Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 3

Notice of early, and prudent, discussion archival
Due to excessive disorganization and material volume some current discussion and open issues have been archived.

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

--Proofreader77 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Notes
 * Manual archiving was performed by User:Hektor, not by 99.142.1.147 (talk) (who posted the talk page archiving notification at the top of the page)
 * The best way to handle this is to adjust archive bot parameters and let the bot archive by timestamp. (I have adjusted the parameters for faster archiving. Further tuning may be needed)


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

- 		 - 	Following subhead: Sex crime conviction, replace body with following: - 		 - 	In 1977, Polanski, then age 44, arranged to photograph for Vogue Hommes Magazine[32], 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). On March 10, 1977 at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles, Polanski and Geimer met for a second photo shoot.[33] - 		 - 	In testimony, Geimer recalled that she was drinking champagne while Polanski photographed her, and that she was offered, and took, a portion of a Quaalude (the controlled substance methaqualone, which is a sedative drug). Polanski asked her to lie down on the couch, where the assault took place. Geimer stated that she repeatedly asked the filmmaker to stop and that he did not. Geimer testified that Polanski had, in the course of the assault, performed cunnilingus, vaginal intercourse and sodomy on her.[34] Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[35] - 		 - 	Please change following footnotes: - 	[32]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6240914/The-hunt-for-Roman-Polanski.html - 	[33]Samantha Gailey testimony, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia5.html - 	[34]Ibid - 	[35]http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/09/27/roman-polanski-arrested-us-warrant/ - 		 - 	Oberonfitch (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * Specifically, I wonder why "Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" should be included in the "Sex crime conviction" section. There is a separate section called "Charges and guilty plea", which includes the following:
 * Polanski was initially charged[43] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[44]
 * Do you suggest that this should be removed and replaced by "Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor"? If that happens to be the case, I strongly disagree. Urban XII (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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

Proposed edit - Add Nastassja Kinski to Main Personal Life section
This should be added to the Main Personal Life section.

"Polanski started a romantic relationship with Nastassja Kinski, when she was 15 years old and he was 43. She appeared in his Oscar nominated film Tess."-- Char leen mer ced   Talk  16:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw that earlier as well - As it's an issue I returned to it and made the following edit: IMDB is NOT a reliable source, so I removed '59. Dirk Jasper is not a Reliable Source, so I removed '60. Der Speigel IS a RS, so I left '61 which agrees with her self-reported year of birth. 99.151.164.92 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note this discussion. Her birth date is impeccably sourced as 1961 and has consensus, why the article was incorrect may be related to the troll who participated in the discussion and claims to have processed a visa application for her and takes personal credit for adding the info to the IMDB. It has been corrected.99.151.164.92 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a low grade case of persistent vandalism. There is no doubt about the year.99.151.164.92 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

His relationship with Kinski should be put under personal life, or within the section about his current charges. I don't understand why such a public relationship with a now famous actress should be excluded, because the editors feel it to be not in Polanski's best interest or best light. His public history was that of engaging with girls under the age of consent. If that is too much of a leap fine, but the world press recognized at the time his relationship with 15 year old Kinski, to erase that now is a disservice. Polanski is noteworthy for his public figure as much a his directorship. To eliminate or downplay his propensity to date underage girls ignores how the world understood his public figure. Again his public figure and how the world recognizes his public figure is arguably more significant than his films. Its not Wikipedia's job to remove facts because conclusion by the reader will readily be made. No wikipedia should not form a conclusion or statement that Polanski is a serial pedophile. But to exclude the fact of another relationship with an underage child, is revisionist history by the exclusion of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.90.109 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See following references

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

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1706557,00.html [15]

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

http://www.slate.com/id/2077916/ [16]

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/roman-polanski-cinemas-demonic-chronicler-of-the-holocaust-599091.html [17]

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

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3720836.ece [18]

Polanski immediately invited her to join him and his partner for what was later described as a "threesome", and she agreed. The girl's name, he learnt later, was Nastassja Kinski - an aspiring actress who was destined to star in his 1979 film Tess. She was just 15, and he was 43. Within a matter of days Polanski had decided to photograph his new, young lover for the glossy pages of the Christmas 1976 edition of French Vogue. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-477609/The-dark-secrets-Roman-Polanksi.html [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a disposition on this? I have provided 5 additional very authoritative sources which support her age, and her relationship. The simple single line, as proposed above, is concise, factual, with now 7 supporting references. It states the facts without venturing at all into any conclusions. PLEASE NOTE: The reference given above support that his relationship with Kinski of 15 happened prior to the Rape allegations. Kinski was photographed for the 1976 Chritmas French Vogue edition. He began his sexual relationship with her prior to that photography session for Vogue. Indeed the reference indicates the sexual relationship started upon first meeting Kinski. This corresponds to her being born in 1961, and her being 15 when the relationship started in 1976. The movie she stared in was in 1979 (likely filmed in 78) but it references as his girlfriend at the time. The date of the film and the date when the relationship began are not the same. He began the relationship with her at 15 and then as it continued he used her in the film role. The relationship occurred before and continuing after, the rape allegations. I believe we have the complete information and sources to support this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 October 2009

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

I think it's clear that there will never be consensus to use the wording "various sexual acts", which has been opposed by a number of editors. If we are to reach some consensus, we need to agree that each side have some valid points. I'm very much in favour of protecting the victim of a serious crime, but totally ommitting the description of the crime from the article on the perpetrator simply isn't the solution (I have suggested removing the name of the victim). It will only be possible to reach an agreement if the opposing side acknowledges that some sort of description of the crime has to be included. I'm open to discuss other wordings, although I believe "performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her" is short and not unnecessary detailed, only describing the crime in broad terms. Urban XII (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with you Urban, and the wording. But, I don't think removing her name is necessary. It is all over the news, she has given statements, etc. -- Char leen mer ced  Talk  16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Clearly there is no consensus for anything at the moment.  The main thing I disagree with you on is "totally omitting the description of the crime".   The very next sentence "Polanski was initially charged[43] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor" gives a description of the crime as represented by the charges.    I don't see the value in listing the specific acts that Geimer testified about and then following it immediately with the charges as the charges are in themselves, very strong.   I think there is a genuine effort to report the case with the gravity it deserves, but I also think that it currently overstates or repeats points that could be condensed.  I see that partly as an issue of redundancy.    The text may flow better if the header "charges and guilty plea" was removed so that Geimer's testimony is immediately followed by the charges that resulted from it.    Geimer's testimony need not be described in detail, but there would be less of a sense of it being watered-down because the charges would follow.   The section could be made more readable, by breaking it with another header, and I think the best place for that would be when he flees to London.   That puts the crime, the arrest and the plea etc together, seperate from his "new life" as a fugitive and things such as Geimer's 2003 comments.  That would allow the crime/charges/arrest/plea to be discussed once as a complete package, rather than spreading that part of the description over two seperate sections.   I can see where people are coming from in referring back to BLP but I can also see that the cat is already out of the bag.   For that reason, I don't see that it necessarily helps to withhold her name as that is also very well known.   The talk page uses it freely so it's no longer a privacy issue.   I think User:Gamaliel is correct - the entire section needs to be revised.  Rossrs (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rossrs, I agree 100%. I think this is a great way to improve the article while alleviating the perceived necessity of beefing up the evidence against Polanski with unnecessary details. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How about something along these lines in the lede:

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

Founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation and more than 100 celebrities defend Polanski
The Los Angeles Times just reported that Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, "My personal thoughts are let the guy go... It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things."

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

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


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


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

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

I propose that the following be added to the article:

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

Does anyone have any reasonable objections to my proposed addition?

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

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


 * Yes, I object to naming signatories. I think it's essential that it be kept neutral and restricts mention to a general phrase such as "more than 100 celebrities and other prominent people".  If people want know who signed it, they can follow the link to the external source.   If we decide to pick half a dozen names, our NPOV is compromised - how do we choose the half dozen names to mention?   It's ok for news sources to hand pick a few names, and I know they are doing so.  Maybe they're tailoring the report to the average reader who hasn't heard of most of the people on the list.   Whatever the reason, they don't have to be neutral, but we must.  Rossrs (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that, yes, the list of names mentioned were those that would elicit the most recognition with the readers. I think, however, that it should be mentioned at least an example of the fields of those in the list, in so far as they are, again for example, film makers, actors, critics, etc. WookMuff (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not choose. Any inclusion, if done, would be on the basis of notability by verifiable reliable sources. If notable sources make a habit of mentioning a notable subset - a basis to consider a consensus edit exists.99.142.1.147 (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who, me? I wasn't actually stating whether I believe the names should stay or go, merely why i believed those names were chosen. Then I went on to mention, in a related way, that I think maybe that when the 100 signers are mentioned, perhaps it could be made note of their occupations, as in "100 signers, mostly from the film industry" or something. Perhaps, seeing as I have seen it in a lot of news reports, "100 signers" mostly "hollywood liberal types". For my opinion, I believe that the names should not be mentioned, though perhaps also phrases such as "high profile" or "film industry professionals", which again I have seen in news reports. WookMuff (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Film industry professionals" sounds good to me. "High profile" may apply to some of them, particularly within their industry, but there would have to be some kind of pecking order within that group.  "Film industry professionals" brings them all onto an equal playing field, which is sufficient for our purposes. Rossrs (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't think that would be neutral by our own definition of the word. News services feed off each other and regurgitate facts, so once a name is mentioned, it's likely they'll continue mentioning it, and if it's only a question of recognition factor, I don't think it's correct that a well known American film director should be singled out ahead of a lesser known French director, for example.   Maybe if any of the signatories pushes themselves forward by making further statements or taking other action, it would be different.    If any of them step out from the crowd, they're doing so of their own volition, but before that I don't think Wikipedia needs to put a spotlight on them just because we've heard of them.   I think WookMuff makes a good point in saying that their general field/profession could be mentioned.   "Celebrities and other prominent people" is vague.  Rossrs (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody (not me) split the reactions to the arrest off into a separate article, so that would probably be the best place to add celebrity responses, polls and such as has been done to some extent (a plus is that that article is not locked): 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski Just a suggestion. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Lawyer in Polanski Documentary Now Says He Lied
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01wells.html

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

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


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

Petition
Petition for Roman Polanski

We have learned the astonishing news of Roman Polanski’s arrest by the Swiss police on September 26th, upon arrival in Zurich (Switzerland) while on his way to a film festival where he was due to receive an award for his career in filmmaking.

His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.

Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.

By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians—everyone involved in international filmmaking—want him to know that he has their support and friendship.

On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.

If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.

Then a list of 100 names. My favourite part is "in a case of morals". What is zi world coming to when you can't even diddle a drugged 13yr old... tsk tsk.WookMuff (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I added this merely as reference. If you would prefer, here's the link. Thanks for AGF :P WookMuff (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You invited to a forum discussion. If you want to discuss the inclusion of the petition in the article, you may do so in this active section or a new one. Cenarium (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Current film project The Ghost
Prior to his September 2009 arrest in Switzerland, Polanski was directing an adaptation of Harris' The Ghost, a novel about a writer who stumbles upon a secret while ghosting the autobiography of a former British prime minister. It will star Ewan McGregor as the writer and Pierce Brosnan as the prime minister. Filming takes place in Germany. The Ghost is being co-produced as of February 2009 by the Babelsberg Studios.[26]

Any word on the status of this project? Surely it must at least be on hiatus, unless everyone working there is so sure of the outcome of the current situation. WookMuff (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Durnit, thanks for that, I keep forgetting to fill in the subject/title part WookMuff (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of coverage on this, most sources say it's on hold, in jeopardy or in limbo , based on a comment by Polanski's agent. Much of the editing is completed, but post-production is far from finished. But some sources say it'll be completed even without Polanski, here's a blog linking to a French RS saying this, based on a statement by Pathé and Gaumont co-director. We'd need more RS for this. However, in this article, only a brief mention is sufficient, more should be put in the article on the film. Cenarium (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree slightly, as it is the project he is currently most involved in, the one most affected by his currect circumstances, and as it is already mentioned in the opening, I don't think it would be to difficult to add something like "However, According to most news sources, this project is currently on hiatus yadda yadda yadda" WookMuff (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One sentence on the status is imo OK. Cenarium (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One sentence is all I deem needed also :) Doesn't even need to go into details. Perhaps "However, at the present time... hiatus... uncertain."

Stop the hate (or at least the edit warring) [re: his crime lacks sufficient emphasis]

 * EDIT TITLE TO CLARIFY TOPIC Adding bracketed clarification. Please use descriptive titles of article issue to be discussed&mdash;otherwise topic becomes a forum. Reminder: Wikipedia talk pages are not forums&mdash;please focus discussion on specifics of improving specific elements of the article. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


 * "coloured his years in 'exile'" is a massive understatement. And the sources do not indicate consensual sex.   Referring to the situation as a a sexual liasion  would be an undue lack of weight. At this time, there is enough coverage from verifiable sources that this matter may indeed warrant its own article.  Much like the Mark Foley scandal has its own page separate from Mark Foley's page.  Oh yes, and despite decades of public work and landmark legislation, the incident w.r.t  Mark Foley is much more notable, so much so that it appears in the lead.   Much like the case with Polanski, the scandal is more notable than any of his films taken separately.  To that end giving "as little coverage as possible"  would suggest a lack of due weight. --Mysidia (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation addition
In the Manson Murders section, the claim regarding Polanski's "greatest regret" has a citation-needed tag on it. Please add this source to the sentence and remove the tag (the source is in the 7th paragraph up from the end): Roman Polanski: The Artful Dodger. Additionally, the location of Los Angeles should be changed to Beverly Hills in the same sentence, per the source. Thanks.— DMCer ™  06:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the research. Skomorokh,  barbarian  07:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, nothing more
This is a reminder of what Wikipedia is (an encyclopedia), and what it is not (a court of law, a tabloid, a blog, a soapbox, take your pick). While there is plenty of information out there that exists in court documents, blogs, newspapers, tabloids, etc., and rightly belongs there, it does not necessarily belong in an encyclopedia. Just because certain prurient details of the sex acts committed during the crime have been described in tabloids, blogs, and court documents, does not mean that they belong in an encyclopedia article. The core of RP's crime is that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, not which specific sex acts he committed, but the very fact that he committed any sex acts at all. Consent is not in any way suggested by the phrase "various sexual acts." The details of exactly where he put what are irrelevant to the question of consent. The whole purpose of stating the victim's age, and the general reader most assuredly understands this, is that a 13 year old is incapable of giving proper consent. The heinousness of his crime rests upon the age of the girl, not the prurient details of which specific sex acts were performed. These serve no purpose to an encyclopedia article. I would like to remind certain editors here that it is not the business of an encyclopedia to prosecute people for their crimes, real or perceived, nor to lay out the evidence for others to do so. It is not the business of an encyclopedia to divulge the juicy details of a hot-button issue, nor to air the dirty laundry of a public figure, especially when that dirty laundry has such a profound effect on the lives of innocent victims who are not public figures. We should show some sensitivity to the privacy of the victim of the crime, and WP:BLP 4.2 says that we must respect her privacy. Exposing the prurient details of the sex acts is not libel, but it is an improper invasion of privacy – the victim's privacy – and forbidden under BLP policy. I have no problem whatsoever with stating that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. That is well-known and relevant. The details of the specific sex acts are not. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So you believe that rape is rape, so be it, in so far as this case is concerned? You don't believe that sodomy is in any way different from vaginal rape, that vaginal rape does not need to be specified over say cunnilingus, which he is also alleged to have performed? My opinion, and I will state that it is only opinion bluntly, is that various sex acts DOES suggest a lesser degree of culpability than, for example, forced intercourse and sodomy. If you ask most people, I am sure that they will state that sodomy definitely sounds more serious than "various sex acts". WookMuff (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I say above (somewhere!), we should list the various crimes he is charged with, the various convictions, and nothing more than that. The gory details have no place in an encyclopedic article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As per RegentsPark, the list of charges make what happened clear, and the victim has specifically stated that the focus on the "lurid details" (as she described them) of the case continues to traumatize her and her family. Given this, it seems to me that it is best to minimize discussion of the specific details, without downplaying what he did in any way, and the summary of the charges is the best way to convey the required information. - Bilby (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel the need to add "lurid details". I just think that the phrase "various sex acts" is nothing more than revisionist bullshit, by people who would seek to minimize the seriousness, perhaps to that of "in a case of morals." Sorry if I offend anyone with (once again) my opinion. I fully support any edit that lists the original charges in full, and would strongly oppose anything less. It appears that so many people, be they media, filmmakers, and editors, would minimize this case to merely one of statutory rape, and let it go at that. As most anyone who has been raped will tell you, rape is not a "sex act" WookMuff (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article already contains details of charges - you say you'd support that, well it's already there. "Polanski was initially charged[43] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor."  I don't think anyone is seeking to minimize the seriousness of the crimes as the list of charges pretty clearly establishes the severity.    The list of charges follows the brief summary of the victim's testimony.  The question is whether the article needs to provide specific quotes from the victim.   Some are looking at it from a BLP view, which I can see, but my attitude is that the very next paragraph lists the charges that were made following her testimony, and in doing so her statement is essentially confirmed and repeated.   The exact wording "various sex acts" may be weak by itself, but not when it's followed by the list of charges. To describe it as "revisionist bullshit, by people who would seek to minimize the seriousness"  isn't valid because there is no suggestion to abbreviate the list of charges.   Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking specifically about the editors wanting to use the above phrase, not editors redacting the list of charges. As I mentioned, my issue was with the phrase, only the phrase, and nothing more than the phrase. I would be quite happy if just the word rape was used, in context of course (ie. the rape, raping, rape of, etc). WookMuff (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood. I know you said about the phrase, but you also said "I fully support any edit that lists the original charges in full" and that's what I was talking about.   My misunderstanding.  I'd also be happy if just the word "rape" was used with appropriate context.   Rossrs (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats cool... Personally I tend to ABF and rant before I look, so your misunderstanding was very mild by comparison. So yeah, as long as the extent of his vile depravities make it into the article, I am content ;) WookMuff (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The specific acts that Polanski committed should be left in. It is what it is. Wikipedia is not censored so I don't see why it should be taken out. TheLou75 (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Polanski, was arrested and charged with six counts: "Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor", "Child Molesting", "Rape by the use of Drugs", "Sodomy", "Oral Copulation by Force" and "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.1.147 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I came here from WP:BLPN to support compliance with BLP policy, and that is my one and only concern here. I would remind anyone who suggests otherwise to assume good faith, as there is no foundation in my words or actions to the assumption that I have any ulterior motives here (i.e. to minimize or downplay RP's crime). I have never suggested that we downplay the seriousness of the crimes in any way, only that we respect the privacy of the victim. As far as I can tell, the only statement she has made recently about the incident (which is linked about a dozen times on this talk page) is that she has moved on with her life, but the continued invasion of privacy does harm to her and her family. We have a legal obligation, if not a moral imperative, to respect her privacy. The argument that drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl is in any way not a serious crime is, in a word, bullshit. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But heres the thing. This isn't new. This isn't invading her privacy. The media may do that, but wikipedia is providing facts about an event that happened 32yrs ago. Editors aren't looking through her garbage or paying people to do so. "it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." However, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." "Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so." I am truly sorry if the victim here feels Wikipedia is prolonging her victimization, but this is all well sourced and, indeed, factual. This is not about sensationalism, but accuracy and verifiabilty. Also, you have to look deeper. Both WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPF that multiple reliable sources mean that important relevant information may be added, WP:BLPNAME doesn't apply, nor does WP:BLP1E, as noone is trying to make an article about her. The details all fall safely into WP:V, and WP:NOR, and I believe that they are given the appropriate weight and tone as the secondary sources give them. Umm... what was your pont again? WookMuff (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments by WookMuff. Urban XII (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, WookMuff, for providing a specific and reasonable rationale for your position, rather than simply shouting down dissenting editors. Keeping one's emotions in check, as you seem to do well, is what makes WP work as a collaborative effort, and I sincerely appreciate it.  No one has claimed that WP editors are invading anyone's privacy in that sense.  She has stated, however, that the continued publicity, particularly the focus on the gory details, is invasive and has done harm to her family.  I'm not saying that we're doing anything that has never been done before, but there's a difference between making a statement to the court versus seeing that statement amplified on one of the widest-read web sites on the internet, just like there's a difference between appearing on the police blotter in your local paper versus appearing on America's Dumbest Criminals.  [I do not mean by analogy to imply that the victim of this crime has done anything wrong.]  I honestly do not know if the victim feels that WP is prolonging her victimization or not, but I do feel that we can have a reasonable expectation that repeating the prurient details here may prolong her victimization.  BLP policy is all about avoiding those kind of situations, not remediating them.  The specific part of BLP policy I have concerns about is 4.1, Presumption in favor of privacy (which was 4.2 until yesterday), which states: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced... This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions."  I would say the case is pretty well laid out that the victim here is notable only as RP's victim.  While the details satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR, they may violate BLP 4.1 (formerly BLP 4.2) per se.  My point is that we should presume in favor of her privacy, particularly when these details add nothing of encyclopedic value to the article.  I won't argue against including RP's charges, as long as we stick directly to the official terminology and do not attempt to insert our own terminology.  It would be a hard case indeed to argue that listing the charges against Polanski, per se, violates the victim's privacy.  Do you find this solution agreeable? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have made an effort to be slightly more fact based and slightly less emotion based (though one comment on this page still makes me physically ill) over the last day or so. The way I see it, its a matter of how you define privacy. I think that while it is important to respect the victims wishes, I think I read that section of the policy differently than you is all. I honestly think that including incredibly well sourced, verifiable facts that anyone can read from google, specifically the facts most important for accurate and complete recording of the details of the case, is of paramount importance. This IS an encyclopedia and while it is not a scandal sheet, there are three cornerstones and BLP is not one of them. Also, in all honesty, I somewhat feel that while its important for her to have her privacy, that fact that she attended the screening of a pro-polanski documentary last year, and stood for shots on the red carpet, smiling and posing, give at least a smidgeon of leeway (liway? whatever). That said, as long as the details of the crime are given due weight, and in no way watered down, I think that is satisfactory. WookMuff (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that if anyone can find this rumored book, or an interview where she discussed these details, then I will accept that she has no expectation of privacy, and regret does not change that. If anyone can find this book, please post the ISBN here. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 00:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno if this book exists. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere other than here. It raises an interesting point though. If you would waive your privacy concerns if she had published a book, does that mean you would waive privacy concerns if she was in the process of writing a book. From there, what if she stated intent to write a book? WookMuff (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC) :)
 * Per WP:CRYSTAL, I'll wait and see what she says in any book she may publish in the future. If she has put a book out, this does not necessarily mean she included these details in it.  But I see no reasonable assumption that she has or will publish a book. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 03:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He did not drug her as people continually repeat (saying it over and over will not make it correct) he furnished her with drugs and she took them, as she has stated, she had taken drugs before this situation. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't speculate as to whether he actually drugged her or not, and neither should the article state a speculation (or belief of a source) as fact, as the charge was dropped as part of the plea bargain, but he was charged with it: "accused by the grand jury ... in the crime of: Rape by Use of drugs ... 261(3) .. 'did willfully and feloniously have and accomplish an act of sexual intercourse .. she then and there being rendered temporarily incapable of giving legal consent to the commission of said act by the administration to her of intoxicating narcotic, anesthetic substance, controlled substance, and intoxicating liquor, to wit, Quallude and alcohol, by the said Roman Polanski ..'". --Mysidia (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * Also from the [13] link:


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

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

But is it too late for justice to be served?

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

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


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


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


 * P.S., I thought that someone had found a quote in which she says that she was upset about the grand jury testimony being released, and that she specifically did not want that. I'm not going to look for it, but I don't think that she was protected.  The assault, and pictures of her, were in the French press in 1977 according to Wanted and Desired.  She has not had, according to her, any privacy.Oberonfitch (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw this this morning,taken from [here] "His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement." Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "He did not drug her as people continually repeat (saying it over and over will not make it correct) he furnished her with drugs and she took them, as she has stated, she had taken drugs before this situation." Still waiting for the cite, Off2riorob WookMuff (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted this cite already, in a previous post here on this talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thats the one, smoking gun. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize profusely. That is indeed the story she gave closest to the incident (and while under oath), and as such it likely has more basis in fact than comments she made 26 years later on a tv interview. Again, I apologize. WookMuff (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sodomy is a legal definition, attempt to remove it and calling RAPE, as a sexual act is misleading. Rape is an act of violence. He forced this girl by her own testimony. The accounts of her grand jury testimony are publicly available on the smoking gun. Do we go back in history and remove accounts of incest among Royalty because it may not be to the taste of the editors? There is no legal or moral need by Wikipedia to edit down history for what is overzealous editors think. The trial is a public record. Its the People against Polanski. The process of the court has the audience of the public. Wilhelm_meis has taken a very strange attitude of his gatekeeping of this topic. Wilhelm_meis believes he is responsible for how people think and feel about a fact based encyclopedia. Wilhelm_meis is trying to control how the reader concludes things by eliminating facts for consideration. Anal Rape and ejaculating into a 13 year old may be too graphic, but asserting Sodomy is not.

I urge that Wilhelm_meis be relieved of his role her, and that task given to someone else without the bias shown. Certainly there is someone else that can take a fresh look at this topic.

Or is this the Wilhelm_meis show? His actions show that his response are now internalized to him. Because he has invested so much energy into his positions, he is not fairly taking the contributions of others, with fresh eyes.

Its time to pass the baton, replace Wilhelm_meis, there is another editor who can proceed. This is not about Wilhelm_meis, its about the integrity of the strength of the cooperative authorship. Move in a new set of eyes. Wilhelm_meis is talking about his moral responsibility with his edits, what about the facts? Are we fact based or opinion based, and stop leaving out facts to calibrate the opinions of the readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.90.109 (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your point? Would you like to make a request for comment? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 03:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I think I continue to be of an opposing view to Wilhelm Meis, having taken the time to actually read his comments and respond, I think this seems rant seems rather silly. I don't actually believe this user has suggested removing mention of sodomy so much as retaining a certain degree of decorum and class. This user has certainly agreed that the list of charges laid against Polanski be retained, and this list certainly includes Sodomy among its contents. If I read the user correctly, he just doesn't want it to devolve into "Polanski found out she might get knocked up, so he flipped her over and went to town". Also, considering that Wilhelm Meis focus seems to be entirely on possible violatinos of WP:BLP, comparing it to removing mentions of incest from those long dead is apples and moldy oranges. WookMuff (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1997 rejection of possible resolution because of television
Seems odd that there is no mention of the offer for Polanski to return and have the matter supposedly resolved in his favor that he rejected because the judge would not rule out televising the proceedings. I came to the article to confirm the date only to find it not mentioned as far as I could see. RoyBatty42 (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that is worth a mention, have you got a link to that story.? Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski himself dismisses this account, the media reports about the interactions of the Judge Fidler seem to be all speculation.

"I don't know if it's resignation or a lack of interest or a fear of the media circus that would happen," Polanski said in a telephone interview from Paris. The rumour mills are just speculation, he says. "Every now and again they propose the notion that I am doing something about it. Then there is a new round of articles about my possible return. There's nothing!" Originally published in The Toronto Sun, March 8, 2000 SEE: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html The reference also include the 1997 article, with the key information be from un-named sources

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

His sexual affair with Natasha Kinski (who was 15 at the time should also be mentioned). Both of them admitted to the affair. 99.150.203.9 (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But having intercourse when your partner saids 'No' is indeed rape. Eros2250 (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem I think Pawsplay is getting to here is that when editors (not sources) connect the dots, it's WP:Synthesis and this can create a BLP problem. We should make sure that our assertions about the crime are backed up by Reliable Sources and not by synthesis.  If RS 1 says X=Y, and RS 2 says Y=Z, we can state this (with due references), but we cannot simply state X=Z.  That would be synthesis. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Definition of a child, from the UN. "Rape, also referred to as sexual assault, is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or without sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent." From the rape page on wikipedia. Convicted :"In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime.". Roman Polanski is a Convicted Child Rapist. I am quite happy to put an inline citation after each word, if you take offense to that. WookMuff (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Still original research, multiple reliable sources should use the term 'Convicted Child Rapist' for us to consider using it. Cenarium (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats not how it works. I don't have to find sources that call him a convicted child rapist in those exact words, I just have to find sources that show he is a convicted child rapist. WookMuff (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not offended by it either way, I'm just looking for adherance to policy in this article. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a blog, so it's important that we stick to the most reliable sources available.  Putting it in our own words is not, in an encyclopedic sense, preferable to the official terminology of the crimes for which he was prosecuted.  The official terminology is not in any way vague, and is arguably less vague than terms that are defined differently in different jurisdictions. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the article he was convicted of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", which is pipelinked to statutory rape, so presumably they are the legal equivalent. Now there is a very different thing, legally though perhaps not morally, between having sexual relations with a child and raping a child, and I don't think this legal difference is captured by labeling him a "convicted child rapist".  Gamaliel (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel, I've read your paragraph three times, and I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you want to be able to use the alternate wording "statutory rape" in the article, and/or "convicted child rapist?"  Wookmuff, IMO I don't think that we can use Wikipedia as a reference for law terminology/equivalents, because of obvious problems.  I wouldn't have a problem were someone to reference California case law and statutes, however. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing a particular wording, I just think we should avoid the phrase "convicted child rapist" because of the legal differences I described above. Gamaliel (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How to address the "Elephant in the room"

 * Numerous reliable and verifiable sources have referred to him as a child molester and/or pedophile. Among them was a CNN report on the best director category at the Oscars. It stated, "Home to the Oscars' most controversial nominee (convicted child molester Roman Polanski), the Best Director category..."  We also have numerous references culturally of him being referred to as a pedophile and child molester   [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=17027 ]  And given the controversy it is also quite notable that in the weeks after his flight, when questioned on the subject of his predilictions, Polanski stated without equivocation "I like young girls, very young girls."  The author of his 1980 biography: Said Kiernan, "Roman just couldn't understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He's screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn."
 * It is quite well supported that his sexual taste is for children, here are ref's for his "child dating"      including one described by a French reporter for the impeccably credentialed Le Monde as "just a baby".
 * The question is how do we address the very real (supported by 30 years of ref's) notability of this area of the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.1.147 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By citing which of the descriptions are notable as "has been described as X", by at least 2 reliable sources, and providing it as quotation, attributed to the source.. --Mysidia (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re your list of references that refer to him as a pedophile, I don't think any of those are reliable sources. Most of those are opinion pieces, which are distinct from news reporting .  Some are blogs (Perez Hilton is a reliable source?  Really?)  One is a cartoon??  The CNN report is clearly opinion (predicting who is going to win at the Oscars).  Pfalstad (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot over overthinking going on here. Pedophile is a simple definition. Use the dictionary of your choice. Its also a term that is used by law enforcement and by the general public. Polanski admitted to a count of sex with an underage girl. That means by definition he admitted to being a Pedophile. The term itself does not mean how many children are involved. His attraction to underage girls was manifested by a specific act to which he admitted to in his plea. Calling a person takes someones car by breaking in, can be called a car thief. Calling Polanski a pedophile is not controversial, its simply using a dictionary definition as its intended, and how its used in the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's controversial, that's why everyone's arguing about it. Pedophile, according to the dictionary of my choice, can mean "a person attracted primarily to prepubescent children", which is not accurate in this case.  It can also be a legal term, but that is not the legal term he pled guilty to.  I would even argue that characterizing someone as a "car thief" is not appropriate either.  There's a big difference between saying "so-and-so is a car thief" and "so-and-so was convicted of car theft in 1992."  The latter is NPOV and has encyclopedic tone, the former doesn't.  Pfalstad (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that your dictionary of choice reads as follows:


 * 1. A person who has a sexual preference for children.
 * 2. Adults who engage in sexual activity with children


 * Usage notes: The term pedophile is regularly used in the media to describe adults who engage in sexual activity with children.
 * Your selective def does not occur until #3. Note also the related term paederast:


 * 1. A man who is engaged in an erotic relationship with an adolescent...


 * The term pederast has sometimes been incorrectly used to describe child rapists and men sexually involved with pre-pubescent children.


 * In short the term is an English word that communicates a specific concept. Its use here is supported by 30 years of reliably sourced references which include the subjects on record statements defending his sexual tastes and proclivities.99.151.161.71 (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What is undue weight and sensationalism?
Because I was curious, as some people claim that despite being "one of the greatest directors of all time" (sourced in lead) that "his sex with a 13-year old was infinitely more important" and that the article should treat him as such...I used Google News Archive to look up Roman+Polanski for the five years after the murder of his wife, and the five years after his arrest for rape - 600 hits for one, 700 for the other. At the time, the events were treated with approximately the same coverage - yet WP gives 1 paragraph to his wife's murder and 16 paragraphs to his arrests (just in this article, not counting the fork-off). Clearly we have something of a problem here - either one is underrepresented in his biography, or the other is overrepresented. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 12:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is something else I found interesting. There is a separate article, 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski -- but no article on his original trial and conviction.  Surely that is odd?


 * One apprach to how much of this article's space should be devoted to each aspect of his life would to have each controversial aspect have an article forked from it, with just a paragraph of context here. Those interested in contributing referenced, neutrally written material to the topic of his film career, his survival from the Nazis, his wife's murder, the referenced claims of sex with minors, can all make those articles as long as they want, without worrying about undue weight.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski was spun off to move the current event material out of the main article. It may be merged back now or in future, or merged in a wider-topic article covering the whole statutory rape incident and its consequences. Rd232 talk 16:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"One of the greatest directors of all time" should be removed per Avoid weasel words. Urban XII (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That's as cringe-worthy a sentence as we're ever likely to read.  Rossrs (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to use 16 paragraphs to describe the murder of a family member; Sharon Tate has her own article, and Polanski wasn't the one who was murdered. Certainly his rape of a child is much more important in his biography than what happened to a family member, which is only distantly relevant to his biography (1 paragraph seems appropriate). That he had previously lost a family member does not in any way excuse his rape of a 13-year old girl. Urban XII (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * By "family member" you mean "wife and unborn child", of course. It was an extremely important event in his life, and needs proper coverage. I'm not sure, though, where the last comment comes from, as it has not been suggested that it excuses later actions, and nor should it. - Bilby (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Legally, he didn't have a child, so "pregnant wife" would be the correct description. It's really irrelevant which family members he had lost, as far as his rape of a child is concerned. I'm disgusted by the attempt to use this to excuse or minimize his crimes. No, the death of another person, Sharon Tate, does not need more coverage in Roman Polanski's biography just because he happened to be briefly married to her. Sharon Tate has her own biography which is the appropriate place to describe her murder in detail. Urban XII (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oddly, that's why I used "unborn child". And yes, it is irrelevant in terms of his later crime. What makes you think that anyone is suggesting otherwise? But it is highly relevant in terms of a biography about Polanski. - Bilby (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it would simply be totally inappropriate to use 16 paragraphs in the biography of Roman Polanski to describe a crime against a different person who has her own biography just because it was a family member. Polanski wasn't murdered, the appropriate article to describe the Tate murder is the Tate article. The continued calls to equally emphasis a crime against Sharon Tate in Polanski's biography is an abuse of Sharon Tate that seeks to minimize Polanski's child rape. I'm sure his late wife would be happy... Urban XII (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "an abuse of Sharon Tate", are you seriously presuming to speak on behalf of her? How could you possibly know what she may have thought?    Please just convey your own opinions and don't try to use the imagined musings of a dead woman to support your viewpoint.  Rossrs (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. So that's what you were getting at - in that case, yes, 16 paragraphs would be too much. One probably isn't enough, but there should be a happy point somewhere between those two. Still, this probably isn't something that needs to be tackled until the main problems are overcome. - Bilby (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't make accusations against other editors and impugn their motives in such a manner. Please remember WP:AGF Gamaliel (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the reason there is more information on the court case than on the sharon tate murder is for the same reason that there is more on the court case than there is on the death of Polanski's mother. I am sure that all three events had powerful devestating effects on the man, but unfortunately they didn't have quantifiable verifiable effects. That is not to minimize the effect of the events, just that it is much easier to see how the dominos fell with rape>arrest>chino>flight>fugitive. WookMuff (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WookMuff, I agree with a lot of your views, and I'll admit right now that initially I didn't expect to. I can see a lot of logic in your comments. There is a lot of stuff about Polanski's own legal case because he was directly involved in the case. There is less mention of the Sharon Tate murder because Polanski was not involved in the legal proceedings as he left Los Angeles as soon as the arrests were made. He said he found it too painful, and there's nothing to suggest otherwise. I think the case is far more imporant than the article suggests. I'm very disappointed that there are comments further up in this discussion that suggest providing more information about the murder would somehow diminish the importance of the rape case. Nobody has suggested downplaying the rape in favour of discussing Tate. I have to wonder if there is more of the opposite feeling at play - perhaps to discuss the murder of Sharon Tate and the loss of the unborn child would somehow humanize Polanski, and so perhaps by diminishing the importance of the murder, the rape case can stand out more prominently. I don't suggest it's deliberate, but I think feelings run so high that anything that shows him as a real person who experienced pain, just doesn't fit his current image as a rapist. I would imagine that to have your pregnant wife murdered so brutally, with so little motive and to endure such a long wait without even knowing who did it, would have to be devastating, and Polanski has said that the murder came very close to destroying his life. He is on record as saying the greatest regret of his life was that he wasn't in the house with Tate. That's quite a thing to say. He was supposed to be with her, but he postponed returning from London and instead asked two friends to stay with her for two weeks. He should have been in the house a week before the murders. Not only was he not with her, but the two friends he asked to help, were also murdered. That's a huge burden of guilt for one man to carry, and if he says that's the biggest regret of his life, I think we should believe him enough to ensure that his biography doesn't try to brush it aside as if it doesn't matter just because he wasn't murdered. To read someone here say it's not important to Polanski because Tate has her own article, strikes me as absurd. It need only be mentioned insofar as it relates to Polanski, but it has to be acknowledged that it does relate directly to him.

It's true that it (and the death of his mother) have no verifiable effect, but to expand on other relevant aspects of his life, does not diminish the significance of the rape case. I'd be surprise if his background, including his Holocaust survival and the 1969 murders, don't form part of any psychological profile of him, and this may provide the "verifiable" (at least by "expert" testimony), element that is currently absent. Even if it's just "the psychiatrist said ..." Whatever. I've been looking at external news sources about Polanski, and obviously there is quite a range of commentary, but I've seen a few say that after Tate's murder, Polanski went on a "sexual spree", became self destructive, immersed himself in drugs, and basically started out on a road that led him .... we all know where he ended up. It's speculative, and we can't be making any assumptions or drawing conclusions, although if it's properly sourced there's no reason why the full context of his life can't be conveyed, with the rape case in it's place. He didn't just wake up one day as a rapist and he wasn't always a monster. The events of his life don't excuse anything he has done, but every biography needs context. I think it is easier to see how the dominoes fell with the rape case but I think we need to also look at the aspects of the biography that are not so easy, otherwise it will be never be complete, comprehensive or balanced. Rossrs (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "WookMuff, I agree with a lot of your views, and I'll admit right now that initially I didn't expect to" What can I say? I rock. But seriously, if you can find reliable published sources (preferably from people who have actually talked to Polanski and not just the tv psychiatrists who always seem to come out of the woodwork to diagnose people they have never met) then go for it. Also, I think you gotta assume a lil bit more good faith with those editors you mentioned. I have to admit that when I read "Why does the article have more about the rape than the murder" it really does read like they are saying "well if you can't add more murder, Imma delete rape content until they are equal in length." The only REALLY disappointing comment I have read here is the one that seems to imply that its non notable to screw a lil girl, even if they feel pressured. WookMuff (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clear that everyone reads something different in these comments.   What I see is that when a comment addresses a perceived weakness or lack of depth in a part of the article that is not about the rape, someone comes along and says "no just talk about the rape, the rape, the rape.  Don't downplay the rape."   I have a strong sense that some people feel that the integrity of the rape aspect of the story is being threatened by proposed changes to other parts of the article, and it doesn't have to mean that.   I see a suggestion to squeeze Sharon Tate out of the article regardless of the impact her death had on Polanski, because Polanski wasn't murdered and discussion of her murder supposedly diminishes the seriousness of his rape.     I'll challenge that,  but I do assume good faith and as I said "I don't suggest it's deliberate".   Good faith tells me that people are emotionally invested in this to varying degrees, and that I need to respect a range of viewpoints, but good faith will never tell me that I must accept them or agree with them or that I shouldn't comment just as freely.   As long as the good faith extends in every direction and to all editors presenting a reasonable, supported viewpoint - and that has not always been the case - I don't have a problem with anyone or everyone disagreeing with me or with each other.    With regards to the TV psychiatrists and various grandstanders  - totally agree.  We don't need their opinions, all we need is enough to give that section a little more depth and perspective.   To put it simply, the murder of Sharon Tate currently reads to me like a minor event in Polanski's life (less significant even then some of his film work) rather than a major event that has quite possibly (and by his comments, has) dogged him for over 40 years.   On the other hand, if the focus of the article changed so that too much importance was placed on Tate's murder, I'd challenge that too.   All I want is for the whole article to be fair and balanced, and ultimately I think that's what most people are aiming for, even if it's being approached from different directions. Rossrs (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an aside to say that I always find Rossrs's comments well thought out and logical. Having said that, I agree that there should not a diminishment of content regarding the Tate murders and there is content out there that can be used to support the impact of it. Some of a Jack Nicholson book discusses it to a small extent. I know there are others. None of that diminishes the rape arrest and outcomes. There should be context for everything notable that happened to and about Polanski, and the death of his wife, especially as Rossrs outlined it, is notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to crystal ball you hever, Rossrs, but if there were inadequate material to bring the lengths of coverage of the two interviews, I don't think that people who constantly juxtapose the murder's weight with the rapes' weight would just say fair enough then. It always seems to go "the rape should be given less weight" "no" "ok, well why does the murder not have more weight? they should be even... i'mma just trim the rape down so they are the same length kthnx" WookMuff (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you mean, and I may be missing something. I don't see anyone saying "well if we can't add to the murder bit, we'll have to trim the rape bit to make it even".   Please show me where it says that because this discussion has gotten so huge, that I can barely keep up with the comments.   In this section I don't see anyone suggesting the rape should be reduced to accomodate Sharon Tate's murder, so please show me where I should be looking.  Thanks Rossrs (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A similar case/article
Just for reference, when we are discussion how Polanski's crimes should be described: Here is an article on a very similar case, a man who was on trial for rape in the US, fled to Europe, and was finally extradited from Switzerland: Alex Kelly (rapist). Urban XII (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This case is not comparable, the other guy fled before his trial, the two cases are totally different. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several similarities. At least we should have a look at the Kelly article when considering how to present Polanski's rape case. Urban XII (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see what you expect to get from Alex Kelly for this - it is a very short article, and covers his crime in about three paragraphs. I can't see how it offers anything for this, unless you mean in the coverage of the crime, in which case the Kelly article doesn't mention any details of the acts, and doesn't specifically mention any charges. But I think we're leaning towards covering charges, so I'm not sure how that helps here. - Bilby (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OJ Simpson is a good example. It begins by noting that he is a convicted felon in the first sentence.99.151.161.71 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Gross omission of civil case and outcome
There are many references to what the victim thinks and wants to see happen to Polanski at this point and time, and at the time of a 2003 interview, and during the documentary.

None of this is placed into proper context without disclosing to the reader that the Victim brought and won a closed settlement with Polanski for $500,000 The figure is known because of her attempt to get him to pay the amount in further court filings. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091003/ap_en_mo/us_polanski_settlement

"The civil suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in December, 1988, when the woman was 25, claims assault, battery, false imprisonment and seduction. The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, seeks damages for physical and emotional distress." see: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html LA Times article.

We have a victim who has won a settlement of $500,000 when a civil case asserted that Polanski "committed assault, battery, false imprisonment, and seduction" This factual record needs to be inserted by whatever wordsmithing the editors so choose.

You can not put into the text that she does not support any punishment now, when she sought civil punishment and won it, and the civil charges reflect it was anything except consensual.

These factual items need be inserted, its the only to give any context to her comments now. Lastly we do not know (and putting speculation here would be in appropriate) whether or not the settlement was based on her making public comments to one effect or another.

The facts of the Civil case, its charges, its settlement amount, MUST be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Lastly we do not know (and putting speculation here would be in appropriate) whether or not the settlement was based on her making public comments to one effect or another." I am not trying to like wedge this in, but do you mean like confidentiality agreements or something? WookMuff (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this info should be in the article. Yahoo! news links don't work after a few weeks, so here is a link to the same article at MSNBC. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They reached an agreement, it looks to me like it was an out of court personal agreement between the two of them and not a judgement reached by the courts, please correct me if I am wrong. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that was the case, however I believe she went back to court because Polanski was reneging on his part, or something. WookMuff (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * According to this he didn't pay. (Can't find anything from any of the major news services though.) Rossrs (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for source While no interpretation can be made, the following excerpt is useful to guide further search for sources (i.e., likely not to be found):
 * "And a note on an order signed by a judge the day after the settlement was finalized suggests a more complex financial arrangement than the $500,000 payment. The note read "250,000 + 500,000 + maybe 500,000" followed by the words "settled" and "confidential." LA Times 10/3/2009
 * (While some RS opinion etc could theoretically speculate on the implications of that note, it is highly unlikely there will be any factual reporting on the matter given the givens.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to be very conservative with this request. Here is a sample line for inclusion.

'''Geimer, sued Polanski in December 1988 when she was 25 years old, the civil lawsuit alleged sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. The case was settled out of court in 1993. Subsequently in 1995, Geimer filed papers with the court, attempting to collect a settlement of at least $500,000.'''

Something no greater than the above, but the reason this is a required entry here, is that it is said the victum wants the case to be discharged in 2003, in a documentary, and in interview now within the pages of Wikipedia for Polanski. Everything in my proposed line, is authoritatively sourced. The context and settlement of the Civil case must be included. Simply the facts.--Tombaker321 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, something about this should be added, she dropped the civil action as she accepted a financial offer from polanski, the civil suit was dropped by Geimer, the accusations in the civil suit are a bit unimportant as the result was never known so detailing the unanswered charges is a bit excessive as the case was dropped. He has clearly paid, around the time she started to speak in his favour, but a citation for that seems lacking. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * looking at It your edit seems ok. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could mention be made that at the time Samantha Geimer was still Jane Doe? WookMuff (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article to include similar content. Superm401 - Talk 05:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"his mother, born in Imperial Russia due to Partitions of Poland..."
Are the Partitions of Poland and other 18th century events really relevant to Roman Polanski? How about just "a native of Russia" (the original wording) or "his mother, a native of Russia, was brought up as a Catholic as she had a Jewish father and a Roman Catholic mother of Polish ethnicity"? Urban XII (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is relevant - his mother was Polish (or polish-jewish) and was born in the part of Poland which was at the time part of the Russian empire due to the partition. --Georgius (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary of topics currently in contention

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


 * (a) Balancing the intro in an appropriate way.
 * (b) Do we start a separate article on the 1977 trial.


 * Regarding some of the other issues you have brought up: he can be described neither as a "child molester" nor a "pedophile" by the article, because that is not the case in either a clinical or legal sense. In regards to terminology, we can't call it rape because he never pled guilty to rape and AFAIK was not convicted of it. I haven't seen a reliable source call it a "sexual assault" either when I think about it. I think the charge itself was "sexual intercourse with a minor". Perhaps we could use the term "sexual offence". Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, by clinical and legal definitions, he "molested" a "child". In what sense does that make him not a child molester? Pedophile, in its technical use, is inaccurate, but in its most oft used sense is completely accurate, that being someone sexually attracted to children. As for the use of the term "sexual assault", well maybe you need to look harder. WookMuff (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There should also be a link to 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski in the introduction. -Ivripatish (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Also, as I said, I really don't think this article is the place for more than a reasonable summary of events, as I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that a 30yr old rape case thats currently getting massive international exposure is not noteable enough to warrant its own article. WookMuff (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

When has Polanski ever called the sexual activity "consensual"? I've never seen or heard of this. This seems like an unfounded speculation. The Squicks (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, rather than start a new article about the 1977 case, I suggest merging that info with the existing "2009 arrest" article as a "Background" section. I'm not sure we will be serving our readership well by having several articles on essentially the same topic scattered around the place.


 * Secondly, the fact that some bloggers and obscure opinionators here and there may have described Polanski as a "pedophile" or "child molester" does not mean we can do so here. To begin with, opinion pieces are only reliable in the sense that they accurately reflect the opinions of their authors; opinions cannot be treated as facts. Moreover, WP:BLP requires us to utilize the best quality sources, and op-eds are at the lower end of the scale in that regard.


 * As to the extent to which the offence itself should be covered in this article, I think it fair to make the assumption that had Polanski not decided to skip the country and stayed to serve whatever sentence the judge had imposed at the time, this event would be no more than a footnote to his career. It is only his recent arrest that has resurrected it as an issue, and I think the extent of coverage in the article about it right now is an example of "recentism". As things stand at present, we don't know how much more significant this event is likely to become. If, for example, he is not extradited, then the whole thing subsides back into a footnote. If he is extradited and gets a slap on the wrist, again, it's a footnote. If he is extradited and gets, say, a thirty year sentence (a highly unlikely outcome, but the maximum penalty he faces is fifty years) then it obviously becomes a major part of his biography.


 * As the article stands now, I agree that something about the case needs to be in the intro, but it certainly should not be in the opening paragraph. More recent and controversial events generally go to the end of a BIO intro, and I think that convention should be adhered to here. Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I vehemently disagree with the idea that the sexual assault is only a minor part of his career. In his 1984 autobiography, Roman, he confessed "I am widely regarded, I know, as an evil, profligate dwarf." (Google it. That's his exact words). The film Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired about the incident was a critical and commercial success, and that's before any of this extradition talk. The Squicks (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but encyclopedic content is not based on throwaway comments in autobiographies, and we certainly don't measure WP:UNDUE by box office receipts for commercial movies. Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your points are largely flawed. Firstly, I assume by 2007 case you mean his cameo in rush hour 3, or perhaps the 1977 sexual assault case? If so, then the 1977 case is the one that should get an article, due to the 2009 arrest being for fleeing the country in 1977.
 * Secondly, as mentioned in wp:reliable, it is completely ok to use op-ed pieces as sources, stating "it is important to directly attribute the material to its author" So if I say, for example, that famed film critic states about the events of his exile "That is what everybody remembers...", that is wholly reliable as long as I frame it properly. Also mentioned in reliable sources, stories and op-ed pieces in blog format are perfectly legitimate reliable sources. So yeah, that happened.
 * Ok, your third point really isn't, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so your alternate reality musings are completely without merit. Also, you think that being a fugitive from justice for 32 years is not an important part of his life?
 * Last but... well, least, despite that you believe a comment to be a throwaway, if it is in his autobiography, it is his version of events, and if [[WP:PRIMARY] is to be believed, as long as its reliably published, and we as editors just quote and don't interpret, its perfectly welcome in an article. As for the documentary, its success or failure at the box office does not affect the weight this should be given, but nor does your opinion, or your "fair assumptions" as to Alternate history.
 * Have a nice day WookMuff (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking your points one by one - firstly, "2007" was a typo, I've corrected it to "1977". Thanks for pointing that out.
 * In relation to your comment about it being the 1977 case which should have its own article, you may have a point. Mine is simply that we don't need both an article on the 1977 case and one on the 2009 arrest. I think this material would be better presented in the one article, regardless of what name it goes under.
 * In regards to your comments about op-eds, you have missed my point. I didn't say opinion pieces cannot be used in articles. I said opinions cannot be treated as facts. In other words, an article cannot refer directly to x as a y, on the ground that z thinks he is one. At best, one can only say that z thinks x is a y, in other words an opinion has to be attributed. In this particular case however, I think we would be on shaky ground even there. WP:BIO was established precisely to prevent the inclusion of tendentious, inflammatory or potentially defamatory material in articles about living people.
 * In relation to your third point, I think I must agree that I mistated the importance of this episode. Certainly the event has had a considerable impact on his life and on the way he is viewed by many people, so it can hardly be described as a "footnote". But at the same time I think we can safely say it would be having far less impact on his life right now had he not chosen to become a fugitive. Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Op ed, perhaps I didn't explain but I also stated that if framed properly its totally worth of inclusion. Ie: Film critic Rogert Ebert,stated of Roman Polanski's flight from justice (or better yet a phrase that doesn't suck, I suppose) "That is what everybody remembers".
 * Re: your last paragraph, its still crystal balling it. Perhaps in prison Polanski would have broken his neck in the showers, or commited suicide, or converted to an extreme form of orthodoxy that conflicted with his lifestyle, thereby causing him to leave filmmaking behind to run a kibbutz in israel. All of them are equally likely because none of them happened. In related news, I spent half an hour trying to find the word kibbutzWookMuff (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BALL is an irrelevancy in this context. The relevant policy here is WP:UNDUE, which is to say, we are trying to figure out what weight should be given to the sex offence and its ramifications in this article. In having that discussion, I simply made the point that devoting half the article to this episode and his recent arrest smacks very much of WP:RECENTISM, and by way of illustration, invited readers to ask themselves how important this episode would seem today if it had in fact been resolved thirty years ago. Now you are entitled to think the comparison not very apt, but citing WP:BALL is hardly apropos either. BALL relates to the addition of speculative content to articles, and I have made no such proposition. Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Interview with novelist Martin Amis in 1979
In an interview with novelist Martin Amis in 1979 (originally published in 1980 in Tatler), Roman Polanski (46) stated: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f—- young girls. Juries want to f—- young girls. Everyone wants to f—- young girls!"

Maybe this should be included in the article somehow. I think he states his preference for "young girls" (i.e. children) quite clearly. Note that he made the comment after he certainly knew that his rape victim was a 13-year old, as he had already been on trial. The most astonishing is not the fact that he does not regret a thing, but that he thinks that everyone else have the same desire as him to rape small children (I intentionally avoid the expression "having sexual intercourse with children" because legally such a thing does not exist, it's always rape by legal standards). Urban XII (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The interview is collected in Amis’ book Visiting Mrs Nabokov. Urban XII (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of this book on its way to me so if it can't be found online at least one of us will have access to the full text of the interview. We should cite the interview directly if we choose to use it and not quote/cite it through an unreliable filter like Brent Bozell. Gamaliel (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Many commenters have simply used the term "rape" in relation to Roman Polanski's 1977 conviction. The offence he pleaded guilty to is often described as "statutory rape" but more precisely as "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor".Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Polanski was foung guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, this is not rape. Well, perhaps it is in some peoples minds but not in legal terms. We have these legal terms in the uk, and polanski had unlawful sex, he did not rape anyone. If it is repeated a thousand times it will still not be correct. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, he plead guilty to the lesser charge to avoid being tried for the more serious one of rape. However, by fleeing he effectively withdrew his plea agreement and put the entire case in limbo. Hence, you can repeat "unlawful sex with a minor" a thousand times as well, but it still doesn't change the fact that rape is part of the mix. The current District Attorney Steve Cooley has hinted that more than just the fugitive charge is now up for consideration when they get him in front of the bench. RoyBatty42 (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is all pure speculation, it is the usual plea bargaining story, we don't actually have it in the uk, we have the unofficial situation, where the police say they are going to charge you with the higher charge and then when you plead not guilty at court they drop down to the lesser charge, the fact is that he was foung guilty of the lesser charge. Are you suggesting a retrial? There is no chance of that at all. If you want my speculation, he will never be extradited. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got the book now. If anyone has questions about the contents of the interview, let me know. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know if there is a quote in there saying that he believed that the act was consensual. OF 16:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so. I've only skimmed it at this point, but it's a short piece in narrative form (as opposed to an interview transcript) and little of it is about the incident besides the lurid "fucking young girls" quote. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutrality refers to ones relationship to the material - It does not refer to ensuring that articles are written to exculpate or tarnish a subject in order to bring them to some middle ground biographically. This subject is astonishly complex, broad and deep, our honest recording of the nuance and vast richness of his life including it's darkness brings a more complete picture to the reader and is our obligation to provide - neutrally according to where our verifiable references bring us.99.142.15.209 (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny that you should mention that, I believe both Polanski and Amis were drinking. Gamaliel (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting Oberon Fitch: "the young [...] child-violating Polanski". Hey, he was 44 at the time. How is that particularly "young"?--CRConrad (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Eν οἴνῳ ἀλήθεια" - Alcaeus of Mytilene, actually this is just as appropriate, " נכנס יין יצא סוד ", from the Talmud.99.142.15.209 (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Swiss reject Polanski's bid for prison release
Source -- FaithLehaneThe  Vampire  Slayer  13:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, just the Swiss Justice Ministry. The case has yet to come before the Swiss courts. Physchim62 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the first step in the procedure, and an important one which certainly should be mentioned in the article (something along the lines of "On October 6, the Federal Department of Justice and Police decided that Polanski will not be released on bail pending his extradition proceedings" – and possibly: "Polanski appealed the decision etc."). Urban XII (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that all the tiny moments that carry little importance, this minor incidend should be kept out of the article. This is not the wiki news, it is a biography of a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. This belongs in the article. Urban XII (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Preposterous. This does not belong in the article, as per, notthenews and minor event. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's self-evident that it belongs in the article. It's simply ridiculous to refer to the first official decision in the Polanski case as a minor event. Urban XII (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its absurd that you think that the reasons for insertion are self evident, the first official decision was to arrest him and hold him, this is a very small, tiny first step in the , what will become a lengthy process and repeated appeals. I suggest waiting until it gets to the courts and not this innitial hearing by the ministry. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment re AP "Source" (10/6/2009 - linked above: Thanks.) - It is useful to observe how AP quickly summarizes events of the case in this news piece, e.g. "The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country, on Feb. 1, 1978, the day he was scheduled to be sentenced to the additional time." Proofreader77 (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently the Associated Press prefers to use documentaries than sources. WookMuff (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to know how the AP constructed precisely that phrasing. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Because that is the main thrust of the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, rather than anything that was mentioned in 1977-78 WookMuff (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of the weasel words
I think we should finally get rid of the weasel words in the lead section: "Polanski is one of the world's best known contemporary film directors and is widely considered one of the greatest directors of his time".

Polanski is also one of the world's best known child rapists of his time... Urban XII (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ha, ideas like that are the reason the article is locked. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You make a good suggestion about removing weasel words and then you go and spoil it by adding more venom just for the sake of adding venom. Your first sentence stands alone as a valid point, and you could have left it at that.  We know you think Polanski is bad.  You've said it about a gazillion times.  It's getting tedious. Rossrs (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm perhaps you don't understand Weasel words, but Polanski IS one of the world's best known contemporary film directers, and is widely considered one of the greatest directors of his time. Maybe a little sourcing needs to be done, but those are not weasel words at all. If it said "Polanski is one of the greatest directors of his time" then THAT would be weasel words. Also in the interests of making sure noone thinks this is bias on my part, I still think Polanski deserves to DiaF. WookMuff (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody should assume that you support Polanski the rapist, just because you say something positive about Polanski the film director.  Rossrs (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't help. I quote Avoid weasel words:
 * "For example, "Middletown, NJ, is the nicest city in the world", is an example of a biased or normative statement. The application of a weasel word or expression can give the illusion of neutrality: "Some people say Middletown, NJ, is the nicest city in the world."
 * Although this is an improvement, in that it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative, and thus naturally suggests various questions:
 * Who says that?
 * When do they say it? Now? At the time of writing?
 * How many people think it? How many is some?
 * What kind of people think it? Where are they?
 * What kind of bias might they have?
 * Why is this of any significance?"
 * "widely considered one of the greatest directors of his time" is a good example of the use of weasel words. Personally, I consider him to be primarily a rapist, a pedophile and a fugitive from justice, although I am aware that some people consider him to be "one of the greatest directors of his time". However, describing him as "one of the greatest directors of his time" contravenes policy and is unencyclopedic, just like "he is widely considered one of the world's best known child rapists of his time" would be. Urban XII (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are right, I totally misread WP:WEASEL :) However, he IS widely considered one of the greatest directors of his time, so maybe if anyone can source that outside of an EW.Com online poll, that would be groovy. WookMuff (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WEASEL has a bit of flexibility. Personally, I don't see this as a case of weasel words, or, if it is, it seems like it is in an acceptable grey area. That said, it is already sourced, but if we need to dig up something else: Mitterrand has been quoted making that claim ; Mick LaSalle makes, and justifies, the claim in "Filmmaking brilliance equals trifecta - World's greatest directors made at least three masterpieces" (San Francisco Chronicle, June 22, 2003, pO3) (I liked the justification of "three great movies"); and Polanski made Entertainment Weekly's "The 50 Greatest Directors", where he comes in at number 26 . - Bilby (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and whether it's accurate or not, the high praise is not supported by article content, and for that reason it does read as "weaselish". The article body needs to be expanded to contain legitimate artistic criticism, and that would make a short comment fit better into the lead in the form of summary.   He is respected for his film work, and the article should reflect that.   Likewise any negative or contraversial aspects of his films - recurring theme of violence is one that has attracted comment.  Rossrs (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. But the claim "he is considered one of the greatest directors of his time" is accurate, and could reasonably go into the body, or could summarise comments made in the body. Personally, though, I see it as a good thing to have in the lead, as it summarises his impact in the film industry. But others clearly have a different view. - Bilby (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Who consider him "one of the greatest directors"?
 * What does "great" mean?
 * When did they say that?
 * How many people think it?
 * What kind of people think it?
 * What kind of bias might they have?
 * Why is this of any significance?
 * I can think of numerous directors I consider to be "great", but that is a personal opinion, and Polanski is not among them. Likewise, Frederic Mitterrand is entitled to have his opinion, but he is not an oracle, as demonstrated by recent developments in France which clearly showed that Mitterrand's comments on the Polanski case had little popular support. Urban XII (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the claim is valid, given that there are multiple sources that make it. You may well disagree with the view, and that's fine - especially as "widely" doesn't mean all. Perhaps more specific wording would be better? "Polanski has been described as one of the greatest directors of all time", sourced to Entertainment Weekly or CNN? Personally I like having the claim there, as it puts things into context - it gets across the point that we're talking about a significant director who has had considerable critical acclaim. But I'm also open to alternatives to the wording. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How about, "Polanski is an Academy Award winning director acclaimed as ..." In the fill in the blank area, simply insert a RS such as the AFI noting his film Chinatown on their top 10 list or an equivalent acclimation. Clearly, if he's "one of the greatest", we'll have a reliable and verifiable source stating such and framing it appropriately in context...99.142.15.209 (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would work. We do have sources claiming he's "one of the greatest", though, as listed above and as used in the article. - Bilby (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Polanski has been described as one of the greatest directors of all time" is certainly better than "widely considered", because frankly, we don't know anything about how "widely" he is considered to be "one of the greatest", hence, the fact that Frederic Mitterrand and other people consider him to be great does not support the wording "widely considered", it remains original research. Outside Paris, many people associate him primarily with the rape case. This is especially true in the United States, where he is "widely" considered a pervert/pedophile, which has been confirmed by numerous sources as well. The fact that his own rich and influential friends in Paris and Hollywood consider him to be "great" doesn't necessarily mean the this view is the majority view in either country.

However, "Polanski has been described as one of the greatest directors of all time" is still a borderline case as far as WP:WEASEL is concerned. It should at the very least preferably be attributed to an independent and credible source (not random comments by French politicians or his own friends to the media (WP:WEASEL: "What kind of bias might they have?")), and opposing views should be included when possible. Urban XII (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The CNN article already being used states "Roman Polanski is regarded as one of the finest directors of his generation, winning an Oscar for "The Pianist" and nominations for "Tess" and "Rosemary's Baby," but he is probably as equally well known for his own tumultuous life." Not exactly the same, but it could be sufficient if wording was changed to match. Alternatively, Entertainment Weekly, as mentioned, lists him as one of the 50 greatest directors. - Bilby (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, "Polanski is an Academy Award winning director acclaimed by Entertainment Weekly as one of the 50 greatest Directors." --99.142.15.209 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's getting there, but my concern is it places Entertainment Weekly on the same level as an Academy Award. :) How about we go with the CNN reference, as it is already in the article? That gives us: "Polanski is an Academy Award winning director who has been regarded as one of his generation's finest directors." It's a lesser claim than "greatest director", is more generic, better fits the source than what is there, and is still well sourced. - Bilby (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We generally note who is lauding, "Polanski is an Academy Award winning director noted by CNN as one of his generation's finest directors." It may also need/or we may substitute, the name of the commentator or writer at CNN who made the distinction.99.142.5.86 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but CNN didn't nominate him in the same sense that Entertainment Weekly did, but instead made the statement that "he is regarded as ...". That is, they are reporting on a generally held view, rather than professing the view themselves. So it can be sourced to CNN, but it should not necessarily be attributed to CNN. - Bilby (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree, all of us, that he should be presented as an Academy Award winning director ...noted by, regarded as, seen by... etc, using something to indicate his general "laurels" as they are. We should just not get carried too far away with it, that he is well respected for his works is without question, let's just not forget our encyclopedic duty and try and keep it's "feet on the earth", so to speak...99.142.5.86 (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Frédéric Mitterrand
On a side note, it seems that the French Minister of Culture is himself under fire, he would have confessed in a book La Mauvaise Vie to have paid underage boys for sexual services in Thailand. http://www.scooppeople.fr/article-9177-marine-le-pen-accuse-mitterrand-de-pedophilie.html http://www.amazon.fr/mauvaise-vie-Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric-Mitterrand/dp/2266157175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254857395&sr=8-1 82.120.124.51 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This book has been released since 2006 as far as I can see, seems like a long time since he is said to have confessed. Perhaps Marine Le Pen, daugher of far-right candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen is a slow reader. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say this accusation at this blog is worthy of removal from this talkpage as it is of no value to this article. And is far from being wp reliable.Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would remove such an aside immediately, but in this case the matter is certainly complex. (Someone else may certainly do so, and I would concur.) Let us not assume that the Polanski BLP is the place to add negative biographical information regarding anyone who defends him.
 * Comment re "Forum" (and negative BLP information about Polanski defenders)

The question (which delays my removing it) is whether such information would EVER be included in this article (and if so, how to do so in compliance with NPOV and biographical information etc etc). Still pondering.

NOTE: The English translation of the Mitterand book mentioned will be published in April 1, 2010 (according to Amazon) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the frivolous accusations are regarding another of his books, "Bad Life" written in 2005 it was a "literary fantasy. This accusation is unsupported and basically a slur. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the English translation of "Bad Life" which comes out in 2010. I have not yet determined if the assertion is accurate. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not be the spreader of titilating gossip, see here the google search for a comment that is in his article and look at the sources that come to you, wikis and people copying wiki content and a couple of blogs. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant at all. Either way. It's a legitimate source, but the article has little use for a side story regarding a widening scandal - whether the controversy in France arose from his defense of Polanski or not is far from useful to anything we are doing here now. 99.151.161.71 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a wikipedia reliable source, and to add things like that you would need a lot of supporting quality citations. It is not even worthy to be posted on a wikipedia talkpage. And for sure has no value at all here on Polanskis talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Let's do this more formally - see below) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (note) The assertion has just been added to Frédéric Mitterrand article.
 * Follow-up: Now deleted. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfc - Should this topic be deleted (collapsed etc)?

 * (considering&mdash;see notes above) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not totally irrelevant that the member of the French Government who has made the most inflamatory remarks after Polanski's arrest ("... Today America has shown its most scary face... " ... and so forth ... ) has confessed a few years earlier homoerotic fantasies with underage Thai boys. That being said, this kind of litterature is quite commonplace among high-profile French intellectuals. See André Gide for instance and his African stories. Hektor (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Censor? Absolutely not. It is legitimate discussion - I just don't happen to agree that it has risen to a level of notability necessary to merit inclusion in this article, at this time. 99.151.161.71 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If this belongs anywhere, at this time, it should be in 2009 Reaction to Arrest of Polanski. I'd like to see it collapsed here.OF 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)


 * Here is a non - French discussion of the topic by Richard Martineau : http://www2.canoe.com/infos/chroniques/richardmartineau/archives/2009/10/20091006-063100.html Hektor (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the source need to be included in the article. However, I think that if you feel like going around deleting or collapsing pieces of talk pages you feel don't fit, go start at an older page and work your way down. This is a comment about improving the article, and as such belongs here. WookMuff (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * re why collapse/delete? - A negative rumor about anyone does not belong on a talkpage (and no, not even for discussion). The only reason this is still here is that the public figure in question does appear to have written something  (in French) about sexual tourism, and has been publicly accused based on his own book's words. Since that person is not the subject of this BLP, there is a further issue of whether such negative information would ever be included in this article. Hence the Rfc, rather than a quick delete (which would usually be warranted). Wikipedia talk pages are not forums&mdash;and everything is not open for discussion. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a report of a political scandal, one which was precipitated by his aggressive stance in the Polanski extradition affair.  Although I don't find it notable to include here at this time, it was a legitimate topic for discussion. If the scandal should result in his resignation it would quite certainly result in the Mitterand quote being appended with this info... Note also that Le Figaro and others, have now picked up the story. 99.142.15.209 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Context of RfC) The topic was initiated with this link to a small French page&mdash;which is not sufficient to support a discussion on English Wikipedia. Normally "we'd" delete it as potentially libelous. I didn't–due to a complex calculation of probabilities. (patent pending:) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page. If you go look at talk page, you will see that this is perfectly legitimate. There is no cause whatsoever for editing anothers comments here, and indeed its frowned upon by policy. It contains a link to a relevant story about a relevant LP. I don't think that the story belongs in this article at this present time, but unless you can show it breaches talk page policy, leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WookMuff (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 October 2009
 * It's certainly a breach of talk page policy to throw around WP:BLP violations, as is the case for those accusations that are not backed up by reliable sources. As you agree, that is not relevant for inclusion to this article, so this section should be collapsed. Inappropriate sections are regularly collapsed or archived on the talk pages of contentious articles, to avoid disruption of consensus-building (it's quite clear that consensus building has been affected by such threads in the present case), examples at Talk:Barack Obama, Talk:September 11 attacks, etc. Cenarium (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
Talk_page_guidelines link for people to have a quick read. Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One comment would be, stay on topic, only discuss things that could be included in the article regarding Roman Polanski and his biography, discussion about other people would be better on more relevent talkpages. Off2riorob (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlocking the article
I wanted to suggest extending the locked status of the article to avoid further disruption, there is clearly still strong opinions on opposing sides and I see little chance of anything less than the edit wars that were occuring before, any thoughts? Off2riorob (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I support keeping the article protected for the time being, until some agreement can be reached. Urban XII (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support extending full protection &mdash;and suggest   procedures be followed scrupulously.i.e, no pet edits ;) while new editors learn to participate productively in reaching consensus on specific outcomes desired. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unsure if this is possible but I have left the original protecting admin a note here asking him about it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is amazing, User Woofmuff has gone there and resisted the protection, and the funny bit is that he has suggested that there is a group that wants it ..the group includes me...and...Urban. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

While I was sleeping
I am having avery hard time figuring out what happened to this talk page during my sleep. Did Oberonfitch delete all his/her comments? because the page seems very gappy and confusing now. WookMuff (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you join in the discussion here about the protection, I can assure you I am in no group here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)\
 * If that comment is to O Fitch, I did, and it was deleted. 97.122.182.50 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. You started a completely different discussion (your proposal to blank the article). It wasn't deleted, it was just archived and subsequently given a separate heading, because it was 1) disruption (page blanking is considered vandalism per Vandalism, also see WP:POINT) and 2) completely unrelated to the question that was discussed in the "Unlocking the article" section (whether the article should be unprotected or not). Urban XII (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I did. I didn't think it made any difference.  If it is confusing, put them back.  I resign without any intention of working further with Wiki. 97.122.182.50 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not a problem, stick with it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

99.X IP editors note
It appears my provider is whipping out new IP addresses at lightening speed. ALL of my addresses have begun with 99. And, with just one or two exceptions, nearly every IP editing starting with 99. is mine. I think my writing style ties them together quite nicely, and normally I wouldn't have been quite this caught up in article - but if you have any questions of ownership you can probably safely assume that the 99's you've read are mine SO FAR. Please feel free to ask should there be a need.99.142.5.86 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment
This discussion has become counterproductive, with editors attempting to edit war BLPvios into the article and the talk page, editors posting contentious material into subject headings, editors attempting to shout each other down, and one editor has withdrawn all contributions and left the project altogether. A little adherance to NPOV, BLP, and AGF would have prevented most of these problems, but anyone who even attempts to restore any order or adherance to policy draws flak for doing so. This article needs the intervention of admins on BLP and NPOV grounds. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the essay on The Wrong Version. Other editors are slowly working to sort things out, if you would like to contribute in a more constructive way, you are more than welcome. Asking for "intervention of admins" against The Wrong Version is not the solution. Urban XII (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, you totally missed what I was talking about, but thanks for the link. It made me smile.  I even got a chuckle or two out of it, and I needed that.  It's been a long day. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Acronymic shorthand does nothing to further legitimate discussion. BLP is crystal clear:


 * "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."


 * Please understand that there is, and will be, unpleasant and inconvenient discussion of Reliably Sourced material here. I will join you in opposing unsupported assertions, but we are not here to obscure or suppress referenced and notable material.99.142.5.86 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)