Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 9

Where does someone state he didn't realize it was illegal to have sex with a 13 year old?
I'm concerned about this edit. Where in the documentary was that said? And in what context? Was it just some local police saying, "I suppose he didn't think it was illegal in America to have sex with a 13 year old, you know how those dirty Europeans are, it surely allowed over there," or is there some proof this is what he thought? You can't give undue weight to something. This sounds like just someone's personal opinion. What exactly was said? He didn't seem to realize the severity of his crimes?  D r e a m Focus  14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also dislike this edit, your right DFocus, the thought police are needed for this one, I support removal. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Because I am on the way out and don't have time to wander through all the related material, the quote probably comes from the arresting officer who said something along those lines in W&D. I don't have a problem taking it out until it is sourced, with the caveat that Polanski's views must be supported and the quote returned if it is proper.  Oberonfitch (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Philip Vannatter - (interview) Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired 0:08:35+ Follow-up edit (12 minutes after this topic created / but I had not noticed this topic) RE EDIT[1]: See where I took it back out myself immediately in next edit (in history) (Odd that that isn't mentioned when topic was created :) [note: this topic was created 12 minutes before change - did not notice at the time] Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC) [DETAIL] 2nd edit removed (reverted my restore) Vannatter description of Polanski's not appearing to understand his act was illegal and removed statement re has maintained it sex was consensual. WHY (take out "consensual," too)? -  After grand jury testimony and all charges in the indictment, the next statement shouldn't appear to imply an admission of all the acts heretofore mentioned in the paragraph as having been implied as "consensual" by Polanski (who has never admitted he did the other acts). NOTE : The quote about the police officer's perception of Polanski specifically used the word "intercourse" (which would be what Polanski would plea bargain to); With that preamble, THEN the "has maintained" (since then) is OK &mdash;but without that didn't realize preamble setup (the "consensual" following mention of  "intercourse"), then it is not ok. BOTTOM LINE : It is probably best to leave out "consensual" mention in first paragraph at all &mdash;UNLESS a different kind of paragraph is constructed (summary intro, rather than just first step in timeline). Proofreader77 (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re edit #2 (undo Vannatter, AND remove "consensual" from par. 1)
Re 2 (which removed police perception of Polanski seeming to not understand he'd done anything against (American) law,  AND ALSO REMOVED  mention of "consensual"&mdash;LEAVING new final sentence of paragraph #1 as Polanski pleading not guilty to all charges of the grand jury indictment. ( See rationale above at Follow-up edit ) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been restored to your first edit, (i.e. to the version, prior to my undo to the version before your eding). I have restated my objections above.  Please see them there --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTES:
 * Editor above responded somewhere in NPOV dispute topic re this edit, rather than here. (Why?)
 * Question is apparently moot due to 11/6 summary-condensing edit.
 * Perhaps (but probably not) to be revisited. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[Reference] Philip Vannatter
See notes re Vannatter in collapsed diagram:

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see top of this page, which informs you of the basics. (like all Wikipedia topic discussion pages) "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." I urge you to following the guidelines. If you choose to remove this topic, as I believe is proper, feel free to remove my comments here in this topic also. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * New editors (especially single-purpose editors who are amidst dispute) should avoid the temptation to use fragments of Wikipedia information to mis-characterize&mdash;combatively misrepresenting other editor's statements/actions to aide one's case and generally casting aspersions. Let the record show that TomBaker321's response is an aspersion on the actions of an experienced editor with whom he is in dispute. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The article-editing issue of who is Philip Vannatter? i.e., what weight should be given to him, was raised by the main topic of this section created by DreamFocus (emphasis added): Was it just some local police saying, "I suppose he didn't think it was illegal in America to have sex with a 13 year old, you know how those dirty Europeans are, it surely allowed over there," or is there some proof this is what he thought? You can't give undue weight to something. This sounds like just someone's personal opinion. The diagram (with several notes about Philip Vannatter's actions in the Roman Polanski case) illustrates why the POV of Philip Vannatter is one that carries significant weight (in this article). The diagram quickly conveys that information, hence its presence. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We can agree to disagree, I think you are posting general information about the topic, needlessly. I have address the matter which is currently in the current record about. The record is made 30 years after the event, and its guess, as he states.  Further it shows ignorance to the laws of Europe, which all defined under 13 as below consent in this manner.  I believe that the statement by Polanski saying he thought it was consensual is fine....If you want to provide that he stated he was innocent and did not want to act guilty, that would be fine too.  Basically for the end you want to achieve we have first hand information, which is better to use.  The article was pretty near a stable state, with my last addition of the Judges removable being one that you thought should be included.  The way it was whack down, was terrible, and the basis of why I removed my objection to the NPOV flag.  Which cuts both ways, additions and deletions should be reviewed.  They were not.  The topic of Vanatter is now in two places and I would suggest they be consolidated.


 * To handle this NPOV Dispute Tag I believe items of change should be discussed prior to their insertion. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary:
 * TomBaker321 objected to diagram (general discussion should be removed).
 * Proofreader77 rebutted objection (diagram w Vannatter notes&mdash;in response to issue raised&mdash;illustrate Philip Vannatter place/weight in the narration of events).
 * (Cross-allegations of impropriety not summarized. lol)

This is a reference section for that purpose. Discussion of particular edits belong in topics/subtopics addressing those edits. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Photograph at Cannes
Is it possible to find a picture that does not make Mr. Polanski look as though he has just wet his pants? Oberonfitch (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are only 3 or 4 Polanski photos uploaded to Wikipedia (all but one is on this page). This photo fits the time period. NOTE: Can't use photos that don't have the right permissions. ... So, pretty much stuck, unless someone comes up with some free ones of him. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The image could easily be cropped to above his waistline.  We don't need to see his trousers, and there are probably a good number of people who would prefer not to. ;-)  Rossrs (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is fine, no cropping needed. -- Banj e  b oi   21:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Assault: adding Nastassja Kinski info
I wrote the following edit for the Sexual assault section.
 * While Polanski was involved in a romantic relationship with the 15 year old Nastassja Kinski, he was arrested in Los Angeles for the sexual assault of Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old, on March 11, 1977.

I wrote the following for the reasons why. (Added Polanski’s POV about sexual relationships with young women. Polanski was involved with Kinski before and after the arrest. This relationship was well documented by the press during the times.)

This edit was undid by Alandeus, with the following reasons. (That part of the story belongs elsewhere)

My inclination is to re-insert this edit
 * 1. As I believe it conveys Polanski's POV and gives a defense to why he thought it was OK to have consensual sex with a 13 year old.
 * 2. The facts of the edit are not disputed.
 * 3. Being engaged in sex with a 15 year old was legal in France.
 * 4. It shows that his engagement with Geimer was not a one off situation.
 * 5. Kinski would later join Polanski in press conferences (1979) regarding Geimer, and gave interviews defending Polanski actions.
 * 6. It is reflective of the responses given by Polanski after his arrest. (i.e. claiming he did nothing wrong etc)
 * 7. The reactions by the public took into account his well reported relationship with Kinski

I would like feedback in talk, before I do another edit on this. Thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not me, as you say, you believe it conveys polanski's pov...also it is nothing to do with the sexual assault. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Its more about rape, then it is about the age of the victim. Didn't the arresting officer note how nervous he was?  Does anyone believe he did not think what he was doing was wrong?  I don't see how mentioning someone else who was a bit older matters in this case.   D r e a m Focus  15:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nervousness when under arrest is not an indicator of guilt. You can use his plea, but you can't use his nervousness which, in my opinion, was a perfectly normal reaction, and is probably common to most of the population except recidivists.  And, no, I don't think he believed what he was doing was wrong at the time.  Not that it matters a bit.  And, although you were not here, DF, when we had the witch hunt involving Kinski, Huston, Nicholson, and every creative who signed in support of Polanski, I remain opposed to the naming of names just to bolster the case of wickedness and licentiousness in the creative community.Oberonfitch (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to feedback so far:
 * 1. Polanski only pleaded guilty to sex with an under 14 year old girl. He also said it was consensual. So this more relates not to all the charges against him which he first plead not guilty, but to why he plead guilty to the single charge.  That he was in a current relationship with a girl in France, yet underage in by California laws goes to show his state of mind.  His actions reflect his POV.
 * 2. This is a better entry than comments by Vannater, his actions show......much better than an appraisal of his mindset. If we are not going to include the Vannatter remarks, I would likely to concede the need for this edit based on feedback.  If the Vannater remarks are to be used, I will strongly argue this language of this relationship in the alternative.
 * 3. Kinski is an exception to all the others, because this is whom he had an ongoing relationship with.  As the Prosecutor raised in court.  She was at the Press conference with Polanski near the time their relationship ended in 1979, when Polanski said he would come back to face the sentencing.
 * 4 The relationship with Kinski as his direct and after the fact actions, reflect what Polanski used as Defense prior to use of the Plea deal.  There were many remarks in the time frame between charges and the ultimate plea deal.  Kinski was the woman he was with during this time.  Here age in California was illegal, though not in France.


 * Summary, without the need for Vannater's appraisal of the inner thoughts of Polanski (they are not in the current version), it will be sustained that this area of information will not be in the Sexual Assault section.  However if Vannater's remarks are offered for inclusion, I would then strongly go back to the need for these first hand actions rather than a 3rd party's subjective appraisals.  The rational for showing Polanski's POV via his actions, is much stronger than an interested 3rd hand parties guesses 30 years after the fact.  NPOV benefits from showing Actions instead of Opinions.


 * More comments on this are very welcome. Thanks  --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. IMHO this brings up a couple points. Presently that content goes to the sub article - actually it sounds like it must be there. Likewise add more context if this sort of thing was relatively common in his circle. As presented above is too compacted and feels wedged in, understandable but counter-productive. If this relationship was indeed covered by reliable sources as relative then we should state that rather than just that it existed, in this way we show its notability. -- Banj e  b oi   21:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It was covered by Reliable Sources contemporaneously, as being relevant to Polanski's well known penchant to have sexual relationships with young girls (below 18). The context of his penchant and the ultimate crime plead to, is obvious.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * She is now mentioned like four times so I think it's fair to say it's included. -- Banj e  b oi   15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
I think a sentence about this documentary should be included. Something like - Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a 2008 documentary about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of [the] conviction" and won both a Sundance and Emmy award.(2008 Film Plays Role in Polanski Case) It may also make sense to cite how it re-ignited interest in his case or that it is currently cited in the appeals process. Obviously the sub article can include more but I think it's relevant enough to mention here. Thoughts? -- Banj e b oi   23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The awards imply the documentary was not controversial for its content, which was disputed by the LA Judicial Branch, in letters to HBO. Others suggest it was cherry picked information, dwelling on making the Judge look like a buffoon. (e.g. Not stating Rittenband graduated at 19 from New York University law school, then Harvard summa cum laude)  Simply said, the award comments are not needed.  So I can see the following for inclusion.


 * ''In late 2008 a documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was released about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the case's handling post conviction."


 * I would also suggest the possible inclusion of a line like:


 * "The interviews from this documentary were later used in Polanski's 2009 court motion asking for dismissal of the case" --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I added the low sales comment as the NYT noted it as relative, likewise the awrds which help explain why a box-office bomb had some surprising impact. Current:

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a 2008 documentary about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of [the] conviction"; the New York Times noted it had low sales but won both a Sundance and Emmy award and re-ignited interest in the case.(2008 Film Plays Role in Polanski Case, Waiting to come in from the cold) Interviews from the film were also cited in Polanski's 2009 court motion asking for dismissal of the case.


 * Does this get us closer? -- Banj e  b oi   21:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying as a broad generality (where the prosecutorial part, i.e. Wells, is no longer applicable) is not, I say, the way to "package" the info from Gunson and Dalton. Whether it can be used as I would like may require verification in other forums. (But have confirmed doc is RS secondary at RSN - may be quoted or summarized). Proofreader77 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Benjiboi, that pushes it all the way out.
 * 1. The documentary was not about the legal case, it was about Polanski, and included the legal case. Much is talking about his wife, Poland, has clips of his movies.  The entire "Desired" portion is not about the case.
 * 2. The documentary is not alleging anything. It is supposed to be demonstrating what happened. Some of the interviewees make those allegations...his lawyers.  If you wanted to say Polanski's lawyer's gave interviews that allege judicial and prosecution misconduct, that would be accurate.  But its second hand.  Why not just make those assertions on what Polanski's attorneys did when they filed motions. (My suggested sentence above I see has the same problem I am raising here)
 * 3. The awards given to the film are of no matter, and only confuse. It needless give the reader the impression that the awards give greater merit to biases of the film.  It is already know that the many of the people who vote for the awards are the same people who signed the petition for Polanski.  The wiki reference for the film itself does talk about the awards.
 * 4. If you want to say that the Documentary became the impetus for Polanski's lawyers to file motions with the court, that is fine.
 * My best take at doing what your are trying is " In 2008, a documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was released about Polanski,his life, the sexual assault case. Interviews from the film were later used by Polanski's lawyers for a motion to dismiss legal case against Polanski.  Those motions were rejected, and are currently being appealed. "


 * Only thing that needs communications, if that, is the interviews from the documentary ignited legal motions by his lawyers. His lawyer gives the biggest interview in the film, FWIW.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * re: 2 "second hand" - Disagree, but generally propose that (Tb321 v P77) disagreement's which other editors here can't resolve, be presented at appropriate noticeboard where more eyes can help determine legitimacy of either perspective with respect to WP policy rather than personal theories of inclusion/exclusion. * For the moment I present this response to a question I raised at WP:RSN, and note  that W&D conveys parts of the timeline previously unavailable via description by some of the key participants. How usable to be clarified.  Proofreader77 (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am specifically opposed to creating some special format other than editorial consensus of this talk page. This wikilawyering really should not be continued.  The timeline of the film is entirely available from other sources.  The in chamber conversations are also documented at the time.  In chambers conversations with a judge are not binding, as a matter of fact. Chambers are not Court.  The film makes assertions that the plea bargain had a factor of "time in custody" as part of it, are false.  The assertions that the judge was bound by the various reports, are false.  The court records are clear to the publicly offered plea bargain.  The film was funded and created by Polanski's peer group, and this same peer group does the voting for all awards.   The director of the film is a biased participate, whom is linked to her subject through profession and its circles.  "Despite what he did, Polanski was screwed over by the judge, he fled because the judge pulled the rug out from under him," Zenovich says.  She is not disinterested. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. I haven't seen the film so am only going on what reliable sources have said about it, looking at Wikipedia's article on it certainly doesn't indicate it was about anything but the case. Someone who has seen the film please feel free to fix that article. I think the awards are quite releative and bundled with the low sales help explain why it was a low sales at box office yet was influential. Likely we should mention its rotation on HBO. As for tweaking the film vs the lawyers "allege"? Seems little difference, but if we want to quibble it we need a source to state that only the lawyers did and that the film either made no conclusions or their account was disputed in the film. Likewise, we could leave it close to how it is and add a follow-up that testimony in the film is being disputed and cited in the current cases. -- Banj e b oi   12:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The documentary as RS (secondary) for timeline events
I have received confirmation re W&D specifically as source for in-chamber timeline events. (A follow-up to original answer at WP:RSN). I.E., the documentary may be described by other sources by some denatured generality, but the doc is RS itself. If disagreement on that point, let us agree to take the matter to WP:BLPN (where the NPOV aspects of exclusion of sourced information from a BLP may be analyzed in this case). Proofreader77 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This appears to be going the way of generating original content. The documentary is not available as a source as far as I know on the internet.  There are sources of the text of the documentary.  The documentary has been reviewed by reliable sources as being flawed and biased.  For example one story is of a son recanting what he father heard in the bathroom.  This person later went into business with Polanski.  The interviews are what they are.  I would object to summaries being done without a reliable source doing it.  I would be opposed to generating original content.  Since the reference is not able be viewed freely, and there is not a reliable source summarizing it accurately,  I don't think it should be used, currently.  Of course the documentary is relating many events that have ample readily available sources.


 * I have a feeling that you intend to raise many of Polanski's lawyers legal arguments before the court. This would be improper, most likely.  The arguments of Prosecutors placed.  As opposed to writing out legal arguments....It would be proper to write about which motions are filed and what is there current state.  For example you can write that Polanski is getting heard in the appeals court in December, and state what there overall attempt is, without cherry picking what legal arguments you want to present.


 * Again, this seems to be going towards cherry picking. If NPOV questions are to be raised they should be done in this talk.   No need to dispute before the questions and topics are raised. --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow the two links in my message above. (Note answer is by someone who helped write relevant policy.) Available online is not requirement for RS. (For working timestamp copy, subtitles are available). And yes, I do expect WP:BLPN discussions will be required at some point. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have the subtitle text of the documentary and extras, that is publicly available please provide the link.


 * It counter productive to consensus building of editors, to be raising notice boards, prior to any discussion. Lets just deal with what is presented.  Proofreader77 no one WP:OWN 's this topic.  The documentary is full of factual errors, the director is slanted. "Despite what he did, Polanski was screwed over by the judge, he fled because the judge pulled the rug out from under him," Zenovich says.  Polanski's lawyers were highly involved with its production, and used the production for court arguments.  Polanski's lawyers refused to allow their interviews to be included until the final film was reviewed by them.


 * So the content and release of the film was controlled by Polanski's active legal staff. If there is to be an assessment of independence of the film, we should address it in talk prior to going to yet another notice board.   We can discuss here the evidence that this film is "advocacy" film.  Its not your standard documentary.


 * Which is why your taking the questions to the notice boards without reviewing it here (in discussion) first, is a problem. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason for going to notice boards (which we should have done a long time ago), is to get clear answers (not loops of personal argument unrelated to policy). For instance this question to you at ANI should be illuminating, and the clear answer I got from WP:RSN is not mired aforementioned loops. Policy has specific effects in the context of BLP NPOV, and the noticeboards are where to go when there are policy disagreements. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's completely fine to go to a noticeboard as we're all working on Wikipedia, actually it helps show that one article, or a set of articles is treated the same as all the rest. The documentary can be used as a source, we simply cannot make a novel synthesis that he documentary does not. As I was quoting the NY Times I rather doubt I was. -- Banj e  b oi   15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Joining...As stated elsewhere, the raising WP:RSN of Wanted and Desired, was done in a vacuum, without talk review or alternative viewpoints, its disputed in principal, for large sections of the commentary within, but its moot until actual content is written based on it. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward
Now that some of the mystery has been sorted I've added what I think is some relevant and NPOV content adding some context of Polanski's actions. That he was on assignment for instance seems quite relevant and that he had many casual sex relationships with teenage girls also seems like it should be mentioned. I've boldly added this while removing the NPOV tag and archiving the growing mountain of words that didn't seem to be making anything clearer. Of course anyone can re-add the tag but with appropriate and, of course, on point and concise points of content they feel should be added, changed or removed in it's own talk section. -- Banj e b oi   22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (technical signing so bot will archive, but while typing) Beginning by removing the POV-section tag, then getting rid of the separate section for Sharon Tate's murder (burying it in Personal life between first wife and Kinski) is quite a non-consensus leap forward ... clearly on a trajectory for BLP NPOV dispute of a higher kind. But such is to be expected in an article like this. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting out of hand. Proofreader you keep on pounding the drums of dispute (even saying of a higher kind now).  Please just participate in the discussion.
 * For the substance, I think the Sharon Tate Murder section removal is a dramatic change without much discussion, also.
 * This event was highly public and well covered, it being very historically significant by that on it self.  And Polanski the object of this entire entry would say that this event changed him profoundly.  (There are many citations of how significant this event was on him, including his invigorated interested in young girls).


 * I believe the context of Polanski's wife, and child being murdered in the Manson murders, the profound effects and consequences are under represented in the Polanski entry. With the previous versions being better than the current.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good to see we agree that the Sharon Tate murder should have retained its own section (ignoring tactical rhetoric and focusing on useful content, e.g., signs of consensus). -- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Tate murder section was not removed or downplayed and now that it has been integrated it made sense to restore its very own section title. To beef the section up please lean on what sources state. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

the real reasons for the plea bargaining
It mentions that he plead not guilty, but didn't list why he changed his mind. He originally rejected any plea bargain, then his lawyers saw the evidence of the girl's panties, proving sex had happened. It currently reads In an effort to preserve her anonymity, Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain which Polanski accepted, and, under the terms, five of the initial charges were to be dismissed. They weren't preserving her anonymity since everyone knew her name, the foreign reporters stalking her and publishing pictures of her everywhere in the European news media. Both the panties, and mention of the harassment by the reporters, was mentioned in the documentary Wanted and Desired. So there should be some rewording to make it accurate. Or perhaps to protect her anonymity in America, since going to trial would reveal her to more harassment this time by American reporters, her lawyers offered a plea bargain.  D r e a m Focus  16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The current wording is based on ref. But yes, "Wanted and Desired" tells more: Silver initiated idea (stated reason was anonymity); both prosecution (did not fit policy) & defense (no sex evidence at that time [aside: rape exam had been negative]) first rejected plea idea; then panty stains found + analysis; Dalton ready for plea; Gunson goes along (accepting lower plea than policy, note: victim's attorney wants no trial). See Silver's comments 00:50:55+ ("anonymity") and in court 00:56:27+ "A stigma ..." ... i.e: "anonymity" was stated reason. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (smiling) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (If above refers to my message) Seeking clarification for assertion of OR (to advance a position) in this instance. I have been informed that W&D is RS secondary. If summarizing from W&D as ref, "anonymity" would still be stated basis of attorney Silver (as current print ref says). That said, the implications of "advances a position" is certainly a key idea that must be addressed in this article's editing&mdash;but would add that my focus is more on making sure that timeline information supporting Polanski's defense is not excluded. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Find a source with a timeline (or the timeline asserted by his defense), otherwise there is too much likelihood of drawing an OR (or worse) slant/take/outlook in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The documentary is the source for the description of the missing parts of the timeline as described by the prosecutor Roger Gunson (in concurrence) with defense attorney Douglas Dalton. No previous source contained those parts (re: in-chamber discussions prior to in-court events). Will stop there for the moment, other than noting the unique character of this particular situation. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's all that unique, but it is WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (smiling) It's unique to not-nearly-so-wiki-experienced me. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but you're fast pushing your 10 post/day limit. Talk about this on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As per Proofreader77, the use of "anonymity" is in keeping with the source, so it should probably stay unless there's an equal source available that contains more detail. I do recall that there was something about protecting the child from the trial as well, but I can't recall that, and I suspect the source may not have been sufficiently reliable. On the other part, unless there's something very specific saying that the additional evidence convinced Polanski of the need to accept the plea bargain I'd be inclined to leave it out. Mostly per OR, but also because such isn't necessary - given a choice between the initial charges and what was offered, Polanski's lawyers would have been foolish not to accept the deal. So I don't think we need to surmise anything more than the lawyers recognising a good thing when it was put before them. I also suspect that if we wish to extend this, the place to do it is in the full article. - Bilby (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with what Bilby has said above. Timeline information is available in many RS publications.  As far as the original topic by Dream Focus, it is well understood that the lawyer for Geimer created the impetus for the plea bargain, as acknowledge by the DA in court.  So that part should remain.  To address you other points I would suggest a phrase like: " and responding to mounting evidence"
 * So the line could be : In an effort to preserve her anonymity, Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain which Polanski accepted under mounting evidence of the case. The plea bargain's terms were five of the initial charges were to be dismissed, and Polanski admitting guilt to the charge of having sex with a person under the age of 14.
 * Wordsmithed any which way. I think there is a bit of a run on sentence in the current version.
 * Yes the information on the documentary, unless offered specifically, is OR Original Research. Beyond OR, the taking to a notice board was very premature, while the general question may have been addressed, there is no showing that W&D is a traditional documentary, or its independence.  If there is any copyright legal text of the full documentary and extra features, I would love to see it.  Its not on HBO which is the rights owner.
 * Further the Weinstein Co, who is currently the most significant public advocate for the Hollywood industry in Favor of Polanski, is also a rights holder. The film was created by the friends of Polanski, with editorial control by Polanski's lawyers.  I am not aware of any legitimate documentary, where participants of the majority of the interviews, control the release and use.  Without the consent of Polanski, who's lawyer's owe a fiduciary duty to, the content of the film in its FINAL version would not be released.  Because of the duty to his client, his lawyers were not free to disclose any information not favorable to his client, this duty is undisputed, further his lawyer was not free to speak without the expressed consent of his client.  Thus Polanski maintained editorial authority of the films content.
 * Long story short, the "documentary" is a construct of Polanski, and his attorneys, and friends, with an agenda driven outcome, who's content was used in legal motions by Polanski --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the "responding to mounting evidence" idea. I agree that the film is a pretty slanted view of things, but that's nothing new.  It's not OR for the FILM to come up with ideas that are included (properly source) in the article.  I'd be really careful about including something from film for the reason that Tombaker321 said (film with an agenda).  There might be a good paragraph or two for the sub article going over some of the concerns raised in the film though.  Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Proposal to attempt to raise Roman Polanski from Class B to A
While this might seem an odd time to consider focusing on quality (amidst contentious current events), I asked someone heavily involved in WP:FA if that might be a reasonable idea. His answer was this: including thoughts on FA status beyond that: "It would be a test of WP's ability to be NPOV." That sounds like a beautiful challenge. What do you think? Proofreader77 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Let's try. (initiator signing) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research?
So the WP:original research concern is raised in context to support the reference improve clean-up tag. This seems rather misplaced. Either we have original research problems or we don't. Pending the alleged OR problems being listed here i think it's time the improve sourcing tag is removed as this article has lots of sourcing and I'm not seeing a lot of exceptional claims that would normally raise a sourcing flag in my book. Could anyone help point out any original research issues so they can be cleaned up or otherwise addressed? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was originally put there by an experienced editor as there are sections without any citations and looking at it there are still sections of uncited text, I can't remember it haveing anthing to do with OP, I put it back recently when it was removed, there was some hidden text, please leave this refimprove but it has gone? Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I do hear you but clean-up templates aren't a badge of shame and actually should be specific enough to drive constructive editing. If there are actual statements that need sourcing - that is not that they aren't sourced but that someone actually disputes the content - then it's much more constructive to simply point out what those specific statements are rather than allege the whole article is questionable because it lacks sourcing. Let's be specific what needs to be fixed and address those issues head-on rather than vaguely assert problems. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   17:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, If I could be bothered I would look through the history to find the editor that added it, perhaps I will later, there are whole sections of text with no citations. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This was there on the 27 september... -- This biography of a living person (WP:BLP) is severely under-sourced, and needs many inline citations (wp:cite). Thus, it carries an article flag cautioning about WP:OR. Please do not remove this flag until the text has been thoroughly and reliably sourced (wp:RS). This flag has little to do with any fact-flags which may be scattered through the text, but is a warning about the article as a whole. Please seek wp:consensus before killing the flag.-- Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, citing OR concerns but not actually showing any specific OR problems. Let's see if anyone has any OR concerns first then look to removing the tag. In theory there is almost no article that couldn't have some clean-up tag but that doesn't mean we sould liberally apply them. Instead we should shoot for specific issues that need clean-up so that those interested will do so. There are editors who specialize in every area of clean-up so general tags asserting vague problems seem less than desirable. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   18:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not one way or the other regards the tag, I don't see any OR in the article but there are citation issues..this section has no citations at all? . Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I raised citation needed for items that appeared simply unsourced or at worst case (not as likely) original research. Those need for citation points seem entirely rejected by this topic author.  I am perplexed when a request, is given some attention, that the requester dismisses the feedback. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You added citation needed to items that have already been cited. That Polansi was hired to do a photoshoot of adolescent girls is quite clearly in the source cited, i wouldn't have bothered to add it if it were not, etc. And i find your characterizing me as a topic author incredibly insulting. I edit on hundreds if not thousands of articles across a wide-range of subjects. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   18:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest edit war
Added several cite needed tags erroneously and removed an award in addition, of course, to rolling back all the integrating of the one article back into two sections. I've asked for more eyes at 3rr but need to break for RL now so if anyone else is wondering where things are presently. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tombaker321_reported_by_User:Benjiboi_.28Result:_.29 for both sides of this dialogue.


 * The cite tags are related to the documenting the NPOV dispute I have raised. Many of the changes installed by Benjiboi, done en mass without review, are indeed without proper citation.  At least the merits of need of citations should not be controversial in the long run. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good news, at least I my response was anticipated by standards already in place. Your complete article format change is foreboden as a manner of course.
 * Stability of articles
 * The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
 * See WP:STYLE There was never a substantial reason, and certainly none stated. --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The subsuming of Sharon Tate murder subtopic into Personal life
(Which removes link to main coverage.) The diminishing of significance of Sharon Tate's murder with this edit is noted in the context of BLP NPOV. (Playing down the brutal event which profoundly effected Polanski&mdash;burying it between first wife and Natashi Kinski.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At first glance, it does not seem appropriate to be buried like this. Gamaliel (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I think this points to a problem of removing this content into a "personal life" section. If you read the career section there is this chasm where the Tate murder content should surely rest. Instead the text talks about his post-murder career absent context. The same impact likely cannot be made - certainly without some sourcing - that his third marriage or the Vanity Fair case affected his work in some way. I think we need to step back and look at how disjointed this all is. Likely the whole "personal life" bits should be integrated. If nothing else, chronologically. As for Sharon Tate link it points to a subsection of an article already linked. I may make sense to see if there is anything there that needs to be added here. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The brutal mass-murder killing (already played down since current events) of his wife is not "personal life" bits. The current treatment is playing it down (including removing the clear direct link to the full coverage.) There is not consensus for that. (Note: Trajectory toward this diminishment noted previously in this archived topic. ) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Sharon Tate murder - which had a great impact on Polanski's life and which was a major notable event in its own right - should have its own section. The problem is how to achieve this now that someone (Benjiboi?) has moved the "Early life" subsection to a different place in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note (easy to see, but initially confusing): User:Banjeboi is a doppelganger account for User:Benjiboi. The use of Banjeboi on Talk and Benjeboi to edit is stylistic choice of sorts ... but in any case, the 19 consecutive edits (last time I counted) have been presented, as usual, as a fait accompli without prior discussion ... and defended with unpersuasive (to me) rationalizations when met with consternation&mdash;rather than what I would do, undo overreaching without complaint. So: Tactical rather than consensus-ual, but not surprising given the givens of contentious current-events article. BLP NPOV will resolve eventually. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am not a fan of "personal life" sections as such because the personal and professional lives are often entwined and each impacts upon the other. When looked at separately the context is lost, the connection is undemonstrated and it creates two distinct chronologies. If you read a biography of a person in book form it usually starts before the person's birth and moves through chronologically to either the present, or to a point after the subject's death. I understand that some readers prefer easy to spot snap shots within an article, and that this type of segregating of information can make particular points easier to pick out, but looking at the entire article as a whole, it becomes disjointed. Looking at the career section there is an unexplained jump from 1968 (Rosemary's Baby) to 1973 (Chinatown) and it strikes me as a serious omission that there is no mention of the event that took place between these two films, and which Polanski has said was the biggest "watershed" of his life, and which has shaped both his professional and personal life ever since - ie Tate's murder. I completely agree with User:Benjiboi's comment that "Likely the whole "personal life" bits should be integrated. If nothing else, chronologically." I'd support that.

On a secondary note, I also agree that there has been a move to diminish Tate's murder. I remember several weeks ago, when Polanski was a very hot topic, some editors were saying that her death was of little significance, because his notability rests on his sex crime, and Tate has her own article etc etc. I never have, and never will, buy that. It would be like writing an article on Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and saying the assassination of JFK is not relevant because Mrs Kennedy wasn't killed (and JFK has his own article). I think there has been an attitude conveyed by some editors that has resulted in anything that may humanise Polanski being removed, and I'm not sure if that attitude still prevails. The murder case was a much "bigger story" than the rape case, (and I know it's not a competition, both are highly relevant) in its time, and it has resonated for over 40 years. Polanski was probably the one survivor most destroyed by the murders - not only did he lose his wife and unborn child, but also two friends who were in the house caring for Tate at his request, because he failed to arrive home. Some news reports following his recent arrest, have noted that following the murders he embarked on a self-destructive and hedonistic lifestyle far removed from his earlier lifestyle, and that it was the beginning of what brought him to ruin. Bearing all that in mind, it's given almost no weight at all. There are various elements of his personal life that are not presented in any kind of overall context, and I think the problem relates to all of these points, rather than specifically to Tate's murder. Rossrs (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the Tate murders are highly meaningful in RP's life and that this easily can be sourced as such, that he was a surviving victim of one of the most widely noted murder sprees in US history. Moreover, I've never liked "personal life" sections in en.Wikipedia biographies. "Personal" and professional lives are indeed very entwined and deeply linked, maybe even more so for those in creative fields. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the Tate murders should be better contained than the current (and recently reverted) version. I do not see any consensus present for the subsuming of this content as was done by Benjiboi, nor any consensus to revert it back to his version. This is arbitrary and counterproductive. Because there was consensus to attempt to integrate the personal life into the article as a whole does not represent consensus to remove emphasis already given in the mean time. Sorry, the reversion to the chopped down version was wrong, at to my view, not consensus driven in any way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the original pre-edit version of the personal life section by hand (sure wish it could have been by a single revert). For the following reasons.
 * 1. Split section illogically apart. Started with early life personal section, went to career, then went back to personal life.  Original version contained a career block, then a personal life block.  Which is more readable and better laid out.
 * 2. Restores Sharon Tate Murder section, instead of a merged single block. Tate's murder is what Polanski said was the most significant impact to his life and future career. (paraphrasing)  This was the loss of his wife, and viable child.  The separate section give it the proper impact, as well as restoring the detail linking, which was removed for unknown reasons.  This event was hugely note worthy, and captivated the nations for many years, and to this day.
 * 3. Edits were large, the description of the edits on the history pages was very vague.
 * 4. All commentary except that of the editor, had concerns over the New version.
 * 5. New version lost information, i.e. the edit was only deleting and reorganizing, no new information was gained. ( Photo references was new, and was retained in restoration)  Because the restored version has all the information of the edit, the restoral should not be controversial, as talk for deleting items is still possible.
 * 6 It is the view of this editor, that besides the concerns of others voiced in talk about the edits, the restored version is a better document for this entry in Wikipedia.

--Tombaker321 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the separate subsection heading for Sharon Tate's murder and integrated all of the personal life section into the main text chronologically. I hope that all editors can see the glaring problems that, at least on this article, a "personal life" section can cause. We essentially have only one sentence for his first wife, which may be fine. Now the Tate section, Tate being his second wife, delineates between his work pre- and post- murder. No one disputes the event was likely the most impactful on him, correct? Thus it now weaves into the rest of the narrative on what he worked on and where, and explained the why to an extent without the disconnect. His third, and present wife, also has like one sentence.


 * Sharon Tate, BTW, is not appropriate for a Main link, IMHO as that's rather nihilistic of us to further limit her notability down to her murder only. Instead let readers look at her whole article and if they wish to jump ahead on that article they can. On this article we should delve into why Tate was so notable to Polanski, not why her murder was particularly gruesome. Instead explain her murder was gruesome and was international news for months even after the Manson family was arrested. Similarly the sexual abuse case is better integrated to show why Polanski's post-case life was without return to the US. In context we better serve our reader's needs vs. other agendas. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I like it, the new time-line is very clear and easy to follow. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restore the article to its consensus format. Benjiobi you are into the area of WP:OWN  You state in your edit that there is no consensus for move back to the text prior to your edit.  This creates the glaringly obvious fact, by your own logic, that there was no consensus to your method and content of edits of the entire article before you made them.

This is particularly troubling since it was just of the feedback of the ANI board. And removal of the NPOVD combined simultaneously with new controversial editing of the Sexual abuse case.


 * The newest format defined time by movie releases, and disassembled organized sections within the context of movie time. Making facts much less accessible.


 * Your view that the death of a man's wife should not be shown for the historical significance of its fact, to the mire linking to a an article on its details, is editing for social engineering sake, which is counter to goals of encyclopedic entries.


 * Moreover, that these wholesale changes are done, then put under the banner of consensus changes is very troubling. The were presented as boldly changing, which is true, they boldly dissolved the collaborated talk discussed version as was being written by all editors of this entry.


 * As you state you are now witting a Narrative on Polanski we have even further departed from the goal of a Encyclopedic entry.  Readers needs are not served by creating as you state a Narrative direction.  The Narrative is now your OR, and attempt to explain the WHY without RS is a goal that should not be served, certainly not without review.  For such significant changes away from time built entire entry, PLEASE review in talk, and please give enough time for other editors to respond.

--Tombaker321 (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please dial it down. First off I started that ANI thread and it had nothing to do with this subject so maybe drop that, ok? Secondly the issue cited by this thread is in some way lessening the impact of Tate's murder by dropping a section heading (!), I found that a bit much but in fully integrating all the personal life content into the main text there's indeed a need for the section title to be re-introduced ... and that's exactly what I did. You may feel there is some broad conspiracy to suppress, mitigate or other diffuse "the truth" but I can assure you I'm not involved. I'm here for our readers who deserve a good article that actually makes sense. Having a career section that talks about his post-murder career and then goes into " ...Unwilling to work in the United States after 1978 for fear of jail" is illogical and generally bad form. And now you're edit-warring (sigh). -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   19:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I make no assertion there is any conspiracy. I am concerned about a single editor changing an encyclopedic entry into a social engineered viewpoint Narrative.  I have raised a NPOV Dispute.  Please do not reinstall your comprehensive editing without peer review, or consensus.  Your wanting to create the Narrative to make sense to the reader belies the fact based origins of the an encyclopedia.  The facts should stand, and the what the reader understand should be their decision base on a fair presentation of the facts.  Your new single handed narrative is not that.  Time is not defined by Chinatown.  Please respect the contributions of other editor before make wholesale changes without review in discussion. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there are now several editors pointing out similar issues as I have mentioned. You seem to be saying that by putting all the content into chronological order rather separating several section into a "Personal life" vs. "Career" section there is social engineered viewpoint Narrative being pushed or created. I'm missing what you mean by that. Perhaps it would help if you checked out Category:FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles, some our best articles in this subject area. You'll note that all of them integrate personal information to illuminate why we're even including it. If someone is Jewish we explain what sources have to say on how that impacted them, likewise other life events. We don't simply say X was upset over Y's murder, we show they were upset. we add context and let the reader decide for themselves what to think.  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   20:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see that there is any NPOV issue relating to the presentation of material in "narrative" form rather than "encyclopedic" form. (Define "encyclopedic", what exactly do you mean?)   If the content is the same but in a different structure, that does not fall under NPOV.   All it does is create a timeline in which key events can be related to each other.   Polanski has lived one life.   He has not lived a professional life that is a separate entity to his personal life, and yet the article structure gives this impression by offering his story twice.   I also suggest looking at other articles, specifically Category:FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles that have gone through more scrutiny than this article.  You will see that the use of a narrative/chronological format is commonly used.   The current dual timeline is used in many articles too, but it is not standard. Rossrs (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: Benjiboi: When I stated social engineering I was referring to your statement and editing out of the link to the details of Polanski's wife murder.
 * "Sharon TateDeath and aftermath, BTW, is not appropriate for a Main link, IMHO as that's rather nihilistic of us to further limit her notability down to her murder only. Instead let readers look at her whole article and if they wish to jump ahead on that article they can. On this article we should delve into why Tate was so notable to Polanski, not why her murder was particularly gruesome. "
 * Removing of the link to a more detailed link to serve a need for portrayal is controversial. The facts in the removed citation are of a peer reviewed encyclopedic entry on his wife death.  To exclude simply the link seem undue, and particularly given objections.  Sharon Tate is not by herself a separate entity.  She was bound to Polanski as his wife and mother of child.  Polanski was clear her death was significant to him.  Actively removing the link, seems like, deletion for the sake external sensibility over the facts, and needs of independent readers.


 * Re Rossers Definition of encyclopedic responded to in other section. Its the definition we all use.  Regarding the timelines and compacting of information into Movie Release timeframes.  I think it simple to be too novel.  Chinatown became its own timeframe, with events folded into it.  Polanski has two significant histories.  That of his professional and personal life.  But beyond that his life is marked by significant events.  While Chinatown is one of those, it is not a group.  Also the entire edit created a new dual format.  This time not with career and personal life, but with arbitrary time grouped sections with events folded inside, as well as event driven groupings with their own timeframes.  The mixture makes it hard to find events, and unsure of which grouping method is being used.  Groups of time, do not have year ranges.  Basically this is a major change, of how we were all working, and needs review.  With the elimination of links, the NPOV became in question.  The speed and insistence that Benjobi rejected the feedback of other contributors also seemed aggressive consider the impact of the self styled changes.


 * Please also see objection of the en mass changes by Wildhartlivie and others above. If nothing else the discussion of the changes could have been done first, rather than a here is the new version, how about trying to correct it now, approach. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

re Rossrs' FA article comments (What structure's best for this?)
Surveying FA-Class (actors/filmmakers), notice general absence of "famous" directors. Aaron Sorkin's mostly a screenwriter, and he *has* a "Personal Life" section. (Note also Sharon Tate is FA class &mdash;with unusual structure: 42% of article about "Death and aftermath.") Film directors long-gestation projects are usully *not* related so clearly to life events as Polanski's. And even in Polanski's case, the "special" personal life sections may be more clearly related than the post-event movie themes. Point: Not yet clear which structure is best for Polanski. Ponder. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note: Sexual assault case has "2 or 2.5 acts": 1977-78 / interim / 2009 arrest+ ... With a full narrative timeline, you'd need to scatter those out (particularly messy regarding the "interim" -e.g., civil suit settlement and attempt to dismiss). So it would seem that in this case it would seem pure narrative sequence is not the way to go. (Pondering, though) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sharon Tate is an unusual case.  Her notability is mainly associated with her murder and the events that followed, especially in relation to her mother's work for victims' rights.  Her acting career would have been reason for notability in itself, but it was a minor career.  Some of her films failed to attract an audience until after her death.    A couple of observations -  Satyajit Ray is structured with a chronological blending of professional and personal life, and seperate sections relating to legacy and general discussion of his craft.  I think it's a good structure.  Jack Warner has a seperate section for personal life, and it's not bad, but it could be argued that Warner's personal life didn't impact on his professional life to the degree that Polanski's did.  I think there is enough interrelation between Polanski's professional and personal lives to justify putting the two together.  Ray's article uses years in the headers to make the chronology even clearer.   Something like that could work here too. Rossrs (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent information and perspective (above and below), thank you, Rossrs. (Will take time to carefully study what you have provided here before further comment.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up - Rossrs, thank you again for your careful attention to the structure issue. Yet looking at all the examples, I still return to idea that Polanski's sui generis. No director has had a crime hanging over them for three decades. And the three crime/legal issues have interconnections suggesting they be grouped in same section. Now, 2.1 Early life [already moved] and 2.2 Relationships might be flowed differently, but crime/legal should be together. Especially time-leaping Sexual assault case. (In pure narrative timeline, you'd have to mix in several pieces at different points in timeline, add section at bottom for 2009 arrest.) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is what we had and is currently restored ( but with Early life moved up [good?]). Note I have aksi added a new subtopic 2.5, for discussion&mdash;pondering ways to best deal with information from the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired which many find controversial, but clearly has impacted events.
 * 2 Personal life
 * 2.1 Relationships (lifetime)
 * 2.2 Sharon Tate's murder (1969)
 * 2.3 Sexual assault case (1977-1978, 1988+ civil suit, 1997 offer)
 * 2.4 Vanity Fair libel case (2004)
 * [2.5 A documentary, appeal, and arrest (2008+)]
 * Again, I allude to some interconnections between 2.2-2.4 which suggest they be kept together under Personal life rather than scattered across a full narrative timeline. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally (tonight) I specifically highlight that if you stick the 2.3 Sexual assault case section in the middle of a full narrative timeline, it "doesn't fit" in the timeline. It spans time which overlaps whatever sections come after. And, e.g., mixing the Vanity Fair libel case into a full narrative flow is to lose it, and it's clear organizational relationship to 2.2 and 2.3. Bottom line: As theoretically elegant/appealing a pure narrative timeline is, it is simply not suitable for Roman Polanski. There is not sufficiently good reason to change from the form this article has. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary of "personal life" or similar sections in these FA articles
As there have been suggestions that structuring articles with distinct professional and personal sections is the accepted standard, I'll note the structure used in the FA-Class (actors/filmmakers). There are 43 articles.

Personal life section: 27 articles - Kroger Babb, Eric Bana, Joseph Barbera, Jackie Chan, Noël Coward, Kirsten Dunst, Jake Gyllenhaal, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Anthony Michael Hall, William Hanna, Phil Hartman, Ethan Hawke, Katie Holmes, Angelina Jolie ("relationships" rather than "personal life", but it's the same thing), Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy, James Nesbitt, Austin Nichols, Miranda Otto, Nancy Reagan ("Marriage and family"), Ronald Reagan ("Marriages and children"), Aaron Sorkin, KaDee Strickland, Jack Warner, Emma Watson, Reese Witherspoon, Preity Zinta.

Personal life aspects incorporated into main text: 16 articles - James Thomas Aubrey, Jr., Rudolph Cartier, Bette Davis, Karen Dotrice, Judy Garland, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, Abbas Kiarostami, Vivien Leigh, Kylie Minogue, Sydney Newman, Satyajit Ray, Sebastian Shaw (actor), Tōru Takemitsu, Sharon Tate, Anna May Wong.

This suggests to me that both formats have wide support in the general editing community and these article represent a diverse range of subjects, and, I would expect, a large number of editors. It therefore seems to be more a question of stylistic choice rather than convention or policy. Rossrs (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That was a lot of work to assemble that, thanks. I see Polanski as having two main areas, his professional career and his personal actions.  Each being significant, but not entirely intertwined.  I prefer the current layout.  The problems of combining everything into a timeline mix, is picking points of reference for markers, e.g. Chinatown was an era, in the example used.  I just believe the accessibility of the information to readers is better served by the current layout.--Tombaker321 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I have solved the style change question. Per the guidelines WP:STYLE which is the section addressing the style choices for all articles.


 * Stability of articles: The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.


 * 1. There is not substantial reason beyond choice of style. (none stated by editor who changed)
 * 2. The editor who changed the style insisted on continuing to revert it back in. An outcome already anticipated by the policy of the Arbitration Committee, and which the policy seeks to avoid.
 * 3. There is clear disagreement on which style to use.
 * 4 So we should defer to the style used by the first major contributors.  Q.E.D. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor gave reasons. "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason" - not applicable.  Reasons have been given.   So you have not solved the issue.   Rossrs (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have the time still, can you give a link to these reasons that were given before the changes went in. Or the topic section where the reasons were given?  What makes this not a simple style choice?  You show two type of choices in your analysis, yes?  What is the substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style to make the change?  As the majority of your analysis shows that 63% (nearly 2-1) use the format we already have, how can it be argued that there would be a substantial reason to change?  If you have moved on, no worries. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I probably will continue to comment here. The reasons should have been given before the changes, you're correct there, but the point is the reasons have been given since.  If improving the quality of the article is what we are aiming for, the reasons are equally valid regardless of when they are given.   Banjeboi and I have both commented that a dual chronology creates a fragmented/disjointed result, and Gwen Gale has also mentioned that she doesn't favour personal life sections.   It's largely a style issue but not entirely.  It becomes a content issue when points that should relate to each other, don't.   Polanski's professional life has been influenced by extreme events in his personal life, and the decision to place them side by side or apart is not a style choice.   The overall meaning and context is different with each option.   This has been said before, so if you are asking why it's not a simple style choice, I can only assume that you've read these comments made in other sections, and simply disagree with them.   With regards to the analysis above, I didn't know what the result would be until I went through and looked at each article.   It doesn't have to be 50%/50% to indicate that there is support for either style.   The style in each of the articles in the list has been supported and endorsed by large numbers of editors in FA reviews etc.   The question is "which of two acceptable styles is most effective and useful for this particular article?"   I don't think there is an easy answer, and I don't think we have yet come close to exploring the possibilities, and we should all be open minded enough to look at the possibilities and see which one fits.   I've commented above that Satyajit Ray employs a style that I think is suitable, and I think his is also the most similar to Polanski's of all the FA articles on that list.   He's an international director, with a foot in different cultural camps, is considered influential and in some ways revolutionary as a film maker.   He doesn't have a murdered wife or a sex crime over him, but that doesn't mean the format isn't equally suitable for either article.   I'll look at that in more detail later, but I think it's best to keep looking at possibilities, rather than declaring the matter "solved" because a bit of policy may apply.     Rossrs (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Entire Article NPOV Dispute
I have added the Tag for a NPOV Dispute for the entire article.
 * 1. Wholesale changes made by single user.
 * 2. No consensus for changes.
 * 3. Changes constituted the change from an encyclopedic entry to that of a stated Narrative by single user ignore the entire baseline of multiple editor consensus built entry.

More to follow --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's doesn't seem to be a content POV dispute. Could you please state specific and actionable content changes you feel must be made to align the article with our NPOV policy. In this way other editors can discuss the merits of any of the stated concerns. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated more to follow, please see the other discussion about single user WP:OWN changing of entire article format and content to create a Narrative rather than encyclopedic entry. Start specifically with your changes to the entire article which is already flagged prior to this flag, without passing it through talk first.  Please acknowledge that when you reverted your changes back in that you said there was no consensus, thereby making your wholesale changes to the context of the article, self admitted to, without consensus  --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the recent changes from Benjiboi. When a neutral editor makes an improvement to an article you should be grateful, claims of no consensus for change have no weight to a situation where there has been constant minor change, the truth is that although there has been nothing new to add to this article there has been a couple of single purpose account editors that slowly day by day edit a word here and a word there until after some time they alter the article to their point of view, it is tiresome beyond wikipedia point to the verge of disruptive editing. I strongly support Benjiboi's neutral improvements. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The classification of a single editor as being neutral above the rest of the collaborative editor is objectionable on its face. We don't own this entry individually and should act in collaboration rather that appointment of editors for dictate.  See WP:OWN  Consensus should be sought prior to the type of changes you acknowledge, are more significant than the minor changes being flushed in over time and review.  The editor you support has stated this entry to now be in a Narrative format, which is counter to the encyclopedic entry we as a group have edited.  While I appreciate your POV, changes of such impact need review, and enough time for other voices to be heard prior to large revisions.  Lastly time, is not delineated by movie release dates. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wp own about it at all, it is tiresome when single propose editors continue repeatedly with their point of view. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Benjiboi's changes as well, and do not see the changes as creating a NPOV problem.  It would have been more productive to have allowed the changes to stand for at least as long as it took for other uses to comment.   I'm concerned that a term such as "encyclopedic entry" is being used when different editors may have different meanings for such a term.   What is yours?  Rossrs (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Gwen_Gale. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Offrirob. I do not believe it to be my point of view to request that large changes to the entire entry by a single hand be done without first seeking peer review of other contributing editors who in their own good faith have been working with other editors to build an entry. I believe it simply to be policy and SOP. Reformatting time to be that of Movie Release dates and folding other content into those movie dates, is novel. But that novelty will likely make the entry less accessible to new readers. At the least its worthy of discussion prior to its unilateral decree as being the baseline. I believe other editors with different opinions are acting in good faith, and I think your remarks should reflect the same.

Re: Rossrs, I think that major changes should be reviewed prior to installation. Benjiboi, has asserted a self neutrality (stated in their notice of edit war) that questions needlessly the good faith of existing contributors. As clearly as Offriob just challenges mine. Neither I believe to be productive or granting the assumption of good faith.

Re Rossrs re: definition of Encyclopedic definition in use by myself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents.

Which I would expect to be yours as well. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't presume to "expect" anything of me, and I'll take Wikipedia lessons from editors that have edited substantially more than one article. OK?  I'm happy to read your opinions and respect your right to express them, but I'm less happy with you telling me what I should be thinking.  Now, you haven't answered my question.  You've given a list of aims that should apply equally to all articles written in "narrative" or "encyclopedic" style, but although you assume that we all have the same definition of "encyclopedic" that's not the case.   Let's call it your preferred format and not try to legitimise your personal opinion by hiding it behind a euphemism that implies universal support.   You have not explained how changing the style to a narrative style, diminishes the effectiveness of the article, except that some points are not as easy to find.   This is not a NPOV issue.  It's an issue of stylistic choice, and you know what - there is not a right and wrong about it.   I agree with you that major changes should be made with consensus, but I also think that immediately reverting someone without giving them the benefit of the doubt that they may be taking the article into a good direction, is not guaranteed to achieve the best result for the article, especially when other comments on the page support the direction that was being suggested.   I also think that blind reverting is not always the ideal choice.   Sometimes a partial revert will at least save some improvements that are not controversial.    Finally, you've spelt my name incorrectly, three times on this talk page, and that makes me feel that your attention to detail is not what it should be, and that makes me wonder if you've read the comments of editors carefully, and if you've bothered to look at some of the other articles suggested.   That you've maintained your opinion that folding events into a single thread is "novel" makes me suspect that you haven't looked at too many other articles.  It's not novel at all.   Rossrs (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A. You asked for the definition of encyclopedic, I gave you the one that Wikipedia states, I expect everyone to use it.
 * B. Perhaps the definition of COMPENDIUM will get us closer. A compendium is a concise, yet comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge. A compendium may summarize a larger work. In most cases the body of knowledge will concern some delimited field of human interest or endeavor (for example, hydrogeology, logology, ichthyology, phytosociology, or myrmecology), while a "universal" encyclopedia can be referred to as a compendium of all human knowledge.  This is an encyclopedia, nothing to dispute.
 * C. I have read the information, and am sorry for misspelling your name.
 * D. We are not creating a narration of a story. That is a job for a journalist.  We are presenting details of topics in an organized and well cited manner. "Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here".  We are not narrating a story as some sort of tour guide.  I didn't think we would even stray into narration, as I expected this would be simply the means of style layout layout.
 * E. The entire style was changed without any notification or explanation. It was pretty became lets toss this at the wall and see how much sticks.  When it was first noticed (5) editors immediately objected.  Suggesting we should accept an unnoticed large scale change, with zero upfront discussion, I don't think holds water.
 * F. WP:STYLE is our resource.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you misinterpreted what I asked. I would never ask for "the" definition of "encyclopedic" when I can look it up as easily as you can. I asked for your definition of it, specifically in relation to "encyclopedic" vs. "narrative". When you replied, I commented that the points you made applied equally to either format, so it didn't serve to clarify your position or to answer my question. I was wanting to know why you disapprove of the narrative format, and you have now given something of an explanation. I think you are bringing your own bias into this. The narrative form does not exist only "for a journalist". If that were true, no featured articles would employ such a format, but given that a significant number do, it's clear that the format is acceptable. To say it's not acceptable is your viewpoint, and you're entitled to it, but please don't try to say that it's more than your own opinion. Another example (aside from those on the FA list described above) is Zelda Fitzgerald, a featured article in narrative style that was recently featured on the main page. During the 24 hours that it was one of Wikipedia's most visible articles, more than 100 edits were made to the article, but nobody attempted to restructure it away from its narrative style, and nobody commented on the talk page that the style was more suitable for a journal than an encyclopedia. In fact nobody commented at all, and you would have to expect that if it attracted 100+ edits, it must have attracted many more editors who simply looked at it without editing or commenting. Your comments at point D, are not supported by either policy or convention. It's simply one approach, and obviously the one that you prefer. As for WP:STYLE - yes it's our resource, but it doesn't compel the use of one structure over another. I've commented elsewhere that it's not entirely a style issue in this case, so I think it's important to note that "the entire style was changed" is only part of the story. In the eyes of some editors, myself included, the changes made the article as a whole easier to read, as opposed to easier to find specific points. That's a different thing. Rossrs (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not certain how much of the style change was related to narration, as a new goal for the article. (5) editors objected to the changes when first observed.  Narration puts a burden on the narrators to be impartial for an encyclopedia, other narrators can start with a POV and guide the article along those lines.  Since this subject is very controversial the burdens on editors to not insert their interpretations and opinions are increases.  I don't think narration for a controversial topic is best.  --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ending and Removal of NPOV Dispute Tag
'''The basis of a NPOV Dispute Tag is that it is an out of order situation that should be remedied as soon as possible. The Tag itself should not just be left up.'''
 * 1. My basis as I hope was reasonably state was the single handed removal of a links to further information about Polanski and his immediate family. Specifically the well documented murder of his spouse.  Whom which there is no dispute had a profound impact on Roman.  The reason by the editor for this removal was in order shape the path of exploration of the reader base on the the outside sensibilities concerning his spouses murder, how it reflected on her memory.


 * 2. Secondly the reason for the NPOV was a profound change in the entry's lay out and organization. In my view the organization confused the entry and made it harder to pull out information, unless you were already specifically versed in Polanski.  Others had other objections to changes, that I will not characterize, other than objections were lodged in the discussion page.  It is my view that the rapid and dramatic changes did not consider the contributions of the broad collaborative editors who had worked on the page.  I think the changes should have been reviewed and discussed since they emphasized and de-emphasized content which was built over time.


 * 3. Banjeboi has raised a flag on myself about edit warring. Which I do not think is a fair remark on my actions, especially since they don't acknowledge how they are being controversial in their edits.  It will be sorted out soon I suspect, but this is my first occasion to be on that notification board.


 * 4. As I have essentially through the actions being called out as edit warring, reverted the article to its pre-single handed reformatting, and content changing. I have essentially solved the problems I have raised as the dispute and can not fairly maintain a dispute with the current state of the article.


 * 5. Lastly the issues related to the NPOV dispute are contained in talk, and the collaborative process will continue. As a single editor I have one vote only.  I believe the concerns of myself and others regarding the large changes of origination and content re-focusing should be address first in discussion, the put into implementation.  We had implementation, without review, and then asked to review and comment on the changes, which again did not consider the contributions of the entire set of editors.  The talk page has my concerns and others regarding the changes.  Honestly it was not simply me, who objected to large changes.  The talk pages should be able to resolve this.  I would simply hope the changes are not just slammed in again.

So I remove the flag I began, while still maintaining the need. If this is viewed as an editor slipping and falling upon their own sword, okay. I remain comfortable with what my approach was here. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)