Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 11

Polanski widely known as Sex offender
I feel that it is time that the title sentence of the Polanski page include the term sex offender along with other terms like director and writer. This is something that he is most known for and is a large part of his current and past noteriety. Many famous criminals profiles on Wikipedia comment about the crime that was commited in the very first sentence of the text. As Polanski is widely known to be a sex offender then why shouldn't this be how he is introduced in the text of this page? Many people know him only because of his fame for the rape of a 13 year old girl and not his work in film. There are already many reliable sources about this topic listed in the page and in the discussion page so the fact of his crime and the noteriety he has received for it place him in the position of receiving this title in the first line of text like many other people famous for the crimes that they commited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.31 (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not going to happen. See, for example, this entry from William S. Burroughs:


 * William Seward Burroughs II (February 5, 1914 – August 2, 1997; pronounced /ˈbʌroʊz/) was an American novelist, essayist, social critic, painter and spoken word performer. Much of Burroughs's work is semi-autobiographical, drawn from his experiences as an opiate addict, a condition that marked the last fifty years of his life. A primary member of the Beat Generation, he was an avant-garde author who affected popular culture as well as literature. In 1975, he was elected to the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters.


 * Note that it does not say, anywhere in the lead, that he shot his wife (and mother of his son, arguably destroying the younger Burroughs's life), killing her instantly after suggesting that they play William Tell with a gun that he knew sighted low during an afternoon of drinking in a bar in Mexico. Now, clearly that is a more objectionable crime than what Mr. Polanski was accused of (perhaps convicted of, hard to say given the depth of the Judge's transgressions whether anything is going to stick).  Thus, I am afraid, although you anonymously wish to focus on Mr. Polanski's ill-advised sexual misadventure, it is not going to be in the first sentence.  Sincerely,  Oberonfitch (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:LEAD - "The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Polanski is first notable as a film maker.  He is also notable as a sex offender but this is a secondary notability because he is first notable as a film maker.  Without the film career, Polanski would never have been heard of, crime or no crime, and he would not have a Wikipedia article.   It's appropriate and necessary that the crime and consequences be mentioned in the lead as part of the article summary, and bearing in mind it's current significance, it should be featured prominently, which it is.  Rossrs (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, Polanski's contributions to society in large, will partly be his movies, but also the sexual assault case.  So I agree with Rossrs.  I also think that if extradited and depending on what happens, the sexual assault case may become far more significant, than already. Bear in mind he is currently not convicted, he would be if sentenced, he is not sentenced.--Tombaker321 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion from 129.252.164.31. I think there has been consensus to include the term sex offender for a long time. To many people, this person is primarily notable as a child rapist. Of the news coverage he has received in the last year, I would not be surprised if well over 90 % of it was primarily about him being a child rapist. Urban XII (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One rather glaring fact is being overlooked here. We cannot verify that he committed any crime, because there is no documentation of the crime that we can cite. We have films that prove he is a film director--but we do not have any films of him committing any unlawful acts. Consequently--and more importantly--we do not have secondary sources that document any (primary) documentation itself. It is for this reason that an article might refer to someone as a "convicted sex offender": Conviction per se can be verified, but its legitimacy generally cannot. So why not call Polanski a "convicted sex offender" then? For the simple reason that he isn't one. No jury has convicted him of anything. He pleaded guilty, and guilty pleas can be made for reasons other than true culpability; e.g., the suspect wants to avoid the publicity and hassle of a trial. And in a WP:BLP, all of these nuances and distinctions become magnified tenfold. The lead already mentions the ordeal. To give it any more prominence would, I fear, be to let the encyclopedia play jury, judge, or journalist. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

POV tag notice
Based on recent edit warring and discussions, I posted a POV tag with an explanation at WP:BLP/N posting. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the article about the neutral point of view here NPOVD and explain your issues. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See discussions over last few days above and click on link to BLP. I assume we prefer avoiding redundant statements. Yes, I read the rules in your link. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why have you added it, there is no discussion I can see that warrants tagging, you can add tags to your hearts content, they are worthless, all they do is stop people bothering to read the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It warrants a notice which was done in conjunction with BLP/N. BTW, of all the POV discussions I've ever come across, this one should be at the top of the list — it makes most others trivial in comparison. Just look at the talk section titles: one would think we were discussing the Marquis de Sade! Note that 25% of all categories are focused on the sexual assault incident. "Why" is not the question; it should be "What now?" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

All the content is clearly cited and fairly written, I suggest you take care with all of this editing as creating excessive drama at many locations is frowned upon and take care of removing things like the no index template is a strange thing to do. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unexplainable edit. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely unexplained, are you saying it must have been a gremlin wot done it'? ... please don't add tags in a worthless way, and please don't spread simple content issues around the wiki. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When simple content edits get undone with explanations like, "Stop edit warring about these cats, I will have the article locked," that creates the "drama" you mention. Would hope you can comment on the POV issues and skip a focus on gremlins. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Although one isn't thrilled to see them, there's enough back and forth on this article and lack of consensus that I wouldn't go on about skiving the tags. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is simple drive by tagging by an editors who's main contribution seems to be of tagging.
 * NPOV Dispute Flags: This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.
 * Here we have nothing stated as being actionable. The tagger has not specifically addressed anything.  Complete vagary
 * Tagger calls entire group of editors as "Underminers" this is an insult to many forthright editors, and certainly does not assume good faith at all.
 * This NPOV tag is being used cast doubt on the entire work of the collaborating editors of this page.
 * The tag does not point to anything specific, and as this is a requirement, the tag is not being used well.
 * Since the tagger has already taken their general FEELINGS vs anything specific about the actual content this NPOV flag is both improperly done, and pile on.
 * The tagger has the issue open in the Notice Board, they don't have anything specific for editors to work on.
 * REQUIREMENTS OF TAGGER ARE:"Please note: This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile. If you add this template to an article in which you see a bias about which there is no discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution."
 * Since the requirements of the tag are not completed. I am forced to remove the tag.  There is simply nothing to work on, and it needs to be stated.  I will do this once only, because it is called for Though the tagger was not specific, I have been completely specific for why I have removed the flag. It's not supposed to be just plopped down at whims and conspiracy theories of "underminers" I can appreciate concerns, and think we will all attempt to work constructively, but this tag is be hoisted up against all the editors of this entry, and the tagger needs to at least say what specific is the problem, without which the tag is being used improperly.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Rationale summary
Since I value people's time, I refrained from repeating what was in this discussion over the last few days and explained in the BLP/N details. So here's a quick summary with a straw poll to avoid further stalemates. Yes/no/maybe should help. All of this having been covered above, any comments should probably be added there to avoid complicating the readability of this POV section.

The three sections dealing with legal cases take up 28% of the body text (excludes lists of films, etc.) Director-specific reference books that I can cite all devote only a few sentences summarizing them, and on average no more than 1% of his bio to the Manson murders and his sex case. I assume that's because he was not present when his wife was murdered and the sexual-assault was a single crime incident for which a bio will choose not expand on (contrary to this article which prefers to hear testimony from a 13-year-old about her jacuzzi ordeal.)
 * Undue weight to legal cases - should be shortened significantly
 * Yes --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No -- (None of the topics are covered in anything approaching exhaustive detail, all are covered fairly briefly, and in my opinion Polanski's reaction to the death of Sharon Tate is not covered at all, and should be. I think these sections are almost right, except for their placement, because, as I've stated in other discussions, I favour a narrative format.  The Vanity Fair section is given almost equal weight to the other two, so I would support it being abbreviated.) Rossrs (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No -- This is basically asking for electronic book burning. The percentages that you use are 100% arbitrary.  How does accuracy and weight boil down to a percentage.  They don't.  I have read Polanski biographies, and saying they gave only 1 out a hundred pages to the topic is just false, and regardless completely arbitrary.  Since this a NPOV dispute you  have the responsibility to call out what you think is POV and what are proposals to rectify.
 * You have pointed to nothing specific
 * Your rationale for deleting text based on percentages is at best, flawed.
 * Your request to significantly shorten the legal cases seems to be one of driving a POV rather than creating Neutrality. Again you need to address specific items to warrant a tag of NPOV dispute.  Burning off sentences to fit a percentage pulled out thin air does not cut it. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I said "Director-specific reference books," not Polanski biographies. I even offered to cite them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is the only thing you can stand on...I guess I will need to address it. You said "and on average no more than 1% of his bio to the Manson murders and his sex case."  I don't think many other director specific biographies should be containing Manson Murder or sexault topics.  You were talking about Polanski.  Information burning for the sake of meaningless percentages is not warranted.  Certainly you have offered nothing compelling.  I would like you to. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tombaker wrote, "Polanski is a current event, readers will be coming to this link for information." In other words, when the current event has passed, this article as an added source for news will no longer be of use. Therefore, news-focused opinions and previous consensuses from readers specifically wanting sexual-assault details should no longer be considered valid or relevant. This would reduce the sex-crime-courtroom drama material to a reasonable size.
 * Article treated as a "current event" - should be a more balanced biography
 * Wikiwatcher1 you are mischaracterizing my remarks a second time. I responded to you above before you wrote this so you certainly should be aware of it.
 * This entire topic is a retread. Seems you did not like the responses you got so far, and decided to go for a "redo" with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Undue_weight_to_legal_cases
 * 1. No clear consensus there
 * 2. Objections raised and not answered
 * 3. Abandoned effort, and duplicated topic elsewhere.
 * By saying its a current event, means that as an enclyopedia we need to have well cited and factual information, so potential readers have a solid resource.
 * Which again mean, what on earth are you objecting to as not be NPOV. A few extra sentences?  Really? --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No -- (Right now it is a "current event", and the article should reflect the expectation of users who want to look at the article now. WP:RECENTISM may require that the article be updated or condensed as the topic become less a matter of "current" event, but these events are never going to be completely absent from Polanski's history or legacy, so they are always going to be part of the article one way or another.  I strongly believe in balance, but I don't think that would be achieved by reducing these sections.) Rossrs (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree:
 * Article is not treated as current event now, and of course should be a NPOV Biography of living person.
 * --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The "early life" section is located mixed in alongside the sex-crime-murder material, and comes after this "Career." The only user that has given a reason for keeping it there herself wrote, "Internet based biographies are quite often written with a chronological perspective, but they are usually written by amateurs." In other words, there is nothing wrong with a Wiki article using a chronological order to someone's life. Makes sense - this isn't a movie or novel that works by flashbacks. It should be easy to read.
 * "Early Life" section should be before "Career"
 * Yes --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - (100% of articles at FA-Class (actors/filmmakers) use this format. The work's been done by the editors who thrashed out all of those articles, so we don't need to keep reinventing the wheel.) Rossrs (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Using brute force pragmatic skills, I have created a hot link above the career section, this seems to be to be a solution to both problems, with little downside. SOLVED IMO --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Brute force" is counterproductive to discussion and forming of consensus, and IMO it is far from SOLVED. I think it's a terrible solution to this problem, and I can't think of another article that employs such an artificial device.   The ToC is right above this section and it does the same job.   Please don't assume that because you're satisfied, other editors will be.  I'm not.  Rossrs (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Brute force is a term in mathematics, I should not have used it here. The link provides a solution to anyone who wanted to see Early life first.  It solves the concerns.  As far as a new outline style, please show a proposed framework.  All we need to see is the outline.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some who feel that the essence of his notability, namely his profession as an American film director, producer, screenwriter and actor, are not worth including, preferring to load the categories with sex-crime-fugitive related categories.
 * Unexplained removal of professional categories should be replaced - crime cats reduced
 * Yes --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes -- (all relevant categories should be included and any bias that leans towards either of the categories types, should not be tolerated. Exactly which categories are relevant, is another question, and is not the question being asked here.) Rossrs (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment these questions are vague and are not the correct way to suggest change. Open a discussion, all of this opening discussion at multiple location is putting editors off commenting, I for one have no idea what is being proposed or suggested here. It just looks unreadable and confusing.Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

<--Suggest that we work with what we have in the article, not changing it dramatically, and working paragraph by paragraph or if necessary sentence by sentence. Then consider dramatic changes after we have something which is not embarrassing to look at. In practical terms, the attention to the Polanski case has momentarily died down. It will not remain so. It would be nice if the article was readable when the next major event occurs, avoiding, hopefully, more attention given to wiki escapades. Thus, since the change to the more familiar feeling narrative biography is rejected by a majority or large minority, let us put our waders on and deal with practicalities.Oberonfitch (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked, a comment I can understand, I agree there has been nothing to add to this article now for quite a while and it should be enjoying a degree of stability. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Impending Removal of NPOV flag
NPOV flag was raised upon 4 concerns, that being fully articulated above.
 * 1. Undue weight to legal cases - should be shortened significantly
 * a. There is no showing of why anything said is undue.
 * b. Nothing in the text is being shown as undue.
 * c. Asking for content to be reduced solely for length is outside of a NPOV dispute, see A and B.
 * 2. Article treated as a "current event" - should be a more balanced biography
 * a. No offering is made of anything that makes the article written as a current event. In fact all the news about apeals, the hearing of December 10, the bail ruling in 1.5 weeks time, are all not contained here, as they should not.
 * b. Entirety of all editors on this entry agree this should be a balanced biography.
 * c. Nothing is at dispute See A and B

3. "Early Life" section should be before "Career"
 * a. A hotlink is now before the career section, to point readers to his personal life immediately before career if they so chose. This resolves the dispute.

4. Unexplained removal of professional categories should be replaced - crime cats reduced
 * a. A simple complete set of categories he should be place in will be created from a discussion topic, and that baseline will be restored against any vandalism.

As these were the 4 basis points for the NPOV the NPOV Dispute will be closed. Speak up if you have alternate viewpoints. No actions done yet. Drive by tagging will be resolved. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No actions done yet, apart from the hotlinking.  Please don't assume you have support for that.   You can't just ignore the comments of other editors like myself who have expressed a view that a narrative structure would work, and say you've resolved it.   No, you haven't.  Rossrs (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The style structure is not one that is POV or not POV, its is a style change. We are here (in this topic segment) only talking about the NPOV Tag.  As far as the style change, I believe the most efficient way to proceed would be to write up a proposed outline.  Just the topic heads.  That outline picture is worth 1000s of words. The content should be at first a transfer over, IF WE GO THIS WAY, and then normal editing after that. As far as the hotlinking, discussion is available, it seems like a solution.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As said below in longer detail, the overall style changes are entire revamps are resticted by WP:STYLE without substantial need. The changes you are suggesting for Sharon Tate, I believe to be working within the current STYLE.  The style of the article is not part of the NPOV dispute.  Style is not content, its content layout.  I have not seen objections to the hotlinking as of yet (unless overlooked), so to the narrow, item of giving the reader the benefit of his early life prior to his career, I think it solve that sliver issue.
 * Again the NPOV Dispute Tag is about CONTENT, it is not about Style. Two different styles can have the same content.  Ease of information accessibility to a reader, is something that Style can achieve, and is a good goal for any editor. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I only mentioned the hotlinking in this section because you mentioned it in this section, and I know it doesn't fall under the POV or NPOV question.  Sorry, I didn't notice this comment until now, or I would have replied sooner.  I think you're right to suggest a proposal to explore an alternative outline, and it would certainly make it easier to discuss.    I'd like to wait a little longer to see if anyone else comments on the points about Sharon Tate.   When that's been dealt with, I will put together a proposal, but for now, it can wait.   It's a good suggestion.  Thanks  Rossrs (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing NPOV Flag.
The NPOV Dispute Flag is a temporary measure. It is to address specific items. This flag did not raise specific items. Of the general items raised, they have been responded to above. This NPOV tag has been abandoned by its creator.
 * 1. Undue assertion is based on single editor's sensibilities. Content is consensus by editors in discussion.  Changes made are being discussed and peer reviewed as a matter of course.  NPOV dispute is about length, not about substance or specific content.  It amounts to a content tantrum against consensus.
 * 2. This article is not being treated as a current event, there is not offering for why that is stated, and the content of the article does not in any way support the assertion. Further nothing specific is being pointed to that needs to be addressed.
 * 3. Early life section is not a NPOV item. Its only style.  There is much discussion on this topic, which is effectively a cut an paste.  The other sections address it prior to, and after this flag.  Nothing suggests it to beyond a style point.
 * 4. Category question has been fully flushed out in a below section. With consensus now....it remains open awaiting any further comment, but will be closed after several more days, with a firm consensus stance.


 * This NPOV Dispute section has been abandoned by the Tagger, they have not provided specifics, they have not responded to questions raised. When asked for more information, they have not responded.  The editor has now proposed that the entire Polanski entry be deleted.  The editor is now involved in edit warring with multiple editors, after deleting content.  The editor raised the question to the a Noticeboard already.


 * This Dispute Tag is being left up, as a general commentary on the entire article, without the specifics...it needs. The Tagger is so opposed to the article they are now proposing to delete the entire article. These lack of actionable specifics, questions raised and not answered, and this editor now engaging in edit warring to push their personal views in without any discussion......warrants the tag to be removed.   This was the posterboard of drive by tagging.
 * As per above..... the NPOV Dispute Tag is removed. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Bio guidelines
My understanding of WP:BLP is based on what it states:


 * "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment.


 * "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.

I therefore beg to differ with Proofreader77's placement of the "Early life" section as a subsection below "Career" and within "Personal life." As was shown earlier by Rossrs' research into FA standards and by my comparison to some director-specific print encyclopedias, "Early life" details are typically shown chronologically. Therefore, placing Polanski's "Early life" section alongside more sensationalist details indicating equal importance seems to conflict with the guidelines. Proofreader77's personal viewpoints, stated below, would seem to be more WP:OR, so I may restore to standard FA chronology. This isn't to engage in edit warring, and hopefully changes can be discussed as I'm doing.


 * "[P77-E] Yes, in ideal conception of encyclopedia readers, full narrative telling of complete Polanski story is beautiful idea. However, preponderance of readers coming to article are coming for details about personal life aspects—and yes, mostly about sexual assault case. Whatever we might wish ... almost no one is going to read through the detailing of the artistic projects." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If I start inserting page view statistics into the article that might be WP:OR. I have been amidst the flow of this page for two months, and aware of the types of edits being made. My knowledge of what/when/who is part of the basis of my arguments. To frame observations made regarding page editing history as WP:OR is a category error. (Among other things:). Proofreader77 (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP is often interpreted differently by different editors, but my opinion is that we have to determine the line between stating what is relevant, supported by reliable sources, and what is irrelevant.  Something could be unpleasant, and on face value, be "negative" about the person, but if it's important enough to mention, is supported by reliable sources, and is presented as a neutral fact,  we should (and sometimes "should" is close to "must") include it.   This is well within the stated policy.  I think we've achieved that in this article fairly successfully, although perhaps not perfectly, and we should always be reviewing edits to ensure they comply.   I also disagree with the last comment.   Even if it is true that most people visit the article to read about the personal life, that should not encourage us to "feed the masses" and place the focus on that aspect.    If nobody reads about his artistic endeavours, so be it - we can't compel anyone to read it, but we still should ensure that it's there.  I don't doubt that fewer people are looking at the career section, or it probably wouldn't be in such a neglected state.  I've seen very few edits (and none recently) of any significance, to that section.   Rossrs (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdent: Issues seem to be conflated here. Putting the Early life into career is a modest changes. And as Rossrs says its typical. There is enough of a consensus to do it. However how its being done is just terrible. There are now about 4 or 5 topic sections on this simple matter. Then the change was thrust in without even drawing out conclusion on any of the 5 threads. The moving of the Early Life is only significant as to Style. I feel the current style can accommodate this change easily. I have actually commented in the 5 other sections on this very same topic. As Wikiwatcher1 has raised this item in so many places, and ignoring feedback, its just become needless angst.

But the Early Life bit, has nothing to do with the treatment of the subject of the entry. Nothing sensationalistic about it

Well-known public figures '''In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.''' --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories for use in Polanski reference (Driving to final version)
Below are the current categories for Roman Polanski. Unless there is a change specific sentencing, there is no need for any of these categories to be in flux.

Please, respond with additions or deletions to this list. After several days an aggregated summary shows the areas of agreement and disagreement will be made, from there we should be able to move to a consensus version that will become vandalism protected.

Respond with requests for deletion or addition do not modify the list


 * Category:1933 births
 * Category:Living people
 * Category:BAFTA winners (people)
 * Category:Best Director Academy Award winners
 * Category:Best Director César Award winners
 * Category:Best Director Golden Globe winners
 * Category:English-language film directors
 * Category:French actors
 * Category:French film directors
 * Category:French film producers
 * Category:French people of Polish descent
 * Category:French screenwriters
 * Category:French sex offenders
 * Category:Fugitives wanted by the United States
 * Category:Fugitives wanted on sex crime charges
 * Category:Holocaust survivors
 * Category:Paternal Jews
 * Category:People from Łódź
 * Category:People from Paris
 * Category:Polish actors
 * Category:Polish film directors
 * Category:Polish film producers
 * Category:Polish screenwriters
 * Category:Polish sex offenders
 * Category:Prisoners and detainees of Switzerland
 * Category:Sex scandal figures
 * Category:Statutory rapists

--Tombaker321 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The only question I have is about the use of the word "fugitive". Perhaps it's been dealt with elsewhere but now that he's in custody, is he still considered to be a fugitive?  It's seems contradictory to have him described as both a "fugitive" and a "prisoner and detainee".   Doesn't the second supersede the first?  Rossrs (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He is definitely not a fugitive any longer, he is clearly in custody, and in control of the courts, albeit a foreign one right now, but he is detained under order of US court. So both "wanted" categories should go.  I would argue you can remove all the sex offender categories, and rapist category, until such time as he is sentenced.  He has not been sentenced, and has definitely has the right to withdraw his plea and demand a trial.  If it was an alleged, it would be fine, but his current admission is still removable.  I would argue that he remains clearly a Sex Scandal figure, and that should remain, and should satisfy the people who have been playing with the categories.  So in regards to the sexual assualt, the only category above to remain would be Sex Scandal Figures  The questions to conviction, sentencing, and final disposition should be only months away, so there is no true need to jump ahead.


 * Others please comment. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He is still a fugitive in regards to America as regards America wants him and has not got him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He is not held under any usa condition at all, the swiz have an extrad and usa have said they want him under these conditions and the swiz have held him to investigate the claims. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as removing the sexual cats goes, I would take care of this, he was clearly convicted of the count and then fled previous to sentence,resting this reality is legal eagle stuff, we are not lawyer and are not supposed to be experts in law, if the cats are removed now due to the fact that he fled and then he is released under a technicality you will be unable to then say you want to replace the sex cats, please remember it is by no means certain at all that the extradition request will succeed. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur about keeping the Fugitive categories. Until he's under US custody, he's still "wanted" by the US courts.  He's being held by request of the US, but he's under the control of Switzerland until the extradition process is done.  If he's actually turned over to the US, then the categories should be removed.  Sex Scandal Figure definitely applies, so that should stay.  I haven't read through the sources in over a week, so I can't remember if he actually was found guilty.  I know there was a plea bargain that was accepted.  I don't know if he then was found (pled) guilty for the single charge with sentencing to be handled later.  If he was found guilty by the court, but wasn't sentenced by the court, I think the category should still apply.  If the court never did find him technically guilty, but was going to combine that with the sentencing hearing for expediency, then I think they should be removed.
 * His fleeing certainly complicates things a lot. Normally plea bargains eliminate rights to appeal, but this case has more than a few twists and turns to it.  Ravensfire (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - -
 * From Citation 55
 * "Somewhat more ominously for Mr. Polanski, Mr. Cooley referred to the original charges against Mr. Polanski, including rape, as remaining on the table, despite an earlier plea deal under which Mr. Polanski was convicted of having unlawful sex with a minor. “There’s still five or six other much more serious charges pending that have yet to be resolved,” Mr. Cooley said. “They won’t be resolved until he’s finally sentenced."


 * So he is currently regarded as convicted, by a cited authoritative source. I have read elsewhere and believe I well understand, that Polanski has the option to retract his plea, although most lawyers analyzing this option find it only to expose him to more jeopardy.  So for our purposes of classification currently I agree the sex conviction is a fair classification.
 * Regarding fugitive:
 * From a legal dictionary: fugitive from justice n. a person convicted or accused of a crime who hides from law enforcement in the state or flees across state lines to avoid arrest or punishment. Under Article IV, Section 2, Governors are required to "deliver up" and return any fugitive from justice to the state where they allegedly committed the crime, a process called extradition.
 * So extradition is the process of returning a fugitive, and he is not returned, the process is continuing, he is fugitive. So I agree with status of fugitive.

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION SO FAR: List to remain the same as baseline show above. Once final consensus on this is agreed, changes to the categories without new event justification will be reverted.


 * Expected changes to come after events take place.
 * Fugitive status to be removed once Polanski is in Custody inside the USA.
 * Prisoner of Swiss would also be removed.
 * If in the unlikely scenario that Polanski officially was able to retract his guilty plea, then definitive status as sex offender would be removed. It is understood in a plea bargain that defendants may plea guilty to a crime to expedite the entire case, so they can retract the plea, and remove the conviction and move for trial.  If this scenario were to unfold it would have ample new citations to base any category changes.  Surely some would want a new consensus to be found.


 * ---> Any objections to summary please comment below. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Decision Available. More Comments?
We seem to be at consensus....this will be left open for more days however. Please comment if you need to. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

DONE. The categories are as stated above, with reasoning above, with full time for others to voice objections having been given.--Tombaker321 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cats
I don't think that Polanski should under the circumstances stay in this cat, Prisoners and detainees of Switzerland, but we should wait until he is released. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

He should stay in the category permanently because he has in any case been (and currently is) a prisoner of Switzerland. Urban XII (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the cat is for people that are currently prisoners of swiss, not people that have ever been held in a swiss jail, he was actually only being held on remand and not as a convicted person, when he is released from jail he should clearly be removed from the cat. Perhaps you could create a new cat, people who are currently on bail from swiss prisons. Off2riorob (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"the cat is for people that are currently prisoners of swiss" - this is very simple: Wrong. The category is for people who are or have been prisoners of Switzerland, much like Category:Polish politicians is for people who are or have been Polish politicians. This principle applies to almost all of our categories with very few exceptions (Living people). It doesn't matter why he was held in a Swiss prison, the category is intentionally named "prisoners and detainees" because it includes all people who have been held in custody for whatever reason. Urban XII (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said I disagree with that position, the cats are supposed to be narrowly defined and this cat is not..all the people that have ever been a detainee of swiss, it is people who are detainees, as in are detainees now, some of the cats get people put in and left in but that does not mean that it is correct, asking for definition is the correct way to go with this. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case you disagree with the whole way our category system works, alas. Urban XII (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We shall see. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The category question has been resolved. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Categories_for_use_in_Polanski_reference_.28Driving_to_final_version.29 --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sharon Tate
I made a comment that I thought the impact of Tate's death on Polanski has not been expressed, and I also feel that reading only the career section of the article, Tate is not clearly represented. She is referred to a few times, but it's only after going past these side-references to her, into the personal life section, that it is clearly explained who she was. I think some minor changes would place her and her murder into a stronger context within the framework of Polanski's career, so I offer the following observations and suggestions. I think, with one exception, they are fairly minor but useful.

1. Concern: There is no mention of Tate and Polanski being married and it seems odd to discuss the film that brought them together without a small mention.
 * Suggestion : at the end of discussion of The Fearless Vampire Killers insert "During filming, Polanski and Tate developed a relationship and were married in 1968."

2. Concern: The "Return to Europe" section begins "Polanski's first feature following Sharon Tate's murder..." This is the first mention of Tate's murder in the career section and it is after-the-fact.
 * Suggestion : move the "Sharon Tate's murder" section to sit after discussion of Rosemary's Baby - I think the narrative form would solve this problem.  There's resistance to this suggestion, which I am taking on board, but if the murder section is not moved, someone needs to think of a way of rewording this so it doesn't assume prior knowledge of her murder.  It does require mention, IMO, because otherwise there is an unexplained gap in Polanski's film work, and unexplained references to his dead wife, that are not clear until reading the personal life section.   I think it's the more difficult of these points.

3. Concern: In discussing The Tragedy of Macbeth, Pauline Kael is cited as commenting that the film evoked memories of the "Manson killings". At this point Manson hasn't been mentioned so anyone unfamiliar with the case, reading only the career section, would not know what is meant.
 * Suggestion: Minor rewording to refer it to Tate's murder, rather than the broader "Manson killings".  Also, Polanski has stated that he did not intend to reference the murder and that he had intended to be true to the violent nature of the play and knew that if he'd done a comedy he would have been viewed as callous.  (from his autobiography).    A short sentence explaining Polanski's vision as a director would be appropriate, especially as it's one of the few comments he has made connecting his directorial choices against his views regarding the murders.    Perhaps a quote from the autobiography or a short sentence that follows Kael's comment.

4.Concern : in the section "Sharon Tate's murder" it begins with Tate's murder and then goes back to explain Polanski's absence, before moving forward again. I think it's a little awkward.
 * Suggestion: It would be clearer to state that Tate and Polanski were in London, she returned to Los Angeles to prepare for the birth, and Polanski asked his friends Frykowski and Folger to stay with Tate until his return. Polanski was delayed.   Then say that they were murdered and continue on.

5. Concern: in the same section, Polanski's immediate reaction is not mentioned, but I think it was high-profile enough at the time to warrant mention briefly especially considering that he deliberately placed himself in the middle of the media scrum. He came into conflict with the media after they falsely portrayed Tate's lifestyle as a contributing factor to her death, and they sensationalized the murders. Also, Polanski was criticised for allowing himself to be photographed at the scene.
 * Suggestion: Add something like - "Following the murders, Polanski believed that some elements of the press were attempting to sensationalize the killings and were asserting the view that Tate's lifestyle had contributed to her death. This prompted Polanski to confront the media during a press conference and defend Tate, however he was later criticised for allowing himself to be photographed at the crime scene for a Life magazine article."    (The speaking for Tate's honour, is also part of the theme in the Vanity Fair case, so this is consistent.   It could then lead into the existing "After a period of months Manson and his... "   Rossrs (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While I personally don't disagree with any of your thoughts, I do think it bypasses the overriding issue of "undue weight" (discussed in separate section earlier). Assuming that no undue weight would be devoted to the Tate murders, or the minor assault case, your suggestions could be addressed. By "undue weight," I don't mean a tipping of the scale a bit one way or the other, I mean such added verbal poundage that the scale collapses and breaks, undermining the entire biography. Here are some facts from two leading reference books for directors worldwide:
 * World Film Directors: vol. two - 1945 - 1985, H.W. Wilson Co. (1,205 pages of small print) The Polanski article is close to 8,000 words long. The discussion of the Tate murders is 16 words, and the sex assault mention is 53 words. Ratios are 0.2% and 0.7% of article.
 * International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers -2: Directors, 3rd ed., St. James Press (1,325 pages, small print). This book devotes close to 4,000 words to Polanski article; 38 words to Tate murder and 17 words to assault case — 1% and 0.5% respectively.
 * And as mentioned earlier, the Wiki article devotes 28% to those two topics, and the lead alone devotes 30%. If we simply count words, you'll discover that the lead of the Polanski article here devotes more words to those two topics than the total words from the two leading reference books above combined.


 * The explanations given for why that is acceptable, namely being a "current event," does nothing more than redefine Wikipedia from its goal of being a "neutral" encyclopedia to becoming a media-driven weather vane. It's also worth noting that both references are chronological, covering his early life and then his films.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of what I'm suggesting can be achieved without adding much in the way of word-count or in expanding emphasis. Mainly what I'm hoping can be achieved is to link the points already contained in the article, so that each section flows.    My suggestion at 3, for example,  would add information about Polanski as a director.  Discussion of his thought process as a director (as opposed to relating the plot details of his films) is lacking somewhat.   5, for example, tells something about the personality of Polanski.  It's via Tate, but still specifically about Polanski at a key moment in his life, so I don't think it places undue weight, and I guess that is something to be further discussed.   Are both of the books you use as examples specifically "director" bios with the emphasis on "director"?   I believe we should be looking for a more comprehensive bio, that places appropriate weight on the various relevant aspect of the subject's life.   I think it's the degree of the emphasis that is the main point of disagreement.   Is that correct?  I think that the directorial side of this article needs some work, and that will hopefully allow for a suitable balance.  At the moment we delve a lot into plot summaries, rather than directorial themes, and I think fixing that will help to establish a better balance.   Simply, I don't think we should necessarily seek to achieve same ratio as the director books you mention because our goal isn't necessarily the same.  Our goal should IMO be to create a comprehensive biography of Polanski as a subject, rather than Polanski as a director only. There must be some good information in those books to work into the director/career aspect of this article, and I hope this happens.    Yes, I have said that I believe Polanski to fall under the category of "current event", at least until his case is resolved.  None of the points I've mentioned relate to the article as a "current event" and are all issues that have past.  I don't think it's applicable to comment on the current event status here although it is relevant in discussing other aspects of this article. Rossrs (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The books cited are the two leading library references focused specifically on directors. Two large general references sold in book stores are The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, by David Thomson, (2002) and Katz's Film Encyclopedia. These devote about 5% to the topics. They are also chronological. I'm not sure what you mean that this bio's goal should be Polanski as a "subject, rather than as a director only." That's the importance of an early life section. Here, on the other hand, the article skips over it and proceeds directly into his films. There is also a special section in Wikipedia for "Current Events" that could be linked to. I see no simple way to give this article a neutral balance, as you suggest, by expanding the career section. It would require adding many thousands of words to get close to encyclopedic balance. From the discussions going far back there seems little interest in expanding on his career or films.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [addendum] Since you did make clear your own viewpoint when you stated, Right now it is a "current event", and the article should reflect the expectation of users who want to look at the article now, it's apparent there are two extreme differences in what a Wiki bio should be.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikiwatcher1, more than one editor has explained this to you now, and you still seem to be trying to pigeon hole the conversation and WP entry on a turn of phrase.
 * 1. We are collaborating by editing a BLP. This is a biography. Period
 * 2. Cognizant of what we are editing, we realize that Polanski and the content of this encyclopedia entry, are in the news, and have been the subject of two Hollywood movies in the last year. For the point we could just say, Polanski was the subject of a debated documentary.  We as editors are not in a vacuum.
 * 3.Therefore we as collaborating editors are aware that more readers will be consulting an encyclopedia because of events, an we as group want this resource to be as proper and useful as possible.
 * 4. Anyone examining the WP entry will see that we avoid current news, information about all of his appeals, and so forth. The entry focuses on hard events, milestones.
 * 5. You have not pointed out any Newsie text either. Care to write about anything you think is given as "news current event" rather than a proper WP bio treatment.  How about creating a topic pointing those things out.  Thought so.
 * 6. Want to expand the career section, do it, discuss it here, proceed with what you think editorially is wanting. Commenting on what you feel others interest to be is trivial.  If you as an editor want to work on something do it.  Don't parade around pointing, where you can take action yourself.
 * 7. Analysis by using arbitrary percentages of words, is remedial evaluating methods, and one that is dismissible for its merits, because it puts word count as primary, vs word content to subject matter. You might as well count the physical length of a motion picture projection film, instead of talking about its content.  Its like saying 2 miles on the Golden Gate bridge are just like two miles drive on 101, two miles are two miles?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By current event we repeatedly tell you, its said only because the encyclopedia entry will be checked out by more. Much like a librarian would be aware that information about Lady Diana would be more requested after the tragedy in France.
 * Regarding the placement of the Early Life, it is now placed clearly above the Career section, providing easy access. This gives a clear path for the reader, or they can skim the article before reading it, and or consult the organization tree on the left hand side.  Simply put the early life of Polanski is amply provided for the reader, to use in conjunction with career.


 * The assessment that there are two extreme definition differences going on with this WP biographical entry, is a product of your own construction. That construction is created without substance.  As with the NPOV dispute, specific should be used, instead of setting up a strawman argument or provoking a false dilemma for consideration. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Wikiwatcher1, you've asked me some valid questions and I'm happy to respond. So... you say " I'm not sure what you mean that this bio's goal should be Polanski as a "subject, rather than as a director only." What I mean is this.  Different types of publications have different points on which to focus, and they may focus on mainly one aspect,  but we would usually look at the broader story.  A book about directors, may choose focus on the directorial career, and give minor emphasis to other aspects of the subject.    Our article is not only about Polanski the director, but Polanski the person,  and to be comprehensive (without being exhaustive) we may summarize points that would be of little consequence to a book devoting to discussion of "the director".   All I meant is that our aims and the aims of individual publications may not be the same, so the ratio of content may differ and by subject, I meant "person".   I think the early life section is very important, but I also think that important events in his life up to the present may be equally important. I'm talking about key and influential events - I certainly don't want it to devolve into trivia, and I think we've avoided that by keeping everything brief.

Expanding directorial content to give balance. Frankly, I think most of the film discussion of below standard. It reads like someone watched the films and then gave a plot summary. It would be more important and relevant to discuss themes and attitudes, and try to address what distinguishes Polanski as a director. I think a lot needs to be chopped off, and then rewritten from a director's viewpoint. I agree that few have expressed an interest in this being done, but that doesn't mean it's not required. I don't think it would address the issue of balance, on reflection, but I think it would help to shift it in that direction. It may make it more scholarly (for want of a better word). I'm sure the books you cite don't languish in unnecessary plot details, but I would expect that they say something to explain Polanski's approach.

"Current event" - yes I think Polanski is a "current event" in the sense that because his name pops up in the news, people are more likely to be looking at this article now, than they would have a few months ago. I think the article should give the very basic details of the key elements of his arrest etc. I don't for a second support the idea of it being presented with a day by day update of procedings, which was was happening shortly after his arrest. WP:RECENTISM does a lot of damage to topical articles. I don't think our viewpoints are extremely different. When I say things like "the article should reflect the expectation of users who want to look at the article now", I don't realize immediately how ridiculous that is, (until my attention is drawn to it) as expectations vary and some I'm sure are "expecting" something a little salacious, which I certainly don't propose giving. I'm beginning to understand the "tabloid" comment from earlier, and no, that was never in my mind. Rossrs (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the career and film details seem to be mostly WP:OR and are written like a personal movie review. But if we "chopped off" the apparent OR and uncited commentary, the only cited sections of the entire bio that would be left would be "Personal life." For instance, there are only a few cited statements in the entire "Career" section, which makes up 75% of the article. Yet in the small "Sexual assault" sub-section of his "Personal life" there are 24! There are 12 just in his "Personal relations." In effect, bio is completely perverted from an ideal norm. There is even a completely trivial description about a lawsuit against a magazine, something I assume every celebrity has been involved in numerous times. However, in this article it's a subsection with equal weight to his early life. It even has 3 cites, almost the same as his entire "Career" section. Any suggestions? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [Addendum] As with a house, it's sometimes easier to rebuild than to remodel, it might be simpler to just request deletion. One of the key criteria for deletion is listed as relevant to "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons." Some of the above facts might warrant that option. Thoughts?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen articles in worse shape, and I think that to request deletion would be too drastic a step.  I think it needs an effort to work through the career section progressive and replace the WP:OR with reliable and cited material, and it's achieveable.  You're right in saying if we chopped off everything that is either WP:OR or uncited, we would have virtually no career section at all.   I think the magazine lawsuit is of considerably less relevance than the sections relating to the murders and to the sex case.   It was reported at the time, but it was never a "major" case.   I'm not sure about how to deal with that aspect. Rossrs (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're probably right about the AfD being pointless. This is an old article, and despite its problems I don't think there would be much support. There have been no visible comments that I can see from the BLPN. And although we have disagreed on the amount of emphasis it should devote to current events, I appreciate your civility. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Continued Discussion RE: Sharon Tate
Rossrs: I don't have any objections to any of the changes you have above, and giving this topic a few more days to stew, and considering further feedback....I would see no reason not to proceed. I believe the move in sections, as you outline, is using the existing style to its fullest. Your modifications are not an entire style swap. This change is below the "stability of articles" arbitration committees mandate and threshold.

I think the value of your edits will yield better appreciation for the entry by the readers, than some meritless questioning of all the collaborating editors good faith. As to length, advanced writing classes, will tell you to use more liberally line breaks. Globs of text are harder to absorb than paragraphs with eye relief. Economy of words is great, elimination of content for word count manipulation is not.

So my opinion, give it a few more days, if nothing of substance continues to come back...proceed. All others mileage my vary. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I appreciate that comment, and everyone including me, should keep the good faith attitude in mind and focus on the article more than the editors. I hope more people comment and there's no hurry. Rossrs (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe enough time has passed, to where you should feel comfortable with editing what you outlined above. Probably would be wise to reference this talk section, when you put the changes in. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe so too. I'll work on this over the next few days as time permits, and will certainly link back to this discussion.  Rossrs (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Editing per each of the 5 points I made in this section above.  Seperate edit for each point as follows.
 * 1. sentence to mention relationship and marriage
 * 2. sentence to mention the murder of Sharon Tate
 * 3. MacBeth - correctly quoted Pauline Kael, added two points regarding Polanski's reaction/explanation
 * 4 and 5. substantial rewrite of murder section to focus more on Polanksi's reaction, how it affected him, within a broader context of the overall case. His introduction of Frykowski and Folger, why he wasn't there, what he did next, all relevant. not signficantly longer than what was previously there


 * I don't think this solves all issues, but I think it's a step towards making these points more cohesive.  I still favour a narrative style, and appreciate that there is a disagreement over that.   I think that aspect should continue to be discussed, but seperately.  Rossrs (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent work. (And yes, lets see if we can keep the conflations unconflated :) ... at least until Polanski gets out and can join the conversation himself. lol Excuse humor in last clause.:) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you.  I'm still pro-conflation, but I would never make a non-consensual conflation.   I wonder what Roman would add to the conversation.    Humour always appreciated, BTW.   Rossrs (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. (Clarification: talk-page-multiple-topic-spanning issue[s] conflations, aka kudzu.^^) As for Roman, perhaps we'll find out tomorrow. ;) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

TLDR: short(!) Polanski talk summaries
TLDR: Polanski talk's now stalled obtusely months past first October lock. Participants arriving now enthralled by different drums(2) than early folks. No sock ... ... is on the field (no matter what some think). ^^ And some miscomprehend the libel suit. (Rebuttal is: Proofreader's points all stink!) BUT don't get lost in leaves, ignore the root: Polanski's sui generis. [Full stop.] His fate now hangs across three decades span. No other film director's life would swap into the shape, the structure, of this man. (Those who've contested facts for two months know a few more things about how pieces go.) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Proofreader77

Swiss court approves bail offer
Note: recent edits do not include caveat (may be appealed ...). Proofreader77 (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bail Offer for Roman Polanski Is Approved (New York Times), but Swiss Justice Ministry will hold him until it decides whether to appeal. Note: For anyone who is unfamiliar with the cultural/social conflict re Polanski (from which Wikipedia is not insulated), see the comments for that ArtsBeat post. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But (but) BBC quotes Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf who saw no reason to appeal. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Entry seems reasonable, though I could see it waiting for him to actually be on bail. And it could be as simples as On 'date' Polanski was released on bail pending extradition determination'
 * The odds that Polanski will escape (say through some daring mercenary helicopter extraction) are pretty high now. The 4.5M would be his salary for his next directing role.--Tombaker321 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is unprecedented. Whatever occurs, the bail will aid his case, once you are bailed you are, at least in europe on a very different status, is this in the article? Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This makes no difference. Bail is not unprecedented. Urban XII (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it clearly is, in extradition cases like this one, bail is unprecedented and quite surprising. He has spent two months in jail in swiss, in Europe this is the equivalent of four month reduction of any sentence that was imposed or will be imposed in the future.(taken into consideration) Off2riorob (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press, Polanski awaits house arrest at Alpine chalet from there...In Winterthur, a city near Zurich where media reports have said Polanski is held, a white van with tinted windows was seen entering a prison and leaving a couple of minutes later. It was unclear who was inside the van, and authorities are still declining to say where Polanski has been held or when he might be released.

Report that he has been released, Presstv.ir Off2riorob (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * CNN:Swiss won't fight Polanski bail ruling
 * AP: Swiss OK Polanski move to house arrest in Alps
 * BBC: Roman Polanski Swiss bail ruling will not be challenged
 * NYT/Reuters Swiss to Release Polanski as Soon as Bail Posted
 * Yes, no "(but)" now. [As soon as bail is posted] Proofreader77 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, as I see it he has been released already. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But big RS are still saying ... "when bail is posted" ... So no confirmation on if that van was carrying him. :) I think. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed there is or was only that one report that actually said he had been released, so, tomorrow it will be clear, there will be legal things like the bail financial details that take a few hours, how they will keep the press away from the chalet is beyond me, but there you go, exciting stuff, I also read that there is an appeal in process in california next month and polanski's lawyers will attempt t get the charges dropped, I didn't know that.Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

His release on bail is not unpredecented by the way. Swiss supreme court (Bundesgericht) overruled the Bundesstrafgericht's judgment in the same manner recently, in a case involving an Italian drug dealer.Bosuil (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know any details of that case and my german is not good enough to translate, it is being reported as unprecedented and is you will agree totally unexpected at the very least. Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: upcoming - Dec. 10 California appeal hearing
(reply to Off2riorob) December 10th hearing, Second Circuit Court of appeals ([Division 7]) - where Polanski's lawyers will again attempt to get case dismissed. (Last appeal was summarily denied by order). Note: Geimer/Silver are listed among parties (as "other") - Note: Geimer/Silver not party to previous appeal. Likely to deny on same basis (Polanski not here?), ... Docket of actions re current appeal. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those details Proofreader. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. And while I've got my mouth open, will invoke day-after-turkey-day license for *one* silly-speculative comment:^^ ... Since Polanski's held by Swiss (soon under house arrest) *and therefore* restrained (by Swiss) from appearing at December 10th hearing in California ... is it possible that California appellate court would not (this time) summarily deny appeal because Polanski's not submitted to court's authority by surrendering (in California)? (Of course Polanski *could* ask Swiss to let him be transported *under guard* to appeals court for hearing, *then* demand that he be returned to Switzerland so he would not be a bail jumper. ^^) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand the Dec 10th hearing it is only to whether the lower court should review the motion beyond, denying any motion until Polanski is returned. If he were to win this appeal it would not change the case beyond sending it back to the lower court to review under the directions of the appellate court.  The DA has said this motion is moot because Polanski will be coming back.  Obviously Polanski lawyers want his case in the US to be resolved without him having to be extradited.   Because of the cases cited in the Geimer civil actions, that were reviewed by appeal courts, I do not see there is much of a chance that the appellate court will rule differently than the lower courts view....Polanski must return to seek any relief.   It seems open and shut, and I suspect the judges only took the case for review because of the front page news effect of all the Polanski arrest stuff.  They set the hearing only after he was arrested. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And perhaps they will call for a volunteer to sit in for the justices at the hearing on the 10th. Perhaps not. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: AP link re 10th Dec hearing And AP video Proofreader77 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Release on bail (pending)
Friday 27th, prison polanski held in named, polanski will not be released until at least, Mon 30th, yahoo news. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Swiss residence
I see the point about him owning and visiting a residence in Switzerland has been added and removed a couple of times. I'm not sure of the reason for removing it, because there are no edit summaries, but I think the information is problematic in the way it was worded and especially in the absence of sourcing or attribution.

If Polanski has visited Switzerland since 2005 (which according to Bloomberg is when the U.S. "sought" his return. Google news refers to "a 2005 international alert issued by the US government") are we saying that the Swiss government has acted improperly? Or were his visits prior to 2005 only? I don't know because the edits don't explain this, and the external sources don't explain this either. I'm concerned that this type of unsupported statement, especially without clarifying the dates involved, could be seen as an editorial comment about the Swiss authorities, rather than a dry reporting of the facts as they apply to Polanski. We have to be careful about what we say or imply. If the Swiss authorities have been criticised, we need to cite it to an individual or organisation and provide a reliable source. I doubt that it was intentional, but I think it was presented as though Wikipedia is making something of the fact that "although" Polanski has previously visited, it was only on this last visit that the authorities acted. I think it's a point that we don't need unless it can be expressed clearly, and with strong sourcing.

BTW, editing without edit summaries is decidedly unhelpful considering how many edits this article has been subjected to, and the convoluted and contentious nature of some of the discussion. At least be fair on those editors who are trying to monitor progress, and not "hide" edits by failing to provide a summary. Rossrs (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting 12/8 changes
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Polanski's autobiography makes clear that he believed he had an oral agreement to shoot the layout. The fact that Vogue Homme (according to Polanski) would not confirm the oral agreement amidst the sex case does not mean that Polanski is lying &mdash; as the phrasing implies. Most sources say he was on assignment. The autobiography does not say he wasn't. The fact that two sources may misleadingly phrase it that way, does not mean they should be used.
 * 2) The California penal code specification is "unlawful sexual intercourse."
 * 3) The Quaalude article was changed by the changer here. (Rolls eyes.)
 * 1. Other biography books on Polanski confirm that Vogue Homme was contacted by investigators and denied that Polanski had any assignment with him. Other articles suggest the entire Magazine shoot was a guise to get in contact with the 13 year old, that information is not included in the entry.  Polanski states that Vogue Homme did deny the assignment.  This was part of the picture that cause him to take the plea deal.  In the end, the only person asserting he was shooting for a magazine was Polanski, the magazine denied this.  The sources are not misleading, and considering that Polanski himself writes this, makes the credibility of information not misleading at all.  It is pure speculation to suggest that the magazine had any incentive to answer the detectives in any way other than truthful.  The magazines was well known as a Men's magazine much like Maxim is today, they were also in Europe.
 * 2. California Penal Code Section 261.5 states "Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.
 * Clearly the statute applies only to minors, and this is key to what makes it illegal. The language used concerning a minor is used in court documents, specifically in court documents filed with the court by Polanski's own lawyers.
 * 3. Quaalude is defined by Wikipedia, as a hypnotic.  The entry for Quaaludes has been modified by a third editor. and the language in the entry now reflects that.
 * Please don't edit based on feelings. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Advise striking "Please don't edit based on feelings." And suggest refraining from editing other articles to confirm edits in this one. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom, you are doing research. 1)  In most articles regarding this case, it has been reported that he was working for French Vogue.  We are reasonably certain that this is not the case, that it was Vogue Hommes, however, that the editors/owners of VH were running for cover to save their beloved bottoms under the circumstances is not at all surprising.  This is a typical human behavior.  ("I did not have sex with that woman."  Or, in the more recent past, I said that I was surprised that a certain recently disgraced public figure had not paid off a certain person, and it turned out that he had!  Predictable.  Not rocket science.  Therefore, we report what others report, not what you have surmised, even if you may be correct.


 * I'm not going to address 2, which is as uninteresting as the chicken carcass I found on the lawn this morning, but move right on to 3). This article has stated for months (if not years) what Qaaludes are.  I don't see the benefit of calling them hypnotic.  Geimer doesn't testify that she was hypnotized.  She has not said that she was a zombie.  She testified that she knew what was going on. If you say that she was hypnotized, then her ENTIRE testimony comes into question, because as we all (should) know, hypnotic states lead to false allegations and implanted false memories.  01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I assure you that my edits are made in good faith, your assertion that they are not is disappointing. Regarding your latest Vogue Homme article, it indicates the editors were joking with him, and Polanski was aware of that. It also says that Polanski was trying to start a movement where adults had sex with underage girls, to lash back at women.  It does provide some insight on the situation, but still shows that Polanski was operating on his own. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To the unknown editor, Making the assumption that Vogue Homme had any incentive to lie, is rank speculation, despite whatever psycho-babble you want to surround it with. They denied the assignment to the Police.  And the most recent source says it was nothing but a joking reference.   I strongly disagree that we "report what others report" Wikipedia is not an echo-chamber for incorrect information.  Polanski says the magazine denied the assignment, his words.
 * The pharmacological definition of a molecule is what it is. There is a class of drugs known as hypnotics.  Wikipedia references Quaalude as being part of that group.  The relationship between hypnotics and sedatives are closely related.  barbiturates are listed as both.  Please see hypnotic to understand what Quaalude are as a molecule and drug.  We are not talking about hypnotism.  How you edited without a sign at all is pretty unique, not even an auto sign. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

<outdent Before I get to the other stuff, what is my "latest Vogue Hommes" article? I haven't edited anything for days. As for my signature, I was as surprised by it as you. I plan to try to get to the bottom of that, but have been having difficulties with electronic things of all sorts these past few days. I appreciate, however, that you are operating in good faith. Keep up the good work! 02:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the Vogue Homme assignment being mentioned, but I have a couple of concerns about the way the information is presented.

1. "(based on a editorial conversation [52])" - I think this is very awkward and confusing. I've been following these edits, and even I'm not clear what is meant. I think anyone reading it for the first time wouldn't know what was meant. I also think the source is poor and shouldn't be used. It's attributed to "a former editor" - we don't even have a name. It doesn't inspire confidence, and I think we need to find something better. 2. "When contacted after Polanski was charged, Vogue Hommes refused to acknowledge there had been an assignment." (cited to Polanski's bio)  We absolutely can not and must not present it as a fact and then use Polanski as the source. It has to be clearly stated that it's Polanski's words "Polanski later commented that Vogue Hommes refused to acknowledge there had been an assignment." Polanski's bio is very useful for a lot of things, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that all autobiographies are self-serving to various degrees. Polanski certainly has more reason than most to be self-serving. Use his words, but be clear to show they are his words. 1 and 2 - maybe the way to word the whole thing would be:

"In March 1977, Polanski, then aged 43, was arrested for the sexual assault of Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl hired for the photographic shoot.[43][53]  Polanski stated that he had been engaged by Vogue Hommes International to take photographs of adolescent girls, but that its editors had refused to acknowledge there had been an assignment.[54]"

Something like that, perhaps. Rossrs (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The two newspapers (LA Times and New York Post) that say Vogue Hommes denied the assignment, attribute that information to Polanski's autobiography. Every source that is not quoting Polanski's autobiography says that Polanski had an assignment. You say the autobiography may not be used to establish X, but then you say it is OK to establish X and Y if phrased such and so. No. Let's find another source or get rid of it altogether. (As for "ex-editor" source, no it's not questionable, it's fine. But will discuss later.) Try finding another source than the autobiography that covers this. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the two newspapers say that then either or both of them could be cited, so why not just do that. If any source cites back to Polanski's bio, we are still left with Polanski as the original source of the comment and he has to be attributed.  Take your pick.  Yes, I think autobiographies tend to be self-serving.   The subject portrays himself or herself as they want to be perceived, and it may or may not be honest, and it may not even be intentionally dishonest.  No, I did not say  "it is OK to establish X and Y if phrased such and so."   I said if we're saying something that is sourced back to Polanski, make it clear that it's Polanski's words, not just Wikipedia making a statement that such and such is a fact, which is what your revision did. We look at the source and ooops, it's not an independently established fact after all.  It's something Polanski said that may be true, may be untrue.   I don't understand the difficulty.    As for the "ex-editor" - yes it's highly questionable.  It's the type of potentially dishonest gossipy comment that is often referred to as originating from a "palace insider" or "highly placed White House aide" or an "unnamed friend".  As a source, why should we place any credibility on it?    If it's such an important point, a better source should be possible.   I don't see anything inaccurate or open to interpretation in the edit I suggested, and I think it also abbreviates the point.   Rossrs (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it probably should be in the sexual abuse article rather than this one, but if it is going to be in this article, I think it's only fair to want it presented correctly and factually and with suitable attribution. Rossrs (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So Polanski says he was given an assignment, but Polanski says they denied he had an assignment. When was that? Perhaps that matters. Did they deny it before he left the office, later that week, or when he tried to reach them after the sexual assault case? Does the autobiography say Polanski believed he had an assignment? What phrases give you that impression? Is there nothing in the autobiography that would give you an idea that Polanski had had a conversation with an editor that implied he had an assignment. Do you believe editors don't make assignments orally? Proofreader77 (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please get over your incorrect assumption that I am attempting to portray Polanski as a liar.  OK?    To answer your questions.  When?  p. 403.  With the judges consent, Polanski took a leave of absence and went to London.  Tried to call Gerald Azaria.  Would not take his call.  Polanski visited Robert Caille, told him it was essential Azaria testified that he was on a "bona fide assignment".  Caille quoted as saying "He can't do that. You had no formal written agreement".  Polanski agrees, but stresses he had a verbal agreement and everyone at Vogue "knew it".  p. 404. Caille " We've already been questioned by a man from Interpol.  He came to ask about your assignment. We said we knew nothing about it."  Does the autobio say Polanski believed he had an assignment?  Yes.  p. 382.  Azaria "pestering" him to accept the offer.  p. 383 "I mentioned my Vogue Hommes' assignment."  p. 385 "the Vogue Hommes assignment".   p. 389 "asking questions about the Vogue Hommes assignment".   So yes, in the autobiography published in 1984, Polanski makes several references to his certainty that he had an "assignment".   Yes, the biography clearly refers to a conversation with an editor.   Do I believe editors make oral assignments?   Well, yes I do.  I have no reason to disbelieve that.   Does it matter what I think?   Why do you think I need to defend my own personal belief or disbelief when all I am saying is that I treat Polanski's version with scepticism, not because I disbelieve him, but because I accept that a man in his position, several years after the fact, may choose his written words carefully enough to ensure they conveys exactly what he wants it to convey?   Is there something wrong with questioning something rather than blindly accepting it?  Obviously not, because that's exactly what you are doing.  Rossrs (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The autobiography was written at a time where the needs of the "assignment" as justification were needed. Polanski seems to have been picturing only one girl, Samantha Geimer.  The editor making the remarks for the newly cited source...is unnamed.  But the context of his conversation is about Polanski sexual exploits of young girls, with a joke about getting the youngest girls he can get in Los Angeles.   What happens next, he goes to LA and has "consensual" sex with a minor.  The pictures taken were all of low lighting at dusk, which could not even be used for a professional magazine.  Long story short.  If the entry has makes the assertion Polanski was working a job, it needs to reflect the employer denies this.  Geimer was never paid for the work either.  The casting interview, film test, photography session that turns into naked photography, have long been cliche's of Hollywood, as a means of having sex with women, under the premise of future fame.  That cliche did not come about without ample facts of many incidents.  We had a version without mention of the Vogue Hommes, it may be better to go again in that direction. --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Existing Observer cite says "commissioned"
 * [Edit to note: undocumented refactor/removal of subtopic by next commenter (perhaps tech error)]

Note: For now I have removed my cite re "ex editor" (Will discuss further.) The Guardian cite which covers the assignment says it was "commissioned." Here is the main issue here: most sources say the photo shoot was commissioned or on assignment. Polanski says he had an agreement. The issue of whether they denied it after the arrest is another matter, but that does not mean Polanski didn't believe he had one. We do not have sources to cast that aspersion. (His autobiography certainly does not imply Polanski was lying.) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have rephrased the first sentence to be more readable but keeping the same content. It is clear from the article newly cited that the entire exchange was a joke.  It was stated as a joke.  It was in the form of a joke.  The other comments this source says about Polanski are particularly damning of his later actions.  Because the discussion is not about photographs, its about sex with underage girls, and even advocacy of it.  Polanski made a presumption. Or he deliberately used his position to be able to take naked pictures of girls and then have sex with them.  It's reasonable to assume the former and not the latter for WP.

http://www.amazon.com/Polanski-Biography-Christopher-Sandford/dp/0230607780/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0
 * In Sandfords biography on page 232, it say that Polanski tried for several days to contact Vogue Homme after the arrest. He spoke to Robert Caille' who was who had commissioned his prior work in 1976.  Responding to Polanski Caille' said "We have already be questioned by a man from Interpol.  He came to ask about your assignment. We said we knew nothing about it"  So at best Polanski made a presumption, but there was no issue, no project, nothing done, as far as shooting for Vogue Homme.
 * The first line used to say "On March 11, 1977, Polanski was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old, Samantha Geimer, that occurred the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson" Since the current version wants to assert a claim that Polanski was on a shoot for Hommes, (notice there is no evidence of any other girls being pictured)...we need to have the information that Hommes denied there was any shoot.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it needs to be kept simple. Would the section be weaker if there was no mention of Vogue Hommes?  It's open to interpretation, and perhaps as Proofreader said earlier, it fits better in the sexual assault article.  Do we need to say how or why Polanski came to be there, when the basic point being addressed is the sexual episode?  The quote "We have already been questioned...." is exactly the same as the quote in Polanski's biography.   Perhaps that's where it was sourced from, and I wonder if checking the hard copy would show the biography in the bibliography.    Just on a side note, I did a double take when I clicked on the Google books link and saw the cover.  That cover photo of Polanski naked with a woman's arm over him - it really sexualizes him by cropping out the woman and making her anonymous.  I've seen the full picture before as it was once on Wikipedia in the Sharon Tate article - it's Sharon Tate's arm. The original here just sold for $12,000.    Crop out Sharon Tate, and a picture of a naked Polanski with some woman's arm draped over him, becomes something more sexual and promiscuous.   How easy to create a different context just by snipping a photograph in half.  This is off topic, but I found it interesting.  Probably not the first time something's been skewed ever so slightly to put Polanski in a different light. Rossrs (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The picture wraps around the back cover and binding with Sharon Tate. I believe its the exact image that was just sold at auction.  The book is a library option.  I do think we can delete the Vogue Homme reference in the first sentence which then removes the immediate need of the denial sentence.  The denial of Homme was part of his decision to take the plea deal.


 * "On March 11, 1977, Polanski was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old, Samantha Geimer, that occurred the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson"  I think this sentence is fine.  It conveys event, time, and place.  The Vogue Homme denial sentence would not be necessitated. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a detail that is not necessary for the brief summary required of this article, so I think it would be best to remove it. Rossrs (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is broader now. The cited source says the the photo shoot was commissioned. Dozens of RS state he was shooting an assignment. What was raised on 12/8 was an interpretation of the passage in Polanski's autobiography. (See description in subtopic below.) Much more that can be discussed about this, but no, the misterpreting WP:UNDUE on that passage in the autobiography does not negate all the sources which say he was shooting for Vogue Homme. No, facts do not have to compromise with SYN. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is hard to believe that you are still adding reams of comments over this after more than a month. Move on..Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN (BLP vio)
Removed WP:SYN problem which was clarified by "presuming," which clearly is not in the source quoted, but rather synthesis of the implications of the quote in Polanski's autobiography (which is quoted by Sanford - same quote) ... which is that Polansky says that Vogue Homme told him that they had told Interpol "they didn't know anything about it" when he went to them after the sex charges (made him a pariah) ... which is only an assertion of what Polanski said they told him, not whether it was true or an excuse for not acknowledging their agreement. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your constant edits which say they are reverting your own edits seem to be doing many other things. Polanski states clearly that Vogue Hommes denied he was on an assignment.  A citation you added and seems deleted now shows that assignment to be a joke.  A group of men telling Polanski to go out an shoot pictures of as young as girls as he can get in L.A.   The only person saying it was an assignment was Polanski.  Further, the victim was not hired.  She was not paid.  She was only raped.  All of the photographs were unusable for a magazine.  None were lighted properly.
 * So it is not responsible to say he was on an assignment when the magazine says he was not. We can say "claiming" or "presuming".  We can not say the girl was hired, because she was not.  And we would need to put in the second line that somehow you reverted your own edits to remove, which is the denial of Vogue Hommes.  Contending that VH had any incentive to not be accurate is without any support.  I am going to put in alternative sentence which appears to have consensus from above.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR "sedative-hypnotic"
Yes, "sedative-hypnotic" is a good classification, and was described as such in a 1977 news report: "Polanski Pleads Guilty on 1 Count," August 8, 1977, Bill Farr. Los Angeles Times.


 * However, this edit summary has nothing to do with sources, but rather editor analysis/commentary "(→Sexual assault case: clarifies drug Quaaludes to time appropriate usage of recreational drug. Drug was not prescribed or used on prescription basis.")


 * Also note: The adding of WP:OR diagram to Quaalude article. Re: OR - see: Talk:Psychoactive_drug


 * And changing lede of drug article

"Sedative-hypnotic" can be sourced. But not by WP:OR. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This link should give the sourcing needed to call Quaalude a sedative-hypnotic drug. Ravensfire (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The chart now being questioned is not the "Thoric chart", its actually different. It was located in other current Wiki-entries before them just being removed.  I guess I will follow the new dispositioning on this chart, but its remains not clear if a hierarchical grouping of items is WP:OR or not.
 * The edit was done in good faith, as opposed to being what is characterized here. Methaqualone is listed under hypnotic in Wikipedia, the Wikipedia entry of Quaalude now lists it as sedative-hypnotic.  As is said here, it also reflects that in 1977.
 * We are dealing with definitions here. Continuing to assert a claim of OR does not bode well for anything. Other definitions are found here http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Quaaludes  All call it a hypnotic while some call it a sedative-hypnotic.
 * The only argument here seems to be an attempt to make me out to being doing OR, which can be done on my talk page if necessary. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We are not chemists, it was fine as it was and also as it is generally reported in the citations, if it is not cited as hypno tranc sleeper then we shouldn't add it here either. Looking through the cites Quaaludes are referred to as a sedative, that is fine. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The amount of Quaalude given was negligible. Why you keep going over the hypnotic thing I really do not understand, Tom.  I am not discounting that the drug was given, that alcohol was also involved, but obviously, the dose was far short of knocking the victim out.  She was still 1) able to voice her objections, 2) able to dress herself after the assault, 3) able to get into the car without assistance, 4) NOT sedated to the point where she did not experience grief as a result of the assault, (which she would have at a therapeutic dose), and 5) able to recall the incident in detail.  The view from here is that you are trying to imply that Polanski drugged her into submission, which testimony does not support.  Please forgive me if I completely misinterpret your motives. Oberonfitch (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The testimony of the victim does indeed show her to have been drugged.  Had she not been drugged with alcohol and a sedative-hypnotic she could well have fought him off or screamed, or whatever.  The definition of the drug brew-ha was caused by a poorly worded sentence here and an attempt to reword it for readability.  Quaaludes are now an banned drug, no longer able to be prescribed, but they were in use as a sexual stimulant and hypnotic in the 70s.  Reflecting the drug as it is---should not have been a problem.  At the rate this WP entry is being "sanitized for purpose", I will be happy if the given a mixture of alcohol and Quaalude, is retained, just by itself. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Having read several articles on the subject of Quaaludes today, I concur with you that it was and is still abused (in South Africa primarily). However, there is absolutely no source which says that she could not have screamed, or that she was incapable of screaming when Huston came to the door.  She does say that she felt that she was alone and that she just wanted it to be over.  Further, the small portion of Quaalude obviously failed in its purpose, if the intention was to make her more receptive.  Simply put, it is bad enough that the assault happened.  I don't understand the need to make it worse.  This is not about sanitizing it, but conveying in an article the information which has been generally accepted as accurate.  If you want to discuss what the combination of drugs did to Polanski, feel free to make an attempt, preferably on the sex assault page.  But I cannot concur that she was drugged to the point of being helpless.  She was helpless because she was a young teen in an adult situation and multiple adults failed to protect her.  (My opinion.) Oberonfitch (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't think it's intentional, but I think the comment "she could well have fought him off or screamed, or whatever" is making an assumption.   We don't know the reason she didn't struggle or scream, and there are other possibilities and factors other than the drug.  The situation was very complicated, before, during and after the event,  and there are only two people on the face of the earth that know what happened, and how they felt at the time.  We have to be careful that our individual beliefs don't influence us in the way with deal with the article.  Rossrs (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything points at the girl was drugged with a controlled substance, a strong sedative-hypnotic drug. She was confused, and events "just happened" to her.  He effectively gave her the date rape drug (in modern parlance) and then proceeded.  While I agree with Rossrs that I can not know, and did not claim to know exactly what happened.  I do know that if a person is not sedated and boozed up, they will be more physical to stop being anally raped.  The drugging of this girl was a large part of the problem.  The drug is classified as a hypnotic, with some sources saying it a sedative-hypnotic.  Conceding to voices here, I don't plan on seeking the up to date terminology of "hypnotic" people seem to be fine with sedative.  I did at the same time remove the wording of "muscle relaxant", maybe people want to have that back in also.  Sadly that function better explains the ease of the anal rape too.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Creation of redirect: "unlawful intercourse with a minor" ("court records" / WP:OR)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting the Dec. creation of the redirect to go along with this edit to the lede Sexual assault case. Note WP:OR edit summary:  "(→Sexual assault case:  corrected name of actual charge....uses wording of court records)"
 * Contemporaneous editing of other Wikipedia pages to support edits in contentious article is bad form.
 * Also noting adjustment to piped "Unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. [same as above]
 * This changing from stable well-sourced description "unlawful sexual intercourse" (the California legal code specification) to WP:OR claim of "court records" was executed amidst other contentious edits.