Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 14

What controversies?

User:Psalm84 is continually referring to "controversies," however, it's not clear what "controversies" they are referring to. The term is used in various contexts by the editor, and the term should be clarified:

• "controversy over Polanski's treatment by the legal system . . . controversy about how the judge, prosecutor or media handled the case."
• "Polanski being a controversial figure"
• Polanski "well-known for being controversial"
• "controversy over Polanski."

However, insofar as their edits being removed, the only actual "controversy" was whether adding minutia about a crime incident should be included. Adding commentary related to the first four uses, but skipping over the actual "controversy" with their edits, their comments become a personal POV essay. Statements like, "One of the first thoughts in most people's minds when Roman Polanski is mentioned . . ." is POV, and with that as their basic premise, the rest becomes advocacy. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the controversies I've mentioned are clear in context, and they represent dominant public beliefs on him. Just google "Wanted and Desired" and "controversy" and you'll see (the first three hits):

imdb: "One of the most controversial and brilliant directors."

theweek: "A trailer for HBO Documentary Films' documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, about the controversial filmmaker."

wikipedia (on the page about the documentary): "led to Polanski fleeing the United States after being embroiled in a controversial..."

The separate case page also refers to different reactions in different countries to Polanski's arrest, talks about an L.A. Times article that compares Hollywood's reactions to Middle America's, and the documentary title "Wanted and Desired" basically refers to him being wanted on charges in American but desired in Europe. You also find all sorts of news/opinion articles that basically either think the sexual assault shouldn't be forgotten or that are supportive of him. The public view of him is split, and this particular page doesn't reflect that. There seems to be a weight issue on this particular page.

Psalm84 (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that he's under an arrest warrant in the U.S. ("wanted" by the police) and that he's liked by most of Europe's public, doesn't really clarify much. He's obviously very popular in the U.S. also, winning an Academy Award, making popular films, etc. As for Googling "controversial" and "Polanski," that doesn't add much either. There are 750,000 Google references for "Polanski" and "controversial." Yet there are 25 million for "controversy" with "Wikipedia," 21 million with "Atlantic Ocean," 71 million with "Earth," and 75 million with "Sun." Yet none of their articles discusses those things as "controversial."

Although you are relying on the documentary, "Wanted and Desired," ie. "controversy over Polanski's treatment by the legal system . . .[and the] controversy about how the judge, prosecutor or media handled the case." So if you're implying, as both Geimer and the prosecutor did in the film, that it was looking to become a controversial show trial, that implication is already in the section about the film. But without some other clarification, it really doesn't seem that because someone commits a crime and/or pleads guilty to one, that they automatically become a "controversial figure," although it's certainly notable and newsworthy. Can you state your position more clearly? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't at all mind getting the opinions of others on any of these points, like, for example, whether the basic facts of a crime are "minutiae," or this one:

"One of the first thoughts in most people's minds when Roman Polanski is mentioned . . ."

I'd also welcome feedback on the controversy aspect. I think it's beyond well-established that Polanski is a controversial figure, and his case has been and is still today controversial, and the possibility of judicial misconduct is only one part of it. As you imply about the Google searches, it's a matter of quality not just quantity, and Polanski is consistently called controversial, and that's in connection to the Geimer case. I also wasn't relying on the "Wanted and Desired" result. That just happened to be one of the first three so I mentioned it.

"if you're implying, as both Geimer and the prosecutor did in the film, that it was looking to become a controversial show trial"

That's one viewpoint, but only one. An encyclopedia article is supposed to merely present all major viewpoints without trying to judge what the truth is. And that claim, and what it means to the case, haven't been proven in court. Polanski needs to come back for that. A documentary is interesting, but for good reason it has no legal weight or power. It has license to present whatever it wants however it wants.

"it really doesn't seem that because someone commits a crime and/or pleads guilty to one, that they automatically become a "controversial figure," although it's certainly notable and newsworthy."

That's hypothetical, but in this case, there's an actual answer. Polanski already has been and still is controversial and his case is controversial. That's beyond debate. And a significant minority of people, if not a majority, view him negatively for what he did, and it's the "significant minority" which counts in terms of what to include in an encyclopedia article.

"The fact that he's under an arrest warrant in the U.S. ("wanted" by the police) and that he's liked by most of Europe's public, doesn't really clarify much. He's obviously very popular in the U.S. also, winning an Academy Award, making popular films, etc."

Since this is supposed to be a NPOV encyclopedia article, it's supposed to represent an issue and not take sides, and that's done through evidence. So what about all the evidence out there - in the form of all sorts of news/opinion articles which show that the public and the writers writing on Polanski and the case recognize the controversies, and that many people don't believe he's paid his debt to society? And then there are blogs and comments on articles in which people also debate the issues involved. All that evidence actually exists, and that's what Wikipedia depends on and goes by. It shouldn't be ignored.

You also say that he's "liked by most of Europe's public"? Where's the proof for that statement, then? Some European politicians were also criticized for supporting him.

Psalm84 (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And one other thing about "Wanted and Desired." Again, there is plenty of evidence out there that shows Polanski and the case are controversial. "Wanted and Desired" is merely one piece. The bio, though, makes no mention of there being controversies. You might think, though, that it would in a section on "Wanted and Desired," whose title is about Polanski being a controversial figure. Psalm84 (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I see that the forum is still open so I'll have to wait till specific proposals with reliable sourcing, WIKI-style, are made. See you then.TMCk (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm here for the RFC. Editors shouldn't mask allegations of criminal behaviour behind vague references to "controversy" in a BLP (or a biography of a historic figure either). Editors are expressing an opinion, and imposing a value judgement, if they describe a person/event as "controversial" without explaining why with referenced sources. You can quote sources that refer to a person/event as "controversial", but that's as far as an encyclopedia article should go. Polanski has been called "controversial" for a few reasons that have nothing to do with the charges or trial; "Rosemary's Baby" generated lots of controversy when it was released, "Chinatown" was a bit of a scandal too, so he's had some controversy just in the sense of his directing career. My point is, in order to explore controversial aspects of his life or career, the editor should be very specific about what the source is deeming to be controversial, and use clear references to reliable sources. Avoid blanket value statements about the trial, the investigation, and other events. Encyclopedia articles should avoid interpreting news or media coverage as much as possible, and just cite the sources. Refer to as many sides of a controversy as you can, as long as you cite them. Given how much media coverage Polanski's career and his decision not to return to the US, even when he won the Oscar for directing "The Pianist", there should be no shortage of sources in newspaper and magazine articles to cite.OttawaAC (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OttawaAC you make clear - well observed - salient points! It is possible for a person to have multi factorial controversies. Some just see the word and run with it! There are no shortage of sources to address all issues equally, clearly and encyclopaedicaly. Maybe one day? Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Planski's movies and Planski's career as a director are not any more or less controversial than anyone else's. Polanski as a public figure, however, is undoubtedly controversial as many, many sources attest. Since this is an article about the man in general , as opposed to a more specific article(s) "about the director" or "about Roman Polanski Films", then the controversies/legal troubles should be given due weight, probably in the personal life section, maybe under a sub-header of "Legal troubles" with care not to intertwine them unduly with his career or filmography. I imagine the problem editors working on this article are running across (b/c this is what I am seeing, too) is that most sources do tend to associate his career with his legal troubles because, let's face it, if Polanski was working on an assembly line in a factory somewhere, they probably wouldn't be writing about it. On the other hand, if it were not for the fact that Polanski was a public figure, he'd probably have been extradited and tried a long time ago. So the two aren't mutually exclusive...there's not a bright line here...but I'd advise, before including info on controversies, asking yourself if the controversies would deserve inclusion if Polanski was not a famous public figure. If not, then associating them with his career or his films (or criticism of his films) should probably be avoided, and the info simply inlcuded in the personal life section.. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 18:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Some Roman Polanski page issues being disputed

These are some issues that have been raised in the previous two sections, "Unbalanced account of the sexual assault" and "What Controversies?"

• At this time the "Sexual Assault Case" section on the Polanski page seems to leave the impression that the case was always just a matter of statutory rape because it only specifically mentions that he was arrested for "the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer," that he was charged with rape (which it seems without more information would be due to Geimer's age), and that he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. That's a potential issue because the section then goes on with a detailed discussion of the case and its controversies, but it seems they can't be properly considered without a more accurate understanding of what Polanski was accused of. Adding more information on the allegations than what's presently on the page has been opposed, though.

Including that Geimer was uncomfortable going with Polanski, was given champagne and part of a Quaalude by him, and then initially resisted his advances has been opposed as "minutia about a crime incident," even though they are facts which typically get reported in news and opinion articles that discuss the case. Including at least some of the initial 6 charges against Polanski has also been opposed.

• Mentioning in the bio that Polanski and his case are controversial has also been opposed. I wrote that, "...this page also entirely leaves out mention of Polanski being a controversial figure...It seems it should definitely be worked in here on his page somewhere. He is very well-known for being controversial, and the public has very different views of him. At the very, very least a significant minority of people hold negative views of him."

In reply to that Wikiwatcher1 created the section, "What Controversies?" and wrote: "So if you're implying, as both Geimer and the prosecutor did in the film, that it was looking to become a controversial show trial, that implication is already in the section about the film. But without some other clarification, it really doesn't seem that because someone commits a crime and/or pleads guilty to one, that they automatically become a "controversial figure," although it's certainly notable and newsworthy."

It seems indisputable that Polanski and the case are controversial, but I've given evidence (for example, from IMDb: "One of the most controversial and brilliant directors") and offered to present more that it is generally agreed that whatever one's opinions, both are seen as controversial. Psalm84 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• And still the same, the forum is still open so I still have to wait some more until specific proposals with reliable sourcing, WIKI-style, are made.TMCk (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Point 1 - I agree that the lack of candid accuracy as to charges leaves an incomplete impression. Are the full charges cited any where in accessible online sources from the court? That may address the deadlock.
  
  
• Point 2 - it seems that you have an **opinion** that Polanski is "Controversial". Your opinions don't count. Find sources that say he is and why, and then they can be used, provided they make sense. I have the opinion that George W Bush is a baboon. If you can help source that one so it can be used I will buy you Champagne! P^)
  
  "It seems indisputable that Polanski and the case are controversial" is not enough. Citation - Sources - they need to say that - not your opinion. Seeming and Being are not the same thing.
  
  I don't do "seems indisputable" as it comes under Weasel Words.
  
  Polanski's 1971 film of Macbeth was Controversial due to the nudity and he changed the ending. It says so in this SOURCE So that covers all claims of Controversy unless you can find Individual Controversies which come from other Sources that are Verifiable.
  
  "The de facto primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability – whether reliable sources state it to be true, not whether individual editors think they can verify it."Wikipedia:Truth,_not_verifiability
  
  ...and then you have to read "Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, defines the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth." "Verifiability" is used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. "Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. This dispute may be a little confusing, but I actually do agree that everything in an article has to be sourced and would only introduce properly sourced material. This dispute and others between primarily another editor and myself are over the content part of the question, especially on the bio page. We've had disputes like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Polanski&diff=491867133&oldid=491850718. Besides the section on the sexual assault case here, there is also a separate page on the case which describes the alleged crimes and charges in detail and talks about the controversy over Polanski's 2009 arrest. The question is more like how much should the bio page cover, and for me, trying to make sure they're both accurately presenting the case.

In the case of the "controversy" issue, I was arguing that whatever one thinks of Polanski, he and the case are widely considered to be controversial, and the controversy should be mentioned in the bio, which would be sourced. These are two that are already listed as Wikipedia sources that I would likely include:

"In Roman Polanski case, is it Hollywood vs. Middle America?:

Reactions to the extradition of the fugitive filmmaker show a sharp divide"

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/01/entertainment/et-polanski1

"The new focus on the case inflamed public opinion worldwide. Some angrily called for Polanski to be imprisoned. Others advocated for his freedom."

Polanski loses bid to dismiss rape case Psalm84 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Psalm - you sound like you are canvassing! P^) Having looked at the dispute you provided a link to I was struck by one very significant point. One edit focuses upon one person - whilst the other focuses upon the title of the Wiki page. The Page is titled Polanski for a reason - and it's not the page to tell the life story of another person. There are other pages to do that. I agree that the first paragraph lacks candour - but it is better written than a full rehash of interviews that are about another person and that persons comments and opinions. The sentence "Polanski was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape. At his arraignment he pled not guilty to all charges." may be improved by noting that all were felonies ..."on six felony charges that included rape, sodomy and providing a controlled substance" - NY Times Link. I also note that Ms Geimer has been wishing for a quieter life and less notoriety for many years. Do you think that rehashing her life story in exquisite detail actually serves Human Knowledge - including her Humanity? WP:IAR WP:TTRLT Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that both the links above to the news stories are cites that do show a "controversy" of sorts: "Reactions to the extradition of the fugitive filmmaker show a sharp divide." And it's also not covered in the section in that way and would be a reasonable addition if summarized with a few key aspects. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Psalm - you sound like you are canvassing!"

There seem to be a number of POV problems with this page and I've been pointing out specific examples of why I believe that. I've also been responding to another editor's remarks who doesn't believe that. I'm also going by what was suggested at ArbCom.

"One edit focuses upon one person - whilst the other focuses upon the title of the Wiki page. The Page is titled Polanski for a reason - and it's not the page to tell the life story of another person."

So then you see this as telling someone's life story?: "Geimer told Larry King in 2003 that she'd had reservations about going on the shoot, during which she was given champagne and part of a Quaalude by Polanski, and when she realized his intentions, she'd feigned illness and initially refused his advances."

"At his arraignment he pled not guilty to all charges." may be improved by noting that all were felonies ..."on six felony charges that included rape, sodomy and providing a controlled substance" - NY Times Link."

Well, as you said above, "I agree that the lack of candid accuracy as to charges leaves an incomplete impression. Are the full charges cited any where in accessible online sources from the court?" That article doesn't cite the full charges, but there are ones already being used as sources that do. And does that quote solve the POV problem that you mention in your first sentence?

"I also note that Ms Geimer has been wishing for a quieter life and less notoriety for many years. Do you think that rehashing her life story in exquisite detail actually serves Human Knowledge - including her Humanity? "

Well again, are you saying you believe that the sentence above is "rehashing her life story in exquisite detail?" The sentence above very briefly describes what Geimer testified to a grand jury about the assault and are the same facts commonly reported in a great many news and opinion articles as background on the case.

...background on the case.? That is about the case and not about the subject of the page! Beware Weasel Words! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I know, Samantha Geimer has chosen to publicly advocate for Polanski, including not just making statements available to courts and the media but also by appearing herself on TV at times and starring in a film on the case. And in her media appearances, she has gone beyond just expressing support for Polanski or criticizing the judge and media, but also has gone over what happened.

"From what I know..." It's not what you know - it's what you can cite and from those illuminate! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Polanski himself could also help the situation now, and has been able to all these years, by turning himself in. As long as the case is unresolved, the more attention from the media Geimer receives.

That use of could is very interesting! P^) Is it your personal view, or are you quoting a verifiable source? I understand that there are differing views that Could leaves wide open - and they all have to get treated with NPOV - and that opens up how to do that and not rehash all the same info. Seen the same issue at Talk:Big_Bang#RfC:_Which_draft_should_be_selected.3F 4+ versions of a hotly contested subject - and all equally valid in their own way. But which one is the right one? I am convinced there is a problem with the Polanski piece - you have not convinced me that you know the best solution! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also about providing accurate, NPOV information. As you mentioned in what I quoted above, there is a POV problem. No one is served by giving readers false impressions about the case. Psalm84 (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"No one is served by giving readers false impressions about the case." - again you focus upon the case and not the subject of the page. I'm not advocating for covering matters up, but you do seem to have a focus that is not about the page's subject! WP:OPPONENT Play Devil's Advocate! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of easier reading in this section, I've moved my response back over to the left margin.

From looking at my finished response here, I see that you replied only on one point, which you originally raised:

"I also note that Ms Geimer has been wishing for a quieter life and less notoriety for many years. Do you think that rehashing her life story in exquisite detail actually serves Human Knowledge - including her Humanity?"

All of what you wrote in your reply comes from my reply to that, but you didn't demonstrate how it relates to Wikipedia's goal or policies. How does it relate to removing or objecting to properly sourced content that violates no rules, including the ones relating to BLP, and that addresses a POV problem?

"...background on the case."? That is about the case and not about the subject of the page!"

As you know, the case itself is the subject of a section, "Sexual assault case," and everything about a page, and a section, has to be accurate, balanced, NPOV, and giving due weight.

"From what I know..." It's not what you know - it's what you can cite and from those illuminate!"

I only mentioned what is already in the Wikipedia article, not something that's outside the article content. The "source" is the Wikpedia page itself. You also mentioned no source when you brought up Geimer's wish for a quieter life, so you must have thought I didn't need any source to be mentioned here. This is all found in the bio:

"From what I know, Samantha Geimer has chosen to publicly advocate for Polanski, including not just making statements available to courts and the media but also by appearing herself on TV at times and starring in a film on the case. And in her media appearances, she has gone beyond just expressing support for Polanski or criticizing the judge and media, but also has gone over what happened."

And again this exchange was on a matter that you haven't demonstrated how it relates to Wikipedia's goal or policies: "Ms Geimer has been wishing for a quieter life and less notoriety for many years." And add to that that Geimer has voluntarily sought publicity in recent years, as Polanski's Wikipedia bio demonstrates.

"That use of could is very interesting! P^) Is it your personal view, or are you quoting a verifiable source?"

"Could" was in this comment of mine: "Polanski himself could also help the situation now, and has been able to all these years, by turning himself in. As long as the case is unresolved, the more attention from the media Geimer receives." Again, I was replying to your concern about Samantha Geimer's wish for a quieter life and using the Wikipedia page as a source. But you haven't shown that it is a legitimate Wikipedia concern here.

"No one is served by giving readers false impressions about the case." - again you focus upon the case and not the subject of the page. I'm not advocating for covering matters up, but you do seem to have a focus that is not about the page's subject! "

Again, I was focusing on the subject of the section: "Sexual assault case."

I also want to note that you didn't answer the questions about what you consider "telling someone's life story," that the NY Times article you cited doesn't mention the full charges, and about what was the matter with this sentence that was removed, since it is information in Geimer's grand jury testimony, and is frequently basic background information in news articles:

"Geimer told Larry King in 2003 that she'd had reservations about going on the shoot, during which she was given champagne and part of a Quaalude by Polanski, and when she realized his intentions, she'd feigned illness and initially refused his advances."

Psalm84 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Would that quote in your last paragraph be an example of what you consider "vital information that readers come to Wikipedia to get?" If so, then it would support your observation about "Geimer's misgivings about going, her feelings about Polanski's advances, and what happened afterward." But isn't that implied in a sexual assault case?

You also wrote, "The public view of him is split, and this particular page doesn't reflect that," and later, "The bio, though, makes no mention of there being controversies." However, you just added two links above which cover that, so why not summarize them? Is that the controversy? You wrote, "articles which show that the public and the writers writing on Polanski and the case recognize the controversies, and that many people don't believe he's paid his debt to society," so simply add the key points of controversy with your cites. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"If so, then it would support your observation about "Geimer's misgivings about going, her feelings about Polanski's advances, and what happened afterward." But isn't that implied in a sexual assault case?"

In many cases it's implied, but not if what's implied is statutory rape. Psalm84 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Instant justice?

In December of that year [1969], Charles Manson and several members of his "family" were arrested, tried, and found guilty of first-degree murder of Tate and three friends at Polanski's home.

This makes it sound like Manson & Co. were arrested, tried, and convicted within the space of a month. In reality, they weren't convicted until January, 1971, more than a year later.24.69.174.26 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The infobox image

Hi - As per WP:MOSIMAGE I had removed a very old picture of the subject and it has been reverted by User:Wikiwatcher1 - a discussion regarding guidelines seems needed - diff with the edit summary of, "restore sharper career-related image" -as this is a biography of much more than a career and we are encouraged to add to a WP:BLP as recent a picture as possible to the infobox - this revert appears against guidelines - the users edit summary would be more of a reason to add the picture they uploaded to a career section , not to the infobox - I note also the reverter User:Wikiwatcher1 is the uploader of the pic they are reverting to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polanski-still-signed.jpgYoureallycan 19:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You brought up two totally separate issues. As to the first, about MOS and BLP, I can find no such guideline preferences for a recent image in place of a more relevant one of a bio subject at work. What is commonly preferred is close to the opposite, in fact, that for an identifiable celebrity, an image at work is usually more relevant and useful. The image you seem to prefer, oddly, is a blurry candid of him standing somewhere.

The other overly-emphasized note claims it was preferred simply because I found it, sort of a photo conflict of interest or ego issue. If you look at some of my recent lead image replacements for other celebrity articles, and compare the old and new addition, I think you'll find that the new ones are preferable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I will look for the guideline or perhaps get advice from someone experienced in pictures - its just always been like that in discussion I have seen - the most recent picture of a subject goes in the infobox - we don't want to know what he looked like fifty years ago - in his career - that would belong in the career section (actually a random picture would not really be relevant in his career section either - it would need to be content specific ) - As for egos and other articles you have edited , I have limited time to contribute. It is relevant to note that you are the unloader of the pic you are reverting to. I will get back about this when I get other opinions - thanks - Youreallycan 17:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Rosemary's Baby

I made a minor change to the Rosemary's Baby section. Because I read in Sandford's book that Evans actually only ostensibly wanted Polanski to make a movie out of the other book, and told Polanski that he wanted him to read Rosemary's Baby and make a film of it quickly. However I had trouble with the citation I lost my work before I could get to the publisher. I think the publisher was Palgrave McMillan so I will add that info.--RJR3333 (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sexual abuse npov

I removed the statement that Polanski's offense against the young woman was "sexual abuse" and replaced it with "sexual contact" because although 13 was under the age of consent, it is pov to call it sexual abuse, in my opinion, so I felt "sexual contact" was more npov. Does anyone disagree with my change or have a problem with it? --RJR3333 (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It is defined by the law and in media is abuse. Dream Focus 10:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some countries where the age of sexual consent is thirteen so there are different points of view on the issue. So I feel it is not npov. But I won't edit war over this, its just how I feel. --RJR3333 (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How you 'feel' is of no consequence here. It is a point of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.90.107 (talk • contribs)

It happened in America, where it is considered abuse to lure a 13 year old into a situation where you provide her with sedatives and alcohol and wear her down to have sex with her. Dream Focus 11:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics of the case, I apologize if my statement caused offense. However, there are some states in the USA where 13 is the age of consent for marriage if the minor's parents agree with the marriage. --RJR3333 (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This wasn't marriage, and there was no consent for the sex. That's totally off the subject. Dream Focus 11:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Polanski claims the sex was consensual http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/roman-polanski-the-truth-about-his-notorious-sex-crime-949106.html. --RJR3333 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"She was aksing for it". That old chestnut.

“ Polanski expressed it tersely in his book: "She wasn't unresponsive." Gailey's account differed: three decades later, she recalled, "It was not consensual sex by any means... It was very scary and, looking back, very creepy." Polanski was subsequently arrested and indicted on six counts: among them, perversion, sodomy and rape by use of drugs. ”

And she said otherwise, and the courts did agree. Most everyone who is accused of crime will claim innocence or try to justify their actions. Do you have a point to this? He was convicted of the crime. So its not really an issue for Wikipedia. WP:NOTFORUM Please don't try to whitewash his actions to downplay their severity is some fanboy editors have done in the past. Dream Focus 11:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to defend him. I'm suggesting the wording may not be npov. I'm not going to discuss it further though unless any other editor supports me. --RJR3333 (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's accurate to call what Polanski did sexual abuse, and the article on the case calls it that. But another problem is that there is a content fork between the two articles and they don't say the same thing. This article portrays Polanski as accused of statutory rape, while the case article presents all the charges, in which him drugging the girl was mentioned, and the article discusses that she didn't give "consent." Psalm84 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

He didn't drug the girl - he said do you want some Quaalude and she said yes and took it - washed it down with her champagne, which she also didn't have forced down her throat - she had also had Quaalude on at least one previous occasion - and as was reported she had previously had sexual relations another male. - the differences in the reporting are that this is a BLP and wiki policy and guidelines have likely been more strenuously enforced here - Youreallycan 12:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't quite say that right. He didn't slip anything into a drink, at least as far as we know. But he was charged with "rape by use of a drug" and "furnishing a controlled substance to a minor," as the separate article mentions. It also mentions that he had sexual relations with her despite her refusals. Psalm84 (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

So be happy for the separate article - its not happening here I assure you - Charges are nothing without a conviction - its normal to charge excessively and convict less so. Youreallycan 12:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of Wikipedia guidelines that support putting the charges here. From the page I linked to:

"In applying summary style to articles, care must be taken to avoid a POV fork (that is, a split that results in the original article or the spinoff violating NPOV policy), a difference in approach between the summary and the spinoff, etc."

Creating the impression on this page that the case was only over statutory rape is a significant "difference in approach between the summary and the spinoff," especially since separate article also describes what allegedly happened and includes the victim's claim that she tried to refuse his advances. Polanski is also a public figure. Reporting the charges as long as the outcome is reported is NPOV. A reader can interpret for themselves if the prosecution over-charged, and that position could be included, too, if there are reliable sources that think he was overcharged. And WP:BLP also says that information shouldn't be left out because the article's subject doesn't like it. Psalm84 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to look into this further, but IF it is true that she might have consented and that there is reasonable doubt that it was actual rape we will have to take the child sexual abuse tag down because thirteen is the age of consent in some countries, so it would not be npov, at least in my opinion. I'm going to look up more info on the case later today to see. --RJR3333 (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother if I was you - we have discussed this issue to death and stirring it up when its long time stable is just not of any benefit at all - it just allows users to come in and spam the issue all over the talkpage yet again - Youreallycan 12:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mentioning that the victim had consensual sex with her boyfriend previously, has nothing to do with this case. Married women have sex with their husbands all the time, doesn't mean its alright to rape them. Court records show he admitted to providing her with the sedative and alcohol, he obviously wearing down her resistance to sex. Why not mention exactly what the six charges are, and what he pleaded guilty to? And in Afghanistan men can legally pay to have sex with 9 year old boys.[1] What goes on in other countries isn't relevant here. Its still considered a rape crime in America. Please stop using the same ridiculous argument that the crime is less severe because some other nations believe its alright to do that, or the victim wasn't a virgin, or other nonsense. The article should report the facts of the case, and anything not related to the article shouldn't be discussed here at all. Dream Focus 12:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not nonsense at all - you portray the subject as a innocent who was abused - the courts didn't take that position and according to the subject its not true either - the thirteen year old photographic model admitted they were not a virgin and had previous experience with drugs and alcohol. - and willingly accepted drugs and alcohol prior to engaging in sex with the subject.Youreallycan 15:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

He was an adult and responsible for giving her the drugs and alcohol, and she couldn't consent. Many 13 year-olds might be as experienced as she was but that doesn't mean a 43 year-old can give them drugs and alcohol and then make sexual advances. She also says she refused him but he ignored her refusals. Psalm84 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yawn - Non of this is of benefit here - She was a sexually active thirteen year old who had experience with taking drugs and alcohol, clearly mitigation was an issue in relation to any possible conviction - Youreallycan 16:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just an opinion, however, and it goes against other claims that have reliable sources, such as that there was concern about putting the girl through a trial so her lawyer favored a plea bargain. Psalm84 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not opinion to state the subject was a sexually active thirteen year old that had previous experience of drink and drugs, its a citable position - and yes, clearly putting such a person on the stand is a position any lawyer would prefer to avoid, as they did Youreallycan 03:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You are still drawing conclusions that are opinion unless there is a citable source. And there are already reliable sources that gave in this case the most common reason for not wanting to put victims on the stand in cases of rape and the sexual abuse of children - not wanting to put the victim through more trauma. Psalm84 (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is why we have rape shield laws to prevent victim blaming. And Wikipedia does not slander the victims like that. We report he was charged with and what he was convicted of, we don't try to go and slander the victim. Dream Focus 16:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be reported what he was charged with here, not just in the separate article. And this other editor should maybe revert or change some of his comments for the reason that they could be slander. Psalm84 (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is ironic, here I am being accused of the opposite bias from the one another opinionated editor has been accusing me of in another project area on wikipedia. --RJR3333 (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument, however, that we shouldn't give Polanski's pov on this case in addition to his "victim's" because the age of consent law is 16 or higher in all of the USA is not valid, because that still violates npov. That would be like, on the flip side, saying abortion articles have to be in favor of abortion because the law in the USA allows abortion. And the comparison to Afghanistan is not valid, because most 13 year olds have already begun puberty in the case of females, nine year olds have not usually. --RJR3333 (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe how sexist some of the below comments are. Anyway it is not clear that he raped immediately after seeing her in a photo shoot, it merely says after a photo shoot, I think that should be made clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.5.126 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Parents religious affiliation or lack of

I replaced the previous uncited statement that Polanski's parents were atheists with a citation that said that they were both agnostics, however I am not certain if the citation I used meets wp:reliable sources. --RJR3333 (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Good article status

I want to improve this article up to GA status. Is it even close to there yet?--LordKitchener16 (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship

What is "Franco-Polish" citizenship? Surely it should just be "French and Polish". 78.148.151.220 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2012

The line right under the heading "1980s" Stating that Polanski starred as "child Mozart in the film Amadeus produced by Peter Schaefer" is incorrect and misleading. If you go to the source referenced for that statement:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IGOhdT-w1eIC&lpg=PA484&ots=mxR0zeQPwP&dq=he%20Polish%20Biographical%20Dictionary%3A%20Profiles%20of%20Nearly%20900%20Poles%20Who%20Have%20Made%20Lasting%20Contributions%20to%20World%20Civilization&pg=PA314#v=onepage&q&f=false

... you can see that it clearly states that he starred in his own production of the Peter Schaefer's play Amadeus when he returned to Warsaw, not that he was in the film version based on it which is clear to anyone who has seen the film or looks it up. Please change the line "In 1981 Polanski starred as child Mozart in the film Amadeus produced by Peter Schaefer." to instead read "In 1981 Polanski starred in the title role of his own production of Peter Schaefer's Amadeus." as it says in the referenced book.

Thanatos6 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: The link you gave doesn't work for me ("You have reached a page that is unavailable for viewing ..."), but I did find 2 other references that supported the information you provided. I've added those, and tweaked the sentence slightly. Is that suitable and sufficient? -- Quiddity (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

how is he a "Holocaust Survivor"?

Polansky is listed as a Holocaust Survivor on another Wikipedia article. But this article clearly states that he was never in a camp and nobody tried to kill him. How is he any different than my mother who lived in Western Europe between 1933 and 1945? She wasn't in a camp and wasn't killed either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk • contribs)

I agree. The holocaust was the concentration camps, not the ghetto. Dream Focus 15:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The descripton of holocaust is broader than what took place in concentration camps. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Then ANYONE who lived in Europe between 1933 and 1945 is a survivor? Or are only the Jews the survivors?

It would be enlightening if you guys dreamed less and focussed more. The ghetto was part of the Holocaust, as were mass executions committed at a time when no extermination camp was even existing. Polanski managed to escape the persecution and therefore avert the imminent danger to his life, hence he is a survivor. Persons not threatened or afflicted by nazi politics do not qualify as survivors, with no regard to their place of residence.

Edit request on 26 July 2013

Please correct the link to the page "Roman Polanski sexual abuse case". It currently links to a non-existent page called "Roman Polanski sexual abuse casehere" Mjslagle (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thank you for spotting that! Signalizing (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

World war II

Hi, why is there the first exclamation mark in „¡Spadaj!”? It's Polish, not Spanish...

24.134.66.177 (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed --Light show (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Name

In the German Wikipedia it is said that he was born under the name of Rajmund Roman Liebling suggesting that his father changed his name after his birth. Which is the right version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.133.108 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The book source saying he changed his name beforehand seems pretty reliable. --Light show (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Tess

When talking about his movie Tess, you mention that it is based on the book. This implies that the book is also called Tess. This is wrong. The book is Tess of the D'Urbervilles, and the movie is Tess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.48.106 (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, fixed. TwoTwoHello (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Case current cite 127

The last paragraph under Sexual abuse case contradicts the next heading Documentary films; it should probably be moved to the intro of the Documentary films instead of being the concluding paragraph contradicting the next concluding paragraph. They're sequential and contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.68.53 (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess you were referring to the last sentence, which relates directly to the whole topic in that paragraph. The two sections are now more clearly linked after some rephrasing. --Light show (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor phrasing

Polanski was arrested for the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl

No, he was arrested for the rape of a 13 years old girl. It wasn't simply a statutory rape charge because the prosecution claimed there was no consent and he drugged her. --189.70.250.241 (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done — ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

World War II

This article states that the Krakow Ghetto was liquidated after a rebellion. There was no rebellion in the Krakow Ghetto (see the book The Krakow Ghetto Pharmacy by Tadeusz Pankiewicz, a pharmacist who ran a pharmacy in the Ghetto and was an eyewitness to the entire existence of the Krakow Ghetto.) There was a rebellion in the Warsaw Ghetto which may be what this is referring to. 72.9.4.90 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC) NDBriggs

• Correct. No rebellion took place before the liquidation of the Kraków Ghetto. Article is based in part on recollections of a little boy... put on paper decades after the fact. Some of what is being said belongs to a genre of creative nonfiction. Poeticbent talk 00:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Polanski is NOT Polish.

Albert Einstein, an esteemed individual, is listed as merely "German-born" in Wikipedia. While Polanski, a notorious individual is listed as "Polish" rather than "Polish-born". Why the inconsistency? When an individual, if of Hebrew descent, are lauded, they are listed as "Jews" but been they have committed crimes they are no longer Jews, but representatives of their "host countries"; Polish, German, Russian, etc. Wikipedia needs to be consistent. Was Benny Goodman Polish or Jewish?

In this case, Roman Polanski should be listed as a "Polish-born Jew". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.232.51 (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that he was born in Paris, so "Polish-born" is misleading. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH we avoid mentioning ethnicity in the lead. Favonian (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting info that may be worth noting

From The Beatles Forever by Nicholas Schaffner, page 129: "...Charlie Manson, who made the Beatles his rationale for murdering the wife of Roman Polanski. The famed director's diabolical Rosemary's Baby was filmed in the New York apartment building presently inhabited by John Lennon". Mind you, the book was written in 1977. Could this be notable for inclusion? If so, could someone please add it in where they see fit? It might also be worth noting on some other articles, such as Roman Polanski, Sharon Tate, etc. Bossanoven (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Even The New York Times can be Wrong.

Based on the information provided then the first sentence of the first paragraph is incorrect and needs to be corrected by the person responsible for this Wiki-article on Roman Polanski. Factually, Roman Polanski was born in Paris, France and is therefore French. The first sentence states Roman Polanski is Polish. It is true Mr. Polanski may have a Polish background through his father but based on this logic you may as well state Mr. Polanski is Russian because his mother, Bula Katz-Przedborska, was born in Russia. If you follow this kind of logic then Mr. Polanski has a Russian background too but he is not Russian; Roman Polanski is still French. Further, the first sentence states Roman Polanski became a naturalized French citizen in 1979 and there is a reference link (1) which takes you to a New York Times article stating Roman Polanski is Polish- not French. If I am born in New York and my father is from Brazil and my mother is from China then I am still a red-blooded American. 184.76.56.97 (talk)JSJR 02232015 — Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Except his family moved back to Poland, their original home, when he was three, which is where he spent his childhood and youth. --Light show (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2015

Bibliography Tylski, Alexandre (2004), Roman Polanski, ses premiers films polonais, Lyon: Aléas. ISBN: 978-2843011092 Tylski, A. (2006), Roman Polanski, l'art de l'adaptation, Paris: L'Harmattan. 2006. ISBN: 978-2296007970 Tylski, A. (2006), Roman Polanski, Rome: Gremese International. ISBN: 978-8873015994 Tylski, A. (2008), Roman Polanski, une signature cinématographique, Lyon: Aléas. ISBN: 978-2843012389 Tylski, A. (2010), Rosemary's Baby (Roman Polanski), Paris: Séguier. ISBN: 978-2840495970 92.134.201.2 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Birth name

Polanski's birth name is not Polański, but Liebling, as it is stated in the French version of this article: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

He was born in 12th district of Paris, France, on 18 August 1933. His birth certificate was registered under number 03144 at the town hall of the 12th district of Paris. Nicolas Hermann FR (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The French article uses two sources for this claim: One is an Estonian newspaper article[2] which claims such without any source backing it up, the other is a Polish blog post[3], which itself only quotes the Polish Wikipedia, where it's also claimed without any source for it. --80.187.106.89 (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2015

Polanski's birth name is not Rajmund Roman Thierry Polański, but Raymond Thierry Liebling, as it is stated in the French version of this article: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

He was born in 12th district of Paris, France, on 18 August 1933. His birth certificate was registered under number 03144 at the town hall of the 12th district of Paris. Nicolas Hermann FR (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07^Talk 13:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. I am out of Paris, France, until June 23, 2015. Will go afterwards to the town hall of the 12th district and ask for a copy of his birth certificate.

Nicolas Hermann FR (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment:: Why not use existing citations from other language wikis? The French one seems a bit flimsy but the German one is clearly RS. See Paul Werner:POLANSKI, (page 11)--TMCk (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If it supports the statement (I don't read German, so cannot comment on that), the source indicated by The Magnificent Clean-keeper is preferable to conducting original research digging up a copy of his birth certificate. TJRC (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The French article uses two sources for this claim: One is an Estonian newspaper article[4] which claims such without any source backing it up, the other is a Polish blog post[5], which itself only quotes the Polish Wikipedia, where it's also claimed without any source for it.

The relevant part is:
"Raymond Thierry Liebling, so der Name, den er von seinen Eltern erhielt,..."
Freely translated (check I.e. with Google translate) it says:
"He was born Raymond Thierry Liebling, the name he was given by his parents,..."
I would make the change myself but if I remember right, it was somehow a controversial issue at some point thus I'll leave it for potential further discussion.--TMCk (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The French article uses two sources for this claim: One is an Estonian newspaper article[6] which claims such without any source backing it up, the other is a Polish blog post[7], which itself only quotes the Polish Wikipedia, where it's also claimed without any source for it. The German Wikipedia also gives no source whatsoever. The German biography by Werner has been originally published in 1981, and the statement only appears, again without a source, in a pretext to a later edition which only generally mentions, not in relation to the name issue, that Polish film historian Grażyna Stachówna has researched Polanski's family history prior to 1945 in a book published in 2002. Interestingly enough, the only statement that Werner's new preface attributes to its only given source Stachowny 2002 is that by 1921, Roman's father had already Polinized his first name from Mojżesz to Marian, which make it likely that this was when he Polinized his last name as well. --80.187.106.89 (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "In an interview with Larry King, the victim, now married and going by the name Samantha Geimer, stated that the police and media had been slow at the time of the assault to believe her account, which she attributed to the climate of the era." is unclear and makes Larry King sound like the victim of the sexual abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.85.70 (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roman Polanski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160216221230/http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/prosecutors-in-poland-send-polanski-extradition-request-to-court/?_r=0 to http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/prosecutors-in-poland-send-polanski-extradition-request-to-court/?_r=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Liebling again

The source of [8] given in the article for the claim that Roman's father changed the family's name from Liebling does not corroborate that statement. The entire source mentions neither the name Liebling nor any name change of the family. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016

Hi, the section The Pianist (2002) contains the following sentence: "Szpilman's experiences as a persecuted Jew in Poland during WWII were reminiscent of those of Polanski and his family.". For the sake of historical clarity please add "German-occupied" before the word "Poland". Thanks! Prprpr4632 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 15:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2016

"I'll see this man never gets out of Jail," he told Polanki's friend, screenwriter Howard E. Koch.[115]

Polanski's name is misspelled here.

 Fixed --Light show (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Liebling

Didn't he rape a 13 year old girl? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:EC60:217:A8B6:1B29:AFD3:2F48 (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Polanski was born as Raymond Thierry Liebling. Why English Wikipedia is trying to hide this fact? I asked Wikipedia many many times, many years ago, without result. Strange... Check Polish and French Wikipedia. Checki interviews with Roman Polanski.

Roman Polanski's father (Mojzesz Liebling) changed his name from Mojzesz Liebling to Ryszard Polanski after World War II, after his second wife's suggestion to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.17.16 (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The French article uses two sources for this claim: One is an Estonian newspaper article[9] which claims such without any source backing it up, the other is a Polish blog post[10], which itself only quotes the Polish Wikipedia, where it's also claimed without any source for it. --80.187.106.89 (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

So, what is the source for the information that he was born as "Rajmund Roman Thierry Polański"? Or, in other words, why doesn't he use "Rajmund Polański"? It is more than obvious then he was born as Raymond Thierry Liebling, and then changed to Roman Polański. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.17.16 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that somebody doesn't use a name is proof that the name he doesn't use is his real name? That's not logical. Remember that the only two sources we have for the claim that Polanski was born with the name Liebling date post-2000 and don't back up their claim with any evidence. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Nastassja Kinski

Nastassja Kinski denies ever having a romantic affair "In a 1999 Guardian interview, the newspaper reports her saying there was categorically no affair and that she said, "There was a flirtation. There could have been a seduction, but there was not. He had respect for me" https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/jul/03/weekend7.weekend3 I am removing this section. 104.34.203.182 (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Unlock it and remove it. There is no citation and the subject categorically denies it. It qualifies as libel. 104.34.203.182 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Roman Polanski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209024633/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5221/is_2005/ai_n19142619/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5221/is_2005/ai_n19142619
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127081710/http://www.wlwt.com/r/2467047/detail.html to http://www.wlwt.com/r/2467047/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

War section seems disjointed, lacking continuity

Under “World War II,” it is stated:

"Polański escaped the Kraków Ghetto in 1943 and survived by assuming the name Romek Wilk, with the help of some Polish Roman Catholic families including Mrs Sermak who promised his father to shelter him.[11]:21 He attended church, learned to recite Catholic prayers by heart, and behaved outwardly as a Roman Catholic, although he was never baptized. His efforts to blend into a Catholic household failed miserably at least once, when the parish priest visiting the family posed questions to him one-on-one about the catechism: "You aren't one of us", he said.[22] The punishment for helping a Jew in Poland was death.[23]

"As he roamed the countryside trying to survive in a Poland now occupied by German troops, he witnessed many horrors, such as being "forced to take part in a cruel and sadistic game in which German soldiers took shots at him for target practice."[8] Author Ian Freer concludes that his constant childhood fears and dread of violence have contributed to the 'tangible atmospheres he conjures up on film.'[8]"

This seems disjointed. Are we to conclude that after the visit by this priest that the subject was forced (by the family, the priest or on his own volition?) to leave the Sermak (or another’s) household and become a vagrant? Did the priest report the family harboring the boy and were they sentenced to death as the first paragraph indicates was at least a possibility? This seems confusing to me. Also, I thought i read that he had had some connection with Oskar Schindler, perhaps working at his factory for awhile, though not part of the now famed list for transport to Schindler's hoped for haven in Czechoslovakia. if so, this would certainly seem worth noting.

I personally find this portion of the subject's life to be of greater interest than his adult life and career. Maybe someone with additional information could come up with better continuity by way of explanation and possibly expand on Mr. Polanksi's tragic ordeal as a kid.

Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Name of Children

The name of the other children is Elvis. --Knickiknacki (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Did the rape of the 13-year-old happen during a modelling session?

I have edited the following sentence: “In 1977, Polanski was arrested and charged with the rape of a 13-year-old model during a photo session”; neither of the two references in this paragraph make the claim that 1) The victim was a model nor 2) The rape happened during a photo session.

If anyone has a references to a reliable source about the sexual assault happening during a photo session, please add this reference so we can restore this sentence.

As per WP:BLP, we can not make this claim without a source (I heard it happened at a party).

Samboy (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sexual abuse case -> History of sexual abuse?

It looks like Polanski is now the subject of numerous notable sexual allegations & cases. I'm concerned that "Sexual abuse case" may be a little ambiguous. Should we break this section down into a subsection about the trial and another subsection about the subsequent accusations? NickCT (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources:

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/German-Actress-Accuses-Roman-Polanski-of-Rape-12250575.php?utm_content=sfg_ap_zonec_fr_v1&ipid=sfgapfrreccos

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40944120

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/movies/roman-polanski-rape-accusation.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-claims-roman-polanski-molested-16-article-1.3414575

71.182.242.62 (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2017

In October 2017, Roman Polanski returns to Poland to appear in a documentary about his childhood during the Holocaust and after the war, with his longtime friend, the photographer Ryszard Horowitz. They visited Krakow and the village, where Polanski was in hiding after fleeing the ghetto. The film is produced and directed by Mateusz Kudla and Anna Kokoszka-Romer. 185.195.201.86 (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

References