Jump to content

Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Tried to trim again

I've again taken a whack at weeding out a lot of the needless detail from the you-know-where section. I do share the concerns expressed elsewhere on the page that the NPOV tag should be addressed clearly and directly. It sounds like Polanski has statements that he felt the alleged victim wasn't so innocent - or something similar - is that correct? If so what is the proposed additional content and ref to be added to convey his POV? p.s. extra points for presenting such without any mark-up, digressions, and using less than 500 or so words. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Restored the section to a pre WHACKING state. I view the removal of information to be near vandalism. I have restored it to the point of Proofreader77 last edit, prior to my removal. When I removed I gave specific reasons in the edit summary and the discussion page. I will address those same concerns in discussion going forward, but Proofreader77's edits are where the current version is now.
WHACKING for some sort of arbitrary 500 word goal is not appropriate. Please use the discussion pages to work out such gross deletions prior to instigating them. If you were adding information I would not think those actions would have been harmful, but as you deleted what was discussed and had consensus, I believe these actions were very harmful. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I strongly support Benjiboi's edit to reduce the excessive detail, Ben is a good experienced editor and neutral to this issue, I would say there is a clear consensus to reduce the section that has been slowly increased by creep to its bloated size now. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Much better, under this small rewrite from Benjiboi I assume that the npov tag can also be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(@Off2riorob)
As anyone can see, there is certainly contention going on around here. :) Two simultaneous/now-conflated contentions:
  1. NPOV and
  2. Summary size
My initial response was to take the improvement in #2 as worth leaving #1 unsatisfactory in this article (for now), but when another experienced editor added their support for the NPOV tag (with a specific issue with the beginning—which remains in the shortened version), I withdrew my initial comment. I certainly support the Benjiboi compression, however there may still remain sufficient disagreement to resolve to justify the NPOV tag.

BIG PICTURE: The Roman Polanski case is NPOV dispute writ large—"the world" is arguing about this, and so it would be supremely odd for that to not be manifest in Wikipedia. I.E., NPOV dispute is the "natural" state of this matter at this time. No one should be surprised (or particularly concerned:) by that. The tag acknowledges the fact.
Proofreader77 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV Dispute is address specific area of contention, and justify them, get feedback to changes. The version has been reverted to before my last edit removing Proofreeder77s interjection of Vannater. I am disputing the need for this information and stating we have better sources to communicate the information if needed.
What was crudely removed was entire sections of well sourced information, that was not POV, but rather specifics of what happened. The events not the emotions. Hacking them out was inappropriate. There currently one open issue on debate of what should be done with Vanatter assertions, which are in the current version. If other items need to be addressed they should be raised in discussion and let to have enough time to respond. There are question of sockpuppetry and teaming of multiple IDs that have been raised, so consensus not a couple of voices. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Detailed specifics belong in the actual article about the attack, the other article, what we have now here is a simple neutrally written (imo) summary of the major details, I see what you say proofreader about the comment from....whoever it was but the npov tag is not designed to sit there for long periods, the issues that got it added do require addressing, I will ask Gato to come back and discuss the situation, imo, what benjiboi has written is neutral, simple, concise and as it is a simple overview can not and should not represent all the multi faceted sides of opinion, anyone who wants to do that would enjoy themselves better at the other article as that article is in need of a lot of work. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
As you say its your opinion that the deletions are is neutral. Even if so, it deletes other neutral facts. Polanski whether like or not is as famous for his Sexual Assult case, as well as his movie works. More so known by movie buffs for movies, but a much large populus for his sexual affair. The case as written has the raw brief information that is needed. It is impartial well sourced, has no needs for removal, basically these are the thing that happened. Period. If anything is to be deleted it needs to be addressed within the dispute process, not just here is my shot at whacking the information.

The discussion process took much time to put in every edit that is in the current version. Its needs the same care in its removal, or additions, which Proofreader77 has started a process to address. Please address in process. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The other article is there for the excessive details. Have you been to that article? Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case here is a link. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Off2riorob that user:Benjiboi's changes are needed. The sexual abuse case article was created because it was starting to take over the entire page. Keep a brief summary here and direct folks to the details article. Benjiboi's change accomplish that better than I've seen in over a week on this article, the changes should stay. Ravensfire (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary size (agreement?)

Benjiboi's compression yielded a summary of ~400 words (~2500 characters). Since we do not assume that section to be wrapped in plastic, may we reach a general agreement that the summary of Roman Polanski sexual abuse case in this article should be no more than 500 words? (NOTE: At some point a structure other than straight timeline coverage might be warranted, but will leave that discussion to significantly later than today:)

If the idea of 500-words-or-less (or 400, 425, 450, 475:) is agreeable, I would like to do (numbered line) analysis of the Benjiboi version, and clarify where/why there may be NPOV issues to resolve. (Fear not, the contentious lines are few—but the contention at those few points may be significant.:) SO:

1. Is there consensus on summary size max of roughly 500 (400/450/etc) words?

(if so, then step 2, a numbered line clarification of any NPOV issue remaining) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • 500 (400, whatever - looking for a rough agreed constraint so that future compressions will be less contentious—yes, this is an arbitrary constraint, but such is the nature of such things:) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The gross vandalism of this article is simply continuing. A NPOV Dispute was opened. We are still waiting on what specifics are in queston. They have not been raised. It is not proper to just edit out details that were place in via the entire concess process of discussion. There was basis by discussion of where we were. No it has come to wholesale hacking...or whacking, whichever term you want to use.

As far a a limitation on words, this is completely abatray and not called for. Its like picking something out of your backside and presenting as golden, it still stinks. Look at the section for "The Fearless Vampire Killers" its half the length of the sexual abuse section. And it has its own entire page detailing it out. You want to word cut how about there.

What is being eliminated is sourced information, for no reason. If people want to object to it for NPOV they have the opportunity. but as it stand now, these deletions are being carried out on a rush. Accuracy and approprib9itly are important, counting words is not. Either use the NPOV dispute to raise issue or not. But it will remain improper to wholes delete contributions that have been made over weeks time. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been clearly commented and supported that the section was becoming enlarged by slow creep of additional excessive details. The section has been well trimmed to a concise summary of the general details by a respected experienced editor that can be claimed to be neutral to the topic. Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with one aspect of Tombaker321's comment - there shouldn't be an arbitrary limit on the length of a summary section. That just gets folks into trouble. There's no real hard and fast rules about the summary section (see WP:SS), but the idea is to put an outline/overview of the subject in the main article, and all of the details in the sub article. What utterly surprising to me is there is more effort about this subject here, in the summary article, than in the detail article.
That said, it's easy for summary sections to get too long, because people add the information in the main article only, and never both with the detailed article. Summary sections can slowly grow until someone does notice that it's gotten a bit out of hand, and prunes it back. By keeping the summary short, it actually encourages people to go to the details - they want to know the story behind that short paragraph.
Going over Benjiboi's version, I'd suggest, at a minimum, that some of the references be removed. Summary sections don't have as stringent requirements for sourcing except for BLP material, quotes and statements that might (not probably, but might) be controversial. I'd also hope to see much of this debate moved to the detail article, where it belongs. Ravensfire (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree, there are going to be additional details to add regarding this story...soon, so it will be impossible to set a guideline as to the size of the section. As regard the citations, are they excessive? I had not noticed, I ll have a look.... It isn't too bad, I think we should keep them as they are not a big issue. Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Either use the NPOV Dispute Process and discuss needs for changes adding or deleting or don't do it. The content was built upon consensus and its being removed for the reason of an arbitrary word goal of few. Raise concerns in discussion first before hacking away. We are getting near the point where the entire entry should just be handed over Dalton, Polanski's attorney. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left you a revert warning, you are going down a one way street here, there is no support here all all for your position. Off2riorob (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment re In 500 words or less.. ... I only raise this so that there will be some understanding (especially to new editors) that the summary of a section which has a main article should not be expected to keep getting ever larger. This is a highly contentious subject summary, and of course, it is natural to want to add details to the main (higher profile) article—ignoring the article where the details should be added first.

    An experienced editor dropping in from out of the clouds and compressing (whenever they get a feeling it should be done) is a very unexpected (and upsetting) event. BUT if there was a practical rule of thumb of how large is appropriate, then there would be less a feeling of arbitrary (improper) power being inflicted on a lot of work done by editors who didn't expect it to all get undone ... apparently by whim).

    NOTE: I have already written 100K words arguing with TomBaker321 ... and simply would like, in this case, to be able to say: this is the size thing consensus feels appropriate.

    BOTTOM LINE: Word limits as a general rule, no. Temporary heuristic for a highly contentious section (which has its own article which is being ignored to expand the main article, yes. I.E., In 500 words or less ... summarize this. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that the 500 word goal is notappropriate. Your appraisal is wrong. Please address any changes in the NPOV Dispute Working Group. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Fine, no rule-of-thumb limit (That was simply to give a target size to prevent some from continuing to fight against consensus to enlarge the summary (again and again), wasting their and other editor's time... On with phase 2. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words)

See NPOV analysis of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words)

(NOTE: New subtopic of NPOV dispute ...) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Apologies, I was busy in RL for a bit not ignoring this. For the record I had meant that I hoped any proposed POV correcting content could be summarized in 500 words or less - that is the comments on this talkpage, not that the article itself should be restricted by some arbitrary measure which I generally do not support. We go where the content leads not contain it as we wish. I do hope the NPOV issue are concisely addressed as this whole page is WP:TLDR and that's not serving ourselves, our readers or our editing. At the end of the day who care what version "wins" if it simply is wrong and has to be fixed in a week or month. Let's present an article that is NPOV and is the very best example of what a good encyclopedia article can do with uncomfortable subject matter. -- Banjeboi 00:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute Working Group.

Current version updates is the version most similar to prior to NPOV Dispute. This version hammered out over weeks is near fully complete to what should be said, it is not length and sticks to the significant moments and facts.

FOR ANY CHANGES TO THE DISPUTED SECTION PLACE THEM HERE FIRST.

1. Show the sentence in question (or what you want added)
2. State reasons or objections to inclusion or exclusion
3. Ask for comments, and wait several days.
4. If you believe there is consensus, state what it is and what you intend to do.
5. Wait again for remarks back....after a couple of days it will be clear.

The original NPOV Dispute was not raised with any specifics, so this method will address concerns about improper form of the NPOV Dispute Flag. We have seen massive deletions of content that was worked very hard for inclusion with NPOV sourcing etc, only to single users "weed-whack" the entry and say "ta-da" lets remove the flag now.

Any revisions done, without going through the above process are subject to removal. Please if there is any other way of dealing with this offer it up. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason now for the npov template to remain on the section. Off2riorob (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I do, and will illustrate with line-by-line analysis (just waiting for semi-stabilization of current size (400 words). (Also consider comment by editor I linked to earlier). Proofreader77 (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I left him a talkpage note asking him to reconsider. Off2riorob (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You read my mind. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Tom, but what gives? If another edit war is going to get going, it is likely to be caused by inflammatory remarks like your statement "Any revisions done, without going through the above process[,] are subject to removal." (Bracket mine, to indicate clause.) Ah, and we were all getting along so well. Oberonfitch (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A NPOV Dispute was raised without giving specific details of what was disputed, then about 6 sentences were removed for claims of length only, now that the information is gone, people think the NPOV Dispute tag should be removed. "People" referring to a close group of editors. I removed my opposition to the NPOV Dispute because I believe that advocacy editing is being done under a banner of NPOV. I thought an orderly Dispute Process is Mandated for the NPOV tag. Instead what happened is just a single editor removing information, and claiming it was done for word length. So instead of a process we got a ripping out of information. My attempt in putting in this section was simply to try to follow an orderly NPOV Dispute Process, which would address the original taggers concerns. The NPOV dispute process is not being worked with objections and responses. My attempt to go to process seems failed. I asked for alternatives to resolving the NPOV Dispute with fairness, see above, none were offered --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no npov dispute, if there was one it is history, I support removal of the npov template but, it can sit there if anyone still thinks what is left is npov. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I removed what I saw as excess information not because of any POV but because it seemed unneeded in this article. I did it before and I'm happy to do it again. This article should neutrally sum up the information giving just enough that a reader knows the situation. We have an entire article, which needs work, that can delve into all the gritty details that roll ones eyes like the name of a judge and on which date he was refused bail etc. As editors we are suppose to edit and frankly i only care so much about the subject so I do feel a bit on the more objective side of things here. For the record I'm still open to hearing what should be added that isn't there but should be. -- Banjeboi 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
See NPOV analysis of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words)

(Link to subtopic in NPOV dispute) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is in favor/against [POV-section] tag (Sexual assault case)?

[EDIT TITLE] Clarify for new editors, not whole article, just that section. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Tombaker321, Off2riorob, Dream Focus, and Banjeboi seem to be against the NPOV tag, while only Proofreader77 is for it. To clarify everyone's position, so we can form a consensus, how many people believe the NPOV should be there?

For

  • For. See Proofreader's thoughtful objections which reflect mine, but more eloquently. Simply put: the fact that a crime was committed does not deny the perpetrator to speak in his own defense, regardless of whether that crime was against a teenager and it was rape. Oberonfitch (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Against

  • Dream Focus 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I am against as I think it is neutral enough, but perhaps not perfect, a good enough overview ... however Proofreader is objecting in good faith and I do not want to reject his issues, perhaps his issues can be dealt with without the need for a pov tag, but this king of balancing the article could go on for eternity.. lets just leave the section stable and all take ourselves off to try to clean up and improve the other article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Need for Dispute Process to be Followed Correctly [response: By whose interpretation?]

[EDIT RHETORICAL TITLE] Editor TomBaker321's title phrasing is a rhetorical assertion that his interpretation is correct. Rather than contentiously rephrase, I have added a balancing addendum to clarify the rhetoric involved] Proofreader77 (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

e.g. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. --Tombaker321 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • The for or against question is a false dilemma. We don't vote on wBether an objection can be lodged. We need SPECIFICS, and its specifics are REQUIRED for a NPOV dispute. If you want to Tag the article, state what you think should be done specifically. All you have offered is generalized fuzziness. Write down what you think needs to be removed, changed, added. Spend the time to write the sentences. Remember there is no defense to what Polanski plead guilty to, by definition. If you want to write down a line about what his own attorneys state in the documentary, write it down, offer it for consideration. Or heck place it into the article and see how it flies. Maybe there will be no dispute at all. Follow procedure. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • While the above may sound perfectly reasonable, see Insistence on immediate removal of POV-section tag below. NOTE: The fact that "drive-by tagging" has been alleged when talk-page discussion of the tag is thousands of words long (and growing) should give some idea of the mis-characterization. BOTTOM LINE We disagree about the NPOV status of the summary section; we disgree about interpretation of policy. The POV tag says Do not remove until resolved. Given the disagreements, those who are removing are doing so in violation of the tag itself. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • [Disruptive pattern] Let the record show that the single-purpose account editor has previously (1) withdrawn resistance to POV tag after two editors voted to support the tag. THEN immediately began agitating again regarding the same issue ("no specifics") creating this topic. (3) NOW in the current topic (started by DreamFocus to see if there was consensus for removal), Tombaker321 has chosen to reject/abort this vote ... and assert his own interpretation of policy as overriding.

    While new editors are not to be treated harshly, when they behave disruptively (which is the point we have reached now), it should be made clear that we are no longer in the realm of content dispute, but behavior. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think no one believes the above, single sided declarations are productive. "I do declare", is just another idiom. When I first removed the NPOV Dispute Tagging, I gave my reasons straight up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#The_POV_Dispute_Flag_is_Removed Pardon me, if I don't think a roll call vote for sockpuppetry is warranted. The Tagging is not a critical as the content. So again, what specifically is being suggested for change? Not general commentary, what is needed are specific sentences. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • [Note: aspersion/allegation of "sockpuppetry"] has now been made by TomBaker321:
Noted for the record. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Boiler Plate: NPOV Tagging and Process

These are selected keypoints in order to remove confusion, and get the process moving again, since we have a New Dispute.

Requirements of a NPOV Dispute WP:NPOVD

1. This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
2. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.
3. Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.

There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

  • The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV)
  • While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
  • Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance).
  • The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
  • The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.
  • A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.
  • The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.
  • Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.

How to initiate an NPOV debate

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies

Any editor who sees a tag, but does not see any problem with the article, and who does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. It may be wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(Before this is removed - wrong place/discuss policy elsewhere)

  • That section is not the current flag being raised. It was taken down for cause. For example your Sonnets did nothing but confuse issues. Start again new. The field has been cleared for you. Your dispute is new, the flag is as of 11-10. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • See also - Previous policy brouhaha Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_7#Bolding_comments. NOTE: It is certainly no sin to be a new editor (we've all been there) ... but way too much drama with the appearance of assuming experienced editors are acting in bad faith.

    NOTE: The naturally high contention of an article like this is perhaps not the best place to get ones bearings in Wikipedia, but such is the case, so perhaps some uninvolved editors will guide the new editor to the appropriate forums to address their concerns. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not."
  • The prior flags were removed for cause. Those causes were clearly laid out. A New flag has been placed. I have made every oppertunity I can think of, to allow for whatever reasons for the flag to be discussed.
  • The closed NPOV dispute was a mess. It is brought to attention with the use of Sonnets. Then expansions and collapses everywhere. It was acknowledge and stated, that it confused many, and it was based upon general concerns without specific actions or requests.
  • Directly below is the section to raise the Newest Dispute, raise it any way needed. But it should be clear, and it should have suggestions on what specific changes are in their opinion needed. We need to move on. For myself, I will look to the new NPOV Dispute section for what is being done in regards to the Tag. I think it is reasonable from every viewpoint to start this process again, and to listen to what the tagger is saying. But please without Sonnets or other gamesmanship (i.e. Noted for the Record, In Due Course, Let the record reflect).

Let's move forward --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute : Sexual assault case Opened 11-10

Proofreader77 has created a new NPOV Dispute Flag for the Sexual assault case.

Procedures

1. If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page.
STATUS: DONE
2. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]".
STATUS: DONE (this is that section)
3. Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.
STATUS: WAITING

(The Tagger needs to do this in this section, without circular reference to previous talk, they must be stated here, and clearly, presented for a first time reader self contained here) --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Details of NPOV Dispute started 11-10

[Notice] of talk page disruption Further discussion has been temporarily delayed by continuing talk page disruption to remove the NPOV tag. See:

For specific sentences at issue

For support for the tag see:

For BLP issue of NPOV of Sexual assault case (summary) see

Bottom line for the moment: Much of my time is currently being taken up by Tombaker321's repeating his assertion that there is not sufficient talk page support for the tag. That is ridiculous on its face. When the disruption ceases, we will address the NPOV problems in sentences 2, 7, 9, 10, 12 as previously noted (amidst all the endless, and yes, disruptive, agitation to remove the tag by Tombaker321.) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-Read your Sonnets...the previous flags were removed for cause. We march on. Now: You have a new Flag open...address what you want...proceed...no need to wait...you have the floor...lets get going...we are ready...lets hear it...go right ahead...tally ho. Write it out --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


NPOV dispute - Sexual assault case (summary)

Old
PREAMBLE - re contentious environment in wake of unique current event
{{hat|Extended comment including (!) sonnet form overview collapsed for readability. Feel free to add a sentence or two summary so us mere mortals know what communication was intended.}} EDIT: I said I would collapse the sonnet— improper collapsing of issue by [unsigned] editor. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Preable (current event leading to full protection)

There is now sufficient documentary evidence (see topics above) of a fundamental contention regarding the selection of information presented regarding the sexual assault case. Given the level of public controversy in the wake of the arrest of Polanski in Switzerland, this is certainly not surprising. The initial rush to edit this article (often apparently fueled by passionate outrage inspired by reading the grand jury testimony of the victim—leading not only to editing without consensus, but personal attacks on anyone perceived to be "on Polanski's side") which yielded a one-week spell of full protection 10/1-8, (with many participants apparently [sensibly] finding other things to focus their attention on [after the lock ... but not some of us :-).

Reference - my (Proofreader77's) initial 10 talk page edits to Talk: Roman Polanski 10/3-6
Enter Proofreader77 (me) 3-6 Oct 2009

My first 10 edits on Talk: Roman Polanski:

The broad BLP/NPOV contention is re including/excluding Polanski/defense POV
NOTE: The 75K discussion currently archive-bracketed due to deadlock/overgrowth (Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV) illustrates the contention over one item (TO WIT: the victim "looked between 16 and 18"). That is only one item. Not the broad issue.
Repeating that the specific item already contended is not the broad NPOV issue to be resolved
  • NOTE: It has been repeated many times that Proofreader77 (me) wants to add this information which should not be added—and that my adding of what I classified as something like ameliorating information will not be stood for.
  • NPOV dispute is NOT about any one item (no matter many times that item is repeated—which has already consumed so much of the talk page).
  • When archive-bracketing the topic probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV) ... I indicated that the broad issue of NPOV would have to be addressed. NOTE: While I had been thinking the place to do that would be at WP:NPOVN, the fact that this is a WP:BLP means that POV balancing is a higher-order priority. But before we move to an appropriate higher forum, we must at least document the issues here on the talk page of the article (especially since understanding the balance of the this is perhaps more complex than it might seem at first glance).
  • And, of course, perhaps we can resolve the balance here on this talk page without resort to further steps in dispute resolution.
It is fair to say that there are at least two points of editorial view about this, and that no one is hiding their opinions (which do not matter). What matters is Wikipedia policy, not personal opinions.

I.E., My editorial position on this matter can be summarized (in two-sonnet form^^) thus:
NPOVD preamble - establishing broad issue of EXCLUSION of Polanski/defense POV in sonnet form

{WPP.001.01} ____ "[F]acts stand upon themselves"?

WHO stood them HERE?
{WPP.001.02}____ "Facts" usually are lying where they are. ^^

{WPP.001.03} ____ AN EDITOR pins on their lavaliere
{WPP.001.04} ____ and shoves them on the stage with a guitar.

{WPP.001.05} ____ BUT lacking mouths and fingers, facts just stand
{WPP.001.06} ____ wherever they are pushed to on the page
{WPP.001.07} ____ by editor-directors. (or Ayn Rand?
{WPP.001.08} ____ In Google News, again, Ayn's all the rage. :-)

{WPP.001.09} ____ Excuse off-topic humor due to rhyme,
{WPP.001.10} ____ but let us not forget, in this, to laugh.
{WPP.001.11} ____ THE LACK OF NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW's a crime,
{WPP.001.12} ____ and summaries aren't made by telling half.

{WPP.001.13} ____ Some facts support Polanski locked away.
{WPP.001.14} ____ Neutrality assures his side its say.

{WPP.002.01} ____ WHAT FACTS ARE MISSING from Polanski's case?
{WPP.002.02} ____ (On this page, FROM THE SUMMARY, not all.)
{WPP.002.03} ____ We've skimmed across the timeline of disgrace
{WPP.001.04} ____ with "no excuses" as improper wall.

{WPP.002.05} ____ LET'S CLEAR THIS UP — a BLP demands
{WPP.002.06} ____ the subject's POV and his defense.
{WPP.002.07} ____ No matter where the public furor lands,
{WPP.002.08} ____ our rule here is not "do not cause offense."

{WPP.002.09} ____ The prosecutor, Roger Gunson, joins
{WPP.002.10} ____ with Roman's lawyer Douglas Dalton, now.
{WPP.002.11} ____ TWO HONORABLE MEN re-gird their loins
{WPP.002.12} ____ TO TELL THE STORY STRAIGHT before they bow.

{WPP.002.13} ____ One fact that's missing we'll close this verse on:
{WPP.002.14} ____ The judge had to recuse, 'fore he was gone.

META COMMENT: Sonnets!?! When one has typed 100K words on one talk page, it is time for brief respite from prose—and resort to the rhetorical technology of formal verse ... as an aide in clarifying the point with some entertainment value for those willing to devote their attention to the matter. (And Yes, I will collapse the sonnetized general case at some point—not doing it now because it makes the type so small. But fear not.)

Excruciatingly detailed analysis (with side-by-side POVs etc) ... "in due course" ^^

New Wikipedia editors should survey Wikipedia policy (especially WP:NPOVD) and prepare to make arguments based on that.
-- (signing all of the above NPOV dispute topic initiation) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC) {{hab}}[EDIT: Yes, complex introduction —but rash inappropriately scoped habt by unsigned edit Proofreader77 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Noting - the closing couplet of sonnet 2 (collapsed above / for full size click here)

{WPP.002.13} ____ One fact that's missing we'll close this verse on:
{WPP.002.14} ____ The judge had to recuse, 'fore he was gone.

... yielded this article edit (last night). (No comment on the rhetoric of the phrasing at this time. lol)

(I.E., Dear sonnet scoffers: Apparently the sonnets contained something actionable. lol)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Initial discussion/comments re NPOV dispute

  • Note that it is well understood that we are talking about a summary—but am raising the idea now that, perhaps, point-by-point timeline history may not be the way to handle this. Although we will start by constructing what the timeline version would be if NPOV is balanced.

    (I.E., Yes this ought to be hammered out in the article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case, but it appears there is much interest in getting this summary version perfected. So be it. Getting it right/balanced/short is certainly a worthy rhetorical challenge. In progress ...) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You did not follow the rules of WP:NPOV, which says to explain exactly what you see as a problem. List out what sentence or sentences you have a problem with, then discuss it here. WP:NPOVD does a good job of explaining things. It reads at the top:


So kindly do that, as direct and specific as possible. Dream Focus 09:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment to others: (NOTE: No direct response to mis-characterizing comments. Period.)
  • re "Drive-by tagging" LOL Ridiculous characterization noted for the record.
  • The missing information has been generally described (Polanski's POV/defense) ...
  • The information/perspective of the (concurring) version of events by the prosecutor Roger Gunson and Polanski's attorney Douglas Dalton is mentioned (as what has not been covered)
  • ... and specifically (as an example of missing information) that Judge Rittenband was removed from the case for cause (the reason for which would be clear from Gunson's and Dalton's version of events).
  • And as I said: Excruciatingly detailed analysis (with side-by-side POVs etc) ... "in due course"
Where are we? The summary of abuse case has been recently expanded (probably further than consensus expected, given the existence of the subarticle), and a complex balancing of the points will be required. To avoid edit warring with Polanski-POV/defense exclusionists point by point ... the general issue must be clarified first.

That is what what has been addressed first.

What came before illustrating that that clarification must come first/now (before proceeding)? Skim the talk page acreage of:
What next? Probably a side-by-side table of timeline, with the missing POV(s) — but note that the recent expansion is still in flux (or has been these past two days)

FINALLY: Formal objection - That those who wish to exclude Polanski's POV would characterize perhaps the most elaborate talk-page co-post to a POV tag in the history of Wikipedia as "drive-by tagging." LOL But, objection aside, it is quite fitting that it is the first comment—illustrating why this talk page is so full, and why this NPOV dispute is necessary. Selah :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Response by Tombaker321 re NPOV dispute

RESPONSE

1. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

2. There are no objections to the current content on this Wikipedia entry. i.e. Nothing about what is shown and sourced is being disputed.

3. Cyptic circular commentary obfuscates the issues which, if any, need resolution. Specific requests for addition or deletion, or for whether they show bias need to be raised. They have not.

4. The editor as means to challenge NPOV wants to add that 'Ritterband was removed from the case" this entry has not been attempted to made directly of via discussion pages. I believe there would be not objection to this fact, as it is certainly a fact. Instead of disputing the entire entry, it would be far simpler to just add this specific fact and see to whether any other editor has an objection. (fwiw, I would have no objection to this in conception, and most likely in execution)

5. Whatever the editor is raising about perspective of "prosecutor Roger Gunson and Polanski's attorney Douglas Dalton" is unknown to specificity. As a matter of legal fact, the 1203.03 90 day diagnostic, was available for the judge. This 1203.03 diagnostic was never a sentence, and the sentencing of Polanski never occurred. Because the prosecution does not dismiss the other charges related to the plea deal until sentencing is completed, all the charges against Polanski remain unresolved. These are legal facts. Much of which has been omitted solely for brevity. That is information. The legal system has discreetly defined movements. As to what the editor would like to have withing the Wikipedia entry as far as perspective, is completely unstated at any time within discussion. There is no reason to believe the normal discussion process would not work.

6. Rejected by the normal editorial discussion process, this editor wants to put within the Wikipedia entry that the 13 year old victim of the crime that Polanski plead guilty to, had the appears of being 16 or 18. The editor does not want to use the photographic evidence as a basis for this claim. Moreover, the editor said that the reason for the inclusion for this information was to mitigate in the readers mind, the impression of what a 44 year man did to a 13 year old girl. The editor then states that the Polanski asserted "she looked older", as means for support of adding the victims appearance in the entry. When challenged in the discussion pages his claims the editor did not produce any evidence or citations, and simply ignored the questions to the editor, and said he would handle it in "due course".

More Importantly:.......regarding above item 6: Polanski responded in his pleading of guilt to the offense, that he understood here age to be 13, and that he understood her age at the time of the incident. Thus mitigation in the readers mind is hardly called for because Polanaski's admission of guilt accepted, is the record of fact, within materials already cited in this entry.

Summary of item 6: Editor wants to enter information, that failed review in the discussion pages, and wants to uses a NPOV review to place them. Nothing about the existing discussion process has failed, and the NPOV process is and end-around to a working editorial discussion.

7. For any items that the editor wants included or removed the normal discussion pages have been available, and remain available. These requests can be opened as specific topics for review in the discussion pages.

Overall summary of response:

The editor has avoided raising specific items of contest to NPOV, of this article. For areas the editor feels need to be added, the editor has avoided using the normal discussion process to added them. For items that the editor wanted included and the editorial discussion process did not concur, has lead the editor to calling a NPOV dispute. There is no offering that the normal editorial discussion process has failed with the exception of the kilobytes in file, to which the specific editor contributed too in large part, and size of file on itself has no merit to the end result of the editorial process which is displayed in the Wikipedia entry.
Conclusion the NPOV dispute is premature. The normal editorial discussion process can handle what should or should not be included. Whether resolved via dispute process or normal talk process, specific discreet items for inclusion and removal need to be STATED and clearly offered for review. (Please do not form a " strawman summarization" to respond to this response, as knocking down a strawman aggregation, does not at all respond to the specifics raised) --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

For the rest of us who have no idea what this is all about can it be stated clearly in, like, a few sentences? Thank you in advance. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor Proofreader77, does not believe the "sexual assault section" of this entry is NPOV. He has opened a dispute process. He has not specifically indicated what is disputed, what should be reworded, removed, or added. Normal editorial talk method has been working, however Proofreader77 disputes the end results. We wait for details. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[MARK:] Exhibit A [NPOV dispute: Polanski/defense POV exclusion] Proofreader77 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
(Comment acknowledged. Paragraph by paragraph analysis/discussion in later subsections rather, than expanding surely a long discussion here amidst so much else). Proofreader77 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: See new topic: Discussion re edit #2 (undo Vannatter, AND remove "consensual" from par. 1) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed the sex section is getting excessive detail, there should be a degree of stability in the article by now. Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    Again noting recent growing pains (not my doing:), but wanting to make sure it is balanced as it shrinks ... will probably grow a bit more, then can shrink with profound sensitivity to balance. :) Proofreader77 (talk)


I strongly object to the concept of "shrinking the information". The section as written is done with significant economy in its writing. Compare it to the section "Gérard Brach collaborations" its half the size of that. An editor stating "we are going to compress this thing" as a declarative statement, is contrary to collaboration, and is not operative on the community.

We have waited for clarification of what is at dispute of NPOV is about. It has not been stated. This topic and dispute seem to have become some sort of plaything. Sonnets being written and then hidden, and being offered as substantiation for a dispute. WTF? Here is some of the commentary that is being offered as the basis of the NPOV dispute. And I quote:

A. "I.E., My editorial position on this matter can be summarized (in two-sonnet form^^) thus:"
B. "META COMMENT: Sonnets!?! When one has typed 100K words on one talk page, it is time for brief respite from prose—and resort to the rhetorical technology of formal verse ... as an aide in clarifying the point with some entertainment value for those willing to devote their attention to the matter. (And Yes, I will collapse the sonnetized general case at some point—not doing it now because it makes the type so small. But fear not.)"
C. Noting - the closing couplet of sonnet 2
D. (No comment on the rhetoric of the phrasing at this time. lol) (I.E., Dear sonnet scoffers: Apparently the sonnets contained something actionable. lol)
E. Comment to others: (NOTE: No direct response to mis-characterizing comments. Period.)
F. Extended comment including (!) sonnet form overview collapsed for readability. Feel free to add a sentence or two summary so us mere mortals know what communication was intended.
G. repeated "LOL" ing
H. "What came before illustrating that that clarification must come first/now (before proceeding)?"

Seriously WTF? All of the above quotes are being used as part of the basis for raising a NPOV dispute. But where is the substance? There are no specific issues being raised at being in dispute, they are simply absent. See:

The above is not present, no specific issues are raised, and the NPOV dispute tag is erected solely on the opinion that its not neutral, the tag was used as first resort, and as a lever. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Let the record show that the specific issue is the general exclusion of Polanski/defense POV's (with unlimited non-Wikipedia-policy based rationale). For illustration of what that means, observe when I add Polanski/defense POV THEN TomBaker321 removes it (with some ever-ready rationale).
BOTTOM LINE: Arguing point-by-point with vociferous exclusionary logic (see this archived page-filler) is not a practical nor reasonable (undue burden) solution to this problem. The goal of the NPOV dispute is to allow the balancing of POVs in the summary to achieve NPOV. Proofreader77 (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The management of this dispute of horrible, without specifics being offered by the tagger for what is disputed. Because the problem has grown worse. I have reset the version to basically at the point of when this dispute was started. This restores Proofreader77s additon of Vanatter's appraisal of Polanski.

At a minimum I would think the dispute should include discussion prior to additions and deletions. The restored current version is actually livable for me. But I now restore my objection to the last edit --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose the removing secondary guessing of Polanski mindset, when already in the section is what Polanski maintained. Specifically removing
When initially questioned Polanski didn't appear to realize having intercourse with a thirteen-year-old girl was illegal in America
He maintained it was consensual (which conveys ethical and legal). The wording of "maintained the sex was consensual" was a topic that was hammered out within discussion to the wording that is there now. Beyond America there is no country in Europe which has sex with a 13 year old as legal or at an age of consent. The elevation of speculation to what Polanski understood is not needed as we have what he maintain, his statements of innocence, his pleas of the same...already with the body of the article. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute status after condensing of summary (6 Nov/Benjiboi/400w)

  • Update While TomBaker321's contesting of Benjiboi's condensing has not been withdrawn, NPOV analyis of the condensed version will proceed. (See sentence-by-sentence analysis.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the NPOV dispute there was a baseline, that baseline was created with discussion in talk. Now that original has been edited, with whole sections removed, without any reasoning given. A close knit saying that the NPOV flag can not be removed. Now the originator Proofreader77 (the tagger), saying the NPOV dispute applies to the new version only. This NPOV Dispute is off the rails. My attempts to get it back on track, have failed also. No specific lines have been been called out as "not NPOV". This deleting of data without cause or justification, under guise of a NPOV Dispute, is a just train wreck. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

First off please avoid using colors and fonts here, they simply aren't needed. Secondly, anyone can edit here regardless of what editors on the talkpage think should be the status quo. frankly i have no dog in this race except making a good article for our readers. We have an entire article devoted to this subject so the summary here needs only to highlight enough so the average reader knows what the issues were/and are. My removal of what I saw as excess information had nothing to do with any NPOV issues as far as I'm aware. If we are missing information that should be included I am more than happy to look at adding content that should be there. -- Banjeboi 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Line-by-line NPOV comments re Benjiboi-400 version
Bottom line first: Why this NPOV dispute must solve the general issue of exclusion of Polanski/defense POV, rather than just a set of today's specifics ... to avoid endless page-filling, futile arguments due to fundamental differences in understanding of NPOV in a BLP ... forever preventing the balance from being achieved
BOTTOM LINE: Now ... why this is being handled as an NPOV dispute rather than just talk page discussion has many baffled. THE REASON has to do with different understandings of what NPOV in a BLP means (primarily between myself and TomBaker321) which produces THOUSANDS of unnecessary and futile talk-page filling words. That difference in understanding must be resolved more generally, rather than filling and refilling the talk page with point-by-point-unresolved contention (other than to exclude anything that the Polanski/defense exclusionist position doesn't like). Polanski/defense POV shall not be thus excluded—hence this NPOV dispute.

NOTE: TomBaker321 keeps shouting "no specifics." Below are specifics, but resolving a few specifics won't resolve the problem (so shouting "no specifics" is really just a distraction from the real issue which is a general case—it is the general idea that, e.g., TomBaker321 can fight every specific he doesn't like until the cows come home ... but this is a BLP ... and NPOV in a BLP is a special case, no matter how many bull patties one flings attempting to exclude appropriately sourced and weighted information in favor of the subject to achieve NPOV.

How do you figure that solving any specifics won't solve the issue? Read the guidelines of the NPOV Dispute, take that time, specifics MUST be used. The tag is a tool to address the specific. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
What is it you want to change? What is it that you want to add? S p e c i f i c a l l y? --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • ASIDE: [Since my able rhetorical counterpoint], Tombaker321, seems to be having trouble reading [note sarcasm], [i.e. continues to employ the rhetorical tactic of repeating a mis-characterizing catch word—however well formatted for emphasis]— I direct the attention of 3rd parties to this support for the POV tag which Tombaker321 responded to by withdrawing his canvassing for removal of the tag, before quickly beginning to rush about again demanding removal of the tag... then edit warring to remove the tag (see Dif reference below) ... etc.

    Let the record show the reason for that drama-filled passion to remove the NPOV tag shall be made manifest ... in due course. :)

    Now we return to the sentences at hand—the problematic ones indicated by number above. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Tom has some WP:Too long didn't read issues. This: "Since Tombaker321 seems to be having trouble reading" should be struck, as it is a personal attack. Ikip (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully decline to strike. [Though I will elaborate.] The specific line numbers in which there are issues are listed above, and what is not being covered.

I.E., If someone stands beside an elephant and demands to be shown the elephant, it is reasonable to say open your eyes.

Of course, the missing context here for newcomers is the many thousands of words TomBaker321 and myself have already spilled on this page (and in the archive).

So a newcomer walks into the middle of an extended dispute ... in which one person repeatedly says there is no elephant — while both of us are sitting on it. Now, the elephant and I both think that is rather uncivil, but graciously let it pass ... while only from time to time allowing the natural compulsion to say: perhaps you should see an eye doctor, rather than the more rhetorically precise: bullshit. Perhaps in a few more thousand words even the elephant will say that, but for now simply "having trouble reading" will suffice.

If that is sufficient to warrant civility court, then let us schedule a stop there as well... but after WP:BLPN (which I think is the next stop after we conclude the matter cannot be concluded on this talk page—which is the present step). Proofreader77 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I am tired of being slighted in remarks (ie being called bullshit), it serves not function to address this in any manner, so I do not intend to remark on it again. What I have stated repeatedly is for process to be followed. That you are not following process and I am calling on it, is not an attack as Ikip seems to want to assert. Put out whatever you feel needs to be addressed, write down the edits, and put them out there. Opening a dispute to soapbox stand, is not the process to follow. Show your work, what is it that wants to be done, is it just a quibble on wordsmithing? We don't know. How much has been discussed is not pertinent, if you think the history is confusing, start new. Answer the question what is at dispute, be specific.
Please don't suggest that I did anything based on Gatoclass. I completely disagree with his statements. His pontifications that is was not rape, because the girl eventually relented to the physically much stronger man...is not something I agree with at all. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • [Rhetoric note] The allegation that anyone has been called "bullshit" is bullshit. "Bullshit" is an informal technical term of rhetorical analysis which applies to particular assertions (sometimes merely false but sounding true, more often misleading emphasis/misdirection)—never to the asserter (unless, of course, their parents have been playful and given them that name—more likely with owned animals, surely somewhere an elephant in captivity has been named "Bullshit.":)

    The fact that Tombaker321 begins with the bullshit assertion that he has been called "bullshit" perhaps begins to help illustrate why there are so many words on this page—and specifically why there is an NPOV dispute. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I have thoroughly read this section, I don't see that any specific actions are being suggested. If there are what are they? I can guess by implication of what might be lobbied for from the vantage of the advocacy documentary "Wanted and Desired". But my guessing is not needed. What if anything is being analyzed does not seem to have any level of status, towards its completion.
It is just hanging here.
As far as I can tell this analysis does not yield any recommendations. This analysis is also being done on a heavily edited version of the section (mistakenly done under the banner of NPOVD), that was the working editorial version prior to the NPOV dispute. Independent of the First NPOV Dispute, or the Current NPOVD, I don't know where this analysis is going, or what will be its output if any. We know we need beef to move forward, where's the beef? --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • [ANI/note 2] Proofreader77 (myself, as well as other participants here) are currently involved in resolving some matters related to this NPOVD at WP:ANI. Again, excuse delays here while that is concluded. NOTE: Let the record show that I believe the POV-section tag (for the Sexual assault case) I placed is warranted—I am refraining from further discussion (and article edits) for the moment while the ANI matter is resolved. (If that should for some reason take longer than expected, will reevaluate the pause here.) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed/reinstated

The POV Dispute Flag is Removed

I have removed the NPOV flag for the following reasons.

1. It was drive-by tagging as being defined by "NOT STATING specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"
2. Objective fully sourced facts are being removed because of claims of NPOV....WITHOUT raising the objections and why.
3. Multiple editors believe the NPOV tag is gone, or should not stand.
4. The NPOV dispute is being used as cart blanch to remove contemporaneous discussion reviewed text, that occurred over weeks. The removals without explanations.
5 The NPOV dispute originator is advocating through his dispute that a word limit be created as measure, effectively attempting to lock out other editors.
6. The editor wants to raise the Polanski Defense as argument as basis for the NPOV dispute (see below) The Polanski defense is not very elaborate, a plea deal was reached and he plead guilty freely to one of 6 charges. To attempt to create POV defense, where one did not exist results in fabrication. The originator has asserted that Polanski believed the girl looked older, while that POV was never stated. The Polanski's view of the plea, and flee, have been documented in the section, with their accuracy not disputed, and any claims of not being NPOV not being stated.
7. The Dispute tag creator, has acknowledged that many do not understand the reason.
8. Quoting NPOV dispute tag originator:
"BOTTOM LINE: Now ... why this is being handled as an NPOV dispute rather than just talk page discussion has many baffled."
"Let the record show that the specific issue is the general exclusion of Polanski/defense POV's (with unlimited non-Wikipedia-policy based rationale)."
9. The NPOV dispute originator acknowledges confusion, and that he is raising general concerns, but not specifics. Anything close to specific is just a meandering view it may not be "worthy".
10. "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." ---- The tag originator has not.
11. "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." ----The NPOV dispute Tagger has not.

If a new tag is to be put up, numbers 10 and 11 are not options, they are requirements, and need to be done clearly. To raise a dispute flag, the editor must give enough information to address and resolve, its not to be used as a blank to to satisfy an editors opinion. Point out the problem, say why, offer solution, solicit feedback --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute tag reinstated

  • TomBaker321 removed the tag improperly. The allegations of "drive-by" are ridiculous on their face. Specifics are articulated, see discussion just above 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
See NPOV analysis of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words)


I am going to have to delete this flag again based on the same reasons above. There is nothing being offered as disputed. Nothing being offered for inclusion. If the tag is to be applied, the tagger MUST state SPECIFICALLY what is at dispute, and what they specifically want to do. The drive by tagging as being done, challenges all the work of past editors, without any specificity. Right now this NPOV dispute is being improperly used, as I have outlined above. Editors don't understand it, and the tagger says he wants to address general thing. It fuzzy at best. A dispute comes after analysis. The flag removed properly. If the tag is to added as a new flag, it need to state specifically what the dispute is. Ample concerns to the removed flag have been raised without any response by the tagger. They can not raise a dispute and fail to engage the discussion. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute tag reinstated (2/etc)

See NPOV analysis of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words)
I have removed the dispute flag based off clear rules of how the Tag is to be used. If a dispute is to be raised it need to be done clearly. Its undisputed there is confusion about the need for the tag, the reasons, for the tag, and no specifics are offered. Items are being deleted without reason. This is drive by Tagging, by definition. If the tag is to placed it need to follow the rules. Proofreader77 has been informed of this, by myself and others. Proofreader77 continues to not respond to questions regarding his "tag". A tag does not create cart blank editorial authority. Proofreader77 has been warned repeated about the abuse of process. He admits so in his sonnets. SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVD --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
See NPOV analysis of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words)

[Reference] Difs of removals

DR documentation - Proofreader77 (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing: The NPOV dispute states nothing Specific [Response: misrepresentation]

[EDIT TO APPEND]: Title is improper rhetorical assertion. Won't rewrite, but will append. Proofreader77 (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Proofreader77, what are you disputing? You have raised a flag and placed it back. What do you believe is not NPOV? Specifically what in the text now, or what in the text should be added? Your circular references need not be repeated. Don't link or refer, state what is your dispute here. If you won't respond, the Tag is not appropriate.
 --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
See NPOV analysis of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words)

(no response to shouted[all-bolded removed] prima facie misrepresentation) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you respond? As foreshadowed, your link is generalities and meandering thoughts. What do you believe is not NPOV? Specifically what in the text now, or what in the text should be added? If you won't respond, the Tag is not appropriate. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
See NPOV analysis of 11/6 Benjiboi-condensed version (400 words)

(no response to uncivil demands and misrepresentations. See this diff of documentation of disruption on talk page and

Enough drama. See sentence-by-sentence discussion -- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Sexual assault case (11/6 ~400 words)

[Reference] Numbered line-by-line Benjiboi-400 rewrite

(1) In March 1977 Polanski was arrested and charged with a number of offenses against Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl.[39]

CHANGED:

Tombaker321 rewrite 04:59, 9 November 2009

On March 11 1977 Polanski was arrested for the sexual assault of Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl

(2) She testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, (a sedative drug and muscle relaxant), and despite repeated protests and being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy upon her.[40][41][42][43]

NOTE: Time line confusion/and to whom - Possible improvement: Earlier that day she had testified before a grand jury that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug and muscle relaxant, and despite repeated protests and being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy upon her.[

(3) A grand jury charged him with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[44]

NOTE: Error (omission) - Unlawful sexual intercourse was also one of the six charges of the grand jury indictment (the lowest charge).

(4) At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges.[45]

Comment

(5) In an effort to preserve her anonymity, Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain which Polanski accepted, and, under the terms, five of the initial charges were to be dismissed.[46]

Comment

(6) He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse, a charge which is synonymous under Californian law with statutory rape.[46][47]

Comment

(7) The judge received a probation report and psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time,[48] and in response the filmmaker was ordered to ninety days in prison in order to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.[49]

Comment

(8) He was released after forty-two days.[50]

Comment

(9) Despite expectations and recommendations that he would receive only probation at sentencing, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys" that he would imprison and then deport him.[51][47]

Comment

(10) Upon learning of the judge's plans Polanski fled to France in February 1978 hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[44]

Comment

(11) As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition and has mostly lived in France, avoiding countries likely to extradite him. [52]

Comment

(12) Because he fled prior to sentencing, all six of the original charges remain pending.[53]

Comment

[P]

(13) Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. In 1993 Polanski agreed to pay her at least $500,000 as part of a civil settlement, however in August 1996, a court filing stated that he owed her $604,416.22, including interest.

Comment

(14) The court records do not state whether Polanski made any subsequent payment.[54]

Comment

(15) In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival.[55][56]

Comment

(16) His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court.[57][58]

Comment
PR77 sentence notes
  • In which sentences do we have (BLP) NPOV issues to address? Usually that means Polanski/defense POV is available but not taken into consideration. NOTE: Some believe a selection of "neutrally phrased" sentences produces NPOV. But a collection of neutral sounding sentences may well not be NPOV.

    re #2 (grand jury testimony) - Note that the summary version taking shape at the bottom of talk at Sexual assault case summary leaves it out. Suspect that is contentious, but solves problems. (Let's set that aside for now.)

    re #7 (probation report > prison) What's missing? The in-chambers reaction to Chino idea. Who can tell? Prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton. Here the story has split/screen versions: in-chambers agreement as to in-court "show." NOTE: Judge summarizes probation report in court. We know it recommends no incarceration, but we don't have any idea why. Many assume it is a "whitewash" (something the judge said about the later Chino report, not the probation report). BALANCING: If the damning (and un-crossexamined) grand jury testimony of #2 is included, there needs to be a one-liner about why the probation report was lenient.

    #9-10 Here's where you need Gunson and Dalton again to clarify what happened in-chambers (and in Dalton's office). Will leave it at that for the moment.

    re 12 casts not the slightest shadow of the absurdity of L.A. D.A.'s posturing (for the crowd).

    REFS? 7,9,10 can be handled via a combination of 1977 newspaper (AP based) AND the documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" (yes, I checked with WP:RSN and got verification by well-known admin that the documentary is RS and can be quoted and summarized as any RS secondary source).

    RE SOURCES IN GENERAL: I don't mention anything unless it can be reliably sourced.... and primarily the only voices I'm interested in including are Rittenband, Gunson, Dalton, Vannatter, Geimer/Silver, and Polanski of course ... as the basis of Polanski/defense perspective which is missing.

    RE TOO MANY DETAILS?: All can be squeezed down ... but yes, a few more phrases. The current version is 400 words, and I suggested an upperbound of 500 (which will not be a formal constraint), but I will certainly not suggest anything over 500 words ... and probably more like 450. We'll see.
    Proofreader77 (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref improve template

I don't understand why this article keeps getting re-'plated. All the material seems thoroughly ref'd up. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit frustrating but there is a valid point that although some of the sections are well cleaned up and referenced, others seem absolutely devoid. The article needs more clean-up and likely someone with a copy of the best books about him to plod through and ref up a bunch of content so all can see what is verified and to what sources. -- Banjeboi 13:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_8&oldid=1079709590"