR regarding the events of 1795 in a Polanski article.99.142.8.221 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Question(s) (re Partitions of Poland issue) (to begin response/examination of issue)

• [1] (Wondering) Did Roman Polanski's mother speak Polish? (If so, why?) (Now, I must go offline for awhile) NOTE: If someone suggests that information about someone's mother does not belong in their biography, I will again again respond: "Absurd." :) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Schooling

Can anyone find out when Polanski began at film school, so it can be folded into the following paragraph after his early 50's acting career? WookMuff (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

French and Polish categories

Consistency If this article is in (e.g.) Category:French film directors and Category:Polish film directors, then it should also be in Category:Polish rapists as long as it's in Category:French rapists. It should be in either both or neither. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I've made it so it's in neither. Hi, by the way. --LordNecronus (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see above "The cat[egory] French rapists [has been] reinstated. I believe we need to discuss his status on these two matters." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The rapist cats are out , he is not a convicted rapist and they should all stay out. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If anybody wants to re add any cat then open a request for comment or a straw poll here to see if there is any consensus to insert your favourite cat. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

While he is technically a rapist (and, in the eyes of most, actually a rapist) he has not been convicted of rape in so far as the term goes. According to BLP, its always better to avoid litigation, something Roman Polanski has been known to do in the past. Rapists, Child molesters, all that stuff, while accurate, doesn't belong in the cats as it stands. WookMuff (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rapist categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its how the word is defined in every dictionary I know of. [28] with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent Dream Focus 03:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Update: IP99 got a 31 hour block for repeatedly inserting the child molester cat [[29]] without consensus.Off2riorob (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Do not includeper WP:TERRORIST (corollary of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:WTA), a word too loaded that doesn't adequately and thus neutrally describe the subject. It would be different if Polanski was widely named rapist by reliable sources, but this is not the case. Cenarium (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Do not include. I support the option below. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Include. "Statutory rape" is not a legal term. "Statutory rapists" are rapists as well. Rape is rape. Urban XII (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per BLP. Also, why not wait for the case to play out before making mass edits to the page? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a source for breaking news. We should also be wary in describing the crime. Words like Pedophilia may or may not describe the accusations. Since Pedophilia is described "as a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children", a more apt description may be Hebephilia, which "refers to an adult's sexual preference for pubescent youths; ...from pedophilia, which refers to the sexual preference for prepubescent children". The crime was committed in the United States, and the law states that persons 13 years of age cannot give consent for sex, which makes even the Polanski explanation a crime of "Statutory rape". For which he should have to answer for. There is a reason why the law differentiates between degrees of sex crimes, as well as homicide and other crimes. DD2K (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DD2K (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Statutory rapists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of charges

The article currently states that "Polanski was arrested and charged with six counts: "Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor", "Child Molesting", "Rape by the use of Drugs", "Sodomy", "Oral Copulation" and "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse"" but neither of the supplied cites refers to any of these charges that I can see. Can someone supply a reference? Otherwise this statement will have to be removed. Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed most of the above until such time as it can be properly cited. Gatoclass (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference was already there - the probation officer's report [30]. That's clearly a primary source, though, and while I think we can safely assume that the codes are correct, the names of the charges are summaries, not the legal titles. - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A list of the properly worded charges can be found here, only without the codes. "The director was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor." (from the Daily Mail). - Bilby (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User Otter Smith has replaced the original material without any discussion here, I have left him a note to self revert. The details from the Daily mail citation should be replaced. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

He added back some material which does belong there. It has references. It shows the actual court document here. [31] That list the crimes mentioned. Dream Focus 17:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As is stated here, that ref is clearly a primary source. He reverted to the original text that is discussed here, whiich there is no citation to support, the new text from the new citation should read...

Polanski was arrested and was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User Otter Smith's edit summary of "citation needed, perhaps; the LADA records show the charges" is also clearly no excuse to revert to material that is under discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Any input regarding this? Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute User Bilby's comment that in regard to [[32] this} citation, "That's clearly a primary source, though, and while I think we can safely assume that the codes are correct, the names of the charges are summaries, not the legal titles" Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)