![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I feel that it is time that the title sentence of the Polanski page include the term sex offender along with other terms like director and writer. This is something that he is most known for and is a large part of his current and past noteriety. Many famous criminals profiles on Wikipedia comment about the crime that was commited in the very first sentence of the text. As Polanski is widely known to be a sex offender then why shouldn't this be how he is introduced in the text of this page? Many people know him only because of his fame for the rape of a 13 year old girl and not his work in film. There are already many reliable sources about this topic listed in the page and in the discussion page so the fact of his crime and the noteriety he has received for it place him in the position of receiving this title in the first line of text like many other people famous for the crimes that they commited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.31 ( talk) 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion from 129.252.164.31. I think there has been consensus to include the term sex offender for a long time. To many people, this person is primarily notable as a child rapist. Of the news coverage he has received in the last year, I would not be surprised if well over 90 % of it was primarily about him being a child rapist. Urban XII ( talk) 02:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Based on recent edit warring and discussions, I posted a POV tag with an explanation at WP:BLP/N#Roman Polanski bio being undermined posting. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 22:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
All the content is clearly cited and fairly written, I suggest you take care with all of this editing as creating excessive drama at many locations is frowned upon and take care of removing things like the no index template is a strange thing to do. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Although one isn't thrilled to see them, there's enough back and forth on this article and lack of consensus that I wouldn't go on about skiving the tags. Gwen Gale ( talk) 00:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Since I value people's time, I refrained from repeating what was in this discussion over the last few days and explained in the BLP/N details. So here's a quick summary with a straw poll to avoid further stalemates. Yes/no/maybe should help. All of this having been covered above, any comments should probably be added there to avoid complicating the readability of this POV section.
The three sections dealing with legal cases take up 28% of the body text (excludes lists of films, etc.) Director-specific reference books that I can cite all devote only a few sentences summarizing them, and on average no more than 1% of his bio to the Manson murders and his sex case. I assume that's because he was not present when his wife was murdered and the sexual-assault was a single crime incident for which a bio will choose not expand on (contrary to this article which prefers to hear testimony from a 13-year-old about her jacuzzi ordeal.)
Tombaker wrote, "Polanski is a current event, readers will be coming to this link for information." In other words, when the current event has passed, this article as an added source for news will no longer be of use. Therefore, news-focused opinions and previous consensuses from readers specifically wanting sexual-assault details should no longer be considered valid or relevant. This would reduce the sex-crime-courtroom drama material to a reasonable size.
Agree:
The "early life" section is located mixed in alongside the sex-crime-murder material, and comes after this "Career." The only user that has given a reason for keeping it there herself wrote, "Internet based biographies are quite often written with a chronological perspective, but they are usually written by amateurs." In other words, there is nothing wrong with a Wiki article using a chronological order to someone's life. Makes sense - this isn't a movie or novel that works by flashbacks. It should be easy to read.
Using brute force pragmatic skills, I have created a hot link above the career section, this seems to be to be a solution to both problems, with little downside. SOLVED IMO -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some who feel that the essence of his notability, namely his profession as an American film director, producer, screenwriter and actor, are not worth including, preferring to load the categories with sex-crime-fugitive related categories.
<--Suggest that we work with what we have in the article, not changing it dramatically, and working paragraph by paragraph or if necessary sentence by sentence. Then consider dramatic changes after we have something which is not embarrassing to look at. In practical terms, the attention to the Polanski case has momentarily died down. It will not remain so. It would be nice if the article was readable when the next major event occurs, avoiding, hopefully, more attention given to wiki escapades. Thus, since the change to the more familiar feeling narrative biography is rejected by a majority or large minority, let us put our waders on and deal with practicalities. Oberonfitch ( talk) 20:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
NPOV flag was raised upon 4 concerns, that being fully articulated above.
3. "Early Life" section should be before "Career"
4. Unexplained removal of professional categories should be replaced - crime cats reduced
As these were the 4 basis points for the NPOV the NPOV Dispute will be closed. Speak up if you have alternate viewpoints. No actions done yet. Drive by tagging will be resolved. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The NPOV Dispute Flag is a temporary measure. It is to address specific items. This flag did not raise specific items. Of the general items raised, they have been responded to above. This NPOV tag has been abandoned by its creator.
My understanding of WP:BLP is based on what it states:
I therefore beg to differ with Proofreader77's placement of the "Early life" section as a subsection below "Career" and within "Personal life." As was shown earlier by Rossrs' research into FA standards and by my comparison to some director-specific print encyclopedias, "Early life" details are typically shown chronologically. Therefore, placing Polanski's "Early life" section alongside more sensationalist details indicating equal importance seems to conflict with the guidelines. Proofreader77's personal viewpoints, stated below, would seem to be more WP:OR, so I may restore to standard FA chronology. This isn't to engage in edit warring, and hopefully changes can be discussed as I'm doing.
Outdent: Issues seem to be conflated here. Putting the Early life into career is a modest changes. And as Rossrs says its typical. There is enough of a consensus to do it. However how its being done is just terrible. There are now about 4 or 5 topic sections on this simple matter. Then the change was thrust in without even drawing out conclusion on any of the 5 threads. The moving of the Early Life is only significant as to Style. I feel the current style can accommodate this change easily. I have actually commented in the 5 other sections on this very same topic. As Wikiwatcher1 has raised this item in so many places, and ignoring feedback, its just become needless angst.
But the Early Life bit, has nothing to do with the treatment of the subject of the entry. Nothing sensationalistic about it
Well-known public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Below are the current categories for Roman Polanski. Unless there is a change specific sentencing, there is no need for any of these categories to be in flux.
Please, respond with additions or deletions to this list. After several days an aggregated summary shows the areas of agreement and disagreement will be made, from there we should be able to move to a consensus version that will become vandalism protected.
Respond with requests for deletion or addition do not modify the list
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
He is still a fugitive in regards to America as regards America wants him and has not got him. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - -
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION SO FAR: List to remain the same as baseline show above. Once final consensus on this is agreed, changes to the categories without new event justification will be reverted.
We seem to be at consensus....this will be left open for more days however. Please comment if you need to. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
DONE. The categories are as stated above, with reasoning above, with full time for others to voice objections having been given.-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 08:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that Polanski should under the circumstances stay in this cat, Prisoners and detainees of Switzerland , but we should wait until he is released. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
He should stay in the category permanently because he has in any case been (and currently is) a prisoner of Switzerland. Urban XII ( talk) 02:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
"the cat is for people that are currently prisoners of swiss" - this is very simple: Wrong. The category is for people who are or have been prisoners of Switzerland, much like Category:Polish politicians is for people who are or have been Polish politicians. This principle applies to almost all of our categories with very few exceptions (Living people). It doesn't matter why he was held in a Swiss prison, the category is intentionally named "prisoners and detainees" because it includes all people who have been held in custody for whatever reason. Urban XII ( talk) 20:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The category question has been resolved. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Categories_for_use_in_Polanski_reference_.28Driving_to_final_version.29 -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 08:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I made a comment that I thought the impact of Tate's death on Polanski has not been expressed, and I also feel that reading only the career section of the article, Tate is not clearly represented. She is referred to a few times, but it's only after going past these side-references to her, into the personal life section, that it is clearly explained who she was. I think some minor changes would place her and her murder into a stronger context within the framework of Polanski's career, so I offer the following observations and suggestions. I think, with one exception, they are fairly minor but useful.
1. Concern: There is no mention of Tate and Polanski being married and it seems odd to discuss the film that brought them together without a small mention.
2. Concern: The "Return to Europe" section begins "Polanski's first feature following Sharon Tate's murder..." This is the first mention of Tate's murder in the career section and it is after-the-fact.
3. Concern: In discussing The Tragedy of Macbeth, Pauline Kael is cited as commenting that the film evoked memories of the "Manson killings". At this point Manson hasn't been mentioned so anyone unfamiliar with the case, reading only the career section, would not know what is meant.
4.Concern : in the section "Sharon Tate's murder" it begins with Tate's murder and then goes back to explain Polanski's absence, before moving forward again. I think it's a little awkward.
5. Concern: in the same section, Polanski's immediate reaction is not mentioned, but I think it was high-profile enough at the time to warrant mention briefly especially considering that he deliberately placed himself in the middle of the media scrum. He came into conflict with the media after they falsely portrayed Tate's lifestyle as a contributing factor to her death, and they sensationalized the murders. Also, Polanski was criticised for allowing himself to be photographed at the scene.
(outdent)Wikiwatcher1, you've asked me some valid questions and I'm happy to respond. So... you say " I'm not sure what you mean that this bio's goal should be Polanski as a "subject, rather than as a director only." What I mean is this. Different types of publications have different points on which to focus, and they may focus on mainly one aspect, but we would usually look at the broader story. A book about directors, may choose focus on the directorial career, and give minor emphasis to other aspects of the subject. Our article is not only about Polanski the director, but Polanski the person, and to be comprehensive (without being exhaustive) we may summarize points that would be of little consequence to a book devoting to discussion of "the director". All I meant is that our aims and the aims of individual publications may not be the same, so the ratio of content may differ and by subject, I meant "person". I think the early life section is very important, but I also think that important events in his life up to the present may be equally important. I'm talking about key and influential events - I certainly don't want it to devolve into trivia, and I think we've avoided that by keeping everything brief.
Expanding directorial content to give balance. Frankly, I think most of the film discussion of below standard. It reads like someone watched the films and then gave a plot summary. It would be more important and relevant to discuss themes and attitudes, and try to address what distinguishes Polanski as a director. I think a lot needs to be chopped off, and then rewritten from a director's viewpoint. I agree that few have expressed an interest in this being done, but that doesn't mean it's not required. I don't think it would address the issue of balance, on reflection, but I think it would help to shift it in that direction. It may make it more scholarly (for want of a better word). I'm sure the books you cite don't languish in unnecessary plot details, but I would expect that they say something to explain Polanski's approach.
"Current event" - yes I think Polanski is a "current event" in the sense that because his name pops up in the news, people are more likely to be looking at this article now, than they would have a few months ago. I think the article should give the very basic details of the key elements of his arrest etc. I don't for a second support the idea of it being presented with a day by day update of procedings, which was was happening shortly after his arrest. WP:RECENTISM does a lot of damage to topical articles. I don't think our viewpoints are extremely different. When I say things like "the article should reflect the expectation of users who want to look at the article now", I don't realize immediately how ridiculous that is, (until my attention is drawn to it) as expectations vary and some I'm sure are "expecting" something a little salacious, which I certainly don't propose giving. I'm beginning to understand the "tabloid" comment from earlier, and no, that was never in my mind. Rossrs ( talk) 07:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Rossrs: I don't have any objections to any of the changes you have above, and giving this topic a few more days to stew, and considering further feedback....I would see no reason not to proceed. I believe the move in sections, as you outline, is using the existing style to its fullest. Your modifications are not an entire style swap. This change is below the "stability of articles" arbitration committees mandate and threshold.
I think the value of your edits will yield better appreciation for the entry by the readers, than some meritless questioning of all the collaborating editors good faith. As to length, advanced writing classes, will tell you to use more liberally line breaks. Globs of text are harder to absorb than paragraphs with eye relief. Economy of words is great, elimination of content for word count manipulation is not.
So my opinion, give it a few more days, if nothing of substance continues to come back...proceed. All others mileage my vary. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe enough time has passed, to where you should feel comfortable with editing what you outlined above. Probably would be wise to reference this talk section, when you put the changes in. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 08:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
TLDR: Polanski talk's now stalled
obtusely months past
first October lock.
Participants arriving now enthralled
by
different drums
(2) than early folks. No sock ...
... is on the field (no matter what some think). ^^
And some miscomprehend the
libel suit.
(Rebuttal is:
Proofreader's points all stink!)
BUT don't get lost in leaves, ignore the root:
Polanski's
sui generis. [Full stop.]
His fate now hangs across three decades span.
No other film director's life would swap
into the shape, the structure, of this man.
(Those who've contested facts for two months know
a few more things about how pieces go.)
Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: recent edits do not include caveat (may be appealed ...). Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Associated Press, Polanski awaits house arrest at Alpine chalet [1] from there...In Winterthur, a city near Zurich where media reports have said Polanski is held, a white van with tinted windows was seen entering a prison and leaving a couple of minutes later. It was unclear who was inside the van, and authorities are still declining to say where Polanski has been held or when he might be released.
Report that he has been released, Presstv.ir Off2riorob ( talk) 13:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, as I see it he has been released already. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
His release on bail is not unpredecented by the way. Swiss supreme court (Bundesgericht) overruled the Bundesstrafgericht's judgment in the same manner recently, in a case involving an Italian drug dealer. Bosuil ( talk) 02:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
(reply to Off2riorob) December 10th hearing, Second Circuit Court of appeals ([Division 7]) - where Polanski's lawyers will again attempt to get case dismissed. (Last appeal was summarily denied by order). Note: Geimer/Silver are listed among parties (as "other") - Note: Geimer/Silver not party to previous appeal. Likely to deny on same basis (Polanski not here?), ... Docket of actions re current appeal. Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Since Polanski's held by Swiss (soon under house arrest) *and therefore* restrained (by Swiss) from appearing at December 10th hearing in California ... is it possible that California appellate court would not (this time) summarily deny appeal because Polanski's not submitted to court's authority by surrendering (in California)?
(Of course Polanski *could* ask Swiss to let him be transported *under guard* to appeals court for hearing, *then* demand that he be returned to Switzerland so he would not be a bail jumper. ^^) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Follow up: AP link re 10th Dec hearing And AP video Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Friday 27th, prison polanski held in named, polanski will not be released until at least, Mon 30th, yahoo news . Off2riorob ( talk) 17:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I see the point about him owning and visiting a residence in Switzerland has been added and removed a couple of times. I'm not sure of the reason for removing it, because there are no edit summaries, but I think the information is problematic in the way it was worded and especially in the absence of sourcing or attribution.
If Polanski has visited Switzerland since 2005 (which according to Bloomberg is when the U.S. "sought" his return. Google news refers to "a 2005 international alert issued by the US government") are we saying that the Swiss government has acted improperly? Or were his visits prior to 2005 only? I don't know because the edits don't explain this, and the external sources don't explain this either. I'm concerned that this type of unsupported statement, especially without clarifying the dates involved, could be seen as an editorial comment about the Swiss authorities, rather than a dry reporting of the facts as they apply to Polanski. We have to be careful about what we say or imply. If the Swiss authorities have been criticised, we need to cite it to an individual or organisation and provide a reliable source. I doubt that it was intentional, but I think it was presented as though Wikipedia is making something of the fact that "although" Polanski has previously visited, it was only on this last visit that the authorities acted. I think it's a point that we don't need unless it can be expressed clearly, and with strong sourcing.
BTW, editing without edit summaries is decidedly unhelpful considering how many edits this article has been subjected to, and the convoluted and contentious nature of some of the discussion. At least be fair on those editors who are trying to monitor progress, and not "hide" edits by failing to provide a summary. Rossrs ( talk) 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
<outdent Before I get to the other stuff, what is my "latest Vogue Hommes" article? I haven't edited anything for days. As for my signature, I was as surprised by it as you. I plan to try to get to the bottom of that, but have been having difficulties with electronic things of all sorts these past few days. I appreciate, however, that you are operating in good faith. Keep up the good work! 02:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the Vogue Homme assignment being mentioned, but I have a couple of concerns about the way the information is presented.
1. "(based on a editorial conversation [52])" - I think this is very awkward and confusing. I've been following these edits, and even I'm not clear what is meant. I think anyone reading it for the first time wouldn't know what was meant. I also think the source is poor and shouldn't be used. It's attributed to "a former editor" - we don't even have a name. It doesn't inspire confidence, and I think we need to find something better. 2. "When contacted after Polanski was charged, Vogue Hommes refused to acknowledge there had been an assignment." (cited to Polanski's bio) We absolutely can not and must not present it as a fact and then use Polanski as the source. It has to be clearly stated that it's Polanski's words "Polanski later commented that Vogue Hommes refused to acknowledge there had been an assignment." Polanski's bio is very useful for a lot of things, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that all autobiographies are self-serving to various degrees. Polanski certainly has more reason than most to be self-serving. Use his words, but be clear to show they are his words. 1 and 2 - maybe the way to word the whole thing would be:
"In March 1977, Polanski, then aged 43, was arrested for the sexual assault of Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl hired for the photographic shoot.[43][53] Polanski stated that he had been engaged by Vogue Hommes International to take photographs of adolescent girls, but that its editors had refused to acknowledge there had been an assignment.[54]"
Something like that, perhaps. Rossrs ( talk) 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Try finding another source than the autobiography that covers this. Proofreader77 ( talk) 08:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Does the autobiography say Polanski believed he had an assignment? What phrases give you that impression? Is there nothing in the autobiography that would give you an idea that Polanski had had a conversation with an editor that implied he had an assignment. Do you believe editors don't make assignments orally? Proofreader77 ( talk) 10:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: For now I have removed my cite re "ex editor" (Will discuss further.) The Guardian cite which covers the assignment says it was "commissioned." Here is the main issue here: most sources say the photo shoot was commissioned or on assignment. Polanski says he had an agreement. The issue of whether they denied it after the arrest is another matter, but that does not mean Polanski didn't believe he had one. We do not have sources to cast that aspersion. (His autobiography certainly does not imply Polanski was lying.)
Proofreader77 (
talk)
10:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/Polanski-Biography-Christopher-Sandford/dp/0230607780/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0
No, facts do not have to compromise with SYN. :-) Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Removed WP:SYN problem which was clarified by "presuming," which clearly is not in the source quoted, but rather synthesis of the implications of the quote in Polanski's autobiography (which is quoted by Sanford - same quote) ... which is that Polansky says that Vogue Homme told him that they had told Interpol "they didn't know anything about it" when he went to them after the sex charges (made him a pariah) ... which is only an assertion of what Polanski said they told him, not whether it was true or an excuse for not acknowledging their agreement. Proofreader77 ( talk) 03:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "sedative-hypnotic" is a good classification, and was described as such in a 1977 news report: "Polanski Pleads Guilty on 1 Count," August 8, 1977, Bill Farr. Los Angeles Times.
"Sedative-hypnotic" can be sourced. But not by WP:OR. Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:29, 10 December 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I feel that it is time that the title sentence of the Polanski page include the term sex offender along with other terms like director and writer. This is something that he is most known for and is a large part of his current and past noteriety. Many famous criminals profiles on Wikipedia comment about the crime that was commited in the very first sentence of the text. As Polanski is widely known to be a sex offender then why shouldn't this be how he is introduced in the text of this page? Many people know him only because of his fame for the rape of a 13 year old girl and not his work in film. There are already many reliable sources about this topic listed in the page and in the discussion page so the fact of his crime and the noteriety he has received for it place him in the position of receiving this title in the first line of text like many other people famous for the crimes that they commited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.31 ( talk) 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion from 129.252.164.31. I think there has been consensus to include the term sex offender for a long time. To many people, this person is primarily notable as a child rapist. Of the news coverage he has received in the last year, I would not be surprised if well over 90 % of it was primarily about him being a child rapist. Urban XII ( talk) 02:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Based on recent edit warring and discussions, I posted a POV tag with an explanation at WP:BLP/N#Roman Polanski bio being undermined posting. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 22:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
All the content is clearly cited and fairly written, I suggest you take care with all of this editing as creating excessive drama at many locations is frowned upon and take care of removing things like the no index template is a strange thing to do. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Although one isn't thrilled to see them, there's enough back and forth on this article and lack of consensus that I wouldn't go on about skiving the tags. Gwen Gale ( talk) 00:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Since I value people's time, I refrained from repeating what was in this discussion over the last few days and explained in the BLP/N details. So here's a quick summary with a straw poll to avoid further stalemates. Yes/no/maybe should help. All of this having been covered above, any comments should probably be added there to avoid complicating the readability of this POV section.
The three sections dealing with legal cases take up 28% of the body text (excludes lists of films, etc.) Director-specific reference books that I can cite all devote only a few sentences summarizing them, and on average no more than 1% of his bio to the Manson murders and his sex case. I assume that's because he was not present when his wife was murdered and the sexual-assault was a single crime incident for which a bio will choose not expand on (contrary to this article which prefers to hear testimony from a 13-year-old about her jacuzzi ordeal.)
Tombaker wrote, "Polanski is a current event, readers will be coming to this link for information." In other words, when the current event has passed, this article as an added source for news will no longer be of use. Therefore, news-focused opinions and previous consensuses from readers specifically wanting sexual-assault details should no longer be considered valid or relevant. This would reduce the sex-crime-courtroom drama material to a reasonable size.
Agree:
The "early life" section is located mixed in alongside the sex-crime-murder material, and comes after this "Career." The only user that has given a reason for keeping it there herself wrote, "Internet based biographies are quite often written with a chronological perspective, but they are usually written by amateurs." In other words, there is nothing wrong with a Wiki article using a chronological order to someone's life. Makes sense - this isn't a movie or novel that works by flashbacks. It should be easy to read.
Using brute force pragmatic skills, I have created a hot link above the career section, this seems to be to be a solution to both problems, with little downside. SOLVED IMO -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some who feel that the essence of his notability, namely his profession as an American film director, producer, screenwriter and actor, are not worth including, preferring to load the categories with sex-crime-fugitive related categories.
<--Suggest that we work with what we have in the article, not changing it dramatically, and working paragraph by paragraph or if necessary sentence by sentence. Then consider dramatic changes after we have something which is not embarrassing to look at. In practical terms, the attention to the Polanski case has momentarily died down. It will not remain so. It would be nice if the article was readable when the next major event occurs, avoiding, hopefully, more attention given to wiki escapades. Thus, since the change to the more familiar feeling narrative biography is rejected by a majority or large minority, let us put our waders on and deal with practicalities. Oberonfitch ( talk) 20:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
NPOV flag was raised upon 4 concerns, that being fully articulated above.
3. "Early Life" section should be before "Career"
4. Unexplained removal of professional categories should be replaced - crime cats reduced
As these were the 4 basis points for the NPOV the NPOV Dispute will be closed. Speak up if you have alternate viewpoints. No actions done yet. Drive by tagging will be resolved. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The NPOV Dispute Flag is a temporary measure. It is to address specific items. This flag did not raise specific items. Of the general items raised, they have been responded to above. This NPOV tag has been abandoned by its creator.
My understanding of WP:BLP is based on what it states:
I therefore beg to differ with Proofreader77's placement of the "Early life" section as a subsection below "Career" and within "Personal life." As was shown earlier by Rossrs' research into FA standards and by my comparison to some director-specific print encyclopedias, "Early life" details are typically shown chronologically. Therefore, placing Polanski's "Early life" section alongside more sensationalist details indicating equal importance seems to conflict with the guidelines. Proofreader77's personal viewpoints, stated below, would seem to be more WP:OR, so I may restore to standard FA chronology. This isn't to engage in edit warring, and hopefully changes can be discussed as I'm doing.
Outdent: Issues seem to be conflated here. Putting the Early life into career is a modest changes. And as Rossrs says its typical. There is enough of a consensus to do it. However how its being done is just terrible. There are now about 4 or 5 topic sections on this simple matter. Then the change was thrust in without even drawing out conclusion on any of the 5 threads. The moving of the Early Life is only significant as to Style. I feel the current style can accommodate this change easily. I have actually commented in the 5 other sections on this very same topic. As Wikiwatcher1 has raised this item in so many places, and ignoring feedback, its just become needless angst.
But the Early Life bit, has nothing to do with the treatment of the subject of the entry. Nothing sensationalistic about it
Well-known public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Below are the current categories for Roman Polanski. Unless there is a change specific sentencing, there is no need for any of these categories to be in flux.
Please, respond with additions or deletions to this list. After several days an aggregated summary shows the areas of agreement and disagreement will be made, from there we should be able to move to a consensus version that will become vandalism protected.
Respond with requests for deletion or addition do not modify the list
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
He is still a fugitive in regards to America as regards America wants him and has not got him. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - -
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION SO FAR: List to remain the same as baseline show above. Once final consensus on this is agreed, changes to the categories without new event justification will be reverted.
We seem to be at consensus....this will be left open for more days however. Please comment if you need to. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
DONE. The categories are as stated above, with reasoning above, with full time for others to voice objections having been given.-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 08:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that Polanski should under the circumstances stay in this cat, Prisoners and detainees of Switzerland , but we should wait until he is released. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
He should stay in the category permanently because he has in any case been (and currently is) a prisoner of Switzerland. Urban XII ( talk) 02:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
"the cat is for people that are currently prisoners of swiss" - this is very simple: Wrong. The category is for people who are or have been prisoners of Switzerland, much like Category:Polish politicians is for people who are or have been Polish politicians. This principle applies to almost all of our categories with very few exceptions (Living people). It doesn't matter why he was held in a Swiss prison, the category is intentionally named "prisoners and detainees" because it includes all people who have been held in custody for whatever reason. Urban XII ( talk) 20:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The category question has been resolved. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Categories_for_use_in_Polanski_reference_.28Driving_to_final_version.29 -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 08:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I made a comment that I thought the impact of Tate's death on Polanski has not been expressed, and I also feel that reading only the career section of the article, Tate is not clearly represented. She is referred to a few times, but it's only after going past these side-references to her, into the personal life section, that it is clearly explained who she was. I think some minor changes would place her and her murder into a stronger context within the framework of Polanski's career, so I offer the following observations and suggestions. I think, with one exception, they are fairly minor but useful.
1. Concern: There is no mention of Tate and Polanski being married and it seems odd to discuss the film that brought them together without a small mention.
2. Concern: The "Return to Europe" section begins "Polanski's first feature following Sharon Tate's murder..." This is the first mention of Tate's murder in the career section and it is after-the-fact.
3. Concern: In discussing The Tragedy of Macbeth, Pauline Kael is cited as commenting that the film evoked memories of the "Manson killings". At this point Manson hasn't been mentioned so anyone unfamiliar with the case, reading only the career section, would not know what is meant.
4.Concern : in the section "Sharon Tate's murder" it begins with Tate's murder and then goes back to explain Polanski's absence, before moving forward again. I think it's a little awkward.
5. Concern: in the same section, Polanski's immediate reaction is not mentioned, but I think it was high-profile enough at the time to warrant mention briefly especially considering that he deliberately placed himself in the middle of the media scrum. He came into conflict with the media after they falsely portrayed Tate's lifestyle as a contributing factor to her death, and they sensationalized the murders. Also, Polanski was criticised for allowing himself to be photographed at the scene.
(outdent)Wikiwatcher1, you've asked me some valid questions and I'm happy to respond. So... you say " I'm not sure what you mean that this bio's goal should be Polanski as a "subject, rather than as a director only." What I mean is this. Different types of publications have different points on which to focus, and they may focus on mainly one aspect, but we would usually look at the broader story. A book about directors, may choose focus on the directorial career, and give minor emphasis to other aspects of the subject. Our article is not only about Polanski the director, but Polanski the person, and to be comprehensive (without being exhaustive) we may summarize points that would be of little consequence to a book devoting to discussion of "the director". All I meant is that our aims and the aims of individual publications may not be the same, so the ratio of content may differ and by subject, I meant "person". I think the early life section is very important, but I also think that important events in his life up to the present may be equally important. I'm talking about key and influential events - I certainly don't want it to devolve into trivia, and I think we've avoided that by keeping everything brief.
Expanding directorial content to give balance. Frankly, I think most of the film discussion of below standard. It reads like someone watched the films and then gave a plot summary. It would be more important and relevant to discuss themes and attitudes, and try to address what distinguishes Polanski as a director. I think a lot needs to be chopped off, and then rewritten from a director's viewpoint. I agree that few have expressed an interest in this being done, but that doesn't mean it's not required. I don't think it would address the issue of balance, on reflection, but I think it would help to shift it in that direction. It may make it more scholarly (for want of a better word). I'm sure the books you cite don't languish in unnecessary plot details, but I would expect that they say something to explain Polanski's approach.
"Current event" - yes I think Polanski is a "current event" in the sense that because his name pops up in the news, people are more likely to be looking at this article now, than they would have a few months ago. I think the article should give the very basic details of the key elements of his arrest etc. I don't for a second support the idea of it being presented with a day by day update of procedings, which was was happening shortly after his arrest. WP:RECENTISM does a lot of damage to topical articles. I don't think our viewpoints are extremely different. When I say things like "the article should reflect the expectation of users who want to look at the article now", I don't realize immediately how ridiculous that is, (until my attention is drawn to it) as expectations vary and some I'm sure are "expecting" something a little salacious, which I certainly don't propose giving. I'm beginning to understand the "tabloid" comment from earlier, and no, that was never in my mind. Rossrs ( talk) 07:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Rossrs: I don't have any objections to any of the changes you have above, and giving this topic a few more days to stew, and considering further feedback....I would see no reason not to proceed. I believe the move in sections, as you outline, is using the existing style to its fullest. Your modifications are not an entire style swap. This change is below the "stability of articles" arbitration committees mandate and threshold.
I think the value of your edits will yield better appreciation for the entry by the readers, than some meritless questioning of all the collaborating editors good faith. As to length, advanced writing classes, will tell you to use more liberally line breaks. Globs of text are harder to absorb than paragraphs with eye relief. Economy of words is great, elimination of content for word count manipulation is not.
So my opinion, give it a few more days, if nothing of substance continues to come back...proceed. All others mileage my vary. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe enough time has passed, to where you should feel comfortable with editing what you outlined above. Probably would be wise to reference this talk section, when you put the changes in. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 08:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
TLDR: Polanski talk's now stalled
obtusely months past
first October lock.
Participants arriving now enthralled
by
different drums
(2) than early folks. No sock ...
... is on the field (no matter what some think). ^^
And some miscomprehend the
libel suit.
(Rebuttal is:
Proofreader's points all stink!)
BUT don't get lost in leaves, ignore the root:
Polanski's
sui generis. [Full stop.]
His fate now hangs across three decades span.
No other film director's life would swap
into the shape, the structure, of this man.
(Those who've contested facts for two months know
a few more things about how pieces go.)
Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: recent edits do not include caveat (may be appealed ...). Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Associated Press, Polanski awaits house arrest at Alpine chalet [1] from there...In Winterthur, a city near Zurich where media reports have said Polanski is held, a white van with tinted windows was seen entering a prison and leaving a couple of minutes later. It was unclear who was inside the van, and authorities are still declining to say where Polanski has been held or when he might be released.
Report that he has been released, Presstv.ir Off2riorob ( talk) 13:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, as I see it he has been released already. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
His release on bail is not unpredecented by the way. Swiss supreme court (Bundesgericht) overruled the Bundesstrafgericht's judgment in the same manner recently, in a case involving an Italian drug dealer. Bosuil ( talk) 02:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
(reply to Off2riorob) December 10th hearing, Second Circuit Court of appeals ([Division 7]) - where Polanski's lawyers will again attempt to get case dismissed. (Last appeal was summarily denied by order). Note: Geimer/Silver are listed among parties (as "other") - Note: Geimer/Silver not party to previous appeal. Likely to deny on same basis (Polanski not here?), ... Docket of actions re current appeal. Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Since Polanski's held by Swiss (soon under house arrest) *and therefore* restrained (by Swiss) from appearing at December 10th hearing in California ... is it possible that California appellate court would not (this time) summarily deny appeal because Polanski's not submitted to court's authority by surrendering (in California)?
(Of course Polanski *could* ask Swiss to let him be transported *under guard* to appeals court for hearing, *then* demand that he be returned to Switzerland so he would not be a bail jumper. ^^) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Follow up: AP link re 10th Dec hearing And AP video Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Friday 27th, prison polanski held in named, polanski will not be released until at least, Mon 30th, yahoo news . Off2riorob ( talk) 17:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I see the point about him owning and visiting a residence in Switzerland has been added and removed a couple of times. I'm not sure of the reason for removing it, because there are no edit summaries, but I think the information is problematic in the way it was worded and especially in the absence of sourcing or attribution.
If Polanski has visited Switzerland since 2005 (which according to Bloomberg is when the U.S. "sought" his return. Google news refers to "a 2005 international alert issued by the US government") are we saying that the Swiss government has acted improperly? Or were his visits prior to 2005 only? I don't know because the edits don't explain this, and the external sources don't explain this either. I'm concerned that this type of unsupported statement, especially without clarifying the dates involved, could be seen as an editorial comment about the Swiss authorities, rather than a dry reporting of the facts as they apply to Polanski. We have to be careful about what we say or imply. If the Swiss authorities have been criticised, we need to cite it to an individual or organisation and provide a reliable source. I doubt that it was intentional, but I think it was presented as though Wikipedia is making something of the fact that "although" Polanski has previously visited, it was only on this last visit that the authorities acted. I think it's a point that we don't need unless it can be expressed clearly, and with strong sourcing.
BTW, editing without edit summaries is decidedly unhelpful considering how many edits this article has been subjected to, and the convoluted and contentious nature of some of the discussion. At least be fair on those editors who are trying to monitor progress, and not "hide" edits by failing to provide a summary. Rossrs ( talk) 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
<outdent Before I get to the other stuff, what is my "latest Vogue Hommes" article? I haven't edited anything for days. As for my signature, I was as surprised by it as you. I plan to try to get to the bottom of that, but have been having difficulties with electronic things of all sorts these past few days. I appreciate, however, that you are operating in good faith. Keep up the good work! 02:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the Vogue Homme assignment being mentioned, but I have a couple of concerns about the way the information is presented.
1. "(based on a editorial conversation [52])" - I think this is very awkward and confusing. I've been following these edits, and even I'm not clear what is meant. I think anyone reading it for the first time wouldn't know what was meant. I also think the source is poor and shouldn't be used. It's attributed to "a former editor" - we don't even have a name. It doesn't inspire confidence, and I think we need to find something better. 2. "When contacted after Polanski was charged, Vogue Hommes refused to acknowledge there had been an assignment." (cited to Polanski's bio) We absolutely can not and must not present it as a fact and then use Polanski as the source. It has to be clearly stated that it's Polanski's words "Polanski later commented that Vogue Hommes refused to acknowledge there had been an assignment." Polanski's bio is very useful for a lot of things, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that all autobiographies are self-serving to various degrees. Polanski certainly has more reason than most to be self-serving. Use his words, but be clear to show they are his words. 1 and 2 - maybe the way to word the whole thing would be:
"In March 1977, Polanski, then aged 43, was arrested for the sexual assault of Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl hired for the photographic shoot.[43][53] Polanski stated that he had been engaged by Vogue Hommes International to take photographs of adolescent girls, but that its editors had refused to acknowledge there had been an assignment.[54]"
Something like that, perhaps. Rossrs ( talk) 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Try finding another source than the autobiography that covers this. Proofreader77 ( talk) 08:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Does the autobiography say Polanski believed he had an assignment? What phrases give you that impression? Is there nothing in the autobiography that would give you an idea that Polanski had had a conversation with an editor that implied he had an assignment. Do you believe editors don't make assignments orally? Proofreader77 ( talk) 10:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: For now I have removed my cite re "ex editor" (Will discuss further.) The Guardian cite which covers the assignment says it was "commissioned." Here is the main issue here: most sources say the photo shoot was commissioned or on assignment. Polanski says he had an agreement. The issue of whether they denied it after the arrest is another matter, but that does not mean Polanski didn't believe he had one. We do not have sources to cast that aspersion. (His autobiography certainly does not imply Polanski was lying.)
Proofreader77 (
talk)
10:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/Polanski-Biography-Christopher-Sandford/dp/0230607780/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0
No, facts do not have to compromise with SYN. :-) Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Removed WP:SYN problem which was clarified by "presuming," which clearly is not in the source quoted, but rather synthesis of the implications of the quote in Polanski's autobiography (which is quoted by Sanford - same quote) ... which is that Polansky says that Vogue Homme told him that they had told Interpol "they didn't know anything about it" when he went to them after the sex charges (made him a pariah) ... which is only an assertion of what Polanski said they told him, not whether it was true or an excuse for not acknowledging their agreement. Proofreader77 ( talk) 03:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "sedative-hypnotic" is a good classification, and was described as such in a 1977 news report: "Polanski Pleads Guilty on 1 Count," August 8, 1977, Bill Farr. Los Angeles Times.
"Sedative-hypnotic" can be sourced. But not by WP:OR. Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)