Talk:Roman Polanski sexual abuse case/Archive 1

Article's intent?
There needs to be a serious discussion as to the intended scope of this article. At the moment, it would more properly be titled something along the lines of Public response to the 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski. At the moment it's definitely not focused on the topic of the arrest, but rather the reaction. Furthermore, this should not become a coatrack of everybody's commentary who decided to comment on the issue. That would perhaps be more suitable for a Wikiquote page (though it may be the first of its kind, it would fit the mandate of that project better than this project). Does anyone have a clear idea as to how this article could be focused and what criteria and organizational paradigm we should apply to the "Reaction" section?
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a genuine Cause célèbre. When famous people get arrested, famous friends talk. It's notable and its notability rests upon and largely exists, as it is wont to do, through the quite notable expressions of heads of state, actors, lawyers .... and the cultural translations of the chattering class. A true 'cause célèbre' is quite rare, but this is clearly one of epic international and cultural dimension. Recording the various pronouncements and reactions is appropriate here, it is the very meat of it's notability.99.141.254.118 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, I understand that. But there's a mandate to this project and we need to work out how this article ought to fit into it without defying some of its own policies and procedures.
 * First of all
 * The title of the article, suggestions?
 * The relation of the title to the content. 99.141 above seems to support it just being the "reaction."  Is this the "arrest" and the surrounding events, including the "reaction"?  Or is it just the "reaction"?
 * The amount of coatracking of commentary which will be allowed. How will we decide what is significant enough to be kept to produce a quality article. Quotes right from primary sources probably don't make the cut; if they were significant enough, they were probably repeated by another party (i.e., in a newspaper, by a journalist, etc.).
 * Understanding that Wikipedia is not a place to store "repositories of associated topics such as quotations." If you really want to make a coatrack, go to Wikiquote.  They won't appreciate it though, because many of the quotes won't pass their quotability guidelines.
 * As the Pope down below says, I think the first thing we need to quickly decide is the naming of this article.
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * PS 94.141, if you're going to reinsert that awkwardly tangential commentary by a French blogger, at least clean up its grammar and English. Some of it doesn't even make sense in English.  What the hell does "doing pure corporatism" even mean?


 * I don't think we really disagree, it's just a matter of tenor and tone. And yes, I should have polished the reinsertion. I'm just running short of wikitime at the moment. Oh, and yes let's reconsider the title. 99.141.254.118 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems problematic to me that an article ostensibly about his arrest never actually mentions why he was arrested. cmadler (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It seems like somebody assumed that this is a public case about which everyone is well infomed, and forgot that they were writing an encyclopedic article. Maziotis (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous title
"Arrest of Roman Polanski" is ambiguous. Polanski has been arrested more than once (his original 1977 arrest and the 2009 arrest). How about "2009 arrest of Roman Polanski"? Urban XII (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, as I said just above?
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 01:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * not moved. Station1 (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 arrest of Roman Polanski → Response to the 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski — As mentioned by several editors, the current title is ambiguous. I don't think this is controversial but it also needs to be updated at Roman Polanski which is locked. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not even really an arrest. He was taken into custody for a crime he already pled guilty too, he is now just being held until he is extradited back to the United States to serve his jail time for raping the 13 year old girl. I'm not sure either title is correct.  TJ   Spyke   23:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is so an arrest, he was arrested in response to a extradition request from the Americam authorities. He will be held on remand if his application for bail is refused in swizz whilst the extradition request is debated in the swizz courts. Also he was not found guilty of rape of a 13 years old girl, he pled guilty to.. and was found guilty of the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The title is perfectly acceptable as it stands. It is 2009, he was arrested and there is no doubt about the identity of the subject. The public reaction obviously follows the arrest, but the arrest itself is the notable event. Where else do we put public reaction ahead of the event which is the uniquivocal fact? What followed is reaction and opinion and should be trimmed, not made the article subject. Leaky  Caldron  18:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Leaky caldron. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable, well referenced but not encyclopedic
This is an attempt at an analysis of a new story. It is not encyclopedic. I am not prepared to nominate it for speedy deletion but some one should do so. JimCubb (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion" WookMuff (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a few sources re: the about face by the French government, and the semi-about face by the Polish government
Politicians face backlash over Polanski http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7ad75dca-ae06-11de-87e7-00144feabdc0.html?catid=75&SID=google

After outcry, France softens tone on Polanski case http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/entertainment/6129813/after-outcry-france-softens-tone-on-polanski-case/

The Polanski Case: A Gallic Shrug http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/weekinreview/04kimmelman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hpw

The first two seem mostly to "boil down" the change in position within the named governements, but the last one is of particular interest, as it describes "A case of morals" (une affaire de moeurs), which was a phrase from the petition, as being the french equivalent of "yada yada". WookMuff (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "A case of morals" is an incorrect translation; I suspect the petition was written in France and then hastily translated into English. "Affaire de mœurs" is a somewhat old-fashioned euphemism for a legal issue pertaining to sexual relations (e.g. the "brigade des mœurs" was the police unit that dealt with prostitution). See for instance, how this official biography recalls the "ballets roses" scandal as an "affaire de mœurs". Teleogenic (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * what would be a correct translation then? If mœurs means mores, as in societal and social mores, then case of morals seems to be fairly accurate. WookMuff (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "mœurs" means something like "lifestyle habits", and it can be used in this sense in, say, ethnology. It is however sometimes used as a old-fashioned euphemism or code-word for unsavory sex issues. Fourty years ago, most people would not have discussed sex openly, especially if dealing with "alternative" sexuality. If you talked about the "mœurs" of somebody, it meant that there was something "wrong" or "unusual" about that person's sex lifestyle - maybe that person engaged in echangism or homosexuality. In the same way, criminal cases dealing with sexuality (e.g. using under-age prostitutes; remember that at the time majority was at 21 and it was a crime to have homosexual sex with anyone under that age) would often be described as "affaires de mœurs". Teleogenic (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Vice squad" is what we always hear in American police shows on TV. And isn't it something similar in Britain, too? Seems like a pretty exact correspondence; it's about upholding (sexual) "morals" in the one language, or dealing with (sexual) "vice" -- i.e, lack of morals -- in the other. Funny thing is, BTW, it's the exact same euphemism in both languages: The "sex" part, which is what distinguishes this kind of crime from other crimes like thievery and battery and public drunkenness and reckless (which are just as immoral and therefore just as much a vice as sex-related ones) is never mentioned. But anyway, apart from being exact opposites, it's the same thing! :-) i.e, it's the corresponding term for "sexual or sex-related criminality", just using the word for "lack of morals" in stead of "morals" itself. HTH!--CRConrad (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the apparent about-face of the French government, it is actually quite obvious once you understand French politics. Nicolas Sarkozy was voted in partly on a law & order platform - you know, put criminals behind the bars, or as Frédéric Lefèvre suggested recently, chemically castrate sex criminals. However, as he tries to reach out to a broad majority, including artists, he hired Frédéric Mitterrand as Minister of Culture. Mitterrand, however, is hardly representative of Sarkozy's majority in Parliament or Sarkozy's voters. Teleogenic (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Odd level to break out
I have to suggest that some of the above contretemps would be avoided if this article were about the entirety of the case from the 1970s forward. Just talking about an arrest for a crime for which there is no article seems to turn BLP a bit on its head, and it does make it seem to be all about the current-day media flap and thus lean toward murky analysis and reaction rather than encyclopedic events. When I was able to edit regularly I often saw this sort of disagreement about an article a symptom of a mistake in scope or framing. --Dhartung | Talk 09:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski Polanski Polanski
Why is it needed in the first line to repeat polanski's name three times? Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Arrest is also repeated 5 times in the opening small para. Why the word repetition? The opening para of the lede lede is repetitive and in need of a small rewite. Any comments? Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * agreed. fancy first crack at it? Leaky  Caldron  17:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, you have a go? It is only that first para...just needs the repetition removing.. go on Leaky caldron..be bold. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Cokie Roberts - notable quote as both out of character and illuminating the strong reactions arrest has elicited
Quite notable reaction from NPR's Cokie Roberts, ''“Roman Polanski is a criminal. You know, he drugged and raped and sodomized a child. And then was a fugitive from justice. As far as I’m concerned, just take him out back and shoot him.”''  link title..._99.142.8.221 (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ha, welcome back from the block, this should be added to the Cokie Roberts article. It is more valuable there as it shows more about her than it does about Polanski. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate heading structure
The current structure looks like this:


 * 1 Sexual abuse allegations
 * 1.1 Conviction and Departure
 * 1.2 Post-Conviction
 * 1.3 Arrest in Zürich
 * 2 Reactions to the arrest
 * 2.1 France
 * 2.2 Poland
 * etc.

His conviction is not "allegations", and these sections should hence not be sub-sections under "Sexual abuse allegations". Also, it's not meaningful to have "Arrest in Zürich" as a level 3 (sub) section under "Sexual abuse allegations", and then have a new level 2 section called "Reactions to the arrest". The latter should be a sub-section under "Arrest in Zürich" to make sense. Urban XII (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Now changed to:


 * 1 Sexual abuse case
 * 1.1 Conviction and Departure
 * 1.2 Post-Conviction
 * 2 Arrest in Zürich
 * 2.1 Reactions to the arrest
 * 2.1.1 France
 * 2.1.2 Poland

Urban XII (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

LA Times 10/24/09 long-form [narrative] article re victim's words

 * [EDIT TITLE/LINKS ETC] Proofreader77 (talk) 23:39, 25 October 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? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have some info that might be useful for this


 * What do you mean "It also makes it seem like Polanksi gave the girl alcohol and a pill?" That was what the girl testified in front of a grand jury.  Polanksi did not dispute her version of what happened when he pled guilty.  As for the victim years later saying that it wasn't rape, I am pretty sure that she said that right after he agreed to give her half a million dollars for saying what his lawyers told her to say.  The Smoking Gun has the original testimony and her later pro-Polanski statement, and the latter is worded like it was written by Polanski's lawyers -- no victim would say that the few days he had spent in jail were "excessive" unless instructed to say that.  A real victim who had forgiven her rapist might have said that the few days he had spent in jail were "enough", but "excessive" has the stink of lawyer all over it. 67.150.175.77 (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting piece. NOTE: It is from the " Narrative " department at L.A. Times (which currently has no editor). If you Google it, 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)


 * Google news just linked to that article . Its mostly the transcript from the grand jury.  Can you give an example of any part of it which you consider to be invalid and why?  This is a major newspaper, and it can and should be used for references.   D r e a m Focus  13:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Insider Edition interview, she said back then it was so common, many didn't consider it rape. Legally it was rape, but they didn't prosecute it too often.  And if you were rich and famous, you could get away with anything.   D r e a m Focus  13:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Transcription of Samantha Gailey's grand jury testiomony
Does anyone know where I can read the second half of the transcription of Samantha Gailey's grand jury testimony? I found the first half here, but the second half unfortunately doesn't lead to the right pages!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andj2134saeo23412 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So much for the "supposed" protection of "secret" grand jury testimony. To reveal it is supposed to violate at least two Federal laws and probably a few State laws as well. How does anyone know it is authentic?  Has it been officially released? If not, it is against U.S. law to repeat it here or anywhere else for that matter. Mugginsx (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Smoking Gun link says it was unsealed by by L.A. Superior Court Judge David Wesley. This article, although it is from People magazine, says that the testimony was unsealed around January 2003. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,625636,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.145.26 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Well, if the Smoking Gun states it, it must be true. I wouldn't risk a lawsuit repeating that source. What about the LA Times and the Grand Jury Testimony? There is a difference is releasing the DECISION of the Grand Jury and the actual Grand Jury testimony. Be careful. Mugginsx (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The decision of a grand jury is almost always released. It would only be sealed if the indicted were not yet under arrest and there was fear they might flee or destroy evidence. Everyone knew the results of the grand jury (Polanksi being charged with 6 different counts) it was posted in the papers back in 1977. Hoping To Help (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just an observation
Just an observation: It seems to me that this kind of information would be better served on a Court TV-type Blog instead of Wiki. Mugginsx (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why all the repetition?
I am with Off2riorob on this, WHY ALL THE REPETITION? It seems to me that the original editiors need to put their heads together and write ONE synopsis of the case. The two sections are almost identical anyway. Mugginsx (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

IP keeps making same changes to article against consensus
Different IP addresses keep trying to delete something valid to the article, and add in something totally unrelated. The results of the rape kit are not relevant, because he admitted to having sex with her, in court, in interviews, and in his biography. So whether any semen got on the panties isn't relevant, although I do recall in the documentary they mentioning that there was. And stating that since he fled before sentencing that they could still charge him with all 6 original charges, this complete with credible references, is quite relevant to the man's situation. Comments? Agree, disagree?  D r e a m Focus  10:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, why not put them both in, that will stop the reverting. The comments are equally of little value to an encyclopedic article, evidence that adds weight that there was no force, which is not very important unless you want to portray it a violent attack and a claim that all the charges could be still unresolved, this is clearly nothing more than an off the cuff remark with no legal prospect of occuring, its like saying the planet could get hit by an asteroid today, it might but the chances of it happening are billions to one against, which is like saying the Americans after requesting his extradition would say yes to the request to try him in absence, one comment that attacks polanski and one that defends, either take them both out or put them both in, imo. The citations speak more for the qualty of the content than anything else...The good old smoking gun and the totally neutral LA DA Steve Cooley (the NYTimes blog?) who no doubt would like nothing more than the center stage in some big media driven retrial.  Off2riorob (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article mentions the original plea bargain deal, and so it should also state that he can be tried for the original six charges now since he fled before sentencing. That is valid encyclopedia content.  How does that attack him?   D r e a m Focus  12:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Response 4 - (as long as it gets I’m afraid, concerning the Cooley interview/link for now). Again, Geimer’s lawyer himself said in 2003 in an interview with Larry King, the statute has long run out on the other five counts once he pled, thus the plea is as IS. Only a judge can withdraw it or Polanski requesting to do so – his fugitive status has zero bearing on it. The plea stands under Californian law to this day. Cooley had no clues about the case to begin with I’m sure we can agree on – he also said last year his plea is airtight, when it wasn’t – he thought Polanski pleaded to 50 yrs, when he didn't. No one told Polanski it could entail that much, which is legally unethical, no one asked for it but be released on probation, and he pled to max 20 signed and sealed. Cooley based his ‘back on the table’ assumption on the plea he therefore thinks himself still stands, except, it wasn’t correctly submitted then for the 20/50 yr discrepancy. Which on the other hand does not nullify it either, it only proves one of the many ‘failures’ of the law ‘enforced’ on Polanski.

To quote; Rittenband refused to allow Polanski to withdraw his plea and go to trial in the first place. He gave the state/attorneys what they had bargained for: the certainty of conviction while avoiding a costly trial, yet the judge did not give the defendant what he was entitled to if he rejected the probation recommendation: the right to withdraw the plea and go to trial. Hence, plea stands. Had Polanski known it could entail 50 yrs he sure as hell had not entered the plea but asked for a trial, thinking himself innocent of the five [other] counts. This was and is illegal in ‘civilised’ jurisdictions to this day to force on any defendant, and if one were to put themselves in Polanski’s shoes at this juncture, the decision to flee the jurisdiction, becomes understandable because of the clear message that the judge was sending: “I simply ignore the attorney’s/official’s recommendations to save my public face.” He was openly discussing the case, which his illegal, and he openly made his racist stand clear and to exploit Polanski’s status as best he could. And did. Illegal I'm sure.

Under Californian law, a plea may be withdrawn at any time BEFORE judgment, there is no formal judgment until sentencing then and now. Polanski has NOT been sentenced, he is a non-sentenced fugitive, nothing else. Had Polanski gone to jail against request, his attorney could have challenged the judge’s misconduct on appeal, but instead Rittenband goes, I'm not going to give you [further] probation (though he was on probation for ten months already and technically he still is) but a jail sentence (no one wanted) rendering you unable to withdraw your plea bargain, and instead sit in a cell needing to appeal the [uncalled] sentence, and this time not in single confinement for his safety. Guilty pleas have to get approval from a judge to be withdrawn. None has done so.

His plea was recorded after he came and went to and from the US (while filming abroad) before he had to go to Chino and Polanski had demonstrated himself more than willing to submit to final justice, make compensation, returned from overseas expressly to accept his sentence, and later gave an agreed-upon settlement. The judge blackmailed him with either going back to sit out the 48 days on self-deportation, which is unlawful to enforce on a defendant, or send him down for good, which is even more unlawful to corner him. These observations clearly demonstrate the illegalities Polanski was facing then: should he trust a legal system to correct a string of gross injustice that the very same system had just committed by going to jail, hoping that an appeal will resolve them or his status, a process that might take years,(which was Rittenband's idea, instead of maybe saying I want him back inside for a 'second evaluation' to make sure, the 48 days) or should he flee the corrupt/ed system’s jurisdiction. Even the prosecutor said that he would have fled. For this and the fact that Polanski could not appeal against the evaluation forced on him through Wells using it as punishment already, which was also unlawful, after earlier reports had already given Polanski a clean bill of [mental] health and not to give him jail time, was the reason Rittenband was eventually removed by both attorneys before he wanted to sentence Polanski, two weeks after he was gone. Too late to help the defendant with a fairer judge. Ergo, the plea stands as is, and Cooley is twice wrong. Ask any lawyer to tell you his plea is as is, and only on withdrawal are all six counts back on the table to be retried. But she for one doesn’t want that since she cannot refuse to testify this time, and after her plenty inconsistent ‘interpretations’ of events over the years and contradicting evidence already then, to an outright support of his, any proper trial would soon find it not quite as clean cut as many want it and he could well exonerate himself – bar on the count to which he pled.

He doesn’t want a retrial, because he foremost doesn’t trust the US legal system not to railroad him again, end on remand in danger of attacks, running out of money, advanced age, already corrupted records, or of course biased jurors, and therefore both tried to have the case dismissed several times now. And so far no judge has withdrawn the plea either, not only to keep the mess covered up that was exposed finally, but at the great likelihood of finding Polanski innocent of the five counts with an unbiased jury. The plea then was already struck on the mother’s wishes not mainly to save the girl more hassle, but for no clear rape and sodomy proof. Her testimony was never challenged in any cross-examination, and to this day, is therefore merely 'allegations' he always protested. He even asked to be absentia sentenced, like she did, after they insisted he had to return to the same court system that had lied to him the first time, (but then ditched that ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ after noticing all these backroom transgression etc.) only to refuse the absentia, with no guarantees they would not go back on another deal were they to go on a new trial.

The case could safely be tried in France/Switzerland besides, were the Swiss to extradite him to his homeland or keep him, since they have blocked US extradition already. In short, the legal issue was/is not to avoid conviction then (or to return today), his agreed-on punishment, or even public acknowledgment of guilt that Polanski left the US, but whether he had/has a reasonable expectation of fair (and safe) treatment at his sentencing hearing (or inevitable new remand time after half a year of prison/house arrest already, which far outstrips his agreed upon sentence, or even the 90 days Rittenband wanted). So the question seems likely to be answerable in the negative even more now than then, after his willingness to accept sentencing he openly acknowledged and that punishment – criminal and civil – was actually served many years ago since no one wanted him incarcerated. All they do now, is the same as then, spin out the case as long as possible for public amusement and Cooley’s desire to become Att. Gen., with appeal on appeal dragging it out even longer. His plea is as active as can be.

So, you either could remove the Cooley link again, or let me add the one were Silver explains that the statute has long run out – (and if only so to show how dumb Cooley is I’m sure many agree on only looking at the comments there) and that the plea therefore stands Cooley in effect has already acknowledged himself. I will come back with the other points later. That’s only for starters. Cheers for now. 86.148.18.98 (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"I can remain silent no longer"
Link drops for the open letter and two referring reliable sources.

original: http://laregledujeu.org/2010/05/02/1397/i-can-remain-silent-no-longer/

NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/movies/03polanski.html

LATimes: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/roman-polanski-speaks-out-about-his-possible-extradition-to-the-us.html

htom (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup banners
Off2rio, would you get specific about the maintenance you claim this article needs ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tone/style: explain, with examples.
 * Confusing/unclear: explain.
 * Copyedit: explain and illustrate.
 * General cleanup: explain at length.
 * I agree that those banners don't seem appropriate. Does anyone but Off2riorob think they should be there?  Given the nature of the constant complains by Off2riorob on the Roman Polanski article, and his insistence that Polanski did nothing wrong in many lengthy arguments archived throughout that article's talk page, I think the tags are just out of spite.   D r e a m Focus  22:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please at least attempt to be polite. Also just because you and another editor make a 2-1 situation does not give you a right to remove templates from an awful article. This article is awful and we should let the templates tell people that come to read it that some wikipedian editors thing the article has multiple issue as in, it has uncited long term templates in is imo extremely POV and has BLP issues, if you think it is a good article then nominate it as such and bring it up to a decent standard. If you want to accuse someone of spite then take yourself to the bathroom and look in the mirror, keep your personal opinions about me to yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those tags have been there for months, everyone ignoring them anyway. Do you really believe having them there will encourage anyone to do anything?  You still haven't answered the question as to what exactly you believe should be done, what reasoning there could be for each tag.  Give an example.   D r e a m Focus  23:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While i can see the strategy of having the banners for calling the attention of a potential editor (it could work, let's say that such a person gets to examine the article more carefully), i, for one, failed to spot the purported weaknesses, hence my requesting above. Let me point out also that the banners themselves invite to consult the talk page for more on the issues, where i also failed to find anything, carefully reviewing all of Off2rio's comments in here. So, now that this has been established, the burden of documenting such allegations rests on s/he who applies the templates. Of course you may apply the warnings, but you have some explaining to do, and not of the general type, but specific enough so that one know what to fix.
 * Re: BLP: Has any complaint been filed at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that editors of this page should know of ?
 * What's an "uncited long term template" ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nine things appear at the search. You really should search the archives at the Roman Polanski talk page if you want to get an understanding of the problem here.   D r e a m Focus  21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Did the probation report influence the judge's opinion on what should be done?
The judge received a probation report and psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time,[10] and in response the filmmaker was ordered to ninety days in prison in order to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.[11]
 * That isn't what the documentary said. The judge didn't want anything to happen to him in prison.  The report had nothing to do with his decision.  That should be too sentences.  The report indicated no jail time, the article stating that while it might offend people today who are more sensitive to the crime, back then it wasn't seen as that big of a deal.  Is there any evidence that this influenced the judge's decision to do 90 days in prison?  The documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, says the judge did that to punish him, thinking that'd be enough.   D r e a m Focus  23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Why the probation report was against jail time
In the article referenced for stating the probation report recommended against jail time, should it not be mentioned as to why? According to that article, they mentioned what a tragic life he had, family killed in the holocuast, discrimination he faced as being a Jew, and other things, to explain how they came to their conclusion. Not sure how to word a summary of this. Could other editors please read through that entire article?  D r e a m Focus  21:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Court transcript - inclusion?
Considering the news that Mr Polanski has been set free by Swiss authorities, I think it's only right that the reason behind his arrest should be included in this article. This is the source material, it makes for quite unsettling reading as its content is very graphic. It also makes quite clear why the controversy surrounding Polanski has not diminished after 32 years. According to this material, he sodomised a child. There should be a review over the legal ramifications and the reasons why he is not going to face charges. I

I was quite open-minded about him and his case until I read this material. In that respect, the fact he will likely never face sentencing over this event only makes the recent decision by the Swiss Justice ministry more unsettling. A point that should be explored in this article. The People of the State of California vs. Roman Raymond Polanski (April 4, 1977) From the original 37-page manuscript 

Another view on circumstances
I remember from my childhood and puberty that, while at fifth grade there was girl or two in class sexually active (age of eleven full years), at seventh grade (age of thirteen full years) it was widely spread knowledge that girls of that age in large part "became women" and preferred older men, who "knew how to do it". Nature just wasn't stopped with criminal law code which was powerless (compare Romans 8:3) and sin found it's way to manifest (Romans 7:13).

From her own words, she had at least two previous experiences that she did not report as "statutory rape", even obviously being even younger. -- 193.198.186.195 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * She did not report consensual sex, but did report getting raped. Hopefully you can see the difference.  He wore her down, and forced her to do something she clearly didn't want to do.   D r e a m Focus  09:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From her own testimony, later given:
 * In a documentary for A&E Television Networks entitled Roman Polanski (2000), Samantha Gailey Geimer stated "…he had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with." She also claimed that the event had been blown "all out of proportion".
 * Even Old Testament justice doesn't require ultimate penalty for sexual intercourse with non-virgin (Deuteronomy 22:22-30). Even more, she admits not having cried in horror of act (requested by Deuteronomy 22:23-24, and still only for virgin, otherwise if not shouting Moses finds her accomplice), and for him not being forceful or mean. Slightly over Bar Mitzvah age, she gives contradictory signals: "No, no!" but then gives him a clue and encouragement telling him it is safe sex by giving exact data about her last period.

Then it remains whether the actual seduction and sex with minor is "statutory rape", and does it protect girls, when we can roughly say that at least 80% of them had experienced sexual encounters by age of 18 or before. Maybe it was because we were in communism, but on "work actions" girls of 16 were not only experienced, but sovereign priestess and queens of sex, in sense of making men walk on their toes and knowledgeably pulling their strings. 80% of men are not being jailed for statutory rape, which means that "justice" catches only scapegoats. -- 193.198.186.195 (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

large cut and copy addition from User:PatGallacher
I have removed this cut and copy excess twice, it has been posted by User:PatGallacher with this edit summary "whatever the merits of including this in the article, it's legitimate to raise this in the discussion" ...this cut and copy paste here is of no value to the article, personally imo it is a large cut and copy likely copyrighted content of no value at all, but perhaps time will show me mistaken. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This was not a copy and cut addition, it was an undo by the standard procedure for removing questionable deletions. Whether this material should be included in the article is a legitimate matter for discussion. Maybe it should be included in Wikisource? If it's a copyvio that's another matter, but do we have any evidence for this? It could be public domain. PatGallacher (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking? This addition you made is pure cut and copy with no reason at all to be here, please remove it. Or explain what you want to add from it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an UNDO, you added it, you are responsible for it being here on this talkpage,. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh? See WP:UNDO. PatGallacher (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikiundo, do you not get it that anything you add you are responsible for? You added it, you are responsible for it being here, it is your addition. So what do you want to add to the article with this cut and copy of a primary court transcript you have added to the talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question
I have removed the extensive content per WP:NFC and WP:C. While court judgments are public domain under the US law that governs us, this is not a judgment or a pronouncement by any court official, but a transcript of creative expression of a number of interview subjects, each of whom owns copyright in his or her own words. We don't import content under the presumption that it could be public domain; our copyright policy requires that it be verifiably public domain. Pending some verification that it is, it should be treated like other potentially non-free content and discussed, as needed, with brief quotations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Template
Would a current even template be sanctioned? There are some recent changes to the situation, but I don't know. Old Al (Talk) 04:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Updated introduction as requested
I've shortened the introduction as requested and moved otherwise deleted citations to the body of the article as appropriate. I've reduced the scope of the intro to a situational background, and in doing so removed references to the Geimer lawsuit and Polanski's most recent arrest. Please feel free to reinsert these if appropriate. —Tonyle (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)