Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3



The article states: "Polanski has avoided visits to countries that are likely to extradite him (such as the UK) and mostly travels and works in France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland."

Doesn't Germany have an extradition agreement with the United States? I would find it very strange if Germany didn't have such an agreement with the U.S. considering the very close relationship between the two countries over the last 60 years. Germany most likely would extradite a foreign sex offender (a convicted pedophile) if requested by U.S. authorities. Urban XII (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Germany and the U.S. do indeed have an extradition treaty, which was negotiated and signed in 1978. They also have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) of 2003. The exceptions seem to be the fact that Germany will not extradite persons who may receive the death penalty in the United States, and will not extradite people over "political" offenses. Unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor hardly carries the death penalty, nor is it a political offense. Urban XII (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's only speculation, but there's also the question of a statute of limitations. Germany might well be reluctant to extradite someone who couldn't be tried in Germany for the same offences. Physchim62 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Statutes of limitations don't apply in this case, since he plead guilty but fled the country before he was sentenced.

Please leave the BLP sources flag in

Checking the article will reveal many sourceless statements. These cause problems as he is such a controversial figure. Some have CN flags. Others do not, as littering an article with CN flags is generally counterproductive. Checking the movie sections will show virtually no sources and a great deal of OR. Some of the movie articles themselves cite no sources whatever. Please note that the flag itself and the comment at it are a discussed work added above. Please join the discussion if there are objections.- Sinneed 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Copying this here so it will be easy to restore

{{BLP sources|date=April 2009}} <!-- This biography of a living person ([[WP:BLP]]) is severely under-sourced, and needs many inline citations ([[wp:cite]]). Thus, it carries an article flag cautioning about [[WP:OR]]. Please do not remove this flag until the text has been thoroughly and reliably sourced ([[wp:RS]]). This flag has little to do with any fact-flags which may be scattered through the text, but is a warning about the article as a whole. Please seek [[wp:consensus]] before killing the flag.--> {{Redirect|Polanski}}

It just keeps being killed. I don't think putting it back in today is worth the effort. I will readd it tomorrow. Anyone who disagrees please feel free to restore it. I am at 3 reverts, and don't feel confident that this is vandalism... no edit summaries. *shrug*- Sinneed 18:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sex offence conviction

Polanski is a rapist. I don't care if every one of his films won him an Oscar. The fact that he is a rapist outweighs anything he has achieved in his cinematic career. The fact of his being a rapist ought to be the very first thing that the reader sees in the article. It is also important to highlight that he is a Polish-French rapist. Poland and France have for over three decades connived in his avoiding facing justice for his crime. Even today the foreign ministers of Poland and France have been hinting that they may attempt to obstruct the course of justice. If I were a Pole or a Frenchman I'd burn my passport. Hurrah for Switzerland. What do I want for Christmas? Polanski in an orange jumpsuit on the front page of The Times.-- (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Does not the US has also the choice not to extrade one of its citizen and usually do so ? I could also say that if I were a US citizen, I would burn my passport. Such a comment is completely stupid. The American Government had the choice to ask for a judegment in France.

The crime maybe was "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" or statutory rape. One seduction doesn't make someone a rapist, sometimes people is just asking for it. Anyway your sentence has become world famous[1]. I can't believe it. -- (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Justice sytem will decide, if he's a rapist or not. PS: A paternity suit should be held, he's a carbon coppy of Danny Kaye. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to throw my hat in and opine Roman Polanski is still primarily known for his films. If he wasn't known for his films, this 1977 incident wouldn't even be covered on Wikipedia. Obviously, the 1977 incident had a huge impact on his life and it belongs in the article, but definitely not in the lead sentence. Polanski is also known for being the husband of someone murdered by the Manson group, but that is not in the opening sentence because it is not what he is MOST KNOWN FOR.
Whilst he is a filmmaker first, the statutory rape he was convicted of, and related events, are certainly important enough to be mentioned in the lede, due to being a very important part of his life. WP addict 0 (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
He, as an almost fifty-year old, drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl. I'd say he's at least as well-known as a rapist as he's known for his films. The fact that he makes films, doesn't overshadow or excuse the brutal rape of a defenseless child. He'll be remembered both as a rapist and a former film maker. Urban XII (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
That's for the courts to decide, not Wikipedia. Alan (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

← Actually the courts have decided the matter, they accepted his guilty plea. That said, his criminal misdoings need to be viewed in their proper context, Urban's take on this is a little over-the-top. Crafty (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

He was convicted of statutory rape, but not of sodomy. In any case, both his filmmaking and sexual offending should be in the lede. The films should be mentioned first, as he became notable through his career years before his attack on Geimer. WP addict 0 (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Point taken about the sodomy matter and I agree with you about including his criminal offence(s) in the lede. Crafty (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
"Unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" was the charge he pleaded guilty to. We simply shouldn't be calling him a rapist, not even on a talk page, we should let the facts speak for themselves. Physchim62 (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
So it's "pedophile", then? Crafty (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Should Category:Pedophilia be added? WP addict 0 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's not go crazy about this. Rather we should see what consensus develops on that question. Whilst the verifiable facts of Polanski's life shouldn't be left out of the article, we should also proceed with some caution. WP:BLP and all that. Crafty (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
More correctly he's a convicted pedophile. Interestingly, the day before he was arrested in Switzerland - Poland approved[1] the forced castration of people convicted of precisely the crime he was accused of - forcible sex with a 13 year old (although the law covers children under 15) against her will and drugging her without her knowledge in order to take the use of her 13 year old child's body for his sexual gratification.

← . . .and his offences were not committed in Poland. Yes, I know he Polish/French by birth but let's not cloud this issue with irrelevancies. I think the best way forward here is to edit with great care and not let our various points of view trump good judgment. Crafty (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

'Protected by France's limited extradition with the US' - why would France not extradite Polanski? Is there a Wikipedia article that explains this limitation that could be linked to in this article? Under what circumstances could an extradition between those two countries take place? WP addict 0 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No one can be convicted of pedophilia. The crime was "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" or statutory rape. One seduction doesn't make someone a pedophile - it's a pathology in which the sexual fixation is on underaged people.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The agreement France has with the US allows France to refuse to extradite it's citizens to the US. The trade off is that the US can request French authorities to prosecute the matter in the French courts. I suspect the agreement is more about returning non-French citizens to the US. Crafty (talk) 10:50 am, Today (UTC+10)

Because he had got French citizenship, that's why. Urban XII (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
He had French citizenship at the time of the offences. France doesn't extradite its own citizens, although they can be tried in French courts for crimes committed abroad. Physchim62 (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
France never allows any French citizen to be extradited? If that is the case, and he could have been tried in France instead, did the US ever request his trial in France? WP addict 0 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No, they didn't (if one looks at the hypocritical and ridiculous reactions by French politicians to his arrest, one understands why). Urban XII (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

←Will's comment has the goods on this issue. "Pedophile" has a particular meaning and before whacking that label on this article and by extension Mr Polanski it's best that we achieve a clear consensus. Yes he has a conviction for "unlawful sex with a minor" but does this justify labelling him a pedophile? Apparently there is reason to think it doesn't. It's also important to note that the objective here is not ensure that Polanski gets what some people think he deserves (Urban XII why am I looking at you?) but rather reflecting what the verifiable sources have to say about him and his history. Crafty (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should I know? Urban XII (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic issue

Why are the names of the Swiss courts translated in German? It seems a little bit pedantic, and as far as Swiss languages are concerned, there is no reason to quote them only in German (and not in Italian, French or Romanch). I think that giving only the English name is a better solution. The hyperlink allows anyone to learn the German/French/Italian/Romanch name if they want to.

They are not "translated". German is the main language of the Swiss judicial system. The websites use the German name as their adress and main language ( and ), they aren't even available in Romansh. It is helpful to include the (main) official names of the courts as well as their English translations, especially as this article is also used as a source of information for speakers of languages other than English, where the use of an English translation would be inappropriate. Urban XII (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am a Swiss lawyer, and there is no "main language of the Swiss judicial system". Swiss federal courts work in all four official languages depending on the circumstances of the case, and have four co-equal "official" names in the four languages. I agree that giving only the English names is most convenient.  Sandstein  07:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute regarding how to describe incident of the child rape

This constitutes a deliberate attempt to distort the truth. Fact is: Roman Polanski drugged a 13-year old girl, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her"[2][3][4]. This was already stated in sources cited in the paragraph, but here are three more sources. I'm going to reinstate this in a couple of hours if somebody else haven't done it by then. I'm very concerned by the attempt to remove this information from the article. After all, this is what the whole case is about. Urban XII (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Urban, perhaps you should take the time to read this: WP:TRUTH. Crafty (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take the time to read it? So far, I haven't seen any sources from you. On the other hand, the testimony by the victim that "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her" (as the Associated Press put it) has a lot of sources, including sources that are already included in the article. I'm afraid it's very difficult to interpret the recent removal of this information as anything else than disruption/obstruction. The wording "various sexual acts", without mentioning which acts, serves as a euphemism. Urban XII (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Meh, I have better things to do than argue with a bug-eyed zealot about this stuff. Crafty (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
A reliable source states she said he performed specific acts on her. It is relevant to this article, so it should state that she said that. WP addict 0 (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think there is consensus to include this information then. It is sourced and highly relevant. The only person who attempts to remove it is unable to present any arguments or sources to back his case, only making personal attacks. Urban XII (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The only person who attempts to remove it? I've counted at least three editors just tonight. As it is, Urban XII is up against his/her WP:3RR limit, so can't put it back without facing a 24 hour-block. from editing. Physchim62 (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see any arguments or counter-sources, so the consensus is to include the information and the removal constitutes vandalism. Urban XII (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:TRUTH states that irrelevant info should not be added, even if true and verified. This info is verified and what she said he did is very relevant to the article. WP addict 0 (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that the lurid details are relevant. What is relevant is that she was thirteen and he was forty-four. You might also consider it relevant that "Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family" (the quote is from the article). Physchim62 (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
We report the truth. What he did to her is the core of the whole case, we cannot censor it. A brief description like the one used by the Associated Press is not "lurid details", but a brief, necessary explanation of what the whole thing is about. If he hadn't raped her, he wouldn't be in detention in Switzerland as we speak. The information is widely reported (and has been so for decades) and well sourced, there is absolutely no valid reason to remove it. Urban XII (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think whats pertinent here is not necasarily the details of the specific acts performed - but rather that they were performed to the girl's protest. This information is very relevant as it draws the distinction between consensual sex acts and rape. It is widely verifiable that she claims to have protested the actions as they were occuring; it can be found in many news sources and the actual court reports. Failure to include this very pertinent information is not justified under the policies currently being cited (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So how best to describe a 50 year old that drugs 13 year old children and then forces his penis into their anus, vagina and mouth against their will? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I think Physchim62 said it best: the lurid details of the sex acts are irrelevant to the case and clearly do harm to Ms. Geimer, who has clearly and unequivocally stated that she wishes to have nothing further to do with the case due specifically to the effects of the decades of publicity and focus on the lurid details (see Physchim's quote above) on her family. This is a BLP concern, as it clearly does harm to Ms. Geimer. Need I remind anyone that she was the victim? I'm not concerned about the details in and of themselves, but rather their effects on Ms. Geimer and her family. There is more than WP:CENSOR at play here; per WP:BLP, Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
In serious cases like this, considering the fact that Polanski is now in prison, mainly gets attention because of this case and a large part of the article deals with it, we cannot downplay or obscure the very core of the case. It has been reported by reliable sources like the Associated Press, we need to mention it. However, it's not important to mention the name of the victim (like you do). I would have no problem with removing the name of the victim completely, we don't need to know her name to understand the impact of Polanski's crime. But we cannot describe what Polanski did without describing it, "various sexual acts" is not an adequate description of his crimes, we're talking about the worst sexual crimes possible against a child, but by using such a euphemism, we lead people to believe it was maybe only harmless. Urban XII (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This is where we disagree. Describing the act itself as "various sexual acts" is an adequate description to suit our purposes. WP is an encyclopedia not a tabloid, newspaper or court document. We must consider the potential harm done to living people involved in the incident. You can trust that I am the last to tout the BLP horn, and I certainly don't hide other motives behind a BLP argument. I also assure you that I am quite sympathetic to your moral position, but WP is not the forum to make that stand. It is an encyclopedia, and we have a responsibility to keep it free of libel and respect the privacy of non-public persons. The irony here is that the people most harmed by recounting these details are the victim, now an adult, and her family, not Polanski. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Then clearly, the encyclopedic fact that Polanski is a convicted rapist, child molester or pedophile needs to be stated clearly - or we can spell it out. The only reason we discuss the detail is to balance out the playing down of the facts of the matter. We can describe the notable event as one of aggressor, convicted rapist, child molester, or pedophile. All of which are supportable and referenced facts. Or we can obscure the role of Polanski, in which case in order to properly record the event we emphasize the act - one in which a 13 year old is unknowingly drugged with Quaalude's while tearfully resisting, stating clearly and without any doubt, "I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!" before a roughly 50 year old man, one who lied to her from a position of power, forced his penis into the mouth, anus and vagina of a child. But we cannot ignore the deep significant notability of the event. We will record it - and it will be stated clearly. How we do it is the only question.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Anyone who describes his crime as "various sexual acts" is explicitly trying to coverup his crime and implicitly trying to defend it. The reputation of Wikipedia is at stake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how you managed to get from A to B but that's a pretty wild leap you're taking. So... anyone who doesn't join the lynch mob must be on his side. That's your well considered opinion? It's wonderful that you care about Wikipedia, and even more wonderful that you're trying so hard to save it, but you should probably avoid making sweeping statements about what motivates certain editors. It's just possible that you have no idea what you're talking about. Rossrs (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Child molester needs to be in the lead

It's POV to describe him only as a "a Polish-French film director, producer, writer and actor" in the first sentence. He's just as well known as a child molester as he's known as a writer these days. A large portion of the article deals with his sexual abuse. Per MOS, it's necessary to include his child molestation in the first paragraph. I suggest this wording: Polanski is a Polish-French film director, producer, writer, actor and convicted child molester.

A comparable article, for reference: Christopher Paul Neil. Urban XII (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there should be reference to the crime the subject pled guilty to in the lead. --Mysidia (talk)
It does. It states "In 1977, he was arrested in Los Angeles and pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor..." in the second paragraph of the lead section. - Bilby (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
However, there should also be a reference to it in the first sentence. The first sentence is intended to be a summary of the whole article. A significant part of the article deals with the sex offense, and he is at least as much a child molester as he is a writer. Urban XII (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The phrasing "convicted child molester" is far from neutral and probably somewhat untrue (see section below). I also think mentioning this in the first sentence gives that event too much weight. Look at Chris Brown (entertainer) as an example. — Jake Wartenberg 05:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between an almost 50-year old drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year old child (in most societies considered one of the most serious crimes), and being violent to your (adult) girlfriend. Besides, Chris Brown's crimes shouldn't be downplayed the way they are either. Christopher Paul Neil is a far more relevant example in this case, as the crimes are more comparable. Urban XII (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It isn't worth comparing these two articles. If nothing else, Christopher Paul Neil is notable only in relation to his crimes. Polanski is notable for far more. - Bilby (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The fact that he also makes films doesn't make his crimes less important. A lead sentence like "Polanski is a Polish-French film director, producer, writer, actor and convicted child molester" gives his film career due prominence, it's mentioned first, along with other artistic activities. His conviction accounts for only 20 % of the sentence and is the last of five different things mentioned (for comparison, there are four sections in the article dealing with his sex crimes). Urban XII (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) True, but at the moment 50% of the lead section is related to his conviction and arrest. If you're talking percentages, the lead is heavily biased towards his arrest and conviction when taken as a whole. No one reading that lead would have any doubt about his actions. Personally, I have no major problems with the current weight, but I also don't see a convincing reason - given how it is now - to add more. - Bilby (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Urban XII, why do you continually say Polanski was 50 when he was actually 44 at the time? Also, the comparison with Christopher Paul Neil is ludicrous inappropriate. Neil was a serial and prolific predatory sex offender against minors, who is notable for being only that; Polanski has a single conviction for an incident that is far from clear-cut, but is primarily notable for being a director, writer, etc. The cases are not remotely comparable. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
A better comparison might be to Victor Salva. (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "rape" isn't supported by the sources, either. I think there is evidence that the incident was somewhat consensual.Jake Wartenberg 06:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • 1) Noone har argued for the inclusion of the word rape in the lead sentence
  • 2) Your statement that the sexual intercourse was "consensual" is hilarious. See the sources cited at this talk page: "Despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her" (Associated Press) - after he drugged her with a combination of Champagne and Methaqualone. Or her own words in a 2003 interview (see the article): She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!", and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated. These are the words of a 13-year old that was brutally raped by Roman Polanski. Besides, a 13-year old cannot consent to sexual intercourse in the legal sense, it's (statutory) rape in any case. Urban XII (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I don't think "somewhat consensual" is appropriate. But we should not treat that interview as fact. A recent CNN article describes "[...] plying [...] with champagne and a sliver of a quaalude tablet and performing various sex acts, including intercourse". Also, the New York Post is hardly a neutral source. Statutory rape is not the same thing as rape. — Jake Wartenberg 06:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
A person who commits statutory rape is rapist, well, by legal definition, just in the same way a person who commits negligent homicide is killer. But using such language in the article would definitely be overboard and non-neutral, phrases like convicted molester or sex offender are less provocative wording to use in a lead sentence, because they don't indicate a specific crime (many different types of crimes,including statutory rape, are considered sex offenses or molesting), more importantly, wording like molester/offender doesn't imply a more severe crime, more detail should be included later in the article, but it should never be implied in the article that a conviction of a more severe crime (like rape) occured, than the person was actually convicted of. --Mysidia (talk)
Women's group have been pushing the meme of "rape is rape" and "no means no" for decades. Now, because of Polanski, we are actually entertaining notions that child rape isn't really rape, and is somehow OK? Have any of you read the grand jury testimony?[2] If you read the whole thing, there can be no doubt that he is a child sexual predator who drugged, raped, and sodomized a resisting child, after elaborately preparing for the encounter. He even continued to rape her knowing someone else was in the next room, and after she had attempted to dress herself and leave. But Oh! Sorry, that's "original research" which isn't permitted, so we're left with parroting "reliable sources." Here's more "original research" - I'm 48 and have only known of Polanski in terms of his having had sex with a child. I couldn't have named a single film he made, and the fact that he has continued to be a productive filmmaker despite his guilty plea, conviction, and flight from justice speaks more to the moral vacancy of the film industry than to any merit of his. He is a predatory child rapist, period. Jwbaumann (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Geimer's own account of the incident, published in the LA Times in 2003 when she was in her late 30s, makes clear that, while she believes Polanski should not be punished any further for the incident, it was nonconsensual. If it had been consensual in any way, she had every reason to say so in 2003 or afterwards. That said, the notion that Polanski is primarily known for this incident is deeply unencyclopedic. Polanski has always been known world-wide primarily as a filmmaker. "Knife in the Water," "Rosemary's Baby," "Repulsion," and "Chinatown," to name only some of his films, had made him world-famous before he ever met Geimer. A properly balanced NPOV article will focus primarily on his contributions as a filmmaker, which should be at the top of the article rather than at the bottom. To do otherwise would be like making the Charlie Chaplin article focus on Chaplin's marriage to Oona O'Neill, or to make the Robert Mitchum article focus on his arrest for marijuana possession. It would show a remarkable lack of encyclopedic neutrality. I don't edit articles myself normally, since I work for the Foundation, but I urge that the article be restored to a balanced version, with appropriate additions regarding Polanski's recent arrest. MikeGodwin (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Polanski is not primarily notable for film's such as "Knife in the Water" or "Repulsion" - not even inside a group of cinophiles. There is no evidence even that "Chinatown" any longer holds any sway within society at large. Polanski is however quite notable for the surreptitious drugging and rape of a child using the ruse of a powerful Director and man of influence. That he is currently more notable as a Director is plausibly true, that he is equally notable for the rape is also arguably true. The events of his life are intertwined - one rarely, perhaps never, finds mention of Polanski without reference to the scandals of his life, although even Tate now recedes with the generational tide as do many of the films. We can merely record the events honestly - we do not create notability, but it is our responsibility to honestly record it. Clearly the leaders of France, Poland, Switzerland and the United States find the pedophilia conviction quite notable and near the top of the International agenda in a way his films never were.

I'm sorry, but this is simply a false statement of fact. I'm 52 years old, and people in my age cohort (and older) recognized Polanski's worldwide fame as a director even before "Chinatown." (And, of course, "Chinatown" cinched his permanent fame.) Polanski became a Hollywood director on the strength of his work in films like "Knife in the Water" and "Repulsion" -- I'm guessing you haven't seen either film. In any case, your own statement here undercuts your assertion -- the reason the officials in France, Poland, Switzerland, and the United States are paying so much attention to this extradition proceeding is precisely because Polanski has been a notable public figure for more than 40 years. It sometimes astonishes me how perverse the reasoning here is -- it is simply unencyclopedic to imagine that Polanski is famous only because of his conviction in the Geimer case. Look, I understand why you feel outraged that Polanski abused a minor -- I do too. But, you know, go to a library and research film studies prior to the Geimer case, and you'll find very many references to Polanski. By the way, "Chinatown" was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, which at the time was regarded as a huge number of nominations, and "Chinatown" has its own Wikipedia entry. Nevertheless, given your assessment of Polanski, perhaps you think the "Chinatown" article should be deleted for lack of notability.MikeGodwin (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The average age on Earth is 28. You yourself would have been a child for those films - and unable to legally have seen them on screen. Additionally your gut instincts about how the world views him are mistaken - "Le Figaro," which is solidly Franco-ethnocentric currently has a poll running 72% in favor of Polanski's extradition and prosecution.

"Casablanca"; "Humphrey Bogart"; "Ingrid Bergman". The movie is of course pretty much unknown as are the actors for their acting in this 1942 film. Right? Polanski. Wasn't he the one who had a thing with a minor or so? I think he ones even directed a movie, on Youtube I guess....!
This is of course just a summary of some so called "arguments" presented here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
All of those are far, far more famous than any of the dozens of directors associated with the group you presented. And none of those dozens of directors were ever at the center of an international manhunt for fleeing a conviction over an incident of the drug-assisted anal rape of a child - A warrant for which is now being discussed publicly by numerous European heads of state and their foreign ministers. There is an inescapable notability here, however inconvenient. ~~
Excuse me, but I didn't say I saw the early films when they were released. I saw them at college film festivals in 1975 and afterwards, when I was older than 18. Why is that even relevant? It may not be obvious to younger folks here like you, but many of us people in our 50s got to see films after their initial cinematic release, due to obscure events you may not be aware of, like "revivals" and "film festivals" and "college film programs." Whether the French favor extradition and prosecution is logically irrelevant to the question of Polanski's notability. I am somewhat in favor of extradition myself. But letting your gut decide notability questions is idiotic. Students of film knew Polanski before the sex-offense case. Today's TELEGRAPH confirms it at : "His first feature-length film, Knife in the Water (1962), made him an international star at the age of 29. After a spell in Paris, he gravitated to Swinging London in the mid-Sixties, where he made two notable films, Repulsion and Cul de Sac." Polanski won the Academy Award for "The Pianist" just a few years ago. By any encyclopedic standard -- as opposed to political tendentiousness -- his notability rests on his worldwide fame for his film work. This POV-pushing by people who don't even sign their contributions here is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.MikeGodwin (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
"due to obscure events you may not be aware of, like "revivals" and "film festivals" and "college film programs."'... exactly... obscure events; I wouldn't use "obscure events" to argue for the supposed fame of a subject. Moreover, of course he wouldn't have be known for the incident before it happened. And, by the way, it has not been suggested that those films were unknown to the public, or that they didn't win any awards at a time, or that they weren't notable. On the contrary, what is argued is that as a public figure, he is so infamous regarding this matter, that much of his other work (with some exceptions) is obscure trivia by comparison, basically, most current reliable sources him mention seem to center around these incidents.. He became much more famous and well-known to the public based on the incident, than the films alone had ever made him. --Mysidia (talk)
My use of the term "obscure events" was ironic, Mysidia. The argument that Polanski was not world-famous prior to his arrest is insupportable by citation. The argument that Polanski was world-famous after "Knife in the Water" is supported by citation in this very discussion (see above). Some folks here should be embarrassed by their apparently near-complete lack of knowledge of film history. Unless one takes the position that everyone who flees prosecution or sentencing is notable (a clearly absurd position), Polanski's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia *at all* rests on his contribution to film. It is of course obvious that noteworthy aspects of a notable person's personal life be included in an encyclopedic article. But you folks who want to make the article about Polanski essentially about his conviction -- especially those of you who make quite clear that you're not even aware of Polanski's significance as a filmmaker -- should focus on subjects you actually know something about. Wikipedia is not served by editors who assume their ignorance of a subject is the normal or preferred state of affairs. MikeGodwin (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also not served by editors who assume their provincial view of a subject is a static or preferred state of affairs. International affairs commanding the attention of, and statements by, numerous heads of state - and pages of newspaper, magazine's, books rushed into print, hours upon hours of television on every channel in dozens of languages - these are the things that fundamentally effect notability. It is the masses who define. And they are including his actions in this case as they consider his being. His films still exist, and they still loom large - but they quite clearly and significantly share the stage with his rape of a child in 1977, just as they do with his actions on a film set some years earlier.13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (talk)
This is just going in circles and getting nowhere. The reality, as others have pointed out, is that if you take away his films he would not rate an article, and he would barely rate a mention in the press. Take away the conviction and he would still be one of the most highly regarded directors of the 20th century, more than warranting an article here. His conviction is notable because he's a film director, not the other way around. No one is arguing that the current issues don't deserve coverage. But we don't determine weight in BLPs simply by the amount of coverage occurring for a single event at a single point in time - we have to look at all the material that is available, and at all that the person is known for. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This POV-pushing by people who don't even sign their contributions here is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. In case I haven't told you lately, I love you, Mike. Keegan (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is that any notability he had with the handful of people attending a screening of his films on a college campus pales in comparison to being at the center of a decades long international manhunt now given personal attention by numerous western heads of state. Both his filmmaking and his pedophilia rape conviction are notable - as are other aspects of his existence. All of which belong in the lead. We cannot airbrush out those things that are inconvenient.~~

I object to the term "child molester" but I agree that the incident and his fugitive status should be in the first paragraph at least. Not "involving non-consensual sex with a child he surreptitiously drugged" since he wasn't convicted of that. Pfalstad (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for an alternative wording? --Mysidia (talk)
  1. ^ "Wikipedia locks Polanski page after editing war". Google. Retrieved September 28, 2009. 
  2. ^ Gary Gorkos (2003), Polanski The Predator, retrieved 2009-10-04 

No, "child molester" should not be in the lead, thanks very much. I've raised the alarm at ANI concerning instability and the potential for legal issues here. I hope it is locked. Tony (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A little research shows that an image from Polanski's "Knife in the Water" was featured on the cover of TIME magazine's September 20, 1963 issue, and that the film was nominated for an Oscar for Best Foreign Film. The Wikipedia article on "Knife in the Water" refers to comparisons of "Knife in the Water" to "Citizen Kane" as perhaps the best debut film in history of cinema. Somehow I'm guessing that Mysidia didn't cover the same ground in deciding that Polanski's early film work is "obscure."MikeGodwin (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing the work with the man. It's a common error committed by cinophiles to believe that the notability of a work extends ephemerally encompassing all. It is not so. Films and actors loom large because of their accessibility and wide recognition, it is why Wikipedia often finds itself fighting to exclude non-notable actors and films while perversely fighting to include notable directors and screenwriters and those not visually identifiable. More importantly - all of these arguments are but red-herrings.
No one seeks to remove information about his works. But you must recognize that after forests of trees have fallen to write about the rape of a child in multiple languages across continents, endless hours of television on untold channels in every nation on earth and direct comment from heads of state of multiple nations ---- There now exists a profound notability to this event that did not occur before. It exists, like your example of Time Magazine, for the very same reasons - the people have given it their attention and have bestowed upon a level of notability that was never given to his works. Wikipedia is not an academic arbiter of culture, and this article is not a review of his works in a vacuum. 14:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) o
I'm clearly not confusing the work with the man. "Knife in the Water" has its own Wikipedia entry. I doubt you, O Unsigned Person, have any idea why there are individual articles on Polanski's films. Polanski has an article because he is a world-famous film director. His conviction unquestionably should be mentioned, but it's clearly not why he's notable ... or at least if you know anything about the movies, it is. As David Ogilvy once wrote, I prefer the discipline of knowledge to the anarchy of ignorance. If you don't know this subject, you shouldn't be editing the article. Period.MikeGodwin (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Because "Knife in the Water" is notable independent of the director. Movies, books, and other works, can in fact be notable, and even world-famous, even when the creator is not notable or suitable for inclusion. Many notable, even worldwide popular movies have non-notable directors. In this case, it happens that Polanski is also notable, based on the numbers of his works and high-profile awards he won, but there are many many film directors like this; Polanski's criminal charges have created a much higher level of notability for Polanski, it's part of what distinguishes him from the crowd of other film makers. --Mysidia (talk)

He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Of course the term "child molester" should be in the lead. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He was not convicted of drugging anyone, although he was initially charged with doing so. It helps to get the facts straight. And California law in 1978 distinguished between "child molestation" and "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" -- it was the latter charge that Polanski pled guilty to. I know, I know, too many facts. I apologize in advance.MikeGodwin (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Molest is not a legal term for a specific crime, there is no crime on the books called "molesting", it's a dictionary definition: to subject to unwanted or improper sexual activity or as the Wiktionary puts it, to sexually abuse, especially regarding a minor. An article might refer to someone who's been convicted of a negligent homicide as a killer even though there's really no such crime on the books as killing, or there might be another law on the books that refers to killing, that the person wasn't charged of. By using simple, commonly understood wording, the article is accessible and readable to more people; the public knows what "convicted of child molesting" means just like they know what "convicted of killing" means. --Mysidia (talk)
Hmm so we have an experienced lawyer (not directly involved in criminal law but with sufficiently broad experience) who says in 1978 there was a difference between "child molestation" and "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" under Californian law of 1978 and a computer programmer who says molestation is not a legal term in any jurisdiction in the world (at least that's my presumption from the comment). While we normally prefer sources to expertise, in the absence of sources I'm going to go with the lawyer. Sorry... Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should ignore facts when stated by people who live in New Zealand, because the events happened in the US, and outsiders just wouldn't know. The facts are based on sources, it is not Wikipedia policy to make editorial decisions based on some users being "experts". What do you mean we don't have sources? On the matters of law, of course we have sources, they are public record 1, 2, 3. You can very well observe that molest is not a word used in the California code. Sec 288 of Chap5 deals with bigamy, incest, and "crime against nature", the sec 288 charges against Polanski were reported as dropped in the plea agreement. In exchange for pleading guilty to 1 261.5 violation, described in "Title 9 Chap 1 Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse of Children, and Seduction [261. - 269.]".... So does being convicted of a statutory rape charge, mean someone might be considered a convicted child molester, by the public, using the dictionary definition of the word? It would appear so. Do you have a different 3 - 4 word summary of the conviction that would be more suitable and fit in the same sentence as "director, actor, ..." ? --Mysidia (talk)

We don't put child molester in a lead if the person has not bee cited as such by multiple reliable sources (per WP:TERRORIST, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, etc). I can only see blogs and commentaries which called him "child molester", so it doesn't cut it. Cenarium (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is CNN good enough? How about the LA times? And others... 1... --Mysidia (talk)
I bet Google will turn up numerous pages that use the words "Polanski" and "child molester" in the same sentence, but that doesn't make them suitable sources by our WP:RS standards. These still look like blogs and commentaries regardless of the banner under which they were published. "CNN" is Alisha Davis, who is not writing about Polanski with any degree of authority, but is making an aside in relation to discussion of Academy Award nominees. ("Home to the Oscars' most controversial nominee (convicted child molester Roman Polanski), the Best Director category may also be home to the night's most controversial winner.") LA Times looks better and the story is actually about Polanski. ("Is Roman Polanski worth the fight?") It's written under the banner "Opinion L.A. THE BEST IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OPINION JOURNALISM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY" Then "About the Bloggers Opinion L.A. is the work of the Los Angeles Times editorial board." Bloggers? Then "Opinion L.A. is the work of the Los Angeles Times editorial board, the cadre of opinionated reporters and editors responsible for the paper's daily stack of unsigned editorials. Also contributing is Times columnist Patt Morrison, well-known lover of millinery. " Patt Morrison may well be a fine person, but expertise in "millinery" does not mean expertise in discussing a case such as Polanski's and we don't know who is writing about Polanski. Is it Patt or one of the bloggers? They're entitled to an opinion and they're entitled to offer it as commentary, which is what this is. The final one is a blog from "Frankie Firme~ Contributing Editor: Frankie Firme is the Al Capone of the microphone and the Hitman of West Coast Chicano Soul heard on World Wide Internet Radio daily." You have to read the whole page to see just how appalling his "journalism" is. His credentials regarding Polanski are not immediately obvious, and his comment "while they continue to keep fugitive convicted child molester Roman Polanski" is not part of a discussion about Polanski, but of the death of Michael Jackson. These are not adequate as sources. They need to be from reliable publications yes, but the context is important. Given the amount that has been written about Polanski, it should be possible to find sources that are of a high standard both from a journalistic and a legal standpoint, if such a thing exists. ie It's not enough that someone discussing the Oscars can carelessly toss the word "child molester" into the article even if the article is published by CNN. Rossrs (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The article's lead paragraph should not contain a complete run-down of Polanski's criminal charges and conviction without mentioning anything else. The current lead as a whole seems at least close to giving undue weight to Polanski's conviction and criminal charges. That should be later in the article, the lead sentence should contain 2 or 3 words, child molester, sex offender, or something of that nature would serve to reduce excessive emphasis on the conviction. WP:TERRORIST doesn't apply here really. The term convicted molester is more like assassin than terrorist, the form is of a factual description, the fact underlying the use of the word should be cited (but not the actual use of the word). The use of the word constitutes rephrasing source material without changing its meaning. The word molester may be seen as non-neutral, so offender may be preferred, for the same reason

we refer to Charles Manson as a criminal in the lead, and not as an assassin'.

But by the the argument given above, the article also can't even say "polanski is a convicted criminal", because news and other sources generally only happen to mention the specific offense he was convicted of (the criminal nature of the offense is implicitly understood by the reader consuming most sources). A fair number of sources seemingly refer to Polanski as convicted molester, but many of them are in a dead tree format that cannot be queried online or accessed freely, and are thus not preferred; e-book and online news formats weren't that popular in 1978, and local newspaper articles are especially hard to get, it may be possible to obtain these, but not for free. WP:RS should not be necessary to demonstrate the word is used in some common use to refer to Polanski's conviction: WP:RS is not our standard for choosing wording, the facts of the case are not in question or the least bit contentious, they are verifiable, they are already cited, only the use of those 2 particular words has been questioned, the policy in any event is WP:V. A source from a CNN Headline news article is highly persuasive in this regard, given CNN's reputation for fact checking. --Mysidia (talk)

Statute of limitations

I'd like to know more about the Statute of limitations (if any) that would apply to RP's case in the US. In France, 30 years is the furthest you can go, short of crimes against humanity. --Jules.LT (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to give you background, he pled guilty, neither Roman nor the State is questioning his guilt regarding the sex crime. He merely fled during the sentencing phase because he didn't want to spend any time in jail. His Interpol warrant reflects that situation, fleeing during a sentencing phase in both countries puts you in a sort of limbo position, as far as any statute of limitations. From the Interpol perspective, he is classified as a fugitive, and all that means is his name is flagged for questioning and a possible hold. But after that point, it really just becomes a legal issue, and your final disposition will depend on the money you have for legal expenses. -- (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
In California there is no statute of limitation for sex crimes. However, the defendant can only be placed on trial under the law back at the time the crime happened. Urban XII (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that this information should be included in the article. In France, that absence of a statute of limitation comes as a shock, hence the outcry. People consider that running away for 30 years is already a punishment. I guess it will be up to the judge to decide how much more punishment he deserves. --Jules.LT (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
statute of limitations only applies when a person hasn't been charged. Rd232 talk 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
In many cases, statutes of limitation also exist after charges are pressed. It's just that the count starts from the latest legal action (not all legal actions qualify, but I wouldn't know which).--Jules.LT (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that there is no statute of limitations on the felony of "Failure to Appear" (California Penal Code Section 1320): "FAILURE TO APPEAR- FELONY (b) Every person who is charged with or convicted of the commission of a felony who is released from custody on his or her own recognizance and who in order to evade the process of the court willfully fails to appear as required, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. It shall be presumed that a defendant who willfully fails to appear within 14 days of the date assigned for his or her appearance intended to evade the process of the court." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a lowbrow cop in the United States, but even I understand that a 13 year old can't consent to sex with an adult period. Might be different in France but not in the United States.If the adult can't control him or hersef then you have to pay the price. Plus Polanski fled the country after pleading guilty. Whatever that judge was doing Polanski entered into the agreement and then took off when he didn't like what was happening. So basically he's a fugitive.Who cares if he makes movies? Pretty basic really. Unless the beautiful people are above the rules - like athletes. Thunderbuster (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbuster (talkcontribs) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, sex with underage girls is forbidden in France too, and statutes of limitation apply the same way for everyone. --Jules.LT (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Statutes of limitations are a pretty technical area of law, and one that differs greatly between countries. The prosecutor in California obvious believes that the crime isn't covered by any Californian statute of limitations, otherwise s/he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of asking that Polanski be arrested in a foreign country. In most of Europe (including Switzerland, if my reading of Swiss law is correct) Polanski would be covered by statutes of limitations. I'm sure Polanski's lawyers will make the most of that argument; it remains to be seen if the Swiss courts will agree with them or not. "Failure to appear" is not an extraditable offense, as the maximum prison term is only one year. Physchim62 (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The subject was already convicted, so statute of limitations doesn't apply. This is more similar to an escaped prisoner: the prison term doesn't expire just because of the passage of time. Someone added this sentence to the article:
  • There is no statute of limitations for sex crimes in the state of California, nor for the felony of failure to appear.[5]
I don't see anything about a lack of a statute of limitations in that source, the California Code. Unless someone can find a better source, I'm going to delete it.
(While on the topic of the sstatute of limitations, it's worth remembering that the statute does apply to sex cases, but several years ago there was a temporary exemption passed into CA law to cover the matter of molestation by priests that had gone unreported for decades. For more information on that, see [6]. That shows that there normally is a statute of limitations on sex cases.)   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
On failure to appear: Failure to Appear in California Court "I have a very old Warrant in California. Should I be worried about it? Unfortunately, yes. Decades old warrants could come back to haunt you. There is no 'statute of limitations' in effect if you are technically considered a fugitive from the law." The editor above is correct that it is not an independently extraditable offense but it goes to the question about what kind of punishment Polanski could be looking at if he is extradited.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's a WP:RS source on the statute of limitations issue: No Statute of Limitations for Polanski "There is no statute of limitations governing the case of Roman Polanski who was arrested by Swiss police on Saturday on a 31-year-old arrest warrant. CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom said that is because the director, now 76, had already pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl. 'He already has been convicted.'" The failure to appear and sex cimes statute of limitations comments while useful here on this talk page to help answer the original question would be WP:OR in the article itself unless and until some reliable source makes those arguments.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the heck is the conviction in scare quotes? What it's called is a matter of legal record. You don't get convicted of "murder" -- you get convicted of murder, period. I don't care what your opinion is of the charges and conviction, this is a fact, not a quote. If this weren't semi-locked I'd remove the quotes myself." -- noaccount —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Conviction or plea?

As I understand it, Polanski was never convicted of anything - he simply plead guilty as part of a plea bargain. Yet the article describes this as "conviction" all over the place. Shouldn't this be changed? — Jake Wartenberg 05:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In US common law you have two outcomes after arrest: conviction or acquittal. Since Roman pled guilty to the sex crime, he was convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overhere2000 (talkcontribs) 03:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
There was an arrest, a plea bargain, a guilty plea, a conviction, and a flight from justice before his sentencing (he was afraid of being sentenced to life in prison). The fact that he wasn't sentenced doesn't change the fact that he pleaded guilty and was convicted of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" (although it is quite clear that it actually was 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, as he was initially charged with). He is a convicted sex offender, end of discussion. Urban XII (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime (see Conviction). So he was not convicted. (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
When an accused pleads guilty to a crime in court, as part of a plea bargain, or otherwise, and the plea gets accepted, the court convicts the person of the crime. The guilty plea is an admission of guilt. It's still up to the court to accept the plea and issue a conviction; for whatever reason, in fact, the judge might reject the guilty plea, then the trial proceeds, based on the media reports, that didn't seem to be the case here, based on the news reports he was convicted... --Mysidia (talk)

We shouldn't use the word "conviction" when it's wrong. We should simply say that he admitted unlawful sexual acts, which is probably not "better" or "worse", but at least is true. Also "clear" facts that are not referenced just shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Lerichard (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

He has been described as convicted by a large number of reliable sources. Urban XII (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Plea agreements in the United States normally result in convictions. Speaking as a lawyer, I can confirm that it is correct to say that Polanski was convicted of "unlawful sexual intercourse," which is probably period legalese for statutory rape under the California law of the time. I am guessing Polanski pled guilty to this charge to forgo the risk of being convicted of some version of rape that included elements of assault.MikeGodwin (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
From what I have gathered so far, it's quite possible that he was never formally convicted, and that the media have just applied wrong terminology to the case. A few days ago, in an L.A. times article, the L.A. D.A. (Stephen Cooley) hinted at pursuing the other charges as well. Moreover, Polanski and his supporters indicated that flight had taken place before he was to receive a potential decades-long sentence; the one count he admitted guilt to could not amount to such a long sentence. The Judge would have to throw out the plea deal, obviously such an act would take place before conviction!? If the case eventually ends up in an LA court, the validity and continuity of the plea deal will surely be one of the issues on the agenda. So, I would suggest that caution be used here (perhaps temporarily removing it, or referring to the unclarity of the situation), until we can get some kind of confirmation from the actual records. Bosuil (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
What you have gathered is wrong. I think perhaps you are assuming that what happens in a documentary film is the same as real life. Considering that all this business about the judge's decision to void plea bargain being the reason polanski fled was brought up AFTER a pro-polanski documentary film raised it, 32 years after the fact. WookMuff (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Film works ahead of Personal life

Surely the "film works" section should chronologically be moved ahead of the lengthy "Personal life" section? Polanski is first and foremost notable for his work as film director. Without that, all of "persona life" wouldn't even be in the news. I'd move "film works" ahead myself but the page is locked. All Hallow's (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the personal life should be dealt with first, it's more logical to start with his background ("Polanski was born Rajmund Roman Liebling in Paris, France...") and I think this is the usual order. Urban XII (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The ideal solution would be to integrate both into a single biography (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right about his early life. That's why "Personal life" should be split into "Early life" and "Personal life", with early life being placed before "Film works" and "Personal life" afterwards. That's the way it's done in most articles. All Hallow's (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
All Hallow's has it right. The main body of the article must be about his being a major director. Sure, the 1977 case has a place, including a mention in the lead. But his notability comes from his films, despite Urban's suggestion otherwise.
In support, I offer this topical BBC profile[7], which gives a section to the 'unlawful sex' incident, but doesn't let it overshadow the description of his life. (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to break down the personal life section in an Early life section with roughly the text from the beginning until "Polanski's father married Wanda Zajączkowska. He died of cancer in 1984.", next merged in Film works, then the rest of the personal life section, roughly beginning "Polanski's first wife, Barbara Lass (née Barbara Kwiatkowska),[11] starred in When Angels Fall.", in a section after Film works. This would be a better progression, both in terms of timeline and importance imo. Cenarium (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason the film bits were last is that they are a giant mash of wp:original research, flagged for a very long time, and no work is being done on them.- Sinneed 01:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Imbalance in the lead?

I see that earlier on this talk page, someone was arguing that the lead of this article doesn't give enough attention to Polanski's child molestation case; conversely, I'm concerned it actually gives it too much weight. While it should be in the lead, and it's why he's in the news at the moment, we should keep a sense of proportion: he's notable as a filmmaker first, and a convicted (?) sex offender second. At the moment, most of the lead is dedicated to the latter.

By comparison, here's how some other biographies of famous people with a major controversy in their lives handle it:

We should aim for something similar here. Please note that I'm not trying to defend Polanski, or justify anything he did: I condemn it as much as anybody. But I just feel the lead of the article is a little unbalanced at the moment. (The article itself also puts the extensive 'personal life' section first, and his film works second, when perhaps it should be the other way around.) Robofish (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm staunchly against downplaying his sexual abuse even more. Ted Kennedy or Chris Brown are of no relevance here because the crimes are not comparable. A more relevant comparison is Christopher Paul Neil. Also, he's mainly in the news because of his sexual abuse these days and it's unlikely this will change. It is usual to have background/personal life first, his life didn't begin with his film-making. Urban XII (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair point. And I have found a counterexample, O. J. Simpson, where two-thirds of the lead is about his murder trial and subsequent conviction for robbery and kidnapping. Perhaps that's a better model here... or perhaps that article suffers slightly from recentism as well. It's always tricky to find exactly the right balance to strike - it varies from one person to another. Robofish (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
What he's in the news for currently is significant, but it isn't everything. We need to have a complete overview historically, not one focused on this once incident because it's in the news, which would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. It's in the lead, it already takes up about half of the lead, to say we need to cover it there more or that we are "downplaying" it is puzzling. Gamaliel (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Simpson is a better example. While we certainly should have a look at the entire lead some time when things are more settled (like he's sentenced and serving his sentence in the U.S.), for the time being, the lead has the right balance. It would be wrong to just state he was arrested in Zurich without any explanation. Also, the crimes he committed were very serious, they shouldn't be obscured just because he has made films. Urban XII (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's your opinion, but it's not what should reflect the article. It's a matter of neutrality in the point of view, so balancing intervening POVs properly. In the vast majority of biographies on Polanski, this aspect is given way less weight than what is given in the article, and in the totality of reliable sources, only a few discuss this aspect. It appears that US media, and esp. the less reputed or quasi-tabloids, give more weight to this aspect. But we should adopt a global point of view, not being US-centric. So even if US reliable sources would give more weight to this aspect, we should consider worldwide reliable sources, and globally they give much less weight to this aspect. And as said above, we should not being slanted towards recent events, and recent sources will obviously center on this aspect now. And by the way, reliable sources are not only news reports... As of now, the article, and especially the lead, is severely unbalanced, it doesn't reflect a neutral point of view. The comparison with Simpson is utterly bogus, he's known worldwide primarily for his multiple, heavily mediatized convictions, while in comparison, the other aspects of his life are rarely discussed by RS. The comparison with Mickael Jackson is more relevant. I concur with the comment by Mike Godwin (General Counsel for the WMF) in this section. Cenarium (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
That's your opinion, and not what should reflect the article. Besides, the current version is the result of a long process and the closest thing to a compromise we have. I'm not quite happy with it, because I think his sex crimes should be featured in the first sentence as well, and I don't like the downplaying in other places. But currently the lead section is the consensus version agreed on by most users (except for changes to the first sentence, it has been relatively stable). Urban XII (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Why you cannot persist in requiring the first sentence to reflect Polanski's criminal background: See the following Wikipedia articles for guidance:

Woody Allen, mention of marriage to adopted daughter of Mia Farrow (59th paragraph) making his son with Ms. Farrow also his brother-in-law (cited as a quote in the article), Norman Mailer, mention of his stabbing of his second wife nearly resulting in her death while at a party (24th paragraph), William S. Burroughs, mention of the accidental shooting and death of his wife Joan Vollmer in a Mexican bar while playing William Tell with a gun after an afternoon of drinking (12th paragraph). His alleged pedophilia (documented in "Literary Outlaw") while in Morocco was discussed in the talk section but was excluded from the article. None of the actions mentioned in the above articles are emotionalized. In fact, neither Burroughs nor Mailer suffered much in the way of imposed penalties, and unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot serve to right a failure of the judicial system, especially one which is not entirely clear cut. However, if the case in its entirety is to be included, the allegation of manipulation of the system by the presiding judge (see: Polanski, Wanted & Desired), which was Polanski's given reason for fleeing after his psychiatric evaluation, should be linked to any statement regarding his flight. This information is included in the 42nd paragraph, substantially removed from the prejudicial statement in the third paragraph: "Released after a 42-day psychiatric evaluation, Polanski fled to France, has had a U.e S. arrest warrant outstanding since 1978,[9] and an international arrest warrant since 2005." Please do not misconstrue my points as condoning sexual misconduct, manslaughter or criminal assault; they are a plea to fairness. Treating Polanski differently in this article than we do other (American) artists will absolutely be construed as prejudicial by non-Americans and will damage Wikipedia, regardless of whether the intent is to highlight the seriousness of child sexual abuse.

Further, I am unaware of more than the cited crime to which Polanski pleaded guilty; behavior he exhibited in other countries which was not prosecuted cannot rightly be included as an example of a pattern of criminal behavior in the encyclopedia. If there are no other instances of prosecution for sexual misbehavior with teenage females, the plural form of "crime" should be dropped, if only because it could become a point of litigation.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talkcontribs) 07:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You confuse opinion on the subject matter and editorial opinion. Contrary to you ("Also, the crimes he committed were very serious, they shouldn't be obscured just because he has made films.", and others), I have given no opinion on the subject matter, only my editorial view. This is evidently not the consensus version, or can you point out this consensus (anyway WP:CCC) ? Most users who commented do not support it, and the only serious discussion on the lead is happening right now in this very section. Cenarium (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not about other editors compromising with your point of view, it's about you compromising with their point of view for the benefit of all. That applies to each individual editor. Physchim62 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think the article should discuss "notability" first and "notoriety" second. His notability is as a film maker, but this is discussed after the personal life. My preference would be that his biography covers events chronologically and that his personal life (and this includes the murder of Sharon Tate) be placed into the correct timeframe to give it greater context, but putting the personal life sections after the career would be better, in my opinion, than the current structure. As it is, after the lead section, we have 30 paragraphs to read through before any discussion of his career - his reason for notability - and even this is odd because it discusses "Recent work" first. Then after a further 7 paragraphs of "recent work", we reach 1950 and the beginning of his career. So, after the lead, that's 37 paragraphs before we get to the beginning of his career. The structure reinforces the emphasis on his personal life. His career, though discussed in greater depth, is treated as secondary. His personal life would be of no interest to anyone but himself, if he wasn't first notable as a film maker. Without doing a word count, it looks to me that the article is about 75% professional work and 25% personal life, but the lead is roughly 50/50, with his recent arrest, followed by discussion of earlier film work. I agree with the initial comment about balance, and I am as puzzled as Gamaliel by any suggestion that it needs even more coverage in the lead. I don't see "downplaying". I see "amplifying". And like the bulk of comments here, my perception of emphasis is an opinion, but the structure and placement of material is right there for all to see. WP:LEAD advocates summarizing the article, but the balance of the lead does not reflect the balance of the article. Distaste for the alleged actions of Polanski should not become our focus. Rossrs (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Fatty Arbuckle article contains a brief mention that he was the highest paid star in Hollywood making 3 million dollars a year under contract before WWI - yet nowhere in the article does it highlight any individual film of Arbuckle's. Notability is without opinion, notoriety is an editorial view. That he is currently more notable as a Director is plausibly true, that he is equally notable for the rape is also arguably true. The events of his life are intertwined - one rarely, perhaps never, finds mention of Polanski without reference to the scandals of his life, although even Tate now recedes with the generational tide as do many of the films. We can merely record the events honestly - we do not create notability, but it is our responsibility to honestly record it. Clearly the leaders of France, Poland, Switzerland and the United States find the pedophilia conviction quite notable and near the top of the International agenda in a way his films never were.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The leaders of France, Poland, Switzerland and the United States are not writing an encyclopedia. We are. Our responsibilities do not include sensationalising our articles with every lurid detail of every scandal. Polanski is FAR more notable for his films than for any one of the scandals in his life, even his proximity to the murder of Sharon Tate. Once the WP:DUST settles, everyone here (okay, almost everyone) will remember that. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The leaders of France, Poland, Switzerland and the United States are quite notable. That they are not discussing his films, but his conviction for the rape of a child are exceptionally notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
The leaders of France, Poland, Switzerland and the United States are politicians. I strongly doubt that Polanski has been top of their "to do" list. Rossrs (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
"Polanski is FAR more notable for his films"? That's only your opinion. In my opinion, his films are trivial compared to the fact that he is a child molester who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13-year old child. Most other people who commit such crimes are sent to prison for life (Polanski was also risking a life sentence in 1977, which is the reason he fled to France, where pedophilia seems to be accepted). Urban XII (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that some editors are placing greater value on Polanski's films, than on the rape of a young girl? We seem to have strayed from discussion of notability to comparing the value of a man's art against the crime of which he is accused. Of course, his films are trivial if the two are compared, but you are the only making a value comparison. Everyone else is talking about Polanski's notability. I think you see him as a sex offender who makes films. Other editors seem to see him as a filmmaker who committed a sex offence and are more detached in their discussion, though I see nobody attempting to excuse him or even to diminish what he is accused of doing. The manner in which it should be discussed in the article is where it comes down to opinion and bias and all the things that we should strive to rise above. User:Cenarium suggested looking at external reporting and to distinguish between more reputable media and tabloids, and use that as a guide. You dismissed it as opinion, but all you offer is opinion. Why is your opinion worth more? Rossrs (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
My comment was only my response to the personal view held by another editor that "Polanski is FAR more notable for his films". Why is his opinion more worth than mine? Urban XII (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not, and I didn't say it was. But you didn't answer my other question. Never mind. Rossrs (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not an opinion, this is fact. Outside news outlets, many texts and books have been written on Polanski, they were not about this crime and scarecely mentioned it, if at all, but about his cinematographic work and life as director. (try international google books and scholar searches for example). Overall, there are many more news pieces centered on his work in the film industry, even in the US. Cenarium (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I doubt there would be a Wikipedia article on Polanski if he was a gas station attendant that raped a 13-year old, even if he fled the country. The whole reason this is news is because he is a famous director that did this crime. The Fatty Arbuckle comparison made above merely makes me think "someone should go edit that article to discuss his acting in more detail since that is the source of his fame". By contrast, if Polanski had never committed this crime there would still be a Wikipedia article about him. So I think the intro should mention the rape, but should be primarily focused on his film work (to be clear, having a significant section in the article about the rape perfectly fine by me). On a related note, as Wikipedia is a world-wide resource we should have an international perspective on this rather than a U.S. one. Outside of the U.S. I'm sure he is more famous for his film work than this crime. Mantisia (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Not to minimize Polanski's crime, but comparing Polanski to Christopher Paul Neil is just ridiculous. Neil is notable only for being a child molester. Polanski is notable for being a director, not for his crime. Also, in point of fact, Polanski is NOT "a convicted child molester"; we can't call him that. Even though he most likely is a child molester, he pled guilty to a lesser charge. (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
"Unlawful sexual intercource with a minor" is by definition child molestation. Of course we all know it was in reality rape by use of drugs, sodomy, perversion etc. Urban XII (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Unless abundantly cited as such by reliable sources, we should not call him child molester, even if he did commit an act of child molestation. Cenarium (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Time-frame is not as important as what the person is noted for. Personally, I had vaguely known Polanski before, but now that this molestation has come into play, I know a significantly greater amount about that part of his lives than any of his films (which I've watched none of). He is a critically acclaimed film maker, but his true worldwide fame (at the very least his current fame), is his conviction for rape. Also, the victims testimony explicitly states that she said no many times, and had been drugged. That is a fact accepted by the courts and Polanski himself (who agreed by pleading guilty). Sas556 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yet, the reason you know him now is because of the widespread media coverage. And why did it become a media attention like this? It's not just because he was the criminal, but because he was the well-known filmmaker who got arrested. Do you think an ordinary child molester would receive attention as much as this? KINKKUANANAS 17:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you are quite correct. I can think of no other convicted child molester on the run from the law whose extradition to a western democracy was resisted by heads of state and renowned figures from world of film. It is quite notable in its own right and may in itself merit a section or cleaved article.

Outside the US this aspect of his life is largely unknown and little discussed, though now a little more because of the arrest. In the US, more may know him because of this, but as noted below, we're not interested in Polanski through the US media, but in writing an article with a neutral point of view on him, which can only be achieved by looking at the international level, and outside of news reports. There are countless books and texts on his cinematographic work, he's recognized as one of the most influential and best director of his time by the critics and his peers (won an oscar, btw). It's utterly ridiculous and deeply ignorant to claim his notability is more due to this crime than to his cinematographic work, but why he's notable anyway is not the central point to consider in writing an NPOV article on him. Cenarium (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede expansion/redraft

Finding people arguing over what is undoubtedly a crap lede (WP:LEAD - "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article."), I was motivated to draft what I think is a much better one - User:Rd232/Polanskilededraft. What do people think? Rd232 talk 17:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "Recent work and honours" section seems clearly misplaced. Rd232 talk 17:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC) fixed now. Rd232 talk 18:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think your lead is a much better one. — Jake Wartenberg 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support to replace it. Protection is gone now. Cenarium (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Too long for me, but thanks for starting the debate. Physchim62 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems to be an improvement. Urban XII (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, with those comments and unprotection, I've implemented the expansion [8] and deleted the userspace draft. Rd232 talk 18:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a much stronger lede, but his conviction for "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" and his current arrest are both mentioned twice. They need to be mentioned, but only once. Rossrs (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Also "(he was 44 years old at the time)". I don't think it's deliberate, but this emphasises the age disparity unnecessarily and changes the tone of writing from a matter of fact stating of events, to an "aside" that subtly conveys a point of view. It's sufficient to know that he was an adult at the time, and as his birth date is given, stating his age is redundant. Rossrs (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, it needs to be stated. There's a difference between a 19 year old having sex with a 15 year old, and a 44 year old raping a 13 year old. Urban XII (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Why does it need to be stated? What ambiguity is clarified by its inclusion? Everybody reading the article realizes it's not about "a 19 year old having sex with a 15 year old". I'm fully aware that we are not talking about a horny teenager having consensual sex with his underage girlfriend. There's a gigantic difference, but whether Polanski was 24, 34, 44 or 54 the crime would be the same. Is the purpose to enlighten the reader who already knows Polanski's date of birth, or is it an opportunity to convey a "dirty old man" tone? A lot of people feel moral outrage when considering Polanski's case, but when it begins to pervade this article, we have a problem. Rossrs (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
We can say nothing about everybody reading the article, what they think or not is an unwarranted assumption. Including the age of Polanski at the time is semi-redundant, since the year is stated. The parenthetical seems to be poor style, looks like a wart at the end of the sentence, it seems like style would be better if phrased like "In 1977, ate age 44, Polanski was ar...".. The age difference definitely has some importance, even if the charge is the same. The gravity of that crime is considered larger when the age difference is larger, or when the victim is particularly young. --Mysidia (talk)

It's clear that Urban XII has serious personal opinions about the 1977 case. Why is he allowed to edit this article? Urban, if you read this, I'd like to know why you are spending so much time on this? If you're so upset about child molestation, why not spend this time in a more productive manner. There are plenty of organizations you could join to help stop child abuse. Please do us all a favor, go join one and actually do some good for a change. (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


It reads accurately:

Roman Raymond Polanski (pl. Roman Rajmund Polański) (born August 18, 1933) is a Polish-French[1][2] film director, producer, writer and actor. Polanski began his career in Poland, and later became a celebrated[3] Academy Award-winning director of both art house and commercial films, making such films as Rosemary's Baby (1968) and Chinatown (1974). Polanski is one of the world's best known contemporary film directors and is widely considered as one of the greatest directors of his time.[4][5] He is also known for his turbulent and controversial personal life.[6] In 1969, his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by the Manson Family, and in 1977, he was arrested in Los Angeles and pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", involving non-consensual anal, vaginal, and oral Sex with a 13-year-old girl he surreptitiously fed Quaalude's to while getting her drunk; he subsequently fled the US and is currently a fugitive from US justice, presently under arrest in Switzerland pending extradition proceedings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I don't think we need these details in the first paragraph, some of them should be included below in the "Sex crime conviction" section. Urban XII (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How about this then:

Roman Raymond Polanski (pl. Roman Rajmund Polański) (born August 18, 1933) is a Polish-French[7][8] film director, producer, writer and actor. Polanski began his career in Poland, and later became a celebrated[9] Academy Award-winning director of both art house and commercial films, making such films as Rosemary's Baby (1968) and Chinatown (1974). Polanski is one of the world's best known contemporary film directors and is widely considered as one of the greatest directors of his time.[10][11] He is also known for his turbulent and controversial personal life.[12] In 1969, his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by the Manson Family, and in 1977, he was arrested in Los Angeles and pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", involving non-consensual Sex with a child he surreptitiously drugged; he subsequently fled the US and is currently a fugitive from US justice, presently under arrest in Switzerland pending extradition proceedings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

"non-consensual Sex with a child he surreptitiously drugged" is far from neutral wording. I've reverted this addition for now. — Jake Wartenberg 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Why do argue it's not neutral? Have you a more neutral way to record the rape of a child?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I think the current lead we just got consensus for above does a good job as it is. — Jake Wartenberg 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It is non-neutral on its face, and I understand that you have an axe to grind, but this is not the place. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Please explain to me how a dry statement of fact: "non-consensual sex with a child he surreptitiously drugged" Can in any way be construed as non-neutral. Seriously, am I missing something? It's certainly more clinical than "raped a kid after drugging her". How would you have us report the fact? (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


close soapboxing distraction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Pity he wasn't arrested in his native country...

Warsaw - Poland's parliament tightened punishments for pedophiles on Friday by approving a law allowing for their chemical castration. The law will make the procedure - which takes away sexual drive - mandatory for pedophiles convicted of raping a close family member or a person under 15 years of age. The treatment will be administered after the pedophile's release from prison. The law was passed in Poland's lower house of parliament, or Sejm, by a vote of 400-1. It still needs approval from the Senate, where it is expected to pass. Pedophiles will also meet with psychiatrists, sexologists and psychologists to improve their health and lower their sexual drive, the Polish Press Agency PAP reported. The law was drafted by the conservative Law and Justice party and an alliance of left-wing parties. It has gained support from Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who called pedophiles "degenerates." Urban XII (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean, pity he didn't commit the crime in Poland? So that he could be castrated? Rossrs (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I only meant it's quite strange that "Polish foreign minister Radosław Sikorski announced he might request clemency for Polanski from U.S. president Barack Obama" while his government move to castrate people (other than Polanski) who commit the exact same offenses. Urban XII (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, but that's not even close to what you said. It's an interesting tangent, but it doesn't help the article. Rossrs (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Urban you are giving credibility to the epitet "bug eyed zealot" above. In view of the fact that there are many reports that Ms. Geimer has no desire to prosecute the subject, nor that he be punished for the offense, can't you find something more socially useful to direct your energies to? For example as I understand it several thousand children a day die of hunger. Lycurgus (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I choose to ignore your comments. Urban XII (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The victim has made no comment on the latest events. The comments you're referring to came in an edited film made for his reputational defense in which he was slated by Harvey Weinstein to do the publicity tour in Europe.

French newspaper Le Figaro polls readers - 70% support extradition to the USA

There is a great deal of talk here regarding a perceived US-centricity to the Polanski arrest in Switzerland. None with any supporting reference. Here then is a Poll,[9] in France, from Le Figaro - a decidedly Franco-ethnocentric institution, in which 70% of the respondents feel that Polanski should be extradited to face justice for his crimes in the US.

This suggests that people in France see the crime as significant - and casts doubt on the numerous claims on this page which are general variants of the thought that 'outside the US this aspect of his life is largely unknown and little discussed' and not notable. It is notable, and as a major international incident putting numerous heads of state on record daily, it is becoming ever more so by the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This is a straw poll on Statistically insignificant - there is absolutely no hint that the polled population is representative of the population. A poll is only meaningful if 1) the sample is large enough 2) the sample is drawn at random from the population or at least drawn representatively 3) the polled population answers truthfully. David.Monniaux (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In France, the truth is beginning to appear. There was today a talk by an ex-journalist from Le Monde who was explaining she had to interview Polanski at the Cannes Film Festival right after he fled the US. Entering his luxuous suite in a Cannes palace, she crossed a very young girl. She commented : "She was just a baby" (Qui j'ai vu sortir de sa chambre ? Un bébé, une gamine). His pattern of behaviour seems therefore to have continued after fleeing to France. There is also a TV interview from the same time which is airing these days by French journalist Elkabbach during which he is unrepentant and says with a small smile "I like very young girls". (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to add the links to the original? Thanks.
Here is a link for the Elkabbach interview For the Le Monde journalist - at time 47:9

2/3 of Basler Zeitang readers support Swiss Government arrest

Here's a link[10] to LA Times report of both the above mentioned French poll and this Swiss poll.~~

Sex conviction

The relevant discussion is being buried in minutiae below. Feel free to sort this out. Look people, accurately reporting someone's sworn testimony is neither biased nor libelous. The girl testified that Polanski didn't just 'statutorily rape' her (i.e. consensual sex between an adult and a minor) but rather straight up raped her and sodomized her, all after being told 'no.' That is relevant, non-biased, well sourced information which is part of the public record. Don't try to whitewash Polanski's act behind a euphemism of 'various sexual acts.' The phrasing is neither salacious nor libelous - leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

No one disputes that Polanski's conviction and the current issue of his possible extradition to the U.S. should be included in this article. No one. The question is whether the sexual offense is why Polanski is notable. It's not, as older contributors can attest.MikeGodwin (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that he is not notable for the rape?
If by that passive-aggressive construction, you mean "he is notable because of the rape", then no, that's not even close to being true. Rewriting reality as way to justify piling on the undue weight gets noticed, you know. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Arguing that Polanski is not notable because of the rape is like arguing O.J. Simpson is not notable because he was tried for murder. It's true, as far as it goes -- Polanski was first a filmmaker, Simpson was first an American Football player. But both men are known today as much for their offenses as for their body of work. I agree that Polanski's film-making should be listed first, for temporal reasons alone. But his conviction on statutory rape and subsequent flight from justice should receive essentially equal billing. Mrfeek (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism?

It looks like since the page was opened a single non-member editor wrote "is a sicko". It was immediately removed by another non-member editor. I even tried to do it myself but was too slow. So why kick out everyone again? And now members are vandalizing it with impunity[11]

I agree and dropped a note on the protecting editor's talk page. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Well that was clearly an error, immediately self-reverted. And there were a number of questionable things beyond the "sicko" edit; but I guess I over-reacted. Unprotected for now. BTW, you can get an account here. Rd232 talk 19:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Court documents

Legal documents regarding the subject and the matters currently being discussed

1977 Grand jury minutes - unsealed July 2009

Here's a link[12] to the Grand Jury Minutes from the Indictment in 1977. It was just recently unsealed by the Judge and obviously contains a great deal of verified, reliable information on this article's subject as the proceedings were a directed investigation of his actions in the matter currently at the heart of the international discussion.~~

Plea agreement

Here's a link[13] to the plea agreement.

Probation officers report: Roman Polanski

Here's a link[14] to the sentencing report.

It's probably a bad idea to use primary sources in a BLP; see WP:SECONDARY. -- (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Court documents are not in and of themselves de facto unacceptable primary sources, as might be in the case of a blog kept by an accused party. This probation report for example is an unimpeachable reliable source as to the original charges, and those that were agreed to in the plea agreement. (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:PSTS mentions that primary sources may be used with care (as long as the information is given as is) basically. It doesn't mention, specifically, Obviously, when talking about the court proceedings, the court documents are of great value. Oh, "Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details...or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them". Do any of the many secondary sources cite these?WookMuff (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The lurid details are unencyclopedic and are of BLP concern

At risk of repeating myself, I have serious WP:BLP concerns about this article. Specifically, the lurid details of the sex acts are irrelevant to this encyclopedia article and clearly do harm to Ms. Geimer, who has clearly and unequivocally stated that she wishes to have nothing further to do with the case, due specifically to the effects of the decades of publicity and focus on the lurid details (see Physchim's quote above) on her family. Need I remind anyone that she was the victim? To those who will undoubtedly cry censorship, I'm not concerned about the details in and of themselves, but rather their effects on Ms. Geimer and her family. This is a BLP concern, as it clearly does harm to Ms. Geimer. She is not a public figure and we must respect her privacy. WP:BLP states (in part): Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. "Subject" here does not refer only to Mr. Polanski, but to any living person who is the subject of any commentary contained within a WP article. I request that the final paragraph under the heading Sex crime conviction (Geimer testified that Polanski gave her... and being asked to stop.) be stricken to protect the privacy of Ms. Geimer, who has publicly requested that the private details be kept private, and in light of the fact that, while they pertain to certain legal documents, they do not pertain to an encyclopedia. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, he raped a child.[15] Her testimony is a matter of public record. -- (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't mean we need to resurrect the details here. This is an encyclopedia. We have our own policies, such as WP:NPOV, and editorial guides, such as WP:UNDUE that should be taken into account. Also, your disregard for the stated wishes of the victim of the crime is telling. This talk page is not a forum, and this article is not the place to grind your axe against Polanski. Feel free to write a letter to the editor and send it to all your local newspapers, but at risk of repeating myself, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper column. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Even were the NPOV policy to say what you'd like it to say, the WP:PRESERVE policy would have equal standing. However, you are incorrect. The WP:NPOV policy you cite (which includes WP:UNDUE) doesn't allow the removal of content from the encyclopedia on POV grounds per the subsection entitled WP:YESPOV: "the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'." While I think all of society is a victim when someone goes around drugging and raping children, I don't think a victimization olympics is particularly relevant here; however, the essay WP:HARM, which I support, simply doesn't apply to persons on widely known matters of public record. If he had raped, sodomized and killed her, would you be in here insisting we'd never know what the victim's opinion of our article would be? Good God man. -- (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No. If he had killed her, she would not be a living person. And please, save your "Good God man." There is no need to act as if I have done something worthy of ridicule, simply because I disagree with your position. By the way, I do agree that victimization olympics is irrelevant here. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 06:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you really mean to say that you believe WP:HARM does not apply to Ms. Geimer? Why not? And why is inclusion of the details of the rape due weight in this article, in your estimation? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 07:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:HARM#An_inclusion_test, the information is certainly well known, and as Polanski himself pled guilty rather than face the wrath of a jury on more serious charges, I would submit it is both definitive and factual. Yes, the third prong relates back to WP:UNDUE -- but it's application is to Polanski, our subject, not his victim. In much the same way our article on Bernard Madoff isn't dominated by his perfectly laudable tenure as head of a stock exchange, a little bad behavior goes a long, long way, no matter how embarrassed the adults who were taken in by his scheme might feel about it. It's all well and good for Polanski that he chose a profession which attained him some other notability as a movie director. But if he'd instead opened a laundromat, I suspect we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether the details of his heinous crime somehow unduly overwhelmed the details of his line of work, if that's your contention. -- (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely with Wilhelm Meis. Lurid details are not necessary for the article. Details about consent and drugging are important, the details of the sex acts are not. Note that WP:HARM is an essay (and of dubious relevance - it's about whether to mention an incident at all in a subject's bio, not what details of incident to include elsewhere), whilst WP:BLP (with respect to the victim in particular) is policy. BLP also requires this to be settled before re-adding. Note also that the details are currently sourced to primary sources and a blog, which does little to support the claim that the details have been widely published. Rd232 talk 07:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to add the Salon ref above as a source as soon as semi-protection is lifted. Nothing in WP:BLP precludes this. -- (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam (above). As this is the very core of the actual case, what happened must be included. Replacing it with "various sexual acts" gives the impression it was lesser, more harmless crimes, and is unencyclopedic. The claim that they have not been widely published is ridiculous and already refuted at this talk page. I previously suggested just to use the same wording as the Associated Press as far as this issue is concerned. Urban XII (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been discussed at length, and if anything the discussion seems to be going against your position. Reducing the specificity doesn't necessarily make it seem "lesser, more harmless crimes". I didn't say the details hadn't been widely published (I don't know), my point was and is that the claim that they have is insufficiently supported at that point in the article. I don't know what wording AP used, but I see no reason why any particular news source on a specific story should determine what appears in an encyclopedia entry on a much wider topic. Rd232 talk 09:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
On the contrarary, there's close to consensus to include this information in some form or the other. Other users want to include even more information on the details[16], I have reduced them to the short description used by the AP. Btw., I find it interesting that you first attack the article for using primary sources claiming it's not widely published, then when it's updated with a widely published description attacks it for using a widely published description. Urban XII (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
"I find it interesting" that you have no use for such a core Wikipedia guideline as Assume Good Faith (or that you can't be bothered to read what I write). I was about to comment that at least the sourcing issue I mentioned doesn't seem an issue any more, and the AP wording is about as unproblematic as it's going to get if we're going to mention those details. PS Don't forget WP:3RR. Rd232 talk 09:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add that I have reverted several users who added a lot more details on ejaculation and so forth. Urban XII (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And no, we're absolutely not going to remove the sex crime conviction paragraph. Also note that forgiveness, sympathy, and identification with one’s attacker are fairly common in sexual assault cases, and these sentiments don’t make sexual assault any less damaging—or any more legal. Polanski isn't prosecuted by his victim, however, but by the people. I have said before: I have no problem with removing the name of the victim, it's not important. But what Polanski did is important, it's what the whole thing is about. It's why he's currently in prison. Urban XII (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You stated that there was a consensus regarding the language, however, looking at the above, there does not appear to be a consensus at all. Eros2250 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussion before. The AP wording is the closest thing to consensus we get. There's no way we can or should elaborate even more on how he ejaculated in her. The AP wording is short and serves it purpose. Unlike "various sexual acts", it doesn't obscure his crimes. Urban XII (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. Eros2250 (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

With that being said, I will not revert your changes as they currently stand. Also to the above users who want to down play this, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. Eros2250 (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There it is. Being the editor who initiated this thread, I think I should point out that those who took the time to read my statement above know that I have already acknowledged that WP is not censored, and I do not wish to "censor" it any more than necessary to comply with BLP policy. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, of course it's not, (personal attack removed). Physchim62 (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It is the ultimate POV to downplay the reality of the drug induced rape of a child. But we should remove the name of the child and replace it with the word "victim". No encyclopedic value is served by highlighting her name at the time of attack - nor including her later name. But we fail entirely as an encyclopedic source by misdirecting our readers as to the events. They are what they are - and must be included, not alluded. It is central to our understanding of the event, without it we fail in our mission as a neutral reference. (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
If there is consensus to remove all mention of the victim's name from the article, I will abide that, though I still don't see how the details of the sex acts are pertinent to an encyclopedia. Polanski will be tried by the courts, not by Wikipedia. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding. Polanski has been tried and convicted of the crime. The trial is history. He pleaded guilty. What remains is his sentencing. The fact that he hasn't been sentenced and served his sentence doesn't change the fact that he is convicted of the crime. What happened was established by the court more than 30 years ago. Urban XII (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand that he has been tried and convicted. He is now awaiting what would more correctly be termed a series of hearings, yes? Perhaps I should have said he will be heard by the courts, but that just didn't sound right to me. The real point I was making, however, is that Wikipedia is not a court of law, this talk page and the associated article are not the proper place for soapboxing, and not everything that is of public interest belongs in an encyclopedia. Those who don't know who Roman Polanski is and come to this article to find out would be best served by a concise description of his crime and his more notable films, not by an article that bogs itself down with graphic descriptions of the decidedly unencyclopedic sexual details of the rape. These details are appropriate to court documents and tabloids, but not to an encyclopedia. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it worth getting upset and carrying on about something that happened 32 years ago? The 'victim' has no interest in pursuing the matter, and the offender is a geriatric who has been punished to a small extent by having to deal with continued negative publicity, loss of income, and the inability to visit and work in certain countries. Certainly if he was a habitual offender he would have been put away many years ago, but if not, others should just let it go. Self Righteous (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth getting upset and carrying on about something that happened 70 years ago then? I'm sorry, being forced to live in France with his millions of dollars is not quite the American punishment for pedophilia and child rape. The victim's opinion 30 years later is not relevant, child rape is child rape, he is prosecuted by U.S. authorities on behalf of the people, not on behalf of the victim. Urban XII (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know a crime is not a crime anymore if you can evade the law long enough. I also didn't know that you get one free pass on child rape and that only if you committ it repeatedly would it be considered a crime. The only reason he hasn't been behind bars is because he fled the country. Eros2250 (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that I also agree with including the details in the article. TheLou75 (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that there should actually be a link to the testimony of the victim in order to make this article more complete. After all, the biggest controversy in RP's life was the fact that he raped a 13 year-old. It should be at the very top of the article. It would be silly to have to search further down for the details of this international controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The lurid details are absolutely relevant since the details are the entire essence of the matter. Talking about Polanski without talking the forcible anal rape of a 13 year old is like talking about a serial killer as if he committed manslaughter. Anyone who tries to hide this material is complicit in his crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional Child "dating" references

It is a gross omission to the proper Wikipedia "persons" entry to not mention that Polanski had another relationship with an underage girl of just fifteen, "after he fled" the United States. While it may be not appropriate to draw conclusions form this factual record, the omission of the record under his personal life is egregious. While it may have been viewed as OK while he was in France, this fact relates clearly back to his need to flee the United State. I urge you to create a factual record in Polanski Personal Life that he simply had a sexual relationship with a 15 year old. That she is now part of the French elite actors community may or may not be put in. But its a factual record that is currently omitted under his personal life. Since it is of a known nature and with a well known individual and has references. I urge the editors to correct the record. It omission conveys a bias. It is a factual record. See: Natasha Kinski

Polanski had a romantic relationship with Natasha Kinski when she was 15 and he was 46. Doesn't that strike as a bit odd when combined with the fact that this was after the rape conviction of another 13 year old girl? Should this be in any way incorporated into the article? Eros2250 (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's well documented, a French editor added this comment earlier:

There was today a talk by an ex-journalist from Le Monde who was explaining she had to interview Polanski at the Cannes Film Festival right after he fled the US. Entering his luxuous suite in a Cannes palace, she crossed a very young girl. She commented : "She was just a baby" (Qui j'ai vu sortir de sa chambre ? Un bébé, une gamine). His pattern of behaviour seems therefore to have continued after fleeing to France. There is also a TV interview from the same time which is airing these days by French journalist Elkabbach during which he is unrepentant and says with a small smile "I like very young girls".

Here is a link for the Elkabbach interview (And here is the link) For the Le Monde journalist - at time 47:9
He is a convicted pedophile, an addition of the [Category:Pedophile] tag is standard at this point. As the page is blocked to non-members I'm not able to add it right now. (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually I looked for such a tag and couldn't find one, so I don't think there is a standard for putting this tag on living persons' articles, with good reason I think. Pfalstad (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

these additions to the talkpage are excesive and should stop now. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In what way do you perceive them as excessive? There are valid links here referring to ongoing French news coverage and discussion of his quoted penchant, "I like very young girls". The discussion here is a factual talk about how best to address this information. How would you propose we deal with these facts? (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place for bandstanding, you have had plenty of warnings, please stop. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Your comments, threat actually, is not relevant to the discussion of how the article should address the referenced facts noted above. (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do ref's such as these[17] potentially support both the use of the pedophile tag and explicit mention of Polanski as a convicted pedophile? I think the article easily requires the tag and clearly supports use of the term but obviously requires consensus. How then to reconcile the referenced facts; his self professed peccadillo's[18][19], his recurring history with children[20][21] and his pedophilia conviction[22] with our entry? (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because the articles (I didn't read them all, I only looked at a few) are opinion pages and don't call him a pedophile, just compare him to pedophile priests. At most, they support a mention that "Famous columnist Joe Blow of the Daily Bugle called Polanski a `convicted pedophile'." Pfalstad (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
If we can agree that a pedophile is someone attracted sexually to children - and we have Polanski on record as a convicted pedophile, with a record of sleeping with multiple children, and on record as stating it as a sexual preference - what more is required? And I mean that seriously, I'm not being argumentative. (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Child Porn

What is the proper way to discuss his creation and possession of Child Pornography? It's a well documented fact, central to the rape (it was used as the precursor[23]), and notable in its own right - does it require a separate section, or is it to be included in another? (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some academic citations that need to be followed up more deeply:[24][25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are the beginnings of some possible supporting refs from the media:[26][27][28] (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a CBS news report [29] quoting the child as having hidden the topless photo 's from her mother: "He took topless pictures of me, which I think in the back of head, I was thinking, 'They'll be cropped, or it's in a European magazine, and we all know they show breasts in European magazines.'" (the victim) did not tell her mother about the topless photos." (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This soapboxing and ranting and raving needs to stop, I am minded to delete this whole section, this ip has been repeatedly warned to stop adding contentious material to this talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A talk page is the proper place to discuss pertinent - if inconvienant - facts directly related to the subject of the article. If you have a valid reason for not including mention of Polanski's taking sexual pictures of a child in the article, please discuss. (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I care less about this case, your comments here are excessive, no one is discussing anything with you here, you are simply ranting to yourself and you have had plenty of requests to stop. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Your caring about the case is irrelevant. It's an encyclopedia entry - it's a factual reference that encompasses all notable material. Do you have any relevant comments on topic, and dealing with the matter at hand? (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
A topless girl is not child pornography by any recognized standard, otherwise Wikipedia would host even worse, in the Virgin Killer article and many others. You didn't offer any RS to back up any of those claims, they are BLP violations which should be immediately retracted and removed. WP:CENSOR explicitly states this. Cenarium (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Tell that to Chris Hansen. Also, I think that if a 44yr old man takes topless photos of a 13yr old girl WHO HE THEN RAPES perhaps his motives could concievably be considered as sexual? Maybe just a lil? WookMuff (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to both these matters, we do not speculate based on sources or match sources together to create a pattern. See WP:SYNTH. If you want the article to discuss these issues in this matter, the first step is to find sources which discuss these issues in this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please indicate how an admitted penchant for very young girls, a referenced and discussed history of such, and a conviction for same is SYN? Also what relevance is SYN to the topless photo's of a child that Polanski took and were reported on in the press? (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have a source that discusses this as a history of such behavior, fine, but you can't piece together a history from multiple sources. If you have a source that discusses the topless photos as child pornography, fine, but you can't make such a deduction yourself based on information from sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is why the disparate ref's are being discussed on the Talk page and not entered directly into the article. (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If your objective is not to place this material in the article, why do you wish to discuss this? The purpose of this page is to discuss changes to the article, not a general discussion of the subject of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Why would you think that my work here is for anything other than in preparation for an edit? This is the purpose of the page, yes? Are you here to assist in building a consensus edit for this difficult area of the subject's history? (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
So now you want to place this material in the article? Make up your mind, yes or no? Gamaliel (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Might I remind you and the others of WP:BITE. --Smashvilletalk 20:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Please reconsider your response. It appears argumentative, uncivil and nonconstructive. I have clearly stated my purpose is to discuss a content edit to the article based upon factual, referenced sources. Are you here to constructively edit or to harass? (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm here to remind you of our NPOV policies regarding using sources to construct arguments and to remind you that this talk page is for use in editing the article, not furthering the agenda. If you are willing to act in accordance with these policies, then you won't get any interference from me. I'm sorry if you did not like my response. You should consider your responses to others if you do not like receiving such responses yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
If you're accusing me of an agenda - Please indicate what that agenda is. Vague, unspecified threats to change unidentified activities are unproductive and give the appearance of bullying those you have a difference with rather than addressing the content being discussed. (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC) have a lot of citations here, go ahead and add whatever you want to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes,, I'd like to see what you wish to do with this material, besides cataloging it here. Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I accuse you of nothing. But we must take the utmost care with BLPs. If an editor posts material making serious charges to the talk page, proposes no specific edits, and becomes combative when challenged even slightly, it makes one suspicious of the motives of that editor and the possibility of policy violations in the future. So it is exactly the type of situation where it behooves an experienced editor to specify what those policies are. If you have no intention to violate those polices, why on earth would you be threatened by someone spelling them out? Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
With these 20 citations you have added to the talkpage there must be something you want to add to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So this is just a theoretical threat? Combative when challenged slightly[30]? And no one see's any recommended changes[31]? Pardon me, Gamaliel, if I again point out that your continued unspecified threats and vague pronouncements have nothing to do with Roman Polanski - and are solely directed at me. They continue even after I ask for clarification. Not accusing anyone here of this, but generally speaking I think most people agree that Bully's suck and ignorant bullies that would quell discussion rather than engage in honest debate/discussion suck even more. If you have no intention of being one, please don't feel it applies to you. (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to the honest discussion and debate about specific changes to the article that you propose. Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Am I to take this in the same vein as your previous threats? Are you proposing to bird dog my every post from the shadows or are you here to engage proactively for the good of the article with an effort independent from mine? As I trust it's the latter, I look forward to seeing your contributions as well. (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
How on earth is that a threat? Are you going to read threats into every statement? I meant no threat, I meant exactly what I said. As for my contributions, I'm a long time editor of this page and added a couple significant sections, including the first version of the introduction that was more than one sentence. You've made a lot of comments on this page, so I look forward to when you employ that material you spend so much time compiling to make an edit to the article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Your reading far too much into it - as I clearly said, I look forward to your assistance and independent contributions here. As to your frequent criticism of me not adding material to the article, I would but I am unable to add anything with the article closed to non-members. (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No, your statements were perfectly clear. As for your inability to edit, you can use this talk page to propose an edit, and if there is consensus for it, it will be added to the article. What do you propose to add? Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the individual attention [kind friend throwing me the ball] Please then, add the tag [Category:Pedophilia] Category:Pedophilia99.144.255.247 (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The namecalling will get you a no personal attacks warning, which you can interpret as a threat if you like. Your suggestion is more welcome, and thank you for finally offering a proposed edit. However, this proposal met with objections from other editors the last time you offered it, and so I must conclude there is no consensus for this edit and thus I cannot add it to the article. I encourage you to discuss those objections with the other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, BD is a starring character on a famous American strip Doonesbury and is known for his selfless service. It was meant as a compliment. (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
How could I refuse such an obviously sincere and bizarrely non sequitir complement? Gamaliel (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Polanski definately fits the definition of a pedophile. However, I do not think it will ever be included in the article as there are very divisive opinions regarding Polanski and consensus will never be reached on this. Eros2250 (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's that clear that he's a pedophile, then it should be no problem to find a reliable source that calls him that. Pfalstad (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
By defintion Polanksi is a pedophile. Also, it just took me 30 seconds to find a source labeling him a pedophile. From ABC News, former assistant district attorney David Wells states "This pedophile raped a 13-year-old girl. It's still an outrageous offense. It's a good thing he was arrested. I wish it would have happened years before." source: However, I know he will never be labled as one within this article as there are very divisive opinions here and consensus will never be met. Eros2250 (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
ABC news didn't say Polanski was a pedophile, it was an interview... This man alone is not a reliable source for such matters, and you are not either. Cenarium (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You can't use the Wells interview material to substantiate. He has admitted to lying about the case on camera. Either he lied while he was involved in the case and/or in the interview for Wanted and Desired and/or in the retraction to his comments in the interview. Regardless, there are character issues.Oberonfitch (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Imprecise claims

"At the same time, many people in France have over the years downplayed the gravity of Polanski's crime because of his immense talent and artistry as a director."

This sentence is copied from a Time article, but it is woefully imprecise. Who are these people who have downplayed that crime? Do they belong to the common citizenry, or to specific subgroups? Do they belong to the artistic Parisian microcosm, which is as representative of France as Hollywood is to the US?

The same Time article likes hyperbolic claims:

"To the French mind, this has made Polanski a combination of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Dreyfus — the victim of systematic persecution,"

What is this so-called "French mind"? There are 61+ million people in France, all with individual opinions. I've never come across anybody thinking of Polanski as Alfred Dreyfus. It is quite unbelievable that, if such opinions were so prevalent in the French mind as the Time article seems to suggest, that I would have heard about them.

My personal experience is that, before this arrest, few people in France had heard of the Polanski conviction, few knew he had French citizenship, few knew he lived in France, and few cared about him. David.Monniaux (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You missed "Europeans, meanwhile, are shocked and dismayed that an internationally acclaimed artist could be jailed for such an old offense." Yes, all of them, from Iceland to Portugal, are shocked, shocked that a fugitive might be sent to jail. What junk. Rd232 talk 16:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Powerful warring conflicts of interest rule this case (an unfinished movie, the integrity of our judicial system, greedy lawyers, greedy agents, the cost to tax-payers, the excited media, international relations, Swiss and French dignity, money, money, money) and the outcome is easy to predict. Governor Schwartzenegger will be directed by Washington to step up to the plate. He will pardon Polanski for the crime of rape, for the crime of sex with a minor, and for the crime of becoming a fugitive by skipping the country to avoid justice. End of story (except for the sequel, a docudrama on the History Channel.) Then we can all get back to what really matters, i.e. re-writing the article, the future of Wikipedia, and the revolution... JohnClarknew (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And the Swiss will slap the hands of all the wealthy Americans who stored their funds at UBS, the two things (Polanski warrant evasion and tax evasion), having absolutely no relation to one another, regardless of the earliest reports speculating otherwise. Don't bite me, I'm new....Oberonfitch (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer)

Does anyone know what Samantha Geimer does now, and what her position is on charging RP for the rape offence against her? I know that her mother wanted to drop charges against him.Ivankinsman (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In January 2009 she tried to get charges against Polanski dropped according to CNN. Megyn (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Geimer's attempt to get the charges dropped: one thing that I've noticed being overlooked in many articles is that she sued Polanski and reached an out-of-court settlement with him CNN. Many of these settlements include various restrictions (confidentiality is a common one) and I wonder whether one clause in her settlement was that she no longer seek his criminal prosecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did her surname change - marriage? WP addict 0 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have done some research and this article is a good update on Samantha Geimer [[32]]. She is living in Hawaii and is married to a carpenter; working as an accountant for an estate agency. It seems that she does not want all this re-newed publicity over happened a long time in the past and is currently deciding what to do about it. Ivankinsman (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


The quote "court sources said the film director, imprisoned in Auschwitz by the Nazis during World War II, was repelled by the thought of possibly serving more time behind bars" does indeed appear on, but it does not appear to be a factual statement. I'm not an expert on the subject, but searching online for references to Polanski being sent to Auschwitz doesn't seem to turn anything reliable up. It's possible that the The Washington Post, February 3, 1978 edition did actually state this, but at least this specific instance does not appear to be a reliable source, since it seems to contradict the rest of the information. The idea that Polanski fled because he equated prison with concentration camps might be perfectly valid, but that particular statement strikes me as dubious enough to be struck and/or replaced with something more accurate. EvilCouch (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rd232 talk 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede length

Someone cut down massively [33] the previous consensus lede. I strongly object: an article of this length needs a decent length lede to give an overview of the whole topic (WP:LEAD). Rd232 talk 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was me, the lede was totally excesive, it was like an article in itself, and is a lot better now. imo. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Lets see what comments we get here to see what is consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to be constructive - it seems to remove substantial, notable and important facts and substitutes minutia about: "there was nearly a seven-year break between 1979's Tess (a romantic drama adapted from Thomas Hardy's 1891 novel Tess of the d'Urbervilles, dedicated to the memory of his late wife, Sharon Tate) and 1986's Pirates. He has also done occasional work in theatre."
Frankly, the previous lead is considerably more supportable at this time. (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
"it was like an article in itself"... Yes that's the idea, Off2riorob. For long articles, a short summary should be like a (very) short article. That's exactly the aim: a concise and complete overview of the topic, not giving readers just a brief tidbit and then asking them to read the entirety of a massive article for (lots of) details. There's a balance between a lead being too short and too long, and the longer the article, the longer the ideal lead length (up to a maximum of about 4 paras, which this lead wasn't breaching). "Totally excessive"? No doubt it wasn't perfect (not likely under these Current Event circumstances) but look at leads of featured articles and then come back and tell me it was "totally excessive"! Rd232 talk 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It was rubbish,imo .. if you like it a lot still. after looking at the nice new shiny lede then I will happily replace it for you, yes? no? Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus to use the lead written by Rd232, besides, the lead was the result of much work by several editors to write a balanced lead. I suggest we reinstate it. Urban XII (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, much work by several editors, I couldn't have said it better, I will put it back for you, enjoy.Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I dislike it, but if you wrote it and like it.. then enjoy.Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for re-instating it [34], it's not a question of like or dislike, the lede has a function to fulfil, and this version is a much better starting point for future improvement. That might well involve tightening/shortening/trimming, but under the glare of a high-profile Current Event is not really the place to do that. Rd232 talk 20:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Not directly on the length, but there are two mentions of his recent arrest in the lede. There's a brief mention in the first paragraph, then several paragraphs down significantly more detail. I think the initial mention should go, and the latter mention retained. Given the visibility, it wasn't something I thought wise to do w/o discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It's an overview, by definition the lead will introduce items which are repeated later. (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It's common for a lede to be structured as an inverted pyramid - the first para is a very general overview, the later paras give more detail. That's the idea here. Rd232 talk 23:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but this is within the lede itself, not farther down in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct - quick summary in first para of lede, then more details in rest of lede, then Big Article With Lots of Details. Rd232 talk 08:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The lede needs trimmed. We now have two different mentions of his recent arrest, showing two different dates. I don't want to trample on consensus but this makes the article look bad. --John (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. You know this is a wiki, right? :D Seriously, the lede may be trimmable, but I don't think now is the time to attempt it: making ledes more concise, choosing what details to omit and how to rephrase to save words, is one of the harder collaborative tasks round here. I'd say focus on the body and keeping things updated, until things die down a bit. Rd232 talk 08:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This is actually the best time to trim the lede, as I said yesterday, it is at the moment an article in itself. I trimmed the lede yesterday and rd and one other editor said they had consensus and I reverted, I am stil of the strong opinion that my trimmed lede is a lot better and that actually this is the time to correct it, if you tidy the article now it stops people coming and adding more stuff .. a tidy article brings less disruption, when people come to an article and it is a mess they think to themselves..hell, its a mess now so what does it matter if I add some more mess, imo. Trim and trim now. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Here ia the link to the trimmed lede, which imo is a lot lot better than what is there now, and encourages people to actually read the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I don't know what you're talking about. Under "lede expansion/redraft" above, 4 editors agreed my version was good, and one said it was too long but an improvement. And what on earth makes you think that a massively shorter lede will have any impact whatsoever on the way editors treat the body under the glare of a Current Event? The lede has been relatively stable whilst the body has ballooned, and it's utterly implausible to suppose that shorter lede would be make editors less tempted to expand either the article or the lede in these circumstances. When things settle down, we can come back to this, but for now, how about not wasting people's time and energy and Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Rd232 talk 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea yea, drop the, this is not that kind of a situation...As far as anyone coming here looking at this article under the glare of current events, I can hear them all laughing from here, the article is awful... The only reason that the lede has any kind of stability is that no more comments could possibly be stuffed in it. I am only asking you to drop your attachment to it because you wrote it and stand back and have an honest look at it, it is awful and much too long, there is a whole filmography in there, it is actually unreadable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you never been involved with a Wikipedia article under the glare of a Current Event? I think this one is actually doing fairly well. It'll need cleanup later, of course. Rd232 talk 10:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


I am new to Wikipedia; I hope this correction is not out of place. In the final paragraph of section Roman_Polanski#Charges_and_guilty_plea, the phrase "and Polanski did not intend not appear" should read "and Polanski did not intend to appear". --Gv250 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks. Rd232 talk 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Motives behind the murder of Tate by Manson family not clear from the article

The motives behind murder of Tate and others at Polanski's house are not clear from the article. It seems from the text that the Manson family members didn't have any reasons to murder the people at Polanski's house, but they murdered them because they mistook them for the Melcher family.

If this really is the case, it should be emphasized in the paragraph. pravk talk 23:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph fails to explain the motive for the murders, as does the Charles Manson article. Months before the murder of Sharon Tate and the others in the same house, Terry Melcher moved out permanently, and Manson had been informed of that fact. Why did the 'Manson family' go to a house where someone he had a grudge against / hatred towards used to live, then kill everyone in the house, when none of them really had anything to do with Melcher or Manson? It makes no sense to think 'I hate person x, so I will go to the house x used to live in and kill its new occupants'. Both this and the Manson article, and possibly some other related articles need this matter sorting out. The Sharon Tate article states the motive was that 'the house represented Manson's rejection by the show business establishment'. That is obviously a ridiculous 'reason', but at least the Tate article attempts to present a motive, be it a weak one. If that is all there was to it, then that should be added to the Polanski and Manson articles. WP addict 0 (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Online poll

I added the results of a poll along with its reference to the "Reactions to the arrest" section. It was reverted. The reference demonstrates a wide gap in the reactions of the public with the reactions of the political and social elite, and therefore is an important piece of information. We have a whole section that deals with just that context. There is an army of famous movie stars, directors and politicians making grandiose and outlandish statements about the horrible treatment of Polanski and how unjust his arrest was, but this poll shows that's not how the public feels. This is a unique occurrence and deserves mention in the article. CeeKatzRun (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem, from my perspective, is that online polls such as this one can't really add anything to the article. They look interesting, and we can gather some sort of general feel from them, but due to how they are run they can't, unfortunately, carry any statistical value and can't be regarded as a reliable source. Hopefully someone will conduct a more rigorous survey, as I think you make a good point, but until then we can't really rely on newspaper polls. - Bilby (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
"they can't, unfortunately, carry any statistical value and can't be regarded as a reliable source." What about the endless quotes about how Polanski is getting a raw deal? Do those "carry any statistical value", have you deemed thier sources reliable?
This can't be a balanced article if it only shows what Polanski's buddies are saying. The way that section is written makes it sound as if the entire world is outraged by this arrest. That section is really very close to propaganda as written. --CeeKatzRun (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to see it more balanced in that section (and, indeed, a tighter section - it is starting to get a tad long). But newspaper polls aren't the way to do it. The quotes have no statistical value either, but they aren't claiming any - they're expressing reactions from significant people, rather than speaking of the general opinion of a large body. There will be sources we can use for this, but they'll need to be something other than an online poll, that's all. - Bilby (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"But newspaper polls aren't the way to do it.", but an endless stream of quotes all slanted in one direction are ok? And a poll that demonstrates this slant isn't? It should be pointed out that there is an extensive propaganda campaign going on by celebrities and European politicians for the benefit of Polanski. Just out of curiosity, what are your criteria for acceptable "statistical values"? What other material in this article have you held those criteria to? "...they'll need to be something other than an online poll". What's your suggestion? besides censorship? --CeeKatzRun (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No, an "endless stream of quotes all slanted in one direction" is not ok. There should be more balance in that section, as mentioned. The problem with newspaper polls, though, especially when online, is that they are pretty much meaningless. The readership will skew the results, they may not be limited to a country, they may not prevent the same person making multiple votes, they may be subject to online canvasing, they don't represent a fair sample of the population, and so on. All I'm arguing is that there will be reliable sources with which to balance the section, but these polls aren't the right way of providing that balance. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You should read the Diego Maradona page. In that page, it says that FIFA gave the "greatest Footballer EVER" award to Pele, but that Diego Maradona won the online poll for greatest player ever. The page then goes on to state that there are some who discount the online poll by pointing out the very problems you pointed out. That debate pro and con is available on the MAIN PAGE, not hidden in the talk pages. The reader is then free AFTER reading about both awards, to decide if the problems associated with online polls, which you outline, makes them suspect. If this article were written by Pele or his apologists, it would read like you propose this page read, with the reader being PREVENTED from finding out that there was an online poll at all which Pele did not win, and presenting the slanted view that "everybody agrees" Pele is the greatest ever. I really DON'T expect this to have any change in the article at all, as you and your ilk will MAKE SURE nothing that suggests that EVERYBODY does not support this heinous criminal, never sees the light of day. Carry one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou, but that's a quite different situation. In that case, FIFA ran a poll, and decided to discount the results, appointing a committee instead. Which is interesting, and worth covering, but not comparable to this situation. There is also no debate of the pros and cons of online polls there, just a (very much valid) discussion of the events. - Bilby (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Their notability is conferred by the source - we do not engage in OR to second guess them. These polls are notable, they do not and nor do we ask them, seek to establish a scientific fact. They are just what they state they are, a French and Swiss news poll (one of which appears to have been a real poll) showing 70% of respondents favor extradition. Their finding, that the man on the street is breaking with the cultural elite support for Polanski is supported by the reporting included in the articles. (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I suspect you're confusing notability with reliability, I'm afraid. The polls aren't notable, but we might reasonably ask whether or not they're reliable. That said, we can trust that the LA Times has reliably reported on the results of the poll. What we can't trust is the results themselves. This isn't OR - we're expected to evaluate the reliability of sources, especially in BLPs, and even more so in controversial BLPs. But maybe the consensus will go in a different direction - I'm happy to see where it heads. - Bilby (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You are deflecting and havent answered my questions; "But newspaper polls aren't the way to do it.", but an endless stream of quotes all slanted in one direction are ok? And a poll that demonstrates this slant isn't? It should be pointed out that there is an extensive propaganda campaign going on by celebrities and European politicians for the benefit of Polanski. Just out of curiosity, what are your criteria for acceptable "statistical values"? What other material in this article have you held those criteria to?.CeeKatzRun (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't deflected your question. In relation to statistical data, there is no other statistical data in the article, but the inclusion of such - as statistical data - would be held to the same requirements of any reliable survey in regard to sample size, selection methodology, and safeguards against repeat voting. - Bilby (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a shame for media to use "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" instead of "rape" in Polanski's case

From the detail reports, it's actually a rape, a serious, intentional crime. Just because he is an oscar winner, they use a vague phrase instead telling the truth. It is really a shame for the editors and reporters.

Where is justice? Where is human right? Is a film director exempt from laws and human values? Nextop (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We only report what has been reported, or said. In this case, Polanski pled guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". You can call it rape, but "rape" does not show up in the trial proceedings, and it would be improper for us to say that Polanski plead guilty to rape. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, and this is not wikipedia's problem, since you are correct, you only put in what is 'reported", but the media's. They are guilty of blatant and deliberate distortion here. They use the term "charges", which implies that Polanski is not a CONVICTED fugitive on the run from a sentencing, but one who is still facing "charges", as in the allegations are not proven. Fair enough, if they want to imply that the alleged "misconduct" of the deceased judge invalidates Polanski's CONVICTION by plea. If that is the case, then, Polanski will return to faces charges, but these charges are NOT the watered down "unlawful sexual intercourse" sweetheart deal they offered him, but the more serious NONCONSENSUAL drugging, rape, and sodomy of a 13 year old he was initiallly charged with. And, by law in California, sex with a person under 14 is not "sex with a minor", but sex with a CHILD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's not vague: it's exactly the crime of which he was convicted. However, since it's an obscure term, it might be worth explaining in the text that it's the California equivalent of statutory rape.   Will Beback  talk  03:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The media are reporting the wording of what he was convicted of. He was not actually convicted of rape; they are careful not to risk being sued by an influential, famous multi-millionaire. WP addict 0 (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" is vague or obscure: in fact, it is more descriptive than the term statutory rape, which is rarely used outside the U.S. "Unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" succinctly describes what Polanski admitted to. It is an insult to our readers' intelligence to suppose that they will not understand the implications, given that Polanski was 44 years old at the time. Physchim62 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I write only to correct the statement "but 'rape' does not show up in the trial proceedings": (1) there are only pre-trial proceedings as there has been no trial, which is what the plea bargain was avoiding; and (2) "rape" does show up in the pre-trial proceedings as it was one of the original charges, dropped as part of the plea bargain so it is perfectly permissible to state, as both this article and numerous media outlets have, that Polanski was charged with rape, a charge he may still face if he is extradited and the plea bargain is rescinded or rejected. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Gamaliel has encouraged me to open this discussion with other editors regarding the addition of the cat:pedophilia tag. The tag itself is a neutral category that seeks to connect articles related to a subject.

As Polanski has been convicted of a pedophiliac crime, has a history of sleeping with multiple children, and is on record as stating it as a sexual preference, the tag is a proper link to the disparate points of the subject on Wikipedia. (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
First, Category:Pedophilia does not contain any individuals accused of pedophilia. It is just for articloes on the topic of pedophilia, not for pedophiles. People who are convicted of having sex with children are categorized with the appropriate criminal category. Second, we don't include people in controversial categories just because we believe they belong there. We only do so if there are reliable sources that categorize the person that way. Pedophilia is a psychological condition. When it comes to other sexual preferences, we only add the categories if the person has self-identified that way. Third, pedophilia is normally considered a preference for sexually immature, or prepubescent, persons. I haven't seen any indication that the victim in the Polanski case was prepubescent.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It does contain individuals, as do the [category:American sex offenders] and [category:French sex offenders]. Both of which are themselves clearly applicable. (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The only individual is someone who has written on the topic of pedophilia, not someone accused of it. The sex offender categories apply, but there may be more specific categories to use instead. Which nationality to assign to the subject has been disputed for years now.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I see two, but more interestingly why would Polanski, convicted in an American court - not be in the category of American sex offenders? Surely there is no limit, why not both? (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
As Will Beback explains, pedophilia doesn't seem to apply to this case, and there is not a single reliable source even remotely supporting this, much less stating this. Thus, it's a BLP violation and the whole section should be capped. Cenarium (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I added American sex offenders. Let's not dance around this. He is one. Eros2250 (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
How would we consider this person to be American? He wasn't born in America, isn't of American extraction, and only lived in America for less than a decade. The main debate is whether he's more French or Polish.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The related [Category:Pedophiles] was deleted. [Category:American sex offenders] is for Americans who are sex offenders; he has never been American, he merely used to live there as a foreigner. He is in [Category:French sex offenders]; [Category:Polish sex offenders] does not exist. WP addict 0 (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC) {

Category:French rapists

French rapists has been added to the end of the categories - should it be present? Does he qualify for that cat? WP addict 0 (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because he raped a 13 year old girl and he is French. Maziotis (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Double standard relative to recent child molester cases

Several press commentators have discreetly raised the issue of antisemitism in the Polanski affair. For instance, David Gibson of Politics Daily says that the media have shown a double standard against Polanski because of his Jewish background, while in similar cases they would have called for the immediate condemnation of Catholic priests, thus making a sharp distinction between good pedophiles and bad pedophiles. [35][36][37][38][39][40] ADM (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your links do not make a case regarding his religion - they argue that a double standard exists between a famous, wealthy, powerful cultural elite and those at a more pedestrian station. It is not held in those articles that a case of pro-semitic positive discrimination is occurring. (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It isn't really religious, it's ethno-cultural and political. Plus, the Los Angeles Times has talked about it too. [41][42][43][44] ADM (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Famous men have famous friends - famous people get heard. Nothing unusual, nor special there. I don't think anyone, least of all the jailed old man in Switzerland, feels he's getting any special advantage here. If anything his fame is working against him here where lawyers and money outside the spotlight might have given an old nobody an advantage in such a situation. (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the articles cited were alluding to the fact that Polanski's defenders have names like Goldberg, Kouchner, Applebaum and Goldstein, i.e. those sources appear to be claiming that his defenders are part of some sort of weird ethnic conspiracy that has almost nothing to do with Polanski himself. ADM (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that a reading of possible indications of perceived antisemitism in these writings has risen to a level of encyclopedic notability? (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The affair isn't over yet, so we have to wait a bit and see what happens. But clearly, the fact that this was repeatedly mentioned in mainstream media such as the US News, the Washington Post and the LA Times give it some kind of journalistic notability, which is a bit underneath encyclopedc notability. But if people on Wikipedia would support including it because of related press support, then it might eventually become encyclopedic. ADM (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
True, and there is clearly a large number of articles contrasting the attitudes of the cultural elite apologists here with those of the lynch mobs and witch hunts of previous cases of child molestation. But I agree with you and don't think the contrast has had it's notability sufficiently established here yet. (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Can the subject of the crime be spun off into a related article?

Instead of continuous editorial changes to the article, would it make sense to spin the current mess off into a separate article which could be edited as the extradition procedures play out, allowing the biography to stylistically recover? (I am not advocating that the crime not be mentioned in the BLP, but that a detailed examination, including the allegations of judicial misconduct, be moved.) The article is, currently, poorly composed. Multiple, rapid changes have not improved it. The criminal information stub could be reincorporated (or not) if, after the dust settles on the tarmac, it is found to be a coat rackOberonfitch (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've spun off Arrest of Roman Polanski for now. Possibly spinning off the entire incident/conviction/flight/arrest would be better, but it's an easy start. Rd232 talk 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much RD232. Will go there now.Oberonfitch (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of Wikipedia by False BLP Concerns

An editor is censoring well sourced and impeccably referenced discussion of "how, where or if" to properly include in the article mention of Roman Polanski's recorded sexual preference for "very young girls", his well referenced dating of multiple children including one described by a French reporter in the impeccably credentialed Le Monde as "just a baby" and his arrest in possession of pornographic images of a child that he took himself.

These are tough but true realities directly related to the article and the matter at hand, BLP is not a tool for censoring Truth. And Wikipedia is not to be Censored. Abuse of rules to further one's editorial preferences is never acceptable.

How, where, and even if to include these facts is for community discussion and consensus - not for an individual to unilaterally remove by a false assertion of policy. BLP is a protection against falsehood, it is not a tool for censorship of inconvenient well known fundamental facts. (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Any attempt to remove the specific details of the crime or to use euphemism to downplay the crime is censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous sexual activity

Would it be good to mention that the 13 year old girl in question was not a virgin? "When Samantha's mother found out, she called the police. Polanski never denied he'd had sex with her but maintained it was consensual. Samantha said it was not. She also told detectives she'd been drunk before. And she'd had sex before." from here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely why the current event portion of this biography should be worked out on a separate page. The article now reads like a blog. The mention of the criminal conviction should be succinct. The entire section which includes the victim's testimony is, in my opinion, unworthy of Wiki. However, if the testimony stands, and the article degenerates into a trial, then of course, this information would also need to be entered. I would, if I were the victim, find the inclusion of her testimony (given when she was a young teen) and her sexual status at that point offensive and embarrassing. Admittedly, I am as a newborn pup to editing, but one of the first things I read was WP:BLP I am copying the pertinent section here:

Presumption in favor of privacy Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

The victim has stated publicly that she is damaged by the continued coverage.Oberonfitch (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The key to Wikipedia is verifiability: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". So no, we do not censor the inconvenient information. (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree. The victim has stated puplicly that she has been more damaged by the reporting than the sexual act with polanski, that is also in the cite I gave, if people want to portray her as an innocent child then the fact that she said that she was not a virgin is required to be included for balance. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I would argue though that speculation about the status of the victims hymen is neither relevant nor notable. Wikipedia may not be the appropriate venue in which to tar the child victim a slut in an effort to find the rapist not guilty via outmoded trials of moral equivalence... (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It is very relevant and would deffinitely be a mitigating factor in a trial. As for your claims of attempting to portray her as a slut, I am only citing her statements. She also need little protection regarding her statements as she has written a book about it and has used the details for financial gain. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Previous sexual activity is completely irrelevant to the offense of "sexual offense with a minor", the charge to which Polanski has pleaded guilty, which is based on the concept that a minor is legally deemed incapable of giving consent. Any speculation as to whether it would be relevant to a hypothetical trial on rape and sodomy charges would be WP:OR until a WP:RS reliable source raises that hypothetical and asserts the relevance. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we not be ridiculous here? Please? We are supposed to be writing a biography of a living person. The previous sexual habits of a single person he had sex with are not relevant. Especially not when that person was 13 years old at the time. Would any Wikipedia editor wish their adolescent sexual experiences to be pasted over a top-ten website? Physchim62 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a simple statement from the girl that previous to her having sex with polanski that she previously had sex with someone else. As I said it is very relevent and very citable. If efforts are made to portray her as an innocent virginal minor then it is only fair to include the relevant information to balance those claims.Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Also it is relevant that he did not surreptitiously drug her with the Qualude, he gave it to her and she took it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

1) The alleged previous sexual activity of the victim is irrelevant. Raping a 13-year old is illegal, whether she'd had sex before or not. It doesn't change a thing, and has nothing to do with Polanski and his crime. It doesn't belong in this article for a bunch of reasons.

2) I have suggested before that we remove the name of the victim. It's not important. But we need to describe what Polanski actually did, because this is what this whole thing is about. He raped a 13-year old girl. That's why he's currently in prison. Urban XII (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

She had also previously taken Qualudes on more than one occasion, she said she took her first Qualude at the age of ten or eleven here. she also states that polanski asked her if she wanted a qualude and she said yes. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, prior sexual activity or drug use would only be, arguably, relevant to a defense of consent and there is no such defense to the charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", the charge to which Polanski has pleaded guilty.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I object strongly to efforts to defend Polanski by smear tactics against a child he had sex with. That is a clear violation of WP:BLP, as well as being morally objectionable. There is no place here for "She did it before." This is not a blog. It is irrelevant. He was found guilty already. Edison (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
With respect to Off2riorob, I don't see why any of this information needs to be included. We're not a court of law - we don't need to crossexamine witnesses or 'present all sides of the story'. I think we should say as little about the victim as possible - certainly not mention her sexual history, and preferably not even her name (see below). The fact that such information is reported elsewhere doesn't mean we should report it. Robofish (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No, that is where your wrong, that is what is done here, we add all the giblets and guts. Presently the article is so awful that it is unworthy of editing, but when it is trimmed to a decent neutral pov perhaps these balances won't require adding but right now, there are a lot of pov edits in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realise that he has been found guilty already...if that is true then according to the extradition agreement then he will not qualify and will be sentenced in switzerland, the link is in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I am astonished at the amount of misreading that has taken place here. If you are going to include the testimony of the victim, you will have to include all of it, not just cherry picking the parts that make Polanski look particularly awful and that fulfill the desire to characterize him as the monster from the deep. This does not have to do with making her look bad, this is supposed to be balanced. As in, the whole thing, not just the particularly salacious parts. Which is why I disagreed with the inclusion of her testimony to begin with. It does not belong here. This is not a book. This is not her book, nor is it Polanski's. And look at the inconsistencies that this opens; the victim publicly says that she has been damaged by media coverage, but has written a book on her experience. Reduce the amount of information with regard to the extradition to a sentence or two. The same with the crime. This is, as I stated above, the format of other articles about other writers and directors who have committed crimes or gigantic breaches in what we consider in the US morally acceptable, and can be considered as creating a standard for Wikipedia.
A second problem is that this is highly politicized, and as such, the TRUTH of the extradition, the judicial corruption, and plea deal will be, to some extent, unknowable to us. Backpedaling is going on at the uppermost levels of government which is a sign of significant political pressure. That, in itself, is a warning sign that potentially all is not what it seems. Each real-time event is added as if it will have historical significance. I assure you, it will not.
Further, the murder of his wife and unborn child, if the current trend continues, should include testimony from that trial, and perhaps some b&w photos too. Perhaps a link to an article on fetal murder. He deserves to be treated as the victim that he was, and is, of a particularly heinous double homicide. Fair is fair. And this is another example of why this article is bottom heavy to the point of being ridiculous.
I will state once again that this stuff doesn't belong in this article. I firmly and unequivocally endorse moving the criminal aspect to the new criminal biographies section. The current event additions have, as off2riorob correctly points out, made the BLP unreadable. I don't think that it deserves a B rating at this point. Frankly, I'd do it if I could, but alas. Consensus and all that happy stuff.Oberonfitch (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I am offended and dismayed by those who have indulged in ad hominem attacks. I have NOT defended Polanski's behavior in any way. That you make judgments about my person demonstrates further your judgmental attitude with regard to this article. It doesn't belong here.Oberonfitch (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well said Oberon Fitch, as the article sands now it is a poor reflection on wikipeadia and totally unreadable. Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Questions of readability, grammar or spelling aside - the event occurred when the victim was 13, and it was inflicted upon her against her will. Her statements or actions 30 years later have not changed the verifiable facts associated with the rape that occurred in 1977. Her later expressions regarding Polanski have been clearly included. There exists a distinct difference in stating the facts; strip, drug, hottub, rape, conviction, flee - and mounting a criminal case to refight the conviction while arguing the child, "she asked for it and got what she deserved". This is not the appropriate place. (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I would say the very same thing to you about your point of view. Off2riorob (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Name of the victim

I was reading this article on[45], which discusses the Polanski case while making a point of not naming the victim. That made me think: should we adopt the same policy? The name is public information and is currently included in the article, but I don't see why it needs to be. While the victim is no longer a child, she is still a private individual and has a presumption in favour of privacy; in accordance with that, I think the name should be removed. Robofish (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

She is a public figure and well known already, she gives interviews and all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd support this if she hadn't made multiple public interviews and statements. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Her public statements do make it a moot point as a matter of BLP, but is there an argument against naming her as a matter of notability? Does it really add to our understanding of the subject to make it a point to both identify her name then, and her later name? I'd like to see the name's removed, but I won't argue for it on policy grounds. (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, there's no particular need to mention the name, it doesn't add anything to the article. She could be described as a 13-year old girl, what is important is what Polanski did, not the name of the victim or her current identity. Urban XII (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I imagine that it would take a hoard of wild zombies to keep her name out of this article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Not if the article is semi-protected. Urban XII (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Semi protection is worthless against hoards of Zombies. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
That is a rather poor argument. We should do what we have to protect people. Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy of names is relevant. How widely has this person's name been reported? — Jake Wartenberg 00:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It's been reported at least 5,000 times.[46]   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have to worry, then. — Jake Wartenberg 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of worry. It's a question of what is encyclopedic. We've heard several times from Polanski's defenders that his crimes should not be described in this article, because of the victim' privacy. But that's turning the world upside down. Protecting the victim's privacy is a legitimate concern, and it can best be done by not using her name. It can, in this case, not be done by not describing what Polanski did. Urban XII (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right about two things, Urban: It's a question of what is encyclopedic; and protecting the victim's privacy is a legitimate concern. I would urge everyone here to carefully reread WP:BLP section 4.2:
It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy... This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
That's not my opinion, that's policy. And it is one of our most important policies, according to Jimbo Wales. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
However, it should be noted that this is not an article about the victim, but an article about Polanski, who was convicted of a serious crime. Naming the victim is unnecessary because it doesn't add anything to the article. By not naming her, we can protect her privacy suffiently. Of course "primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" doesn't apply at all in this case, Wikipedia is hardly the "primary vehicle" for making the world aware that Polanski is a child rapist. Urban XII (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd usually be supporting the view that we shouldn't give the victims name. In this case, she has appeared in promotional photos for a film about the case, so I think it's fair to say that she has sold out her rights to privacy as to her name and current image. I still feel that she has rights to privacy over what went on more than thirty years ago. Physchim62 (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the article is about figs, BLP policy covers all living persons, a category which, to the best of my knowledge, includes Polanski's victim. Of course WP is not in danger of becoming the primary vehicle of spreading the claim that Polanski is a child rapist. The "titillating claim" here is the lurid details of the sexual assault itself. While the fact that there was a sexual assault is encyclopedic (provided it is amply verified by reliable sources, as is clearly the case here), but the details of the act itself are not, and inclusion here unnecessarily violates the privacy of the victim and prolongs her victimization. That's why this is a BLP matter. I could give a flip about Polanski. I'm also unsure how effectively we could implement avoidance of naming the victim without severely paring down our coverage of the incident. Besides that, her names (former and current) are widely reported and well-known, the details of what Polanski did in the throes of ecstasy, not so much. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As much as I hate to agree with this editor, the fact is the BLP also covers living people being mentioned on pages other than their own. WookMuff (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sex Crime Conviction" section Lede

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Should more accurately be:

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, was arrested and charged[47] 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" the day after an incident with a 13-year-old he photographed topless. It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

The lede is intended to be a clear overview, it currently is not. The proposed lede is concise, factual and complete with the details of the story contained in the remainder of the section. (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm translating the statute correctly from 1977 for the Ca. Penal Code, Re: Ct. V 283(a) P.C., it could also be "Oral Copulation with a Minor". (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Polanski would have to register as a sex offender per California Penal Code Section 290. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishelf16 (talkcontribs) 04:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Natasaha Kinski as a PERSONAL LIFE entry

Suggested entry as first entry in Section Personal Life, before the sub-groups.

At age 15, Natasha Kinski began a romantic relationship with director Roman Polanski. [13][14]

Logic for Entry: It is a gross omission to the proper Wikipedia "persons" entry to not mention that Polanski had another relationship with an underage girl of just fifteen, "after he fled" the United States. While it may be not appropriate to draw conclusions form this factual record, the omission of the record under his personal life is egregious. While it may have been viewed as OK while he was in France, this fact relates clearly back to his need to flee the United State. I urge you to create a factual record in Polanski Personal Life that he simply had a sexual relationship with a 15 year old.

This is note worthy because Kinski is an actress of notible fame. That she is now part of the French elite actors community may or may not be put in. But its a factual record, that is currently omitted under his personal life. Since it is of a known nature and with a well known individual and has references. I urge the editors to correct the record. It omission conveys a bias. It is a factual record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talkcontribs) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is both significant and quite notable, indeed it's given some prominence on the Kinski page and has been included in every biography of the man as well as receiving certainly thousands of mentions over the decades. Why it's ignored as a notable fact in "Personal Life" is unfathomable... (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing the Kinski page, and another few articles on the web, I have to concur with 99 on this. Although it almost kills me to do so. Still, it cannot be strung together under "Other Minors Mr. Polanski Molested" in order to prove a pattern, as discussed above.Oberonfitch (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I agree here as well. State the fact noting the age, barring any notable pronouncements from Ms. Kinski on the the subject I see nothing here that needs expanding on at this time. 01:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Yaddy yaddy yaddy...come on (more Wikipedian intransigence) it seems obvious now that Polanski fits the profile of a man who has predilection for young women. I was unaware that he'd been messing about with 15-year-old Kinski in the 1970s. But with all socially abnormal sexual behaviour, it's habitual, follows a pattern, is detached from the person's 'respectable persona' and is ultimately self defeating (destructive addiction). With this revelation about Kinski, it the begs question that as an abuser (we now have two counts), did Polanski want to get caught with the rape of a minor in California? Or was he incredibly careless? Men who acknowledge their deviant sexual behaviour (and there is no question Polanski is a highly creative intelligent person) are very careful about concealing their activities. I think stuff about Kinski paints a whole new picture on the Polanski case and the "he did it once" image that is regularly painted in the media. I therefore think for these reasons it is notable, and by burying it shows complicity, condoning and even admonishment of this man's private behaivour! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Without references to reliable sources, it is original research (which is forbidden in WP articles), and if reliable sources support a number of facts, but do not "connect the dots", it's still synthesis, which is just a more pernicious form of OR. I would hardly defend any of Polanski's actions, but WP simply cannot slap him with the pedophile label without ample reliable sources that state that - not just suggest it, but state it. Otherwise, we may open WP up to the possibility of litigation. That's why we have our current WP:BLP policy. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are 5 more authoritative sources. Excluding Polanski’s well known relationship with a 15 year old is selective bias. These are facts, well reported facts. That it is now showing a trend should make no difference. These are facts that should not be excluded especially since they were widely reported at the time, and today via many new media sources. All of the sources below are top-tier references. I am not asking this reference to state he is a pedophile. That is your conclusion. I am saying the facts should be give in this entry. The exclusion of Natasha Kinski, and her age, as a personal affair, at this point, is a bias by authorship, by removal of factual events.

Polanski spent the first years after her death on a kind of sexual spree, and began spending time with younger and younger women, like 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski.,8599,1706557,00.html [15]

(Ever contrite, Polanski then began dating Nastassja Kinski, 15.) [16]

He allowed art and life to overlap in similar fashion after the statutory rape case, by putting his teenage girlfriend, Nastassja Kinski, in a lavish adaptation of Tess of the d'Urbervilles, whose entire plot revolves around a rape (even if, in Polanski's version, the violence of the act is considerably less one-sided than in Hardy's). [17]

In the years that followed, he was often photographed consoling himself with the company of very young women. He began a relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was just 15. So it was hardly surprising that a media firestorm erupted when Polanski was arrested, nearly eight years after the murders, for having sex with a 13-year-old. [18]

Polanski immediately invited her to join him and his partner for what was later described as a "threesome", and she agreed. The girl's name, he learnt later, was Nastassja Kinski - an aspiring actress who was destined to star in his 1979 film Tess. She was just 15, and he was 43. Within a matter of days Polanski had decided to photograph his new, young lover for the glossy pages of the Christmas 1976 edition of French Vogue. [19]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talkcontribs) 22:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Various minor issues

merged here to make talk page more manageable

Minor edit: spurious religious reference

The assertion that RP "is a Jewish Polish-French film director" appears incorrect. Judaism is a religion not an ethnicity or nationality. Reportedly RP self-identified as Catholic from 10yo to 15yo (see Note16). In an interview RP stated, "I can only look at religion with a certain dose of irony, because I'm not a religious person. And of course, sex and religion, they're always connected. Each religion has some sort of hangup about sex." It appears RP does not identify with any religion (i.e., he seems to be atheist or perhaps agnostic). Additionally, American film directors who celebrate Christmas and are thus nominally Christian are not generally referred to as "Christian American" film directors. Groovymaster (talk)


Useful ref

Palmer, Brian (2009-09-28). "What's "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse"? And other questions from the Explainer's Roman Polanski roundup". Slate.  -- (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Caution please

Even before, this article left a lot to be desired in terms of prose and structure. Now I get the distinct impression of a lurid fascination with current events; there's a frantic and disjointed feel to it. This is most unwise; I suggest an independent party be arranged to watch over this article for a few weeks. It is in a shambolic state. Tony (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The law firm and lawyer seem to use the page for advertising themselves. Even a page for the lawyer himself was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Don't be silly. Urban XII (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

AFP reports on Wikipedia edit war over this article

LOL. Note that my suggestion is described as the compromise lead. Urban XII (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's described as a compromise lead, suggested by one (1) editor. Perhaps the implication isn't as you seem to believe. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


The Early life section states what happened to him and his parents, but what happened to Annette, who appears to be his only sibling? WP addict 0 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This appears to imply that she was deported to Auschwitz along with her mother: unfortunately, the Google Books preview ends just at the information you're looking for. Physchim62 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
According to this, Polanski stayed with Annette and her husband when he first moved to Paris. Rd232 talk 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Why did he and his father change their surname from the (German) Liebling to the (Polish) Polanski? WP addict 0 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe a decent biography would tell us. On the other hand, such name changes around that time were fairly common, so I don't think it's something to be made a deal about. I live in Catalonia, and I know several people who go by the Catalan versions of their names rather than by the Spanish version that is on their ID cards (which was imposed under the Franco regime). Physchim62 (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

According to one of his biographers Grażyna Stachówna he did it at the request of his second wife. I don't know why. Perhaps she simply preferred so that it was Polish because they lived in Poland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I learnt! He changed his name to Polański, because met the second wife in the town named Polanica. Roman's cousin, Roma Ligocka wrote it in her book "Girl in the red coat." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How Jewish is Polanski?

Since possible antisemitism is mentioned in this talk page, it is perhaps worth mentioning that while Polanski was Jewish according to Nuremberg Laws (three of his grandparents were Jewish), he is not a Jew according to halakha (his mothers mother was not Jewish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgius (talkcontribs) 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC) --Georgius (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you find a source discussing this, we can put it in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
See Who is a Jew? Polanski is of part-Jewish ancestry, but he is not Jewish by religous law, was not brought up in the Jewish religion, and as far as I am aware does not identify as Jewish, so all Jewish categories should be removed from this article. PatGallacher (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Outrage in France

This statement is one dimensional, and its neutrality can be challenged. It caused an outrage within some part of the population, particularly the artistic caste, but there is a strong debate between opinions. The correct way to put it is that this stirred controversies. I'm also adding a note and another opinion, from judges and the judicial social class, here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Link request


Please change "unlawful sexual intercourse" to "unlawful sexual intercourse" in the lead. -- (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Related source already provided at Talk:Roman_Polanski#Useful_ref -- (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done with the following change: as the redirect is rather unstable right now, and my brief perusal of the talk page seems to suggest that consensus is that what he was convicted of indeed constitutes statutory rape, I linked it to statutory rape instead. Per consistency concerns, I also WP:BOLDly removed the quotes surrounding the "unlawful sexual intercourse". Tim Song (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The past tense of "plead" is "pled"

idk why the article says "pleaded" at several points, but I'm unaware of this being proper English. -- (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per this, either form is fine. Tim Song (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Description of the rape incident

In response to the summary, I have to say that we are not dealing with rumors. It is very well sourced and very pertinent as to cover his actions as a known rapist. There are no reasons whatsoever to censor this. I believe your claim to that section of a policy to be a little bit arbitrary. The last paragraph clarifies the situations by which this censorship can be useful. Well, we are not dealing with the victimization of Mr. Polanski, where wikipedia would be serving as a vehicle to further spread potentially false rumors about him. The public, mainstream sources explain what the case involves, and there is no reason for us to censor it for the sake of protecting this particular man. He doesn't deserve more protection than either the Pope or Ted Bundy. The policy section you mentioned serves to protect people from a case of false testimony. It does not apply. Maziotis (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maziotis, you have clearly misunderstood my intent. I do not care to defend or protect Polanski in any way. The victimization refers to, well, the victim. Just because she is not the primary subject of the article does not mean she is not protected by BLP policy. Unlike Polanski, she has remained a relatively private person. It has been pointed out, and rightly so, that she has little claim to privacy in terms of keeping her name out of the papers, but we still should handle the intimate details of her sex life with due caution. The decades of invasive publicity, according a statement quoted in this very article, have done harm to her and her family and have served to prolong the victimization. WP cannot participate in this continued victimization. We need to respect what little privacy she has left. While WP is certainly not in danger of becoming the primary vehicle of spreading the notion that Polanski raped a child, we could become the primary vehicle for spreading certain intimate details of that rape. Hence, it is a BLP concern, not for Polanski's sake, but for hers. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have in fact read a statement made by her about these issues. And I did understand your reference to the privacy of the victim. She talked about the media explosion at the time harming her, but I don't necessarily see how these particular details would turn wikipedia into any source of invasion of privacy at this time. The particular sex act of sodomy, for example, seems to be very well known and very much underlined in stressing out what this incident meant. I still think that this is a question of covering all aspects of the story, but I am going to leave that criterion to others. I am not going to revert the post, as I feel that the way the incident is described right now is not a blatant violation of wp:NPOV with use of censorship. I hope that other editors look into this. Maziotis (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Maziotis, we cannot under any circumstance remove the description of Polanski's crime, i.e. what the whole case is about. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and the current version is the closest thing to consensus we have. It's a short, widely published description and without unnecessary detail used by countless sources. If we want to protect the privacy of the victim (who is not Polanski!), we should remove the name of the victim. This article is about Polanski and what he did. The BLP policy does absolutely not justify the removal of Polanski's crime from this article. Urban XII (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It does not even come close to meeting "consensus". Several editors believe it should be included. Several believe it should not. That's not consensus. There was never a consensus here to add it, and it was challenged as soon as it was suggested. Consensus is not determined by the editor or editors who argue their case most strongly or who repeat their opinion most frequently. Your edit summary reads in part "don't change it without first reaching consensus to do so" but that's exactly what you just did. Please note, I am not commenting on whether or not I think the information should be included. Rossrs (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I merely restored the stable version. Urban XII (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If it was a stable version, this discussion wouldn't be happening and neither would the reverts. It's the version you favour, and you call it consensus. It's not. Rossrs (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm appalled by how Polanski and his defenders are using the victim as a vehicle to justify their position that Polanski's crime is not serious and should not be dealt with appropriately. Urban XII (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I honestly do not know how I can state any more clearly than I already have that I have no interest in defending Polanski in any way. I came here from WP:BLPN, and compliance with BLP policy is my only concern here. No one here has suggested that Polanski is in any way the victim of anything, nor have we suggested that his crime is not serious. The crime is absolutely in, but the intimate sexual details do not help the encyclopedia article in any way, they do harm to the victim (YES, I absolutely mean the REAL victim here), and they serve to prolong her victimization. Per BLP 4.2, we should presume in favor of privacy in perpetuating the details of her private life. Whether or not she is the primary subject of the article. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The description of the crime is the core of the entire case, to which a large portion of the article is devoted. Removing it only serves as a way of minimizing Polanski's crime. The current version is a compromise - some users wanted to include much more detail (I have removed more detailed descriptions as well), other users wanted to remove the description entirely. The current wording has been uncontested for some time now, until you started your arbitrary actions. It has very good sources, and the BLP policy does not justify its removal at all. The victim's privacy, which is a legitimate concern when it's not abused by Polanski's defenders, is best protected by removing her former and current names, which add nothing to the understanding of the article. Urban XII (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) I disagree with a part of that. The article, in that section, is about Polanski and what he did to another person. That other person should therefore be considered in how we relate the events. On that score, I admit I'm very uncomfortable with including the details. It can be extremely difficult for a victim to relate what was done to them in a crime of this nature, and there are good reasons why many victims don't want people to know exactly what they went through. Given this, repeating the details of the sexual act doesn't necessarily add anything to the article, and it adds little to the seriousness of the crime, (she was 13 and said no - the first is enough for me, and the second more than finishes it off), but it does mean restating, on one of the most read websites in the world, the details of what she suffered. I'm tending to side with Wilhelm Meis here that respect for the victim's privacy will probably mean leaving out the specific sexual acts that were performed on her, but keeping the general picture in place. - Bilby (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
"Various sexual acts" is not an adequate description of what Polanski did, as has been pointed out before. Urban XII (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
"Various sexual acts" may generally seem like a "mild" term, but when applied to reporting an event in which the victim was a 13 year old, there's nothing mild about it. No reasonable person would see those words and feel that something "mild" was inflicted upon the victim. The horrifying element of the case is the child's age and the fact that any sexual act was performed upon her. The inclusion of the specifics doesn't make it more horrifying, and the omission of the specifics doesn't make it less so. I've read everything you're written, but I don't see anything to convince me that this wording is necessary. Rossrs (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is it so necessary for an encyclopedia to include such details? What does it add to the article? Again, this is an encyclopedia article, not a court document. Also, your presumption that the addition was uncontested is false. I voiced my opinion here, as did other editors. Just because we didn't repeat our arguments ad nauseum doesn't mean we forgot about it or consented to anything. Just because I waited until it became clear that bolder action was needed, does not mean that I was not still steadfastly contesting the material from the talk page. I was using the talk page for its intended purpose, to try to hash things out and head off any potential edit warring. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It is necessary to explain what the case is all about. Without explaining, the whole section on his crimes doesn't make much sense, it's the core of the case. There's a huge difference between kissing a girl, and "despite her protests, [performing] oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her" (Associated Press wording). "Various sexual acts" strongly suggests that his crimes were lesser than they actually were. The current version, which is the wording used by AP, is a compromise between those who favor more detail and those who favor less. We cannot make everybody completely happy. Urban XII (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop reverting to your preferred version. There is no consensus or this discussion would not be taking place, and there was not consensus to add it, as the discussion was ongoing. It's not a stable version. Stable versions tend not be reverted several times in one day. Several editors support inclusion of this material, several don't - that does not equal consensus. Rossrs (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring. At least three editors have restored the stable version, and I'm going to restore it again until you stop. There's no consensus to change the stable wording at this point. Urban XII (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are my edits edit-warring and your reversions not? There was not consensus to add this in the first place, and several editors have disputed it from the beginning. You can't call it stable wording because it's being disputed on the talk page, and being reverted in the article. That's not stable. Consensus isn't reached by a small number editors reaching agreement despite disagreement from other editors. The onus should not be on reaching consensus to remove the wording, but should have been on adding the wording in the first place. That was premature, and the fact that some editors strongly disagree has been dismissed because it's a done deal. This is just the wrong way to do it. Rossrs (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
[ec] We don't have to make anyone happy. We have to comply with policy. Invading the victim's privacy on one of the world's most-read web sites is not only morally reprehensible, and in contradiction of your apparent values, but more importantly it is in violation of policy. BLP 4.2. we should respect her privacy, period. It doesn't matter who likes it. Believe me, it's not to make me happy. I could care less what you say Polanski did except that could have real repercussions for his victim and for WMF. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" does seem to remove any ambiguity. Especially when added to the victim stating "No, I don't want to do this." I understand what you're saying, but BLP policy isn't really about compromises, and in this case we need to weigh to competing concerns - the victim's privacy and the amount of detail required to make his crime clear. For me, we're giving up too much privacy by being overly specific about the acts, when the severity of his crime has already been well established. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Once again, if we want to protect the victim's privacy, which I've always been in favour of, we shouldn't use her name. That would be quite sufficient to resolve any BLP policy concerns. Not explaining what Polanski did—while continuing using the name of the victim—is turning the world upside down and the wrong solution to protect her privacy. Urban XII (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I favor inclusion of the description also. TheLou75 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The victim has mentioned the fact that she didn't appreciate how she was made a celebrity. I really don't see any suspicion on this description being an invasion of privacy. This is a case of a rape incident (not a sexual encounter between celebrities) and I believe it is being dealt in the same way that these incidents have been dealt though wikipedia and other media sources. The crime is described in each instance of offense. It is important to make that clear, and it is a part of public domain. The fact that he is a known film director makes this story a case of social importance, not "sensationalism". High profile people rape women too, and their crimes must be addressed in their stories aswell. Maziotis (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the details of the crime should be included in the article. Polanski has been arrested on a fugitive warrant and was charged with the crime of 'having sex with an underage girl'. That is pretty much what the article needs to say. Prurient details that are not directly relevant have no place in this article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he was was originally arrested and charged[48] with six counts: "Child Molesting", "Rape by the use of Drugs", "Oral Copulation by Force", "Sodomy", "Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor", and "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse" the day after an incident with a 13-year-old he photographed topless. Although it ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor the original charges themselves are quite notable.
And, it is standard in criminal biography's to note both the original charge and the negotiated plea agreement, or individual verdicts, as a sequence of notable events. Details of crimes are included, be they financial crimes, or crimes of violence. We do not obscure and allude inconvenient facts, the subjects history is broad, deep and complex - it all has its place here. (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
'charged with' is the correct way to state things and, if he was charged with all this when arrested, then the article should probably say that. However, a description of the events "he did this and then that" is unnecessary. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
How is describing a crime unnecessary while covering the biography of somebody? We have addressed that point in this discussion. Please be more clear. Maziotis (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It is unnecessary detail. If Polanski has been charged with "oral copulation by force", "rape by drugs", "sodomy", etc., all in connection with the the crime of 'having sex with an underage girl', it will have to be a particularly unimaginative reader who can't figure out what this means. We don't have to go about writing for that reader. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
What he did is very much relevant to understand what the actual crime was, and this has been extensively explored in maisntream channels. The fact that he sodomized her while she was drugged has been pointed out to the extent of his crime, and has little to do with the touching of a private part that can be left for the imagination of the common man. I don't see how any of this could be a problem for someone particularly unimaginative. I think it's the criterion being used everywhere. The crime has to be made clear. Maziotis (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If the charges include "sodomy" and "rape by drugs", I doubt if anyone will be left thinking that all he did was touch a private part. I really don't see what a detailed description of what may have taken place adds to an encyclopedic article. But, if I'm a lone dissenter, then so be it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Maziotis on this, it's not really a detail, it's the core of the entire case and it's necessary to describe what happened. Also, the current wording is a compromise between much more detailed versions and the versions that didn't mention his crimes, it's not particularly long, not particularly detailed, it only describes in broad terms the nature of his crimes according to the grand jury testimony. Urban XII (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The 'case' is better left to be fought out in court. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not judge a person. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The facts were established by the court more than 30 years ago. He was convicted. Urban XII (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
In which case, it is perfectly reasonable to say "he was charged with and convicted of 'sex with an underage girl', 'sodomy', 'oral xxxx". Why do we need to say "he first did this and then did that"? Are you suggesting that people won't understand what he did if he was charged with and convicted of 'sex with an underage girl' and 'drugging said girl', and 'sodomy', etc. etc. Or is it that you think that the enormity of his crimes will not come across without a detailed description. If the latter, conveying 'enormity' of crimes is not the business of an encyclopedia. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
He 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. This was reduced to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" due to the practice of plea bargain. However, in order to understand what happened, we need to include a brief description of the crime itself. Both because lay people don't always understand legal terms, and because it's pretty clear from the testimony of the victim that it was not consensual. Starting with legal technicalities instead of a description of what happened is not a good solution. Urban XII (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Consent is not in any way suggested by the phrase "various sexual acts." The details of exactly where he put what are irrelevant to the question of consent. The whole purpose of stating the victim's age, and the general reader most assuredly understands this, is that a 13 year old is incapable of giving proper consent. The heinousness of his crime rests upon the age of the girl, not the prurient details of which specific sex acts were performed. These serve no purpose to an encyclopedia article. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 03:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No, this description(along with many of your edits) all have (WP:BLP) issues. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a forum to push a POV or agendas. You and some other editors have made the Roman Polanski entry into one big agenda driven battle. There is no need to make the Roman Polanski Wiki page into a battle ground over this issue. It's but one aspect of the persons life and you(along with a few other editors) are making it the main part of his Wiki entry. System Administrators need to step in and close this dispute down. There is obvious (WP:BLP) issues and Admins need to take control over this page and start punishing the serial offenders. DD2K (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski's comment in his biography

"Polanski, in his autobiography, described the encounter as consensual.[20] has been removed a couple of times. Why? It's sourced right down to the page number, and in an article about Polanski isn't Polanski allowed one small sentence to convey his point of view. We don't have to believe him and the word 'encounter' is not the word I would have used, but even so, is there a reason for its removal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossrs (talkcontribs)

I see no particular reason to remove it (although there is no such thing as "consensual" sex with a 13-year old from a legal point of view). Urban XII (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, I figure a possible concern would be the moral implications of allowing a perpetrator to justify a very serious crime in a dubious way and smearing his victim, which could be seen as offensive to the victim. This could possibly be a BLP concern. I.e., he's accusing his victim of consenting to sex, when he, according to her testimony, actually raped her, and also despite the fact that she legally couldn't possibly consent to sex because she was a minor. Urban XII (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree "consensual" is a very wrong way to state it. There is no such thing as consensual sex with a 13 year, and it's not even what Polanski said. I've had a look at the relevant page in his biography, and he doesn't use the word "consensual". It's hard to paraphrase him, without adding POV, and I have to say, that his version is quite creepy and makes me uncomfortable. His version has the girl taking part willingly but without enthusiasm. Whoever added this to Wikipedia has abbreviated it to "consensual" which implies something more than was written. I see your point about a perpetrator justifying a serious crime, but reporting what he said, does not mean that we are endorsing his viewpoint. If it's fair for the girl's version of events to be reported, it should be equally fair to report in broad terms something that Polanski said. He admits a high level of sexual activity with a 13 year old which is both morally and legally wrong so her willingness or unwillingness is a moot point, but I think it is relevant to discussion of Polanski that he described her as willing. That his exact version of events is not the same as the girl's exact version of events, does not necessarily adversely affect her under BLP. He's on record as disputing her version, and he addresses it in his biography, so it's as much a part of public record as her comments. If kept to a brief comment, I don't think there is a BLP problem. Would something like, "In his biography, Polanski briefly discussed the incident, and said that the girl had participated willingly" be satisfactory? It's neutral as it attributes it to Polanski, rather than as a fact. Rossrs (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion in this matter. A sentence like the one you proposed seems fine. Urban XII (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So you think Polański's version of events should not be allowed here as it might prove offensive to his alleged victim. With an argument like that you could justify anything. You might just as well say that his alleged victim's version should not be allowed here as it might prove offensive to Polański!

Earlier today I posted a message to this page in which I quoted his account. It was, I believe, the first time his side of the story had been given here. But within an hour somebody deleted it on what seemed to me rather specious grounds. So here it is again:

Are any of you interested in Polański's side of the story? Or do you all prefer to get on your moral high horses and bay for the man's blood while ignoring the possibility that 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 under age? In his autobiography he describes what happened:
Then, very gently, I began to kiss and caress her. After this had gone on for some time, I led her over to the couch.
There was no doubt about Sandra's* experience and lack of inhibition. She spread herself and I entered her. She wasn't unresponsive. Yet, when I asked her softly if she was liking it, she resorted to her favorite expression: "It's all right."
While we were still making love, I heard a car in the driveway. It seemed to pass the house, so we carried on.
Suddenly, though, Sandra froze. The light on the phone had come on, which meant there was someone else in the house, making a call from another room. That stopped us both in our tracks, but it didn't suppress my desire for the girl. After whispering reassurances, Sandra gradually relaxed again. When it was all over, I opened the door a little and looked down the passage.†
That's it. He goes on to say he was "shocked and bewildered" the following day when he was arrested on a charge of rape.‡ Having admired his work for more than 30 years and having also read a good deal about him, I feel I know something about his character, his tastes and inclinations, though I have never had the privilege of meeting him. I do not believe he would do what he was accused of. And it is surely significant that in the whole of his 76 years no other woman, young or old, has ever accused him of molestation.
Though he was originally indicted on six counts – furnishing a controlled substance to a minor; committing a lewd or lascivious act; having unlawful sexual intercourse; perversion; sodomy; rape by use of drugs – the DA subsequently withdrew five of these charges, leaving only that of unlawful sexual intercourse. It was to this that Polański pleaded guilty.
Furthermore, since the girl was three weeks short of 14 at the time of the incident, Polański is no more a "child molester" (as some of you insist on dubbing him) than Edgar Allan Poe, Mayne Reid, Paul Gauguin, Charlie Chaplin or Oliver Reed, each of whom as a grown man either cohabited with or married a girl in her early or mid teens. Old goat might be a more fitting epithet. There is a world of difference. And some 13-year-old girls are enough to make an old goat – or a Polański – of any man.
Most disturbing of all is how some of you give every impression of wanting to be his executioner. Astonishingly, the same attitude is to be found in much of the recent press, radio and television coverage of the case. It is disagreeably reminiscent of the witch-hunts of centuries ago, the tricoteuses who sat round the guillotine, the persecution of Oscar Wilde, the Nazi thugs who rounded up the Jews and sent them on a one-way journey to the gas chambers. It is a sad intimation that man is still a vicious, apelike creature, that civilisation is only a veneer and that the lynch mob may one day come down the street to get you for being different from the herd.
* A pseudonym used in the book to protect Samantha Geimer's then still undisclosed identity.
Roman by Polanski (1984), p. 393.
‡ Ibid., p. 396.

alderbourne (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The part you quoted above, from before they were interrupted by Anjelica Huston, is recorded officially as occurring during the anal rape of the child. After this she placed her underwear back on and attempted to leave before Polanski prevented it and then raped her vaginally. These are the facts found by the court and for which he admitted to as he plead guilty. The child did not, "deserve it" - and the first hand self-serving version you quote above is unverified. (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll also add that Polanski's self-serving description of acquiescence while the 13 year old victim was drugged and under duress does not translate in any way as "consensual". (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes "consensual" is a bad word. I'm sorry, but I think these comments miss the point that I was asking for clarification about. I don't think this section needed to be reproduced here, but it's not helpful to dismiss it with " the first hand self-serving version you quote above is unverified". Whether it is true, false, or self-serving is not the point, and nobody is being asked to believe it. The point is that Polanski is accused of a crime and this is his written, published version of the event. It's not a question of verification. It represents only his words, it does not and can not represent his actions. My original comment was asking why a brief sentence that conveyed Polanski's version should have been removed. That's still a relevant question, but I don't think it helps to analyse the accuracy of his version by either supporting or disputing it. There is no disputing that these are the words published in his biography and attributed to him. Rossrs (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As we agree that he makes no claim it was consensual, how would you propose to specifically translate the Nabakov inspired version found above into the article? (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The short answer would be "carefully". I've already made a suggestion in my second comment in this section. "In his biography, Polanski briefly discussed the incident, and said that the girl had participated willingly." I think there is a difference between "willingly" and "not unwillingly", but if we're going to paraphrase him, the best we can hope for is a suitable word to convey his tone, rather than a completely accurate one. I don't know if this is the best way to say it, but I think it avoids the hearts and flowers of one viewpoint and the pitchforks and angry villagers of the other viewpoint. Rossrs (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Rossrs. Polanski's biographical comments are appropriate for inclusion and "willingly" seems to convey his intent. For those who are feeling particularly put out, I think that this can be viewed as supporting a neutral point of view. His comment can either confirm one's ill opinion of him, or allow consideration of the possibility that he really was completely oblivious. Wrongfully oblivious, but oblivious nonetheless.Oberonfitch (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I think "willingly" is as much a characterization as "consensual". I think we would do better by providing no characterization and including a brief quotation of his actual words: "She wasn't unresponsive. Yet, when I asked her softly if she was liking it, she resorted to her favorite expression: 'It's all right.'" Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Rossrs on this one. We should tread carefully and we should quote exactly and watch for inadvertent changes of meaning while summarizing his account, but we can't possibly not quote his account and still adhere to NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I cannot condone actual testimony and direct biographical quotes like the one above in this article. The quote above reads like something that would be found in Hustler, (does that date me?), or a trashy supermarket paperback. If someone wants to embrace the crime in totality, there are other, better, places to do that. Let us rise above the throngs who bandy about the details of this crime as though there were no consequence to doing so. There are innocent people, for example the perpetrator's and victim's minor children, who don't need another jab at their tender psyches. Wikipedia is considered (and working on this page has really made me question this), neutral and authoritative, and as such, it will be used in the future as a resource for such things as school reports. At this point, the only valid use of the article would be in quoting from the talk page as an example of the difficulties in working with such a volatile topic. Defending the right to know is fine. There is an entire future, when the subject has cooled, to consider what details belong and to adjust the article accordingly. It is currently warped by sensationalism and manipulation by the media, public figures and government officials. It would be nice to look back at this editorial experience and be able to say, "What we did was dignified. It respected the victim. We did not include the gruesome details just because everyone else was doing so."Oberonfitch (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not wallow in sensationalism and lurid details, but neither does it censor itself for school reports or delicate sensibilities. For Wikipeida to be, as you write, "neutral and authoritative", it must include the accounts of the participants. How we include it, what we quote, what wording we use, all this is negotiable, but we cannot exclude Polanski's account, or the victim's account, for any reason. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[redented for readability] To paraphase the above passage as "In his biography, Polanski briefly discussed the incident, and said that the girl had participated willingly" (emphasis added) is POV. "She wasn't unresponsive. Yet, when I asked her softly if she was liking it, she resorted to her favorite expression: 'It's all right.'" A double negative followed by a "yet" followed by a non-committal statement of acquiescence defies paraphrasing. If we must paraphase, we would be better off saying something like "In his biography, Polanski briefly discussed the incident and did not perceive any opposition to sex by the girl." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's no better because we don't know what Polanski "perceived". We only know what he wrote. We are not attempting to convey his true feelings on the subject, we are attempting to briefly say "Polanski said X". We're deciding what "X" is. Rossrs (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I did not say that the accounts should be excluded, I said that I didn't like the lifting of common speech. I think that summarizing is appropriate in this case. For example, this part:
We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".[35]
could be reduced by half:
In a 2003 interview, Geimer recalls that she was drinking champagne while Polanski photographed her. Towards the end of the session, she became uncomfortable when Polanski asked her to lie down on the bed, where the assault took place. Geimer states that she repeatedly asked the filmmaker to stop and that he did not.
and the suggestion to include his side:
Then, very gently, I began to kiss and caress her. After this had gone on for some time, I led her over to the couch.
There was no doubt about Sandra's* experience and lack of inhibition. She spread herself and I entered her. She wasn't unresponsive. Yet, when I asked her softly if she was liking it, she resorted to her favorite expression: "It's all right."
While we were still making love, I heard a car in the driveway. It seemed to pass the house, so we carried on.
I would suggest,:
Polanski, in his autobiography, describes the assault for which pleaded guilty as a consensual act. United States law does not allow for consensual sexual acts between those over the age of 18 and minors.

Oberonfitch (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated earlier, many editors are already on record as opposing the characterization of Polanski's auto-biographic retelling as "consensual". (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Fine, 99. Let's go with "In his biography, Polanski discussed the incident and did not perceive any opposition to sex by the girl," as suggested above. Works for me.Oberonfitch (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Per another comment I've made a little further up this page - we can't really say what Polanski perceived. We can only report on what he said, and acknowledging that his words were (most likely) very carefully chosen, after he'd had some time to consider how to present his version of events, any interpretation of his words, is risky. Maybe "In his biography, Polanski discussed the incident and contended that the girl did not resist him." It's bland and brief. Rossrs (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't get the same reading. But as Polanski's view is, I agree, required - how are secondary sources, notable and reliable ones, interpreting his view or opinion on the matter? We really should be looking there first and foremost. (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The man's claim of "consent" or "acquiesence" or "willing participation" is irrelevant when the girl was just 13. She could not consent, under the law in the jurisdiction. Edison (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course the man's claim is relevant in this encyclopedia entry - it just makes no legal difference vis a vis the crime he pleaded guilty to, which the article is and should be clear on. Rd232 talk 09:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Edison, we're discussing how to convey what Polanski said. We know the 13 year old couldn't consent etc. NPOV requires us to convey what he said without attaching a value judgement to his words. Nobody is being asked to believe or disbelieve him, but he has commented on the event, and reference to his comment is more than appropriate given that the article is about him. Rossrs (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase Mr Bumble, "If the law supposes that a 13-year-old girl cannot give her consent, the law is a ass – a idiot."

alderbourne (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. And again, we're discussing what to say about what Polanski said. Not whether or not a 13 year old can give consent. If you want to discuss that, please start a new section. Rossrs (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It's really a moot point, we can't state that it was consensual given the victims reliably documented statement, "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!". Also, given that the arrest was the next morning within hours of the child's return home, the article just wouldn't work if we were to find it suddenly "consensual". (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a moot point but we are not discussing whether it could have been consensual. That is another discussion entirely. We were discussing whether Polanski said it was consensual, and he didn't. Now we have moved from that point and are trying to summarize what he said. Only. Not what happened or could not have happened, or what is true or what is untrue, just what Polanski said. In this context, we can't use "consensual", not because it could not be, because this one aspect of discussion is not about what Geimer said. It's about what Polanski said only. One sentence. Rossrs (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Role of Anjelica Huston at house during crime

It's quite notable, verifiable and broadly referenced that Anjelica Huston was present at the house during the rape and saw the child briefly through a cracked door (More correctly, the victim is on record as having seen, but not known, Huston between two of the separately charged "counts"). Huston is also on record commenting on the incident and her conversation with the victim at the crime scene. Is there an argument as to why this well recorded fact is not notable for inclusion in the article? It does have prominent mention in her article. (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The "prominent mention" in the Huston article is gone. Just checked. Also, on the net although reported by ABC (via a copy of the transcript), most of the mumbling about Huston is being done by a solitary blogger and is being picked up and repeated. She was not listed as a co-defendant. It doesn't belong here.Oberonfitch (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it and the ref's from the multi-national sources [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] were removed just minutes after I mentioned the fact here - by an editor active on this page. Probably just a coincidence.... (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a coincidence at all. But nothing untoward, either. You mentioned it here so I went to look at the article to read the ref. It was unreferenced, so I took it out, per WP:BLP. You put it back with references, as is proper, and then, upon consideration, I felt that it was undue in her bio, removed it, and raised it on talk. I'm glad you added references, but I think there is a discussion worth having about its inclusion, as I have raised there. Anyway, it is irrelevant here - whether or not it is worth mentioning here has nothing to do with whether or not it is mentioned on Anjelica Huston. And on that second score, no, I don't think it is worth mentioning here, either, unless we have a more detailed discussion of the crime. - Bilby (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It's notable because it's been associated with her for over a quarter of a century and reported around the world. Hell, Jack Nicholson wasn't even there and his name is also deeply interwoven with it as well. At this point her presence may have even been reported, between 1977 and today, in every single news outlet in the US at least once - certainly in every western language and likely in one form or another on every nation on Earth.
It's a text book case of notability. Every bit of it, him, her, location, incident. It's an international cause célèbre.

Additional evidence of its notability from the dozens of books which prominently mention it: "In terms of his sexual tastes, Polanski, Huston told the cop, "Was a freak"."[57] This book also states that Polanski was taken by the DA and Police to Nicholsons home after he stated the girls accusation was "all a lie" only to have Huston torpedo him when she failed to back up his story. There exist numerous books discussing the subject.[58] Books about the Huston family, Nicholson, Crime, Cinema - all manner of titles (in addition to nearly every newspaper, magazine and TV channel) find it notable to mention Anjelica Huston in relation to the incident. (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Polanski. You may well have a point about this being important in relation to Huston, although I must politely disagree there, but this article isn't, at this stage, about the event itself. Huston's opinion of Polanski may be worth including. But her presence at the house seems to me to be of only peripheral interest in an article about Polanski and his actions, unless she played a bigger role than she did and had a direct impact on what occured. - Bilby (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The term "freak" has changed in meaning substantially in the past thirty years. I don't think that lifting the sentence, just because that is what a police officer said was said, can be considered linguistically sound. It is also obviously biased. What exactly would it mean if I said it or you said it? In all likelihood, two entirely different things.Oberonfitch (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
My argument is for inclusion of mention of Huston - not for a focus upon. Any excerpts provided and references to same are to establish notability. Polanski actually has blamed her for the mess, as she was a witness against him, and stated he's "no longer bitter" against her on this point. She is a notable figure and requires a mention. (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Page 150.[59] "But the really vital corroborative evidence Gunson had was not physical. It was the testimony of Anjelica Huston who would place Polanski in the bedroom with the girl." Remember, Polanski initially denied everything when picked up the next morning by the DA and Police. It was Huston that supported the charges. (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There really is no point in discussing this further. We cannot even hope to attain consensus if you (99) will not stop plowing through your library for titillating facts while refusing to respond to the concerns of other editors. I think your efforts, and I offer this as a kindly suggestion, would be well received in a criminal biography about Polanski. } You obviously have spent a great deal of time researching this subject and apparently have sufficient impetus and talent. Your wealth of information absolutely should be used to create an exhaustive analysis of the crime, flight,and extradition proceedings, and I would completely support your efforts if you were to do so.Oberonfitch (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, I'm only arguing for inclusion of a mention. The reliable source references are only presented in support of her notability in the matter. I take it that is no longer an issue here then? Notability of Huston has consensus in principle? (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Crime}

Proposed Edit ADD:Huston

Anjelica Huston was a witness for the prosecution at the 1977 trial [60]. Her testimony, in which she arrived unexpectedly at the residence she had just recently shared with Nicholson, was used to place Polanski definitively in the bedroom with the victim.

Acceptable? (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No. "Huston testified that she was present in Nicholson's residence during the assault, and placed Polanski in the bedroom with the victim."Oberonfitch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
No. I don't believe she warrants mentioning at all, simply because this article is not, and should not be, a detailed examination of all aspects of the case. - Bilby (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken reference

{{editprotected}} Reference 21 is broken. Original domain is down, referencing template use is wrong too. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - I've commented out the faulty ref for the time being - if it returns, or someone can find an alternative, please supply the code and it can be replaced. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please tidy


The hat-note should not appear in the middle of warning templates; but the best fix would be to comment out the latter three, temporarily-superfluous, templates while the protection warning is present. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - good idea, but I've left {{current}} in place as it doesn't request improvement. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Edit - Sex Crime Conviction - Summary

First off, it seems obvious that not including the victim's name at this point is a little like closing the barn doors after the horses have run off. Therefore, I propose that the name stays, especially as Geimer has written a book on the assault. I am not going to copy the links because it seems like a waste of time until we have some sort of consensus and then the whole thing needs fact checking.

Sex crime conviction
In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, arranged to photograph for the French edition of Vogue Magazine, 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). On March 10, 1977 at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles, Polanski and Geimer met for a second time.
In testimony and in interview she gave in 2003, Geimer recalled that she was drinking champagne while Polanski photographed her, and that she was offered, and took, the controlled substance (methaqualone), a sedative drug. Polanski asked her to lie down on the bed, where the assault took place. Geimer states that she repeatedly asked the filmmaker to stop and that he did not. Geimer testified that Polanski had, in the course of the assault, performed cunnilingus, vaginal intercourse and sodomy, for which he was charged. He was also charged with furnishing controlled substances to a minor. Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

In the sentence in the article that concerns the quote from Geimer that details what was done to her, there is a problem in that we have her referring to herself as "her." At the very least, that needs to be taken care of.Oberonfitch (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that this is Geimer herself publicly divulging the intimate details of the assault (i.e. not via a court document, but directly to the public in a published book)? If we can tie these details directly to such a public statement by Geimer herself, then I will be 100% satisfied that she has no expectation of privacy on the matter. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 22:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi WM. The quote concerning the 2003 interview is unusable as it links to an op-ed piece on Salon. However, I believe that the actual interview is contained on Polanski Wanted and Desired, which I will watch again this evening, in an attempt to verify that the victim did divulge. I do not have her book, perhaps someone else could follow up on that lead.
I am, however, somewhat optimistic that we may be reaching some consensus, and we could move on to the next section if other editors would care to voice their opinion on the draft above.Oberonfitch (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The above quote doesn't show that the victim has been relating the details, as it turns to the court transcript to provide them, and hence the "Giemer testified in court...". On the other hand, in CNN we have the unambiguous:
Geimer was particularly upset when prosecutors filed a fresh version of the entire 1977 grand jury transcript, replete with all the lurid details. "True as they may be, the continued publication of those details cause harm to me," she wrote in January. "I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney." [61]
I'm inclined to respect her recent wishes where the exacting details are concerned. - Bilby (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To Ed's in general: Please stop asserting that the victim has a book out. I see no reports to support any current or slated book. If there is one and I've missed it, please link to or note it's ISBN ... (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you 99, because this information was first entered into talk a couple of days ago, and was unfortunately not checked at that point. On the bright side, this caused me to uncover a serious problem with intermixing of sources. The article needs to be tossed AT ONCE. All the 2003 references are from an article that appeared in the Honolulu Star Bulletin. It is available in an archived format. This is the feed for the Salon article as well as the Times Online, and probably the source for a number of other quotes as well. I suggest an immediate reversion to a much earlier version that does not have sourcing problems, as this may actually be crossing the line between dumb mistakes and serious mistakes.Oberonfitch (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia deletes an article about a then 18 year old athlete, Allison Stokke , because it was judged that people took an inappropriate interest in a photo of her with athletic equipment, and she was entitled to privacy, how much more are we obligated to bow to the wishes of a woman who was drugged and raped as a 13 year old? Edison (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the current text, with sources and quotes. Urban XII (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but if the only source for these details is the victim's testimony, not a statement she made intended for publication, then she still has a right to privacy. If this were your sister we were talking about, I doubt you would be clamoring for divulging every dirty little detail on a high profile article on one of the widest-read web sites in the world. This is not a public person we are talking about, this is a private individual. She is somebody's sister, and somebody's mother. How would you like to get on the internet and read such things about your mother? She has a right to privacy, and we should respect it. I'm sorry to have to state it this way, but apparently some editors still aren't getting it, so it's time to bring it home. If your mother has a right to privacy, so does somebody else's mother. Let's make sure we handle this with some sensitivity, or at the very least, compliance with policy. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit

Is there a reason why the fully protected article preserves the disputed content added and edit warred back in by editors choosing to ignore WP:BRD procedure and WP:BLP policy in doing so? When protecting a page, particularly for a BLP-related dispute, is it not customary to roll the article back to the more neutral version (like this one)? I understand that erring on the side of caution is not necessarily taking sides in the dispute, but please, at least for now, can we roll back to this version? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 21:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And, if nothing else, take care of the quote, which was found in the Fox News link, ^ "Swiss Arrest Roman Polanski for Possible Extradition to U.S. in Sex Case - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment -". and is not correctly quoted. We have Geimer referring to herself in third person.Oberonfitch (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Here I thought the problem was editors ignoring the WP:PRESERVE policy. The BRD essay can't be used as an excuse to ignore our content policies, Wil. -- (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE states: In biographies of living people, there may be good reasons to disregard the imperative to preserve information, particularly when it may be harmful. Unsourced negative material concerning living people should be removed immediately (as stated in Wikipedia's policy on burden of evidence). It clearly does not trump BLP policy. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
And what was unsourced? -- (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
BLP policy 4.2 is about the privacy of private individuals, not about sourcing. If you had taken the time to read it, you would know that. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The current version is the stable compromise version, supported by tons of sources. It does not contain any controversial information to which the BLP policy applies. Stop POV pushing, Wilhelm meis. You started a revert war and because of that the article had to be protected. I don't see any BLP-related dispute. You cannot request to have the article reverted to your preferred version while it's protected. Urban XII (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can request, as can anyone, to have the article restored to a preferred version. I have stated my reasons for the request here, as anyone making such a request would have to. I can't believe I actually have to tell you this, but the current version is anything but a stable or compromise version. It is the version that includes information that was impeached here on the talk page on WP:BLP grounds as soon as it was added. There is absolutely no foundation in fact for your persistent claims that this version is or ever was stable. I have very clearly stated over and over again my specific reasons for BLP concern, and the only answer I have received (except for the perhaps accidental answer by Oberonfitch) has been your oft-repeated strawman argument that does nothing to contribute to this discussion. Your repeated strawman responses are beginning to sound a lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I am not the one who sought to edit war my POV into the article in direct contravention of policy. You clearly stated your intent to edit war material into the article in spite of BLP policy. You have been amply warned about BLP policy in this matter, and yet you have chosen to proceed recklessly without any regard whatsoever for the privacy of the victim of the crime. I have nothing more to say to you, as this boils down to the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument you have been making for the last four days. I only have one question I really want an honest answer on: why are you here? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The "intent to edit war" comment was made directly to me, and Urban you did say that you would continue reverting me until I gave up, while ignoring the comment I made, and restating your viewpoint. I interpreted that as you declaring the matter closed and I did feel like you were trying to bully me into submission. I'm prepared to have a good faith discussion, but that's not the kind of comment that encourages discussion, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed it. Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no stable version of this article at present at all. The article has been protected because it was unstable and revert wars were occuring. It was protected without endorsing the current version in any way. If a user thinks (as I do ) that a previous version is preferable they should open a section to see if there is consensus to revert to that version.Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Urban, you have made the same comment several times about it being "stable", but that's not the case. The article was protected because it is not stable. There are a lot of words I can think of to describe this article, but "stable" isn't one of them. The section that you are talking about, and that you describe as a compromise, was unstable by the very fact that a number of editors disputed it, and some reverted it. Other editors reverted back to their preferred version - that pattern of reverting content does not equal stability. Stable is when it sits there for some time without anyone raising any concerns. It's unfair to put the blame on Wilhelm and say that he started an edit war because one editor can't do that. You participated, I participated, other editors participated. It was not solely Wilhelm, and his "POV pushing" is no different to yours, except that you are at opposite sides of the issue. He's as entitled to say what he thinks as you are. A flurry of edits over the last few days has made this one of the most ridiculously unstable articles I've seen, and I've been here for a long time. Maybe protection was the only way that editors could take a step back, although I think it'll take more than a week for calm heads to prevail. Off2riorob is quite right about the "saved" version. When an article is protected, it is protected at its current state, except for obvious vandalism which might be reverted prior to protection. That it happened to be protected at this version isn't an endorsement, and although Wilhelm is entitled to ask for an earlier version to be restored, that's not the way it's done, and it would be wrong to make this article an exception. Rossrs (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Settlement with victim

There doesn't seem to be anything in the article about Polanski's settlement with the victim.[62][63]. I think it should be mentioned along with her quotes about how she's moved on. Superm401 - Talk 22:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, recommend it as a subhead.Oberonfitch (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree in part, only to mentioning settlement, any other comments are not necessary for the purpose of commenting on the settlement.--Charleenmerced Talk 16:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Errors - Vogue v. Vogue Hommes

Footnote 33 refers again to the Salon article, and is used to substantiate the claim that Polanski was shooting for French Vogue. He was shooting for the men's magazine Vogue Hommes according to Wanted and Desired (which should be cross checked against court transcript. Anyone got that?) When the article is reopened, this should be fixed.Oberonfitch (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. I don't believe the pretext has ever been substantiated, please look for corroboration. This event is well documented, a supporting citation as to the truth of the pretext - as opposed to the claimed pretext, should be available. (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Written documents > movies > something on on TV show, etc. See WP:RS. -- (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Reliable source supporting Vogue Hommes: [64]. Footnote 32 [65]), though not cited on this point, differs and supports Vogue.
Footnote 32 alone, also cited, seems to adequately support the other assertions citing footnote 33 for support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)using the article for support

I don't see verifiable support that an actual contract with Vogue to photograph the 13 year old victim actually existed. That he used the claim is not in dispute - only its basis in fact. Your first ref is an opinion piece and amongst other things states, "She and Polanski agree that sex took place, and that it was consensual". This inaccuracy puts all claims in doubt, especially as the opinion piece is not a neutral report, but a pointed work for Polanski. The second ref also fails to support the pretext as having been genuine. Honestly though, it may not be germane to this article as long as we are not trying to claim that Vogue was genuinely involved, even peripherally. (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

99, I did not find any contradictory statements that he was not working on the magazine, which I would expect to find if the point was in contention. He had a prior history photographing for VH. I have placed an edit request below. It is very stripped down, but reflects the problems that both of us have uncovered.Oberonfitch (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
As no pictures for Vogue were ever taken, we have no confirmation of Polanski's pretextual ruse that a contract for the 13 year old victim existed. We know only that he used it as a pretense to separate the child from her mother for the day and that the "shoot" had no staff or assistants involved at any stage, was done in a home, not studio, involved a topless child, drugs,,,etc. A reliable source confirming Vogue's actual involvement is required before we can put the Wiki imprimatur on such a contentious, unverified and patently unlikely "fact" in the article. (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
First off, many rolls of film were taken. They weren't used, for obvious reasons. Secondly, although I was unable to find anything earlier because the New York Times archives start at 1981, I did find the following quote from a book review article in the NYT which was, at that time, considered a reliable source. From Holocaust to Hollywood, dated January 22, 1984;
Having completed in the Seychelles a picture story featuring Miss Kinski for the French Vogue, Mr. Polanski was commissioned by Vogue Hommes to take photographs of adolescent girls. He confesses to carnal knowledge of a 13-year-old girl whom he was photographing in Jack Nicholson's house during the actor's absence. Within a day he would be charged with statutory rape.
This, I believe, covers us from any potential problem with the Vogue Hommes reference.

Oberonfitch (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} Please put the protection template {{pp-semi-blp|small=yes}} in remark tags <!-- -->, because the protection level of the template is now full protection, and this causes an error category. Debresser (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What? Categories look OK to me. -- (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done - duplicate pp template "hidden" Skier Dude (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The previous user might not have seen the hidden error category, since he is not a registered user. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


  • There should be an article.
  • Her name is, now, known, as are various factors.
  • I do feel that, in many cases, to refer, in a celebrity article, whether entertainment, political, education, science, or whatever, to another person, who has a credible claim, in whatever sense, to being a victim, in whatever context, that if an article can be substantiated, then that person does deserve @ least that much, otherwise, that person is left as a wiki victim, as well as the victim of whatever they perceive to have been the previous complaint[s].
  • Every person deserves @ least that respect.

[[ hopiakutaPlease do sign your communiqué.~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 02:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} -- (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a non-notable person, known only for one event. See WP:BLP1E. Likely to be deleted in WP:AFD if such an article were created. Rape victims or victims generally do not get encyclopedia articles. We deleted an article about an 18 year old female athlete, Allison Stokke, because some felt there was inappropriate prurient interest in a widely publicized photo of her. Clearly, there is greater need to protect a female who, when 13, was drugged, raped and sodomized. Edison (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My response had been, prior to your several changes:

Okay, but, that is why I had made the comment; therefore, my belief, my motive, & my assertion, remain intact.

Then, w/ the addition:

So, now, whoever that is, has even less dignity in being listed in random comment pages,.... Such improvement,.... [not].

[[ hopiakutaPlease do sign your communiqué.~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 04:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Geimer has clearly said that the media attention caused her more harm than the sex assault. She also has said that she does not want to deal with this anymore. We have links to at least one published interview in which she states this in the article at this time. I think from those interviews, we can extrapolate that she does not want to be honored with her own Wiki page. And, qualifies as a non-notable. I do, however, believe we can use her name not because everyone else is, but because of the number of interviews she has agreed to in the intervening years. Best intentions and all of that.Oberonfitch (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding using her name, the horse is clearly out of the barn. But beyond that, as Oberonfitch says, there is sufficient reason to believe that there is an expectation of privacy on her part, regarding the intimate details of the rape (which is her only claim to WP:Notability). I would also point out that WP:BLP, particularly section 4.2, has quite a bit to say about this. In summary, we must presume in favor of the privacy of a private individual. Polanski is clearly not a private individual with a legitimate claim to privacy, but Ms. Geimer clearly is. We should respect her privacy. It is also policy that we do so. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding horses out the barn, the fact that Roman Polanski raped a 13-year old by the use of drugs, performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her, is equally (or even more) out the barn. The best way to protect her privacy would be to remove her name. Removing the description of the nature of Polanski's crimes only serves to protect Polanski, the perpetrator. Urban XII (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Wilhelm, as I state below, I am very concerned about possibly litigious aspects of the article in its current state, and I am hoping that an admin comes by and temporarily fixes the paragraph that appears to have been lifted. Regarding the claim of privacy, (admittedly I lean towards a conservative approach), would it be preferable to subtract the individual sexual acts as well, in the event that the edit is placed, and then continue to work towards consensus? I, admittedly, don't know how this works.Oberonfitch (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:BLP, the onus is on the editor advocating inclusion to provide evidence that the inclusion of disputed material is in compliance with BLP policy (i.e. does not open WMF up to potential litigation for libel or invading the privacy of an individual who is not a person of public notice). In this case, the disputed material involves the details of a sexual assault regarding the privacy of the victim of the assault. So by BLP policy, those seeking to include these details must provide evidence that either the victim is not a private person, or that she has forfeited her expectation of privacy in this matter (i.e. if she has made a public statement in an interview, a published biography, etc.). You are quite right that this article has serious BLP concerns. Contrary to assumptions of bad faith by some editors, my sole purpose on this talk page and this article is to urge compliance with BLP policy. I might point out to certain other editors that WP:BLP does not require compromise or consensus, but absolute adherence, including the procedural aspect of supporting inclusion before simply reverting controversial material back into the article. These editors know who they are. They have been warned. In short, policy demands that the more conservative revision be restored until consensus can be established that the inclusion does not violate BLP policy. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 16:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Entertainment | Roman Polanski detained in Zurich". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-09-27. 
  2. ^ "Polanski joins French elite". 16 December, 1999. Retrieved 25 January 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Polanski Libel Case Roman Polanski BBC Radio 4's Law in Action was broadcast on Friday, 19 November 2004 at 1600 GMT". BBC. 19 November, 2004. Retrieved 2009-09-14.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Zurich Film Festival: A tribute to Roman Polanski Night postponed". Retrieved 27 September 2009. 
  5. ^ "Profile: Tumultuous Polanski always in spotlight". Retrieved 27 September 2009. 
  6. ^ "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired". Retrieved 25 January 2009. 
  7. ^ "Entertainment | Roman Polanski detained in Zurich". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-09-27. 
  8. ^ "Polanski joins French elite". 16 December, 1999. Retrieved 25 January 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ "Polanski Libel Case Roman Polanski BBC Radio 4's Law in Action was broadcast on Friday, 19 November 2004 at 1600 GMT". BBC. 19 November, 2004. Retrieved 2009-09-14.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ "Zurich Film Festival: A tribute to Roman Polanski Night postponed". Retrieved 27 September 2009. 
  11. ^ "Profile: Tumultuous Polanski always in spotlight". Retrieved 27 September 2009. 
  12. ^ "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired". Retrieved 25 January 2009. 
  13. ^ Leaming, Barbera Polanski, A Biography: The Filmmaker as Voyeur, New York: Simon and Schuster. 1981. 155
  14. ^ Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Dir. Marina Zenovich. HBO, 2008.
  15. ^,8599,1706557,00.html
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^ Roman by Polanski (1984), p. 393."