Jump to content

Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

I give up for now

When the two editors who seem to have a stranglehold on this talkpage, and thus the article, have either moved on or at least stop digressing every thread into tangents thus repelling other editors away and insisting that every change they don't like be sent through their preferred processes I'd be happy to offer opinions and clean-up efforts again. Frankly, if the wisdom of covering a subjects early life at the beginning of their article is edit-warred on I don't see much point in remaining. IMHO, it's a disservice to our readers as well as common sense. I offer my best wishes to those who remain. -- Banjeboi 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi you changed the entire layout of the article, removed wiki-links to detailed articles, to spare readers the details of how the mother of Polanski's child was murdered. and removed over 250 words in the Sexual assault section in one massive edit. There are rules against changing the layout, as a snap, "hey it would be nifty if I slammed this in." The whacking at the weeds (your phrasing) was a large blast against, at what was becoming stable content. Instead of hearing the response to that large deletions of content, you decided to take editors into the Admin Notice Incident forum.
Saying the changes were just moving early life to the top is a charade to the truth. The article was split into strange time zones, with Chinatown being a period of time. Previously organized and grouped content was then dispersed into these time buckets. Do I check Chinatown? When did Chinatown end? Its a coin flip for the reader. So lets just mush it around so the reader must read the entire article. That when called on your actions, you chose to bug out, and state a swan song, okay. Don't let the door... Proofreader said in talk he thought the Judge stepping down was important for NPOV sake, I added it, and referenced it with solid citations. Congrats. Yet in just 2 days a single mass change, wiped that effort. You said whack at the weeds, ah...butchering by any other name is still.....
And all that just to wipe a paragraph or so, of solid source factual information. Did you think that the content that was in the article, had not been hardened and fact checked through the talk pages? Rewording, moving of sentences sure sure, but instead you chose to just cut out 25% of the content. I have to think you did not consider the other collaborating editors. OWN
I certainly have many issues with Proofreaders approach, but it at least for the most part contained in talk, and refraining from slamming his ideas in, and make no mistake, he has a ton of things he wants to put in. I was also surprised to see that your 25% elimination of content of the sexual assault section, was done before you said you were not familiar with the documentary. There is a lot of innuendo and sequencing problems in the documentary, and the sexual assault section addressed some of those. Everything I put it was Bilby checked, and he has solid rigor, with a couple of rejections. I am just saying if you are not familiar with the documentary which created perceptions, a legal case, and impetus to his later arrest, how can you presume to know which part of the 25% you cut out. Sorry you don't see much point in remaining, its not like we can not come together and agree on some things still.
Best wishes to you as well. --Tombaker321 (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't pretend you were doing anything but edit-warring - you reverted 5 times in eleven hours instead of even allowing other editors to voice if they thought the changes needed to be rolled back. You have also insinuated that by removing one {{Main}} wikilink to the middle of the Tate article I have committed some major offense. I have not, and I explained my reasoning above. If the other editors here endorse you as the gatekeeper and spokesperson then they indeed deserve whatever leadership you provide. I somehow missed that vote myself but as far as I'm aware we don't have hall monitors to thwart article clean-up. This article is flawed in narration because of its structure. It talks about his early life after explaining his accomplishments over 60-70 years; it talks about his work after Tate's murder before talking about the murder itself; it talks about moving to Europe for fear of arrest before talking about what the arrest would even be for. Ridiculous! The content I had trimmed previously was because it was needless WP:Undue detail for this article, it may be fine for the main article on the subject. And one does not have to see a documentary to know what details are likely needed or not. But no, I will not play wikilawyering games and I certainly won't edit-war. If the other editors here support your actions then they can live with them. -- Banjeboi 18:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
A. After your report I did receive a notice for edit warring. It takes two to dance.
B. I did not insinuate anything, I stated. When asked for more clarification I gave more information.
C I am not a gatekeeper or hall monitor, or leader, or spokesperson. I am an editor, who is collaborating. I am doing nothing by fiat.
D. When you say narration, are you are talking about guiding the reader (defining a path) through the areas you believe to be most important?
E. I do not recall you ever raising the issue of WP:UNDUE whacking at the weeds for established content for unstated beliefs of UNDUE weight is problematic still. UNDUE should not be confused with comprehensive.
F. The entire style of the the entry was changed, with zero notice any of the rest of the collaborating editors. When it was first noticed. (5) editors immediately raised concerns and objections. There was never a consensus for change. And there was no reasons given for the change, beyond a post-event "I like it better this way OK"
G. WP:STYLE specifically prohibits the actions you have taken. Your expectation that other editors need to just accept it...avoids the guidelines. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I can not believe, Tombaker321, that you can say no reasons were given for the changes. Several editors have given reasons, including the editor that made the edits you are so upset about. Let's get one thing clear. Nobody has nominated you as gatekeeper, and although you seem to think any change is subject to your approval, that is not how consensus is obtained. You seem to be looking for loopholes and bits of policy to quote and yet you ignore much of the comment made by other editors. This seems to be the only article you've edited. Some of the other editors here have edited thousands of articles over the course of several years, and you seem to lack to the humility to consider that some of them may have a good idea of how articles are structured, and disregard everything that doesn't comply with your own biased view. You may have a better grasp yourself of how Wikipedia works if you didn't exclusively edit around one article. If your aim is to claim ownership of this article, and alienate other editors who may have something to contribute, you're doing a great job. I for one, am disappointed that Benjiboi has given up, and frankly, I can't be bothered with this article any further either. Do whatever you want with it as far as I'm concerned, but it's a very badly structured article right now. Rossrs (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
1. Believe it, show me the section where the reasons for the changes are given before the overhaul? Show me the section which explains the reasons afterwords. I see some drips or reasons, but its mostly that Benjiboi likes it better. Which topic section covers the changes? There are currently 15 topics which one is addressing the entire Style Change?
2. I am not your leader, you don't need my approval, I am not the gatekeeper. I only participate as one editor.
3. The rules for article style changing are clear. WP:STYLE 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. Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
a. There has been no offering besides mere choice of style for the changes. I have not even seen a topic section addressing the style reformat specifically.
b. If there is a dispute the Arbitration Committee has already ruled. And they guide specifically to the use the format of the first major contributors. Something I have read wrong?
c. There is absolutely no offering of Substantial reason to change beyond just for style sake. What is the Substantial reason? If you want to write it up, you will be the first to address it. What you have done so far is show the style currently in place is well represented, well used. Its pretty much going to bottom out to mere choice of style. And we already have a ruling for that.
4. I do my best and believe that others do as well. I can count the amount of edits done by anyone, but I don't see why you think its so noteworthy or difficult. I tend to think Quality over Quantity, you are certainly able to disagree.
5. That you hear me clearly should not be confused with ownership. I am aware of WP:OWN
6. Yes it is clear I felt it necessary to keep the time built consensus version of the article, instead of simple acquiescing to an editor what re-styled the article independently to their fancy. I believe in collaboration and consensus. The style overhaul had neither. Do you want to dispute this? It won't hold water.
7. I am sorry that needs of collaborative editing, guidelines, and consensus are more not worth the trouble to you, for this entry. Don't let the door.... remember its not closed off.
8. I don't understand why you think the article structure is so terrible as it has stood for months. Substantially? Really? Even with all the other biographies that you identified as being the same WP:STYLE
9. I am just an editor contributing, but I do think rules are important. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is kind of a tit-for-tat exercise, so I will answer your points, and then I would like to resume looking just at the article. 1. I've answed this elsewhere, and as I've also said, it's less important when the reasons were given if the main objective is to improve the article. Simply, the comment made by more than one editor is that a dual chronology creates a disjointed effect. Nobody has convinced me otherwise, and I can't see an argument anywhere that says "no, it's not disjointed". 2. I agree that you are not my leader, but you certainly seem to comment on everything and you keep on going until other editors give up and move on. That can't be good for any article. 3. I think you are misreading WP:STYLE. It doesn't address the specific layout or structural issues under discussion. Further it is a 'guideline' only, meaning that even those things that are explicitly stated are not mandatory if editors choose otherwise. Most of what is covered under this style guideline are topics such as naming conventions and maintaining consistency within a given article. Nothing says that the structure can't be changed. What you really should be concerned about is WP:CONSENSUS, something we clearly do not have. 4. I agree with "quality over quantity". I also feel that a fairly inexperienced editor who has only contributed to one article, should at some point ponder "maybe I don't know everything". You're throwing comments at editors who have edited over a long period of time, over a range of article types and who have seen numerous articles and talk page discussions. You seem a little too sure that you have all the answers, but I don't doubt that you have good intentions. 5. I am glad you are aware of WP:OWN. 6. The edits had no consensus. I've not disputed that, so please do not invite me to now. My comment was that if you had allowed the edits to stand just long enough for people to comment, it might have allowed the article to advance. Instead you put it back to where it was, and whatever chance there was of something being built from it, you knocked it on the head. It wasn't necessarily the wrong thing to do, but it wasn't helpful either. Sometimes it's useful to look outside the square and outside the policies, even if you ultimately return. 7. "collaborative editing, guidelines, and consensus" are important to me, and I've been around long enough to know what they all mean, and to have participated in them on numerous occasions. I never said I didn't think them worthwhile to continue with here, so please don't put words in my mouth. And thank you, I'll be sure not to let the door hit me in the arse if I walk away. 8. This is a major point. Just because the article has stood in a certain way for a period of time, doesn't make it right. I've seen 100s of shoddy articles stripped bare and rebuilt over the years I've been here, and we should be thankful that they didn't remain in a particular shape just because they'd always been so. That's a counterproductive way of viewing any article. You are very one-eyed about it though. Yes, I identified several articles that use a similar structure, but you fail to mention I found almost as many that don't. I'll explain why I think the structure is a problem, but I'll comment in a separate area, so that if anyone wishes to comment, they can. 9. So are we all, but you seem to be setting yourself up as the editor who must be satisfied before anything can be done. Rossrs (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I read your reply --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consensus among editors here, at least for now, to go with the article structure contributed by User:Banjeboi? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think where we're at now is that we have a clear choice between the two structures. (See Rossrs new info above.) Intermixing the professional and person in pure narrative may have special complexity (see my comments above) with respect to Polanski and especially the Sexual abuse case. I.E., May we say the two structures are under intense analysis at this time. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Item: Note that in Banjeboi/Benjiboi narrative structure, the "Vanity Fair libel suit" subsection topic has been subsumed into the section "The Pianist, honours and post 2000 work." Not clear this is a good idea. (Personal life was agreed structure for a long time. Let us not leap to change, without careful consideration of implications.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • When the changes where first noticed (they just appeared), five editors objected quickly. There has never been a presentation of what this new structure style is. Its a novel hybrid that marks time by movie release dates. Moreover, in light of Arbitration Committee's standing ruling, these style changes can not be made, and because our disagreement means we should defer to the original style of the first major contributors. We are effectively just looking at one of two style choices, optional styles. There has been no presentation of reasons why to change. (emphasis on presentation or overview, or general rationale). And the stray comments are related specifically to simple choice of style notions. The bar is however set much higher, there need be SUBSTANTIAL REASON. Until such are made, then determined substantial WP:STYLE is clear, re: Stability of articles...the changes can not be made, unless it is desired to toss out process, make changes by fiat, and reject the Arbitration Committee's Ruling. (5) editors objected when the single handed changes were done. Means, manner, and method have never been presented for this novel structuring. I personally doubt the rationale would be significant, but as no offering is done, who can say. I am on record against short circuiting rulings and guidelines simply for expediency. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You are misreading WP:STYLE. There is nothing to say that the structure of an article is set in stone. The main thing is that there is no WP:CONSENSUS to change the structure, but the style guideline does not preclude it. Why do you continue using the word "novel" to describe the other option? It is clearly an accepted format as evidenced by the number of featured articles that employ this style. The style is represented in approximately 40% of the featured articles listed at Category:FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles. You've made it clear you don't like it, but you can't keep calling it "novel", like it's some kind of aberration. And please, it's only you that requires a "SUBSTANTIAL REASON". The issue requires consensus, but if you, as a single editor, demand a "SUBSTANTIAL REASON", that does not suggest a very open approach. Rossrs (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The language is substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style. Its not set in stone, but it has a high bar for midstream conversions. As far as good example the non-personal life methods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Jackson is done well IMO. Notice how it clearly shows the years of the groupings, while still labeling the eras. Why I said novel hybrid design. It used movies as timeframes and those movies time zones included other movies in the same group. Tate Murders and the Sexual Assault Case did not follow the timeline, can be folded into year groupings. The sexual assault is 1977-1978 1997 2009. The way the style was changed became a dual approach, with odd time markers. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, I think the answer is "no". Rossrs (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I was actually astonished by the change to the new format (and back and forth and back). I do see some problems with "new and improved" as it calls out certain films, notable for awards, but misses others completely, and unrelated information is added where it ought not be. On the other hand, the time travelling manner did bother me of the original article (and as it may or may not stand now), especially in the lede, but also throughout. Although I had gotten used to it after reading it a hundred times. Never mind. I would suggest as an exercise in (possible) futility, because observations have been made on both sides that are fundamentally sound, that we construct a timeline on this page that reflects the chaotic events of P's life. Then evaluate the better method or perhaps even come up with a third! And I still want the photo cropped. You cannot possibly say that this is a neutral article if an insulting picture of the man with a wet crotch is illustrating it. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a shadow. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There's no law against cropping it. Yes, it's a shadow, and I never noticed it until Oberonfitch mentioned it, but ... power of suggestion perhaps... I see "wet crotch" too. Rossrs (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Narrative vs. non-narrative form and other suggested changes

This is long, but please be patient.

Currently the article is broken into sections and subsections that are individually easy to read. If someone comes to the article and wants to read only about Sharon Tate's murder, or only about the sex crime case or only about a certain period in Polanski's filmmaking career, the article accommodates that reader and they can read what they want and then leave. I don't think the structure is "terrible" but I think it is less successful when read from the start to the end.

Imagine someone who is not very familiar with Polanski, visiting the article and reading it from the beginning to the end. Forget the lead, just for now. It's basically OK. They start reading the article. A bit about his early life. His film work. He seems to have done nothing between 1968 and 1973. Interesting. 5 years of nothing. Then in the "Return to Europe" section, the first sentence ... "Polanski's first feature following Sharon Tate's murder ..." What ???? Sharon Tate was murdered??? But wait, she starred in one of Polanski's films, so why would he be concerned? It's not like they were married or anything... at least, the article doesn't say they were. Last we heard of Sharon she was in the "Gérard Brach collaborations" section, where she was happily starring in The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967) and now it's 1971 and she's been murdered?? OK, keep reading. Now I'm confused. In the last paragraph he made Chinatown in 1973, and now he's in Europe making The Tragedy of MacBeth in 1971? Did he get there by time-machine? And what of "clearly intended to evoke the Manson killings"? Manson who? Back to the Tardis and he's having a second 1973, and making another film. Not Chinatown which he made a few paragraphs ago, but something called What? So by now I'm not thinking What?, but I am thinking WTF? Finally, it's 1976. So Polanski makes a film called The Tenant (1976).... then "Unwilling to work in the United States after 1978 for fear of jail, Polanski continued to work in Europe." I'm surprised that they'd want to put him in jail for making The Tenant. (I've seen it, and ... yes, maybe they should put him in jail!) OK, keep reading.... "to the memory of his late wife, Sharon Tate." So we find out she's dead before we find out they were married? Later - "Polanski did not attend the Academy Awards ceremony in Hollywood because he would have been arrested once he set foot in the United States." Why are they still chasing him? And then, "Prior to his September 2009 arrest in Switzerland...." OK, they got him, and we still haven't spilt the beans about why. Agatha Christie would have even given a clue, and somehow we forgot to read the lead section, probably because we thought we could just read the article. So keep on reading... well he's been married a few times, and for those of us who were wondering who Sharon Tate was, finally an entire paragraph about her. So that odd sentence at the beginning of "Return to Europe" was right after all, and all that blood in The Tragedy of MacBeth was about Sharon. Makes sense now. Keep reading. "Sexual assualt case". Well no wonder he was so anxious about being arrested! And oh, he sued Vanity Fair a few years ago. Big deal. Now that's a crazy stream to have to wade through, and I've intentionally pointed out the absurdities, because, to me, the structure is absurd.

At the end of the career section (2009), we jump unexpectedly back to 1959 to his first marriage, and then discuss two keys episodes in his life. The 1969 murder of his wife, which is mentioned but not explained in the early section of his article, and the 1977 sex case that ruined his life which is alluded to a few times in the career section but not mentioned. I think a narrative form would allow the article as a complete entity to make sense. It currently doesn't make sense unless you feel inclined to jump from section to section each time someone is unexpectedly murdered, or the police start chasing Roman for no apparent reason.

I think it needs more than moving a few sections here and there, and this is what I would suggest:
1. The whole article is all over the place, like nobody has ever read it from start to finish. It needs work. We need to go through from start to finish and ensure that everything is easily understood.
2. Move the "Sharon Tate's murder" section to sit after discussion of Rosemary's Baby and maintain the header. In the paragraphs discussing The Fearless Vampire Killers, mention that Polanski and Tate began a relationship during this time and were subsequently married. Her murder is echoed in The Tragedy of MacBeth and it would not be inappropriate to mention the bloody nature of the film in a more specific context than that offered by Pauline Kael. These changes would connect Polanski and Tate professionally and personally and would give some context to the impact her murder had on Polanski.
3. Look at the key points contained in "Sexual assault case". The main part of it - ie the crime and Polanski's flight from justice takes place between March 1977 and February 1978. If this part of the section - retaining the header - was placed before the sentence that begins "Unwilling to work in the United States after 1978 for fear of jail", it would achieve a couple of things. Firstly, the "unwilling to work" sentence would make sense, but more importantly it would establish that his choices and options regarding where he worked and lived from that point on, were a direct result of these events. It's safe to assume that his career would have taken a different path, so this is a key event, not only in his personal life, but in his career from that time on. The other points relating to the lawsuit of 1988 and Polanski's 1993 agreement are important, but too brief to be given a subsection header. They are secondary points, and I think could be dealt with in one of two ways. a. Subsume them into the article without header, but within the context of the time in which they occurred, or b. Have a section dealing with his 2009 arrest, with a subheader. A paragraph discussing his arrest could refer back to these points. I'm not sure which way would be best, but to maintain visibility, I think option b.
4. The Vanity Fair case - this is not a key event in his life. It could be included in his article within the appropriate timeline. Nothing really hinges on it. It doesn't need a section that implies it is of equal importance/relevance to the other sections.
5. There is too much WP:OR in the discussion of Polanski's films, and not enough sourcing.
6. If all these changes were made, the section headers would need to be updated. Satyajit Ray, Janet Jackson and Michael Jackson are all featured articles that use dates within the headers. This may be useful, and "Sharon Tate's murder", "Sexual assault case" and "Arrest in 2009" (or "Arrest in Switzerland") could be suitable subheaders that would ensure these points are still easy to identify, and are not diminished by being subsumed into the article text.

These are just a few thoughts, and any comments are welcome, of course. I truly believe this is not currently an article to be proud of. Rossrs (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Again, Rossrs, thank you for significant attention and careful analysis. For now, I will link up to my comments higher up the page in support of the separate Personal life section (with special focus on keeping the crime/legal items [which are related] together — and yes, the Vanity Fair libel suit is significant because the libel issue was re Polanski's behavior at his wife's funeral with implications related to Sexual assault case. The fact that many thought it outrageous Polanski would sue for libel in such a matter, highlights significance of his winning (note: without being present in court...). Proofreader77 (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the current structure is still workable, and can still be worked to improve. The problem I think is the content needs more work than the groupings. If we want to cut down size we can significantly in the career section. Repulsion, Cul-de-Sac, The Fearless Vampire Killers, are basically just film reviews. You could cover them just writing a single sentence and with normal wiki-hot-links. To a lesser extent other movies as well. What should be in there is what Polanki did, or why he did vs storyline of movies.
EXAMPLE of removable film reviewing content:
"The film opens with Dickie pushing their broken-down car along the tidal causeway of Lindisfarne island. It is implied that the shootout which occurred during the heist had left Albie bleeding and paralyzed, and Dickie, who is also wounded but still mobile, now seeks to contact their underworld boss, Katelbach. (Like Beckett's Godot, Katelbach is frequently alluded to throughout the course of the film, but never actually appears.) As he searches the island, Dickie discovers that the famous medieval castle is inhabited by an eccentric, effeminate and neurotically excitable middle-aged Englishman named George (Donald Pleasence), and his adulterous, nymphomaniacal young French wife, Teresa (Françoise Dorléac, Catherine Deneuve's older sister). A series of absurd mishaps, both farcical and tragic, ensues when Dickie decides to take the couple hostage in their castle as he waits (in vain) for further instructions from the mysterious Katelbach."
Many of the concerns seem able to be resolved by just moving the entire Personal Life Group to be before the Career side. But of course it may create new concerns. Right now in a below topic there is a proposal to cut and paste the Early Life section to the just before Career. I see that as a conservative change that seem beneficial to some concerns, with no negatives.
I think the content needs work, and the work needed to be done is independent of style. Pulling off both at the same time seems too hopeful. I do think the sexual assault info needs its own grouping. Vanity Fair be rolled into Sharon Tate section, as it is a lawsuit because of that.--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you make some good points about the film discussion. When discussing the work of a director, it's sometimes important to discuss themes, especially those that are typical or recurring, or that attract comment, but a lot of the comments in this article are not theme related, but plot related. Most of it looks like WP:OR to me, because it is unattributed to any legitimate reviewer or commentator, and sources are not provided. I think you are right in saying it could be condensed. I read a quote recently that said the key to good editing is not knowing what to add, but knowing what to remove (I wish I could remember who said it). I also agree that moving "Early life" to before career, would be a good first step. "Pulling off both at the same time seems too hopeful" - yes in the short term I agree with that too. A lot of work needs to be done, but I'm confident that if we take it step by step and gradually fix the areas that need fixing, we can end up with a good article. If we tried to jump in and fix it in one day, it would be doomed to fail, but as long as we keep moving forward, we'll eventually get it right. Michael Jackson and Ronald Reagan are both featured articles despite the sometimes controversial aspects of their lives, and the disagreements of editors that worked on those articles, so if those articles can be raised to such a high level, we can do the same here. It will take some time, but I think we all should remain positive that we can do this. Rossrs (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Request for comments from uninvolved editors

Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Other opinions sought to review balance of this bio. See above discussions for key issues. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this dispute for the last couple of days and believe the article is being altered at such a pace that it can't possibly have been edited by consensus. It seems to me that without dwelling on the details the framework of the article first needs to be addressed. If the sequence of the sections and what sections there should be can be agreed upon then at least that's a start, and each section can then be methodically worked through. Betty Logan (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Betty Logan, especially the appraisal on sections. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a broad comment, there has been some editing and there was some reverting to the original position could you clarify and please provide a couple of comparison edits so we can see the difference that you are talking about.Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm perplexed. I started a section Talk:Roman Polanski#Narrative vs. non-narrative form and other suggested changes in which I went through the article from start to finish and commented on possible use of sections and structure, and I'm perplexed that there are editors saying the sections need appraisal, while ignoring a discussion that was started specifically to explore that issue. Rossrs (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rossrs, read through your suggestions. Will respond to your excellent points. Oberonfitch (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I support open analysis and comments in general. However, after reading Rossrs comment and reading the RFC page I tend now have become perplexed myself. The RFC says it needs to start with STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE. We don't have that. Saying to "review for balance" is not a statement at all. This is starting to look like drive by tagging, especially with the tagger not being able to articulate a specific issue.--Tombaker321 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This article definitely needs an enema (read: BOLD edit). I think the bifurcation between career and personal life actually serves to confuse the reader, especially given the fact that aspects of his personal life are closely intertwined with his career (future wife starred in film he directs, wife's murder appears to influence his direction, photo shoot he is doing leads to sexual assault, etc.). I would suggest uniting them in a chronological fashion (as in Michael Jackson). And get rid of the huge clutter in career! Is it really necessary to have large paragraph descriptions of each film he made? Or at least put them in a separate filmology section or something. Moogwrench (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Early life too late

It's unbelievable that anyone would want to put an "early life" section after his career. What's even more perverse is to have his early life, about which there is tons of information, and is a source for much of his future film career inspirations, as only a fraction of material dealing with his personal legal issues.

Having recently seen the article and some of the discussions, it's pretty obvious there are two kinds of philosophies at work: 1. That he was a leading international film director/producer/actor; and 2. he was a sex-offender, rapist, fugitive from various places, criminal defendant, etc. This 2nd group is defending their view based on over-valuing current events "news items" and are basically creating a narration of personal life incidents. This would be equivalent to taking any Hollywood actor and adding overweighted sections dealing with their divorces, court cases, extramarital affairs, drug-taking, alcoholism, etc., of which the gossip sections of any hollywood paper or women's talk show can provide and endless summer of detail.

There is already a separate "main article" about these cases, one of which, at 46KB, which is longer than the bios of most American celebrities or directors, and longer than the "career" section here, is support for this opinion. The bio of John Huston, for example, one of the world's greatest and most prolific directors, is less than half the size of Polanski's sex-assault article.

It's obvious that those from group #2 have a strong personal desire to put as much of these "personal" legal, crime issues into the bio, and that the bio now resembles an issue of "Hollywood Reporter" with an introductory section about the person's career. Note that a category for "American film director" (aka "director of American films") was removed in favor of "rapist," "prisoner," "fugitive," "sex-offender" categories. As a result, the 2nd group seems to have undermined the definition of a bio based on the key source of his notability and diverted it into a sex-focused crime investigation from a single event — celebrity-worship at its worse manifestations.

Because it looks ridiculous to have an "early life" section mixed in with longer, multiple murder, sex, magazine-lawsuit cases, it should be placed before his career. Topics should be in a logical chronological order, rather than haphazard or based on current-event news value order. Hopefully there are a few of the group #1 crowd around that might agree. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree but editors seem exhausted with the situation here, I am in support of Benjiboi's reduction also and the correct chronically ordering of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind pointing out the consensus that decided he was not an American film director, producer, screenwriter or actor? Did the consensus also decide to take back his Academy Award? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree too. I think it's unfortunate that the discussion has been so huge that there are numerous sections, most now archived, that discuss this issue in one way or another, but because it's so large and so scattered, I doubt anyone would have the energy needed to wade through it all. Rossrs (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Notes re Rossrs's comment (archive etc):
(1) All talk page discussion prior to Sept 27 2009 arrest is in the first archive Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_1,
(2) Most of talk since then has been what one would expect, but did find this about structure in Archive #2. Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_2#Film_works_ahead_of_Personal_life
(3) The organization of the page just prior to arrest
(4) The article looked like this one year ago 18 Nov 2008
(I'll check through again, but structure does not appear to be much discussed on talk.)-- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A. Its unremarkable that their is career section and personal life section. This delineation is common.
  • B. You believe there are 2 groups and advocate for 1-side.
  • C. Many editors believe in egg. There is a yoke, and the egg white, there is one egg, not two sides. Believing it should be all yoke, is a joke. I see eggs.
  • D. I have no objections, and do not believe there are arguments against it by any editors currently, to putting his early life ahead of his Carrier section. Should be do-able Let's open the question first. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

About to move Early Life, to before Career, Objections?

Its been raised to move the Early Life portion of Personal Life to being Ahead of the Career grouping. The change would be pulling intact that entire section, and placing it above. Any Objections? --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Support
  • --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • -- Please note, that of the 43 articles listed at FA-Class (actors/filmmakers), 100% of the supposedly "best" articles of this type, use an early life/origins/background/personal life section before beginning discussion of career. That establishes the Wikipedia standard, and makes me think that this is a clear example where "voting" is counterproductive and does "muddy" the waters by allowing the introduction personal bias over standard Wikipedia format. I had thought, if there was even one article that doesn't follow this format, it may help determine whether Polanski's should fit a similar format, but there just isn't one to use as a template. So, I think, we would need to see an exceptionally strong comment against this format, and a very strong explanation of why Roman Polanski's article is so different to any of the 43 articles mentioned as featured articles, and if such a strong claim is made, we could then consider treating it as a special case. I suggest that if such a claim is not quickly forthcoming, we make this change, and move on. Rossrs (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose (and other)
  • no Disagree Wait - It's been put up there twice and taken down (due to confusion), but given structural flux/decision, let us pause ... to look at how it came to be where it is (in the history). In Polanski's case, yes, there is a reason for it to be "down there." But again, since there has been so much contention, let's not muddy the water ... for the moment. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    I don't believe it has been put up for discussion prior to it being done. However it was also done previously it the middle of all sorts of other changes. This is a request is a straight forward move of content intact. The early life predates both the career section and the rest of the Personal life section. The Personal Life section is unchanged beyond this. Its a straight cut and past. The request to move seems reasonable to me, and I don't see in archives this being done, like this. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    We are at this point in the discussion because Tombaker321 took the bold stand to restore the organization of the page before the unannounced/un-discussed change of organization by Benjiboi/Banjeboi. While it appears Tombaker321 has changed his mind about one section he had worked to keep together under personal life, his/her actions set the stage for a discussion of all this. There is a comment below that this call for a vote is (echoing my previous comment) muddying the waters. I strongly urge Tombaker321 to resist the urge to rush action at this point. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Against - I agree with the career and personal life split. That's how it's done in print encyclopaedias. It is Polanski's career that makes him notable. Chronological biographies are amateurish, and the subject's most notable aspect of his life should be the prominent feature of the article. If Polanski weren't a renowned filmmaker it's doubtful he would even have an article on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
By which Wikipedia policy or guideline are chronological biographies "amateurish"? Rossrs (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I was indicating my preference, which I believe is what we were asked to do. I was pointing out that's how it's done in reputable print encyclopaedias. Internet based biographies are quite often written with a chronological perspective, but they are usually written by amateurs and it is a practise uncommon in professionally written encylcopaedias. Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to get picky about it, I believe we were invited to comment, and nobody was asked. Everybody is indicating preference and did I suggest that you weren't entitled to? I asked you to clarify your comment. A lot of featured articles use the chronological format, and in terms of putting the "early life" sections first, most of them do, even if there is a distinct "personal life" section later in the article, so by Wikipedia standard they are not considered "amateurish" despite being written by "amateurs", and are considered among the best articles on Wikipedia. Rossrs (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • These misguided votes do nothing but muddy the waters and are confusing to editors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    Ummm, taking a vote, and asking for feedback before doing something.....yah that's been a real problem. No. I take it your vote would be "undecided". Got it. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    Tombaker321 has announced an action which will be taken should (apparently) objections not appear (which they have, but ones which might be considered made under pressure to vote quickly). Given recent events involving unilateral action, an assertion of action that will be taken if objections are not forthcoming (immediately) is, it would seem, inappropriately overweening for the circumstances. In any case: I agree with Off2riorob (at least in this topic) that these polls are 'muddying the water.' Let the water clear. (Good straw polls of the complex issues will appear in good time, and discussed without 24-hour-news-cycle rush.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Apparent unanimity?

As there is only one "against," and it's based on a clear statement, "Internet based biographies are quite often written with a chronological perspective, but they are usually written by amateurs . . .", there is really no valid objection that's been put forward. This is the internet, and we are amateurs. I speculate that in the future most would wonder why putting "early life" before "career" was ever an issue. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No

Two vs two is not unanimity. Another argued against voting at all. One contested one of the nos. What do you mean? I didn't bold, but I say no. Two say yes. Two say no. Two are arguing other points. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, there is no unanimity, but (and I've commented in more detail as a "support" comment) 100% of the 43 FA-Class (actors/filmmakers) articles, use a format of "early life" (or similar) before career discussion. We are not going to get unanimity, nor should we feel that a decision can't be made without it. This discussion isn't necessary as there is a very clear course, established over time by the numerous editors and reviewers who have worked on or appraised each of the 43 articles. That's enough to justify making the change. We need to see a strong case for the "against" and if that's not quickly provided, we should wrap this up and move on to the areas where the standard course of action is not so clearly demonstrated. Rossrs (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Rossrs, I understand why you are agreeing with Tombaker321's rush to make this one-would-think uncontroversial move (after an edit war in which he moved it back down, among other things, until he was blocked, and then unblocked) ... One issue on this page is not enough voices. I specifically resist rushing at this point while we give any other voices a chance to rise. Since you are now demanding instant response or action will be taken (an position I strongly object to, but), I will explicitly give reasons for "why not" over the next few hours. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not "demanding instant response or action will be taken", and I'm very unsure what is intended by "or action will be taken". I am urging it, and in my comment earlier in this section, I used the word "suggested". I am not "demanding" anything, and I'm disappointed that you see it that way. I attempted to explain why I have reached the decision I have reached, and the main reason is that - I'll say it again - 43 out of 43 featured articles for filmmakers use this format, and that covers a range of types of people as subjects, and some of their lives have been difficult and complicated. None have lived exactly the same type of life as Polanski, and none have lived the same type of life as each other, but the uniform approach to this one aspect of their individual articles works. I don't see a special case for Polanski, though I see that his article may require more care and attention than some of the others that are not as complex. I'm agreeing with Tombaker321 on this point because I happen to agree with it and I'm not going to get into the analysis of his (or anyone's) edit history. I'm not saying it should be a "rush", but am saying that this seems to be a fairly easy decision compared with some of the others that need to be made, and I'd like to see this point resolved with as little fuss as possible, so that we can move onto the more difficult areas. Usually I would agree that the more voices the better, and I hope that more voices are forthcoming but a lot of voices contributed to the 43 featured filmmaker articles, and their voices have established a precedent that we can lean on, so that we don't have to keep having the same discussion on every article. By that I mean not only this article, but any other that falls under the same category - we have a template. In the greater scheme of things, "Roman Polanski" is just another article. We shouldn't have to stray too far from established convention. Rossrs (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I started this topic because some editors where stating their "shock" that we had a personal life section in a single section. I thought it was over-drama for something that was just down the page. I also thought the change was insignificant to do, and an easy placation of some out-of-breath posturing of how could anyone ever think of such a thing.
    • I have made a simple change which I believe is a full solution to the concerns raised in the topic section. Just this one. The issue of a proposal of a new outline style is independent of this topic. I steadfastly maintain to talk about a style change we need a outline of what a new style would look like. Wikipedia guides us to not change styles unless a substantial reason above just choice of style is given. A new outline will give myself and I believe others that picture. For this single item, within the scopes outlined, I believe the hotlink is a complete solution. I have changed my vote above accordingly. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The (unique circumstances) "why" of keeping "Early life" under "Personal life"

  • [P77-A] Will be doing this a bit unusually (for several reasons, including my HundredWordsLimit/HWL due to my *unusual*/"extraordinary measures" [i.e., rhetorical methods] of dealing with [attempting to balance] the *unusual* broad-social contentions since Polanski's arrest).

    The reason why "Early life" should stay with "Personal life" will be made evident in small increments... with a focus on (rhetorical analysis of) specific changes/by whom/when ... diffs and (viewership) data. Let's start with some viewing data: Polanski's arrest September 27 - 310K views Oct., Nov- Proofreader77 (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • [P77-B] Some versions/change points

    (a) Page as it appeared 1 year ago
    (b) Revision as of 14:34, 30 July 09 Sinneed (Restructure of work. Drop sections among films.) [Also see June]
    (c) 9/21 page structure prior to arrest
    (d) Revision as of 17:37, 28 Sept 09 Cenarium (reorganize sections per talk)
    (e) Revision as of 06:38, 14 Oct 09 209.6.238.201 (consolidate bio sections under "biography" heading)
    -- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • [P77-C] (Copy me BLPN) "I would say there are 3 (4 etc) groups ... Most sensible editors staying out of the time-consuming cultural conflict (a. Put Polanski in prison for life vs b. Given all givens, this should be dropped.) Yes, there is more energy to "amp negative"/"denature positive" since arrest of Polanski, but page organization already reflected that before arrest. As has been mentioned, differences of opinion re structure are being discussed ... But, in the long run, there may well be need for threads on [BLPN] to resolve seemingly irreconcilable editorial differences on a clear policy basis (rather than druthers)." Proofreader77 (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • [P77-D] Rhetorical question: Can you name one film director that has a similar personal life to Roman Polanski? (Reminder: murder of wife/unborn child by Manson family, fugitive from justice for 3 decades, now arrested and final chapters of career and life hang in the balance, won libel suit in British court regarding account of behavior just prior to wife's funeral with aspersions related to sex case a fugitive from ... with tele-video appearance so as not to be arrested as fugitive ... and case causing unsealing of sealed grand jury testimony from sex case ... and therefore amplification of societal ado). Proofreader77 (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • [P77-E] Yes, in ideal conception of encyclopedia readers, full narrative telling of complete Polanski story is beautiful idea. However, preponderance of readers coming to article are coming for details about personal life aspects—and yes, mostly about sexual assault case. Whatever we might wish ... almost no one is going to read through the detailing of the artistic projects.

    Now, what's that got to do with "Early life" placement? His early life is dramatic, too. He didn't grow up in placid Kansas. Nazi invasion. Separated from mother/father. Mother dies in Auschwitz. Raised by others, under Communism... Proofreader77 (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • [P77-F] Let us ponder again the structure of the page before the arrest. Someone had placed the information that people cared about at the top of the article. (Earlier in archived discussion a comment was made about film info being largely unsourced and therefore placed last.) So you could say there are two arguments for placing *all* personal life first. (1) That's what most readers care about. (2) The personal life is better sourced.

    But some (perhaps weighter) ideas of BLP come into play here ... Polanski is notable because he is an accomplished/celebrated film director... Proofreader77 (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • [P77-H] Coda: We now must reflect back to P77-C, and, very carefully, address an issue raised on BLPN which I now state as the *rhetorical aspect* of the ordering of these sections (in the current societal contention regarding Polanski).

    The probation report that recommended no incarceration for Polanski did not fail to mention what Polanski had survived/endured as a child. Those who believe "no excuses" should be heard (or thought) regarding Polanski may prefer that part of the story far away from the sexual assault case ... which other than the lede, is all most will read. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • [P77-I] Personal (rhetorical) affirmation: I am scrupulous in my rhetorical acts to never mislead with respect to my intent. When I began editing this talk page on Oct 3 (during the Oct 1-8 full lock), my intent was "current events wrangling" - making sure that the flood of negative current events energy (which led to lock) had counterbalance. I have been accused of not editing neutrally. My position is that the article should be fair to its subject. If the most passionate societal energy is negative, then I balance from subject's POV. This is a BLP. Not prosecutorial document. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

Given that there is a lot of disagreement over basic layout of the article, in addition to numerous specific points about structure and content, I think it may be useful to have a sandbox in which to show or highlight proposed edits, rather than attempting to describe them. A lot of words have been written, and I think the intention is not always clear. It may be easier to discuss points if we can actually see what is being suggested. All it would require is the diff to show other editors what is being suggested, and because nothing would be lost from the history, anyone could edit it as they see fit, and everyone would have the opportunity to link to a version of the article as he or she believes it should be. The article itself could be left free of any potentially damaging edits or reverts. After consensus is reached, it could then be listed for deletion. I'm willing to set one up in my user space. Rossrs (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be a step backward, IMO. Nor do I agree that there is "a lot of disagreement" about this article. Whatever value-added contributors there were are on vacation and have delegated their supervision to current event gossip columnists and proxy voters. Every recent poll has lain fallow as a result. I think your efforts to move forward by creating a clone of the article and using surgery to turn a deformed article into an acceptable member of the biography club are well-intentioned, however. You've given some of the most balanced thought to the question.
Your earlier comments that there should be an extended commentary about how his wife's murder had affected his life and film career, while good in biographical books, would not improve this article, and could act (as stated earlier) as a negative model and precedent to other bio editors who prefer tabloid biographies to real ones. It's a side-effect of success in the entertainment world that produces the multiple marriages, extra-marital second lives, and courtroom intrigues, that attract the celebrity-worshipping masses. Without them there would be no daytime or late-night talk shows, and the legacy of the entertainment industry would be left wanting. But I agree their private lives deserve mention, still, respect for privacy is important, at least to me. Last spring, I added a quote by Louis Brandeis to his article which is equally relevant today as it was back then, before radio, television, movies, and the internet:
"The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery. To satisfy a prurient taste the details of sexual relations are spread broadcast in the columns of the daily papers. To occupy the indolent, column upon column is filled with idle gossip, which can only be procured by intrusion upon the domestic circle. The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury."
While the Six Wives of Henry VIII have become legend, I would take an immediate chainsaw to edits by anyone who tried to turn the six wives of David Lean into similar fodder, despite the fact that books have often invaded his privacy unfairly and had a dramatic affect on his career. Polanski was out of the country working when his pregnant wife was brutally killed by homicidal maniacs and zombies. He has already made clear during his interview on the Charlie Rose Show that this area of his life is painful. Hence, to expand on it does little more than pander to tabloid lovers while furthering corrupt the traditional structure of biographies. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting that you would oppose my suggestion to expand on Tate's murder on the assumption that it would lead the article into a tabloid style, which is the last thing I would wish to achieve. I've made some brief comments elsewhere about what I think should be added, and it's fairly minor, and consists of adding a few points that would make the existing material make sense, and place her murder into context. I have not explained specifically what I would suggest, so a more open-minded approach would have been to ask what I intended rather than assuming that you knew, and then commenting whether or not you agreed. There is a lot of disagreement about this article, otherwise we would not be having long discussions and very little in the way of editing - which is precisely the situation that we have. Rossrs (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that I am paraphrasing some comment by Betty Logan. I believe that best thing to do, to carry forward your intent here, is to create a new outline for the article, in the manner you like. I do not think you need discuss any actual content. As the content we have now. IF ACCEPTED, would flow intact into the new structure. From there we can retool and rework, and re-edit, as normal. So I am saying the objective should be simply layout structure of today vs. Proposed. And this can be reflected simply by one outline vs another.
As discussed there needs to be a significant reason to change Style, the outline itself shows what can be done with style, without confusing style with the content itself. Does this make sense? --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it makes some sense, but in some areas the content is weakened by the style structure, and in some areas the style structure is difficult to adapt. For example, in relation to content, there are several references to Sharon Tate and her death, without even mentioning that she and Polanski were married. There are several references to Polanski's sex case, before the topic is actually covered. That's a content problem, but part of the reason is the structure. I understand what you are saying, but there is only so much that can be done to fix it within its current form, as the areas where the personal and professional lives connect, is currently awkward. I'm hoping that one way or another that awkwardness can be diminished, so that the whole thing flows. Combination of style and content, at least in my opinion.
Rossrs, I responded to what you wrote, nothing more. You said, "in my opinion Polanski's reaction to the death of Sharon Tate is not covered at all, and should be." You said it "should be" without any rationale. And any rationale that I personally could imagine, with an open mind, would be similar to the ones tabloid editors would use. But I could be wrong, since their only motive would be monetary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikiwatcher1, is there any reason, for your attacking another editors views, as being the stuff of paid tabloid journalists? Anything constructive beyond, trying to get over on someone? Real question. There is ample citable sources including Polanski's own biography that deal with the effect this had on him as person and as an artist. Are your "tabloid" assertions just to undermine collaborating editors? Is it really your view that anyone who has a different take on this entry, that they are "underminers" which is what you posted on the notice board. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Rossrs needs a third-party spokesperson, do you? However, if you asked me about your own first contribution to this discussion (and Wikipedia), and whether it's tabloid fodder, I might respond to what you wrote:
It is a gross omission to the proper Wikipedia "persons" entry to not mention that Polanski had another relationship with an underage girl of just fifteen. . . --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That all depends on the country and what type of relationship it was, anyone in the world is allowed to have a friend of any age at all, and also what there was to support all those things. Off2riorob (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikiwatcher1: I asked if there was a reason to attack another editors views as being tabloid. Instead of addressing that, you simply chose to toss the aspersion onto me. If you have a question about Polanski's well published relationship with Kinski feel free to ask it. Wikiwatcher is seems you want to blank out everything about Polanski besides his movies. I hope that is not correct. I would prefer if you want to address what I have wrote for you to simply do that. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikiwatcher1: You responded to what I wrote, but why here? I approached the question of starting a sandbox, and whether or not you agree with me, I did at least attempt to present a case for it. Nobody has to agree with it, but you dismissed it without giving a reason other than your opinion - "That would be a step backward, IMO." That's the only sentence that relates directly to my comment. Most of your reply addressed a comment that I had made about Sharon Tate in another section, and that's where you could've commented. I've discussed my thoughts about Sharon Tate and Polanski's reaction on a few occasions, and it's all buried in archives now, and I can't expect anyone to go through reading it. I'll make the points again seperately, but I honestly don't think it's "tabloid" material, and maybe you could "imagine, with an open mind" a way of assuming more in the way of good faith. Even after I said not to assume to know what I was considering and to wait until you hear it, you say that with an open mind you can only imagine a tabloid approach, and to me that doesn't read like the attitude of someone with an open mind. Rossrs (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Category French Rapist

How is Roman Polanski not a french rapist, when it is defined by californian law, that you're one if you have sexuel intercourse with a girl who is 13 years old? Andj2134saeo23412 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell he was not convicted of Rape by any court. So unless you can show a conviction he is not a rapist. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 20:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
But rape is considered in California by law, when an adult has sex with someone who is 13 years old, if the victim is willing or not. And Polanski declared with his guilty plead that he had sexual intercourse with a 13-year old girl, so he is a rapist! Look here: "He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse, a charge which is synonymous under Californian law with statutory rape."
Andj2134saeo23412 (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Be aware.. the same protection that applies to the article as regards BLP protection applies here, please stop adding controversial material here about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That was a legal step but for our purposes his declaration simply remains a statement made in a legal case rather than a conviction. We err on the side of caution. -- Banjeboi 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I just want to add the right categories here, and because the law declared him as a rapist it can't be false to do it here also.
From Wikipedia Article Rape:
"Valid consent is also lacking if the victim lacks an actual capacity to give consent, as in the case of a victim who is a child, or who has a mental impairment or developmental disability.[...]
The law would invalidate consent in the case of sexual intercourse with a person below the age at which they can legally consent to such relations. (See age of consent.) Such cases are sometimes called statutory rape or "unlawful
sexual intercourse", regardless of whether it was consensual or not."
Andj2134saeo23412 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Stop adding this controversial content here about a living person, this topic has been well discussed and is well covered in the archives. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
California did not declare him a rapist. To do that they would have had to convicted him of rape and that has never been done, so that category is incorrect. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

He was convicted of a crime though. There are many people who are listed as rapists within Wikipedia that were never convicted in any court in the United States of America. Should they be excluded from any list of rapists within Wikipedia? What one culture considers rape may not be the same thing in another country. In one country what Polanski did might be considered rape in another it might not be considered anything. If ~~ GB fan ~~ is making the argument that Polanski not be listed as a rapist here then by that logic there must be thousands of other pages that need to be changed so that they comply with one specific set of cultural standards. Most USA citizens would probably consider what Polanski did commit as being rape because of the specific circumstances regardless of the legal definition of the conviction he received. In any case, he would still be considered a sex offender in the USA. Imagine a person who stole something, would they be called a theif or would they be called something that is more in line with the specific crime that they commited, like say grand larcenist or petty larcenist. A title sometimes depends on the individuals giving the title rather that the person receiving it. What one person condiders a crime another may see as a heroic triumph. In this case I hope that we can all see that Polanski commited a terrible crime to a child and that he deserves an appropriate title with regards to that act. While he could also be certainly be considered a rapist by many standards, he is currently listed as a sex offender, and this seems to be apt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says he is listed as a sex offender? My personal opinion of what he did does not matter, what matters is what reliable sources say about him. Also if a jurisdiction convicts someone of rape, then they are a rapist for the purposes of wikipedia, if no jurisdiction has convicted the person of rape then for the purposes of wikipedia that person is not a rapist. People might consider him a sex offender, but does any jurisciction say he is a sex offender? ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, this would place him in the sex offender registry. Since he has not been sentenced and the case not completed I don't think that he is yet in any registry but he is considered a sex offender in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So you agree he is not a registered sex offender at this time? Wikipedia only reports what reliable soures say about people and since no reliable source will say he is registered sex offender, wikipedia can not say that either. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many people in the USA who are sex offenders are are supposed to be in these registries but are not. He still fits the legal defenition of a sex offender and is considered one by the law. He was convicted of his crime but was never sentenced. Just because he is on the run in another country does not mean that is is still not considered a sex offender by the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because you say this is true doesn't make it verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. There needs to be a reliable source that says this and then we source the information to that reliable source. If you want to add the information in, the burden is on you to show a reliable source that says that he is a sex offender. It can't be a source that says he pled guilty to a crime and from that we conclude he is a sex offender. This is what you are doing right nowm taking a piece of information and making your own conclusions about what that means. That is not Wikipedia's job, we only report what reliable sources say. This is a dead issue with me, unless you provide a new source ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Most every source within Wikipdedia can be denouced the way that you have just denouced one. Here is another source that can be used in place of the one that I did http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html. Here is another one http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Polanski-conviction-details-revealed/article-592814-detail/article.html There are several other sources already in the page that cite his conviction as well.

Here is also the legal definition of a sex offender

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sex+offender —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition, after closer examination he seems to fit nearly every defenition of sex offender that I could find. It appears that it is an apt term and should be a part of his description in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To the other editors who have been on this page since the arrest: Because we have so much historical material, and posts like the one immediately above by the anonymous 129 keep coming up (just how many times can I stand to read this same stuff?) would it be possible to put a list at the beginning of the talk page stating the areas that have been covered ad nauseum with a link to the archival material? I sense that there must be a better way. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Some talk pages have a small FAQ at the top, such as Talk:Fox News Channel, which identifies frequent areas of contention like this one. Perhaps we could have one here as well. Gamaliel (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk page consensus does not mean precedent, it can shift, it's ongoing. There is no way to lock down a consensus which may have happened at one time, to stop a consensus which may come later. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course consensus can change, and such a notice caannot prohibit that, but it can document current consensus and identify points previously raised. Gamaliel (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Such a notice would only mislead. Today's consensus is not tomorrow's consensus. If the article isn't stable, editors who want stability must somehow find text and sourcing which are more stable. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Mislead? Informing users of the current consensus does nothing to alter the fact that said consensus can change, and such notices have been used on other articles with no ill effect. Gamaliel (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Who will update that notice day by day? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you honestly think the consensus on this matter will change daily? Seriously? If such an occurrence comes to pass, that would be a reason to remove the notice, but no one would consider a notice for issues in flux. Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What consensus? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this had, in fact, been hashed out and that the current editors did feel that the tag was inappropriate, although they could agree on almost nothing else. But of course, I could be wrong. Oberonfitch (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Statutory_rapists
This category documents cases of statutory rape, that is, cases involving sex between legally defined children and legal defined adults in violation of government statutes.
To this regard, Polanski has plead guilty to the crime. With our definition reflecting Statutory rapist.
This certainly was disputed as being NPOV in the past, with pedophile, child molester, rapist, child predator, all being objected to. I think Statutory rapist, is 1+1+1=3, Adult, child, sex = Statutory rapist. Many of the objections related to his lack of sentencing, and that the plea deal was enforced via actual sentencing. Their logic is that because the the sentence was never imposed the trial is still going, so he gets the presumption of innocence still. Whether that legal opinion still is a strong reason is a ? --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that under US law you are not convicted until you are sentenced and Polanski never was. Polanski is not a convicted rapist. Part of the problem is that he wants to withdraw his plea and enter a new one, but the Californian DA won't allow this unless he appears in person. Legally he's only at the point where he has been charged with statutory rape. Betty Logan (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

About this comment "under US law you are not convicted until you are sentenced" by Betty Logan, you are incorrect about this. Please see http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/conviction.html
Legally final judgement isn't delivered until sentencing. If Polanski was convicted by simply entering a plea then there would be no legal provision for withdrawing a plea. He would be seeking a pardon or an appeal rather than having the charges dropped. I know a few newspapers have erroneously claimed he was convicted (on the basis of him entering the plea) and since Wikipedia's policy is one of verifiability then it is acceptable to include the categories provided the 'conviction' is referenced within the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Erring on the side of conservative approach until/if he is convicted is the proper thing to do, if only to prevent litigious possibilities. The categories should stay out until such time as they are incontrovertibly correct. Oberonfitch (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oberonfitch you seem to have changed your mind rather rather quickly about this,"There was a guilty plea, and a conviction, he fled previous to sentencing to an unlawful underage sex charge, there can be no dispute, we are not lawyers we use our common sense and discussion, we are not supposed to be experts, the cat of stat rapist was judged after lengthy discussion to be the lesser of many evils. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)" Care to change your statement here?
Polanski can definitely withdraw his current plea. The DA would then be free to put Polanski at trial for all 6 of the Grand Jury charges. The plea deal was done on the eve of that 6 charge trial. All the rulings by Judges even on appeals (December 10th is another hearing) have said that Polanski must be present for the court to do anything at all. Its a debate if Polanski will ever make it back to the USA. They are about to decide if he can go out on bail. If he gets bail, the odds of his escape to France are high. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

He needs to be in the rapist category. Urban XII (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The 3 sections dealing with legal cases take up 28% of the body (i.e. excluding filmography, etc.) of the article. There are already links to articles for those, such as the sexual assault case, which is 46Kb long! Since this is supposed to be a bio about a movie director, I think that those matters should be reduced significantly and all of the Perry Masons out there can use the case links to expand any more. I have seen a number of director reference books and all of them have spent only a few sentences summarizing them, with 99% of the bio discussing details of his films. Can we take a straw poll to reduce those sections?

Reduce:


Case for Keeping As Is. Unfortunately the legal cases are very significant to Polanski. Polanski is a current event, readers will be coming to this link for information. Compressing the information is not needed, we have the resources, we have done the checking, and the inclusion of some ASCII text is hardly a resource drain or bandwidth hit. "As Is" is already a compromise, that is working well enough for now. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not about resources or bandwidth, it is about the appropriate level of coverage in a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
As Tombaker321 makes clear, "Polanski is a current event, readers will be coming to this link for information." In other words, when the current event has passed, this article as an added source for news will no longer be of use. It's also apparent that the earlier consensus, when it was a World News story, was most likely biased toward those wanting instant gratification for sex news (and you could keep any biographical details near the end.) If any of that seems reasonable, then it's also reasonable to treat those earlier news-focused opinions as no longer valid or relevant. I've seen that kind of change happen to other articles where it also undermined and quickly refocused the organization to satisfy anxious news junkies. (Note the few votes in this poll, for instance.) And those articles, like this one, became deservedly depreciated as a biography.
I have a half-dozen large references on directors specifically and they all devote on average less then 1% of his bio to the Manson murders and his sex case. In comparison, this bio, and by extension other Wiki bios, becomes an excellent example of what a biography should not look like. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that WP is a new place for news, its where people who read news will want to see information without bias, or simply more information. I don't think people are getting any sex thrill out of this entry either. Arguing that some directors don't have enough interest for WP editors to contribute, and their biographies are short or lacking, is little reason at all. Polanski just received a lifetime achievement award, are the other directors being held up like that? Obviously not. Books and movies have been written about Polanski. Thinking that 3 vs 5 pages is significant, is remedial. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep as is:

The section on the rape case needs to be expanded upon. I'm unhappy about recent developments as far as this article is concerned. This person is equally notable as a child rapist and the section is currently too short. Urban XII (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

the statutory rapist category

The statutory rapist category has been removed after lengthy discussion here a few weeks ago by multiple editors, also the French and Polish sex offender cats, soon he will be an innocent man, could someone dig out those discussions about the cats so we can open it back up again? Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

He plead guilty to statutory rape, so we agreed that category would be there. He admits to having sex with the 13 year old in his biography even, and this in a state where that was legally defined as statutory rape(but called by a different name). Dream Focus 15:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There are 5 results when I search the archives for the word "category" [1]. Dream Focus 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I totally agree Dream focus, there was a extensive discussion regarding this issue and a strong consensus was settled on these cats, thanks for the link, ill have a good read. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The pertinent question according to the policy on biographies of living persons is whether he has been convicted of a crime. The policy states:
"For example, Category:Criminals (or its subcategories) should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."
The incident is relevant to his notability. The incident has been published by reliable third parties. The article never uses the word convicted, it does say "Because he fled prior to sentencing, all six of the original charges remain pending." That means to me, the case was never closed, so no conviction. Based on this information those categories do not belong in the article, unless we are going to ignore that policy to make the encyclopedia better. I do not see a way that stating that someone is a rapist when they haven't been convicted of a crime makes the article better. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There was a guilty plea, and a conviction, he fled previous to sentencing to an unlawful underage sex charge, there can be no dispute, we are not lawyers we use our common sense and discussion, we are not supposed to be experts, the cat of stat rapist was judged after lengthy discussion to be the lesser of many evils. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
If he was convicted how come the article doesn't state that he was convicted? Even more important are there any reliable sources that say he was convicted, I have looked and can not find any. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 17:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I am wrong, found a reliable source http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/movies/28polanski.html that says he was convicted. Sorry for the trouble. This should be worked into the article so that this question stops coming up. Since the article currently does not say he has been convicted. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also left a message on the BLP noticeboard asking for input. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 17:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The prior consensus, does not seem as clear now. I have created a topic below to review all the categories. Once decided, these should be a steady state, until any new actions happen in the California court. As a matter of law Polanski was never sentenced, the 1203.03 evaluation is a lawful procedure, which is not a sentencing. Polanski still has the right to go to trial. The plea bargain as recorded in the court only becomes effective after sentencing. Because of this the other 5 charges technically are still pending. If Polanski were to withdraw his original plea, he then becomes exposed to all the other charges. If he accepts his sentencing the plea deal, becomes effective an the other charges are dropped.
Please see Category discussion below, after it is decided, with your inputs, we will have a steady state to protect against random changes. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"soon he will be an innocent man"? While this is obviously bullshit, also note our WP:CHRYSTAL policy. This is a convicted child rapist, end of story. Urban XII (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_10&oldid=1134394170"