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Due to excessive disorganization and material volume some current discussion and open issues have been archived.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

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[4], word for word, as well as these edits[5][6], from an entry in the comments section at the NYT's[7] 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)

primary/secondary imbalance (in this case) See my brief general comment in a topic below.Proofreader77 (talk) 23:32, 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 [8].
• 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[9] 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.[10] 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)

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.[11] 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)

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:[12], "...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[13]. 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 [14] 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[15], 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 [[16]]--Jacurek (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polanski's life includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please continue discussion (except current responses) in fresh subsection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invasion of Poland phrasing

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

Re: "From the beginning, the German government repeatedly asked Joseph Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov to act upon the August agreement and attack Poland from the east" This phrase from another WP article [17] is supposed to be supported by the document from the Avalon project[18]. However, this document (von Schulenburg's telegram), as well as other Avalon documents, is a primary source, so it can be only quoted. No interpretations of primary sources are allowed in WP.

Below is a full text of this telegram:

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

SCHULENBURG"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Abram Schlimper Do you assert:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Film school (under communism?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note - Edit with attack edit summary (Reverted)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[YES, WAS LATER RESPONSE/COPYING HERE]

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

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

NOTE - Removal of information under discussion by WookMuff

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

• Follow-up I have reverted the edit by WookMuff My edit summary is: "Undoing edit removing mention that Polanski attended fim school under communism NOTE: Edit summary when removed: "Incredibly irrelevant. Spielberg and Lucas studied in the late 60s/early 70's but neither mention nixon/civil disobedience/hippies" Proofreader77 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up WoofMuff has undone the reversion Proofreader77 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up I have reverted (2nd) WookMuff's undoing. My edit summary (please excuse misspelling of "WookMuff"): "(2nd reversion of Wuffmuff's new undoing- Information has been in the article (I believe) for most of past 10 months. How to phrase this is discussable, but deleting mention as irrelevant is absurd. e.g.,"Communism" is mentioned in Probation Report.)" Proofreader77 (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up WookMuff has reverted (2nd) my reversion. Edit summary: "Still irrelevant" Proofreader77 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

If you spent less time whining and pointing out things trying to get people in trouble, you might be able to improve the article. WookMuff (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your removals: Removing information from the article as you are doing is not improving the article. Documenting what is happening is part of the process. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't the fact that Polanski attended film school under Soviet Communism relevant? It could have shaped the skills he has in making films. Why I see no need to expand on that issue(unless Polanski has), I see no reason why the line "During the Soviet-imposed communism in Poland, Roman Polanski attended the Polish film school in Łódź, and graduated in 1959" should not be added. DD2K (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

I find your anti-australian bias High offensive. WookMuff (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(Noted) That the mention of the honorable work of rabbit hunting is considered a slur on those so-employed (of whatever nationality). ;)Proofreader77 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Note - Please don't forget to answer the question

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

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

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

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

(Don't answer my rhetorical question down here - see new sub section above edit notes)

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)

1954 Proofreader77 (talk) 00:38, 12 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. [19] 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 [[20]] without consensus.Off2riorob (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Statutory rapists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [21]. 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. [22] 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 [[23] 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)

A primary source may be used as long is it is not used for analysis or synthesis, merely as a source of details. I think that using the actual terms used in the official documentation is better than using a newspaper report published in a foreign country thirty years later. But of course, thats my opinion WookMuff (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Nothing wrong with using the primary source in this specific way. Gamaliel (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that.."Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor",is not a charge at all, whereas...this is..furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.. I think this citation is perhaps a more official decription of the charges, even if it is from another country and years later. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being boldly hasty; here's a link to the official listing of the actual charges via FindLaw, including the case number, charge names, actions substantiating those, and criminal code charge numbers at that time: http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/polanski/capolansk31977iind.pdf This is neither original research nor synthesis; this is a .pdf of a .gif of the document that was presented to the court. Other versions of the alleged charges are alterations of this (lengthy) document. Yes, I have been somewhat following the discussion, but not in great detail; I saw my reversion as undoing the insertion of POV minimization of the initial allegations. It should be mentioned that the guilty plea was to the felony charge, perhaps, not the misdemeanor version. htom (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but the charges in there look like the same as in the daily mail citation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article reads as if there were five serious charges, and the plea was to a different, minor, charge. There were six serious (felony) charges; he plead guilty to one of those, not to a different charge. A small difference and distinction, but it's these kinds of details that the press so frequently gets wrong .... htom (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rapist redux

I can't speak for everyone, but I feel that the reason most people who are standing against these categories are doing so because the word rapist, as someone mentioned above, is an incredibly loaded word. I know that I would be totally for a category which was "People convicted of statutory rape" whereas I am and will continue to be vehemently opposed to any category which contains the word rapist. Its BLP, people... lets wait a few months til he dies in jail then we can take another look. WookMuff (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But there is, in legal terms, no such thing as "statutory rape". It's considered rape, end of story. "Statutory rape" is more of a colloquialism for certain types of rape. It doesn't change the fact that it is rape. Urban XII (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WookMuff is absolutely right. You may not see the distinction, but others do, and it is there. We should take care to be precise, especially in regards to a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Urban, but unfortunately tort laws see it differently, and we have to consider that Polanski is not afraid to litigate over slander, and is a charming old man who managed to successfully sue a magazine from a country that he was a fugitive from. Do it for BLP, do it for Wikipedia (I'm proud to be a wikipedian...)WookMuff (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not following.. his alleged actions were a criminal matter, not a tort. What he was actually convicted of is not legally referred to as rape, it was referred to an act unlawful sexual intercourse (with a female person, not his wife, who was then and there under the age of eighteen). You're right that "statutory rape" is more of a colloquial term, In the county of Los Angeles, where Polanski was tried, the legal term used was unlawful sexual intercourse, not rape. --Mysidia (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tort comes in when Roman Polanski sues wikipedia for calling him a rapist. WookMuff (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many valid reasons the article should not describe the events as rape, like the biased connotation of the word, gives undue weight to a certain point of view, but the alleged possibility of a frivolous lawsuit against WP is a legal threat, and not a valid reason, the possibility exists when negative true info is published about anyone... --Mysidia (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

AGF, and don't throw around terms like Legal Threat. I am not Roman Polanski's lawyer (If I was then some of the things I have said here would be seen poorly). Anyway, perhaps you have heard of a little thing called WP:BLP. ("Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility." "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims.",) and WP:LIBEL ("It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.") WookMuff (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I live in Texas. "Rape" is a loaded term and imprecise, too. It is not helpful to this article, or any article in which it does not refer to a specific phrase or title (like Rape of the Sabine Women). There is no such thing as rape in Texas, there is sexual assault, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, etc. Pawsplay (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Unlawful Sexual Assault of the Sabine Women, The Unlawful Sexual Assault of Nanking, The Unlwaful Sexual Assault of Lucrece?

Alderbourne [edit re: medical examination info from primary]

[TITLE EDIT TO APPEND CLARIFICATION] Proofreader77 (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

NO, I AM VERY LAZY!. I just closed it, so lemme find it again. [24] This is the reference that is used, its the motion to dismiss from last year. Watch out, its a PDF, its VERY long, and its is just scanned, so you can't search for text. The medical information is in the probation report, which is one of the exhibits. WookMuff (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Here See [25], pp. 80–81...Page 80-81 you don't have to read it all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

You are of course right that the information is in the document while the conclusion is not; it is my own. However, I would argue that it is really an observation rather than a conclusion – a simple, plain, commonsense observation. To complain that it constitutes "original research" is surely going a bit far!alderbourne (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

This..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede: insertion of sensational Amis interview quote (not in article body)

NOTE: This insertion of the "young girls" quote in the lede clearly doesn't belong there—it's not even in the body of the article at this time. (But I've already reverted twice today, so just noting). Proofreader77 (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – reverted - for now

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

"Little girls" interview

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

The article currently includes=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A tad undue/unbalanced etc.

The whole Sex crime conviction section needs clean-up, especially the extensive quotes which seem to be making the case that a judge already did. This is where better summarizing would likely help. I imagine that entire section will have to be razed and rewritten but just as an outsider piping in thought another opinion may help. In contrast Manson murders section seems to the point, clear and ties in with the rest of the article. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are 17 paragraphs and 1,930 words in the Sex crime conviction section, while the Manson murders section has 1 paragraph and 203 words. We need to drastically reduce the size of the Sex crime conviction section, it's become a battle of edits with each side adding their own explanations. Perhaps some help or guidance from Wikipedia:Administrators is in order. There is no need to get into the minute details of the case within the Roman Polanski entry. I suggest cutting out a great portion of the entry to make in more in line with the Manson murders section. DD2K (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the section is fine as it currently stands, and perfectly appropriate. The murder of a different person is not a comparable incident, Sharon Tate has her own article. Roman Polanski was never murdered, he wasn't even in the country at the time. Urban XII (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing and contrasting the two sections as much as showing how a good section in the same area is certainly possible. The murder of Tate was much bigger news than this was and was subsequently covered in books and movies. The current section on the rape goes into needless digressions and details making it just a bad read overall. We can state he's guilty without overdoing it. -- Banjeboi 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that the Manson murders were a notable incident, only pointing out that Roman Polanski was neither the perpetrator nor the victim of these murders. Of course we need to mention that a family member was murdered, but these murders should mainly be dealt with in other articles than the article on a family member of a person who was murdered. A case directly involving Polanski, i.e. something he did (he's currently the one in prison in Switzerland) is much more relevant to his biography than something that happened to his wife. Urban XII (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That accounts for the first two or three well-written paragraphs, not seventeen. WP:Undue means we present all information with due weight, we're going waaay overboard here. -- Banjeboi 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a quite long article which gives his film career due weight. Most of the article is about his film making, after all. I happen to agree that the "Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disagreed" paragraph should be removed, but for BLP reasons (it's an unfounded accusation against the victim, also, there is no such thing as "consensual" sex with a 13-year old in the US). Perhaps the "Conviction and subsequent fugitive status" section could be a little more concise. But three paragraphs on the rape case would be way too short. Raping a child is a very serious matter in most of the world, and many people associate him primarily with this case. He's currently in prison, he's currently primarily discussed in connection with the case, and the case is likely to affect his life for a very long time. Most people who read this article these days do it because they are interested in the rape case. Urban XII (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's due weight. But I also think that Polanski's dogged insistence that she really did want it (which you can read in his biographical book, referred to in the citation already in this article) is relevant, as it demonstrates a central, notable fact= Polanski is un-remorseful and un-repentant about the incident even year later. The Squicks (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You have a point there, of course. Nevertheless, I think such an attack on his own victim (accusing her of willingly being raped) is problematic due to BLP, and we should at least consider this aspect. Urban XII (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And I must echo about the Manson murders, this was a major issue in his life only in a specific limited context. There's no point in going into details about the case because that is not pertinent here. The only information that should be in this article is how the murders effected him and that information is already here (e.g. The murders turned him from a Jew into an atheist). The Squicks (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you both are missing the gist of my criticism. I'm in no way suggesting that content or context be removed. Instead tighten up the writing to state what you just did here with far less volume. Show that he remains non-remorseful but do so clearly and concisely with due weight - trim the rest away and folks actually may read the whole thing. My point with the Manson murder is that it fits into the narrative of the subject's life. We could have five or six paragraphs on Manson but we don't. -- Banjeboi 17:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Sharon Tate Polanski's wife, and wasn't she carrying his child? If you ask me, the murder of one's spouse and unborn child in such a gruesome manner bear's the same mention as the Statutory Rape committed. Also, of course it matters if there is force or coercion, that would turn a Statutory Rape conviction into a more serious Rape conviction. The facts, as of right now, say that Roman Polanski has been charged and convicted of Statutory Rape. The other charges were dropped due to a plea agreement. Of course a 13 year old cannot give consent, which is why there was a deal for a Statutory Rape conviction. That is all that should be included in the Wikipedia entry for Roman Polanski, the rest violates WP:BLP and WP:POV standards.DD2K (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)