Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 7

Bolding comments
Please stop bolding comments, especially comments that are possible BLP issues. Also do not import peoples comments and signitures it is confusing and wrong, if you want to bring a comment to someones attention just link to the diff. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any rule against putting your main point of a posting in bold? I do believe there is one against editing other people's post.   D r e a m Focus  22:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk_page_guidelines Avoid excessive markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through Italic text, Bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!! Italics, however, can be usefully employed for a key word, to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles etc. Signitures must never be transplanted. Especially bolden comments that could be considered removable under BLP protection, a lot of such comments as we have on this page. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob WHAT ON EARTH ON YOU DOING!, STOP VANDALIZING THIS DISCUSSION Off2riorob, you have been retooling the entire discussion board, making edits of others comments, removing bolding on my postings, leaving it on others. Recrafting how everything is presented. You have not reason or right to do this, why on earth do think its okay? I am looking at trying to undo the damage you have done, but because you did this serendipitously over time I don't know how to undo it.

You have no right to do this!! When I have used Italics and Bold, and indenting, its been well within the guidelines. Off2riorob how can you just go around changing the entire page, and remove text at a whim? The formatting I did was in the context of what I was writing, you have now gone in and removed the context I was trying to communicate. You have edited within my signature repeatedly. I have been made aware of one error on my part, which was when quoting another editor, to not carry forward the signature line. I understand that. This has nothing to do with that.

Off2riorob what you have done is change the text of authors, without permission, selectively left other authors formatting in place, and then left the entire mess up for new readers to see as if you hand not gone in and changed text within signatures. When I wrote and used bold, it was for a reason, it not up to you to snip and clip and reformat authors as you see fit.

What the heck --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the one that is actually responsible for the majority of it, stop doing it it is wrong, stop bolding my name, have a read of the talkpage guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Even here you are editing my remarks, without permission, notification, or indication to readers. --Tombaker321 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Others are editing [reformatting/refactoring] members [new editors] signed comments (without permission or notice) [for POV purposes!] [or: correcting new editor faux pas in contentious environment]

 * [EDIT TITLE TO BOLDLY ILLUSTRATE "REFACTOR"/CLARIFY COMBINATION)] Proofreader77 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * [EDIT - LINE FORMAT UNDONE-NOWIKI/FORMAT ADVISORY] Do not use full-width lines on article talk. NOTE: Topics were combined, because they are the same issue. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Others are Editing Members Signed Comments. Without permission or notice, Deleting Content of Signed Remarks. Vandalizing the Original Context and leaving the Edited Version as if Original

Withing these discussions page at least alias (specifically Off2riorob) is editing other members signed comments, without permission or notice, deleting the original context and modifying within Signed Comments.

Meaning this Discussion page has been in large part changed and edited to suit the agenda of one user, (i.e. Off2riorob ) These continued changes are ongoing. (he is defending his actions of unauthorized editing others signed comments) These edits are specific to some users, while users of Off2riobb favor, have there content unchanged or changed minimally.

I don't know how this can be considered other than pure out Vandalism, which he is now defending. As it is true, I am new to Wiki, as an editor, I am English and History major, who plays by the rules, as well as 'my internal ethics'. I am, only once on Wiki, and without any sockpuppets too. How do I say this concisely.....
 * 'HELP!' --> --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't you just stop bolding his name? What's the big deal? Gamaliel (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When I have bolded names its because I am referring to someone's specific edits. However the issue being raised here is about not about the bolding of names, its about what is said in the first topic line.   Appropriate and moderate use of 'formatting' is not in any way forebode. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the specific case of bolding a name, I do not see why this not appropriate in some cases. Unless there is a specific rule, its my choice.  Again, user:OFFRIOROB, has gone in, now to this thread, made changes to signed remarks, without notification.  His changes now appear, without his signature also. Unauthorized, behind the scenes changing. I am aware of no requests to me on the topic as well.
 * Again this Section: Is about the removing of words, the removing of content, the removing of context, of signed remarks (all of these,not only a name in bold). Done without notice, made to the front without showing the changes with signatures.  I would like to address the issue, rather than a specific subset.
 * The implications of allowing this to continue is that the discussion pages contents will be suspect, as signed authorship is unprotected.--Tombaker321 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This really belongs on the talk pages for you and Off2riorob, not on this page. It's a distraction for this article.  I would suggest you take this to WP:WQA for further discussion.  This talk page is NOT the place for it.  Ravensfire (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to split the baby here:

Tombaker321: Please stop bolding people's names. Since your idiosyncratic practice of addressing people has met with objections and really isn't standard Wikipedia usage, it would be courteous of you to cease this behavior. Thank you.

Off2riorob: Please stop editing other people's comments. Since this has been objected to and is contrary to standard Wikipedia talk page usage, it would be courteous of you to cease this behavior. Thank you.

Sound good? Okay, let's have some cookies and move on to more pressing topics. Gamaliel (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted, ta for stepping in. Off2riorob (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel: As a matter of pragmatism, carrying forward, I won't bold names, and simply use italics for quoted text.

However, as you are an administrator I do not understand what you are asking of all others.
 * 1. Is it ever OK to edited other's signed remarks?
 * 2. Is it only when "objected to", or as a matter of "courtesy" that prevents people editing others remarks behind the scenes?
 * 3. Text was being deleted, highlighting removed, context blurred, of others comments...aren't these things simply forbidden without any qualifications?

Is this lax attitude held by most administrators? I ask because I though the integrity of editors comments was part of the foundation of Wikipedia. You imply its just a "nice to have", not mandatory. Yes, I will certainly do as I was directed, and how I responded above. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From the viewpoint of an observer who's not been active on this talk page recently, this seems to be just another example of disruptive behaviour on the part of User:Off2riorob. Editing other people's comments is by definition vandalism and a blockable offence. I totally agree with the concerns raised by Tombaker321. Urban XII (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for the admins response also. I raised the question to policy in general terms, despite the Ad hominem argument below --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue has been responded to in general terms, including the correct description of the participants in the dispute&mdash;which wouldn't be happening otherwise. I.E., More-experienced editors wouldn't make the formatting faux pas (to wit: excessive bolding, copy/pasting signatures etc]. More-experienced editors might have responded differently (e.g., informing you on your talk page to undo it). The absurd contention (inappropriately on the article talk page) over this is, yes, partly due to the contentious nature of this article&mdash;and that both editors are mostly devoted to editing the article (from different perspectives) is pertinent. re "Ad hominem argument - It is not surprising under the circumstances that this phrase is tossed by someone who does not know the ropes. It is bad form, not a rhetorical coup. re: "waiting for the admins response" - Go to the administrator's page and ask for clarification.  Proofreader77 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an Ad hominem argument...still with a transparent claim for authority by standing in place. --Tombaker321 (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Res ipsa loquitur Proofreader77 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * [COMMENT BY EDITOR IN CONTENTION WITH NEW SINGLE-PURPOSE EDITOR] Dif-link to my full response (too long for article talk) to mis-characterization and confusion due to new-editor talk page formatting faux pas ( NOTE: Includes collapsed illustration of the excessive bolding etc which inspired unbolding).  BOTTOM LINE: Maintaining an orderly talk page discussion allows some reformatting/refactoring [within limits&mdash;especially with respect to new editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia practices]. AND: Assertions of bad faith shall cease. RE: URBAN XII's "VIEWPOINT" This editor's last edit to article is illustrative. BIG PICTURE : It is understood that the article is contentious. If making negative comments about an editor whose perspective is different from yours, be sure to acknowledge that in the comment [ EDIT TO ADD: and if it is not clear, URBAN XII and I are of different perspectives on the article at hand]. FROM PERSPECTIVE  OF CONTENTION :  Since the excessive bolding made the new editor's comments (which I disagree with) look bad (and therefore less effective), I disapproved of them being unbolded, and will be happy to restore them as they were.  :)  Now, wrap this up&mdash;this does not belong on article talk.  Proofreader77 (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: Clarification: In this instance both the bold-er and the un-bold-er are new editors who have been focusing most of their attention to Roman Polanski since recent current events (apparently from somewhat different perspectives:). Proofreader77 (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Point being? --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors would not need an explanation. Nor an admin. It is not improper to note that editors are new, or to accurately characterize their focusing on a contentious article (from different perspectives). I added the follow-up because I realized I had not mentioned that the "un-bold-er" was similarly inexperienced (and similarly focused on this contentious article. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * i.e. pointless --Tombaker321 (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Open green box below for point(s) to remember. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

New editor talk formatting faux pas (and refactoring)
A quick note for the moment (more later). All of us have been new editors, and all of us have made formatting faux pas which we had to learn not to do, and all of us have had our early errors adjusted. Even as experienced editors, we have had our long-winded forum-y excursions collapsed by admins or others&mdash;and usually they have been right. :) Some rules of thumb regarding what has transpired: Enough for now.
 * 1) Do not bold copies of sentences of other editors to highlight them. (Unless it is a topic title {use ";" usually}). Usually limit bolding to a word or phrase. (NOTE: I am not averse to bolding @username to direct the comment to them. But others disagree.) Main thing: Limit bolding. Who says so? Talk page guidelines.
 * 2) Do not insert responses within someone else's signed comment. (Sometimes that can be done, but requires templates for marking places, etc.
 * 3) Do not insert a new comment above previous comments at the same level. Insert below. (Yes, this can be a complex matter with some exceptions, but as a rule, insert below existing comments.
 * 4) Do not copy/paste other's signatures (unless it is cquoted, etc, to make sure it is clear the person has not inserted the text there.
 * 5) Do not copy collapsed text and duplicate over and over to make a point.
 * 6) Endless long posting will be ignored if not collapsed. Learn concision. Get a feel for when longer is OK.

Reminder, this kind of discussion should not be taking up article talk page space. New editors will always have things to learn&mdash;that is normal. Learning it all on article talk pages is basically prohibited: focus on the article. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for travels in Poland.
I pulled down the three cites for this sentence

"Polanski avoided visits to countries that were likely to extradite him to the United States and traveled mostly between France, where he resides, and Poland."

It is possible that I did not read the three articles as carefully as I might have, but I didn't see any reference to travel to Poland. I also looked generally around and about on the web and couldn't find any visits to Poland, but I remember seeing somewhere, a month or so ago, that he had not been a frequent visitor to Poland, but of course, cannot find it again. I know this is trivial. We could take out Poland, as in the reference to. Oberonfitch (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support taking that out. The Squicks (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a change to that sentence, although I think it does not sufficiently convey the surprise that after years of living and working in Switzerland, (where he thought he was safe from arrest), he found himself jailed. I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a whack at it.  Oberonfitch (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigation
Hi, coming in as an uninvolved administrator requesting assistance. While dealing with disruption on some Troubles (Britain/Ireland)-related articles, we noticed a disruptive anonymous editor who continually changed IP addresses, usually in the 99.1xx range. This user appears to work in a controversial area, accumulate warnings and blocks, and then switches to another controversial area. One of the areas was here, at the Roman Polanski article, so I'm posting a notice here. If anyone can help identify any other IPs or accounts of this user, we would appreciate your assistance at Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. --Elonka 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes 41, 42, 43, 44
"Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug and muscle relaxant, and despite her repeated protests and being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy upon her.[41][42][43][44]"

We have four links for one sentence. 41 is to the smoking gun grand jury testimony, 42 is a USA Today article from AP which is not terrible, 43 is the Post article, seems okay but largely duplicates 42, and 44 is a link to a Salon article, which in my opinion, should be tossed right off as op-ed. The obvious problem is that these link to the much fought over sentence involving the actual charges. Of these, 41 (primary source) and 44 (op-ed piece) are the only ones that detail the sodomy, oral intercourse, etc. I am not even going to suggest removing the the charges, so don't freak out. Is it possible to find another secondary source and eliminate 41, 43 and 44? Oberonfitch (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to an NPR story which verifies the quote from the article. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113251443  It will take care of all the cites.  If there are no objections, let's substitute it.  Oberonfitch (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We were discussing this earlier, but the discussion probably got lost in the mass of issues being covered here. :) My position was that the USA Today article should definitely go, as it doesn't support the material, and I'd also like to see the Salon review removed for the same reason as above. The New York Post article fully supports the claim, stating: "The girl said Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. She said that, despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her." So that should be considered sufficient to provide a source, although the current wording is perhaps a tad too close to the source. Whether or not the primary source is also kept is a different issue, but I gather Tombaker321 definitely wanted it kept. - Bilby (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to modify my position slightly, if citations are to be removed for consolidation, I would ask that the references being removed, be dropped into the discussion page as a block as archival. So researchers in the future, will at least have access, and not need to refind what was once already found.  This makes sense probably only if a citation consolation were to be done in mass.  That would be my vote, I make no claims of being the majority. As to source info I would lobby it at least be retained in the external links section.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sexual abuse section -> VITAL detail is missing
The fact that Polanski has always maintained his innocence is not mentioned. This must be fixed immediately; its a major violation of WP:BLP. The article as is implies that he does not dispute the legal case's merits. The Squicks (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, he has not maintained his innocence.  His version of events differs from that of Geimer, and he disputes several specific things she has said, but he has not claimed to be innocent.   On the contrary, his autobiography gives a fairly detailed explanation of the events, admittedly from his biased and probably self-serving viewpoint, and he confirms much of Geimer's testimony.  I agree that one simple, brief sentence in which it is noted that Polanski disputes the exact version of events as described by Geimer, is necessary, but to take that as maintaining innocence would be incorrect.   Rossrs (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * He has said that the sex is consensual, which means that he maintains his innocence from the charges of rape. He is still guity (by his admittance) of having sex with someone under the age of consent. These are two different things and you should not intermingle them.


 * I added Polanski has maintained that Geimer's testimony is wrong; he insists that he did not offer her quaaludes and that their sex was consensual. The exact term "innocence" does not have to be mentioned. The above seems fine. The Squicks (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted you. The article you link to as a reference doesn't mention he denying giving her qualudes at all.  Can you find a source for this statement?  The article reads: In his 1984 autobiography, Roman, the director insists the underage sex was consensual, saying 'she wasn't unresponsive', but the victim's description has always suggested otherwise: 'It was very scary and, looking back, very creepy,' she has said.  Under the law, having sex with someone below the age of consent is called rape.  We've had that discuss many times already.   D r e a m Focus  03:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * re " rape " / "consensual"?
 * Chief Deputy District Attorney Stephen S. Trott said:

As you know, Mr. Polanski was not convicted of rape. He was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse, and that's a different crime than rape.
 * Polanski's attorney Douglas Dalton said:

The only one he was willing to admit and to plead guilty to was that he had had consensual sex with the minor. The fact that guilt does not hinge on consent for the crime of unlawful sexual intercourse does NOT mean that Polanski's assertion that it was consensual is not to be included. As has been mentioned in previous discussion (many times), BLP NPOV has not been brought to bear in our coverage of the case, yet. Stay tuned. (but not in this topic:) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I found another source that notes that he has denied giving her the drug. So, the facts are clear. He has argued that she consented and that he did not give her the drug. He admits to having sex and (both of them) drinking alcohol. The Squicks (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying "Polanski has maintained that Geimer's testimony is wrong" is simply too broad of a statement to use. Also the word "wrong" is misused.  Was she wrong about time and place?  Much of what she said he does not contest.  But it is clear that that Polanski has asserted it was consensual, and has done so repeatedly.  So there is no reason to not include it.  But this statement of "consensual" does not wash over as a negation of all of Geimer's testimony.


 * As to the drugging of the minor, Polanski furnished her alcohol, a drug, which is not disputed. So when we move to drugging via alcohol, or alcohol and Quaaludes, its really a difference without much distinction.


 * As to Polanski offering he Quaaludes, his testimony is pretty clear. He located and showed her Quaaludes and she took them.   He says there was a discussion but there was no actual offer by him.  The problem is he went and got the Quaaludes and showed them to her, and did not stop her from taking the Quaaludes.  To say that his presentation of Quaaludes to the girl, was not an offer simply because he did not put it into her mouth, is pretty weak.


 * "I found a little box in the bathroom with quaalude pieces marked Rorer. She took one piece.  There was conversation about it but there was no actual offer by me. I said, "I was drinking and shouldn't take one"  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman18.html


 * He got them, showed them, spoke about them, and she took them. He certainly provided the girl alcohol and Quaaludes.
 * Because of this I am editing the line in question to simply that he maintains the sex was consensual, there is nothing that shows he claims all of her testimony was wrong, and his own testimony confirms he gave her alcohol and provided Quaaludes. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree that there is little difference between "drugging" and "furnishing." Drugging is a surreptitious act.  Furnishing is not.  Whether both drugging and furnishing are illegal in the context of prescription drugs used by someone other than the patient is a different matter.  He offered them, she took them, it was furnishing.  Oberonfitch (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I support furnishing, and that is exactly what happened, he offered it to her and she took it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Settlement
Please take a look at this link regarding the settlement. It appears that the parties did come to agreement, and that the agreement was acted on, although it differed from the stipulations made in 1993. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski3-2009oct03,0,6765170.story Oberonfitch (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While there are many reasonable speculations which can be made from the things mentioned in that piece, it is also clear that there is not going to be clarification of what has happened. Someone has added (after the ref, but apparently based on the ref):

Although he agreed to this settlement, Polanski still had not paid his victim as of 1996. The last court filing in August 1996 stated that he owed Ms Geimer $604,416.22, including interest. The court records did not reveal whether the 76-year-old director had ever paid.
 * Whatever version of this should be there (highlighting 1996 status is probably not warranted in the summary article especially with "ever" phrasing), it should be moved within the scope of the ref. The fact that neither party will answer questions on the settlement status at this point in the case is probably more important than highlighting 1996 (in the summary article).Proofreader77 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow up: I moved the recently-added text within the [scope of the] ref without change&mdash;but noting this summary should probably be adjusted. (Using the most redundantly-worded edit summary of all time. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the third sentence a small amount, though still not completely happy with it. The final sentence seems "odd," and needs addressing.  However, I left 1996 reference in for now.  Oberonfitch (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I had addressed this line just last week. I just had it with the lawsuit and the settlement and the amount. Articles circulating around say that the 1997 coming out of Geimer and her asking the court for him to stop being pursed....was contingent on her receiving the money. The timeframes work out. The court records available do not reflect anything. But the court records don't need to reflect anything. The court only acts upon what is brought before them, Geimer stopped asking the court for relief, and then came out publicly supporting Polanski. She was either paid, or she is clearly satisfied with the outcome of her civil case. I would then be in favor still of how I had written the line based off the same article. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't look here first but I have reworded that paragraph. Let me know if it's not right.  Rossrs (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was first to put this item for inclusion in the overall entry, what I feel is essential to be known is: she did sue him civil court, what she sued him for, that he agreed to pay. So to that regard, I think the settlement info meets the need. My wording be
 * Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. In 1993 Polanski agreed to pay Geimer at least $500,000 as part of a civil settlement. Geimer asked the court's help in collecting the settlement, with her last filling being in 1996, before it was resolved.  In 1997 Geimer revealed herself in multiple public interviews, and on May 28 1997 wrote to the court asking that Polanski be allowed back in the USA, and the matter to be resolved without Polanski being incarcerated or penalized further.     --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing the extra lines about collection. I am leaving the "at least 500K" wording because there is information it could be more, but its conservatively covered with using this wording.  The evidence that Geimer settled is abundant.  Its mention in the documentary.  She herself states it in her interview with Larry King, saying she will talk about it.  The LA Times says specifically that her lawyer confirmed it was resolved but would not give any further comments.  Also in 1997 she came out to the public and wrote a letter to the judge, which further give evidence its resolve.  So I am removing speculation based on better information now known. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent rewording of sexual abuse case (claim: "more NPOV"/disagree)

 * Change EDIT SUMMARY: (→Sexual assault case: Reworded using content from LA Times content, Kept same points, but clarified and attempted to make more NPOV, added in dates,)


 * And add another Cieply ref EDIT SUMMARY: (→Sexual assault case: added Citation for probation report)


 * Comment(s) (1) The ref-scoping is incorrect (e.g., first sentence changed has ref beyond the scope of the next ref), rewrite is based on one L.A. Times ref, while sentence by sentence refs are removed&mdash;which should certainly not be done in a contentious article. (2) Clearly not "more NPOV"&mdash;e.g., adding negative quotes of judge into summary while subtracting mention of support of victim and mother for plea agreement. (3) Big picture: contains contentious details which need to be balanced first in the article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case before being summarized here. (4) Perhaps eventually a true NPOV version of this summary will be created&mdash;but that would presupposed that the main article on the case more carefully tracks the timeline and events (including assertions by the prosecutor and the defense attorney regarding the relation between the in-chambers discussions and the in-court presentation. BOTTOM LINE: Contentious section. Not NPOV. Recent rewording certainly did not improve that. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A. Everything in rewording is sourced well, with more sources available, saying same.
 * B. Nothing was removed about victim's support of plea bargain. Look again.
 * C. As opposed to gross generic generalizations, if something is claimed as contentious or not well cited, call it out.
 * D. Correct dating of the information, gives the reader context of time. i.e. After being held for 42 days for evaluation, just 3 days later Polanski fled the country.
 * E. The statement of a single editor, does not make a Wikipedia entry..."not a Neutral Point of View" Facts stand upon themselves.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response noted:  (EFFECTIVE) SUMMARY OF A-E ABOVE : Changer asserts there have been no valid issues raised with edit (and asserts that a single editor may not declare article/section imbalanced).  COMMENT : Achieving NPOV in a BLP is a serious matter (and a higher order priority than NPOV in general). One editor may well be speaking for many (who wish not to waste time in contentious current events maelstroms) as well as the subject (who is expected not to be editing, and whose position must be represented to achieve a fair balance.) To be further illustrated in due course.   AND OBVIOUSLY (TO MOST) : Contrary to assertion E., "facts" never speak for themselves&mdash;selections of "facts" (of various&mdash;and variously perceived&mdash;weight) are presented by human beings. (Hence the pillars and processes of Wikipedia.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That "summary" is not effective, as its not what I said. Its purpose only serves to create straw man to be knocked down.  When I said facts stand upon themselves, I did not say they speak for themselves.  My point was because a fact may not be to one's liking, the fact still stands upon itself.  i.e. When misinformed editors were steadfastly asserting that "Polanski said she looked older", the fact remains that did not happen, those facts stand upon themselves, without need of support or advocacy.  They stand. What I said was clear, instead of using generalities, please take the time to deal with the specifics.
 * Please understand that "due course" is now. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response 2 noted:
 * re: "[EFFECTIVE]"  The word simply (if somewhat encodedly) asserted that the sum of the responses of the right honorable editor was rejection of all issues raised. Other than a false statement (with respect to the text in question&mdash;see above) and misdirection (apparently a recurring theme), e.g., see the dates I put in (which has nothing to do with the issues raised, but pointing and waving elsewhere) ... I.E., "effective"="cutting to the chase"&mdash;the editor rejects issues and will therefore not be expected to respond with suggestions of amelioration (or taking such action themselves). I.E., Effectively, what the editor said was: No.
 * re "facts" (which "stand" or "speak" or dance on the head of a pin):Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts.
 * re "now": The right honorable (whose assertion suggests: impatient) editor will be made aware when "due course" arrives. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So long as you withdraw your false claim that "Polanski said she looked older" and stop trying to insert the victims appearance as means to mitigate the crimes against a minor, things should be OK, those have been opinions and not facts. As I responded specifically to your other concerns, and you have chose to not respond to them directly, I think we can consider this topic resolved. --70.231.240.207 (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response 3 noted:
 * Regarding changing editor's response 3, see [unresolved] topic: (Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV)
 * Regarding the change under discussion:
 * The "AFTER" version mentions:
 * Pychiatric evaluations
 * Probation report
 * Chino report
 * There is (not surprisingly) a bit of a muddle about this. For example, consider: Are the same/different psychiatrists involved in each item? Is the probation officer's report a different document from the Chino report or merely a preliminary version? When in the current timeline was Polanski allowed to go to Europe?
 * Now, as to NPOV - what's missing? ... E.G., What was the probation officer's and prosecutor's response to the judge's 90 days at Chino idea.
 * (Yes, we will accept Well's currently claiming that he has lied/bragged about his place in the story&mdash;however much his original version fits perfectly within the timeline. NOTE: That does not negate anything the prosecutor and the defense attorney have said and who even now speak with one voice. Wells was NOT in the trial meetings in chambers. The prosecutor and the defense were. The judicial malfeasance is not removed by removing Wells from the equation)
 * What rationale did the judge give in chambers for Chino? How did it differ from his in-court rationale?
 * What assertions did Judge Rittenband make in chambers&mdash;and what is the relation of those to the in-court events that followed?
 * How many times and for what reason did Judge Rittenband "change his mind"?
 * What did Polanski's attorney tell Polanski regarding whether the judge's representations could be trusted (prior to Polanski's flight)?
 * Based on the behavior of the judge, what was the prosecutor's perception of the reasonableness of Polanski's flight?
 * etc etc
 * BOTTOM LINE: Yes, this section is a summary, but a summary cannot be made by skipping across the timeline landing only on one POV's stones. A different kind of summary may be needed here&mdash;we shall see. (One thing is clear, the edit summary "... but clarified and attempted to make more NPOV" is perhaps flawed.) PS, Yes the "BEFORE" summary is also flawed. There is much work to do to get this right/NPOV. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clear this editor, is using the movie made in conjunction with Polanski's defense attorneys as his basis. Regardless.  The discussions in chambers with a Judge are off the record, a judge can show his hand in order to generate movement to resolve the matter in court.  However what happens in court is all that matters.  This section contains facts to the case, when things happened, why they happened (ie by court order).  Its not a section about feelings.  As a matter of fact the plea deal with the court and Polanski only that the charges were to be dropped on the other matters, Polanski testified that he understood that it was the judge who would decided the sentence, and that he understood, he had not made a decision, and that prosecution would possibly argue for time in jail.  That is all on the record under oath.  It is simply defense mythology that the plea bargain was set in chambers.  Never as part of the plea bargain was it said that if a probation report said X, that the judge would do X.  And Polanski under oath said he knew this, prior to his plea.  Your request for editorial comments to actions is unreasonable, and goes into the area of attempting to mind read the judge.  Plea bargains are shown in open court, as public record, for this exact reason, so one side or another won't run around and jump and say BUT YOU PROMISED.


 * Now: (see: "Now:") Will you stop your claims that: "
 * A. "Polanski said she looked older"
 * B. That in order to mitigate the actions of Polanski, its your goal to insert information about subjective opinions of the 13 year old's physical apperance. A biased lever under the guise NPOV needs, and this still even though you know that Polanski tesified he understood her to be 13 at the time of the crime.  The attempts at mitigation are much akin to saying, "many thought the 26 year old woman was very pretty before she was raped"
 * There has been enough discussion on this, please respond specifically to A and B, these have been asked of you over 5 times --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response 4 noted:


 * (I repeat, as with #3) Regarding changing editor's response 4, see [unresolved] topic: (Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV)
 * Regarding "off the record" &mdash; The prosecutor and the defense attorney concurred (and concur, and continue to testify on the matter) regarding judicial malfeasance. The status of the case today still hinges on their testimony&mdash;which is most surely not "off the record" but the basis for public decision.
 * The formal NPOV process will begin ... in due course. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * With tons of cryptic allusions and circular remarks, your response fails to achieve the goal of communication. I would like you to respond directly, this will be the last time I ask FWIW.
 * Will you stop your claims that:
 * A. "Polanski said she looked older"
 * B. That in order to mitigate the actions of Polanski, its your goal to insert information about subjective opinions of the 13 year old's physical appearance.
 * Please respond directly to A and B. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (Third parties) See unresolved topic: (Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As should be clear, a formal BLP NPOV dispute will be required. Note: The current-events-initiated single-purpose account is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and therefore (understandably) making arguments (repetitively) which have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. (I am not able to instruct the editor in question, due to the contentious nature of the article and our different perspectives).Proofreader77 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Third parties re upcoming BLP/NPOV dispute)
 * Well it appears to a goal, that is being driven through intentional editorial obfuscation, as the chant of "due course" and pounding the drums of dispute.  "As should be clear" an artfully manipulated outcome.  And so it goes. --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please use left-column bullet comments (survey opinions, rather than indented lengthy debate)
 * The first problem I notice with the newer, improved version is that I was under the belief (perhaps incorrectly) that the psychiatric evaluation was done during the mental health hold. It looks as though there were two psychiatric reports? Oberonfitch (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Polanski was first mandated by law to be examined if he was Mentally Disordered Sex Offender (MDSO), this was done by two court ordered pychatrists, who's results were presented to the judge along with the Probation report, which included summaries of same. The court not be satisfied with the doctor results and the Probation report, then ordered Polanski for a 90 day evaluation under 1203.03  "In any case in which a defendant is convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, the court, if it concludes that a just disposition of the case requires such diagnosis and treatment services as can be provided at a diagnostic facility of the Department of Corrections, may order that defendant be placed temporarily in such facility for a period not to exceed 90 days" --Tombaker321 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing this, but do you have a source for this timeline that can be used? - Bilby (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has all the dates http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski25-2009oct25,0,5337333,full.story. As far as a neat tidy box of dates in an article, I don't have one.  Here is the basic sequences.  March 11 date of offense.  Grand Jury, Pleads not guilty Trial set, Plea Deal, Pled on August 8,  Probation report and Psychiatric Reports Ordered. 9-19 Hearing, Judge decides that 90 Day Evaluation is in order. Grants 90 day Stay, Oktoberfest, New Hearings, 12-18 Goes to Chino, Gets out after 42 days, flees country 4 days later, the day of his sentencing.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments re 10/31 rewording

 * Tom, you have gone ahead and made another change to the section which is in contention, reasserting the age of the victim (unnecessary as it is mentioned earlier), and adding the word "continually" to "maintained," which is a phrase (as we are all aware), typically used when describing unrepentant murderers on death row. Please remove it.  Maintained by itself is sufficient. Oberonfitch (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Polanski over the years maintained that the sex with her was consensual. I don't see that continually maintained signifies anything different, but "over the years" is more specific so change was put in.   The reason 13 year old needs to be there is because under that laws, it is known that a 13 year old can not consent to sex with a 44 year old man.  When he says he understood her to be 13, he was pleading guilty to a crime.  The crime he plead guilty to was sex with a 13 year old, where nothing regarding consent or not, changes the guilt of the crime.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The timeline is not well served by an "over the years" phrasing there. What is needed in that paragraph is what Polanski told the police when they asked him. (The meaning of his guilty plea is addressed in a different topic: his lawyer said Polanski pleaded guilty to consensual sex.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to have a basic understanding problem between us, Tom. Maintained is a state.  If something is maintained, then you don't need to add a descriptive.  It is what it is.  You can certainly say "he maintained for the first ten years of his life that Creationism is a fact, before embracing Darwinian Fitness," etc.  And then there is the negation of maintained, as in to do it badly.  But, I assert that constantly maintained is a bit like somewhat pregnant.  And you are adding the constantly to emphasize, in my humble and not knowing you at all except here opinion, that you think he is a swine and that what has occurred has been a travesty (which on this point I agree, but for different reasons entirely) and that P is obviously using this as an excuse to justify his behavior.  Even if that were so, it is as far from NPOV as I am currently from Sierra Leone, and so, please, coeditor, remove the constantly if only to be slightly cooperative.  Oberonfitch (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Continually" maintained, changed to "over the years", more objections came, re-edited to the current version of simply "Has maintained" I believe this is fully resolved. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Interim reversion
I've reverted the above because it was almost a direct, word-for-word copy of the source. While I'm neutral on having it in the article at the moment, (given some concerns that we now have a separate article for this sort of detail, so perhaps it would be better left there), we can't have it as it was presented. - Bilby (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, I also agree with you that as we have the other article that these details should not be expanded excessively here. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment/note As is probably clear (from scanning the lengthy sprawl of certain topics on the talk page) a WP:BLP/WP:NPOVD will soon be initiated. Obviously more than one diff is involved, i.e., so assume this topic has been subsumed by that ... in good time. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(doc) 11/2 response version (TB321.2)
Noting Tombaker321's 11/2 response version to "Interim reversion" of his previous version. :) AGAIN NOTING: A WP:BLP/WP:NPOVD will (most likely) soon be initiated regarding selection (and presentation) of facts summarizing the sexual abuse case in this (main) article. (I.E., This subtopic is documentary.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm mostly neutral about the inclusion of this material, although it seems a bit too detailed for this page. However, the readded content was a copyvio, so I've had to remove and reword the text to suit. - Bilby (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added citations where requested. --Tombaker321 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

LA Times 10/25/09 long-form [narrative] article re victim's words

 * NOTE: This topic was originally posted on Roman Polanski sexual abuse case 10/25/09 - copied 11/1/09 to main article talk with title: New article on Polanski case from Los Angeles Times
 * [EDIT TITLE/LINKS ETC] Proofreader77 (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC) RE-SIGN COPY Proofreader77 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

SOURCE LINK: "How a girl's stark words got lost in the Polanski spectacle" Their is a pretty good article from the Los Angeles times, October 25 I think, 2009, that really gives alot of info that I didnt know. For example how the victim went on television I think around 1997 and said "it wasn't rape then" and how Polanski "wasn't forceful". It also tells how someone (im not sure who) told Polanksi if he didn't agree to leave the country he might have long jail. And so Polanksi left and a newspaper said Polanksi Fleed. The article isn't one sided it seems like. It also makes it seem like Polanksi gave the girl alochol and a pill. And it makes you think tha tmaybe he did commit a crime and / or crimes. It has a lot of info. And the writer doesnt seem baist in implying hes guilty or not guilty. Here is the link and I was thinking of putting some info in here and maybe I will, but maybe someone else might want to put some info from this article in this Wikipedia article then? Here is the link then and w http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski25-2009oct25,0,5115267.story?track=rss 71.105.87.54 (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * New article on Polanski case from Los Angeles Times here.
 * Seems to have some info that might be useful for this


 * An interesting piece. NOTE: It is from the " Narrative " department at L.A. Times (which currently has no editor). If you Google it ["narrative journalism"], or simply read the Wikipedia article Narrative journalism you will get some idea about possible issues regarding that form. MY COMMENT This is not news analysis, but something else. ("Creative journalism" was another nomenclature phrase&mdash;consider "Black Hawk Down" in initial newspaper incarnation). It is not op-ed, but it was written with a POV (makes a case). Perhaps further comments later. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC) [RESIGN COPY] Proofreader77 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is NOT a narrative. This is a fine article written about the subject or Polanski, and the arrest and aftermath. Its not some sort of creative witting, its basic journalism 101.  Its not aggregating various interviews into a common voice or synthetic character.  This article also has new information.  For example this article ends the matter to whether or not Polanski paid the civil case or not.  The article is full of facts pulled in from verifiable records. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Noting:
 * The above response is apparently misinformed regarding the meaning of "narrative" (and "narrative journalism").
 * "NARRATIVE" is not a synonym for fiction.
 * "Narrative journalism" or "creative journalism" or "creative non-fiction" does not mean fabricated&mdash;although I do see that the introduction of the Wikipedia entry for narrative journalism might lead one to think that it could be fiction, too. Skim the rest of the article.
 * The author of the long narrative piece, Joe Mozingo, is in the "Narrative" department of the Los Angeles Times. (Go to this LAT online directory and find "Narrative".)
 * NOTE: "Narrative" is not evil. BUT: POV "Narrative" is POV-selected/arranged information.
 * The piece's title and large text elaboration directly beneath is POV framing suitable for an Op-Ed. (More below, and later.)
 * It is a selection of "facts," supporting a case (proposed by the title).
 * I.E., the long-form article is a bastard child of narrative journalism and op-ed piece. Therein lies the rub. Not with the facts: but with the selection and arrangement.
 * ["NARRATIVE" STYLE INFORMATION-SELECTION EXAMPLE] SEE/FIND: "And the dog peed on the floor ..." '
 * META COMMENT: It is useful that this topic was copied to this page at this time, since it (and what it is) helps illustrate elements of NPOV issues as we prepare &mdash;apparently inevitably&mdash; for formal NPOV dispute.
 * -- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With the loose definitions (there are many) of narrative journalism, near any writing can be called "Narrative". "Narrative" means any technique that produces the visceral desire in a reader to want to know what happened next. - Bob Baker, Los Angeles Times" This article went through all the normal rigorous editorial review and fact checking of the LA Times, prior to publication.  The article provides new researched information in addition to the sourced information it quotes.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting the above response apparently illustrates that responder now understands they were incorrect in saying article is "NOT narrative," but ignores all points regarding the POV issues raised regarding the specific long-form article under discussion&mdash;and instead resorts to shouting one definition which fulfills a rhetorical purpose, while ignoring others which provide understanding of the matter. A rhetorical stroke perhaps symbolic of the contention which shall be resolved&mdash;in which shouting shall have no rhetorical weight (other than negative).  Proofreader77 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a very informative and well researched article. It was offered in discussion by a different editor as a "heads up". Beyond that, there was no need to add comments, including my own. I regret getting sucked in. Apologies to the rest. --Tombaker321 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is now closed, it's premature to draw
--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV Dispute Tag is "Drive by Tagging" without specifics, and should be removed. The current consensus is the NPOV Dispute Tag is unwarranted.
 * It has been tagged without specific issues which would be actionable within content policies.
 * Specifics have been requested, but have been refused to be offered.
 * The NPOV Dispute Process appears to be diverted with gamesmanship, jokes, and diversions in the form of Sonnets.
 * Because of this the NPOV Dispute Tag will be removed.

Please comment now agreements or disagreements to the current consensus.

If the current consensus has changed, it will be reflected here via your comments, before any tag removal. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[TomBaker321:] I strongly object to the concept of "shrinking the information". The section as written is done with significant economy in its writing. Compare it to the section "Gérard Brach collaborations" its half the size of that. An editor stating "we are going to compress this thing" as a declarative statement, is contrary to collaboration, and is not operative on the community. ...
 * Comment "Drive by" description is absurd. See the NPOV dispute topic . New editor's creating a separate topic is improper. Proofreader77 (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "without specifics" - The NPOV dispute arises from the fact a new Wikipedia editor (focused on Roman Polanski related articles) excludes (with unlimited streams of rationale not based on Wikipedia policy) Polanski/defense POV. Arguing point-by-point with this editor (ad infinitum) is not practical or reasonable&mdash;i.e., the fundamental issue of exclusion of Polanski/defense POV is the basis of the dispute. (For illustration of "specifics", watch the edit history of the main article as the dispute progresses.) Proofreader77 (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Related The impetus to adding the NPOV tag at this time was the +25% expansion of (summary) Sexual assault section by TomBaker321. REMINDER: This main article coverage is a summary of the article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. (NOTE: When an edit summary raised the issue of the need to compress the summary once it is balanced, TomBaker321 immediately objected:
 * Let it be noted that the section "Gérard Brach collaborations" is not a summary with a main article. Let is also be noted that in this example the new editor is using the appropriate language of Wikipedia ethos, while using it to support an unfounded/mistaken assumption. (Note: Talk topic covering when TomBaker321 initiated his changes/expansion is: Recent rewording of sexual abuse case (claim: "more NPOV"/disagree)) NOTE: The consensus is (at least, has been) that the summary section of the Sexual assault case should NOT keep expanding: there is the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case to fully cover the issue. As previously mentioned, it was TomBaker321's focusing  attention on this main article summary (with an, I have alleged, Polanski/defense exclusionary information selection bias) which inspired the timing of this NPOV dispute. SO: Yes, the Sexual assault (summary) section will probably (by consensus) eventually be compressed&mdash;the complication (now) is that the summary should be balanced first, then compressed ... i.e., it may need to get a bit larger, before being carefully compressed under the framework of achieving NPOV.Proofreader77 (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The section is clearly deliberately being enlarged not with new information but with details . The section does not need enlarging and then compressing, it is in need of some of the detail removing back to where it was before word by word the section is slowly being enlarged. Off2riorob (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The NPOV tag seems completely appropriate.  There is no consensus that it should be removed, or that the article as it currently stands is neutral.  The point of taking the sexual abuse case to another page was to prevent it from overpowering and unbalancing the rest of the article. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I also support the tag because the opening of the section in question is constructed in such a way as to mislead the reader into concluding that Polanski's actions were worse than they actually were. For example, it doesn't explain that Polanski offered her the quaalude and that she willingly took it, which leaves the impression he slipped her a mickey finn. It also states that he had oral, genital and anal sex with her "despite repeated protests and being asked to stop", which leaves the impression that he literally raped her, when by her own admission she relented to his advances, albeit reluctantly. That's why he was eventually charged with "unlawful sexual intercourse" than rather rape per se. I believe those problems should be fixed before the POV tag is removed. Gatoclass (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'''This topic is being closed, and being withdrawn. Please use other areas to raise concerns on additions. Thank you.''' --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of phrase in the "difficult" paragraph
I would like to see the parenthetical "such as the UK" removed from "countries likely to extradite" Polanski. There are probably dozens of obliging countries (Canada?, Germany? Turkey?) that would have entertained extradition. I don't think it is necessary to mention the UK specifically, except in relation to the fact that he left England and sold his house shortly after fleeing the US, which is briefly addressed in the lead and probably could be left out. The difficult paragraph does not mention England at all. This seems like detail for the sex assault article.Oberonfitch (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there is no need for the (like the UK), support removal. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I took it out. The link states the extradition protections and lack thereof clearly. Oberonfitch (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

two edits I reverted. Statutory rape category
He plead guilty to having sex with a minor, which is normally called statutory rape, so that category is appropriate. Other edits done at the same time by the user, broke one paragraph apart mid-sentence. So I reverted them.  D r e a m Focus  16:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (Technical response: so bot will archive / Advisory: Inappropriate use of rollback) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was not an inappropriate use of rollback. Read the rules for it if you are unaware how it works.   D r e a m Focus  14:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism – or to revert content in your own user space. Reversion for other reasons should be accompanied by an explanatory edit summary, and must therefore be done by a different method.
 * Interpret it as you will. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted text
I deleted text, see diff here that was unsourced POV. I forgot to bring it up here. I didn't think it would be of much consequence. Sorry. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (Technical response: so bot will archive) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Improper removal(s) of POV-section tag (Sexual assault case)
(NOTE: Moved here from a user talk page by edit-summary instruction of remover who had been given an opportunity to undo the improper removal of the NPOV tag. Will detail further for article talk.) In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.
 * 1) 12:20, 8 November 2009 Tombaker321
 * 2) 01:41, 9 November 2009 Tombaker321
 * 3) 04:46, 9 November 2009 Tombaker321
 * 4) 07:38, 9 November 2009 Dream_Focus


 * Removal #4 with false representation BS edit summary Why (insulting) BS? That's the same tune as initial response of "drive-by" tagging ... which is ridiculous. How many hundreds (thousands?) of words do you see above? Removal #4 edit summary is one you use when there has been nothing posted on the talk page&mdash;not when there is voluminous talk page notes/discussion you disagree with; Removing the NPOV tag then with that edit summary is not only improper but insulting.
 * See thousands of words above... and NPOV analysis of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words)


 * Why didn't they check opinions first? (ah, they did ... )
 * See: Support for POV tag by editor which caused Tombaker321 to WITHDRAW earlier removal proposal

Bottom line. I've exchanged thousands of words with TomBaker321 ... for a reason. We are examining that reason ... so it will not take talk-page-full after talk-page-full of argument that isn't on the same page. Right now we are NOT on the same page. In the link above, I have indicated the sentences in which there will be NPOV contention. NPOV contention because of the broad issue exclusion of Polanski/defense POV (e.g., the concurring voices of the prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton who clarify where the muddle is now). If you see edit wars in the Sexual abuse case summary, that will likely be the issue. At this time the summary is NOT NPOV because of what it lacks (See bolded phrase).

(Again, I put this on this talk page by the edit-summary instruction to move it here from a user talk, where I handle matters like this&mdash;a matter of content, yes, but also civility. It is insulting to keep repeating "you haven't said anything." Yes I have.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Proofreader.. I have been watching this back and forth tagging for quite a bit now. I believe you to be one of the calmest and most level headed editors I have seen. Keep up the good work. - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Proofreader77 simply write down what you want to edit, add, or remove. Your "analysis" does not do this.  How about something like:
 * 1. I want to edit this to look like this.  or just edit it, and let the normal review take place.
 * 2. I want to add this   or just add it and let the normal review take place.
 * 3. I want to delete this.


 * There is an attempt to use the dispute process to cause analysis of whether there could be a potential NPOV contention. That is not what needs to be done.  You need to assert (be bold) what it is that need to be changed.  You indicate that something about Gunson and Dalton wrote about a 1997 motion to dismiss is important.  That addresses the court procedures and nothing about the crime itself.  But if you think there is something that needs to be said....say specifically what it is.


 * Lastly you ask us to look at your bolded statement. Being:  "exclusion of Polanski/defense POV"  I don't know what this would be.  Is it that he did not plead guilty?  That belies the facts.  Is it that Polanski wants to assert that there was a plea deal to only include psychiatric 90 day evaluation?  Well the court records don't say that, and specifically Polanski states there is nothing besides the dropping of the 5 other charges that are plea deal in its entirety.  Under oath.  And Polanski states he understand the Judge will determine his sentence and no one else.  Under oath.  His defense is currently arguing that Polanski should have the case dropped because of Judicial irregularities.  Do you want to include this?  Write it up. --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I added information about Polanski's POV during the time of his arrest. His relationship with Kinski (15) before ,concurrent and the years after the charges. This is more first hand, than references to Vannatter's appraisal of Polanski inner thoughts provided in the documentary. --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Insistence on immediate removal of POV-section tag?
COMPARE : I have recently removed a top-of-page POV tag from Al Gore which had been placed 40 days previously and had been left in place 30 days after the issue seemed resolved (to make sure).

That there is edit-warring to get the tag out of the Sexual assault section when a semi-experienced editor has made abundantly clear he believes the tag belongs on the section at this time seems outrageous. It would not have even crossed my mind to remove a tag placed with talk page support&mdash;no matter how much I disagreed with its justification (as I did not believe the one on Al Gore was justified for the reason given). The tag means there is a disagreement. There is here. (Obviously)

NOTE: Tombaker321 makes reasonable-sounding assertions, e.g., the rhetorical flag of "SPECIFICS" (or "S p e c i f i c s") is repeated, to rhetorical effect (and included in edit summaries as basis for reversions)&mdash;who would disagree with that? Fine, except it asserts nothing specific (enough to satisfy Tombaker321) has been provided. I disagree. (Obviously)

I assert that sufficient specificity has been provided to clarify the existence of the NPOV dispute, precisely at which points in the summary the problems lay, and where the balancing information comes from.
 * (again) See NPOV analysis of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words)

I.E., we disagree about NPOV, and disagree about what counts as sufficient specificity to justify an NPOV dispute. (Big surprise.)

But we now should pause here to consider what "reasonble" means in the situation at hand. Consider that last night (before today's additions) Tombaker321's arguments against the NPOV dispute flag being in place consisted of ~2500 words/15,000 characters (without signatures and formatting)&mdash;again, that is arguments against an NPOV flag ... repeating again and again that he wants the specifics of every disagreement&mdash;including each proposed and refs. Surely, my posts are voluminous as well ... but that is partly to discover the bounds of what "discussion" with Tombaker321 entails (quite a lot more than one would expect)

Now let us be clear that the NPOV dispute tag was not a first resort. I have been in this dance with Tombaker321 for a month. For example,


 * (Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV)] ... specifically suspended until after the general NPOV issue is resolved. Which is now underway in this NPOV dispute.
 * Recent rewording of sexual abuse case (claim: "more NPOV"/disagree) ... noting the common theme of NPOV

BOTTOM LINE: The contention of creating an NPOV summary ... between, let us say, two teams ... will tend toward being a LONG SLOG. BUT let us see if that can be condensed under a formal NPOV dispute with the flag flying to make clear the contention is in progress (and editing is under close BLP/NPOV scrutiny). Proofreader77 (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. You are not responding to what the dialogue here is.  The need for repetition is yourself created.
 * 2. See NPOVD There are ample examples and guidelines for the process.  "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."  This is what has been done.
 * 3. To illustrate how confusing this has all been, when you first raised the dispute tag, the rationalization was presented in the form of Sonnets.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofreader77/Polanski that is how its presented.  Do you think that is clearly written for others?  Specific?  Or is open to wide and varied interpretations?
 * 4. Quoting: "Let the record show that the specific issue is the general exclusion of Polanski/defense POV's (with unlimited non-Wikipedia-policy based rationale)."  What is being raised is an ambiguous generality.  The "general exclusion" could be anything.  This is why its being called not specific.
 * 5. Quoting: "BOTTOM LINE: Now ... why this is being handled as an NPOV dispute rather than just talk page discussion has many baffled." has many baffled This is acknowledgment of the confusion.  This shows why sonnets are no replacement for specifics.
 * 6. "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies."  Saying the general concept of Polanski's POV simply does not satisfy the requirement.
 * 7. I have read the analysis, that is being pointed to.  It not very compelling in any direction, and it has no suggestion of what specific actions could be done, to solve the "general problem".  What is needed are specific objective oriented details of what should be changed.  Or said another way, "because of this analysis, I suggest X"   What is missing is X.  X is required for a NPOVD.
 * 8. Quoting: "I.E., My editorial position on this matter can be summarized (in two-sonnet form^^) thus:"  I think its fair to say this has lead to confusion to what the editorial position is.  How is it "experienced" to be using Sonnets?


 * 9. How about simply stating
 * A. I want to edit this to look like this.
 * B. I want to add this.
 * C. I want to delete this.

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) NOTE: Tombaker321 makes reasonable-sounding assertions, e.g., the rhetorical flag of "SPECIFICS" (or "S p e c i f i c s") is repeated, to rhetorical effect (and included in edit summaries as basis for reversions)&mdash;who would disagree with that? Fine, except it asserts nothing specific (enough to satisfy Tombaker321) has been provided. I disagree. (Obviously)
 * As I have said, and see no reason to paraphrase:

I assert that sufficient specificity has been provided to clarify the existence of the NPOV dispute, precisely at which points in the summary the problems lay, and where the balancing information comes from.
 * (again) See NPOV analysis of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words)

I.E., we disagree about NPOV, and disagree about what counts as sufficient specificity to justify an NPOV dispute. (Big surprise.)
 * (re-signing for above) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Proofreader77: Of the (9) points outlined above, you did not address any of them. Not a one.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP NPOV
Roman Polanski is a WP:BLP. I state the obvious as a reminder that the issue of NPOV in a BLP is not an ordinary NPOV dispute. RS information which balances/contextualizes/etc negative may not be excluded (e.g., by floods of personal interpretation/opinion of what "facts" are the facts.)

Let me be clear that I am primarily referring to information from the key participants of Roman Polanski case: When I refer to Polanski/defense-POV, I am referring to information (primarily from the set above) which provides countervailing/contextualizing balance to the (correctly) negative information in this matter. Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. (FROM: WP:NPOVD) I placed the    in the sectionSexual assault case (summary) because it does not currently reflect available Polanski/defense-POV information.


 * AND YES I have specified specifically where those points in the summary are (see: NPOV analysis of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words) - sentences: 2, 7, 9, 10, 12), providing sufficient direction to the solution (especially to those who have seen documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired&mdash;as Tombaker321 and Dreamfocus have so mentioned they have done)

Those removing the POV-section tag disagree that I have provided sufficient specifics to satisfy (their interpretation of) policy. That is how they have framed the issue.

Here is how I frame the issue: The tag says this:
 * This is a BLP.
 * There is disagreement regarding the implications of WP:NPOV in the context the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case.
 * There is disagreement about the requirements of WP:NPOVD.

Quoting: Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. Those removing the tag have called my placement of  "drive-by-tagging."

That assertion is prima facie bullshit.

Yes hip-boots will be required attire :) while BLP NPOV is achieved for the section covering a very culturally contentious matter . It should not be the least surprising (or upsetting) that an POV tag is sitting in that section while we hammer that out. The tag informs readers there are unresolved issues with the current version. Removing the tag is saying "no issues here." That is, yes, bullshit. There is disagreement.

Those removing the tag under these circumstances are asserting their judgment of NPOV and WP policy and understanding of the events overrides all.


 * 1) 12:20, 8 November 2009 Tombaker321
 * 2) 01:41, 9 November 2009 Tombaker321
 * 3) 04:46, 9 November 2009 Tombaker321
 * 4) 07:38, 9 November 2009 Dream_Focus

This is a BLP. I am not the only editor who believes (yes, even this short summary version) the coverage of the Roman Polanski sexual assault case is not yet sufficiently NPOV for a BLP.

Further steps in WP:Dispute resolution may well be required beyond this page, but process does require we attempt to resolve the issue here. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The old dispute flag was removed for cause, those reasons were clearly stated. They were not objected to in full, rather selections seized upon.  Believe it or not we have moved past this.  Proofreader77 has created a new Dispute flag, and we are going to wait to see what his dispute is.  He will need to be detailed in what he states, and wants, we all then can give feedback.  I hope this hand holding helps.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexual assault case summary
Here's my suggestion for rewriting the section. I've tried to stay at a pretty high level on the matter. It's based off of the lede from the detailed article, which is what Benjiboi's revision was also from. I feel it covers the major parts of the case thus far, and strongly pulls the reader into looking at the detailed article ("Hmm, the lawsuit was settled, but how?").


 * In March 1977 Polanski was arrested and charged with a number of offenses against Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl.[39] He was charged by a grand jury with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[44] Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges.[45] Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain that was accepted by Polanski.  This deal dropped 5 of the charges, with Polanski pleading guilty to a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse (synonymous under California law with statutory rape).  The arrangement also required he spend 90 days in a state prison for a psychiatric evaluation.


 * The judge received a probation report and the psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time. Despite expectations and recommendations that he would receive only probation at sentencing, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys" that he would imprison and then deport him.[51][47] Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[44] As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition to the United States.[52] Since then, Polanski has mostly lived in France and avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him.


 * Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. The case was settled in 1993.  In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival.[55][56] His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court.[57][58]

The reference numbers are pulled from Benjiboi's post, and would, of cource, need to be updated. I spot checked a few of the sources, and tweaked things a bit from that. I have not gone through the detailed article carefully, looking for any major points that are missed, but I didn't see any with a cursory glance. I would include a sync tag, just to make sure it gets looked at. The other part is we need to make sure that anything in the long version that's not in the detailed article be moved over to there.

Thoughts on this, and especially alterative suggestions. Ravensfire (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * [P77 highlights] Quickly highlighted in green parts to discuss. (1st inaccurate, 2nd the long-standing muddle prison/deport) Further comment later.Proofreader77 (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I read through the source for that first part, and agree.  Hmmm, drop the last sentence in the first paragraph, but need to tweak the beginning of the second paragraph.


 * "The judge ordered Polanski to serve a custodial sentence as a state prison for evaluation. He was released after serving part of that sentence.  "


 * "Despite multiple reports and the victim recommending probation only, the judge suggested to Polanski's attorney's that he was considered more jail time and deportation . Shortly before the sentencing hearing in February 1978, Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced. As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition to the United States. Since then, Polanski has mostly lived in France and avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him."

I think what needs to be said is that the evaluations recommended probation only, but that the judge controversially decided to impose jail time on Polanski. Shortly before the sentencing, Polanski fled the United States to Europe. And then "As a French citizen ..."


 * I've gotta say - the sub article is a MESS. Duplicate references, non-working references and things not always exactly as the sources would say.  Definite BLP concerns in there.  Ravensfire (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Found a source and came up with some phrasing. Ravensfire (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can we replace "dropped" with "dismissed" in the first paragraph regarding charges?  "The agreement included dismissal of the five, more serious charges, with Polanski pleading guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse (synonymous under California law with statutory rape)."
 * I concur that the fact that multiple sources recommended against harsher sentencing needs to be addressed. Oberonfitch (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a few areas where there have been questions/concerns raised about how the 77/78 progressed. We'd be remiss if the existence of those questions wasn't mentioned here. So ...


 * "In March 1977 Polanski was arrested and charged with a number of offenses against Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl. He was charged by a grand jury with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.  Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges.  Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain that was accepted by Polanski.  The agreement included the dismissal of the five, more serious charges, with Polanski pleading guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse (synonymous under California law with statutory rape).  The judge ordered Polanski to serve a custodial sentence as a state prison for evaluation.  He was released after serving part of that sentence."


 * "Despite multiple reports and the victim recommending probation only, the judge suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he was considered more jail time and deportation . Shortly before the sentencing hearing in February 1978, Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced. As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition to the United States. Since then, Polanski has mostly lived in France and avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him.  Questions have been raised about how the case was handled and about some of the decisions by the judge."


 * "Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. The case was settled in 1993.  In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival.  His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court.  Polanski is currently in jail in Switzerland, waiting for the official extradition request and hearing."


 * Obviously refs need to be added for anything that might be controversial (if it's been discussed here, probably needs a cite). I left the link in for the one I used for the judge talking about more time/deportation.  The last sentence will help bring the reader to the hear and now.  Busy all tomorrow, so hope to see a good summary in here next time I check, and the start of reworking the sexual abuse article (oh, it's bad, bad, bad in there!).  Ravensfire (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to see either at the end of the sentence about avoiding countries likely to extradite, or in the following paragraph where he is arrested in Switzerland, that he owned a chalet there, and had come and gone from Switzerland repeatedly without arrest. As for the sexual abuse article, I'd probably have apoplexy if I went over there.  Perhaps when I am feeling stronger....Oberonfitch (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha..me too, thanks for teaching me a new word, Apoplexy Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. FWIW, I would leave all the "extra" references for now unless they are simply irrelevant to the content. The main article on this case is a big mess so for our readers' sake I would prefer to leave extra resources for them as to this content. It's reasonably well-written and in a contentious area so extra sourcing is provided. We can always remove them when things die down a bit if we still feel the need. Another option, of course, is to combine several into one ref if it's simply a matter that one ref at the end of a sentence looks better than four, etc. -- Banj e  b oi   00:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The version of the entry before the NPOV dispute handled this topic, without the errors being rediscovered.
 * 1. The 90 day 1203.03 diagnostic evaluation was initiated under statue at the discretion of the judge, under the authority given to Judges. It was never part of a plea bargain or condition thereof.
 * 2. The plea deal only included dropping of charges if Polanski plea guilty AND was sentenced period, full stop. There are no other plea deals, anything else being asserted is not within the court records.  Discussions in chambers with a Judge are off the record, and used as posturing by officers of the court.  It only counts when done in public court.
 * 3. The charges would have been dismissed, they have not to date. Because Polanski fled country, he actually fled on the plea agreement, and all charges remain unsettled. If they sentence Polanski on the plea deal the others will be dismissed.  But as Wells said for the documentary, when he fled he threw everything out the window.
 * 4. Polanski lost the civil case, which is removed in the versions above, and he agreed to give her half a million dollars, which is significant...why removed?
 * 6. The 90 days was not a sentence, and he was not released from sentence. He officially is waiting for sentence.
 * 7. Saying questions have been raised about the case and judge is pretty dam obvious, a real waste of a Precious line, consider the details I added about the judges removal and why, fully sourced, was removed.

Somehow I think the hexagon is a poor reinvention of a working wheel. We had a fact checked, contemporaneously discussion pounded out version. A single handed ambiguous NPOV orchestrated its deletion --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment re: 3 (above). Wells has already been dismissed as being a liar.  His legal opinion, given either his stated illegal participation in the case, or his withdrawn statement of participation, cannot be considered.  You may well be right that the whole case begins again, but that is conjecture.  It appears that the case may need to be prosecuted without the victim's testimony.  What you have offered above is legal opinion on a number of matters.  A simplified article is appropriate until the case unfolds further.  Oberonfitch (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)