![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Shouldn't his name be spelled "Roman Polanski" instead of "Roman Polański" on EN, since almost everybody uses "Polanski"? WhisperToMe 03:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the article should be moved to Roman Polański. I guess it was created here before Wikipedia started accepting diacritics in titles. What do you think?-- SylwiaS | talk 09:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In English, his name is by far most widely cited without the diacritic, which I think is the most helpful thing to go by, since WP:Title indeed has to do with using the most widely searched-for term. The only thing that might make me think otherwise would be if a source shows up showing he professionally uses Polański wherever he can (I don't think he does). Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
why does this article put the blame on the child and neglect the fact he could have urged her to tell her mother she wants to stay? and he had power over her and authority so obviously she wasnt gonna fight him, on top of it he had to get her inhibitions down with alcohol and drugs. If this kind of thing were allowed it would set a precedent for child pronography. Also he knew how old she was beforehand and set up the photo shoot himself not the mother, he also had another underaged victim who was 15-16 who was ana ctress right afterwards showing that he had no symphany and really is a pedophile.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.135.56.61 ( talk • contribs) .
Is it worthwhile to add more details about his relationship with the young girl, or is that just not worth rehashing in an encyclopedia? It is a part of what makes him a significant figure. David 19:42 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
Views have been advanced that Samantha Gailly (her maiden name)'s mother set up the whole situation as part of an extortion plot against Polanski. This theory, discussed in Polanski's autobiography, deserves further investigation. While this does not exonerate Polanski, it suggests that some sort of charges should have been brought against the mother and at the very least she should have been deprived of custody. -- 209.178.190.82
There is more "career" info in the "controversy" section than in the "career" section. I feel this article needs some re-organizing. -- Feitclub 03:38, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
The sentence was replaced. Does the crime have to be in the lead paragraph? It was reprehensible, but it doesn't (shouldn't) define him as a figure. -- Dpr 03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Samantha clearly says that the sex was not consensual. Although the charges were reduced to statutory rape, it seems obvious from the evidence and the presence of drugs that a rape has been committed. [1] "It was not consensual sex by any means," wrote Geimer in her article. "I said no repeatedly but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was very scary and, looking back, very creepy." I think it is important to mention this, because a lot of people think that raping a minor automatically means "statutory rape" which is rather demeaning to minors (i.e. it implies they can neither give nor withold consent). Obviously rape is worse than statutory rape, and I think the original charges need to be pointed out in the article, preferably before the reduced charges are mentioned, to clear up the widespread misconception that Polanski's crime involved consensual sex. A5 19:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
If someone is deceived into doing something, then they didn't give their consent even if she wasnt raped and didnt say no and the whole thing is made up. Also, if someone drugs a woman/girl and gives her alcohol to break her inhibitions before having sex with them its also rape. Anyway, you could tell how old she was by looking at her face, she still had a kids face, so although her body was developed you would have to be retarded not to tell shes a kid by looking at her baby face. Also he couldn't give consent because of her age, thus it is statutory rape. Allowing 13 yr olds giving consent would lead to child pornography being wide spread.
Spoken like a true Lolicon fan Sweetfreak. Ticklemygrits ( talk) 16:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Should the sworn grand jury testimony of Polanski's 13-year-old victim be incorporated into this article?
E.g., p. 30 Q: How long did Mr. Polanski have his mouth on your vagina? A: A few minutes. Q: What happened after that? A: He started to have intercourse with me. Q: What do you mean by intercourse? A: He placed his penis in my vagina.
and p. 32 A: Then he lifted up my legs and went in through my anus. Q: What do you mean by that? A: He put his penis in my butt.
It seems that it is highly relevant to Polanski's rape controversy. Austinmayor ( talk) 17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph appears to be blaming the victim for Polanski's rape. When a 43 year old man violates a child of thirteen there is no excuse and this paragraph must be re-written, unless it is wiki policy to blame victims?
These paragraphs were consummate examples of 'bias by ommsion' that my history texts are so fond of mentioning.
For example, they stated 'Geimer's mother asked her directly if she wanted her to come pick her up. Geimer said no, she wanted to stay with Polański'. Not only had the author neglected to mention that prior to this Polanski had said the photoshoot remained unfinished, they had also expanded on Geimer's testamony of merely "No" [2], thus implying a familiarity not stated as present.
Furthermore, the sentence, 'Geimer, knowing full well that it was a third of a quaalude tablet, said, "Okay"' neglected to point out that (if we are not disputing the accuracy of Geimer's statement as a whole) by this point Geimer was completely intoxicated. It is unlikely anyone aged 13 and drunk knows 'full well' anything.
Using as much restraint as I can... I have no idea what the author was thinking with the concluding sentence 'They then proceeded to continue shooting photographs, and eventually to have sex'. Not only does this imply consent (which according to Geimer was not given), it also completely ignores the issue of ASSAULT. To describe any alleged rape as merely, 'to have sex' indicates both bias and an incredible lack of respect.
Theoretically these edits have removed most of the POV in these paragraphs - I have no problem altering/debating/defending as needed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nylarathotep ( talk • contribs)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15775812&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=polanski-raped-me-when-i-was-13----he-is-a-creep--name_page.html
This might provide a quote or two in addition to the 2 other interviews mentioned already. Would anyone like to update the article? Thanks
Kvsh5 (
talk)
12:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The references section here is huge, and far outweighs the needs of the article for citation and further reading. I don't think the goal here should be to annotate every book and citation on Polanski's life, but rather to include some gems which are good overviews or provide specific citation for article text. I know nothing about the citations (and don't speak the language in which many are written), so I don't think they do either of these things adequately. Perhaps someone with a little more expertise can trim this list down to a reasonable size? -- ABQCat 07:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is an inaccurancy: "It may be telling that Polanski chose to play the lead in his next film, The Tenant (1976), the story of a Polish immigrant living in Paris". The film doesn't find out Terkovsky's nationality. He represent of all immigrants who can't adapt theirselves. BTW: This Film is very good.-- 62.87.163.40 22:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the quote from an E! clip show be removed since it is by definition an opinion, not a fact? If you can fit it in somewhere else it is an interesting comment that I personally agree with, but putting it in a "fact' section is pretty dubious.
Was Sharon Tate eight or four months pregnant (there seems to be some inconsistencies here) ? -- Tochiro
A lot of Americans actually think Roman Polanski is Adrian Brody, because they've never seen Polanski, but they see "a Roman Polanski film" and then they see Adrian Brody. At one point after Adrian Brody's anti-war oscar acceptance speech, Chris Rock (I think it was chris rock) said "Didn't that guy rape a little girl?" on a talk show, and in fact nobody corrected him. While I find this kind of funny, the image of Brody above Polanski is probably just making things worse. 66.41.66.213 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"A lot?" I've never encountered this. One unfortunate mix-up, if that happened, is not evidence of a widespread misunderstanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.12.228 ( talk • contribs) .
"It seems somehow important to Polański at this point to make a film for children, and maybe also for his own children." Whose judgement are we reading here, about what "seems" important to Polanski? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I propose moving the article to "Roman Polanski" unless someone can provide sources for the subject spelling his name "Polański". His own website uses "Polanski" and that's how he's credited in his movies. - Will Beback · † · 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. - Will Beback · † · 08:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree with you! He's real name is Polish, with Polish diacritic signs. It's simple. In English-speaking world "ń" in his surname isn't using, because keybords doesn't have the Polish signs. We should use in an encyclopedia real names! notlogged Wikipedian:Kowalmistrz
We've got a policy for this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Common use for the English speaking world is with a regular n. Hope that helps. Doctor Sunshine talk 06:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Kowalmistrz - I see the spelling has been changed again. Is there any new source which establishes the subject's use of a diacritical in his name? - Will Beback · † · 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected the statement that Polanski faced a 50 sentence under the plea negotiated with the prosecution.
As footnote 11 of the article makes clear, Polanski was only liable for the 50 year sentence if convicted on the original six-count indictment. Since he only pled guilty to the least serious of those charges as part of his plea bargain, then even if the judge disregarded the prosecution's recommendation for probation, he could not and would not have received anything so draconian. The dropping of the most serious charges was already agreed to by the prosecution as part of the bargain, and was wholly within their own discretion, not that of the judge. Cspalletta 07:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If his mother's mother was not a Jew, then he is himself not Jewish. 152.10.188.107 06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
He's a French citizen, that's even the very reason why he was not sent to the United States for his trial. See All Movie Guide Arronax50 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Form reading this page I think it would be an important addition to note that
1. Geimer lied about her age so she could consent to posing nude 2. She had a 21 boyfreind and was consenting to sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 ( talk) 16:32, March 26, 2007 (UTC)
the text says that he was 44 but actually he was 43 on march 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.115.153.218 ( talk) 01:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
He's not a Jew, but of Jewish origin... And what's more, having French citizenship doesn't make him a French Jew (he's not a Jew!) or French at all. Only maybe a Polish-French man. Kowalmistrz 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Also says in his biography "Roman" that his parents weren't religious. Still they were considered jews, resulting in his mother beeing sent to a concentration camp.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS JEWISH ORIGIN, JUDAISM IS A RELIGION NOT A RACE, NATIONALITY OR ETHNICITY, YOU ARE EITHER A JEW OR YOUR NOT. -- 67.80.174.252 ( talk) 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
He was not in a concentration camp... Kowalmistrz 15:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Polanski says in his biography "Roman" that he spent all the ww2-years in hiding, so he was never sent to a concentration camp. Though his mother is believed to have died in Auschwitz.
In section "Indictment on charge of rape and other sex offenses", it says: "In Roman by Polanski, Polanski alleged that Geimer's mother had set up the daughter as part of a casting couch and blackmail scheme against him."
What is Roman by Polanski ? A book / movie / article ? Jay 22:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't he Polish citizenship? How do you know he is only French citizen? Does it mean he is of French nationality?, ONLY? I don't think so... Kowalmistrz 10:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above quotation, attributed to Samantha Geimer, has had been in need of a citation since July. As it has not been cited, and is relatively vindictive in tone (which isn't surprising, given Ms. Geimer's history with the director), I have removed it. This article is the biography of a living person, and so with vindictive quotes in particular we must use caution.
Having said that, I think this is a noteworthy quote and would like it if it could be included. Obviously, Samantha Geimer plays an important role in the controversy surrounding Roman Polanski in the United States. Furthermore, when the quote was originally added, it was in fact sourced: here is the URL (now defunct). The quote was added in October 2005, and remained in the article for a lengthy period of time without being questioned, which suggests to me (especially given the tone of the quote) that the reference was indeed genuine. Unfortunately -- and this is the rub with web citations in general, I'm afraid -- we now have no way to verify that.
Looking at the URL that was sourced, it seems as though it refers to a print edition of the Vanity Fair magazine dating September 19th, 2005, but as I am not familiar with the inner workings of that website I can say only that this is a guess at best.
What I would suggest is that if anyone feels strongly enough about keeping this quote that they investigate the matter further, ideally finding a print reference and citing it by page number, along with the date, the article author, etc (might I recommend {{ Citation}} for this purpose?) This will allow anyone who questions the quote (and because of the quote's tone, you can believe that many will question it) the opportunity to check out the right back issue at the local library and verify it themselves.
Thanks in advance to anyone who has the time and energy to do so. It's a good quote and should be in the article if it can be verified. If not, it's potentially libelous and we have to be careful. Peace, 70.132.19.121 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In an interview on CBS 60 Minutes, aired November 19, 1978, Roman Polanski was asked a question by Mike Wallace which he did not wish to answer. His response was: "I will not answer that question for the same reason as if you were to ask me if I had sex with a Zebra in Trafalgar Square, it does not matter what my answer is. The profound absurdity of the question is will be what will be remembered." [4]
When I was in college, we watched a documentary about interviewing that showed an interview with Polanski in which he was asked if a rumor were true that he had had sex with a zebra in Trafalgar square. The segment was included because he responded by asking the interviewer why he needed an answer to that question. when did the rumor start and is there any documentation of the rumor we can cite for the article? Unfortunately, I don't know the name of the documentary, but I think it was made by CBS News.-- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to accuse someone of having sex with a zebra on trafalgar square you really need some solid evidence to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.99.240 ( talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If he was born in France, is a French citizen, and lives there now doesn't that make him French? And his mother was Russian, so then wouldn't he be just as much Russian as Polish since his father was Polish? Does origin come only from the father's origin? What would be the ultimate dertermining factor behind calling him Polish? Does he personally itendify himself as Polish? Also further in the article it refers to "the Polanski" family" several times, but this is his father's family so shouldn't it be the Liebling family? And he is listed as an actor, but he never had any significant roles, and as a writer but he only really wrote for the screen, also this list of films that he wrote the screenplay for is incomplete, as he wrote many of his films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunctionX ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What's our source for the subject's middle name being "Raymond"? [5] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell you the original source, but that's his middle name listed on the court documents of the rape case. WickerGuy ( talk) 02:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Not according to the recent documentary, which closed with the statement that the original defense lawyer and prosecutor presented the case to a new judge in 1997 who agreed that Polanski would serve no additional time in custody. However, there would be a public hearing, and for that reason Polanski declined.
The above is what the film says. Does anyone have any supporting material?
I've decided to put the question here before editing the article. - Rochkind ( talk) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
An unregisetered user made major changes to a section without providing any sources for the assertions. [6] I'm not opposed to the material, but it'd need to be properly sourced. I've reverted the edit pending sources. I've also notified the user on the IP's talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that a"guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" makes him a convicted rapist, does it? I've removed it just now, although if anyone can definitely provide evidence that it does make him one then please do. Even if true I'm not sure how important it is to his opening paragraph either. Diabolical ( talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
She was a child, it was rape, he was convicted and then fled the country. He is a convicted child rapist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 19:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
If a school teacher stole a car this does not make a teacher "teacher and a car thief". Polanski is a film director and not child rapist, Formula 1 car driver (drove once in France) or coffee drinker etc, etc…-- Jacurek ( talk) 20:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
He was not convicted of rape, no one will be able to provide evidence for it,because such evidence doesn't exist.And that he wasn't convicted of rape is one of the reasons he was able to stay in France.In case he was convicted,they would extradite him.He admitted having sex as he said a person who wasn't his wife and she was under 18 years old. He was not convicted and fled the country, get your facts straight. He fled because if convicted of statutory rape the jail term was even as much as 50 years than, people forget this fact. Also they forget that the judge (who was later removed from the case because of his mishadling the case), made no secret that he wanted to put Polanski behind bars for life. So, I agree that removing "convicted rapist" was right thing to do.This is an article about a living person, and sugesting such things like that someone was convicted if the person wasn't is really, really bad. Get the facts straight before handling such subject. Some people read wikipedia and they believe everything her is accurate.So, be responsible for your words.Also I agree that this case shouldn't stay int he opening paragraph,as he shouldn't be defined by this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.115.75 ( talk) 22:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages are not designed to chart every single event or occupation a person has ever had. They are however supposed to chronicle those things for wish a person is most known . Roman Polanski is well known for being a rapist. There is even a movie about this. There are many other famous people who are also very well know not just for there careers but also for events in their personal lives. One is OJ Simpson. He is very well known for his crimes and this is listed in the very first sentence of his page as well. Would you change that? Will this be changed 30 years from now when people have decided to forget about how much they talk about it now? Polanski is no deferent in that his crime is something he is well known for having done. This is an important and pivitol aspect of his character that still has an influence on his life and the lives of others. I am sure that at some point in his life he held a job other than those listed in the first sentence of his page, or even anywhere on his page, but those things are not as important or relevant to him and how he is known. Being a rapist however, is very relevant to how he is known, and as such should be included in those things for which he is most recognized. I suggest that if you feel this moment is not relevant to the fact that he does not return to the states, was also relevant to the fact that he did not even accept his academy award, and that if he does return to the states he will be arrested then perhaps you do not understand the impact that such an event has on a life. Rape is an event that never leaves a person. They will live with that event for the rest of their lives. It becomes an integral part of who they are and everything they do, regardless of being the rapist or the person being raped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 13:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Child raping is not his occupation. All this is covered later in the article. If one is a priest and gets drunk often would that make him a "priest and an alcoholic" ? No, he is stil a priest. How many time this has to be explained to you? -- Jacurek ( talk) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The first line in the article is not just to describe professions but what the person is most notable for. Take at look at the OJ Simpson article, you will see this. Also examine the guidelines for articles. You obviously did not even read what I wrote earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You can also look at pages for other famous criminals such as Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer, who's professions are not even listed in the first sentence of their articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Here are some other famous criminals that you can see are obviously well know for their crimes; Nathaniel Bar-Jonah, Albert Fish, Marc Dutroux, Rae Carruth, O.J. Simpson, David Berkowitz, and Angelo Buono.
Are you going to edit OJ Simpson's page too? Also, you do not cite any specific aspect of the WP:BLP that applies here. What you have decided he is formost known for is not a neutral point of view is it?
Because crime made them famous (except O.J.) Polanki is a film director and not serial rapist or criminal. Frankly, I don't even know why I am discussing this nonsense with you. Sorry...--
Jacurek (
talk)
19:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Crime made Polanski famous as well, both the events of the murder of his wife and his raping a child had much to do with his fame. This is something he is very well known for having done and is referenced several times in this page, along with his professions. If you think this should not be a part of his title sentence please reference a specific rule. ( 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 19:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
There is enough coverage of this important event in the article. Leave it out. There is a clear consensus that it does not belong. sinneed ( talk) 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have used the term sex offender instead, as this fits specically within the defenition listed in the sex offender article and conforms to the comments of Will Beback. ( 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
Dear Anon 98.122.108.47: Let's assume that you are a casher in a super market which makes you "a casher". Currently you are engaged in disruptive Wiki editing called vandalism. Are you now going to introduce yourself " Hi, I'm a casher and a Wiki vandal”? No.... You are still a casher... O.K. ? I don't know how can I explain that better.....-- Jacurek ( talk) 19:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Nobody claims that "child molester" or the like is his occupation, no version of the article has made this claim. Leaving this out from the lead implies that this is a minor matter compared to this film career. Apart from anything else, he is still on the run from several countries because of this issue. PatGallacher ( talk) 20:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the lead-in? No one is proposing to leave it out of the lead-in. No one. sinneed ( talk) 20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposed compromise language. Thoughts? sinneed ( talk) 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this constitutes wp:undue. It seems to be "hammering away at him". I am going to revert my edits, and put this on the BLP abuse board. sinneed ( talk)
Ok, I've had second thoughts, given that this is mentioned significantly in the second para., I don't think we need to mention it in the first para., although I would oppose toning it down much more than this. Although this is a BLP, I would be surprised if he sued since it would have to be heard in Florida. PatGallacher ( talk) 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, this is how it supposed to be. A whole section "Rape and other sex offenses" is already there and may be expanded if necessary.-- Jacurek ( talk) 21:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem here? No one has been able to clearly define how him being very famous as a sex offender should not be in the very first sentence. The only arguement for this that has been made is that it is covered later in the article, but so has every other title in the first sentence. Should all of these terms then not apply as they are also covered later. At what point should something be regarded as being capable of being place into the first sentence. In writing articles of any sort, the main topics are usually referenced in the first sentence. As him being a sex offender is a large part of the article it should also be placed into the first sentence. No one has changed the OJ Simpson article, have they? Editing out the title of sex offender seems rather incongruous with other very similar articles that are not in dispute. If the subject were someone who has only been accused of a crime and not convicted of it (such as the famous case of Michael Jackson), then there would be a possible issue. Since Polanski was found guilty, it is a pivitol action in his life, it has had as much influence on his popularity as any of his film making and it is a main part of this article then it very aptly applies. The fact that he is a sex offender is something that cannot be disputed in any court in the USA and should not make it any sort of legal matter. Not one person has cited a single line from any rule or guideline in the WP:BLP that would rule out his first sentence containing the title sex offender. If you can cite something from the WP:BLP that would rule out sex offender as a title then please cite it here, change the article, and change the other similar articles that contain references to both people's famous professions and famous criminal acts. ( 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 21:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
There are also a great number of gammer errors on this page, I found two in just the second sentence; adjective "successful" used in place of adverb "successfully," and art house spelled "arthouse." Perhaps the rest of this article could use a grammer edit.( 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 21:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
I learn the most interesting useless stuff. OK back to the subject.
I wanted to wikify " art house filmmaker and Hollywood director" and Wikipedia says that "filmmaker" and "director" are the same thing. This seems incorrect, but I am not knowledgeable about this. sinneed ( talk) 01:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The article currently says:
which while perhaps not technically incorrect is potentially misleading or confusing. To me saying someone is a controversial director suggest the controversy is related to their directing. E.g. they directed a lot of controversial films, they had lots of fights with actors/actress/producers, whatever. Polanski's notriety comes from his alleged rape of a minor which is only very loosely related to his directing. The source used also doesn't say he's a controversial director but that his reputating was tarnished. I've tried to think of a way to rephrase the sentence or perhaps add another sentence to address the issue in an NPOV fashion but haven't been able to Nil Einne ( talk) 09:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
How about
or similar? sinneed ( talk) 07:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Or
Maybe this?: Polanski is one of the world’s best known contemporary film directors in Cinema History with tragic and controversial personal life.-- Jacurek ( talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Done-- Jacurek ( talk) 21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Only Jacurek, Sinneed, and Will Beback have edited sex offender from the title sentence and none have provided any argument to show how this is vandalism other than that they just don't like it. Several cogent and logical arguments have been made to include this pertinent adjective. It applies to the individual's actions and life history, helps to describe the content of the article, is legally applicable, and complies with the WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.101.85 ( talk) 08:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
See the previous discussion, it is a major part of the article and his life. As far as it being a part of his notability, it is a major part, as it has had a major impact on his life and career, see the OJ Simpson article. Any real editor, professor, or teacher reading a paper would point out right away that such a noteworthy point and large part of the body of the text should be made in the first sentence. This is English 101 stuff, and the quality of an online source such as this should meet much higher standards. How can you even start to edit the rest of the article if you can't see this first sentence is obviously lacking. I don't read wikipdeia because I read real sources of information like books, journals, newspapers and magazines. If I saw this sort of thing anywhere else I would send a letter the the writer/editor and complain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.101.85 ( talk) 12:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
[redacted]. Barry Brwzinsky ( talk) 14:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
How about: section - A fugitive
subsections:
Scandal
Sex crime charges
Guilty plea
Imprisonment and flight from the US
Later developments (or similar, I don't like that one but... something?)
Some of the text needs to be reordered too, I think. sinneed ( talk) 17:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I volunteer to do this, too. I wanted to put it in front of interested folks before I started tossing sentences around in the article with wild abandon. Ok maybe not wild abandon. sinneed ( talk) 17:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
"A fugitive" is not in any way sensationalistic or misleading. The man has utterly changed his life, even generated "firsts" in British law, to avoid being extradited to the US. France declined to extradite him, but he is a fugitive still. He entered a plea of guilty, broke the terms of his release, and fled 2 countries. sinneed ( talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I also think that "A fugitive" may be misleading a little .... but at the same time he is one.... sorry I'cant help here...-- Jacurek ( talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, so nobody riddled me with bullet holes, so when I was adding a new motion from Polanski's lawyers, I changed the subsection names. I am not sure they are good, yet, but it does have some kind of reasoned flow, and I don't say "fugitive". :) Biography is the section, so these are all subsections:
Then the next subsection is the lawsuit about the other sex allegation, which Polanski won.
I also moved a couple of things so all the 2000's stuff is together at the bottom (except the interview where the victim explained what happened). If this was a Bad Thing, I am not strongly attached, but I do think it is better, I do.
sinneed (
talk)
05:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I decided to wp:be bold and severely edited this section. All the edits are in that one section. If they don't help, let me know and I'll roll the entire batch back. A *lot* of that sounded like the content of either a eulogy or pre-release promo.
I left it with the intro/making...stars, Oscar nominations/wins. I left Polanski's cameo in, and attached it there.
Then the blurb about what happens in the film. I left it alone, I hope.
Then a MUCH hatchetized final para, with a fact-flag.
Hope it is an improvement. sinneed ( talk) 21:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the expansion:
"Polanski and Dunaway has frequent heated personal disagreements on the set, and the director also clashed with Towne over Polanski's desire to alter the script's original ending (the matter was eventually settled by producer Evans, who sided with Polanski)."
Has problems.
1st, it is negative and unsourced. If it is going to be added, it needs a source, and really 2.
If I am wrong, I would like to hear from an established bio editor, so I can worry less about these
wp:BLP things.
2nd, it is
wp:trivia which adds no value to the article. WP is not a gossip rag.
3rd, I see it as undue weight to this silliness. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs with the movie, not here.
4th, it would be "had frequent".
5th, the parenthetical needs to be its own sentence.
If we need it at all, I propose:
"Polanski and Dunaway had frequent heated personal disagreements on the set.
The director also clashed with Towne over Polanski's desire to alter the script's ending, with producer Evans settling the matter by agreeing with Polanski."
Or something.
sinneed (
talk)
02:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It says "where he held
citizenship, in order to avoid extradition to the U.S. by Britain"
Why not
"where he holds
citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain"
or
"where he was born and holds
citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain"
or something
I dislike stating his intent. This way we state the effect, which is objective... and we don't have to care why he did it. sinneed ( talk) 05:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I would use this kind of wording because it was owing to differences in both French extradition and criminal law, as to the classification and penalties for that kind of consensual behaviour (much less severe in France by comparison, especially 25 years ago, when it may even have been utterly legal, I don't know). Gwen Gale ( talk) 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The fragment below confuses two movies. Polański didn't direct "Enchanted Bicycle", it was Silik Sternfeld. Polański had a role in this movie, and he also helped to draw the storyboard, but did not direct. It is also not true that the feature is lost - it has been broadcast on Polish TV recently (February 2009). There was a different short movie called simply "Bicycle" (but not "Magical" or "Enchanted" one) made by Polański which fits the description below.
I have removed this as unsourced and unneccessary commentary, especially in the lead section. Maybe include it further into the article. I know that what he is known for is POV so hopefully others will help out here. Thank you, -- Tom 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The guy is rich, famous, and free. I am not buying tragic. His life is clearly notable, both for stunning feats of poor judgement and great talent. There is tragedy in every life. That is part of what life is. sinneed ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC) And yes, I like turbulent. But do we need it in the lead? sinneed ( talk) 22:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor has made very many (40 or so) edits. Some good. Some bad. (IMO, of course). No edit summaries. I chewed backward through them all (I think my eyes are bleeding), and killed the ones I thought most egregious. sinneed ( talk) 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
"Polanski and Dunaway has frequent heated personal disagreements on the set, and the director also clashed with Towne over Polanski's desire to alter the script's original ending (the matter was eventually settled by producer Evans, who sided with Polanski)." This does not comply with
wp:BLP.
"Today, Chinatown remains an unassailable classic of the neo-noir genre and a landmark of New Hollywood filmmaking..."
"The screenplay won Robert Towne his only Oscar so far."
sinneed ( talk) 02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
In this sense, Polanski's oeuvre — particularly, his most celebrated work from the 1950s through to the 1970s — seems to reflect a decidedly pessimistic and desolate absurdist worldview. This attitude is also present in later Polanski films like Bitter Moon and The Ninth Gate; however, in these films it is presented in a somewhat more arch, jaded and quasi-satirical manner. Indeed, Polanski's old tendency towards unremitting bleakness appears to have mellowed in recent years, with films like Frantic, Death and the Maiden and The Pianist ultimately imparting a more hopeful view of human nature and admitting the possibility of redemptive action the face of an absurd and hostile universe.
While this is truly fascinating, it is entirely wp:OR as is much of the existing content...we already have far too much, adding more at this point is Not A Good Thing. Please source before re-adding. sinneed ( talk) 22:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I cut the section. It has, like all the massive OR, been challenged for months. No one appears interested in producing sources. Easily reverted if someone disagrees. sinneed ( talk) 02:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This weekend I hope to dive in and start separating Polanski's director/actor work from his personal life (can't be done entirely, I should think) as much as practical.
To help with the possibility that someone's (or for that matter many someones') hair will fall out due to intense stress if I do, I plan to try to put the edits into revert-able groups. I do think this will make it easier to cut down on the wp:OR growth that seems to plague the movies especially.
Once that is settled down, I would very much like to see the movie stuff mostly go live in the movie articles. I will see if I can find a director with a GA- or FA- quality article. Does anyone know of any? sinneed ( talk) 22:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The 13-year-old thing needs to stay, and no it is not TMI.
It is heavily documented. The allegations were made in sworn testimony, and are part of the public record.
Since his charges, guilty plea, imprisonment, and flight pretty much define his life for the past 30 years, they don't need to be deprecated.
This is all a long, long, winding discussion here on the talk page. Please feel free to join in.
sinneed (
talk)
22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to cover up the tracks of an admitted pedophile, sodomizer and rapist Cosmic Latte, if that is your agenda take it elsewhere. The girl seemed very interested in affirming the events in court and if that no good coward had stayed at home he would have been put away for good. But it's all great to get the crowd's sympathy with playing broken husband to your dead wife that he had been, in his own admission, numerous times unfaithful to, but when you sodomize a young girl after drugging her up it's ok to flee. I wonder if charlie manson had fled the u.s....but manson wasn't as well connected as this guy who got a away with rape. And now we get someone like yourself talking about "not harming" poor rapist Roman by stating the facts..the nerve of some people... 94.71.170.254 ( talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I commented above, but maybe folks didn't see this. What are folk's (not including Wassermann of course) thoughts on including the "Jewish" categories? I see that the rapist categories is also in play. The article talks about his families ethnicity and persecution, but also talk about not being raised Jewish, ect. Are their reliable source either way or does he self identify himself? Anyways, I will not revert for now but wait for input. Thank you, -- Tom (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This article indicates that his maternal grandmother was not Jewish, so he would not be regarded as Jewish by religous law. (See who is a Jew?) "Ethnically Jewish" is open to interpretation. He should be in category "statutory rapists" or similar. PatGallacher ( talk) 01:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It also carries this hidden text: This biography of a living person ( WP:BLP) is way undersourced, needs many inline citations and hence may carry WP:OR. Please do not remove this flag until the text has been thoroughly and reliably sourced. This flag has little to do with any fact-flags which may be scattered through the text, but is a warning about the article as a whole. These worries would be meaningful even without Polanski's legal woes in the states, whatever one's PoV on these may be. Please do not remove the OR tag unless there is consensus here on the talk page to do so. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I am going to wield the editorial hatchet. Mixing my metaphors happily, if I gore your favorite ox, sorry. If you restore your favorite ox, please do so with a source. Thanks.
After the massive shrink, I am going to move the biographical out of the filmography. - sinneed ( talk) 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Can't do it. There would be noting left. It would be a stubby stub with some lists. - sinneed ( talk) 03:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I tried... but I kept coming across bits that I could see should be sourcable and that represent huge amounts of work... Sorry. - sinneed ( talk) 03:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is the section titled "sex crime allegations" when he plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor? That is a sex crime, and obviously is more than just an allegation, since he plead guilty! Ninahexan ( talk) 04:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
"Polański speaks 6 languages: his native Polish and French as well as English, Russian, Spanish, and Italian."
This was in the lead...no source, nothing like it in the body. Didn't want to just discard. - sinneed ( talk) 02:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The brief essay on Polanski's style and themes is interesting and probably contains widely held views, as the author stated. But Wikipedia is intended as a place to summarize work in secondary sources, rather than as a way to publish original work, however good, and however widely accepted in the world. I propose to cut this section to the talk page for possible addition with sourcing. I then propose to be very firm indeed in applying the editorial hatchet to any unsourced bits added. - sinneed ( talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There are too many ELs. I think I probably added some... I think some were used as sources in the article but weren't appropriate (IIRC) as wp:RS. I propose to cut it to just 2... the IMDB link and what appears to be the (dead) official website, and copy the rest here for possible re-inclusion by interested editors. - sinneed ( talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I am dubious of moving that citation without the PN being satisfied... I *THINK* I added that cite to simply show that there was, in fact, such a book and provide easy access to the source... that was a while ago. I don't think it covers the allegation, and I thought I had removed that entirely at one point. Searching the text on Google books doesn't turn up any obvious hits. I am very dubious about this bit. I am going to remove it. An interested editor may readd it... I won't kill it again any time soon if it is restored... but wp:BLP applies. - sinneed ( talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Roman Polanski: Interviews" Chronology begins on page xv. - sinneed ( talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Pace the criteria defining 'Holocaust survivors' on the page List of Holocaust survivors, it seems to be stretching a point to say that Polański 'survived the Holocaust'. Might we consider saying instead that 'Polański survived the Nazi occupation of Poland'?-- Oxonian2006 ( talk) 19:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
== Just curious really... ==
OK, but why?
All this dubious stuff I hope to chew through, flagging and very possibly killing eventually.
- sinneed (
talk) 05:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Moot. Sources added.
- sinneed (
talk)
06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The addition "During the Soviet imposed communism in Poland," (Jacurek, 29 dec 2008) is off-topic and should be removed. No relevance of this addition to this biography has been shown neither is it evident. This addition drags the article without reason into the East-European political problem zone. Otto ( talk) 14:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested that, instead, the content that is challenged be flagged. My reasoning here is that wp:lead seems to tell me that content in the lead should rest on the content in the body, and that the sources need not be included in the lead. If needed, I am sure we can find quotes to say his is a celebrated director, but that seems a bit over the top. - Sinneed ( talk) 01:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
On the 27th September 2009 Polanski was arrested entering Switzerland and taken into custody under the 1978 US arrest warrant, I have added same under 1.3.2 'Later developments in the case' Twobells ( talk) 09:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Shouldn't his name be spelled "Roman Polanski" instead of "Roman Polański" on EN, since almost everybody uses "Polanski"? WhisperToMe 03:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the article should be moved to Roman Polański. I guess it was created here before Wikipedia started accepting diacritics in titles. What do you think?-- SylwiaS | talk 09:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In English, his name is by far most widely cited without the diacritic, which I think is the most helpful thing to go by, since WP:Title indeed has to do with using the most widely searched-for term. The only thing that might make me think otherwise would be if a source shows up showing he professionally uses Polański wherever he can (I don't think he does). Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
why does this article put the blame on the child and neglect the fact he could have urged her to tell her mother she wants to stay? and he had power over her and authority so obviously she wasnt gonna fight him, on top of it he had to get her inhibitions down with alcohol and drugs. If this kind of thing were allowed it would set a precedent for child pronography. Also he knew how old she was beforehand and set up the photo shoot himself not the mother, he also had another underaged victim who was 15-16 who was ana ctress right afterwards showing that he had no symphany and really is a pedophile.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.135.56.61 ( talk • contribs) .
Is it worthwhile to add more details about his relationship with the young girl, or is that just not worth rehashing in an encyclopedia? It is a part of what makes him a significant figure. David 19:42 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
Views have been advanced that Samantha Gailly (her maiden name)'s mother set up the whole situation as part of an extortion plot against Polanski. This theory, discussed in Polanski's autobiography, deserves further investigation. While this does not exonerate Polanski, it suggests that some sort of charges should have been brought against the mother and at the very least she should have been deprived of custody. -- 209.178.190.82
There is more "career" info in the "controversy" section than in the "career" section. I feel this article needs some re-organizing. -- Feitclub 03:38, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
The sentence was replaced. Does the crime have to be in the lead paragraph? It was reprehensible, but it doesn't (shouldn't) define him as a figure. -- Dpr 03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Samantha clearly says that the sex was not consensual. Although the charges were reduced to statutory rape, it seems obvious from the evidence and the presence of drugs that a rape has been committed. [1] "It was not consensual sex by any means," wrote Geimer in her article. "I said no repeatedly but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was very scary and, looking back, very creepy." I think it is important to mention this, because a lot of people think that raping a minor automatically means "statutory rape" which is rather demeaning to minors (i.e. it implies they can neither give nor withold consent). Obviously rape is worse than statutory rape, and I think the original charges need to be pointed out in the article, preferably before the reduced charges are mentioned, to clear up the widespread misconception that Polanski's crime involved consensual sex. A5 19:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
If someone is deceived into doing something, then they didn't give their consent even if she wasnt raped and didnt say no and the whole thing is made up. Also, if someone drugs a woman/girl and gives her alcohol to break her inhibitions before having sex with them its also rape. Anyway, you could tell how old she was by looking at her face, she still had a kids face, so although her body was developed you would have to be retarded not to tell shes a kid by looking at her baby face. Also he couldn't give consent because of her age, thus it is statutory rape. Allowing 13 yr olds giving consent would lead to child pornography being wide spread.
Spoken like a true Lolicon fan Sweetfreak. Ticklemygrits ( talk) 16:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Should the sworn grand jury testimony of Polanski's 13-year-old victim be incorporated into this article?
E.g., p. 30 Q: How long did Mr. Polanski have his mouth on your vagina? A: A few minutes. Q: What happened after that? A: He started to have intercourse with me. Q: What do you mean by intercourse? A: He placed his penis in my vagina.
and p. 32 A: Then he lifted up my legs and went in through my anus. Q: What do you mean by that? A: He put his penis in my butt.
It seems that it is highly relevant to Polanski's rape controversy. Austinmayor ( talk) 17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph appears to be blaming the victim for Polanski's rape. When a 43 year old man violates a child of thirteen there is no excuse and this paragraph must be re-written, unless it is wiki policy to blame victims?
These paragraphs were consummate examples of 'bias by ommsion' that my history texts are so fond of mentioning.
For example, they stated 'Geimer's mother asked her directly if she wanted her to come pick her up. Geimer said no, she wanted to stay with Polański'. Not only had the author neglected to mention that prior to this Polanski had said the photoshoot remained unfinished, they had also expanded on Geimer's testamony of merely "No" [2], thus implying a familiarity not stated as present.
Furthermore, the sentence, 'Geimer, knowing full well that it was a third of a quaalude tablet, said, "Okay"' neglected to point out that (if we are not disputing the accuracy of Geimer's statement as a whole) by this point Geimer was completely intoxicated. It is unlikely anyone aged 13 and drunk knows 'full well' anything.
Using as much restraint as I can... I have no idea what the author was thinking with the concluding sentence 'They then proceeded to continue shooting photographs, and eventually to have sex'. Not only does this imply consent (which according to Geimer was not given), it also completely ignores the issue of ASSAULT. To describe any alleged rape as merely, 'to have sex' indicates both bias and an incredible lack of respect.
Theoretically these edits have removed most of the POV in these paragraphs - I have no problem altering/debating/defending as needed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nylarathotep ( talk • contribs)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15775812&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=polanski-raped-me-when-i-was-13----he-is-a-creep--name_page.html
This might provide a quote or two in addition to the 2 other interviews mentioned already. Would anyone like to update the article? Thanks
Kvsh5 (
talk)
12:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The references section here is huge, and far outweighs the needs of the article for citation and further reading. I don't think the goal here should be to annotate every book and citation on Polanski's life, but rather to include some gems which are good overviews or provide specific citation for article text. I know nothing about the citations (and don't speak the language in which many are written), so I don't think they do either of these things adequately. Perhaps someone with a little more expertise can trim this list down to a reasonable size? -- ABQCat 07:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is an inaccurancy: "It may be telling that Polanski chose to play the lead in his next film, The Tenant (1976), the story of a Polish immigrant living in Paris". The film doesn't find out Terkovsky's nationality. He represent of all immigrants who can't adapt theirselves. BTW: This Film is very good.-- 62.87.163.40 22:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the quote from an E! clip show be removed since it is by definition an opinion, not a fact? If you can fit it in somewhere else it is an interesting comment that I personally agree with, but putting it in a "fact' section is pretty dubious.
Was Sharon Tate eight or four months pregnant (there seems to be some inconsistencies here) ? -- Tochiro
A lot of Americans actually think Roman Polanski is Adrian Brody, because they've never seen Polanski, but they see "a Roman Polanski film" and then they see Adrian Brody. At one point after Adrian Brody's anti-war oscar acceptance speech, Chris Rock (I think it was chris rock) said "Didn't that guy rape a little girl?" on a talk show, and in fact nobody corrected him. While I find this kind of funny, the image of Brody above Polanski is probably just making things worse. 66.41.66.213 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"A lot?" I've never encountered this. One unfortunate mix-up, if that happened, is not evidence of a widespread misunderstanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.12.228 ( talk • contribs) .
"It seems somehow important to Polański at this point to make a film for children, and maybe also for his own children." Whose judgement are we reading here, about what "seems" important to Polanski? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I propose moving the article to "Roman Polanski" unless someone can provide sources for the subject spelling his name "Polański". His own website uses "Polanski" and that's how he's credited in his movies. - Will Beback · † · 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. - Will Beback · † · 08:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree with you! He's real name is Polish, with Polish diacritic signs. It's simple. In English-speaking world "ń" in his surname isn't using, because keybords doesn't have the Polish signs. We should use in an encyclopedia real names! notlogged Wikipedian:Kowalmistrz
We've got a policy for this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Common use for the English speaking world is with a regular n. Hope that helps. Doctor Sunshine talk 06:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Kowalmistrz - I see the spelling has been changed again. Is there any new source which establishes the subject's use of a diacritical in his name? - Will Beback · † · 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected the statement that Polanski faced a 50 sentence under the plea negotiated with the prosecution.
As footnote 11 of the article makes clear, Polanski was only liable for the 50 year sentence if convicted on the original six-count indictment. Since he only pled guilty to the least serious of those charges as part of his plea bargain, then even if the judge disregarded the prosecution's recommendation for probation, he could not and would not have received anything so draconian. The dropping of the most serious charges was already agreed to by the prosecution as part of the bargain, and was wholly within their own discretion, not that of the judge. Cspalletta 07:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If his mother's mother was not a Jew, then he is himself not Jewish. 152.10.188.107 06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
He's a French citizen, that's even the very reason why he was not sent to the United States for his trial. See All Movie Guide Arronax50 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Form reading this page I think it would be an important addition to note that
1. Geimer lied about her age so she could consent to posing nude 2. She had a 21 boyfreind and was consenting to sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 ( talk) 16:32, March 26, 2007 (UTC)
the text says that he was 44 but actually he was 43 on march 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.115.153.218 ( talk) 01:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
He's not a Jew, but of Jewish origin... And what's more, having French citizenship doesn't make him a French Jew (he's not a Jew!) or French at all. Only maybe a Polish-French man. Kowalmistrz 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Also says in his biography "Roman" that his parents weren't religious. Still they were considered jews, resulting in his mother beeing sent to a concentration camp.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS JEWISH ORIGIN, JUDAISM IS A RELIGION NOT A RACE, NATIONALITY OR ETHNICITY, YOU ARE EITHER A JEW OR YOUR NOT. -- 67.80.174.252 ( talk) 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
He was not in a concentration camp... Kowalmistrz 15:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Polanski says in his biography "Roman" that he spent all the ww2-years in hiding, so he was never sent to a concentration camp. Though his mother is believed to have died in Auschwitz.
In section "Indictment on charge of rape and other sex offenses", it says: "In Roman by Polanski, Polanski alleged that Geimer's mother had set up the daughter as part of a casting couch and blackmail scheme against him."
What is Roman by Polanski ? A book / movie / article ? Jay 22:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't he Polish citizenship? How do you know he is only French citizen? Does it mean he is of French nationality?, ONLY? I don't think so... Kowalmistrz 10:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above quotation, attributed to Samantha Geimer, has had been in need of a citation since July. As it has not been cited, and is relatively vindictive in tone (which isn't surprising, given Ms. Geimer's history with the director), I have removed it. This article is the biography of a living person, and so with vindictive quotes in particular we must use caution.
Having said that, I think this is a noteworthy quote and would like it if it could be included. Obviously, Samantha Geimer plays an important role in the controversy surrounding Roman Polanski in the United States. Furthermore, when the quote was originally added, it was in fact sourced: here is the URL (now defunct). The quote was added in October 2005, and remained in the article for a lengthy period of time without being questioned, which suggests to me (especially given the tone of the quote) that the reference was indeed genuine. Unfortunately -- and this is the rub with web citations in general, I'm afraid -- we now have no way to verify that.
Looking at the URL that was sourced, it seems as though it refers to a print edition of the Vanity Fair magazine dating September 19th, 2005, but as I am not familiar with the inner workings of that website I can say only that this is a guess at best.
What I would suggest is that if anyone feels strongly enough about keeping this quote that they investigate the matter further, ideally finding a print reference and citing it by page number, along with the date, the article author, etc (might I recommend {{ Citation}} for this purpose?) This will allow anyone who questions the quote (and because of the quote's tone, you can believe that many will question it) the opportunity to check out the right back issue at the local library and verify it themselves.
Thanks in advance to anyone who has the time and energy to do so. It's a good quote and should be in the article if it can be verified. If not, it's potentially libelous and we have to be careful. Peace, 70.132.19.121 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In an interview on CBS 60 Minutes, aired November 19, 1978, Roman Polanski was asked a question by Mike Wallace which he did not wish to answer. His response was: "I will not answer that question for the same reason as if you were to ask me if I had sex with a Zebra in Trafalgar Square, it does not matter what my answer is. The profound absurdity of the question is will be what will be remembered." [4]
When I was in college, we watched a documentary about interviewing that showed an interview with Polanski in which he was asked if a rumor were true that he had had sex with a zebra in Trafalgar square. The segment was included because he responded by asking the interviewer why he needed an answer to that question. when did the rumor start and is there any documentation of the rumor we can cite for the article? Unfortunately, I don't know the name of the documentary, but I think it was made by CBS News.-- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to accuse someone of having sex with a zebra on trafalgar square you really need some solid evidence to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.99.240 ( talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If he was born in France, is a French citizen, and lives there now doesn't that make him French? And his mother was Russian, so then wouldn't he be just as much Russian as Polish since his father was Polish? Does origin come only from the father's origin? What would be the ultimate dertermining factor behind calling him Polish? Does he personally itendify himself as Polish? Also further in the article it refers to "the Polanski" family" several times, but this is his father's family so shouldn't it be the Liebling family? And he is listed as an actor, but he never had any significant roles, and as a writer but he only really wrote for the screen, also this list of films that he wrote the screenplay for is incomplete, as he wrote many of his films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunctionX ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What's our source for the subject's middle name being "Raymond"? [5] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell you the original source, but that's his middle name listed on the court documents of the rape case. WickerGuy ( talk) 02:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Not according to the recent documentary, which closed with the statement that the original defense lawyer and prosecutor presented the case to a new judge in 1997 who agreed that Polanski would serve no additional time in custody. However, there would be a public hearing, and for that reason Polanski declined.
The above is what the film says. Does anyone have any supporting material?
I've decided to put the question here before editing the article. - Rochkind ( talk) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
An unregisetered user made major changes to a section without providing any sources for the assertions. [6] I'm not opposed to the material, but it'd need to be properly sourced. I've reverted the edit pending sources. I've also notified the user on the IP's talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that a"guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" makes him a convicted rapist, does it? I've removed it just now, although if anyone can definitely provide evidence that it does make him one then please do. Even if true I'm not sure how important it is to his opening paragraph either. Diabolical ( talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
She was a child, it was rape, he was convicted and then fled the country. He is a convicted child rapist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 19:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
If a school teacher stole a car this does not make a teacher "teacher and a car thief". Polanski is a film director and not child rapist, Formula 1 car driver (drove once in France) or coffee drinker etc, etc…-- Jacurek ( talk) 20:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
He was not convicted of rape, no one will be able to provide evidence for it,because such evidence doesn't exist.And that he wasn't convicted of rape is one of the reasons he was able to stay in France.In case he was convicted,they would extradite him.He admitted having sex as he said a person who wasn't his wife and she was under 18 years old. He was not convicted and fled the country, get your facts straight. He fled because if convicted of statutory rape the jail term was even as much as 50 years than, people forget this fact. Also they forget that the judge (who was later removed from the case because of his mishadling the case), made no secret that he wanted to put Polanski behind bars for life. So, I agree that removing "convicted rapist" was right thing to do.This is an article about a living person, and sugesting such things like that someone was convicted if the person wasn't is really, really bad. Get the facts straight before handling such subject. Some people read wikipedia and they believe everything her is accurate.So, be responsible for your words.Also I agree that this case shouldn't stay int he opening paragraph,as he shouldn't be defined by this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.115.75 ( talk) 22:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages are not designed to chart every single event or occupation a person has ever had. They are however supposed to chronicle those things for wish a person is most known . Roman Polanski is well known for being a rapist. There is even a movie about this. There are many other famous people who are also very well know not just for there careers but also for events in their personal lives. One is OJ Simpson. He is very well known for his crimes and this is listed in the very first sentence of his page as well. Would you change that? Will this be changed 30 years from now when people have decided to forget about how much they talk about it now? Polanski is no deferent in that his crime is something he is well known for having done. This is an important and pivitol aspect of his character that still has an influence on his life and the lives of others. I am sure that at some point in his life he held a job other than those listed in the first sentence of his page, or even anywhere on his page, but those things are not as important or relevant to him and how he is known. Being a rapist however, is very relevant to how he is known, and as such should be included in those things for which he is most recognized. I suggest that if you feel this moment is not relevant to the fact that he does not return to the states, was also relevant to the fact that he did not even accept his academy award, and that if he does return to the states he will be arrested then perhaps you do not understand the impact that such an event has on a life. Rape is an event that never leaves a person. They will live with that event for the rest of their lives. It becomes an integral part of who they are and everything they do, regardless of being the rapist or the person being raped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 13:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Child raping is not his occupation. All this is covered later in the article. If one is a priest and gets drunk often would that make him a "priest and an alcoholic" ? No, he is stil a priest. How many time this has to be explained to you? -- Jacurek ( talk) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The first line in the article is not just to describe professions but what the person is most notable for. Take at look at the OJ Simpson article, you will see this. Also examine the guidelines for articles. You obviously did not even read what I wrote earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You can also look at pages for other famous criminals such as Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer, who's professions are not even listed in the first sentence of their articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Here are some other famous criminals that you can see are obviously well know for their crimes; Nathaniel Bar-Jonah, Albert Fish, Marc Dutroux, Rae Carruth, O.J. Simpson, David Berkowitz, and Angelo Buono.
Are you going to edit OJ Simpson's page too? Also, you do not cite any specific aspect of the WP:BLP that applies here. What you have decided he is formost known for is not a neutral point of view is it?
Because crime made them famous (except O.J.) Polanki is a film director and not serial rapist or criminal. Frankly, I don't even know why I am discussing this nonsense with you. Sorry...--
Jacurek (
talk)
19:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Crime made Polanski famous as well, both the events of the murder of his wife and his raping a child had much to do with his fame. This is something he is very well known for having done and is referenced several times in this page, along with his professions. If you think this should not be a part of his title sentence please reference a specific rule. ( 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 19:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
There is enough coverage of this important event in the article. Leave it out. There is a clear consensus that it does not belong. sinneed ( talk) 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have used the term sex offender instead, as this fits specically within the defenition listed in the sex offender article and conforms to the comments of Will Beback. ( 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
Dear Anon 98.122.108.47: Let's assume that you are a casher in a super market which makes you "a casher". Currently you are engaged in disruptive Wiki editing called vandalism. Are you now going to introduce yourself " Hi, I'm a casher and a Wiki vandal”? No.... You are still a casher... O.K. ? I don't know how can I explain that better.....-- Jacurek ( talk) 19:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Nobody claims that "child molester" or the like is his occupation, no version of the article has made this claim. Leaving this out from the lead implies that this is a minor matter compared to this film career. Apart from anything else, he is still on the run from several countries because of this issue. PatGallacher ( talk) 20:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the lead-in? No one is proposing to leave it out of the lead-in. No one. sinneed ( talk) 20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposed compromise language. Thoughts? sinneed ( talk) 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this constitutes wp:undue. It seems to be "hammering away at him". I am going to revert my edits, and put this on the BLP abuse board. sinneed ( talk)
Ok, I've had second thoughts, given that this is mentioned significantly in the second para., I don't think we need to mention it in the first para., although I would oppose toning it down much more than this. Although this is a BLP, I would be surprised if he sued since it would have to be heard in Florida. PatGallacher ( talk) 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, this is how it supposed to be. A whole section "Rape and other sex offenses" is already there and may be expanded if necessary.-- Jacurek ( talk) 21:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem here? No one has been able to clearly define how him being very famous as a sex offender should not be in the very first sentence. The only arguement for this that has been made is that it is covered later in the article, but so has every other title in the first sentence. Should all of these terms then not apply as they are also covered later. At what point should something be regarded as being capable of being place into the first sentence. In writing articles of any sort, the main topics are usually referenced in the first sentence. As him being a sex offender is a large part of the article it should also be placed into the first sentence. No one has changed the OJ Simpson article, have they? Editing out the title of sex offender seems rather incongruous with other very similar articles that are not in dispute. If the subject were someone who has only been accused of a crime and not convicted of it (such as the famous case of Michael Jackson), then there would be a possible issue. Since Polanski was found guilty, it is a pivitol action in his life, it has had as much influence on his popularity as any of his film making and it is a main part of this article then it very aptly applies. The fact that he is a sex offender is something that cannot be disputed in any court in the USA and should not make it any sort of legal matter. Not one person has cited a single line from any rule or guideline in the WP:BLP that would rule out his first sentence containing the title sex offender. If you can cite something from the WP:BLP that would rule out sex offender as a title then please cite it here, change the article, and change the other similar articles that contain references to both people's famous professions and famous criminal acts. ( 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 21:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
There are also a great number of gammer errors on this page, I found two in just the second sentence; adjective "successful" used in place of adverb "successfully," and art house spelled "arthouse." Perhaps the rest of this article could use a grammer edit.( 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 21:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
I learn the most interesting useless stuff. OK back to the subject.
I wanted to wikify " art house filmmaker and Hollywood director" and Wikipedia says that "filmmaker" and "director" are the same thing. This seems incorrect, but I am not knowledgeable about this. sinneed ( talk) 01:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The article currently says:
which while perhaps not technically incorrect is potentially misleading or confusing. To me saying someone is a controversial director suggest the controversy is related to their directing. E.g. they directed a lot of controversial films, they had lots of fights with actors/actress/producers, whatever. Polanski's notriety comes from his alleged rape of a minor which is only very loosely related to his directing. The source used also doesn't say he's a controversial director but that his reputating was tarnished. I've tried to think of a way to rephrase the sentence or perhaps add another sentence to address the issue in an NPOV fashion but haven't been able to Nil Einne ( talk) 09:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
How about
or similar? sinneed ( talk) 07:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Or
Maybe this?: Polanski is one of the world’s best known contemporary film directors in Cinema History with tragic and controversial personal life.-- Jacurek ( talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Done-- Jacurek ( talk) 21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Only Jacurek, Sinneed, and Will Beback have edited sex offender from the title sentence and none have provided any argument to show how this is vandalism other than that they just don't like it. Several cogent and logical arguments have been made to include this pertinent adjective. It applies to the individual's actions and life history, helps to describe the content of the article, is legally applicable, and complies with the WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.101.85 ( talk) 08:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
See the previous discussion, it is a major part of the article and his life. As far as it being a part of his notability, it is a major part, as it has had a major impact on his life and career, see the OJ Simpson article. Any real editor, professor, or teacher reading a paper would point out right away that such a noteworthy point and large part of the body of the text should be made in the first sentence. This is English 101 stuff, and the quality of an online source such as this should meet much higher standards. How can you even start to edit the rest of the article if you can't see this first sentence is obviously lacking. I don't read wikipdeia because I read real sources of information like books, journals, newspapers and magazines. If I saw this sort of thing anywhere else I would send a letter the the writer/editor and complain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.101.85 ( talk) 12:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
[redacted]. Barry Brwzinsky ( talk) 14:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
How about: section - A fugitive
subsections:
Scandal
Sex crime charges
Guilty plea
Imprisonment and flight from the US
Later developments (or similar, I don't like that one but... something?)
Some of the text needs to be reordered too, I think. sinneed ( talk) 17:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I volunteer to do this, too. I wanted to put it in front of interested folks before I started tossing sentences around in the article with wild abandon. Ok maybe not wild abandon. sinneed ( talk) 17:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
"A fugitive" is not in any way sensationalistic or misleading. The man has utterly changed his life, even generated "firsts" in British law, to avoid being extradited to the US. France declined to extradite him, but he is a fugitive still. He entered a plea of guilty, broke the terms of his release, and fled 2 countries. sinneed ( talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I also think that "A fugitive" may be misleading a little .... but at the same time he is one.... sorry I'cant help here...-- Jacurek ( talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, so nobody riddled me with bullet holes, so when I was adding a new motion from Polanski's lawyers, I changed the subsection names. I am not sure they are good, yet, but it does have some kind of reasoned flow, and I don't say "fugitive". :) Biography is the section, so these are all subsections:
Then the next subsection is the lawsuit about the other sex allegation, which Polanski won.
I also moved a couple of things so all the 2000's stuff is together at the bottom (except the interview where the victim explained what happened). If this was a Bad Thing, I am not strongly attached, but I do think it is better, I do.
sinneed (
talk)
05:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I decided to wp:be bold and severely edited this section. All the edits are in that one section. If they don't help, let me know and I'll roll the entire batch back. A *lot* of that sounded like the content of either a eulogy or pre-release promo.
I left it with the intro/making...stars, Oscar nominations/wins. I left Polanski's cameo in, and attached it there.
Then the blurb about what happens in the film. I left it alone, I hope.
Then a MUCH hatchetized final para, with a fact-flag.
Hope it is an improvement. sinneed ( talk) 21:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the expansion:
"Polanski and Dunaway has frequent heated personal disagreements on the set, and the director also clashed with Towne over Polanski's desire to alter the script's original ending (the matter was eventually settled by producer Evans, who sided with Polanski)."
Has problems.
1st, it is negative and unsourced. If it is going to be added, it needs a source, and really 2.
If I am wrong, I would like to hear from an established bio editor, so I can worry less about these
wp:BLP things.
2nd, it is
wp:trivia which adds no value to the article. WP is not a gossip rag.
3rd, I see it as undue weight to this silliness. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs with the movie, not here.
4th, it would be "had frequent".
5th, the parenthetical needs to be its own sentence.
If we need it at all, I propose:
"Polanski and Dunaway had frequent heated personal disagreements on the set.
The director also clashed with Towne over Polanski's desire to alter the script's ending, with producer Evans settling the matter by agreeing with Polanski."
Or something.
sinneed (
talk)
02:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It says "where he held
citizenship, in order to avoid extradition to the U.S. by Britain"
Why not
"where he holds
citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain"
or
"where he was born and holds
citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain"
or something
I dislike stating his intent. This way we state the effect, which is objective... and we don't have to care why he did it. sinneed ( talk) 05:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I would use this kind of wording because it was owing to differences in both French extradition and criminal law, as to the classification and penalties for that kind of consensual behaviour (much less severe in France by comparison, especially 25 years ago, when it may even have been utterly legal, I don't know). Gwen Gale ( talk) 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The fragment below confuses two movies. Polański didn't direct "Enchanted Bicycle", it was Silik Sternfeld. Polański had a role in this movie, and he also helped to draw the storyboard, but did not direct. It is also not true that the feature is lost - it has been broadcast on Polish TV recently (February 2009). There was a different short movie called simply "Bicycle" (but not "Magical" or "Enchanted" one) made by Polański which fits the description below.
I have removed this as unsourced and unneccessary commentary, especially in the lead section. Maybe include it further into the article. I know that what he is known for is POV so hopefully others will help out here. Thank you, -- Tom 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The guy is rich, famous, and free. I am not buying tragic. His life is clearly notable, both for stunning feats of poor judgement and great talent. There is tragedy in every life. That is part of what life is. sinneed ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC) And yes, I like turbulent. But do we need it in the lead? sinneed ( talk) 22:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor has made very many (40 or so) edits. Some good. Some bad. (IMO, of course). No edit summaries. I chewed backward through them all (I think my eyes are bleeding), and killed the ones I thought most egregious. sinneed ( talk) 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
"Polanski and Dunaway has frequent heated personal disagreements on the set, and the director also clashed with Towne over Polanski's desire to alter the script's original ending (the matter was eventually settled by producer Evans, who sided with Polanski)." This does not comply with
wp:BLP.
"Today, Chinatown remains an unassailable classic of the neo-noir genre and a landmark of New Hollywood filmmaking..."
"The screenplay won Robert Towne his only Oscar so far."
sinneed ( talk) 02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
In this sense, Polanski's oeuvre — particularly, his most celebrated work from the 1950s through to the 1970s — seems to reflect a decidedly pessimistic and desolate absurdist worldview. This attitude is also present in later Polanski films like Bitter Moon and The Ninth Gate; however, in these films it is presented in a somewhat more arch, jaded and quasi-satirical manner. Indeed, Polanski's old tendency towards unremitting bleakness appears to have mellowed in recent years, with films like Frantic, Death and the Maiden and The Pianist ultimately imparting a more hopeful view of human nature and admitting the possibility of redemptive action the face of an absurd and hostile universe.
While this is truly fascinating, it is entirely wp:OR as is much of the existing content...we already have far too much, adding more at this point is Not A Good Thing. Please source before re-adding. sinneed ( talk) 22:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I cut the section. It has, like all the massive OR, been challenged for months. No one appears interested in producing sources. Easily reverted if someone disagrees. sinneed ( talk) 02:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This weekend I hope to dive in and start separating Polanski's director/actor work from his personal life (can't be done entirely, I should think) as much as practical.
To help with the possibility that someone's (or for that matter many someones') hair will fall out due to intense stress if I do, I plan to try to put the edits into revert-able groups. I do think this will make it easier to cut down on the wp:OR growth that seems to plague the movies especially.
Once that is settled down, I would very much like to see the movie stuff mostly go live in the movie articles. I will see if I can find a director with a GA- or FA- quality article. Does anyone know of any? sinneed ( talk) 22:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The 13-year-old thing needs to stay, and no it is not TMI.
It is heavily documented. The allegations were made in sworn testimony, and are part of the public record.
Since his charges, guilty plea, imprisonment, and flight pretty much define his life for the past 30 years, they don't need to be deprecated.
This is all a long, long, winding discussion here on the talk page. Please feel free to join in.
sinneed (
talk)
22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to cover up the tracks of an admitted pedophile, sodomizer and rapist Cosmic Latte, if that is your agenda take it elsewhere. The girl seemed very interested in affirming the events in court and if that no good coward had stayed at home he would have been put away for good. But it's all great to get the crowd's sympathy with playing broken husband to your dead wife that he had been, in his own admission, numerous times unfaithful to, but when you sodomize a young girl after drugging her up it's ok to flee. I wonder if charlie manson had fled the u.s....but manson wasn't as well connected as this guy who got a away with rape. And now we get someone like yourself talking about "not harming" poor rapist Roman by stating the facts..the nerve of some people... 94.71.170.254 ( talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I commented above, but maybe folks didn't see this. What are folk's (not including Wassermann of course) thoughts on including the "Jewish" categories? I see that the rapist categories is also in play. The article talks about his families ethnicity and persecution, but also talk about not being raised Jewish, ect. Are their reliable source either way or does he self identify himself? Anyways, I will not revert for now but wait for input. Thank you, -- Tom (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This article indicates that his maternal grandmother was not Jewish, so he would not be regarded as Jewish by religous law. (See who is a Jew?) "Ethnically Jewish" is open to interpretation. He should be in category "statutory rapists" or similar. PatGallacher ( talk) 01:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It also carries this hidden text: This biography of a living person ( WP:BLP) is way undersourced, needs many inline citations and hence may carry WP:OR. Please do not remove this flag until the text has been thoroughly and reliably sourced. This flag has little to do with any fact-flags which may be scattered through the text, but is a warning about the article as a whole. These worries would be meaningful even without Polanski's legal woes in the states, whatever one's PoV on these may be. Please do not remove the OR tag unless there is consensus here on the talk page to do so. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I am going to wield the editorial hatchet. Mixing my metaphors happily, if I gore your favorite ox, sorry. If you restore your favorite ox, please do so with a source. Thanks.
After the massive shrink, I am going to move the biographical out of the filmography. - sinneed ( talk) 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Can't do it. There would be noting left. It would be a stubby stub with some lists. - sinneed ( talk) 03:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I tried... but I kept coming across bits that I could see should be sourcable and that represent huge amounts of work... Sorry. - sinneed ( talk) 03:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is the section titled "sex crime allegations" when he plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor? That is a sex crime, and obviously is more than just an allegation, since he plead guilty! Ninahexan ( talk) 04:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
"Polański speaks 6 languages: his native Polish and French as well as English, Russian, Spanish, and Italian."
This was in the lead...no source, nothing like it in the body. Didn't want to just discard. - sinneed ( talk) 02:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The brief essay on Polanski's style and themes is interesting and probably contains widely held views, as the author stated. But Wikipedia is intended as a place to summarize work in secondary sources, rather than as a way to publish original work, however good, and however widely accepted in the world. I propose to cut this section to the talk page for possible addition with sourcing. I then propose to be very firm indeed in applying the editorial hatchet to any unsourced bits added. - sinneed ( talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There are too many ELs. I think I probably added some... I think some were used as sources in the article but weren't appropriate (IIRC) as wp:RS. I propose to cut it to just 2... the IMDB link and what appears to be the (dead) official website, and copy the rest here for possible re-inclusion by interested editors. - sinneed ( talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I am dubious of moving that citation without the PN being satisfied... I *THINK* I added that cite to simply show that there was, in fact, such a book and provide easy access to the source... that was a while ago. I don't think it covers the allegation, and I thought I had removed that entirely at one point. Searching the text on Google books doesn't turn up any obvious hits. I am very dubious about this bit. I am going to remove it. An interested editor may readd it... I won't kill it again any time soon if it is restored... but wp:BLP applies. - sinneed ( talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Roman Polanski: Interviews" Chronology begins on page xv. - sinneed ( talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Pace the criteria defining 'Holocaust survivors' on the page List of Holocaust survivors, it seems to be stretching a point to say that Polański 'survived the Holocaust'. Might we consider saying instead that 'Polański survived the Nazi occupation of Poland'?-- Oxonian2006 ( talk) 19:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
== Just curious really... ==
OK, but why?
All this dubious stuff I hope to chew through, flagging and very possibly killing eventually.
- sinneed (
talk) 05:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Moot. Sources added.
- sinneed (
talk)
06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The addition "During the Soviet imposed communism in Poland," (Jacurek, 29 dec 2008) is off-topic and should be removed. No relevance of this addition to this biography has been shown neither is it evident. This addition drags the article without reason into the East-European political problem zone. Otto ( talk) 14:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested that, instead, the content that is challenged be flagged. My reasoning here is that wp:lead seems to tell me that content in the lead should rest on the content in the body, and that the sources need not be included in the lead. If needed, I am sure we can find quotes to say his is a celebrated director, but that seems a bit over the top. - Sinneed ( talk) 01:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
On the 27th September 2009 Polanski was arrested entering Switzerland and taken into custody under the 1978 US arrest warrant, I have added same under 1.3.2 'Later developments in the case' Twobells ( talk) 09:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |