Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Edits re: medical examination info from primary

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO, I AM VERY LAZY!. I just closed it, so lemme find it again. [1] This is the reference that is used, its the motion to dismiss from last year. Watch out, its a PDF, its VERY long, and its is just scanned, so you can't search for text. The medical information is in the probation report, which is one of the exhibits. WookMuff (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Here See [2], pp. 80–81...Page 80-81 you don't have to read it all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but not:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   A. I can barely remember anything that happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Young girls" interview

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

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

The article currently includes=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A tad undue/unbalanced etc.

Resolved

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

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

Poland/Soviet history mentions

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

My edit summary was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see also [[3]]--Jacurek (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polanski's life includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please continue discussion (except current responses) in fresh subsection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invasion of Poland phrasing

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

Re: "From the beginning, the German government repeatedly asked Joseph Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov to act upon the August agreement and attack Poland from the east" This phrase from another WP article [4] is supposed to be supported by the document from the Avalon project[5]. However, this document (von Schulenburg's telegram), as well as other Avalon documents, is a primary source, so it can be only quoted. No interpretations of primary sources are allowed in WP.

Below is a full text of this telegram:

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

SCHULENBURG"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Abram Schlimper Do you assert:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Proofreader77You are most welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your position has problems on at least three levels:

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

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

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

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

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

Film school (under communism?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collapsing edits-made-during-discussion contention notes

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

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

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

Early life from Martin Amis interview

After the war he was reunited with his father

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

Here is what Amis has:

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

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

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

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

• Cronin, Paul; Polanski, Roman (2005). Roman Polanski: interviews. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. p. xv. ISBN 978-1-57806-800-5. Retrieved 2009-09-29. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Invalid |nopp=211 (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Amis, Martin (1994). Visiting Mrs Nabokov and Other Excursions. London: Penguin Books. pp. 246–254. ISBN 0140238581.

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

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

Amis interview quote removed(?)

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

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

Extradition request ?

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

Removal of citations and references to reliable sources

Anyone reading this.....knows about the controversies related to this Wikipedia entry. For anyone to contribute to the Polanski entry, they have needed to reference and cite from reliable sources, up the proverbial ying yang. In fact because of the Documentary and the various contentions of fact, contributors have felt it necessary to give two or more unique citations for individual lines of entry. While this is a burden for contribution, it is what it is.I am suggesting and urging that removal of multiple unique citations and references be stopped. Removing the multiple citations in now way helps this Wikipedia entry. As we are electronic, nothing is saved or gained by their removal. Specifically there was a removal of citations which were considered duplicative by one individual. The problem with their removal, was that these were citations back to original Probation Report and Grand Jury testimony (copies of the originals unedited). So as long as the references are to unique reliable sources, I believe all the citations should remain, instead of being removed and pared down. Is there any reason why this manner of course should not be followed? --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refimprove restored - lost in the edit warring after the arrest

Please leave the refimprove flag up. Much of this article is woefully undersourced. The flag may conceivably encourage editors to fill in some of the sourcing. - Sinneed 04:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy comment removed yet again without explanation

Please see the archives if interested. The sources flag has been removed repeatedly, and the article remains massively composed of wp:OR. Indeed, some of the no-longer-listed-as-such Main Articles are entirely devoid of sources. While some of the article profited from the attention and edit warring following the arrest, the article remains woefully undersourced. Please leave the comment in, to support leaving the article flag in.- Sinneed 16:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As for a wp guideline to support its inclusion, I submit wp:IAR: It is smart, harms nothing, and had the article flag and comment stayed in during the edit war, literally hundreds of thousands of potential editors might have been motivated to contribute... but the tag and comment were removed repeatedly.- Sinneed 16:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did explain once I realized that that lengthy hidden comment was intended for the {{BLPrefimprove}} tag that was already there. I've only removed it once but if other folks have also removed it it would seem there is opposition to it being there. IMHO, it should be removed altogether along with the refimprove tag. If you think the article has OR concerns use that clean-up tag instead and back it up with actionable criticisms that other editors can address if you're not going to do it. {{BLPrefimprove}} implies the article has a shortage of refs which arguably every article does - but the clean-up tags for more refs seems contradictory to the dozens of refs on the article. Lack of refs does not seem to be a big issue - WP:Original research is the stated concern. Use that clean-up tag so we are clearly communicating the clean-up issue to be addressed. -- Banjeboi 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Hmm. Refimprove is ... to provide references for unreferenced material... otherwise known as original research. The flag was removed during the edit wars, when the article was locked over and over again. I think the article will be fine without the unreferenced content, and now that most of the "real" (IMO) content has refs, I'll be happy to simply murder the unsourced bits. Before, doing so would have left an article with only a few sentences.- Sinneed 22:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC) We originally added the comment (should be in he archives, but it was a bloodbath here... I simply dropped it from my watchlist during the carnage) because people would flag 1 or 2 items in the article... a new editor would come along and fix those, and drop the flag... they did not know what the article flag was for. The alternatives seem to be:

• admit we just can't have a well-sourced encyclopedia and give up, (or simply not see the massive shortage of sources and declare victory)
• have the flag in,
• massively over-flag the article, which is generally pointless, as it simply makes the article hard to read,
• drop the OR and aggressively push for sourcing. Because the subject figure is so very contentious, this is a very great deal of work,

and it seems best simply to leave the flag up up so readers will know the article is undersourced, and interested editors will be encouraged to source things. Much of the OR in the article should be covered in his biographies or autobiography and the many many weak sources of comment on the movies.- Sinneed 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, just in case this sounds like wp:POINT, I had previously tried 2 times to stub the article up (all it would have been at the time), but simply could not bring myself to throw it out. At the time (archives maybe) there were no objections, and there was some support.- Sinneed 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there is obviously more activity now so perhaps a judicious cleansing could be systematically enacted. The adding refs tag seems misused here, it's being removed and misunderstood - that's not helping and the large hidden text is certainly not working.

(i) Let's look at developing a Wikipedia:Editnotice for anyone who is editing the article and reference both OR and quality sourcing concerns - and perhaps Undue. To me that tag says we need more - not that we have OR problems, I did get that at all until you explained it here.

(ii) Is there OR concerns that warrant the OR clean-up tag? If so maybe start a new section, "Original research" concerns. And list actionable items that need to be fixed one way or another. IMHO, it's smartest to start with both the worst offenders and easily fixable items. As the current events are likely to unfold over the next few weeks if not months we likely will have others drop in who may be able to help.

(iii) Start a process of adding fact tags - I suggest a few at a time - when they are resolved move on to the next items most needing sourcing.

Does this seem like a workable plan? -- Banjeboi 11:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

i, ii, iii - Go for it... while leaving the refimprove flag up, if you would. It harms nothing and at worst looks ugly.- Sinneed 13:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Geimer / Gailey

What is going on with the name changing? I thought we used the most well known name? Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If talking about her when she was 13, you use what her name was at that time. And Google gets the most results for that also. And that's the name listed in the police and court records and newspaper articles at that time. Dream Focus 17:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, later it goes on to say that she sued polanski and now that name is wrong, google results mean smultz. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC) I suggest we stick to the name she has now and use, as in other articles nee Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as the discussion is launched ... is she actually notable for anything but this case? If not we likely should drop the name altogether per WP:BLP and let those interested in finding her identity dig on their own. -- Banjeboi 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to do that, she has exposed her own identiity as she was protected by law and she self revealed and she has activly sought notability and made money from her fame, I don't think she needs protecting under BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

She wrote a book about this or did interviews in publications or what? -- Banjeboi 18:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't push me for the exact details, I will look but perhaps people who are more on the ball have a few links, I read here and could find the citation that she self exposed, and she clearly has done paid interviews about the story, about a book, I am unsure, does anyone know? Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, she was anonymous until 1997. At that point she was interviewed on Inside Edition. She had previously been interviewed, but in those she remained anonymous, and subsequent interviews have been under her married name. I am not aware of her being paid for any interviews, but that could be possible, and I'm certainly not aware of any books.

Just as a personal opinion, I do know she's stated that continued coverage is distressing, and given that this is the only thing she's known for, I can't see any encyclopedic value in mentioning her by name and some potential for this to be a WP:BLP1E violation. There's no way she's going to disappear into anonymity, so I can understand that there's no pressing need to remove her name, but I'd lean towards leaving her name out of this article just out of politeness. - Bilby (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as a WP:BLP problem because, however it happened, her name is now a matter of public record, but I also see that it's not essential for encyclopedic purposes, to use her name. I think you make an excellent point - we can choose to avoid using it simply because it's the right thing to do. Politeness, sensitivity, compassion, recognising her distress.... all are good reasons. We don't have to make ourselves part of the process that adds to her distress. Rossrs (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of the name is a clear BLP violation and there is no need for an encyclopedia to use it, it adds absolutely nothing to the article. We only need to state her age at the time. Urban XII (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The moon is clearly made of cheese WP:CHEESE No it's not. Perhaps we can refer to her as the elephant in the room. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making disruptive comments. This talk page is intended for the purpose of discussing improvements to the Roman Polanski article. Urban XII (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a little light hearted humour is hardly disruptive. The humour changes nothing, you are mistaken when you say here that in this situation any BLP protection applies. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is, what name is to be used, there is confusion in the article with two names, this is not correct, I would like some input from people experienced in this type of situation. I suggest using the original name and nee and the married name. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a similar example, but WP:MOSBIO has this to say about use of name in an article about that person. (I don't think it would be wrong to also apply it to use of name of a person in an article about another person.) It says "A woman, like all other biographical entrants, should be referred to by her most common name, and that would not necessarily involve using her husband's surname." Her degree of notability resulted from events that occurred when she was named Geimer. Susan Atkins is referred to as "Atkins" throughout her article, although by the time she was making news for parole applications rather than committing murders, her surname was "Whitehouse". The primary notability and the events that made news after Geimer's name change could be handled similarly here. Also, there is absolutely no BLP issue in using either of her names. WP:BLP says "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." She has identified herself in public several times so it's too late to say her name should be withheld to maintain her privacy. How her case is described while meeting BLP requirements is another matter, and should be/has been discussed seperately. Rossrs (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think her married name should be used because otherwise it might potentially be confusing for people looking for more information on the case. She has already revealed her married name to the media, so I can't see a problem with it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Rossr, and for the opinion Gato...So...married name? Off2riorob (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Thank you all for offering opinions. It seems likely that her name is not secret by any means by to our purposes here it adds nothing of encyclopedic value and we believe that the case and her association brings her stress. Years ago when Wikipedia was just another website this was less of an issue but as we are the world's encyclopedia and hover atop on websearches it would seem WP:DONOHARM would apply. That is, what we write here affects people's real lives. As far as our readers are concerned the article remains about Polanski and whoever the girl was is irrelevant. Especially if we are now presenting her as a drug using teenager who slept around before the incident. I think we need to leave the name off but if there is still sharp disagreement we could ask for more eyes on the issue to see if there is consensus. -- Banjeboi 10:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps the BLP noticeboard would be a better place to attract more eyes? How do you suggest refering to her? Miss X? the victim? Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  Her name is used four times and each would be handled separately. Simply remove the name and see what need to be inserted to make the sentence work best. -- Banjeboi 18:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Her name is used about 16 times in the other article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The other article needs a lot of work but the same principal applies. There is a presumption in favour of privacy. There seems to be consensus that it adds nothing and we believe it causes her stress. -- Banjeboi 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to remove her name, if you want to, as I said, see what the wiki opinion is at the BLP noticeboard. It is a big issue and would need a bit more attention. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds as though you still think it should stay, right? Can you explain the encyclopedic value that name adds so we at least know what your reasoning is? -- Banjeboi 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I do think it should stay, I have already said that she had protection and she self revealed, and has given enuf paid interviews and what would wikipedia want to be the only place on the earth that does not include the name of this person? I am far from being a BLP expert but I don't think that removing her name is the point here, we have protected her as is clear by reading the article here, it is written conservativly and with respect for both the victim and polanski, I can't say about the other article, that looks a lot worse than this Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

She should be referred to a "a 13-girl old girl" and subsequently as ""the victim" or similar. Urban XII (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Geimer / Gailey is a public figure with regards to this specific matter. She has granted numerous interviews on the topic, she was featured in the documentary, and she is an active participant in attempting to get the charges dismissed against Polanski. She also sued Polanski in an open civil court case on this matter. Please examine the case in specific, she is a public figure. She is actively engage in this topic, openly and publically, and has a civil settlement with Polanski. The is an abundance of editors trying to white wash and remove what this pedophile has done. "A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter" --75.62.248.57 (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that editors here are trying to whitewash anything, nor do I see anyone saying we must remove her name according to policy. What I do see is several editors suggesting that we should remove her name out of politeness and erring on the side of the victim's privacy, in the spirit of BLP policy. I agree with exposing Polanski's crime without further humiliating the victim, so if choosing to omit her name may help us do so, I say let's do it. That also avoids all this confusion over which name to use. As for removing it from the other article, that is a whole other matter, to be discussed on that talk page. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 08:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a polite policy. Well, correct me if I am wrong but if her name was to be removed here as a BLP protection then her name would be fair game to be removed from any mention on the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually we do - we err in the spirit of BLP and that seems to main issue here. I'm quite concerned as we seem to be digging into that she was a sexually active, drug using pre-teen. even though the content may be true there seems little value to adding her actual name. If she was married or in the family of folks who championed strong family values or something a case could be made the tension there. The actual name just doesn't seem to add anything and it seems it causes some real world harm to someone. That is contrary to our goals. -- Banjeboi 11:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns on that issue are unfounded, the article is well written and in no way demeans the woman, there has been here a strong energy to portray polanski as a terrible monster and the comments about the woman, are her factual statements and have been raised in an effort to resist this, the comments are from the victim herself and have not been included as far as I know at any point. I will resist strongly any attempt to remove her name as a BLP protection. Off2riorob (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other points, if there is stated opposition perhaps we should follow your suggestion to seek other eyes. -- Banjeboi 12:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

At risk of repeating myself, I don't see anybody saying that BLP policy states we must remove her name, but that is what Off2riorob is arguing against even though no one is arguing for it. What I do see is a consensus developing that perhaps we should (not must, but should) exercise our editorial option to omit her name, since it is not used extensively, is not essential to the article, and is confusing to the reader (she was Gailey at the time, but now she's Geimer, so which name should be used?). So again, it looks to me like a viable option that we may choose to omit her name, and there does appear to be support for that. If I may ask, Off2riorob, since you seem to be strongly opposed to omitting her name for any reason, why do you feel so strongly that her name is essential to the article? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 07:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Geimer attended in a very public way, the premier of the Documentary, which included granted interviews she granted. So it was clearly her own choice is to associate her name now to these current matters. See http://www.life.com/image/82287961 Because of this I feel strongly that her name should and can be used for this Wikipedia entry, as she is currently active publicly, and filing court papers, today, on the same subject matter as it remains in present time.

However I sharply disagree with those like Off2riorob, who want to insert accusations of her character prior to the rape.

SEE:

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

Mud raking like this is not allowed in a court of law and should not be advocated for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, such comments cannot be tolerated, neither in articles nor on talk pages. BLP violations like that should be removed and the user banned. Also note that alleged previous sex history of the victim is legally (not to say morally) completely irrelevant to the Roman Polanski case, and not a matter of public interest. It's forbidden to drug and rape children, final stop. It doesn't matter if she had sex before. A middle-aged man knows that. By harassing and defaming a victim of pedophile abuse, and showing such disrespect for the BLP policy, the user who made the appalling comment (as well as several others with the same tendency) has made it evident to me why he has engaged in such aggressive POV pushing in Roman Polanski related articles, as well as disruptive attacks and stalking of those editors who believe pedophile abuse is a serious crime, as most recently demonstrated above. Urban XII (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There obviously is consensus to remove the name from the article, whether it is for BLP reasons or just for politeness and encyclopedic appropriateness (this is an encyclopedia and not The Sun as a certain user who fancies elephants seems to believe). It certainly can be argued that it is a BLP violation and should at least be removed until this issue has been clarified and evidence presented that it is not a BLP violation. I suggest we just go ahead. Urban XII (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would still argue that she has put her name out there publicly with regards to Polanski, granting interviews, doing the documentary, and even taking pictures on the red carpet at the premier in New York. Recently she has made remarks to the press, concerning her views on his arrest and possible outcomes. I basically think the horse has already jumped the fence, with regards to her name, it being her choice...when she was an adult. If Wikipedia needs to enforce BLP uniformity....I would not object. --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical treatment (news)

Polanski medical care? [6] Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This probably should be covered first in Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a report today that bail has again been refused? Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[7] a comment could be added? Off2riorob (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Polanskis lawyers to appeal [8]

The issue here is simply that incremental recent events should be added to the sub-article (if for no other reason than that no one will add it there:). Then there will be something to summarize here. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I never go to the other article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No comment. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So refreshing, a sense of humor.  :)Oberonfitch (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Geimer quote regarding Polanski, not view on case

Added this edit:

Speaking in 2005, Geimer said, "Polanski is a very arrogant, self-important, creepy old man" and "He took sex from me and my innocence. I don't think it occurred to him that someone wouldn't want sex with him."[9]

As it is her take on the Article's subject, this is the appropriate place.99.135.170.179 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This kind of quote does not belong in the summary. (She has said many things—including the matter should be dropped.) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What "kind of quote" is this? Your objection is hardly the basis for opposing such an informative quote on how the subject is viewed as opposed to the crime. Her opinion on the subject himself is quite notable.99.135.170.179 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You should be using talk page to gain support before adding something like this. This does not further attempts to create a NPOV summary of events. It's not her "take" on the subject, but rather it is a couple of comments she has made, among many comments she has made about Polanski and about the impact the overall series of events has had on her life. To hand-pick one or two quotes because they convey a certain attitude tips the balance. Why these particular comments? I notice there is nothing about what Polanski has said and considering this article is about him, that's a major omission, made even more major by now giving Geimer's viewpoint more emphasis than Polanskis. We don't even bother to say "Polanski has disputed Geimer's version of events", which would not equate to Wikipedia endorsing his viewpoint, and which is totally different to him denying the charges. A lot of good work has been done to give the article a degree of neutrality, but this takes it back in the opposite direction. Rossrs (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, additions like this are very poor, I have given this IP 99 a warning regarding this edit, he has already reverted 3 times, the edit is very poor and should be removed and discussed here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The goal of Neutrality is an honest article, not a whitewash or fanboy glorification in which apologists absolve a personal favorite.99.135.170.179 (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

While not necessarily agreeing with the edit being discussed, Off2riorob is hardly in a position to give any editors "warnings" for such additions, considering his own grossly inappropriate and libellous edits, as discussed above. Compared to Off2riorob, this particular quote by the victim is not a big issue.Urban XII (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not the substance of the quote that earned the warning, but the fact that the IP added the information to the article and then reverted 3 times, even though at least one editor challenged it, and anyone who does that is likely to receive a warning. WP:3RR addresses editorial behaviour more than editorial content. I haven't checked every one of the gazillion edits that have been made to the article recently, but although I notice Off2riorob making comments on this talk page, I don't see him forcing content into the article against the protests of other editors. He hasn't lost his right to participate in this discussion or to interract with other editors simply because he's expressed a viewpoint that you disapprove of, even if you disapprove strongly. Rossrs (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That should be in the side article for the sex abuse case. I don't think the summary needs it in this article. Dream Focus 04:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As always, 99.x.x.x's skillful casting of guileless aspersions toward the deep still waters of those with whom he disagrees — while never setting the hook — is noted for the record. (A documentary fact which will surely cost him or her many a sleepless night, no doubt. ;) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The goal of neutrality is balance. There is also a tendency to attack the editor rather than addressing the comments, and it's very easy to cry "whitewash" and "fanboy glorification" without even bothering to explain how that is the case. A persuasive argument is probably too much to hope for. Comment on the article and leave the comments about the editors out of it. Everyone should be over their shock by now and calmly discussing the article, and this name-calling is becoming very tedious. Rossrs (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Awards and nominations section

Would a section make sense for this? -- Banjeboi 22:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be appropriate given that he's achieved recognition from various organisations for several different films as well as "lifetime achievement" type awards. Would you consider working it into the filmography table as is done with some actor articles, with a summary? The table is currently all about the Academy Awards. Or, are you thinking of a stand-alone section such as in the Steven Spielberg article? Rossrs (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at the article again.... His earlier film work includes references to awards as they were given, and that's fine. Then at the end of the career section is a "later work and honours" section, which implies (to me at least) career honours, although some of it is specifically for The Pianist. I think that problem is easily solved by changing the header, but it still could do with some organisation of information. Rossrs (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be an actual list and could be a subsection under Filmography, in part so we only add nominations and awards in the text if it actually is needed there; just as we don't write about film, only the ones we need to. The list can be complete but the text does not need to be - and likely shouldn't be - exhaustive. -- Banjeboi 15:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, but can you think of an example of an article that uses a similar format? I'd like to see what it looks like. Rossrs (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Heath Ledger is a bit much but the table means well noting the date, nominating group, work and if they won. -- Banjeboi 15:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Change of "Manson murders" (section title) to "Tate's murder"

Noting change of title (and while surveying ... also noting earlier streamlining of that section in wake of current events)—without comment, for the moment. [Broadband connection problems] Proofreader77 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it needs to be noted but if looking for the reasoning it's because the section wasn't about the Manson murders but about Tate's murder. I also wonder if it would make sense to note how widely publicized the events were and the movies made about the events. -- Banjeboi 09:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the section title could be more specific so that if looked at only in the ToC, it would be clear. "Murder of Sharon Tate" perhaps. "Tate's murder" is accurate, but I think it's a little too "short-hand" for a section title, and it also assumes that someone randomly skimming the article knows who Tate was. Rossrs (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It lacks context. The murder was one of the most publicized and reviled crimes of modern times and Polanski was right at the centre of it, ever so briefly, so yes, I think that placing the murder case into its historical context, would also place Polanski into his historical context in relation to it. I think his marriage to Tate, her murder, and the aftermath are all given perfunctory treatment. I would not support any major expansion - as others have noted, Manson and Tate have their own articles - but those aspects that are relevant to Polanski should be included. I can't imagine it would take more than a few sentences. As for the movies about the murders, no I don't think they need to be mentioned. They are not relevant to Polanski. His MacBeth is described as a reaction to the murders, and Tess is mentioned as having been dedicated to Tate, and I think that suffices. I notice that, as in the rape case, nothing of Polanski's viewpoint is given in the Vanity Fair case. He made a statement saying that he was acting to protect Tate's memory, and I think it's relevant that he said it. It would take one sentence to give that section a degree of balance, as it is currently all about the accusation even though he won that particular case. Rossrs (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, please do not interrupt someone else's post with yours as it misrepresents the flow of the thread and makes it harder to follow the exchange of ideas. To be more clear "Wife murdered" or something that is less ambiguous that he killed her would be nice. As long as we remain accurate however I'm not terribly bothered. A bit more detail would be good I think, I imagine the news was nearly inescapable for months and then the trial dredged it all up again for a few more rounds. -- Banjeboi 14:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend to interrupt your post. Thank you for fixing it, although now it looks like I was replying to you. It never occurred to me that "Tate's murder" could imply Polanski killed her, but "wife murdered" doesn't work either as he's had more than one wife. It's awkward, but not a major point. You're right in saying the news was nearly inescapable for months, and it's never really gone away. The only murder case I can think of that had more coverage or incited more strong feeling would be O.J. The case was more relevant to Polanski, than Polanski was to the case. Rossrs (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted for later rhetorical and statistical analysis of edits since current events

As the second sentence says:

“ Polanski had been at his house in London at the time of the murders ... ”

But will address this in the broader context of changes since arrest (in due time). Proofreader77 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems? with sources

I took a look at footnote 14, which leads to a b c d e "The religion of director Roman Polanski". Adherents.com. Retrieved 2009-08-07. (Sorry, I don't know yet how to do the footnote trick. Perhaps one of the kindly editors on this page will send me directions?) Anyway...That link is a transcription of Polanski's autobiography, but is full of typos. I don't see how using that is better than using the autobiography itself. (If it is full of typos, is it full of omissions as well?) I understand the primary versus secondary sources, but this would seem to undermine the purpose. Thoughts?Oberonfitch (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

footnote 14.... Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks rubbish to me here , what is it supporting? abcd? Its some web place with what they say are extracts from polanski's book. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Off2, so do we go directly to the book, or take it out until we can find something better?Oberonfitch (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is all that secondary sources and primary stuff, It is imo a very weak place to cite to, not a wp reliable source, lets wait and see what more experienced editors say, recently an editor mentioned the weakness of the citation here, there is a reliable source noticeboard where it is easy to ask ..is this a wp reliable source, if there is no feedback here a simple question there will yield an answer, imo it is not a WP:RS actually I can't even tell what it is actually supporting. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No question here, we should use the book itself. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if you are experienced enuf, go ahead and change to that, thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone with the autobiography should make the changes since we should be citing specific pages. Gamaliel (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If no one else has it, I'll see if I can get a copy.Oberonfitch (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If the cite if not wp reliable and we can not replace it, it should be removed for the time being. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked around on the web for another quote from something resembling a reputable source, and couldn't find it. I am ordering the book. I am also removing the quote for the time being, as per this discussion. impossible to remove quote as the same link is used multiple times for each reference to the autobiography. Oberonfitch (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the book. If there's anything you want me to check, let me know. Rossrs (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea was to remove the link to the site as it isn't wiki RS and replace the citation with just the book reference. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rossrs, there are I think 4 or 5 places where the bad link is cited. If you could look those up, it would be great to get them fixed. Oberonfitch (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've updated all of them, except for this "In his autobiography, Polanski wrote: "I had a great admiration for American institutions and regarded the United States as the only truly democratic country in the world." I can't find it in the biography where it is supposed to be, but the comment is so wildly out of context in the article that I wonder if it should be removed completely. If you've ordered the book, I think you'll find it useful. There is a lot of info about his early life and film work that can be used to support much of what's been written. Rossrs (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

<---Thanks, Rossrs, I am waiting for book to arrive from Amazon. Appreciate the time you spent fixing the article. I think the above quote should come out if you can't find it; you know, while its flattering and all, it might never have been uttered.  :)Oberonfitch (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)