Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Polanski or Polański?

Shouldn't his name be spelled "Roman Polanski" instead of "Roman Polański" on EN, since almost everybody uses "Polanski"? WhisperToMe 03:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the original spelling should be used. Following this logic, Lech Wałęsa should be redirected to "Lech Walesa" as this is perhaps the version the world is most familiar with, but which looks pretty odd to a native speaker of Polish. "Almost everybody uses..." Generally no one can be expected to know and use foreign diacritics, but this is an encyclopedia after all, so IMO native versions of names should be preferred. -- Ijon-Tichy 12:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to Confucius (Kong Fuzi).--Greasysteve13 12:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Polanski is a filmmaker and I've never seen him use an accent when he spells his name. What is our source for the accented name? -Will Beback · † · 18:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty often when polish people dont insist on using original spelling of their name. But in fact "Polański" is the right way of spelling it in polish language. There is never an ending with "-nski" in polish. Every name of such type is spelled with "-ński" ("ń" is pronounced as short form of "ni"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should have a "Kreska" because it is Polish. In the German version it is explaned that the Kreska is part of his name, but internactional his name is often written without. --84.160.231.149 (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Article move

I think the article should be moved to Roman Polański. I guess it was created here before Wikipedia started accepting diacritics in titles. What do you think?--SylwiaS | talk 09:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's credited in English films without the diacritics - Isn't he living in France now? WhisperToMe 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The name is originally spelled with ń, and is therefore more correct that way. It also does not confuse anyone to leave the diacritic on (no ambiguity, the n can easily be discerned, etc.), and it was most probably due to technical restrictions, carelessness, and/or ignorance (or a policy based on the like) that the name has been spelt Polanski on movie posters, etc., rather than because of a specific wish of Mr. Polański to spell it without the diacritic. As Wikipedia supports Unicode, there is on these grounds no reason to drop diacritics of this sort. – Krun 16:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please realize that using diacritic marks in links results in an invalid link. The search program interprets the diacritic as nonsense, not the intended character. CFLeon 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose we move the article back to "Polanski". It is the most commonly used version, including by the subject. I don't see any sources which indicate he has used the diacrticial or accent. Most of the internal links from other articles are to the unaccented redirect. -Will Beback · † · 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that on his official website http://www.rp-productions.com/ he does not use a diacritical in his name. Unless someone can find a source showing him using the diacritical withing the last few decades we should remove it. The Wikipedia naming convention calls on us to name articles with the mostly widely used version of a name. Outside of Poland I doubt anyone besides en.Wikipedia uses the diacritical. -Will Beback · † · 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"N" and "ń" that's in polish language different letter, "ń" is palatalized "n" (this "kreska" doesn't represent an accent!). This surname is originally polish, and in polish grammar "Polanski" instead of "Polański" is an orthographic mistake. The shortest way to found out how Polański treat this problem is to see any of his signatures. I haven't found any in google, maybe has someone any of them? 89.79.34.145 (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, there is his autograph available: http://www.flickr.com/photos/39364244@N05/3624070669/ and it's clear that version with "ń" should be used. If people use "Polanski" spelling, it's their choice, but we should keep the proper version here. Othwerwise it is a mistake.

In English, his name is by far most widely cited without the diacritic, which I think is the most helpful thing to go by, since WP:Title indeed has to do with using the most widely searched-for term. The only thing that might make me think otherwise would be if a source shows up showing he professionally uses Polański wherever he can (I don't think he does). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Both versions of his surname redirect to here. Roman Polański does as well.
There are 573 articles that link to "Roman Polanski", and those would suddenly point to a redirect page. There are 62 that point to "Roman Polański" currently. None that link to "Polański" and 7 that link to "Polanski". None of that is terribly compelling, but... there it is for whatever it is worth. :)
Thinking of the Wikipedia search stats, are those available to us mere mortals? Or can we ask an admin to gather them? And if so, would that be a good way to spend an admin's time?sinneed (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Indecent assault charges

Discussion of the rape charge

why does this article put the blame on the child and neglect the fact he could have urged her to tell her mother she wants to stay? and he had power over her and authority so obviously she wasnt gonna fight him, on top of it he had to get her inhibitions down with alcohol and drugs. If this kind of thing were allowed it would set a precedent for child pronography. Also he knew how old she was beforehand and set up the photo shoot himself not the mother, he also had another underaged victim who was 15-16 who was ana ctress right afterwards showing that he had no symphany and really is a pedophile.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.135.56.61 (talk • contribs) .

Good one, but her story is too good. 65.5.240.250 (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile to add more details about his relationship with the young girl, or is that just not worth rehashing in an encyclopedia? It is a part of what makes him a significant figure. David 19:42 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Well, yes, if he claims it was consensual or something I think that would be relevant--regardless of whether we or the court agree with him. My $.02 (we mention Hitler's hatred of the Jews & how he blamed them for Germany's problems; that doesn't mean we agree, of course). --KQ 19:56 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Views have been advanced that Samantha Gailly (her maiden name)'s mother set up the whole situation as part of an extortion plot against Polanski. This theory, discussed in Polanski's autobiography, deserves further investigation. While this does not exonerate Polanski, it suggests that some sort of charges should have been brought against the mother and at the very least she should have been deprived of custody. --209.178.190.82

Well, investigate it yourself and then hope a contributor picks it up off a site or book or whatever. I'm sure it'll be appreciated, but the Wikipedia doesn't conduct its own investigations. It makes summaries and references reports already made. You know, like an encyclopedia. 68.9.205.10 14:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an encylopedia and we should really stop spreading this lie. Most of the articles are a piece of fan fiction, many others have long since fallen victim to wiki lobbying.--69.153.28.102 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of links in the article (and I'll add one from the victim's article). This is a significant event that has greatly affected Polanski's career, at the very least by limiting him to what countries he can be in, so it deserves mention. Also, the victim deserves some credit here. I'll fix that. --ssd 04:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is more "career" info in the "controversy" section than in the "career" section. I feel this article needs some re-organizing. --Feitclub 03:38, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

And it's hardly appropriate to include being done for statutory rape in the introduction. That nowhere near covers half his significance, but it does cover half of the introduction. I'm removing it from the intro for now. Hardwick 07:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The sentence was replaced. Does the crime have to be in the lead paragraph? It was reprehensible, but it doesn't (shouldn't) define him as a figure. --Dpr 03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does. He fled the US to avoid prosecution and remains to this day a fugitive, refusing to take the risk of having to face Justice or having to deal with his crime. That says something about his basic character. CFLeon 03:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

CFLeon, your last statement is as POV as it gets. Consider the version he has been advancing - that this was a set-up. Would you take the risk of going back and possibly spending many many years in jail? Would you still believe that "justice always prevails"? You can't describe a person based on a very far-fetched interpretation of his actions. A court sentence is a court sentence. Let the readers be the judges of what that means, once they've read the circumstances. 83.24.156.197 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)woz

Samantha Geimer's testimony

Samantha clearly says that the sex was not consensual. Although the charges were reduced to statutory rape, it seems obvious from the evidence and the presence of drugs that a rape has been committed. [1] "It was not consensual sex by any means," wrote Geimer in her article. "I said no repeatedly but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was very scary and, looking back, very creepy." I think it is important to mention this, because a lot of people think that raping a minor automatically means "statutory rape" which is rather demeaning to minors (i.e. it implies they can neither give nor withold consent). Obviously rape is worse than statutory rape, and I think the original charges need to be pointed out in the article, preferably before the reduced charges are mentioned, to clear up the widespread misconception that Polanski's crime involved consensual sex. A5 19:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone is deceived into doing something, then they didn't give their consent even if she wasnt raped and didnt say no and the whole thing is made up. Also, if someone drugs a woman/girl and gives her alcohol to break her inhibitions before having sex with them its also rape. Anyway, you could tell how old she was by looking at her face, she still had a kids face, so although her body was developed you would have to be retarded not to tell shes a kid by looking at her baby face. Also he couldn't give consent because of her age, thus it is statutory rape. Allowing 13 yr olds giving consent would lead to child pornography being wide spread.

I have been scrupulous in citing the Geimer testimony transcripts, insofar as the "rape" allegations are concerned. Anyone who has questions about it shoudl read the actual transcripts, which are eye-opening. --TallulahBelle 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If she hadn't cried "rape" and got me sobbing my heart out, I just might be tricked into thinking Polanski was telling the truth when he said he was set up. No offence meant, but I truly cannot imagine any sane person actually swallowing this. Go back and read that bullshit she told the police, and see if I'm not kidding... it reads like a rehearsed checklist of evil things to do to little girls, plus she even added that cute little detail about her period so that we all know he is kosher about menstration even when he's high on a drug that she knew more about than he did! These lurid stories are fine for the likes of Dr. Laura, but this is really beneath the standards of wikipedia to treat these allegations as even marginally reflecting what actually took place (especially since we have only Geimer's unreluctant word for it). Sweetfreek 09:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Lolicon fan Sweetfreak.Ticklemygrits (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but try again. 65.5.240.250 (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Should the sworn grand jury testimony of Polanski's 13-year-old victim be incorporated into this article?

E.g., p. 30 Q: How long did Mr. Polanski have his mouth on your vagina? A: A few minutes. Q: What happened after that? A: He started to have intercourse with me. Q: What do you mean by intercourse? A: He placed his penis in my vagina.

and p. 32 A: Then he lifted up my legs and went in through my anus. Q: What do you mean by that? A: He put his penis in my butt.

It seems that it is highly relevant to Polanski's rape controversy. Austinmayor (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We already cover the incident in some detail. I don't think that adding anything you quote would help the article. Primary sources are always difficult to use anyway. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Criminal indictment", fourth and fifth paragraphs

This paragraph appears to be blaming the victim for Polanski's rape. When a 43 year old man violates a child of thirteen there is no excuse and this paragraph must be re-written, unless it is wiki policy to blame victims?

What do you mean? If you're referring to the parenthesis, it simply states Polanski's own version, from his autobiography (not "wiki policy"). --Mathew5000 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

These paragraphs were consummate examples of 'bias by ommsion' that my history texts are so fond of mentioning.

For example, they stated 'Geimer's mother asked her directly if she wanted her to come pick her up. Geimer said no, she wanted to stay with Polański'. Not only had the author neglected to mention that prior to this Polanski had said the photoshoot remained unfinished, they had also expanded on Geimer's testamony of merely "No" [2], thus implying a familiarity not stated as present.

Furthermore, the sentence, 'Geimer, knowing full well that it was a third of a quaalude tablet, said, "Okay"' neglected to point out that (if we are not disputing the accuracy of Geimer's statement as a whole) by this point Geimer was completely intoxicated. It is unlikely anyone aged 13 and drunk knows 'full well' anything.

Using as much restraint as I can... I have no idea what the author was thinking with the concluding sentence 'They then proceeded to continue shooting photographs, and eventually to have sex'. Not only does this imply consent (which according to Geimer was not given), it also completely ignores the issue of ASSAULT. To describe any alleged rape as merely, 'to have sex' indicates both bias and an incredible lack of respect.

Theoretically these edits have removed most of the POV in these paragraphs - I have no problem altering/debating/defending as needed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nylarathotep (talk • contribs)

I think Nylarathotep may have shown a little too much restraint. I edited it a small bit more, but overall it seems POV to give all these details of what led up to the alleged rape, without going into detail about the alleged rape itself. I'm not suggesting we do that, but rather that we strip down the section to some basic facts that are clearly relevant to Polanski's life. (All the direct citations of the court transcripts are, to me, a bit of a red flag suggesting an element of original research. We should ideally be citing newspaper articles or books, so that it isn't us making the judgment call about what the important elements are.) --Allen 06:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Consequences of the rape case

1. On extradition it is said that Polanski is a French citizen. Is that the case?
2. Did the state of California request the US government to convey a request to France that Roman Polanski should be prosecuted? I know at least one case where a French citizen was (successfully, if I remember well) prosecuted in France for a murder committed in the US.
3. Is it true that Polanski has never since returned to the US, for fear of arrest? David.Monniaux 18:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another interview with Samantha Geimer (2005)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15775812&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=polanski-raped-me-when-i-was-13----he-is-a-creep--name_page.html
This might provide a quote or two in addition to the 2 other interviews mentioned already. Would anyone like to update the article? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

References and footnotes: too large?

The references section here is huge, and far outweighs the needs of the article for citation and further reading. I don't think the goal here should be to annotate every book and citation on Polanski's life, but rather to include some gems which are good overviews or provide specific citation for article text. I know nothing about the citations (and don't speak the language in which many are written), so I don't think they do either of these things adequately. Perhaps someone with a little more expertise can trim this list down to a reasonable size? --ABQCat 07:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a problem. I've been thinking that because this is English language Wikipedia, everything of any other language must go! Probably a lot of others could go too - I don't believe for a second that they were all used in creating the article. It really looks like just a list. Rossrs 10:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

After laboriously fixing the useful footnotes in this article, I cannot help but agree that the unreferenced works need to go. Since there's been no discussion since 1995, I will action this do-it. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And now it's done. I have removed all unreferenced works except those either written by Polanski, involving interviews with Polanski, and Mia Farrow's autobiography, which extensively refers to Polanski. Share and enjoy. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 15:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Factual errors?

There is an inaccurancy: "It may be telling that Polanski chose to play the lead in his next film, The Tenant (1976), the story of a Polish immigrant living in Paris". The film doesn't find out Terkovsky's nationality. He represent of all immigrants who can't adapt theirselves. BTW: This Film is very good.--62.87.163.40 22:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the quote from an E! clip show be removed since it is by definition an opinion, not a fact? If you can fit it in somewhere else it is an interesting comment that I personally agree with, but putting it in a "fact' section is pretty dubious.

Sharon Tate's murder

Was Sharon Tate eight or four months pregnant (there seems to be some inconsistencies here) ? -- Tochiro

She was 8 to 8 1/2 months pregnant - don't know how someone could think she was 4 months... -- FireflyAngel

Adrien Brody

A lot of Americans actually think Roman Polanski is Adrian Brody, because they've never seen Polanski, but they see "a Roman Polanski film" and then they see Adrian Brody. At one point after Adrian Brody's anti-war oscar acceptance speech, Chris Rock (I think it was chris rock) said "Didn't that guy rape a little girl?" on a talk show, and in fact nobody corrected him. While I find this kind of funny, the image of Brody above Polanski is probably just making things worse. 66.41.66.213 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"A lot?" I've never encountered this. One unfortunate mix-up, if that happened, is not evidence of a widespread misunderstanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.12.228 (talk • contribs) .

Wisdom, wisdom everywhere, nor a wise man in front of any camera to use it. 65.5.240.250 (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculation on Polanski's motives in filmmaking

"It seems somehow important to Polański at this point to make a film for children, and maybe also for his own children." Whose judgement are we reading here, about what "seems" important to Polanski? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This might have come from an interview. (referneces?) As the movie has not yet come out, it may be too soon to speculate much about it. --ssd 17:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it may be in one of the 420 listed references. ;-) Do you wanna look for it, or shall I? Rossrs 10:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever it was, this sentence is long-gone, and the issue is thus resolved. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 16:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename to "Polanski"

I propose moving the article to "Roman Polanski" unless someone can provide sources for the subject spelling his name "Polański". His own website uses "Polanski" and that's how he's credited in his movies. -Will Beback · † · 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. -Will Beback · † · 08:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with you! He's real name is Polish, with Polish diacritic signs. It's simple. In English-speaking world "ń" in his surname isn't using, because keybords doesn't have the Polish signs. We should use in an encyclopedia real names! notlogged Wikipedian:Kowalmistrz

Please provide a source which shows that is how he spells his name. If you consult his recent movie credits or his persoinal website you'll see that he does not use a diacritical. It's common for people in the entertainment industry to change their names. -Will Beback · † · 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is the English-speaking world. -Will Beback · † · 03:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there's been no further input, I'm going to move it back to "Polanski". To avoid problems if anyone wants to move it again please discuss it her first. -Will Beback · † · 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, when Polański talks to somebody from the English speaking world or other non his native Polish, he spells by "n", I think. Because they don't know "ń". It's easy. But, in fact he is Polish (with Jewish background), and his real, POLISH name is PolaŃski. It's an encyclopedia, not IMDB. :P In his Polish passport (he has too) his name is Polański, not in French, it's obvious. OK, I could agree with "ń" in main parts of the article... ? Kowalmistrz 23:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We've got a policy for this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Common use for the English speaking world is with a regular n. Hope that helps. Doctor Sunshine talk 06:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyone offering evidence that he uses "ń" in any context. Even if he uses it on his Polish passport that still wouldn't mean it's the most common usage in English. As the article now stands the text about his family and early years uses the "ń", while the bulk of the article uses the plain "n". That seems like a reasonable compromise. -Will Beback · † · 07:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is :) But, in the main name of the article we should use "ń"! Look at Alejandro González Iñárritu or Pedro Almodóvar... Kowalmistrz 13:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is how the individual's name is usually spelled by authoritative English-language sources. If you look at the English-language poster for Babel, for example, you will see that Iñárritu's name is shown with the diacritics. Can you find an English-language poster for one of Polanski's films that spells his name with the "ń"? --Mathew5000 17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, his own autobiography, in the English-language edition, spells his name Polanski, not Polański.

The article title is not supposed to be his full legal name that appears on his Polish passport. For example, the Wikipedia article title for the 42nd U.S. president is Bill Clinton, not "William Jefferson Clinton". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Mathew5000 17:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Kowalmistrz, Almodóvar's films have exclusively been in Spanish, while Polanski's most famous films have been in English. Furthermore, Polanski does not use the diacritical in his film credits or his personal website, while Almodóvar does.[3] Lastly, there's no question that Polanski is best known in the English language as "Polanski", not "Polański". -Will Beback · † · 21:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but, hello- THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Not IMDB or something! We should use "ń" in main points of the article, in biography AND IN THE MAIN NAME OF THE ARTICLE. onyl for it's a real encyclopedia, I think. Kowalmistrz 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What does the fact that this is an encyclopdia have to do with it? Do other encyclopedias spell the names of people in ways that they themselves don't use? Aside from his film credits, his biography and his personal website, all of which use the unaccented "n", what evidence do we have for his "real" name? -Will Beback · † · 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kowalmistrz - I see the spelling has been changed again. Is there any new source which establishes the subject's use of a diacritical in his name? -Will Beback · † · 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This poster for Knife in the Water has his name with the diacritical, but it’s a Polish poster. Of course in English and French his name is always given as "Polanski". However, I've noticed that a lot of Polish-themed articles in Wikipedia do not abide by policy on article names. For example, Jerzy Kosiński, Łódź, Gdańsk, Władysław Szpilman (compare how his name in written on the cover of his book at Amazon), Świętokrzyski National Park, Krzysztof Kieślowski, and no doubt many others. --Mathew5000 07:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a poster for a Polish-language move made in Poland in 1962. His name is clearly visible in these more recent, English-language posters: Image:Repulsion.jpg (1965), Image:Pirates 1986.jpg (1986), Image:Bitter Moon poster.JPG (1992), Image:Ninth gate ver3.jpg (2000), Image:Frantic.jpg, Image:The Pianist movie.jpg (2002), Image:Oliver Twist 2005 film.jpg (2005), and so on. Even on the posters for his French filme don't use the diacritical. -Will Beback · † · 09:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the other examples I mentioned? Do you think that the article Jerzy Kosiński should be renamed, considering that he wrote his novels in English, in the United States? What about place names like Łódź and Gdańsk? --Mathew5000 00:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about Kosinski, and posted a note on that article's talk page. The place names are a different matter and the current article names are, as I recall, the result of long discussions. -Will Beback · † · 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Polanski Plea Bargain

I have corrected the statement that Polanski faced a 50 sentence under the plea negotiated with the prosecution.

As footnote 11 of the article makes clear, Polanski was only liable for the 50 year sentence if convicted on the original six-count indictment. Since he only pled guilty to the least serious of those charges as part of his plea bargain, then even if the judge disregarded the prosecution's recommendation for probation, he could not and would not have received anything so draconian. The dropping of the most serious charges was already agreed to by the prosecution as part of the bargain, and was wholly within their own discretion, not that of the judge. Cspalletta 07:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Jewish

If his mother's mother was not a Jew, then he is himself not Jewish. 152.10.188.107 06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's one interpretation. It depends on the Rabbi. - Rochkind (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL! He is clearly NOT a Jew. No Rabbi can say otherwise. The Halacha is the reference here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

French citizenship

He's a French citizen, that's even the very reason why he was not sent to the United States for his trial. See All Movie Guide Arronax50 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Before a 1992 change in French nationality law, being born in France was enough to claim French citizenship. So his place and date of birth constitute enough evidence. Tjarls 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rape

Form reading this page I think it would be an important addition to note that

1. Geimer lied about her age so she could consent to posing nude 2. She had a 21 boyfreind and was consenting to sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 16:32, March 26, 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for this info? We need to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy before we add it to the article. Thanks, Satori Son 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The same may be said of her claim. 65.5.240.250 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A guilty plea to statutory rape says all that needs to be said about her claim. Austinmayor (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If I was faced with a series of lurid charges that could result in 50 years in prison, and was then given a deal whereby I could plead guilty to something and get probation, I would probably take the deal even if completely innocent. If I was then told that the deal was being revoked, and that I would be prosecuted under my false confession, I would then flee as well.

Note: I am not saying that that is the most likely scenario, but one cannot just use his confession—which was only given as part of such a plea agreement—as conclusive proof that he did actually commit said crimes. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He didn't plead to a charge of statutory rape, but to one of unlawful sex. - Rochkind (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be come expansion on this because as it reads right now it is very confusing. The way it reads right now it implies he did what the plea agreement required him to do and was released early by Chino State Prison. Then it shift gears and says he fled. Fled from what? If the prison released him early that should been the end of it. Also it is not clear how this would not violate the 'being punished multiple times for the same offense' interpretation of the 5th amendment. This section really needs to be reworked.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

*"then it shifts gears and says he fled" - No.
"Fled from what?" - Fled the jurisdiction of the court... that is what flight means.
He was released from a 42-day observation period. I am not seeing your point.- sinneed (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

the text says that he was 44 but actually he was 43 on march 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.115.153.218 (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a Jew, but of Jewish origin

He's not a Jew, but of Jewish origin... And what's more, having French citizenship doesn't make him a French Jew (he's not a Jew!) or French at all. Only maybe a Polish-French man. Kowalmistrz 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He was born in France and has lived in France for a long while. What does it take to be French? He lived in Poland for about 30 years years, but only one of this parents was Polish. There's no doubt that he's a European, beyond that the definitions get fuzzy. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also says in his biography "Roman" that his parents weren't religious. Still they were considered jews, resulting in his mother beeing sent to a concentration camp.

For your information: not only Jews were victims of concentration camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.202.225 (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS JEWISH ORIGIN, JUDAISM IS A RELIGION NOT A RACE, NATIONALITY OR ETHNICITY, YOU ARE EITHER A JEW OR YOUR NOT. --67.80.174.252 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Any reason to shout? I removed category Polish Jew per the article talking about his background, upbringing, ect, ect. Are there any sources where he self identifies himself or he is described as such? Maybe add to the Jewish descent category, ect. Anyways, thank you, --Tom (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)ps, after reading more, the article goes into detail about his family's persecution for being Jewish, but also mentions that his parents were agnostic? These categories can be very problematic so hopefully reliable sources will help. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Camp

He was not in a concentration camp... Kowalmistrz 15:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to know some things about him, but lack sources. BTW, what's the difference between being of French citizenship and being French ? Arronax · ^talk 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In most countries there is a diffrence between nationallity and citizenship. Having some citizenship doesn't mean you have the same nationallity. But Polanski is 2 natonallities, french because he born in France and polish because he has some polish origins and he was raised in Polnad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Polanski says in his biography "Roman" that he spent all the ww2-years in hiding, so he was never sent to a concentration camp. Though his mother is believed to have died in Auschwitz.

Roman by Polanski

In section "Indictment on charge of rape and other sex offenses", it says: "In Roman by Polanski, Polanski alleged that Geimer's mother had set up the daughter as part of a casting couch and blackmail scheme against him."

What is Roman by Polanski ? A book / movie / article ? Jay 22:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

it's the name of his autobiography. Rossrs 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

Hasn't he Polish citizenship? How do you know he is only French citizen? Does it mean he is of French nationality?, ONLY? I don't think so... Kowalmistrz 10:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Surely a man like this hasn't got a reputation to tarnish?"

The above quotation, attributed to Samantha Geimer, has had been in need of a citation since July. As it has not been cited, and is relatively vindictive in tone (which isn't surprising, given Ms. Geimer's history with the director), I have removed it. This article is the biography of a living person, and so with vindictive quotes in particular we must use caution.

Having said that, I think this is a noteworthy quote and would like it if it could be included. Obviously, Samantha Geimer plays an important role in the controversy surrounding Roman Polanski in the United States. Furthermore, when the quote was originally added, it was in fact sourced: here is the URL (now defunct). The quote was added in October 2005, and remained in the article for a lengthy period of time without being questioned, which suggests to me (especially given the tone of the quote) that the reference was indeed genuine. Unfortunately -- and this is the rub with web citations in general, I'm afraid -- we now have no way to verify that.

Looking at the URL that was sourced, it seems as though it refers to a print edition of the Vanity Fair magazine dating September 19th, 2005, but as I am not familiar with the inner workings of that website I can say only that this is a guess at best.

What I would suggest is that if anyone feels strongly enough about keeping this quote that they investigate the matter further, ideally finding a print reference and citing it by page number, along with the date, the article author, etc (might I recommend {{Citation}} for this purpose?) This will allow anyone who questions the quote (and because of the quote's tone, you can believe that many will question it) the opportunity to check out the right back issue at the local library and verify it themselves.

Thanks in advance to anyone who has the time and energy to do so. It's a good quote and should be in the article if it can be verified. If not, it's potentially libelous and we have to be careful. Peace, 70.132.19.121 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Independent, in a "where are they now" piece, said:

• He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse but fled to France, fearing jail. Now he cannot return to the US, even to collect his 2002 Oscar for The Pianist. In his 1984 book he accused the mother of the girl, Samantha Geimer, of setting him up. In 2005 he won [pound]50,000 libel damages from Vanity Fair. Geimer said: "Surely a man like this hasn't got a reputation to tarnish?"
  • "Roman Polanski ; PEOPLE ++ WHERE ARE THEY NOW ++ On 11 March 1977 the film director was charged with raping a 13-year-old girl.;"Katy Guest. The Independent on Sunday. London (UK): Mar 11, 2007. pg. 58

The Daily Mirror says:

• "Polanski is a very arrogant, self-important, creepy old man," says Samantha, now a married mum-of-three who lives with husband David. Speaking exclusively to the Mirror at her home in Hawaii, the 39- year-old continues: "The libel case makes no sense. I really couldn't understand why he took out the lawsuit in the first place. Surely a man like this hasn't got a reputation to tarnish?" "He took sex from me and my innocence. I don't think it occurred to him that someone wouldn't want sex with him."
  • "Polanski raped me when I was 13 .. he is a creep" ; EXCLUSIVE: WE FIND GIRL DIRECTOR DRUGGED AND ABUSED; [2 STAR Edition] From RYAN PARRY US Correspondent on Kauai Island, Hawaii. The Daily Mirror. London (UK): Jul 25, 2005. pg. 25

So the Daily Mirror takes credit for being the original source of the line. Regardless of where it was first printed, the quotation appears to be factually correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Both Vanity Fair and The Daily Mirror are tabloid newspapers and therefore highly UNRELIABLE by WP:RS standards especially when a living person is involved. "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link". Under these grounds I am throwing the quote out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sex with a Zebra in Trafalgar Square

In an interview on CBS 60 Minutes, aired November 19, 1978, Roman Polanski was asked a question by Mike Wallace which he did not wish to answer. His response was: "I will not answer that question for the same reason as if you were to ask me if I had sex with a Zebra in Trafalgar Square, it does not matter what my answer is. The profound absurdity of the question is will be what will be remembered." [4]

When I was in college, we watched a documentary about interviewing that showed an interview with Polanski in which he was asked if a rumor were true that he had had sex with a zebra in Trafalgar square. The segment was included because he responded by asking the interviewer why he needed an answer to that question. when did the rumor start and is there any documentation of the rumor we can cite for the article? Unfortunately, I don't know the name of the documentary, but I think it was made by CBS News.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What? 65.5.240.250 (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to accuse someone of having sex with a zebra on trafalgar square you really need some solid evidence to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.99.240 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

National origin?

If he was born in France, is a French citizen, and lives there now doesn't that make him French? And his mother was Russian, so then wouldn't he be just as much Russian as Polish since his father was Polish? Does origin come only from the father's origin? What would be the ultimate dertermining factor behind calling him Polish? Does he personally itendify himself as Polish? Also further in the article it refers to "the Polanski" family" several times, but this is his father's family so shouldn't it be the Liebling family? And he is listed as an actor, but he never had any significant roles, and as a writer but he only really wrote for the screen, also this list of films that he wrote the screenplay for is incomplete, as he wrote many of his films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunctionX (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Raymond"

What's our source for the subject's middle name being "Raymond"?[5] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell you the original source, but that's his middle name listed on the court documents of the rape case. WickerGuy (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"He faces jail time if he returns to the United States"?

Not according to the recent documentary, which closed with the statement that the original defense lawyer and prosecutor presented the case to a new judge in 1997 who agreed that Polanski would serve no additional time in custody. However, there would be a public hearing, and for that reason Polanski declined.

The above is what the film says. Does anyone have any supporting material?

I've decided to put the question here before editing the article. - Rochkind (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he'd still be arrested for having fled the country while facing judicial procedure. They said that after being arrested and brought to court, the charges would be dropped, but only if all court procedures were done publically. That's why he declined to return to the US. -98.221.133.96 (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material

An unregisetered user made major changes to a section without providing any sources for the assertions.[6] I'm not opposed to the material, but it'd need to be properly sourced. I've reverted the edit pending sources. I've also notified the user on the IP's talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Convicted rapist

I don't think that a"guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" makes him a convicted rapist, does it? I've removed it just now, although if anyone can definitely provide evidence that it does make him one then please do. Even if true I'm not sure how important it is to his opening paragraph either. Diabolical (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To quote an info sheet on legal issues concerning sex and minors:

• Unlawful sexual intercourse is commonly called “statutory rape.” [7]

So he is convicted of what is commonly called statutory rape. I supposed "convicted statutory rapist" would be more accurate, but that's an odd construction. Having it somewhere in the intro is probably enough - it doesn't necessarily have to be in the lede sentence. The existing text looks ok to me, though we don't usually use ampersands (&) around here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

She was a child, it was rape, he was convicted and then fled the country. He is a convicted child rapist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If a school teacher stole a car this does not make a teacher "teacher and a car thief". Polanski is a film director and not child rapist, Formula 1 car driver (drove once in France) or coffee drinker etc, etc…--Jacurek (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It is not his occupation, nor his claim to fame. The matter is covered in appropriate detail in the second paragraph of the intro, plus an entire section in the body of the article. It isn't necessary to also have it in the first sentence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

He was not convicted of rape, no one will be able to provide evidence for it,because such evidence doesn't exist.And that he wasn't convicted of rape is one of the reasons he was able to stay in France.In case he was convicted,they would extradite him.He admitted having sex as he said a person who wasn't his wife and she was under 18 years old. He was not convicted and fled the country, get your facts straight. He fled because if convicted of statutory rape the jail term was even as much as 50 years than, people forget this fact. Also they forget that the judge (who was later removed from the case because of his mishadling the case), made no secret that he wanted to put Polanski behind bars for life. So, I agree that removing "convicted rapist" was right thing to do.This is an article about a living person, and sugesting such things like that someone was convicted if the person wasn't is really, really bad. Get the facts straight before handling such subject. Some people read wikipedia and they believe everything her is accurate.So, be responsible for your words.Also I agree that this case shouldn't stay int he opening paragraph,as he shouldn't be defined by this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.115.75 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rape of child

Wikipedia pages are not designed to chart every single event or occupation a person has ever had. They are however supposed to chronicle those things for wish a person is most known . Roman Polanski is well known for being a rapist. There is even a movie about this. There are many other famous people who are also very well know not just for there careers but also for events in their personal lives. One is OJ Simpson. He is very well known for his crimes and this is listed in the very first sentence of his page as well. Would you change that? Will this be changed 30 years from now when people have decided to forget about how much they talk about it now? Polanski is no deferent in that his crime is something he is well known for having done. This is an important and pivitol aspect of his character that still has an influence on his life and the lives of others. I am sure that at some point in his life he held a job other than those listed in the first sentence of his page, or even anywhere on his page, but those things are not as important or relevant to him and how he is known. Being a rapist however, is very relevant to how he is known, and as such should be included in those things for which he is most recognized. I suggest that if you feel this moment is not relevant to the fact that he does not return to the states, was also relevant to the fact that he did not even accept his academy award, and that if he does return to the states he will be arrested then perhaps you do not understand the impact that such an event has on a life. Rape is an event that never leaves a person. They will live with that event for the rest of their lives. It becomes an integral part of who they are and everything they do, regardless of being the rapist or the person being raped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Child raping is not his occupation. All this is covered later in the article. If one is a priest and gets drunk often would that make him a "priest and an alcoholic" ? No, he is stil a priest. How many time this has to be explained to you? --Jacurek (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The first line in the article is not just to describe professions but what the person is most notable for. Take at look at the OJ Simpson article, you will see this. Also examine the guidelines for articles. You obviously did not even read what I wrote earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You can also look at pages for other famous criminals such as Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer, who's professions are not even listed in the first sentence of their articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some other famous criminals that you can see are obviously well know for their crimes; Nathaniel Bar-Jonah, Albert Fish, Marc Dutroux, Rae Carruth, O.J. Simpson, David Berkowitz, and Angelo Buono.

The difference is that, with the exception of Simpson, those people are only known for their crimes. Polanski is first and foremost a movie director. That is how he achieved fame and notability. Like many people, he also broke the law. His crime is noteworthy, and it is covered in depth in the intro and in the article. It doesn't need to be inthe lead sentence as well. Furthermore, he was not convicted of raping a child. Whatever we put in should be accurate. Please don't keep reinserting that into this biography of a living person. WP:BLP applies.   Will Beback  talk  18:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to edit OJ Simpson's page too? Also, you do not cite any specific aspect of the WP:BLP that applies here. What you have decided he is formost known for is not a neutral point of view is it?

Because crime made them famous (except O.J.) Polanki is a film director and not serial rapist or criminal. Frankly, I don't even know why I am discussing this nonsense with you. Sorry...--Jacurek (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Crime made Polanski famous as well, both the events of the murder of his wife and his raping a child had much to do with his fame. This is something he is very well known for having done and is referenced several times in this page, along with his professions. If you think this should not be a part of his title sentence please reference a specific rule. (98.122.108.47 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

There is enough coverage of this important event in the article. Leave it out. There is a clear consensus that it does not belong. sinneed (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have used the term sex offender instead, as this fits specically within the defenition listed in the sex offender article and conforms to the comments of Will Beback. (98.122.108.47 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

Dear Anon 98.122.108.47: Let's assume that you are a casher in a super market which makes you "a casher". Currently you are engaged in disruptive Wiki editing called vandalism. Are you now going to introduce yourself " Hi, I'm a casher and a Wiki vandal”? No.... You are still a casher... O.K. ? I don't know how can I explain that better.....--Jacurek (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody claims that "child molester" or the like is his occupation, no version of the article has made this claim. Leaving this out from the lead implies that this is a minor matter compared to this film career. Apart from anything else, he is still on the run from several countries because of this issue. PatGallacher (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the lead-in? No one is proposing to leave it out of the lead-in. No one.sinneed (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed compromise language. Thoughts?sinneed (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this constitutes wp:undue. It seems to be "hammering away at him". I am going to revert my edits, and put this on the BLP abuse board.sinneed (talk)

Ok, I've had second thoughts, given that this is mentioned significantly in the second para., I don't think we need to mention it in the first para., although I would oppose toning it down much more than this. Although this is a BLP, I would be surprised if he sued since it would have to be heard in Florida. PatGallacher (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this is how it supposed to be. A whole section "Rape and other sex offenses" is already there and may be expanded if necessary.--Jacurek (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here? No one has been able to clearly define how him being very famous as a sex offender should not be in the very first sentence. The only arguement for this that has been made is that it is covered later in the article, but so has every other title in the first sentence. Should all of these terms then not apply as they are also covered later. At what point should something be regarded as being capable of being place into the first sentence. In writing articles of any sort, the main topics are usually referenced in the first sentence. As him being a sex offender is a large part of the article it should also be placed into the first sentence. No one has changed the OJ Simpson article, have they? Editing out the title of sex offender seems rather incongruous with other very similar articles that are not in dispute. If the subject were someone who has only been accused of a crime and not convicted of it (such as the famous case of Michael Jackson), then there would be a possible issue. Since Polanski was found guilty, it is a pivitol action in his life, it has had as much influence on his popularity as any of his film making and it is a main part of this article then it very aptly applies. The fact that he is a sex offender is something that cannot be disputed in any court in the USA and should not make it any sort of legal matter. Not one person has cited a single line from any rule or guideline in the WP:BLP that would rule out his first sentence containing the title sex offender. If you can cite something from the WP:BLP that would rule out sex offender as a title then please cite it here, change the article, and change the other similar articles that contain references to both people's famous professions and famous criminal acts. (98.122.108.47 (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

It would certainly be appropriate to include this in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar of page

There are also a great number of gammer errors on this page, I found two in just the second sentence; adjective "successful" used in place of adverb "successfully," and art house spelled "arthouse." Perhaps the rest of this article could use a grammer edit.(98.122.108.47 (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

Goodness. Please do not attempt to correct any of the grammar in this article. Kuru ^talk 00:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah you beat me to it. I was going to say "What?!?! No one should ever correct grammar in Wikipedia articles!!!". I am tempted to think that the use of "grammer" was part of the humor, but... Ah well, offtopic.  :,(
*puts on serious face* OK really, if there is an article that exists and has content, I say confidently that its wording could be improved. I lightheartedly hope that is what I do, most of the time. Please, if I am failing I don't want to know...and everyone is encouraged to pitch in, for sure. ;0)~ sinneed (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"I love Wikipedia" or "are filmmaker and director the same thing!?"

I learn the most interesting useless stuff. OK back to the subject.

I wanted to wikify " art house filmmaker and Hollywood director" and Wikipedia says that "filmmaker" and "director" are the same thing. This seems incorrect, but I am not knowledgeable about this.sinneed (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, "filmmaker" and "director" are the same thing. The title could be applied to producers, but that's very rare. The most suitable use of the term would be for auteurs who direct, produce, and even write their films. I'm not sure that "Hollywood director" is the best term though - he only made a few films in California.   Will Beback  talk  17:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK then, I think I see the point what if
"...and later became a celebrated art house filmmaker and Hollywood director of such films..."
becomes
"...and later became a celebrated director of both art house and mass-market films, making such films..."
or something?sinneed (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "mass-market" is the best term either. How about "commercial"?   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I liked commercial, but I thought the art-house people might break out in hives. :) sinneed (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going for it. The present wording hurts my eyes. :)sinneed (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversial

The article currently says:

Polanski is one of the world’s best known and one of the most controversial contemporary directors in Cinema History.

which while perhaps not technically incorrect is potentially misleading or confusing. To me saying someone is a controversial director suggest the controversy is related to their directing. E.g. they directed a lot of controversial films, they had lots of fights with actors/actress/producers, whatever. Polanski's notriety comes from his alleged rape of a minor which is only very loosely related to his directing. The source used also doesn't say he's a controversial director but that his reputating was tarnished. I've tried to think of a way to rephrase the sentence or perhaps add another sentence to address the issue in an NPOV fashion but haven't been able to Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

How about

Polanski is both one of the world’s best known contemporary directors and one of the most controversial individuals in Cinema History.

or similar?sinneed (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Or

Polanski is one of the world’s best known contemporary directors, and leads one of the most famous, notorious, and controversial personal lives in Cinema History.

• shrug* I like that less, I think.sinneed (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this?: Polanski is one of the world’s best known contemporary film directors in Cinema History with tragic and controversial personal life.--Jacurek (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we do a better job of separating the work and the life? Maybe something like, "Polanski is famous for his films as well as his tragic and controversial personal life." Considering how many controversial figures there have been in the history of cinema, it'd be hard to assert that his life is one of the most controversial.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done--Jacurek (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Polanski is a sex offender

Only Jacurek, Sinneed, and Will Beback have edited sex offender from the title sentence and none have provided any argument to show how this is vandalism other than that they just don't like it. Several cogent and logical arguments have been made to include this pertinent adjective. It applies to the individual's actions and life history, helps to describe the content of the article, is legally applicable, and complies with the WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.101.85 (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I can think of two reasons. Firstly in accordance with the Manual of Style for biographies, the lead sentence is to establish the reason for the person's notability. Polanski's notability rests upon his career as a film maker. Without his film career his personal life including his "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" would not have been enough for him to achieve notability. In fact, the reverse is true - his "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" is of interest to the general public only because he is an established and notable film maker. Reference to this belongs in the article, and it belongs in the lead section, but it doesn't belong in the opening sentence. Secondly "sex offender" is a very broad term which includes Polanski's crime but is not restricted to it. It's more accurate and more specific to discuss the case in context rather than attaching a label to it which is subject to interpretation. The lead section places Polanski's crime within context so that the main points are clear without having to read further into the article, and this is more useful than an isolated label. The application of WP:BLP requires more than a reliable source. It's not appropriate to give information that is accurate only if looked at from a particular angle, or that could be intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented. It's particularly relevant in this example as the issue is of such significance. It must be clear and unambiguous and able to withstand scrutiny.

You seem to be dismissing Jacurek, Sinneed and Will Beback on the basis that they are only three editors, although you are only one editor. I haven't removed the term from the article, but I support Jacurek, Sinneed and Will Beback in doing so. Rossrs (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See the previous discussion, it is a major part of the article and his life. As far as it being a part of his notability, it is a major part, as it has had a major impact on his life and career, see the OJ Simpson article. Any real editor, professor, or teacher reading a paper would point out right away that such a noteworthy point and large part of the body of the text should be made in the first sentence. This is English 101 stuff, and the quality of an online source such as this should meet much higher standards. How can you even start to edit the rest of the article if you can't see this first sentence is obviously lacking. I don't read wikipdeia because I read real sources of information like books, journals, newspapers and magazines. If I saw this sort of thing anywhere else I would send a letter the the writer/editor and complain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.101.85 (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Simpson's case is unique, and is so extra-ordinary that it eclipsed his football and acting career, and had legal, social, political and racial impacts that were greater than the case itself. Simpson is genuinely more "famous" as a result of the murders and subsequent trials. It is part of his notability. Polanski's situation is different. He's a notable person who got involved in a scandal and the only one who has really been affected by it is him, and interestingly enough, not to the obvious detriment of his career. Polanski's case is not well known by comparison, and it's had little if any impact beyond the immediate case.

Encyclopedia Britannica has this as their first sentence in their Polanski article. "....motion-picture director, scriptwriter, and actor who, through a variety of film genres, explored themes of isolation, desire, and absurdity." The unlawful sexual intercourse charge is not even mentioned until the 4th paragraph. Personally, I don't think Britannica is that great, but it's the closest equivalent in terms of being an online encyclopedia that at least tries to be factual and balanced. If it's OK to call him a "sex offender" in the first paragraph, how about "Holocaust survivor"? That's part of his story, and it must have influenced him, as themes of death and murder run through most of his films. Well, no. Elie Wiesel, yes because that's his reason for notability. Roman Polanski, no. There are a lot of things that make up a person and are important to their story, but they aren't all labels that need to be given in the first sentence. These are important points, but they are secondary. You said that nobody had given an argument. I at least tried to briefly present one, so it's disappointing that you have restated your case without addressing the points I made. In any case, this is a very new discussion, and hopefully other editors will offer their viewpoints. Rossrs (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"...none have provided any argument to show how this is vandalism other than that they just don't like it." - False. Don't do it again. Borders on personal attack. Focus on the content, not the people.
If you are interested, you may choose to read my remarks on why I argue against inclusion, then, you may possibly understand what my arguments are.
I state that it is vandalism because it has been removed repeatedly, is under discussion, and consensus so far is not to add it. If the consensus changes, I will be happy to make the edit FOR you, should the article be semi-protected and you still be editing anon.
Polanski has confessed to being a sex offender, specifically of having had sex with (to me) a child. This is covered heavily in the lead-in and in the article. It may be given too much weight already. Were it not for the fact that it has so tightly constrained his later career, I would STRONGLY argue that it is given undue weight.
My personal reaction when I learned this, 30 years ago, were primarily fury that he was wandering around loose after making oblique public reference to what he had done. He should have been jailed promptly, as a high flight risk. Personally, I see no excuse for the failure of the Justice system then, and even less excuse for people to continue to blat about the woman who was then a child. I hate that her name is in the article at all. I hate that the press pesters her still.sinneed (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(redacted comment)

[redacted]. Barry Brwzinsky (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this type of comment is highly inappropriate and violates WP:BLP. I have already removed it twice, but you reverted my change. I strongly caution you to maintain a neutral point of view, regardless of your personal beliefs. Thank you. --Chasingsol^(talk) 14:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Do never alter comments by other users, that constitute vandalism. You are the one removing information from the first paragraph, which I consider unacceptable. Barry Brwzinsky (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Violations of WP:BLP are a specifically blockable offense. Please do not introduce controversial material and try to maintain a neutral point of view. Thank you. --Chasingsol^(talk) 14:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually it is considered vandalism to remove the comments of other editors, however WP:BLP overrules that. Your personal viewpoint of Polanski is your own business, but you need to be careful about how you present your viewpoint in a public site such as this. User:Chasingsol was right to remove your comments, however you seem to have missed the point that was being made by referring to it as merely vandalism. I would suggest that you read WP:BLP and reconsider whether you would like to remove this section yourself. It would also be inappropriate to use this venue as a soapbox - mentioning Polanski's crime in the second paragraph rather than the first is not "attempts to obscure his crimes". Rossrs (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This revision of the lead is helpful and ok. Following WP:BLP, if any adjectives must be used to describe Polanski personally in negative, criminal terms, they must be wrapped straightforwardly in quotes and attributed to a highly reliable source. However, these are seldom if ever needed, since describing the charges and conviction themselves are more than enough. Likewise for talk page comments. Negative, unsourced adjectives must be removed. On en.Wikipedia this would hold true for any living person (and from my outlook, dead ones too), from someone convicted of jaywalking to [fill in the very worst thing you can think of]. We don't say "he is a jaywalker." We say, "he was convicted of jaywalking." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The logic that you are appying in this edit summary is original research. Like it or not, the weight of reliable sources do not use the negative terms that you are trying to add to the article. The lead paragraph now reads "In 1978, he was arrested in Los Angeles and pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", a 13-year-old girl." This conveys the facts in a neutral way that serves as a summary of the events written in the article. Gwen is correct that describing the charges and conviction themselves are more than enough. -- Suntag ☼ 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Structure change idea

How about: section - A fugitive

subsections: Scandal
Sex crime charges
Guilty plea
Imprisonment and flight from the US
Later developments (or similar, I don't like that one but... something?)

Some of the text needs to be reordered too, I think. sinneed (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I volunteer to do this, too. I wanted to put it in front of interested folks before I started tossing sentences around in the article with wild abandon. Ok maybe not wild abandon.sinneed (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A fugitive may be too sensationalistic and misleading for a BLP (Polanski has not been living underground or hidden from the public). Something more straightforward like Criminal charges in California or Sex crime charges in California (or Guilty plea to sex crime charges in California and so on) would be more fitting and much more neutral. An another note, the Chinatown section is an unhelpful mess of unsourced original research and should likely be stubbed straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"A fugitive" is not in any way sensationalistic or misleading. The man has utterly changed his life, even generated "firsts" in British law, to avoid being extradited to the US. France declined to extradite him, but he is a fugitive still. He entered a plea of guilty, broke the terms of his release, and fled 2 countries.sinneed (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A fugitive need not even have been found guilty. If the state wants a person, but the person cannot be found or cannot be "taken", then the person is a fugitive... guilty, innocent, victim-of-the-state... whatever their reason for flight. I am certainly willing to defer to your greater knowledge of Wikipedia... but I think softening the fact that he said in a formal way that he had sex with a 13-year-old is a Bad Thing.sinneed (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One may even claim to be a refugee from the US... this has been used by fugitives who did not have a citizenship to protect them. US law is MUCH harsher than some other nations (and MUCH softer than still others).sinneed (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think that "A fugitive" may be misleading a little .... but at the same time he is one.... sorry I'cant help here...--Jacurek (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this BLP is easy either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the big problem with "fugitive" is that we expect fugitives to be furtive, in hiding. But while this is certainly most common it isn't required. Few have other nations to run to, fewer still the resources to do it, even fewer have the spine to just drop and run and Never come back.sinneed (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When we hear fugitive we think of The Fugitive. However, Polanski neither directed that film, nor is he Harrison Ford, nor is he sought for his wife's murder, although Polanski did direct Harrison Ford in Frantic. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

:) sinneed (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• argh* You made the image of Polanski playing Harrison Ford pop into my head. Once it was there, I visualized him in Raiders of The Lost Ark. Now I need to chlorox my brain!sinneed (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so nobody riddled me with bullet holes, so when I was adding a new motion from Polanski's lawyers, I changed the subsection names. I am not sure they are good, yet, but it does have some kind of reasoned flow, and I don't say "fugitive". :) Biography is the section, so these are all subsections:

• Sex alleged with 13-year-old - This should be safe, BLP-wise, the allegations are HEAVILY documented in general and quite well by Polanski
• Sex crime charges and guilty plea - public record, heavily documented, and again, by Polanski
• Imprisonment and flight - again both well documented
• Later developments in the case - about as neutral as it can get... I wanted to say "sex crime case" but that just seemed tawdry

Then the next subsection is the lawsuit about the other sex allegation, which Polanski won.
I also moved a couple of things so all the 2000's stuff is together at the bottom (except the interview where the victim explained what happened). If this was a Bad Thing, I am not strongly attached, but I do think it is better, I do.sinneed (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinatown (1974)

I decided to wp:be bold and severely edited this section. All the edits are in that one section. If they don't help, let me know and I'll roll the entire batch back. A *lot* of that sounded like the content of either a eulogy or pre-release promo.

I left it with the intro/making...stars, Oscar nominations/wins. I left Polanski's cameo in, and attached it there.

Then the blurb about what happens in the film. I left it alone, I hope.

Then a MUCH hatchetized final para, with a fact-flag.

Hope it is an improvement. sinneed (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the section still need the flag? I was the hatchetizer, I don't think I should decide. :)sinneed (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of March 2009 - proposed cut

• This section was expanded again (discussion below). I cut the expansion. It has been restored. To avoid edit warring, since the other editor won't talk, I have made new edits. I left much of it in, and tightened up some that I had left in before.sinneed (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• I propose to cut the section to just the 2 current "top" paragraphs. The rest belongs in the article on the movie.sinneed (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

On-set squabble addition to Chinatown

I believe that the expansion:

"Polanski and Dunaway has frequent heated personal disagreements on the set, and the director also clashed with Towne over Polanski's desire to alter the script's original ending (the matter was eventually settled by producer Evans, who sided with Polanski)."

Has problems.
1st, it is negative and unsourced. If it is going to be added, it needs a source, and really 2. If I am wrong, I would like to hear from an established bio editor, so I can worry less about these wp:BLP things.
2nd, it is wp:trivia which adds no value to the article. WP is not a gossip rag.
3rd, I see it as undue weight to this silliness. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs with the movie, not here.
4th, it would be "had frequent".
5th, the parenthetical needs to be its own sentence.

If we need it at all, I propose:
"Polanski and Dunaway had frequent heated personal disagreements on the set. The director also clashed with Towne over Polanski's desire to alter the script's ending, with producer Evans settling the matter by agreeing with Polanski."
Or something. sinneed (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wording in the flight section

It says "where he held citizenship, in order to avoid extradition to the U.S. by Britain"
Why not
"where he holds citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain" or
"where he was born and holds citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain"
or something

I dislike stating his intent. This way we state the effect, which is objective... and we don't have to care why he did it. sinneed (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

...where he has long held citizenship, owing to which, differences between laws in France and the United Kingdom enabled Polanski to avoid extradition to the U.S.

I would use this kind of wording because it was owing to differences in both French extradition and criminal law, as to the classification and penalties for that kind of consensual behaviour (much less severe in France by comparison, especially 25 years ago, when it may even have been utterly legal, I don't know). Gwen Gale (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As I read the article, and as I vaguely remember from studying a SADLY large number of years ago, France might be willing to try him under the CA law, if the US asked. (not planning to put anything like that into the article, just observing)sinneed (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Polanski aside, from what I know about it, under French law and the extradition treaty France has with the US, one could have been tried in France however, in 1973 pleading guilty to such a crime would have been an admission of consensual behaviour which in France at the time, was either not a crime, or a crime with penalties/consequences so minor and insignificant in comparison to those in California that no French court would have approved the arrest of a French citizen for it.

As for Polanski, given the above, there is also much compassion, among Europeans who know the sad tale, on the topic of his wife Sharon Tate and their unborn child. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the general European perception that the US is populated by prudes, who code into law things best left to the individual, and leave to the individual much that should be covered by the law. But I fear we digress.sinneed (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

According to a documentary I saw, extradition was unlikely in any case and even if he came back to the USA, he would not face jail time. He would, however, have to have his day in court, amid a media blitz. Spotfixer (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the sources show, he might be kept in nick for weeks, at least, as a "flight risk," while things got straightened out. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The flight might be a big issue. If one is innocent of everything the state accuses, but flees, one is still guilty of flight. Judges sometimes take an EXTREMELY dim view of those who flee from the officers of the court: guilty, innocent, or iffy. This is one of the reasons lawyers try to get their clients not to flee. It offends the people who have Great Power over the defendant's future. Fleeing for 30 years and living well and happily? Mmm.sinneed (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I made 2 changes that are just a start on this, I think. I don't oppose the broader change idea, but I very much wanted to take out the statements of "why" about the flight. Easily reverted if someone objects, but I think these go in the right direction.sinneed (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Enchanted Bicycle (1955)

The fragment below confuses two movies. Polański didn't direct "Enchanted Bicycle", it was Silik Sternfeld. Polański had a role in this movie, and he also helped to draw the storyboard, but did not direct. It is also not true that the feature is lost - it has been broadcast on Polish TV recently (February 2009). There was a different short movie called simply "Bicycle" (but not "Magical" or "Enchanted" one) made by Polański which fits the description below.

Polański's directorial debut was in 1955 with the film Zaczarowany rower (variously known as Bicycle, The Magical Bicycle, and The Enchanted Bicycle). It is a 1955 semi-autobiographical feature film, currently believed to be lost, which also starred Polanski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.103.25.233 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Tragic" life in lead section

I have removed this as unsourced and unneccessary commentary, especially in the lead section. Maybe include it further into the article. I know that what he is known for is POV so hopefully others will help out here. Thank you, --Tom 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Many people have had bad things happen to them. We four dozen articles on Holocaust survivors, some of whom lost their entire families. But despite all of the grief and woe, we don't describe their lives as "tragic". It's not enycyclopedic to make that kind of judgment. Readers can do that on their own by reading the facts of his life.   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is one of the countless links describing his life as "tragic"[8] Also in my personal opinion it was very much so. Survived the Holocaust as a lonely child, only to find out that his mother is dead. Then his PREGNANT wife gets murdered along side his friends. If this is not "tragic" then I don't know what is.. I added "turbulent" instead. Hope this is o.k.--Jacurek (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What, his plane hit some air pockets as he was fleeing the country? Will, what do you think of this "compromise"? My question would be why do we have to include ANY type of qualifer here? The reason for the controversial decriber is because of his very well noted legal woes. Does the other "stuff" rise to the same level of notablity that requires a 2nd adjective? Anyways, what do others think? --Tom 21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see how it improves the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is minor, but at the same time, it is “one sentence” which "describes" his entire life that was not only controversial but tragic. Good opening line, that is all.--Jacurek (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you use "tragic" when it has been pointed out that is not encyclopediatic but a POV. --Tom 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The guy is rich, famous, and free. I am not buying tragic. His life is clearly notable, both for stunning feats of poor judgement and great talent. There is tragedy in every life. That is part of what life is.sinneed (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC) And yes, I like turbulent. But do we need it in the lead?sinneed (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion fits o.k. there as "entry line", but now I'm outnumbered by 3:1 so please do what you think is appropriate.--Jacurek (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't care either way at this point and will not edit it further. At least it has been discussed and is on the "record". The guys life has been pretty "bumpy" to say the least so maybe its ok? Anyways, no need to make glue out of this horse so lets see what happens. Thanks, --Tom 19:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, huge edits

An editor has made very many (40 or so) edits. Some good. Some bad. (IMO, of course). No edit summaries. I chewed backward through them all (I think my eyes are bleeding), and killed the ones I thought most egregious.sinneed (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Pray tell, what is so "egregious" about my edits? I merely clarified and improved a few things in this article. I thought that was what Wikipedia was for... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.201.75 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are 40 of them. Had you added wp:edit summaries, they might have been fine.
If you scroll up, you may find the Chinatown discussion. The movie has far too much information here. This is an article about the director. It might, indeed, be better to simply have a listing of his movies, so that the movie editors can focus on the movie articles, instead of knowing that they need to make their edits both there and here.
Please delete the on-set gossip about who squabbled with whom and who supported which. It is negative, controversial to those who care, and unsourced. It does not comply with wp:BLP and it is wp:trivia, and adds nothing to the article whatever.
In fact, all the additions are unsourced.
The wording changes that made things clearer were welcome, even those I disagreed with.
The glowing fan cruft at Chinatown needs to go. It is clearly not compliant with wp:NPOV. If you roll back through the history, you can see the edit summaries where it was cut. If you scroll up here to the chinatown section, you can see why it was cut.sinneed (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

also..do not be discouraged, some of you edits are very good but with other some editors may not agree with. This is why it is better to make one or two changes at the time and explain your changes in the edit summaries if necessary. I think that the sudden "invasion" and huge amount of changes at ones are the main problem here. I am sure this will be resolved. In addition, you may consider registering your name.--Jacurek (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Please delete the on-set gossip about who squabbled with whom and who supported which. It is negative, controversial to those who care, and unsourced. It does not comply with wp:BLP and it is wp:trivia, and adds nothing to the article whatever."

What are you talking about???? There is absolutely no "gossip" in my additions to this article: indeed, my very brief and judicious mention of "who squabbled with whom" on the set of Chinatown refers to incontestable, well-established facts which any biographical source or first-hand testimony will support. Polanski did have frequent heated disagreements with Faye Dunaway during the making of the movie — absolutely no one disputes this! Likewise, Polanski did clash with Robert Towne over how the movie was to end — this is hardly "controversial"; merely a neutral statement of recorded facts. I have no idea what you are getting so excited about!

Also, the movie's reputation as a masterpiece and landmark of "New Hollywood" filmmaking and the revisionist "neo-noir" genre — as well as the common interpretation of the movie as a kind of cinematic "parable" about personal and civic corruption and its dark machinations in 1930s L.A. vis-a-vis the palpable sense of corruption that was rife in post-Vietnam, post-Watergate 1970s America — is firmly established by critical and popular consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.201.75 (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Chinatown (please see above, it has its own section)

• Cutting tomorrow unless it is sourced and some kind of relevance is shown:

"Polanski and Dunaway has frequent heated personal disagreements on the set, and the director also clashed with Towne over Polanski's desire to alter the script's original ending (the matter was eventually settled by producer Evans, who sided with Polanski)." This does not comply with wp:BLP.

• Cutting tomorrow unless sourced:

"Today, Chinatown remains an unassailable classic of the neo-noir genre and a landmark of New Hollywood filmmaking..."

• Restoring tomorrow, unless there is a reason it does not belong:

"The screenplay won Robert Towne his only Oscar so far."

Restoring the flag on the section now.

The wp:undue expansion of the Chinatown section is not needed here.

Translating the names of films famous under their original names is not excellent. Adding the translated name in parens is the accepted style. I am not sure that is included in wp:MOS, but it is standard usage.

sinneed (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the wp:Original Research flag (new syntax) to the Chinatown section.sinneed (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"... incontestable, well-established facts which any biographical source" - Then it won't be a problem for you to add 2 citations from wp:RS for it. It may be more difficult to explain why it matters in an encyclopedia. The wp:burden is on the adder of the content. Note that wp:BLP applies.

"...is firmly established by critical and popular consensus" - then you won't have any trouble finding a source for it, either. Explaining why it belongs in this article, rather than the movie's, may be more tifficult. Again, the wp:burden is on the adder of the content.sinneed (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Last call for concerns over removing the recent expansion of Wp:OR at Chinatown section.sinneed (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I vote in favor of keeping the material on "Chinatown" short. This articls is about Polanski. We have an entire article devoted to the film.   Will Beback  talk  09:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Chinatown restore to much shorter version done. I hope that anyone who sees anything unsourced and unneeded will kill it, and any seeing anything unsourced and needed will source it. Really, the entire article is simply bloated with wp:OR. I encourage editorial hatchet use on the original research.

• I also respectfully request that expansions be sourced...the flags are in the article so unsourced additions are already challenged.sinneed (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Style section: large addition, all wp:OR

In this sense, Polanski's oeuvre — particularly, his most celebrated work from the 1950s through to the 1970s — seems to reflect a decidedly pessimistic and desolate absurdist worldview. This attitude is also present in later Polanski films like Bitter Moon and The Ninth Gate; however, in these films it is presented in a somewhat more arch, jaded and quasi-satirical manner. Indeed, Polanski's old tendency towards unremitting bleakness appears to have mellowed in recent years, with films like Frantic, Death and the Maiden and The Pianist ultimately imparting a more hopeful view of human nature and admitting the possibility of redemptive action the face of an absurd and hostile universe.

While this is truly fascinating, it is entirely wp:OR as is much of the existing content...we already have far too much, adding more at this point is Not A Good Thing. Please source before re-adding.sinneed (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I cut the section. It has, like all the massive OR, been challenged for months. No one appears interested in producing sources. Easily reverted if someone disagrees.sinneed (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

On reflection...essentially the entire article is wp:OR. What is a bit more?sinneed (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Work/personal life split?

This weekend I hope to dive in and start separating Polanski's director/actor work from his personal life (can't be done entirely, I should think) as much as practical.

To help with the possibility that someone's (or for that matter many someones') hair will fall out due to intense stress if I do, I plan to try to put the edits into revert-able groups. I do think this will make it easier to cut down on the wp:OR growth that seems to plague the movies especially.

Once that is settled down, I would very much like to see the movie stuff mostly go live in the movie articles. I will see if I can find a director with a GA- or FA- quality article. Does anyone know of any?sinneed (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Having edited a few hundred biographies, it's my view that a good approach is to include as much biographical material as possible in chronological order, and then cover general topics like themes and reception after that.   Will Beback  talk  12:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Started this. Any help appreciated. Any opposition too, really. If you have a concern, please share. If you see some personal embeded in the movies, maybe pitch in?- sinneed (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• No comments pro or con. Moving forward.- sinneed (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• I light-heartedly hope that is better.- sinneed (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rolled back some changes. Tasteful? Allegations of sex with a 13-year-old are not tasteful

The 13-year-old thing needs to stay, and no it is not TMI.
It is heavily documented. The allegations were made in sworn testimony, and are part of the public record.
Since his charges, guilty plea, imprisonment, and flight pretty much define his life for the past 30 years, they don't need to be deprecated.
This is all a long, long, winding discussion here on the talk page. Please feel free to join in.sinneed (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"...may or may not have occurred..." - You have read he denies the act? A source would be good. He argues he was set up, that it was a blackmail and casting couch scam.sinneed (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so here's the explanation. Pleas keep in mind, however, that WP:ROLLBACK is only for vandalism and other bad-faith edits. I'm aware of what the allegations are, and I've left the sources in the article. I simply removed excessive detail, because, per WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Even if this weren't a BLP, and even though WP is not censored, it would be important to discriminate between encyclopedic information and peripheral trivia. Yes, the allegations of statutory rape have had a tremendous impact on his life and on the public's perception of him, but the idea that the alleged rape consisted of his doing X, Y, and Z to her has not. The allegation that fits within reason under WP:WELLKNOWN, the most permissive part of BLP, is that he, an adult, committed criminal sexual acts with a minor--not that he committed any specific act with any specific part of the girl's anatomy. My edits consisted of A) toning down the sensationalism, which is perfectly consistent with all aspects of BLP to which I've just referred; and B) organizing a bunch of sections about the event into a single section with several subsections, which shouldn't be a controversial thing to do at all. Someone else commended me for my edits, so I don't imagine that I did anything terribly wrong. Probably nothing to warrant an immediate revert, given that I was acting with BLP in mind (note that BLP-based edits can even be exempt from WP:3RR), and most definitely nothing to warrant a rollback. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

wp:BRD - Actually, the victim has complained repeated(ly) about how very very VERY much the lurid details are so very VERY well known. The prosecution has related them repeatedly on internationally-broadcast television, and she has been hounded by the press. Making a series of wide-ranging wp:BRD edits, as you did, is not vandalism. But it is a bit unkind. I won't revert it again, but if you feel this is too strong after all the "softening" we have done, please take it to wider review instead. There are many who argue that his fame for the sex crime is more important than anything else in his life, and the wording as is is painful consensus.sinneed (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Idly, as I asked before: do you have a source that shows the victim or he (the LP's involved) argue the acts did not take place? None has been offered. His argument as I have read it was not that he didn't do it, it was that he was the victim.sinneed (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that anyone's denying that the events occurred (although I'm unaware of an admission by Polanski to the "lurid details"), but rather that neither of the parties seems very interested in affirming the events. Geimer has stated that the publicity has caused her harm, and WP:BLP states that "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment"; Wikipedia should not emulate the wellsprings of harmful publicity. WP:WELLKNOWN also cautions against the liberal citation of primary sources--especially public records such as court transcripts, which were, in fact, precisely what were cited in support of the sensational details. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to cover up the tracks of an admitted pedophile, sodomizer and rapist Cosmic Latte, if that is your agenda take it elsewhere. The girl seemed very interested in affirming the events in court and if that no good coward had stayed at home he would have been put away for good. But it's all great to get the crowd's sympathy with playing broken husband to your dead wife that he had been, in his own admission, numerous times unfaithful to, but when you sodomize a young girl after drugging her up it's ok to flee. I wonder if charlie manson had fled the u.s....but manson wasn't as well connected as this guy who got a away with rape. And now we get someone like yourself talking about "not harming" poor rapist Roman by stating the facts..the nerve of some people... 94.71.170.254 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a place to sensationalize or introduce emotion, but should cover an event in sufficient detail as to make the meaning clear. The article discusses the issue without ambiguity, but it does not need a laundry list of sexual acts in order to convey the basics of the case. Is there anything in the article or Cosmic Latte's edits that make it unclear or that serve to excuse Polanski, as you are suggesting? Have you actually read Cosmic Latte's edits in the article, because you've clearly misinterpreted his comment here in which the "not harming" comment is obviously in reference to Geimer, not Polanski. Rossrs (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories

I commented above, but maybe folks didn't see this. What are folk's (not including Wassermann of course) thoughts on including the "Jewish" categories? I see that the rapist categories is also in play. The article talks about his families ethnicity and persecution, but also talk about not being raised Jewish, ect. Are their reliable source either way or does he self identify himself? Anyways, I will not revert for now but wait for input. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Both Jewish and criminal categories are often contentious. The Jewish categories are a problem because of the cultural, religious, and ethnic definitions of being Jewish. Without further research, it appears that the subject is ethnically Jewish, but perhaps not religiously observant. Regarding the criminal categories, it's clear that Category:Fugitives wanted by the United States applies. I'm a bit uncomfortable with Category:French rapists because statutory rape is significantly different from other forms of rape, and his actual guilty plea was on a charge of "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Perhaps the answer there is a new category.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This article indicates that his maternal grandmother was not Jewish, so he would not be regarded as Jewish by religous law. (See who is a Jew?) "Ethnically Jewish" is open to interpretation. He should be in category "statutory rapists" or similar. PatGallacher (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research tag

It also carries this hidden text: This biography of a living person (WP:BLP) is way undersourced, needs many inline citations and hence may carry WP:OR. Please do not remove this flag until the text has been thoroughly and reliably sourced. This flag has little to do with any fact-flags which may be scattered through the text, but is a warning about the article as a whole. These worries would be meaningful even without Polanski's legal woes in the states, whatever one's PoV on these may be. Please do not remove the OR tag unless there is consensus here on the talk page to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I like those changes to the comment, and made a couple more "This biography of a living person (WP:BLP) is severely under-sourced, and needs many inline citations wp:cite. Thus, it carries an article flag cautioning about WP:OR. Please do not remove this flag until the text has been thoroughly and reliably sourced (wp:RS). This flag has little to do with any fact-flags which may be scattered through the text, but is a warning about the article as a whole."- sinneed (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is a gigantic mash of wp:OR

I am going to wield the editorial hatchet. Mixing my metaphors happily, if I gore your favorite ox, sorry. If you restore your favorite ox, please do so with a source. Thanks.

After the massive shrink, I am going to move the biographical out of the filmography.- sinneed (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Can't do it. There would be noting left. It would be a stubby stub with some lists.- sinneed (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried... but I kept coming across bits that I could see should be sourcable and that represent huge amounts of work... Sorry.- sinneed (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sex crime- allegations

Why is the section titled "sex crime allegations" when he plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor? That is a sex crime, and obviously is more than just an allegation, since he plead guilty! Ninahexan (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this addressed in the new structure. Thoughts?- sinneed (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For consideration.

"Polański speaks 6 languages: his native Polish and French as well as English, Russian, Spanish, and Italian."

This was in the lead...no source, nothing like it in the body. Didn't want to just discard.- sinneed (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The EL and "Style and themes" are presently flagged

The brief essay on Polanski's style and themes is interesting and probably contains widely held views, as the author stated. But Wikipedia is intended as a place to summarize work in secondary sources, rather than as a way to publish original work, however good, and however widely accepted in the world. I propose to cut this section to the talk page for possible addition with sourcing. I then propose to be very firm indeed in applying the editorial hatchet to any unsourced bits added.- sinneed (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There are too many ELs. I think I probably added some... I think some were used as sources in the article but weren't appropriate (IIRC) as wp:RS. I propose to cut it to just 2... the IMDB link and what appears to be the (dead) official website, and copy the rest here for possible re-inclusion by interested editors. - sinneed (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sex allegation citation move?

I am dubious of moving that citation without the PN being satisfied... I *THINK* I added that cite to simply show that there was, in fact, such a book and provide easy access to the source... that was a while ago. I don't think it covers the allegation, and I thought I had removed that entirely at one point. Searching the text on Google books doesn't turn up any obvious hits. I am very dubious about this bit. I am going to remove it. An interested editor may readd it... I won't kill it again any time soon if it is restored... but wp:BLP applies.- sinneed (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Chronology, visible online.

"Roman Polanski: Interviews" Chronology begins on page xv.- sinneed (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust survival

Polanski survived the Holocaust in German occupied Poland during WWII.

Pace the criteria defining 'Holocaust survivors' on the page List of Holocaust survivors, it seems to be stretching a point to say that Polański 'survived the Holocaust'. Might we consider saying instead that 'Polański survived the Nazi occupation of Poland'?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The relevant text you're pointing to says:

• Those listed here were, at the very least, residents of the parts of Europe occupied by the Axis powers during World War II who survived until the end of the Holocaust (and the war). The majority of these people survived incarceration in the Nazi concentration camps, but that is not strictly necessary for the purposes of this list.

The implication of "Holocaust survivor" is someone who survived the camps, or related persecution.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Being Jewish Polanski survived the Holocaust and not just the German Occupation of Poland. This is a huge difference. He had to be hidden from the Nazis just like other Jewish kids or adults to avoid death, unlike his Polish compatriots who could live without fear of being killed immediately. In addition, Poland was occupied by the Germans or Nazi Germany and not by some "Nazis from Mars".--Jacurek (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

== Just curious really... ==

OK, but why? All this dubious stuff I hope to chew through, flagging and very possibly killing eventually.- sinneed (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Moot. Sources added.- sinneed (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not think that this "During the Soviet imposed communism in Poland, Roman Polanski attended the Polish film school in Łódź, and graduated in 1959" needed references since all the info is in the links.--Jacurek (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, I must say that your tone makes you come across as a bit out of control. There is really no need to write in bold or in italics. As for the Germans, I wasn't trying to deny that the Nazi occupation of Poland was also a German occupation, but I think that "Nazi" can be understood to mean "Nazi German" if you are talking about the Second World War. Nobody thinks that any Nazis came from Mars. Indeed, are you certain that all the Nazis in Poland were German? Were there no occupying forces from Germany's allies? How would you feel about, "the German-led Nazi occupation", or "the occupation by Nazi Germany and her allies"? But to be honest, anybody who didn't have an ideological axe to grind would be perfectly happy to use the terms "Nazi" and "Nazi German" interchangably when talking about the military history of the Second World War. I suppose you could well quibble over the fact that there were Germans who weren't Nazis, and for that reason I shouldn't like to use "Nazi" as a synonym for "German". There may even have been German soldiers occupying Poland who didn't personally support the Nazi ideology. Even so, the occupation itself was a product of the ideology and so I think that "Nazi" is a perfectly good word to use. It is, after all, derived from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which includes a clear reference to Germany.

I do take the point that all Jews in occupied Europe could be said to have survived the Holocaust in its broad definition, but I stand by the assertion that many, perhaps most, people reading it would immediately think of somebody who had survived direct involvement in the systematic destruction of the Jewish people, e.g. by spending time in a concentration camp. You could similarly say that any man who was eligible for military service during the First World War had survived the First World War if he was still alive, and not fatally wounded, on 11 November 1918. However, most people would assume that a "survivor of the First World War" had actually experienced combat and had, for example, direct experience spending time in the trenches.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxonian2006, my tone may sound a bit out of control but I'm not. Issues like this one are very important to me due to my own family history. Now, going further into your comment...unfortunately the knowledge about the occupation of Poland is not as universal as you may think. To many term "the Nazis" does not mean the Germans as you suggested. Poland was not occupied by the "Nazis" who came from "Greenland or Mars" or "Nazi allies". Poland was occupied by the Nazi Germany or German Army (Wehrmacht) and at the beginning of the war also by the Soviet Union or Red Army. There were no other German allied troops occupying Poland unless you count Italian, Spanish and other Waffen SS troops marching to the Eastern Front. "The German-led Nazi occupation" you suggested is also incorrect, there was no such thing. Half of Poland was incorporated into the Third Reich with their citizens either murdered or expelled into the "General Government" which was created and %100 controlled by the German Nazi government, Nazi police and SS units, German Army, German civilian institutions and German settlers not necessarily the Nazis themselves... nobody else. Therefore the "Nazis" is NOT perfectly good word to use in this case and never will be. Now, about the Polanski who in your opinion is not a Holocaust survivor. Well...he escaped the Cracow Ghetto on the way to the extermination camp. He would be dead otherwise. Then he barely survived hiding at sympathetic to him Polish farmers barn avoiding the Germans who would kill him immediately if found. Every Jew hiding outside the Ghettos was immediately shot by the Germans if discovered. His rescuers and rescuers family was also killed on the spot. I don't dare to suggest that you did not know about that. Every Jew who survived the war in Poland is a Holocaust survivor and it does not matter if he managed to survive Auschwitz, Cracow Ghetto or by hiding in the forest. They all survived hell, so did Polanski.--Jacurek (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Communism

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)

Removal of "PoV" header content I restored.

I have suggested that, instead, the content that is challenged be flagged. My reasoning here is that wp:lead seems to tell me that content in the lead should rest on the content in the body, and that the sources need not be included in the lead. If needed, I am sure we can find quotes to say his is a celebrated director, but that seems a bit over the top. - Sinneed (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I sourced the "celebrated" to the BBC... this is widely published (news google of "polanski "celebrated director" == many many reputable hits).

"Polanski is one of the world's best known contemporary film directors." - this has been removed a number of times... twice in the last couple of days by anon editor(s). I think it is clear by inspection that this is so, but it may but it may be that it truly does qualify under wp:SYNTH, unless someone sees a source that says it. Thoughts? - Sinneed (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Arrest in Switzerland

On the 27th September 2009 Polanski was arrested entering Switzerland and taken into custody under the 1978 US arrest warrant, I have added same under 1.3.2 'Later developments in the case'Twobells (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)