Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 13

Light enough on the sex offense?
This man has been an international fugitive for 30+ years, and it fails to make any mention of his present (and eternal, evidently) status as an international fugitive before the THIRD paragraph?!?!?! Let's write a nice bio of D.B. Cooper and stuff the first half of his article with that.--208.127.100.19 (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * D.B. Cooper is a mistaken take on the likely alias "Dan Cooper," a name used by someone who seems to be notable only for a single criminal incident, the hijacking a passenger airliner. Polanski's work as a film director has been very widely noted for almost five decades. The criminal charges are notable mostly because of his longstanding notability as a film director and are handled as such in both the article and the article lead, which is an overview of the whole article, please see Manual of Style (lead section). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP editors wanted
Are there any editors willing or able to turn this article into a proper BLP? There are many fundamental issues that need work, all of which are blatantly obvious. For example, why are there 14 citations in the lead? Is it because everything in the lead is "controversial," per WP:Lead? Is there a dispute about whether he actually went to a "lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival, that it needs 3 citations for proof?

The body of the article is even more confused. It starts off with "Career" instead of his "Early life," the way 99% of bios do, which User:Rossrs earlier proved. Instead, the "Early life" section is tucked away in "Personal life," alongside "Relationships," a complete perversion of standard chronology.

The first subsection is "Gérard Brach collaborations," which only creates the question: "Gerard who?" As a minor film writer with a 1-line bio, it gives undue weight to an unknown person. The other sections, when read from the TOC, almost implies that Polanski ran a moving service, instead of directing movies: "Move to United States" then "Return to Europe," as major Career sections. There have been many edits to the article, but some of the leading contributors have used the article to express their personal likes and dislikes by emphasizing news bulletins, gossip, courtroom drama, Hollywood sex scandals, and sensationalism, over career substance; they have focused on some isolated weeds instead of the forest. As a BLP, and of a well-known moviemaker, the article, IMO, does more to demean Wikipedia than it does Polanski. Is there any consensus to fix up and restore the article to some acceptable standard? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree with you that this article needs some serious editing. I came to this page after having rented a DVD of The Pianist, the bonus footage of which talked a lot about Polanski's own history of having escaped the ghetto in Krakow. I had not realized until then that he was Jewish, and I was interested in learning something more of his family background. I thought at first that there was no "Early Life" section when it wasn't immediately after the lead, and only realized it was further down after spotting it in the article's TOC. There's a lot of material here to work with, but it needs to be organized better.


 * My edit activity here has been largely on the level of copy editing; I don't know much about writing BLP articles, and I really don't have time to devote to major overhauls right now anyway, but I'd be glad to do what I can. I guess the first task is to move the "Early Life" section up to conform with the standard outline. There's also material in other parts of the article that probably would more properly belong in a section chronicling his early life -- for example, the altercation over his bicycle mentioned in the "Career" section that was the inspiration for his debut film Rower.LBourne (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

external links template
Is there still an issue with the externals, there are only four, two are fine, the video externals I could go with removal, but I am not bothered, CBS videos and Charlierose, comments, I would like to resolve any issues and remove the template. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that at least the two are fine and should not be removed. They add some good background details that could not be described by words alone. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Summaries better for personal life coverage having full articles
There are already articles and links for the sections dealing with the rape case and Tate murders, so those sections should be summarized here only. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It would also be cleaner to trim most of the citations from the lead when they relate to topics covered in body and are not in dispute. I'll try trimming a few and if there's a problem just put them back with an explanation.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Urgent edit of first sentence description
The first sentence summarising who Roman Polanski is urgently needs to be edited to include "accused child molester". It is inconsistent to laud Mr Polanski with all his directorial talents when the same sentence does not highlight the most notorious element of his reputation. It's absence indirectly ascribes a lesser significance to the accusation when in fact the turpitude associated with its presence far outweighs any of the other superficial achievements his lifetime represents. Please make the correction as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What an excellent smear job
Polanski "lured" a 13-year old? Actually he was hired to do a photoshoot of young girls and she was hired with consent of her parents, but who cares as long as the wikipedia tabloid sells more copies Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepinout (talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

here's more "It is not known whether the child she was carrying was his and Polanski has also admitted that he was unfaithful to Tate during their marriage."

Wow, his wife is brutally murdered and wikipedia makes a case that both were sinners, how illuminating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepinout (talk • contribs) 10:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Should be reverted and I explained why on User_talk:Ulysses_elias's talk page. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Video commentary
The video links and the reasons for including them has been discussed a number of times. The ones included here all support the article citations (many of which are news items) and are a primary source. As they are on-topic fair use links, they should be included. Nor are they a linkfarm which is defined as "a mere collections of external links." If any of this does not make sense, please comment. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Grzeshtoph, 2 November 2010
Please change Roman Polanski's nationality, because he is not a Polish-French director but definitely Polish film director. To proove that, please refer to the following sources: http://ethnicelebs.com/roman-polanski http://www.bookrags.com/biography/roman-polanski http://minadream.com/romanpolanski/Biography.htm http://www.romanpolanski.com/

All of these pages, especially the last one (the official website for Roman Polanski), but also many more, claim that Roman Polanski is a Polish film director. Althought he was born in France, he had both Polish parents and was raised in Poland sice 1937.

Grzeshtoph (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are other sources that say that Polanski has French citizenship (example "Polanski's French citizenship protects him from extradition" in http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/28/roman-polanski-french-government) in addition to his ethnical Polish background. Alandeus (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Polanski has French-Polish citizenship, but this a citizenship, not a nationality. Saying that Polanski has French-Polish nationality is weird simplification, which is far away from truth. It should be mentioned clearly that he's got dual citizenship, but it should be also clearly marked that he is Pole as these are his origins.

Another part of prooves about his Polish nationality:

http://www.aboutfilm.com/features/pianist/interview.htm - where Thomas Kretschmann (actor from The Pianist movie) states clearly that Polanski is Pole

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000591/bio - IMDb claims clearly that Polanski was a major Polish filmmaker in the 60's

http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Pe-Ri/Polanski-Roman.html - internet film-related database also claims clearly that Polanski has a Polish nationality

Seems like Wikipedia misses the truth. Are you ok with that as a wikipedia administrator? Grzeshtoph (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The introduction states that Polanski "is a Polish-French film director". Neither citizenship or nationality is mentioned ther, so it is a mute point there. I'm OK with that, even if I am not a Wikipedia administrator. Alandeus (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 89.34.254.64, 26 November 2010
http://www.adherents.com/people/pp/Roman_Polanski.html

Roman Polanski's parents were both agnostic Jews. Neither his father nor mother were religiously observant Jews. When he was very young in Poland, Polanski had no concept of what it was to be Jewish, but he came to understand that he was Jewish when his family was imprisoned in a Nazi-built ghetto. As an adult, Polanski was known to be Jewish, and he apparently had at least a slight sense of Jewish identity, although he was in no way religiously observant. Polanski received his first and only Best Director Academy Award for The Pianist , a film about Jews in a ghetto in Poland during World War II. After being introduced to Catholicism primarily by a Catholic family that he lived with while hiding from the Nazis, Roman Polanski became a religious Catholic when he was about 10 years old. He staunchly identified himself as Catholic until he was fifteen years old. In his 1984 autobiography Polanski said that the murder of his wife Sharon Tate shattered any remaining religious faith he had, and reinforced his "faith in the absurd."

89.34.254.64 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Your request here is not clear. All you've done is copy and pasted a paragraph from the link you included. Note that said link does not provide sources for its claims, and is a self-published site. Wikipedia requires that all information in articles be verified by reliable sources. In addition, we can never directly copy and paste information from other copyrighted sites. If there is a specific fact or statement in the article you wish to change, please submit a new request clarifying what you wish changed, along with clear citations to back it up. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
In the box Filmography: Awards and nominations: 1. there should be added BAFTA awards for best film and best director in 2002 for The Pianist. 2. European Academy Awards for Best Film and Best Director in 2010 for The Ghost Writer Thank you.

✅ --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Excess film details
It seems that many of the films mentioned go into minute plot details and other non-bio aspects. Since the films have their own articles, I'll try trimming material to stay focused. Feel free to restore or rephrase any over-pruning. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job. Alandeus (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Manson section
With only a paragraph for Manson, I wonder if it deserves a section. It's also followed in the same section by Kinski and his current marriage which now seem out of place. I think maybe the non-TOC heading is better. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jim Michael (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
Because he was originally, and is currently, a European director, with European citizenship, it seems out of place to list outstanding legal issues related to U.S-only courts. Doing so could also set a problematic precedence for WP bios as for instance certain writers or cartoonists found guilty of blasphemy by other country's courts. Propose removal pending discussion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * His 1977 crime is very high-profile and has a had a major effect on his life. The fact it happened in the US and he's not American is irrelevant; people committing crimes whilst they are abroad is common. It is nothing like a European cartoonist being convicted of blasphemy by e.g. Iran for drawing Muhammad. In any case, a cartoonist in Europe isn't subject to Iranian law unless he lived in or published there, and no European would go there to promote or publish Muhammad cartoons. What Polanski did is a serious crime in Europe as well as in the US. Jim Michael (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * However, it is not "irrelevant" that for his current legal status in Europe, he was "released from custody" and declared a "free man" by a court of law. Stating "criminal charges" and "status" in the Infobox incorrectly implies those facts relate to his residence in Europe. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * European authorities don't consider him innocent; they merely have refused his extradition. There is no implication that he committed crimes in Europe. Every year, thousands of people commit crimes whilst they are outside their home country - it doesn't make the offences any less serious or relevant. He's not entirely a free man - he avoids going to the US and to countries that would likely extradite him there. US authorities still want him to return to the US to face proceedings there. If he ever returns to the US, authorities would arrest him as soon as they were able to. Jim Michael (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are numerous "at large" war criminals who are also likely to be arrested if they travel to certain countries. Are you suggesting that their "crimes" or "status" always be included in their infoboxes? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thus, the crime information in the info box ought to be supplemented by a note, e.g. (in U.S.), as to where it is valid. OK? Alandeus (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be a good idea if the information itself did properly belong in an infobox.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some other feedback on the issue that I received on my talk page seems more comprehensive, IMO. Feel free to respond to it on this page, if there is any. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well argued there. The crime aspect is by comparison not that significant for the info box. Alandeus (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay in the infobox, accompanied by a note that he is not a fugitive in France or Poland, but is wanted by the US. His guilt is not in doubt. His crime is serious and high-profile enough to be there, as it has had a major effect on his life for over 30 years. I wouldn't say that someone whose only offence was one minor assault or drug possession should have his crime in the infobox, but a major offence should be. I'm not aware of a comparable bio; O.J. Simpson is notable for his football career, acting and double murder that he was acquitted of, but found responsible for. His article uses the NFL retired infobox, which does not have a criminal parameter, hence it cannot be included on his article, unless an additional infobox was added to his article. This article uses the person infobox, I'm not suggesting that it should use the criminal infobox instead. Jim Michael (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine that you think so, however, its inclusion is subject to dispute and should be removed pending more than your opinion. The fact that he committed a crime in a foreign country, and as a famous director, the crime became high profile, is not a valid reason it must be in an infobox. Having a parameter available does not imply it must be used, any more than lack of a specific parameter mean that important facts can not be included. There are bios of persons whose key notability rests on their being found guilty of war crimes, by international courts, and some of whom died while imprisoned, that exclude their crimes in their infobox.


 * In any case, he is clearly not "at large" in Europe; you are so far the only one demanding such details be put in the box; and your personal opinions as to why--that it's more serious than drug possession, for instance--should not be a criteria. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Polanski the director of Anonymous (est. 2011)?
Or was that a typo in an entertainment article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotoguzzi (talk • contribs) 02:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Headings
Can someone delete the "Film director" heading so that the article's organization does not give the impression that Polanski's career ended in 1959, which is when the "Career" section currently ends? ✅; corrected to Early career. Jim Michael (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead
This article's lead is also much too long and detailed, but that would require more than three seconds to fix. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Further corrections
Okay, I couldn't help noticing these problems, too, in this part of the "Sexual assault case" section:

Geimer's attorney next arranged a plea bargain, which Polanski accepted, where five of the six charges would be dismissed.[53] As a result, Polanski pled guilty to the charge of "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse," with a minor,[54] "a different crime than rape," states prosecuting attorney Roger Gunson.[55][56] Polanski was then ordered to undergo 90-days of psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison.[57]

''On release from prison, Polanski expected that at final sentencing he would be put on probation. However, the judge had apparently changed his mind in the interim and now "suggested" to Polanski's attorney, Douglas Dalton, that more jail time and possible deportation were in order.[56][58] Polanski was also told by his attorney that despite the fact that the prosecuting attorneys recommended probation, "the judge could no longer be trusted . . ." and his representations were "worthless."[55]''

1. The charge was "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", not "unlawful sexual intercourse" where it just happened to be a minor that he was unlawfully intercoursing with.

2. Obviously that charge is "a different crime than rape," because it's called "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" and not "rape." While it's not a terrible idea to point out the distinction, the quote from the attorney, as if it's some kind of subjective opinion or judgment and not a simple fact of the law, is bizarre and awkward.

3. The article implies that Polanski served 90 days in prison at Chino. It's a pretty significant difference that they actually released him after about half that time, and it was possible the judge would have only sentenced him to fulfill the rest of the 90 days.

4. I highly doubt that Polanski was told by his attorney that his attorney was worthless.

Several of the above problems seem to rely on citations from the documentary film. I don't see why it's necessary in such a brief summary of the proceedings to rely on a source that's virtually impossible for anyone to check without expending unreasonable effort. Such a vague, slight summary can easily be compiled via mainstream news and feature reports. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You pointed out some ambiguous text which can be fixed. Note, however, that this small section already has 15 different full-source citations, including the film mention. It also has a hatnote link to a massive article, nearly as large as this one, with 91 references. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for clarifying. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem when editing is not left open; there is very little information about the recent legal case and why the outcome was as it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.154 (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sexual assault indictment
Shouldn't the opening sentence(s) mention Polanski's crime in the U.S.? Other instances of famous criminals, such as OJ Simpson, prominently mention their status as criminals in the opening paragraph along with their other careers. Certainly Polanski's actions are one of the most significant things in his life and should be mentioned prominently along with his film career. Instead his status as a fugitive from justice is buried several paragraphs deep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.26.101 (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As sad a it makes me feel, most of the people that have such things are convicted, and as such "proven" to have committed their crimes in the eyes of the law. While noone debates that the events happened, "innocent until proven guilty". Biography of a Living Person and so on. WookMuff (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up terminology not contained in article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Statute of limitations?
Would the statute of limitations have run out by now? 69.143.106.26 (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does California have a statute of limitation for the offences in question? Jim Michael (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Libel case
Shouldn't a little more weight be given to the vanity fair libel case? it was a rather historic case and due to polanski's fugitive status, required special first-of-their-kind measures for him to testify. WookMuff (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a bit of expansion is in order. My rough estimate of notability is that the section on libel case should be about 1/3 to 1/2 as large as the section on the sexual assault case, based upon how notable each is. Right now it is about 1/6th as large.


 * This is a topic where we as editors need to take extra care to maintain a neutral point of view despite any personal opinions concerning the topic. Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources
PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT IN THIS THREAD (as that will archive it) Our External links policy is pretty strict; links should significantly add to our reader's understanding of the subject if the article was written at a Featured article level. The following links might be wonderful Reliable sources for the article itself but should be used as sources not as an ever-growing link repositorium.
 * Removed external links


 * Roman Polanski bibliography (via UC Berkeley Media Resources Center)
 * March, 1977 Grand Jury Testimony of Polanski's victim
 * Media coverage of the Polanski rape trial
 * Interview with Samantha Geimer
 * Roman Polanski site by French writer Alexandre Tylski
 * Interview with Roman Polanski (Defunct as of 9/09)
 * Watch Knife in the Water
 * The Guardian profile: Roman Polanski
 * Interview on the Charlie Rose Show at Google video.
 * Cinema Retro Presents a Polanski Guide to Urban Living

Category: Statutory Rapists or just Rapists
Roman Polanski does not belong in this category statutory rapists, because he is a rapist whose victim just happened to be a minor. "Statutory Rape" can be a somewhat minor crime, brought perhaps by angry parents when their daughter has eloped with a young man even though the local statutes say she's not quite old enough to make that decision, and then she goes on to marry the fellow and maybe be upstanding citizens together. According to the judge and jury, Roman Polanski gave her Quaalues and alchohol to disable her ability to fight him off and then raped and sodomized her anally. The drugs did not stop her from protesting and fighting him anyway and she did not consent. This would have been rape at any age. This is rape plain and simple, and so he should be on the list of rapists, simple as that, not in the same category as, for exammple, a female high school teacher who carried on a sexual romance with one her her eighteen year old male students and the other things people did to earn their membership in that category. He must be moved him to, he deserves no deceptive "statutory" modifier on this title! Chrisrus (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We had a extremely lengthy discussion about this and the consensus was that the stat rapist cats was the more correct one, more reflective of the convictions and the details of the event. Please be aware BLP applies on talkpages also and your comments are a bit excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bronco46, 27 February 2011
"In 1977, after a photo shoot in Los Angeles, Polanski was arrested for the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl and pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sex with a minor.[7][8]"

In 1977, after a photo shoot in Los Angeles, Polanski was arrested for the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl and pled guilty to the charge of unlawful sex with a minor.[7][8]

Bronco46 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Baseball   Watcher  23:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A question of weight
The article mentions Samantha Geimer's support of Polanski, but does not mention the possibility of her having a financial motive for doing so (Roman Polanski sexual abuse case does cover it somewhat). Should both be mentioned? Or perhaps neither? Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I am removing the information on the grounds that mentioning Geimer's support of Polanski without mentioning the very real possibility of an out of court settlement that constrains here actions violetes WP:NPOV. Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Mentioning the "possible" is a form of editorial speculation, and not appropriate. Please find an outside source for that. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to introduce speculation, which of course would not be appropriate. There are reliable outside sources cited in Roman Polanski sexual abuse case establishing that the case was settled out of court in 1993, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/536312/settlement establishes that such a settlement is a binding contract, and http://www.google.com/search?secret+settlement shows many examples establishing that the terms of such settlements are often confidential with one or both parties constrained regarding what they are allowed to say after the settlement. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to cite a statement that is by someone who may be contractually obligated to say / not say certain things which are likely to have a major effect on the speaker's finances as if it was a statement by someone who could speak freely.


 * if someone wants to write a paragraph about Geimer's post-trial comments that has a NPOV they are free to do so, but I think removing the paragraph fixed the problem without detracting from the article. Anyone who disagrees is free to write a suitable paragraph, but the paragraph I deleted has a serious POV problem. Roman Polanski sexual abuse case covers the same material without any obvious POV problems, and would be a good starting place for writing such a NPOV paragraph. Guy Macon (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your "speculations" are essentially an example of synthesis, and likewise inappropriate here. In any case, FYI, in the U.S. at least, the kind of contract you're implying is referred to as "illegal" and unenforceable. Not only does it violate constitutional rights of free speech, but would also be a form of bribery. My hunch is that neither his or her attorneys would have remotely considered it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Slandering the victim with false light accusations isn't acceptable. He admitted to giving her alcohol, providing her with a sedative, and having sex with her, and that he knew she was 13 years old.  Any civil suit for damages is not relevant in any way.   D r e a m Focus  22:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the civil suit is not relevant, unless her post-lawsuit statements are included in the article, in which case it violates NPOV to treat them the same way one would treat the statements of someone who could speak freely. That's why I deleted the NPOV statement. Now that I think about it, that statement is irrelevant for another reason; a 13 year old girl - even if not impaired by drugs and alcohol - cannot give consent to sexual intercourse. Nor is her later opinion as an adult - even if she has no contractual obligations or financial motive to not say certain things - relevant. Polanski's guilt is based upon his admitted actions, not the opinion of his victim. I stand by my deletion. the statement violated NPOV.


 * BTW, False light does not apply to Samantha Geimer. False light concerns non-public figure's right to privacy. Geimer has appeared is a documentary and given interviews to CNN and People Magazine, thus making herself a limited purpose public figure. Your portraying my good-faith attempts to treat this subject according to WP:NPOV as "slandering the victim" is a violation of WP:AFG. Please don't do it again. Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So violating WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:Synth rules aren't enough to convince you of the problem. Now you insist on censoring her statements and eliminating her right to privacy! Are you aware that you're in the process of doing exactly what you "speculate" may have been illegally done through a secret document? I'm not sure the National Enquirer would touch this!-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwatcher1 (talk • contribs)


 * Two different things here. What's in the article, is fine.  Mentioning anything that would even hint someone made the accusations for financial reasons, is not.  She may have spoken out against the case as an adult, long after it happened, because he paid her, but we can't know.  We need to be careful that we don't quote her out of context, or use her comments out of their proper context.   D r e a m Focus  01:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What part of "Geimer has appeared is a documentary and given interviews to CNN and People Magazine, thus making herself a limited purpose public figure. Public figures do not have a right to privacy" are you disputing? Are you claiming that she didn't do those interviews? Are you claiming that doing the interviews did not make her a public figure? Are you claiming that public figures have a right to privacy? Please be specific about the basis of your assertion. Guy Macon (talk)
 * Read what I said above. Different things here.  No problems with what's in the article now.  I was saying that suggesting she accused him of rape just to get money from him would be false light.   D r e a m Focus  02:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, the basis of your assumption that just because she, or any other private individual, allows themselves to be interviewed, they automatically become a "public figure" is wrong. The term "public figures" refers to those who's profession depends on or requires public appearances, ie. movie stars, athletes, celebrities, or politicians. Otherwise, any crime victim talking to the press would lose their right of privacy. I don't think that's the intent of the law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Where did I suggest that she accused him of rape just to get money? I suggested quite the opposite; that it is possible that she is now contractually prevented from accusing him of rape or anything else. (Please note the difference between suggesting that "it is possible that she is" and suggesting that "she is.") Even that, of course, is pure speculation that should not be in Wikipedia, so my suggestion for the article is to either [A] (my second choice) leave in her post-lawsuit statements of support along with a NPOV-worded notice that she is bound by a contractual obligation the details of which have not been released to the public (we do know that the contract exists, just not what was agreed to) or [B] (my first choice) remove her post-lawsuit statements of support.


 * If you wish to retain her post-lawsuit statements of support, especially without any mention of the contract she is bound by, please explain what, exactly, they add to the article other than generating sympathy for Roman Polanski or minimizing the crime he admitted to.


 * As for public figures and the right to privacy, you are wrong. See Public figure. A crime victim who talks to the press is, according to Public figure. a limited purpose public figure. In other words, Samantha Geimer only has a right to privacy in areas where she has not thrust herself to the forefront of a public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. If you wish to use your alternative and incorrect definition of public figure, feel free to attempt to gain consensus to edit Public figure, but until you do, we will use the definition found in Public figure, not your alternative "person who's profession depends on or requires public appearances" definition. Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The burden is on you, not others, to back up your personal opinions. There are at least four so far just based on your last comments:
 * 1.) Show that her public comments must be biased due to a secret promise, that so far only you think exists; 2.) Support that her public statements should be censored, assuming the above, and creates "sympathy" for Polanski; 3.) Cite reliable sources that state she has become a "limited purpose public figure;" 4.) and, that she has "thrust herself" into the middle of a public controversy (despite her stating clearly that her "privacy" was recklessly invaded by the press.)  Otherwise your comments are all personal speculations and don't seem to belong anywhere in the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wish to respond to what I actually wrote, I suggest directly quoting it rather than attempting to paraphrase it into a 'straw man. The above does not accurately depict what I wrote and verges on putting words in my mouth.


 * Privacy recklessly invaded by the press. Giving interviews to PEOPLE magazine. Pick one. You can't have both.


 * When someone questions why material is in a Wikipedia article, the correct response is to provide the rationale, not to attempt to place the burden of proof on the one asking the question to prove that it does not belong. So again I ask, why is Samantha Geimer's support of Polanski there? Exactly what purpose does it serve? Please be specific and please focus on the question asked rather than criticizing the question.


 * Also, please take care. You may be on the verge of violating WP:CIVIL and / or WP:OWNERSHIP. The standard of behavior that is expected of all Wikipedia editors is that we should treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, Wikipedia editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The question of Reliable sources
This is what you wrote at the beginning of the section:
 * "OK, I am removing the information on the grounds that mentioning Geimer's support of Polanski without mentioning the very real possibility of an out of court settlement that constrains her actions violates WP:NPOV."

I wrote that your "speculation" may violate WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:Synth, and were not acceptable rationales, so "removing" her statements was likewise unacceptable. Among your replies above (see para: "What part of "Geimer . . "), you simply responded with a bombardment of questions, i.e. "Are you claiming. . . ?; "Are you claiming. . . ?;  "Are you claiming. . . ? "Please be specific . . ."

It seems that dismissing the guidelines and turning a Talk page into a courtroom drama is not a great example of "behaving politely, calmly and reasonably." If you want to fix this infinite loop discussion, you can. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again I ask, why is Samantha Geimer's support of Polanski there? Exactly what purpose does it serve? Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling it "support of Polanski" is a personal interpretation of her comments. Her point was to "blame the media, reporters, the court, and the judge . . ." for doing her more damage, in comparison to Polanski. She obviously has a right to compare that, and her interview is relevant to the section. BTW, that section has about 12 other citations. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again I ask (slightly modified as per your comment above), why are Samantha Geimer's words there? Exactly what purpose do they serve? Your opinion that "it is relevant" is interesting, but unless you have a reliable source establishing same, you will have to explain your reasoning rather than simply asserting that your opinion is correct. So please explain in what way her "blame[ing] the media, reporters, the court, and the judge for doing her more damage" is relevant to an article about Roman Polanski?  Please note that Wikipedia already has a page titled Roman Polanski sexual abuse case with several quotes from Samantha Geimer (but not this one) and which appears to present the material in a NPOV fashion. Roman Polanski sexual abuse case rightly covers all the major players in that case. Roman Polanski should be about Roman Polanski, and any material about Samantha Geimer should be limited to her interactions with Roman Polanski. Her interactions with the press are irrelevant in an an article about Roman Polanski. Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Much of the earlier section of the article discusses Geimer, the crime, the judge, the attorneys, and the media. It's logical to include the victim's comments and perspective, when available, in relation to those things. They add context to the events. Her comments somewhat relate to Polanski's rationale for leaving the U.S., along with the prosecuting attorney's quoted comment that "it was going to be a real circus," and "I'm not surprised that Polanski left under those circumstances." Her impressions, especially as the victim, are relevant and valuable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering the question. I disagree, so according to the guidelines concerning no consensus, it stays in the form it was in before editors disagreed. If you change your mind or other editors appear and disagree with you, please let me know. Now taking this off my watch list. Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I say remove the section for a different reason.  That isn't about Roman Polanski but is about the case and the victim.  It should be in the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case, not here.   D r e a m Focus  07:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire section is called "Sexual assault case," however.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added back in a note about the settlement. This was originally based on text written by Tombaker321 to establish consensus (see Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_3).  I then modified it and inserted it into the article way back in October 2009.  Further changes were made in the course of normal editing.


 * Later, Wikiwatcher1 reopened the issue by removing all mention of the settlement; the edit calls it a "trim", which I think is an understatement. I don't think there was consensus to remove this verifiable (cited and a matter of public record) information, which is clearly connected to the events in question.  Further, I do not agree that there is any BLP issue here as long as we carefully stick to verifiable facts without spinning (e.g. speculating on her motives).  The text I am adding back does not draw any connection between the settlement and her comments, as that would be synthesis.  I did not add additional information about her forgiveness of Polanski (there is already the "way more damage" quote). Note that I will also ping Guy, as he requested. Superm401 - Talk 04:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again I say the Roman Polanski page should be about Roman Polanski, and any material about Samantha Geimer should be limited to her interactions with Roman Polanski. Her interactions with the press are totally irrelevant in an an article about Roman Polanski. If the consensus is to keep this totally irrelevant material in the article, suppressing the fact that he paid her hundreds of thousands of dollars - which was one of her interactions with him - seems to be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Guy Macon (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Guy, as I explained, I think the original consensus was to have both (her forgiveness/support of Polanski, and the monetary settlement). Wikiwatcher1's removal of the settlement (see link above) attempted to alter this.  I've added the settlement back, so both are now covered. Superm401 - Talk 19:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the consensus at Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_3 is what you say it is. The consensus clearly rejected having her statement with no mention of the settlement (with good reason!), but I don't see a consensus against ommitting both or against keeping the info about the settlement while deleting her statements. Nobodu has addressed my argument. I say the Roman Polanski page should be about Roman Polanski, and any material about Samantha Geimer should be limited to her interactions with Roman Polanski. Does anyone have a reason why we should include material that is not about Roman Polanski? I say that her post-trial opinions about the media, reporters, the court, and the judge are totally irrelevant in an an article about Roman Polanski. There are a wide variety of reliably sourced examples of various people giving their opinion about the way the the media, reporters, the court, and the judge handled the Polanski case, yet we don't include those opinions in the article. Can anyone explain why we should give weight to this one opinion and not the others?  If Samantha Geimer says something about her personal experience, that is relevant. Her opinion about the media and the court is completely irrelevant and should be removed. Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The key phrase you wrote, "Again I say," implies this is has become an infinite loop. Unless you can add some new details, then the responses earlier are still logical.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the logic behind arbitrarily allowing some material in the Roman Polanski page that isn't about Roman Polanski, and arbitrarily excluding other material in the Roman Polanski page that isn't about Roman Polanski. It seems more logical to me to have the Roman Polanski page be about Roman Polanski. My specific questions above (which had not been asked before) were an attempt to get you to explain your logic. Given your refusal to engage in discussion on the matter, I will come to my own conclusions as to why you take the positions you take, and I will watch to see if consensus supports them. Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The page at the time of that discussion already had her statements. The consensus was to go from only statements to statements + settlement (in a form similar to Tombaker321's suggestion).  I agree only material relevant to Roman Polanski should be included.  I firmly believe that both the settlement with Polanski and (some of) her statements about Polanski are relevant, and I think the consensus supports this.  No one then suggested having neither or only the settlement.  I don't think that can be justified, since this information is relevant and verifiable.  It is reasonable to discuss exactly which of her statements to include.  Superm401 - Talk 01:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Tombaker321 was blocked indefinitely over eighteen months ago, you can see comments on his/her talkpage that the user "seems to have edited Wikipedia primarily for the single purpose of adding derogatory content about the life of Roman Polanski - any position of the user as regards content should clearly be avoided. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Category dispute
I changed the category from "Statutory Rapists" to simply "Rapists". Wiki-Watcher-One changed it back, explaining that to so classify violates the Neutral Point of View Principle and is a case of me using Wikipedia to publishing a piece of my own take on the facts, as opposed to the straight facts.

Whether a person belongs to this or that category of criminal or not is a matter of fact, not point of view or opinion. These things are decided by the legal system and reported to us in reliable sources. In this case, according to the NYT, the legal authorities describe a rape. See here:.

Although the details are not present in this article, I will repeat what it says. He gave her Quaaludes and alchohol but she was still awake and fighting. He overpowerd and raped her vaginally and anally, while she protested. What do you call that, regardless of her age? Technically, by definition, the term for such an event is a "rape".

This is not rape because of some local statute that sets the age of consent to this or that legal birthday, as is the definition of the term statutory rape. This would be a rape no matter her age. It is possible to rape a minor. The defintion of the word "rape" does not exclude the victim being of legal age. That's a statement of fact, of simple definition. These are not just my opinions or points of view. Chrisrus (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As the rationale summary stated, "what anyone feels he "deserves" is OR with a POV. This is not a courtroom. WP guidelines are pretty clear. No one has a problem with your talk page comments, That's a statement of fact, of simple definition. These are just my opinions or points of view.  But they don't justify edits. Read the guidelines to understand why. Note that the crime definition is based on California laws, not your definition. In some other places the penalties are worse; in other places it's not even a crime. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant NOT. I've fixed it.  My point of view does not matter.  By definition, the described event is a rape.  This is not a courtroom.  We report what the courtroom found.  They found a rape, and the NYT reported it, so into the category he goes along with all the others.  Chrisrus (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your unwillingness to go by guidelines is unfortunate. Any more such POV edits will be treated as vandalism. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If I am in violation of any guideline for putting him in the Rapists category, why are you not equally guilty of the same violation for editing the article to place him in the Statutory Rapist category? What's the difference, in terms of the quideline?  How is this article different from every other article in the rapist category?  The fact that his victim was a minor?  The fact that he fled the judge? These things don't mean one isn't a rapist.  If the major press tells us that someone has been found to have done these things by the legal authorities, he is supposed to go in this category, with no instruction to exempt rapists of thirteen year olds.  The guidelines don't say only adults can be victims of rape.  And besides, if I am in violation of a guideline, you (and everyone else who adds a person to a criminal category) must also be, because you have added him to the statutory rape category twice now when you reverted me.  So give some coherent reason that he should be in the statutory category but not in the simple rapist category or accuse yourself of the same vandalism.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also, accusing someone of vandalism in this kind of situation is a violation of the WP:Assume Good Faith guideline, so don't do it. Vandals are not trying to improve Wikipedia for the user, and with this edit I am. Chrisrus (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The California laws are mentioned in numerous cites about this issue in the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Chrisrus is entirely correct. Whether or not his edit comments were appropriate is another matter which should be pursued on his talk page, not here.


 * Do you dispute that he gave her Quaaludes and Alcohol? Do you dispute that he used force and/or the threat of force to have vaginal and anal sex with her? Do you dispute that statutory rape is defined as sex that would be legal if done after the age of consent? Are you seriously claiming that she was a willing sexual partner? Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that he did forcibly rape her (not just statutory rape), but the rape charge was dropped as part of a plea bargain. Category:Rapists says, "This category consists of individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law as well as those who are considered by most historians to have committed the crime."  The first does not seem to be true, but the second may be. Superm401 - Talk 01:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The first qualification would seem to exclude Rapists or Statutory Rapists as a category (IIRC he was convicted of the lesser charge of Sexual Assault on a plea bargain.) I am open to arguments as to whether Polanski meets the second qualification. We all need to put aside personal feelings and to be scrupulously fair, neither exaggerating nor minimizing his crime. Guy Macon (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. If that's the case, we can't put him in the category "Statutory Rapists" for the very same reasons as were given to refuse the category "Rapists". We'd have to put him in the category of "People who committed sexual assalt" or some such. What do we call such people, "sexual assaulters"? If "rapists" does not stand, then "statutory rapists" does not stand either. What do you call a person who sexually assults someone in the manner described by the court and reported by the NYT? "Vaginal/anal penitrative sexual assaulters with who used Quaaludes and violence to overcome the unwilling struggling yelling for help victim? Too bad there's not a common English term for such a "sexual assaulter". Is "assaulter" even a word?  But "statutory rapist" is not factually correct because it wasn't rape just because she was underage and that's what "statutory rape" means, so we have no justification whatsover for the category "Statutory Rapists".  Chrisrus (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Statutory rape is a form of rape by all definitions. The victim could not give consent, and if consent is not given, that is the definition of rape.  He was convinced of rape, so should be in the category for rapists.   D r e a m Focus  07:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Category:Rapists" is correct. Chrisrus (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We had a lengthy discussion wwith a large number of editors and the outcome was support for Stat rapist - Even Statutory rapists had recently (May 15) been removed in this diff by User:Razum2010 - I have replaced it, its long time stable from a previous consensus after lengthy dispute and discussion - He pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor - the closest cat we have to that is Statutory rapist. Off2riorob (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Instead of arguing my point again, I'd like to let Ed Koch make it for me.  Here it is, please click: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bup8V25sjxo. Chrisrus (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed Kochs thought are irrelevant here is regard to the placement of a living subject into a wikipedia category. - note - I did not click on your presented youtube external. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No duh. But he does present quite nicely the details of the crime he committed from the court report as presented in the New York Times.  Just in case someone didn't believe that the New York Times reported that he raped her, and that his crime was not just a crime because she was underage, as is implied in the term "statutory rape", which is just Wikipedia's incorrect label for what he did, not something the major media reported that the court called it.  Chrisrus (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO you are wasting your time and adding him to a rapist cat is undue and opinionated considering how the case and following situations went but you know how to start a thiry day RFC or I can help you if you feel it is worthy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer/suggestion. Please do go ahead with that. Chrisrus (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am surprised you have never come across RFC after being here since 2007. I am not going to open one myself as I said I consider it a waste of the communities time and imo it will create more heat than light without much/no chance of consensus support for any alteration and even if successful will be of minimal/no benefit to the reader. I will help you though to open one yourself if you see fit. The first step is to read this page RFC - Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It says I should give a fair summary of the justification you are giving for putting him in the category Statutory Rapists but not Rapists. Could you help me out with that part? I wouldn't want to mischaracterize your reasoning for why it's not ok to categorize him as a Rapist but it is ok to categorize him as a Statutory Rapist. Or is it better just to skip the part where I argue your point for you and just leave that for you to do once it's up? Chrisrus (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, just make your case, if you object to the current cat:stat rapists inclusion and want to remove it please say why, if you don't object to the category and you only wish to add a disputed new cat, just make you case for that. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict with the following post) I plan to argue that, of the two, "Rapist" is more accurate than "Statutory Rapist". Will you argue against that, or is your point that neither are justified? Chrisrus (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that the project isn't about the truth or even accuracy per say, but about how/what reliable sources say. If most RSs call him a statutory rapist, so be it. If most call him a rapist, so be it. --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, wikipedia categorization is not about the preponderance of opinionated externals, but more relevant to a reflection of the content in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I agree with that, am I taking both "sides" :), anyways, this is way above my pay grade and intellect :) good luck guys ! --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we really need this? Three, I would be happy to be raised up to your paygrade. Take me with you.... Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This was the only edit I made to the article recently, replacing stat rapist when it was removed. I think there is a case that could be made also to remove that but I think I supported stat rapist as a compromise last time. I am open to persuasion either way, although personally as I said I don't support a month of more heat than light discussion for such minimal returns. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (continuity confilict) In light of the surrounding, are you as sure as you were then about doing that? Chrisrus (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that the word Rapist only appears in the article once and that is in the cat:Statutory rapist and the word rape only sits in the article once in relation to that he was charged with rape? (he was not convicted of rape) Also are you aware that the discussion could result in a consensus against adding the category:Rapist and also a consensus against the the statutory rape category that is currently included, leaving neither. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, the category "Sexual Assauters", then? Chrisrus (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have that category, we would need a populated cat to guarantee its continued existence - lots of choice already - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sex_crimes - Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed a number of inaccurate categories still included from earlier days before the invasion of SPAs and dedicated disrupters,, ie. User:Proofreader77 and User:Tombaker321, both of whom were later permanently banned. If any are deleted incorrectly, please fix and discuss. Thanks.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears reasonable to me. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Am also removing cat under discussion, "statutory rapist," as that category is reserved for those "convicted," not arrested or accused. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replaced it, there was a large discussion and consensus was to include - please do not remove it withi=out a new discussion and consensus. The article includes this comment - "Polanski pled guilty to the charge of unlawful sex with a minor" - as close to a description of Statutory rape as you are likely to find. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When they use the term "unlawful sex with a minor", what was unlawful about it, the fact that she was underage and nothing more implied? We need a lawyer. Chrisrus (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of categories
Several categories, all of which are valid and were on the article for many months, have been removed. Cats are not usually removed because it does not apply to them currently - expat cats are there on dozens of articles long after the subject no longer lives in that country. For example, Justin Fashanu is in several expat cats. There is no doubt that Polanski is Polish and a sex offender, so why should he not be in Polish sex offenders? A person does not have to be notable for being in a particular group for them to be in a cat, so removing the crime victim cats on the basis that it has nothing to do with his notability makes no sense. He is not notable for being born in 1933, but we don't remove 1933 births. Jim Michael (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The crime categories are for the nation they were convicted of a crime in, not for their ethnic heritage, or his country of origin. We don't have a category:Jewish sex offenders or a category:Black sex offenders.   D r e a m Focus  19:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:French crime victims
 * Category:Polish crime victims
 * Was he a victim of a crime in those nations? What crime was he a victim of?  His wife was murdered, but I don't think that counts, and that was in America anyway.  And was he a citizen of France at that time even?  Was crime was he a victim of, and what nation was he a citizen of at that time?


 * Category:French expatriates in the United States
 * Category:Polish expatriates in the United States
 * He is not in the United States.  D r e a m Focus  19:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of guidelines which explain the problems with over-categorizing, implying that deleting those categories is logical:
 * "Try to limit the number of categories. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was."
 * "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."
 * "They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, . . . Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features."
 * "Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch."
 * A simple example from those guidelines would exclude his being categorized as a crime victim, since that was not mentioned in the article. And finding an example of how categories have apparently been misused, as in Justin Fashanu, does not justify their misuse in other articles. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Polanski is Polish and French. French crime victims and Polish crime victims are in Crime victims by nationality, which means that they are categorised by the subject's nationality, not the country the crime occurred in. The Early career section says he was mugged and beaten, fracturing his skull - that is relevant to his life. He is in French sex offenders, so why is he not in Polish sex offenders? Both are in Sex offenders by nationality, which means nationality of subject, not country of offence. Jim Michael (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are way too many categories already. And no, everyone I see listed in the sex offenders or murders by nation is someone who got famous committing crimes in that country mentioned, regardless of country of origin.  He is famous for, among other things, raping a 13 year old girl and fleeing America.  Not for being a Polish/French sex offender, just a sex offender.   D r e a m Focus  21:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The category for crime victims is for those who got famous because of the crimes committed against them, like the child he raped. He didn't get hordes of media coverage for being mugged and beaten when younger.   D r e a m Focus  21:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * He is listed in the categories People from Łódź and People from Paris. Aren't you suppose to just mention what city they were born in?  How can you be from two different cities?  Was he born in Paris?   D r e a m Focus  21:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia categorises people by nationality, not by where they live or work, nor by where events happened in their lives. For example, Russell Brand is not categorised as American, though he now lives and works in the US. Polanski has received a great deal of media coverage for the sex offences he committed. He is certainly a sex offender, but can't be categorised as an American sex offender as he isn't American. Therefore he should be in the French and Polish sex offenders cats. The People from ... cats should, I believe, be for where the subject grew up. If he grew up in more than one place, then more than one can be present. Jim Michael (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC) It seems strange to think that "Polish sex offender" means that the sex offense took place in Poland and not that the sex offender is Polish. I mean...that's simple grammar. We have a "sex offender," and an adjective that describes the "sex offender." The adjective is "Polish." The same follows for "crime victim." If the category "Polish sex offender" is intended to describe sex offenders who committed sex crimes in Poland, it should be rewritten to reflect that. The sentence "Polish sex offender" does not mean that -- and that's not my opinion, that's objective grammar. Also, I certainly support categorizing him as a victim of crime, and not because of any early muggings. While I can see some purpose in debating whether or not Polanski is a victim of the Manson murders, my personal opinion is that he clearly was, making that category valid. Either way, the man is a sex offender of Polish descent. This makes him...hey!...a "Polish sex offender." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

q about rapist categories
if polanski can be merely categorised as a "sex offender" rather than rapist when it comes to those categories in nationality, why does the "statutory rapists" category still remain? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * - From the lede - self declared/accepted/admitted - enough in my opinion to satisfy WP:BLPCAT - Polanski was arrested for the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl and pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sex with a minor, - Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he pled guilty to that crime, which technically is statutory rape, and statutory rapists are rapists, are they not? Would a "child molester" category also violate BLP because it doesn't exactly match up to Polanski's self description of his crime? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take care to not violate BLP on this talkpage - This has been well hashed out massively - I suggest if you were not involved in the prior discussions please read the archives Personally I see your comment about child molester as close to a violation itself. Its hair splitting personal opinion, stat rape is fine in this case. At least that was the previous consensus. Rapist suggests the person did not say yes, whereas in this case is was not a bit like that. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You violate the rules yourself aren't you? Are you claiming his victim said yes?  He admitted to providing her with a recreational sedative and alcohol, and having sex with her, she too worn down and intimidated to fight back.    D r e a m Focus  00:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it - here we have, policies and guidelines not "rules" - I think the subject has since commented in interviews that your portrayal is undue indeed. IMO there is nothing to discuss here - large discussion has already occurred - nothing has changed. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion above in the Category dispute section has me and one other guy saying he should be called "rapist" and one guy saying to call him whatever the media does, with just you arguing that he should be called a "statutory rapist". The long discussion is just you talking nonstop until others give up on this.   D r e a m Focus  01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats just recent, there was a RFC previously if I remember correctly ...- the silence is just that everyone has accepted the position and moved on to other constructive contributions and I am here holding the fort, as they say. Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh no, most just don't like having long drawn out never ending arguments and give up and move on to other things after awhile. I look for the RFC though.   D r e a m Focus  01:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Um no, It was discussed and consensus was asserted and the users have gone to do other creative/constructive things. If you want to hash it out again.... I don't see anything has changed at all but you know you can start a RFC. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My problem was with your comment "Rapist suggests the person did not say yes, whereas in this case is was not a bit like that." Do you believe she said "yes"?  Are you slandering the victim?  Are you suggesting she might have wanted to have sex with him?   D r e a m Focus  01:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care - just she has expressed a position against your portrayal. Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where has this happened at? She never said anything about consent at any time as far as I am aware of.  If you have a reliable source that says otherwise, please link to it.   D r e a m Focus  01:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Go find your own citations - all I care about is the undue categorization of Polanski - Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are slandering her with such ridiculous claims.  D r e a m Focus  01:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Such ridiculous is your claim of slander. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Mother
Hello, could one of you modify the text (i can't) to add that his mother was pregnant at the time she was killed please. source (in French) : http://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2011/10/01/roman-polanski-je-suis-habitue-a-la-mort-oui_1580832_3246.html (*Sharon Tate a été tuée alors qu'elle était enceinte. Votre mère avait été tuée à Auschwitz, elle aussi enceinte* sharon tate was killed as she was pregnant. your mother was killed in auschwitz, being pregnant too.*) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.107.212.7 (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, are there more detailed reports to confirm that? - in the interview you cite Polanski does not confirm or deny or expand on the comment from the reporter. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Crime dispute
Polanski current status under US justice system is a fugitive. His plea bargain was probably void when he fled the country before the sentencing. So he pleaded guilty to statutory rape (in his case a felony under Section 261.5 of California's penal code). I believe the right term to define him is fugitive felon. I suggest the first line of this article to be changed to: "Roman Polanski (born 18 August 1933) is a French-Polish film director, producer, writer and actor. He is a fugitive felon under US Justice System" Ppaulojr (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's bizarre to give his criminal status so late in the lede. 7daysahead (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A serious omission
This article contains zero mention of Polanski's European career as a stage and opera director. Re opera, his production of Tales of Hoffman is mentioned in the WP article on Natalie Dessay but here there is no mention of his having ever produced any opera at all ever!!!! His stage production of Schaeffer's play Amadeus is legendary, and again, no mention of his having done any stage work AT ALL EVER in this article!!--WickerGuy (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong chronology

 * - Wrong chronology, discrimatory labelling?

Regarding the following fragment of Polanski's bio:

"After the war After the war he was reunited with his father, and moved back to Kraków. His father remarried[when?] (to a woman Polanski never liked) and died of cancer in 1984. Polanski recalls the villages and families he lived with as relatively primitive by European standards: They were really simple Catholic peasants. This Polish village was like the English village in Tess. Very primitive. No electricity. The kids with whom I lived didn't know about electricity . . . they wouldn't believe me when I told them it was enough to turn on a switch![23]"

--- From the aforementioned fragment, one may infer that the quote from Polanski,starting with "They were really simple Catholic peasants", pertains to the Polish villages where he lived and the Polish families with whom he lived AFTER THE WAR. But doesn't the quote really pertain to the Polish villages where he lived and the Polish families with whom he lived DURING THE WAR? Doesn't the author of the bio himself or herself state that after the war Polanski "moved back to Krakow"? Wasn't Krakow a major city, not a village? Where does Polanski state that "the villages and families he lived with" were "relatively primitive by European standards"? Doesn't the author of the bio attempt to put words into Polanski's mouth? Isn't the autor of the bio's own suggestion that the Polish villages and Polish families in question were "relatively primitve by European standards" a discriminatory-Polonophobic one? Isn't the suggestion also false in the light of historical facts? The suggestion seems to bring to mind certain Jewish (Zionist) and German negative stereotypes of the Polish people. Were the Polish farmers and Polish families during the war really more "primitive" than the farmers and families in other European countries? Please, edit the quoted fragment of the bio in accordance with facts, and make it free from Polonophobia, even if the latter has crept into the bio unconsciously or inadvertently. PS. Isn't the role of Polanski's Jewishness in the bio greatly exaggerated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.248.102 (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"His most recent film"
The opening section claims that the Ghost Writer is his latest film, which is not true anymore. I'm not sure how much the information is even needed, but his latest film in any case would be Carnage. I would edit it in, but the article is locked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnage_%282011_film%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.153.100 (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Family name at birth
Need some clarification, please. How could Polanski have been born as "Polański" when his parents' family name at that time was Liebling? His father only changed his name to Polanski after the war Rosomak (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Most biographies give Liebling as his original name Rosomak (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One more thing to correct: At the beginning of the article it is said the his family moved back to Poland in 1937, and at the beginning of the section WW2 it is 1936. Rosomak (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * According to both Sandford's and Ain-Krupa's biographies, his father changed his name before marrying while he was living in Paris. None of the sources relating to his early years contradicts this. You'll have to have some valid source to keep the name and date changes. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He changed his name before getting married for the second time, (after the war, not in Paris). I gave the references in the text. Rosomak (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are relying on "Polanski A to Z" and the other web bio, which states, "a little boy named Raymond Liebling was born in Paris on August 18," these are not reliable sources. There are major biographical books by historians that have accurate details.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced account of the sexual assault
The account of the assault needs to have at least some small description of what happened in the assault on the Polanski page and not leave it all for the separate page on the sexual assault case. That makes the page not NPOV and leaves out vital information that readers come to Wikipedia to get. An encyclopedia entry shouldn't be that way. For a comparison I looked Polanski up on About.com.

http://classicfilm.about.com/od/actorsanddirectors/p/Wanted-A-Profile-Of-Roman-Polanski.htm

There was a brief description of the assault but no mention at all of how the case was handled by the judge and prosecutor, or Geimer's later statements about what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How is adding one side of the story, Geimer's, and not the other side, Polanski's, balanced? Here in his bio we stick to the basic facts and leave the details for the article about this case.TMCk (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What Polanski is accused of doing is part of the "basic facts" and not "the details." The only thing this account actually focuses on is his defense, and it goes to great lengths to include information and quotes that defend his side. The better title of it would be "Polanski's side of the sex abuse charges." The title is "sexual abuse case," yet there is not a word to explain what he was accused of, and that's despite the fact that he is convicted in the case. There should be some idea of what Polanski was accused of doing right in the article about him. At the link about the sexual abuse case, Geimer's account is told in detail, in a very long paragraph. If it is good enough for that Wikipedia page, it is good enough for this one. Rather than leaving out vital information, it would be better to add something saying that Polanski has denied Geimer's version of what happened.

The one sentence in question describing the assault also doesn't even claim with authority that that is definitely what happened. It doesn't say, "this is what happened," it says, "Geimer told Larry King" this is what happened. It is clearly her version of the event, the alleged version, and anyone is free to think she lied to King if they wish. It is also not good encyclopedia practice to write a long section on the sexual abuse case, including as much the defensive material about the judge and prosecution as this account does (even a whole section on the Polanski documentary and 4 quotes from Geimer that are positive towards him), but not one word on what happened that day. A reader coming here to Polanski's page shouldn't have to go to any other page just to get some idea of what he was accused of doing. It's a major omission.

Leaving out what he was accused of seems to reflect a larger bias in the article on Polanski. About.com wrote a pretty fair article on him, and the first sentence mentions his filmwork but also how he has been "reviled." The second paragraph actually talks a little about the accusations against him. And later in their article, there a couple of paragraphs on what he was accused of but nothing at all about any controversy about how the judge, prosecutor or media handled the case. One of the first thought in most people's minds when Roman Polanski is mentioned, if not the first one, is the sex abuse case and his fleeing to Europe, yet there's no mention of any of it in the lede. Robert Blake was actually acquitted in the case against him, yet the case against him is in the first paragraph in his entry.

And about the allegations made against him by actress Charlotte Lewis, I'm not familiar with a "cross BLP violation." I looked for it on the BLP page and didn't see it. But the allegations are even included in Lewis' Wikipedia bio. Why would they part of one Wikipedia entry but couldn't be a part of another? There are a couple of other sources on the case, from the Daily Mail and the Daily Beast, where counter information, like Polanski's French lawyer talking about suing Lewis, could be added. That I think should be discussed further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, your personal opinions above along with your edits to the article, most of which were properly deleted (ie. x-rated), were so overloaded with inaccuracies, contradictions and desire, that they are essentially impossible to respond to. For instance, you wrote above:
 * One of the first thought in most people's minds when Roman Polanski is mentioned, if not the first one, is the sex abuse case and his fleeing to Europe, yet there's no mention of any of it in the lede.
 * You are first taking it upon yourself to assume what is in most people's minds when reading the bio. Second, your implying there is "no mention" of this incident in the lead is a bit off, as it takes up nearly 25% of the lead, which actually perverts what the lead should be, a bio's summary. Your edits to the article, like your very first one, She asked him to take her home, but Polanski had her lie down and continued his advances while she repeatedly told him no, merely focus on your own opinion of what is, or should be, the "first thought in most people's minds."


 * Other comments you made above, such as "there is not a word to explain what he was accused of," is wrong. You also wrote above that a better name for the sections should be ""Polanski's side of the sex abuse charges." However, there is nothing in the article about his side of the charges, other than he pleaded guilty to them.


 * After a blitz of contradictions, personal assumptions, and bedroomized edits, you conclude, Leaving out what he was accused of seems to reflect a larger bias in the article on Polanski. While the article may not be as satisfying to the few readers who's first and only desire is to read minutia about the sexual assault, there is no "larger bias" and nothing to imply it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Where were the "inaccuracies, contradictions" in my edits? There actually weren't many edits to the article, so some should be easy to point out. None were mentioned in the comments people posted in undoing my edits.


 * "most of which were properly deleted (ie. x-rated)"


 * I actually just very briefly summarized the description from the "Roman Polanski sex abuse case" page. Why would what's allowable there not be allowable on the Roman Polanski page?


 * "You are first taking it upon yourself to assume what is in most people's minds when reading the bio."


 * The whole user-written encyclopedia, and any encyclopedia for that matter, is based upon people making those types of judgments, from who belongs in an encyclopedia and on down. What I wrote isn't mere opinion, like it wouldn't be to say that about OJ Simpson. About.com, which isn't an encyclopedia but has similarities to one, mentions it in its first sentence. Type his name into Google and it comes up on the first page. I'm sure someone could find many more examples to show that.


 * "it takes up nearly 25% of the lead, which actually perverts what the lead should be, a bio's summary."


 * I had meant to say the first paragraph, which also should summarize the article, and those charges are a big part of his life. And considering also what he did, some of it allegedly, it doesn't seem inappropriate at all for the lead to talk about it as much as it does. What would be a more accurate lead in terms of how much it speaks about it?


 * "Your edits to the article, like your very first one, She asked him to take her home, but Polanski had her lie down and continued his advances while she repeatedly told him no, merely focus on your own opinion of what is, or should be, the "first thought in most people's minds."


 * That was said in the context of her telling him she was ill. It is taken out of context and is only a part of that edit, which mentioned some important facts about the whole day, including Geimer's misgivings about going, her feelings about Polanski's advances, and what happened afterward, including public reaction. The whole edit is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Roman_Polanski&oldid=490932169#Sexual_assault_case


 * The immediate prior context is that she said she asked him to go home and he told her to lie down instead, denying her request. And the larger context is giving any reader that comes to page some idea of what allegedly happened that day. That is the focus of my edit. Is it really up to encyclopedia standards not to include even the briefest of summaries of it, the briefest of summaries of what is described in length on the separate assault page? Like the lead, the sexual abuse case section on the Polanski page should accurately reflect what's on the separate page for the case, but it doesn't.


 * ":Other comments you made above, such as "there is not a word to explain what he was accused of," is wrong."


 * That one sentence I would rephrase a bit, but I explained at length the issue, so it would be clear what I was getting at even there. This was the first paragraph I wrote on the issue:


 * "The account of the assault needs to have at least some small description of what happened in the assault on the Polanski page and not leave it all for the separate page on the sexual assault case."


 * Telling people who come to Wikipedia that Polanski was arrested for sexual assault on a 13-year-old girl during a photo shoot is a start, but it doesn't go far enough to summarize the assault. Again, it doesn't accurately reflect what's on the separate page, as that page shows there were concerns not just about her age, but even some involving consent in the non-age-related sense, although an older person might just have left and not been coerced, so age would still be a factor. Including some mention of what actually happened might help the reader unfamiliar with the case understand what was at stake in it, for one example, why there could possibly be motivation not to give him only probation.


 * "You also wrote above that a better name for the sections should be ""Polanski's side of the sex abuse charges." However, there is nothing in the article about his side of the charges, other than he pleaded guilty to them."


 * The article goes to very great lengths to discuss how the judicial system handled it, with numerous quotes, and comes down on the side of arguing that Polanski was treated unfairly. As I've said, it includes four supportive quotes from Geimer alone. Part of it could actually be retitled "controversy over Polanski's treatment by the legal system." It also repeats the arguments and claims of the documentary without any counter opinions. I just googled the National Organization for Women and Polanski and found they came out very strongly against him after his Switzerland arrest, but there's no mention of anything like that.


 * "He’s a criminal. He is a convicted criminal pedophile,” said Terry O’Neill, president of NOW. “How dare Roman Polanski think he could get away with this. I believe he has banked on men — powerful decision-makers — who are more intent on protecting rapists than children. This is the world Polanski is exploiting. It’s outrageous.” - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/30/national-organization-women-attacks-polanski/)


 * "While the article may not be as satisfying to the few readers who's first and only desire is to read minutia about the sexual assault, there is no "larger bias" and nothing to imply it."


 * Again, "satisfaction" isn't the issue, in the same way that having a criminal trial in a sexual assault case isn't and shouldn't be about sexual gratification to anyone. It's about proper encyclopedia practices that accurately inform readers, including properly summarizing situations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Heard about this topic at the Arbcom filing and here are my $.02. The section is well written but maybe even a bit too long for a section that has its own article (I have no opinion as to what, if anything, should be cut). I don't see any obvious POV issues, it's written just as I would expect a biography to be written. It states facts, it doesn't read to me as supporting or condemning of the incident and I certainly don't see it as "Polanski's side" of the story. If Psalm disagrees he should call an WP:RFC. S Æ don talk 18:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One problem I see is that the section on this page and the separate page give different impressions of the case. The separate one seems far more neutral, while this one suggests that the case was always just a matter of statutory rape. It only specifically mentions he was arrested for "the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer," that he was charged with rape, and that he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. For one thing, a reader doesn't get any sense from the present account that Geimer has always maintained that she wanted to be taken home and tried repeatedly to refuse his advances.


 * But then the section goes on with a detailed discussion of the case and the controversies, which can't be properly understood without some accurate sense of what Polanski was accused of. Why, for example, would the U.S. still have been that motivated to see him back here? Including some accurate sense of the alleged crimes is saying no more than what was widely reported at the time of the crime. And as I've seen pointed out in news sources, the charges weren't ever actually seriously countered, and Polanski pleaded the fifth when asked about them in the civil suit.. But I've still wanted to include Polanski's denial, and the countercharge he made of a blackmail scheme (I had trouble adding external links that day when I tried).


 * And unless I've missed it, this page also entirely leaves out mention of Polanski being a controversial figure, while it is described at length on the separate page. It seems it should definitely be worked in here on his page somewhere. He is very well-known for being controversial, and the public has very different views of him. At the very, very least a significant minority of people hold negative views of him. This controversy is actually what the "Wanted and Desired" title refers to in part, but it's not even mentioned in the section where the film is discussed.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And just a small point, too, but from what I found, it seems Wanted and Desired" actually won 4 different awards, so it seems if that's true that it would be better to say something like "a number of awards," rather than "numerous awards." It did also win, though, a "hall of shame" award from the Women Film Critics Circle, which is something else that could be mentioned to demonstrate the controversy over Polanski.
 * Psalm84 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also came here due to the ArbCom filing. My opinion of the section is that it is seems to be fairly neutral, but it is quite strange that it discusses the police and media opinion of Geimer's accusations, but doesn't state what those accusations are. Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbcom filing is at Arbitration/Requests/Case --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As Saedon said, I too believe that the section is held neutral and to the facts. I also think that the section could be cut down a bit, i.e. leaving out some quotes, being for this summarizing section undue weight. I might change that shortly.TMCk (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've cut down a little although more can be done.TMCk (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Did some more but it needs some ce, at least.TMCk (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The portion detailing Polanski's rape is, in a word, absurd. That section and the portion concerning the documentary film about the case leave one with the impression that the real victim in the case is Polanski, as if he doesn't deserve any of the things that have befallen him.  The particular quotes from the victim that are included were clearly selected to give one the impression that the victim didn't really think what Polanski did was all that bad.  Nor are any specific details of the crime included. Nowhere are we told that the victim was drugged prior to the rape committed by Polanski.  In fact the section seems to be claiming that the real bad guy in the whole episode is the judge, as if Polanksi didn't drug then rape and sodomize a thirteen year old girl.  We are told of  the supposed dishonesty of judge, with multiple quotes, yet the "author" doesn't bother to devote even a single sentence to acutally listing the actual crimes with which Polanski was charged.  We are told of six counts, yet only one of th them is specifically mentioned.  Hmmm, I wonder why?   I am surprised the section isn't titled "The unfair persecution of Roman Polanski".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)