Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mysidia (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 4 October 2009 (→How to address the "Elephant in the Room" ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roman Polanski article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Roman Polanski. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Roman Polanski at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. France This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Screenwriters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Matthew Moore (2008-09-28). "Roman Polanski's Misplaced Pages page frozen after 'edit war' over child sex charges". The Daily Telegraph. "Misplaced Pages locks Polanski page after editing war". Agence France-Presse. 2008-09-29.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Notice of early, and prudent, discussion archival

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

As always, conscientious editors are directed to the archives indicated on this page, including the most recent, and asked to familiarize themselves with the community discussion on the topic, and any previously researched references of potential use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.1.147 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editrequest}}

I am requesting the following change because this section as it stands appears to have been lifted directly from a 2003 interview appearing in the Honolulu Sun Times, and the footnotes are erroneously attributed to other sources and in some cases are not in any way related to the referred information. I am asking that the material that follows be corrected until consensus can be reached on this section. This is not an attempt to get my way in terms of what is in the current article, but reflects my concerns that plagiarism has occurred and needs to be corrected immediately. Further, in trying to put the following paragraphs together, I discovered that it is very difficult to get to primary sources, (I'm guessing most of you know that), and that most of the cites were from op-ed pieces heavily biased and also referring to the HST source document. I have pared this down to the point where I believe it can safely stand until more research can be done to flesh out the details if other editors wish to do so. My apologies to those who disagree with this, and for my lack of skill when working with this unfamiliar formatting.

Following subhead: Sex crime conviction, replace body with following:

In 1977, Polanski, then age 44, arranged to photograph for Vogue Hommes Magazine, 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). On March 10, 1977 at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles, Polanski and Geimer met for a second photo shoot.

In testimony, Geimer recalled that she was drinking champagne while Polanski photographed her, and that she was offered, and took, a portion of a Quaalude (the controlled substance methaqualone, which is a sedative drug). Polanski asked her to lie down on the couch, where the assault took place. Geimer stated that she repeatedly asked the filmmaker to stop and that he did not. Geimer testified that Polanski had, in the course of the assault, performed cunnilingus, vaginal intercourse and sodomy on her. Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Please change following footnotes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6240914/The-hunt-for-Roman-Polanski.html Samantha Gailey testimony, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia5.html Ibid http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/09/27/roman-polanski-arrested-us-warrant/

Oberonfitch (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article was protected due to edit-warring over the wording of this section, and it's premature to make the changes you suggest. The accusation of plagiarism is totally unfounded, and frankly, I don't understand what you refer to. Urban XII (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You should explain why various sentences have been removed from your draft, compared to the current version. It seems to be much shorter. Urban XII (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, I wonder why "Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" should be included in the "Sex crime conviction" section. There is a separate section called "Charges and guilty plea", which includes the following:

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

Do you suggest that this should be removed and replaced by "Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor"? If that happens to be the case, I strongly disagree. Urban XII (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is completely true, but my concern was not with the following section, but in fixing the problems with the current section under consideration. Your complaint, while valid, is a small editing issue when compared to the obese opening lead, and the mess of what follows Sex Crime Conviction. I think everything after that could benefit from new captions and reorganization, but that's just me. I really have only one concern here, that what we say accurately reflects sources and that it is accurately quoted. Well, and that this does not open Wiki up to foul legal correspondence. Maybe it won't. My life experience is that it has been detrimental for me to push my luck. Perhaps things have been different for you.Oberonfitch (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? Well, here's our text:

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue (incorrect, it was Vogue Hommes), which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want" to go back to the second shoot." This footnote refers to the Salon op-ed piece which is not appropriate for inclusion as a source. Further, as shown below, this came from the Honolulu Star Bulletin. Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this". This footnote should refer to statements made in the court transcript and the Times Online article incorrectly quoted that information as coming from the 2003 interview. 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. And this is an obvious problem because the quotes make this impossible. So, you either have to take out the "Geimer testified" or the quotes. The links should be replaced with a link to her testimony as primary source, not the scattered reporting that has been prevalent.

My apologies, the following allegedly pilfered material came not from the Sun Times but Honolulu Star Bulletin, with no reference to the fact that it came from there:

"Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him," she says. "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot. But I didn't at that time have the self-confidence to tell my mother and everyone, 'No, I'm not going to go.'"

During that second shoot, Polanski's motives became apparent.

"We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there."

Polanski sexually assaulted her after giving her a combination of champagne and Quaaludes.

Geimer's mother, who lives in a guest house on her daughter's Kauai property, found out what happened when "my sister overheard me telling my boyfriend what happened on the phone after I got home."

The sister, who also lives on Kauai, told their mother. Polanski, who claimed the sex was consensual, was arrested the next day.

Geimer says she resisted. "I said no several times, and then, well, gave up on that," she says.

In a television interview several years ago, Polanski said of the incident, "It was not the right thing to do."

In conclusion, the footnotes do not reflect that the information came from the HSB. The Times Online article incorrectly attributes information to the HSB which is actually from testimony. And lastly, it was not a bed, it was a couch according to the victim's testimony as it appears in the transcript via The Smoking Gun. I have removed the sentences until someone can go in and fix them so that they are accurately quoted and reflect authorship. Feel free, Urban. I was suggesting a quick fix until the obvious and significant problems with this can be addressed.Oberonfitch (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am struck by the absurdity of some of this. I have watched her interviews. She is an intelligent, thoughtful woman and clearly introspective about the case. The quote which has her saying "oh no, I don't want to go in there," etc., is clearly not something that she would say at age 39 in an interview. But, in an effort to find some humor in this, I really like that we have her talking about herself in third person, a clear tip off to an intelligent reader that this is not a professional job.Oberonfitch (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As you were just recently discussing and making reference to the victims book - which doesn't seem to exist - please understand if I request links to the source of your text and the reliable source that made the observations in this section. thanks, and no offense is intended99.151.164.92 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I explained that above, and offense is taken. Albeit cheerfully. And, the links are provided as you see above. Further, I think that it is appropriate to change in proposed replacement paragraph with the link to the Keneally article in the NYT which I have linked to in the reply to your challenge about Vogue Hommes. Ideally, we would use the Polanski book as the primary source, although I would prefer court documents. This is a stop-gap measure.Oberonfitch (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/22/books/from-holocaust-to-hollywood.html?scp=1&sq=roman+polanski+vogue+hommes&st=nyt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to Honolulu Star Bulletin http://archives.starbulletin.com/2003/03/20/features/story1.htmlOberonfitch (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The link to Roman Polanski's book is not relevant, I was referring to your claim that the victim had written a book: "It does not belong here.... This is not her book, nor is it Polanski's. ...the victim publicly says that she has been damaged by media coverage, but has written a book on her experience. A claim you've repeated without foundation, "Therefore, I propose that the name stays, especially as Geimer has written a book on the assault."...

These are important, and fundamental points, and it is our responsibility to be correct and well supported in our assertions of fact. Our credibility as a community depends upon it.99.151.164.92 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you actually read my response above, posted yesterday saying that you were RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT, I wouldn't be having to say it again here. Please, .99, stop the whipping. And, I think that you are now asserting that I am not concerned about credibility, which is obviously far from the fact. I seem to be the only person at the moment addressing the sourcing problem.Oberonfitch (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit - Add Nastassja Kinski to Main Personal Life section

This should be added to the Main Personal Life section.

"Polanski started a romantic relationship with Nastassja Kinski, when she was 15 years old and he was 46. She appeared in his Oscar nominated film Tess."--Charleenmerced 16:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot endorse this inclusion because there are factual problems with it. Polanski assaulted the then 13-year-old Geimer in 1977, when he was 44. (Of this we can be fairly certain, I think, perhaps, at least in this present reality.) Kinski's bio says that she was born in 1959, '60 or '61. http://en.wikipedia.org/Nastassja_Kinski Thus, she would have been 18, 19, or 20 in 1979, although Polanski's age would be accurate. I noticed this yesterday when I was trying to ascertain that the Kinski Vogue pictures came before the Geimer assault and the possibly contracted photographs for Vogue Hommes, (but of this we cannot be completely certain without looking through the Vogue Hommes archives or finding testimony which may not be available except by going to California, etc.). I couldn't do it. I found references to support both sides. The only way I can think that this could be determined unequivocally is by looking through Vogue archives (at actual magazines). Incidentally, this could completely tank the assertion that Kinski was underage during her relationship with Polanski.Oberonfitch (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that earlier as well - As it's an issue I returned to it and made the following edit: IMDB is NOT a reliable source, so I removed '59. Dirk Jasper is not a Reliable Source, so I removed '60. Der Speigel IS a RS, so I left '61 which agrees with her self-reported year of birth. 99.151.164.92 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also note this discussion. Her birth date is impeccably sourced as 1961 and has consensus, why the article was incorrect may be related to the troll who participated in the discussion and claims to have processed a visa application for her and takes personal credit for adding the info to the IMDB. It has been corrected.99.151.164.92 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a low grade case of persistent vandalism. There is no doubt about the year.99.151.164.92 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Then, need a rewrite on the draft of the Kinski relationship inclusion. Probably should just go in under section containing the movie Tess.Oberonfitch (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See following references

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

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1706557,00.html

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

http://www.slate.com/id/2077916/

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/roman-polanski-cinemas-demonic-chronicler-of-the-holocaust-599091.html

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

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3720836.ece

Polanski immediately invited her to join him and his partner for what was later described as a "threesome", and she agreed. The girl's name, he learnt later, was Nastassja Kinski - an aspiring actress who was destined to star in his 1979 film Tess. She was just 15, and he was 43. Within a matter of days Polanski had decided to photograph his new, young lover for the glossy pages of the Christmas 1976 edition of French Vogue. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-477609/The-dark-secrets-Roman-Polanksi.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Some agreement is badly needed on the description of the crime

I believe the discussions and edits over the last few days have demonstrated that there are different views on which information on the crime that should be included. Several editors have supported the inclusion of the fact that he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her in some version or another. Some editors have argued for the inclusion of more details, which I have reverted on several occasions. Other editors have attempted to remove the description of the crime, stating only that Polanski performed "various sexual acts" on her.

I think it's clear that there will never be consensus to use the wording "various sexual acts", which has been opposed by a number of editors. If we are to reach some consensus, we need to agree that each side have some valid points. I'm very much in favour of protecting the victim of a serious crime, but totally ommitting the description of the crime from the article on the perpetrator simply isn't the solution (I have suggested removing the name of the victim). It will only be possible to reach an agreement if the opposing side acknowledges that some sort of description of the crime has to be included. I'm open to discuss other wordings, although I believe "performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her" is short and not unnecessary detailed, only describing the crime in broad terms. Urban XII (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you Urban, and the wording. But, I don't think removing her name is necessary. It is all over the news, she has given statements, etc. --Charleenmerced 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly we need to rewrite the entire section using better sources. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur w/GamalielOberonfitch (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there is no consensus for anything at the moment. The main thing I disagree with you on is "totally omitting the description of the crime". The very next sentence "Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor" gives a description of the crime as represented by the charges. I don't see the value in listing the specific acts that Geimer testified about and then following it immediately with the charges as the charges are in themselves, very strong. I think there is a genuine effort to report the case with the gravity it deserves, but I also think that it currently overstates or repeats points that could be condensed. I see that partly as an issue of redundancy. The text may flow better if the header "charges and guilty plea" was removed so that Geimer's testimony is immediately followed by the charges that resulted from it. Geimer's testimony need not be described in detail, but there would be less of a sense of it being watered-down because the charges would follow. The section could be made more readable, by breaking it with another header, and I think the best place for that would be when he flees to London. That puts the crime, the arrest and the plea etc together, seperate from his "new life" as a fugitive and things such as Geimer's 2003 comments. That would allow the crime/charges/arrest/plea to be discussed once as a complete package, rather than spreading that part of the description over two seperate sections. I can see where people are coming from in referring back to BLP but I can also see that the cat is already out of the bag. For that reason, I don't see that it necessarily helps to withhold her name as that is also very well known. The talk page uses it freely so it's no longer a privacy issue. I think User:Gamaliel is correct - the entire section needs to be revised. Rossrs (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Rossrs, I agree 100%. I think this is a great way to improve the article while alleviating the perceived necessity of beefing up the evidence against Polanski with unnecessary details. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How about something along these lines in the lede:

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, was arrested and charged with six counts: "Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor", "Child Molesting", "Rape by the use of Drugs", "Sodomy", "Oral Copulation by Force" and "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse" the day after an incident with a 13-year-old he photographed topless. It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

It's factual, crisp and complete - without requiring much acrobatics on our part...99.151.164.92 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Rossrs, I really like your suggested format changes. I do not like the lead at all, I was going to say, especially the third and fourth paragraphs, but I think the whole thing needs reduction. Would it be worthwhile to go paragraph by paragraph under the headings of something like Lead, Draft, Paragraph 1, in order to do some work on this while we wait the mandatory holding period?Oberonfitch (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We should break the discussion on this page into corresponding sections as well. It's very disorienting to be talking about everything everywhere simultaneously. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Oberonfitch. I think it would be good to break it into sections, but ..... I started a section to discuss one sentence in relation to Polanski's biography and such a simple thing is already confused by several off-topic comments. It doesn't fill me with confidence that discussion of more detailed points won't quickly become fragmented. Still, we should try discussing the issues individually, even if it proves to be difficult. Rossrs (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put something like "child molester" in the lead, whatever happens. He's not a pedophile so far as we know, and wiki articles shouldn't look like Sun opinion pieces. Also, just as comment, all users for whom this story arouses lots of emotion should probably stay off the article, as they have a conflict of interest (no wiki link for this type). And Pope Urban-like speeches would probably be better kept for the pub or pulpit. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the section on the Coby Bryant rape. Of course, the woman was young, but not a child. Nevertheless, I think that a visit to his article should be made by all editors to see how it was dealt with. It does not take up the bulk of his BLP.

In the summer of 2003, the sheriff's office of Eagle, Colorado arrested Bryant in connection with an investigation of a sexual assault complaint filed by 19-year old hotel employee Katelyn Faber. Bryant had checked into The Lodge and Spa at Cordillera hotel in Eagle, Colorado in advance of undergoing knee surgery nearby. Faber accused Bryant of raping her in his hotel room the night before Bryant was to have the procedure. Bryant admitted an adulterous sexual encounter with his accuser, but denied her sexual assault allegation.

The accusation tarnished Bryant's reputation, as the public's perception of Bryant plummeted, and his endorsement contracts with McDonald's and Nutella were terminated. Sales for Bryant's replica jersey fell significantly from their previous highs.

However, in September 2004 the assault case was dropped by prosecutors after Faber refused to testify in the trial. Afterward, Bryant agreed to apologize to the victim for the incident, including his public mea culpa: "Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did." Faber filed a separate civil lawsuit against Bryant, which the two sides ultimately settled with the specific terms of the settlement being undisclosed to the public.http://en.wikipedia.org/Coby_BryantOberonfitch (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with the comment above from Deacon of P. I am offended by the large amount of stupid sexistic trash talk on this talk page. It discourages me from contributing. Otto (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't go with the charges in the lead. Completely unacceptable. First, it will take up its own paragraph, and the lead is already determined to be too long. Second, when criminals are charged, it is always the case that you "throw the book" at them, and see what sticks. That there were these charges, that the victim testified that they took place, does not make them so BECAUSE he pleaded to a lesser charge and THUS he was not found guilty of those charges AND the state agreed to accept the plea. Simply put, if there had been a trial, he may or may not have been found guilty of those charges. (cough:Simpson) I really believe that the only reason to push inclusion of the charges is to make Polanski look as bad as possible. Now from the pulpit: Do you really think that he needs help with character assassination? I think it is overkill. I think it is unnecessary. It looks petty. You take the high road, and I'll follow.Oberonfitch (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right in saying that there is an attempt to make Polanski look as bad as possible, and I understand that people are inflamed and outraged. Some editors (here and in related articles) want to do nothing more than vent their moral outrage and ensure that Polanski is described in the fullest and most monstrous terms; that is not Misplaced Pages's goal. We have to try to rise above that level of emotion and ensure that the article is balanced, and that it is a cool, calm and neutral piece, just as we would insist for any other article. The lead is meant to be a summary only and the greater details should be found in the article. Rossrs (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, please do break it up into sections so we know what we are talking about. Well, on second thought, that may not help. heh.Oberonfitch (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Leaming, Barbera Polanski, A Biography: The Filmmaker as Voyeur, New York: Simon and Schuster. 1981. 155
2. Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Dir. Marina Zenovich. HBO, 2008.

Founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation and more than 100 celebrities defend Polanski

The Los Angeles Times just reported that Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, "My personal thoughts are let the guy go... It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things."

The same article also reports that a petition defending Polanski has been signed by more than 100 celebrities and other prominent people, including Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Mike Nichols, Woody Allen and Neil Jordan.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of emotion related to this case, and for that reason it is essential to be very clear about what is being said. If you call it "a petition defending Polanski", some people are not going to bother reading the petition, and are going to jump to all kinds of wild conclusions, such as "celebrities support child rape". (yes, somebody has actually said that.) The petition is not about the crime, but is about the manner and the legality of Polanski's recent arrest. That's a completely different thing. Some individuals have commented about Polanski but this petition is about the process. It can be read here. It's relevant to the Polanski article, but has to be conveyed accurately. Some articles relating to the individuals who signed the document have already been targetted as part of an attempt to smear the individuals concerned and to attribute their reasons for signing. Assuming good faith, I'll say maybe the editor didn't think to read the petition first. Need to step very carefully with this one. Depending on how it is handled here, this article and talk page potentially create a BLP issue for over 100 individuals. Already 6 people have been named in this section without qualifying what they actually signed. Rossrs (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need to be careful, which is why I suggested it on the talk page, instead of just adding it to the article without discussion. The quote from Peg Yorkin is well sourced, and I see no reason to not add it to the article, given that she is the founder of a feminist organization. I think we should also quote the article about the petition. Since the source says, "More than 100 industry leaders and prominent authors -- including directors Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Mike Nichols, Woody Allen and Neil Jordan -- have signed a petition asking that Polanski be released from Swiss custody," I think we should quote that for this wikipedia article. As long as all quotes are cited to this very reliable source, I see no reason to not mention it in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Breitbart has published this list of all the people who signed the petition so far. While I don't think this article should name all of them, I do think it should have a link to this list. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the following be added to the article:

The Los Angeles Times reported that Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, "My personal thoughts are let the guy go... It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things." The same article also reported, "More than 100 industry leaders and prominent authors -- including directors Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Mike Nichols, Woody Allen and Neil Jordan -- have signed a petition asking that Polanski be released from Swiss custody." The full list of petition signers was published by breitbart.com, and can be read here.

Does anyone have any reasonable objections to my proposed addition?

Can anyone cite any wikipedia rules that my proposed addition would violate?

1. In Roman Polanski case, is it Hollywood vs. Middle America?, Los Angeles Times, October 1, 2009

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I object to naming signatories. I think it's essential that it be kept neutral and restricts mention to a general phrase such as "more than 100 celebrities and other prominent people". If people want know who signed it, they can follow the link to the external source. If we decide to pick half a dozen names, our NPOV is compromised - how do we choose the half dozen names to mention? It's ok for news sources to hand pick a few names, and I know they are doing so. Maybe they're tailoring the report to the average reader who hasn't heard of most of the people on the list. Whatever the reason, they don't have to be neutral, but we must. Rossrs (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that, yes, the list of names mentioned were those that would elicit the most recognition with the readers. I think, however, that it should be mentioned at least an example of the fields of those in the list, in so far as they are, again for example, film makers, actors, critics, etc. WookMuff (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not choose. Any inclusion, if done, would be on the basis of notability by verifiable reliable sources. If notable sources make a habit of mentioning a notable subset - a basis to consider a consensus edit exists.99.142.1.147 (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Who, me? I wasn't actually stating whether I believe the names should stay or go, merely why i believed those names were chosen. Then I went on to mention, in a related way, that I think maybe that when the 100 signers are mentioned, perhaps it could be made note of their occupations, as in "100 signers, mostly from the film industry" or something. Perhaps, seeing as I have seen it in a lot of news reports, "100 signers" mostly "hollywood liberal types". For my opinion, I believe that the names should not be mentioned, though perhaps also phrases such as "high profile" or "film industry professionals", which again I have seen in news reports. WookMuff (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Film industry professionals" sounds good to me. "High profile" may apply to some of them, particularly within their industry, but there would have to be some kind of pecking order within that group. "Film industry professionals" brings them all onto an equal playing field, which is sufficient for our purposes. Rossrs (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think that would be neutral by our own definition of the word. News services feed off each other and regurgitate facts, so once a name is mentioned, it's likely they'll continue mentioning it, and if it's only a question of recognition factor, I don't think it's correct that a well known American film director should be singled out ahead of a lesser known French director, for example. Maybe if any of the signatories pushes themselves forward by making further statements or taking other action, it would be different. If any of them step out from the crowd, they're doing so of their own volition, but before that I don't think Misplaced Pages needs to put a spotlight on them just because we've heard of them. I think WookMuff makes a good point in saying that their general field/profession could be mentioned. "Celebrities and other prominent people" is vague. Rossrs (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Somebody (not me) split the reactions to the arrest off into a separate article, so that would probably be the best place to add celebrity responses, polls and such as has been done to some extent (a plus is that that article is not locked): 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski#Reactions to the arrest Just a suggestion. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. We don't have to name the people who signed the petition. So my new proposed addition is:

The Los Angeles Times reported that Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, "My personal thoughts are let the guy go... It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things." The same article also reported, "More than 100 industry leaders and prominent authors... have signed a petition asking that Polanski be released from Swiss custody." The full list of petition signers was published by breitbart.com, and can be read here.

1. In Roman Polanski case, is it Hollywood vs. Middle America?, Los Angeles Times, October 1, 2009

Grundle2600 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is really weird - both times that I linked to the Los Angeles Times article on this talk page, it was changed to a link to a different article about the wikipedia article being locked. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, nothing more.

This is a reminder of what Misplaced Pages is (an encyclopedia), and what it is not (a court of law, a tabloid, a blog, a soapbox, take your pick). While there is plenty of information out there that exists in court documents, blogs, newspapers, tabloids, etc., and rightly belongs there, it does not necessarily belong in an encyclopedia. Just because certain prurient details of the sex acts committed during the crime have been described in tabloids, blogs, and court documents, does not mean that they belong in an encyclopedia article. The core of RP's crime is that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, not which specific sex acts he committed, but the very fact that he committed any sex acts at all. Consent is not in any way suggested by the phrase "various sexual acts." The details of exactly where he put what are irrelevant to the question of consent. The whole purpose of stating the victim's age, and the general reader most assuredly understands this, is that a 13 year old is incapable of giving proper consent. The heinousness of his crime rests upon the age of the girl, not the prurient details of which specific sex acts were performed. These serve no purpose to an encyclopedia article. I would like to remind certain editors here that it is not the business of an encyclopedia to prosecute people for their crimes, real or perceived, nor to lay out the evidence for others to do so. It is not the business of an encyclopedia to divulge the juicy details of a hot-button issue, nor to air the dirty laundry of a public figure, especially when that dirty laundry has such a profound effect on the lives of innocent victims who are not public figures. We should show some sensitivity to the privacy of the victim of the crime, and WP:BLP 4.2 says that we must respect her privacy. Exposing the prurient details of the sex acts is not libel, but it is an improper invasion of privacy – the victim's privacy – and forbidden under BLP policy. I have no problem whatsoever with stating that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. That is well-known and relevant. The details of the specific sex acts are not. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So you believe that rape is rape, so be it, in so far as this case is concerned? You don't believe that sodomy is in any way different from vaginal rape, that vaginal rape does not need to be specified over say cunnilingus, which he is also alleged to have performed? My opinion, and I will state that it is only opinion bluntly, is that various sex acts DOES suggest a lesser degree of culpability than, for example, forced intercourse and sodomy. If you ask most people, I am sure that they will state that sodomy definitely sounds more serious than "various sex acts". WookMuff (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I say above (somewhere!), we should list the various crimes he is charged with, the various convictions, and nothing more than that. The gory details have no place in an encyclopedic article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As per RegentsPark, the list of charges make what happened clear, and the victim has specifically stated that the focus on the "lurid details" (as she described them) of the case continues to traumatize her and her family. Given this, it seems to me that it is best to minimize discussion of the specific details, without downplaying what he did in any way, and the summary of the charges is the best way to convey the required information. - Bilby (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to add "lurid details". I just think that the phrase "various sex acts" is nothing more than revisionist bullshit, by people who would seek to minimize the seriousness, perhaps to that of "in a case of morals." Sorry if I offend anyone with (once again) my opinion. I fully support any edit that lists the original charges in full, and would strongly oppose anything less. It appears that so many people, be they media, filmmakers, and editors, would minimize this case to merely one of statutory rape, and let it go at that. As most anyone who has been raped will tell you, rape is not a "sex act" WookMuff (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The article already contains details of charges - you say you'd support that, well it's already there. "Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor." I don't think anyone is seeking to minimize the seriousness of the crimes as the list of charges pretty clearly establishes the severity. The list of charges follows the brief summary of the victim's testimony. The question is whether the article needs to provide specific quotes from the victim. Some are looking at it from a BLP view, which I can see, but my attitude is that the very next paragraph lists the charges that were made following her testimony, and in doing so her statement is essentially confirmed and repeated. The exact wording "various sex acts" may be weak by itself, but not when it's followed by the list of charges. To describe it as "revisionist bullshit, by people who would seek to minimize the seriousness" isn't valid because there is no suggestion to abbreviate the list of charges. Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was talking specifically about the editors wanting to use the above phrase, not editors redacting the list of charges. As I mentioned, my issue was with the phrase, only the phrase, and nothing more than the phrase. I would be quite happy if just the word rape was used, in context of course (ie. the rape, raping, rape of, etc). WookMuff (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I know you said about the phrase, but you also said "I fully support any edit that lists the original charges in full" and that's what I was talking about. My misunderstanding. I'd also be happy if just the word "rape" was used with appropriate context. Rossrs (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats cool... Personally I tend to ABF and rant before I look, so your misunderstanding was very mild by comparison. So yeah, as long as the extent of his vile depravities make it into the article, I am content ;) WookMuff (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The specific acts that Polanski committed should be left in. It is what it is. Misplaced Pages is not censored so I don't see why it should be taken out. TheLou75 (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski, was arrested and charged with six counts: "Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor", "Child Molesting", "Rape by the use of Drugs", "Sodomy", "Oral Copulation by Force" and "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.1.147 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I came here from WP:BLPN to support compliance with BLP policy, and that is my one and only concern here. I would remind anyone who suggests otherwise to assume good faith, as there is no foundation in my words or actions to the assumption that I have any ulterior motives here (i.e. to minimize or downplay RP's crime). I have never suggested that we downplay the seriousness of the crimes in any way, only that we respect the privacy of the victim. As far as I can tell, the only statement she has made recently about the incident (which is linked about a dozen times on this talk page) is that she has moved on with her life, but the continued invasion of privacy does harm to her and her family. We have a legal obligation, if not a moral imperative, to respect her privacy. The argument that drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl is in any way not a serious crime is, in a word, bullshit. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But heres the thing. This isn't new. This isn't invading her privacy. The media may do that, but wikipedia is providing facts about an event that happened 32yrs ago. Editors aren't looking through her garbage or paying people to do so. "it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." However, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Misplaced Pages content policies and guidelines." "Misplaced Pages editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so." I am truly sorry if the victim here feels Misplaced Pages is prolonging her victimization, but this is all well sourced and, indeed, factual. This is not about sensationalism, but accuracy and verifiabilty. Also, you have to look deeper. Both WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPF that multiple reliable sources mean that important relevant information may be added, WP:BLPNAME doesn't apply, nor does WP:BLP1E, as noone is trying to make an article about her. The details all fall safely into WP:V, and WP:NOR, and I believe that they are given the appropriate weight and tone as the secondary sources give them. Umm... what was your pont again? WookMuff (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by WookMuff. Urban XII (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He did not drug her as people continually repeat (saying it over and over will not make it correct) he furnished her with drugs and she took them, as she has stated, she had taken drugs before this situation. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He drugged her. He was even charged with rape by use of drugs. A 13-year old cannot give legal consent to the use of a sedative drug. The allegation that she had used drugs before is legally completely irrelevant, but it's rather typical of the ridiculous defense of this child rapist. Urban XII (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, where is a link to an official statement that he was charged with as you state rape with the use of drugs? Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Oh yea I see, he was charged..this is like normal the prosecution accuse you of the worst thing possible and then the downgrading begins, he was found and pled guilty to the much lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite that. Cite that right this instant. "So I told him I wanted to get out of that jacuzzi, that the steam was giving me asthma and I couldn't breathe, and I thought maybe he should take me home - I just made that up. So he said OK, you know, come out now and grab a towel, run in the house. That's also when he said 'Well here, take this little, this will help you, little piece of a pill,' to relax my asthma attack.", from a cbs interview in 2003, as read in this link.

Also from the link:

In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Mike Wallace in 1978, Polanski claimed the sex was consensual.

"She wasn't unschooled in sexual matters," Polanski said. "She was consenting and willing."

But is it too late for justice to be served?

Geimer told Kauffman, "It's never too late. It's never too late to go back and fix something that wasn't done right. It's been too long, but it will never be too late."

In a 2003 Op-Ed for the Los Angeles Times, Geimer wrote, "The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 continues to happen to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity. That just never seems right to me. It makes me feel guilty that this attention is directed at me, when there are certainly others out there who could really use it."

So, we have him with Mike Wallace, if that can be verified, saying it was consensual. (See archived debate.) And the statement regarding justice being served has been taken out of context. You can't possibly know what she means by that and she has since filed for dismissal, so what she said six years ago really isn't applicable unless, of course, you want to revert to the article in its form six years ago, which I think might not be a bad idea. And further, Geimer says again that the attention directed at her bothers her.Oberonfitch (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

She was protected by the courts and her name was protected and then it was her who sold her story and it was her who released her name. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)She can't have it both ways, can she, she can't make money out of the story and then ask for annonimity. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Off2, I haven't seen a link for her selling her story. Someone had mentioned it when I first started editing, I picked it up without looking at it, and it has been a point of contention ever since with 99. So, I really don't care about whether she wants her name included at this point, it is there in the story, and so, moot point. It is absurd to even bring up anonymity, since you can't reclaim that once it is gone. What we do here won't change that at all, and I have not endorsed removing her name. See my suggested rewrite of the Sex Conviction paragraph. I am, however, inclined to be conservative in detailing what was allegedly done to her, because although the victim testified to various sexual acts, he was not convicted of those. There was no trial. Whether the plea bargain was done because it was expedient, or because the victim preferred it, or because it might have been difficult to succeed in conviction on those charges matters not. Unless you want to make the entire article about this crime, (and here again I say, criminal biography is the place for that), "various sexual acts" is the most neutral terminology that can be used.Oberonfitch (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, if he has not been found guilty of it then it is a minor issue. I'll look for that link now.. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S., I thought that someone had found a quote in which she says that she was upset about the grand jury testimony being released, and that she specifically did not want that. I'm not going to look for it, but I don't think that she was protected. The assault, and pictures of her, were in the French press in 1977 according to Wanted and Desired. She has not had, according to her, any privacy.Oberonfitch (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw this this morning,taken from "His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement." Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

t/y Off2. And let me preface the following mea culpa with "I have the flu." The assault was decidedly not in the French press; details of it were. Ack.Oberonfitch (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"He did not drug her as people continually repeat (saying it over and over will not make it correct) he furnished her with drugs and she took them, as she has stated, she had taken drugs before this situation." Still waiting for the cite, Off2riorob WookMuff (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted this cite already, in a previous post here on this talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is in her testimony at Smoking Gun. Oberonfitch (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats the one, smoking gun. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize profusely. That is indeed the story she gave closest to the incident (and while under oath), and as such it likely has more basis in fact than comments she made 26 years later on a tv interview. Again, I apologize. WookMuff (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer in Polanski Documentary Now Says He Lied

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01wells.html

« Reached in Paso Robles, Calif., on Wednesday, Mr. Wells said he had informed the district attorney’s office of his lie several months ago, and offered to make a formal statement, though none was taken. »

So, some changes have to be made in section Charges and guilty plea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.54.240.83 (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this is already there. - Bilby (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Petition

I added this merely as reference. If you would prefer, here's the link. Thanks for AGF :P WookMuff (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You invited to a forum discussion. If you want to discuss the inclusion of the petition in the article, you may do so in this active section or a new one. Cenarium (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Current film project The Ghost

Prior to his September 2009 arrest in Switzerland, Polanski was directing an adaptation of Harris' The Ghost, a novel about a writer who stumbles upon a secret while ghosting the autobiography of a former British prime minister. It will star Ewan McGregor as the writer and Pierce Brosnan as the prime minister. Filming takes place in Germany. The Ghost is being co-produced as of February 2009 by the Babelsberg Studios.

Any word on the status of this project? Surely it must at least be on hiatus, unless everyone working there is so sure of the outcome of the current situation. WookMuff (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Durnit, thanks for that, I keep forgetting to fill in the subject/title part WookMuff (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of coverage on this , most sources say it's on hold, in jeopardy or in limbo , based on a comment by Polanski's agent. Much of the editing is completed, but post-production is far from finished. But some sources say it'll be completed even without Polanski, here's a blog linking to a French RS saying this, based on a statement by Pathé and Gaumont co-director. We'd need more RS for this. However, in this article, only a brief mention is sufficient, more should be put in the article on the film. Cenarium (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree slightly, as it is the project he is currently most involved in, the one most affected by his currect circumstances, and as it is already mentioned in the opening, I don't think it would be to difficult to add something like "However, According to most news sources, this project is currently on hiatus yadda yadda yadda" WookMuff (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

One sentence on the status is imo OK. Cenarium (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

One sentence is all I deem needed also :) Doesn't even need to go into details. Perhaps "However, at the present time... hiatus... uncertain."

Stop the hate (or at least the edit warring)

I would just like to say, up front, that I think Roman Polanski deserves to die in jail, preferably beaten up by the guys that usually deal with child rapists. That is my opinion, however, and while it definitely colours my views of wikipedia policy, it does not overshadow them.

The OJ Simpson murder case has its own page, the Michael Jackson 1993 and later allegations both have pages, and now the 2009 arrest has its own page. Why doesn't the 1977 arrest and conviction have its own page? Does it? did I miss it? I think that a summary of the events belongs here, and much like OJ's bio first sentence containing convicted felon, I think that convicted child molester should appear in the first SENTENCE (Does his fame and talent make him less a child molester than john wayne gacy's art and social work make him a serial killer, which is certainly also a biased term).

However, if we just summarize these events, not giving undue weight to them anymore than apologizing or excusing them, then perhaps we could all move on to edit warring over the resulting page, 1977 Roman Polanski rape case or some such. WookMuff (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A case of ostensibly-consensual sex with a minor who "felt pressured" does not merit a separate page of its own, nor more than necessary weight in the biographical article. In Polanski's case, it's coloured his years in "exile" but he is known as a film director - a sexual liasion is no more the pinnacle of his notability than his wife's murder. Sherurcij 03:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that comment could not be more disgusting. 1) 13 is roughly 5 years below the california age of consent at that time, 2) if you feel that drugging a 13yr old is a "sexual liason" I would advise you to seek help or possibly read some literature from victim's advocacy groups. Again, I was talking not about the even per se, but the event, the criminal charges, the plea bargain, the 42 days of psychiatric evaluation, fleeing the country, fleeing britain, and spending 33 years in "exile" or rather as a fugitive from the law, up to and including his long overdue arrest. WookMuff (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate and biased language

I've noticed this in several articles and some of the discussion on this article. Roman Polanski is not a pedophile. If you wished to characterize his attraction to young women, he would properly be called an ephebophile, or if you wanted to consider the 13-year-old as representative, a hebephile. Both of those terms would assume his preference is for non-adult partners, which I don't think has been sourced.

Similarly, I do not think the use of the term "child molester" is encyclopedic. Child molestation is defined in different ways in different jurisdictions. Further, while a 13 year old is a minor and in some senses a child, colloquially adolescents are usually distinguished from children. Calling Polanski a "child molester" suggests someone who preys on the pre-pubescent. Although Polanski's actions are indefensible, nonetheless distortion does not belong in the article. If having sex with underage minors and non-consensual sex acts are an important part of the article, I think when summarized they should be summarized thusly, and not with the inflammatory term "child molester."

Further, although statuatory rape is defined as "rape" in some jurisdictions, it is not in others, and indeed in some jurisdictions the term "rape" is not used, instead more specific and less loaded offenses are specified such as sexual battery, unlawful intercourse with a minor, etc. This is particularly important if you wish to comment on both his alleged sexual assault of the 13 year old with other cases where he may have had sex with minor in which assault did not take place.

Let's face it folks, this article is not going to smooth out and start making sense until people agree to stick to the facts. Misplaced Pages is not an arena of justice, it is an information resource. Pawsplay (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But having intercourse when your partner saids 'No' is indeed rape. Eros2250 (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem I think Pawsplay is getting to here is that when editors (not sources) connect the dots, it's WP:Synthesis and this can create a BLP problem. We should make sure that our assertions about the crime are backed up by Reliable Sources and not by synthesis. If RS 1 says X=Y, and RS 2 says Y=Z, we can state this (with due references), but we cannot simply state X=Z. That would be synthesis. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Definition of a child, from the UN. "Rape, also referred to as sexual assault, is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or without sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent." From the rape page on wikipedia. Convicted :"In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime.". Roman Polanski is a Convicted Child Rapist. I am quite happy to put an inline citation after each word, if you take offense to that. WookMuff (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Still original research, multiple reliable sources should use the term 'Convicted Child Rapist' for us to consider using it. Cenarium (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats not how it works. I don't have to find sources that call him a convicted child rapist in those exact words, I just have to find sources that show he is a convicted child rapist. WookMuff (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation addition

{{editprotected}} In the Manson Murders section, the claim regarding Polanski's "greatest regret" has a citation-needed tag on it. Please add this source to the sentence and remove the tag (the source is in the 7th paragraph up from the end): Roman Polanski: The Artful Dodger. Additionally, the location of Los Angeles should be changed to Beverly Hills in the same sentence, per the source. Thanks.—DMCer™ 06:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the research.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How to address the "Elephant in the Room"

Since the initial topic title is rhetorical, I have added a rhetorical parenthetical for balance. While I agree such adjustments should not be normative, the particular nature of the controversies in play may require some leeway in resolution.
--Proofreader77 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Numerous reliable and verifiable sources have referred to him as a child molester and/or pedophile. Among them was a CNN report on the best director category at the Oscars. It stated, "Home to the Oscars' most controversial nominee (convicted child molester Roman Polanski), the Best Director category..." We also have numerous references culturally of him being referred to as a pedophile and child molester And given the controversy it is also quite notable that in the weeks after his flight, when questioned on the subject of his predilictions, Polanski stated without equivocation "I like young girls, very young girls." The author of his 1980 biography: Said Kiernan, "Roman just couldn't understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He's screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn."

It is quite well supported that his sexual taste is for children, here are ref's for his "child dating" including one described by a French reporter for the impeccably credentialed Le Monde as "just a baby".

The question is how do we address the very real (supported by 30 years of ref's) notability of this area of the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.1.147 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

By citing which of the descriptions are notable as "has been described as X", by at least 2 reliable sources, and providing it as quotation, attributed to the source.. --Mysidia (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Topics Currently in Contention

I am suggesting that we look at the current concerns and list them as such, because we are now rehashing stuff ad nauseum. This is not a comprehensive list. Please don't bite me because I haven't included your pet peeve, just add it (or not).

1) Whether to include the details of the victim's allegations and subsequent charges; arguments are:

(a)BLP concerns and specifically not furthering the victimization of a victim. (Details are currently in article.)

(b)Victim testified to the allegations, but Polanski pleaded to lesser charge.

(c)Necessary to have a complete description, without censoring.

2) Whether Polanski characterized the assault as "consensual." (Seems like he may have, but don't have a good source.) Editors seem (largely) to agree that this act was not consensual, and could not be as she was under the age of consent. Hence the quotes.

3) Whether Polanski should be characterized as a pedophile or child molester.

4) What information about the alleged Kinski relationship should be included, and other quotes supporting Polanski's purported preference.

5) Whether this is described as a sexual assault or rape.Oberonfitch (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the issues quite that way, and some of those you raise above are fairly minor. The most pressing issues are:

(a) Balancing the intro in an appropriate way.

(b) Do we start a separate article on the 1977 trial.

Regarding some of the other issues you have brought up: he can be described neither as a "child molester" nor a "pedophile" by the article, because that is not the case in either a clinical or legal sense. In regards to terminology, we can't call it rape because he never pled guilty to rape and AFAIK was not convicted of it. I haven't seen a reliable source call it a "sexual assault" either when I think about it. I think the charge itself was "sexual intercourse with a minor". Perhaps we could use the term "sexual offence". Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, by clinical and legal definitions, he "molested" a "child". In what sense does that make him not a child molester? Pedophile, in its technical use, is inaccurate, but in its most oft used sense is completely accurate, that being someone sexually attracted to children. As for the use of the term "sexual assault", well maybe you need to look harder. WookMuff (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There should also be a link to 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski in the introduction. -Ivripatish (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point. Whether he is a child molester or pedophile has been discussed in depth above. Whether that is appropriate for inclusion has been discussed in depth, above. This "new topic" heading is not about whether one thing is right and another wrong, just trying to figure out what the major sticking points are in order to move towards fixing the blatant problems with the article. I think that you will notice that you and I are in agreement about taking a conservative approach. Thank you for adding the (a) and (b) as additional issues.

3) Whether Polanski should be characterized as a pedophile or child molester. Points are:

(a) He has been described as a child molester frequently, and in many sources.

(b) Pedophile would be inappropriate term because victim was sexually mature.

6) Balancing the lead.

(a) Currently contains an overly long filmography.

(b) Concerns about the back-and-forth nature (current arrest followed by what he did after fleeing in next paragraph).

::(c) Concerns about balance between career and "sexual offense."

7) 1977 trial as a separate article.

(a) As criminal biography.

(b) Alternative, to combine it with the 2009 Arrest article (currently in possible renaming process?)

Once again, please feel to make corrections and add to points.Oberonfitch (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"(c) Concerns about balance between career and "sexual offense." One problem I have is that Polanski spent almost half of his life as a fugitive because of the 1977 events... surely that means he has given it a serious amount of weight himself, making it less undue. WookMuff (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

6::(c) Concerns about balance between career and "sexual offense."

(i) What method could be used to decide appropriate balance?

- Comparison to similar individuals with similar issues.

- Using a "percentage of life" balance.

- Using a "percentage of media" balance.

T/y WookMuff Oberonfitch (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• High-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class France articles
• Unknown-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• B-Class Poland articles
• Mid-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Unassessed screenwriter articles
• Unknown-importance screenwriter articles
• WikiProject Screenwriters articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press