![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
As many of us know, there has been *much* energy devoted to very few words of the summary. Desire to "get everything in there" is understandable, but doesn't produce a good summary. There may well be different kinds of summary (other than high points of the narrative) that are better, but for now, sequence is consensus.
Perhaps only when Polanski case is resolved will we be able to attempt to improve bio (Feature Article?). That is what Wikipedians should be trying to do, not "summary cramming." Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
And yes "denial" re Vogue Homme is back, although mention of assignment's deleted. [
removed]
Contention hash = bad quality. Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
LINK directly to counterbalanced version in old revision Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." ~Abraham Lincoln
(That probably covers it—the full texts above and below are too WP:TLDR for precision analysis at Christmas time. Good grief. lol) Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have recently seen three very public topics on the good faith of editorship of the Roman Polanski entry. The first was done through a combined edit, with raising it to the notice boards. The second was done with noticeboards and NPOV drive by tagging. The third is being done right now.
The above are facts, I don't believe there is any dispute to the above, certainly more facts can be entered. Some may find these facts not easy to think about.
There are repeated claims that editors are either for jailing Polanski or not. This is a false assertion on the aggregate, and labels all editors as having a bias.
There are repeated claims that there are earnest biographical editors and those that "undermine" This again is false as it a casting of the entire group of editors. Such sweeping statements are always false.
The facts of this case are grim, disgusting, and not pleasant. The matter is still very much at issue.
The job of this BLP is to correctly put factual information down on the subject. Eliminating information that is factual just for the appearance of being an impartial juror is not the job of Wikipedia. Further as a resource and having the rigorous editorial review, its a good thing that we provide authors and other readers with solid information. There is much poor journalism on this topic. For example many journalist assert there was a sentencing plea bargain, this never existed, as some strong journalist have analyzed the court record.
It is not our job to frame history or events in a light that is either positive or negative. But we should reflect events as they are, and accurately.
Some editors continue to remove items from this article that are well sourced and verifiable, and germane to the BLP. These often are removed simply saying the text is too long. Not that is biased, not that it is accurate, but just listing as the justification of removal is they don't want to see another sentence. This is wrong. Further when removed, the editors removing to not then place them where they say they should go, they seem just to delete.
We are not on two sides. Certainly personal opinion are gray scales. But as to the accuracy of the article and the well cited information, it should not simply be removed to serve any exterior purpose. For example again: When Polanski plead innocent to all the charges, and continual stated publicly and in his autobiography the the sex was consensual. This was removed because the editor thought it was not something they wanted known. This is wrong.
Good faith edits, that are accurate, and germane should not just be removed because of length issues. There is no requirement of length. Deleting content and claiming there are pro and anti Polanski sentencing, is not serving anything. Multiple assertions of bad faith, should not be the status quo of any editor. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 00:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
_____________________________________
Samantha disagrees, she begs us stop
examining old panty stains. You see?
Remove the plastic gloves and grab a mop.
Wring out the angry ache for justice missed
because a judge went wild and joined the mob
of media. Add one more to the list
corrupted by Arendt's "the social" blob.
Society says Roman can't escape
the wages of his sins, or we'll go mad.
The system will be soiled if law lets rape
of one young girl not lead to jail for cad.
HerLawyerSpeaksForHer: There's harm to me.
ThreeDecadesIsEnough — Please let this be.
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
User tombaker has removed the timeline major points that were very well cited and very relevant, the new edit that is left removes the whole story and makes it appear that Polanski was arrested and bailed, this has removed the dates regarding the two months that Polanski spent in jail, the previous edit was well written and well cited and explanatory, the new edit is worse than what was previously there. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
this is what he removed ..
In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival. [1] [2] His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court. [3] [4] On November 25, 2009 a Swiss court accepted Roman Polanski's plea to be freed on $US 4.5 M bail. The court said Polanski could stay at his chalet in the Swiss Alps and that he would be monitored by an electronic tag. [5] The Swiss authorities announced on December 4, 2009 that Polanski had been moved to his home in the resort of Gstaad and placed under house arrest . [6]
and this is what he left...
On September 26th 2009, Polanski was taken into custody of the Swiss police under a 2005 international arrest warrant against him, at the request of US authorities, as he traveled accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival. [7] [2] Polanski was allowed to be confined at his Gstaad residence on $US 4.5 M bail, as he awaits resolution on appeals filed in the Swiss court, fighting the US extradition. [5] [8]
The original edit is clearly more informative. Tombakers edit has completely removed the fact that Polanski was held for two months. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The edits are based on this guideline.
Current:
On 11/26/09, Polanski was taken into custody at the Zurich airport by Swiss police at the request of U.S. authorities, for a 2005 international arrest warrant, as he traveled to accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival. [9] [2] After initially being jailed, Polanski was granted house arrest at his Gstaad residence on $US 4.5 M bail, while awaiting decision of appeals fighting extradition. [5] [10] Tombaker321 ( talk) 09:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
<redent I'm so thoroughly sick of this that I am leaving my seat and allowing Gerardw to occupy it, whilst pointing to the copious archives that perhaps he would like to peruse in his spare time. (No offense.) It's been fun boys. 21:36, 16 December 2009 Oberonfitch ( talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've put the beginning back to the condensed version that has consensus. (A consensus that was enforced with a block against edit warring against it.) Let it be for now. Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No consensus for inserting information from future interviews into middle of 1977 chronology.
No consensus (and absurd) to duplicate information already conveyed by current information. E.g., Geimer's version of events is conveyed by summary of grand jury testimony which unequivocally conveys not consensual—absurd to duplicate that information with quote from 2003 within same paragraph.
Polanski's guilty plea to "unlawful sexual intercourse" (rather than rape) implies sex without force. Polanski's attorney said Polanski plead guilty to consensual sex. (W&D)
--
Proofreader77 (
talk)
09:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is to let editors know that there is an ongoing discussion of edits made to to this article at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tombaker321_single_purpose_account_at_Polanski -- JN 466 11:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: flood of current events responders (heavy "child rapist!" POV required multiple locks ... with a one-week one from Oct.1 to 8).
I've been BLP/NPOV "currentevents wrangling" since 10/4, and have knowledge of editing patterns of all participants (including dynamic ips).
Bottom line: ANI is NOT about last edit—but all before. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw the timeline on AOL which says that Polanski was attacked by a serial killer when he was 16. Anybody know anything about this? I turned to Wiki for more information, but there isn't any.
Check this: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rower_(film) and this: http://web.archive.org/web/20070308045158/http://www.thestickingplace.com/books/dick_cavett.html
The following discussion appears on the Appeals court discussion page, and has application on this page for a better understanding of what's going on in the courts, offered by a lawyer: JohnClarknew ( talk) 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Offriorob, is continuing to revert well cited and appropriate edits. He has been brought to Administrators for his actions on these pages, and he has halled myself into the ANI forum, along with his cohort Proofreader77, to continually revert as a team, content they want to WP:OWN this WP entry. These continued bullying attempts will simply not be rewarded. Recent edits of content which is long established and been in the entry previously will not be removed by the teaming of editors to declare a consensus, which is false in fact, and in its assertion.
1. I am putting back the reversion which includes Polanski statement that the sex was consensual, something that is well sourced and pertinent to the topic. And Geimer statement of the her view on consensual. Polanski wrote this publicly in his own autobiography which shows the LP thought it important enough to write in his own auto-BLP.
2. The publisher of Vogue Homme denied that Polanski was on any job to take pornographic pictures of girls. As the pictures of the Geimer were illegal, and lead to a sexual assault, it is conjecture to say that Polanski was working a job, rather than doing a Hollywood Casting Couch. Leading with the unsupported claim, as if fact, is not supported by the best information we have in citations. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Should the following text be included in the description of the sexual assault case?
“ | The girl testified that Polanski gave her both champagne and Quaalude, a sedative drug, and despite repeated protests and being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy upon her.[53][54][55][56] A grand jury charged him with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[57] At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges | ” |
Collapsing aspersion on other editors - Proofreader77 ( interact) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Part of the dynamic that causes the need for RFC, is a voting block set. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Recent_events_regarding_the_bail Oberonfitch, Off2riorob, and Proofreader77 will configure in rapid fire order, and then attempt to gavel any discussion that is counter to their grouped opining. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 13:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Photo shoot (smoking gun ref)
This edit is repeatedly being inserted and removed, what are peoples opinions on this issue, it is in the lede with is high profile. The terminology and the weight of the expressions used is worthy of comment, I also think that quatity of the citation should be discussed. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The version that is long term..
In 1977, Polanski visited Los Angeles again to shoot photographs for Vogue magazine and was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old in Los Angeles, and later pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor [3]
The desired alteration...
In 1977, Polanski photographed child erotica he said was for Vogue Homme, a French men's magazine, and then was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old in Los Angeles. He later pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor . [4]
Sometime in mid-2009 the article was still integrated showing how many/most of the items in Polanski's personal life section influenced his career. The article used to ingrate all these life developments chronologically, which to me is intuitive but not all biographies are structured that way. As is, we jump through his entire then rewind to give a "best of" tabloidy coverage. The sexual assault section has again been rather twisted to be bloated and POV but that is a separate issue that also needs to be addressed. There was an editor who strongly resisted these changes, or to be fair, changes they didn't agree with, but they have since been moved on. Other editors who were active here left because of what seemed to be a frustration of efforts. I hope those interested in improving the article will return. My goal isn't to push for GA status, although that would be lovely, as much as removing what I see as glaring article flaws that are both a disservice to Wikipedia and our readers. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 18:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see these problems in the article at all, there is a fair NPOV in the article now and multiple changes for this unspecific (non existent) issues would only assert someone else's' POV on an article that is pretty fair as it is and that has been fought over repeatedly to bring it to this pretty stable state. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is long term stable and has support for its general situation and content, I don't support any major changes at this time. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Roman Polanski → Roman Polański — A search of the talkpage archives turns up no recent discussion of this. I think the page should be moved to Roman Polański. Here are the various relevant details:
— ˈzɪzɨvə ( talk) 18:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
In 1969, Polanski's pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered while staying at the Polanski's Benedict Canyon home above Los Angeles by members of the Manson Family.
should be:
In 1969, Polanski's pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered while staying at the Polanskis' Benedict Canyon home above Los Angeles by members of the Manson Family.
M. Walther 69.217.49.249 ( talk) 07:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
After mentioning his assault case in the lengthy lead, the following material, with numerous cites, is added, which goes beyond the "summary" purpose of the lead.
By including such news-related trivia in the lead it distorts the tenor and focus of the article. I propose removing this excess material, which is already in the body in any case, with even more cites.
I think the lead generally needs trimming - too much detail all round. It should be a summary of the information in the rest of the article, so it certainly shouldn't need citations. But I don't think the solution is to remove this particular passage in its entirety.-- Kotniski ( talk) 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that in the beginning of the paragraph it should state 'In March 1977...' and then when it talks about his leaving before sentencing it should be added somewhere that it was in August 1977. As it is now, it sounds like he immediately left the country and that is not what happened. He did 42 days of 90 in a psychiatric jail and was released pending the sentencing.
Right now, actress Charlotte Lewis is cited with having been molested by the directory when she was 16 years old, and 4 years after Polanski had fled to Europe. According to this article, Polanski fled in 1978, so 4 years later would mean 1982. Lewis was born in August 1967, thus reaching the age of 16 only in August 1983. What do we do with those obvious contradictions? Are there any wiki policies tackling regarding such problems? -- Catgut ( talk) 23:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems rather ridiculous to remove mention of Charlotte Lewis altogether. After all, the allegations were made by Lewis herself, so the suggestion that including them would somehow be harmful to her is silly. Secondly, given Polanski's history and his current legal situation, a person making such public allegations should certainly be included in the article. It does not seem to me that including material that is now appearing in multiple news outlets in any way violates BLP. Off2riorob's concerns that it could violate BLP are unjustified, and Tombaker321's argument that "these allegations do not have enough substance" to be included is clearly contradicted by the general newsworthiness of the comments themselves. It's also fairly silly since the allegations are mentioned at both the articles for Lewis and for the film itself. 144.81.85.9 ( talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Someone please change Eveline Widmer-Stumpt to Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf!!! It's embarassing. Fabiovh ( talk) 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The current information in the sexual abuse section give great detail on portions of what the Swiss said was there basis for the denial of the US request. However it is not at all balanced by the US perspective. This makes it appear not NPOV in my view. Problems include. 1. There is a dispute of whether the documents were requested or not. 2. It a large change from standard extradition requests, the Swiss evaluated the merits of the case, and the punishment used. They speculated that the 42 days of evaluation could have been the entire sentence. That speculation is defense argument for matters that have not been determined in the courts. In this way the Swiss became a judge of the case, to which the US was not allowed to argue against. This deviation from standard means of handling extradition requests is already being speculated to have a lasting impact on other cases.
Here are some of the concerns on the other side of what is currently written:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwv8qKQSMIhfdh2oT7hD0TeXDMpgD9GUC3O80
ALL of this does not explain why Polanski skipped out of his sentencing hearing, if he believed he had served his sentence, and when he quite capable lawyers representing him before the judge.
So I see the rational used by the Swiss to be controverted and biased to the defense agreements, which have never been tested before a court of law. To where these arguments were argued, the Judges refused to grant their merit. The method the Swiss used to determine the extradition request is entirely new. So I believe these sentences in the section either need balancing of the two sides, and or pared down. Others thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Gwen: You are being needlessly cryptic with your recitation of rules, while at the same time not reading the sourced and quoted information above. It's obfuscation to this discussion, to speculate what editors could do - but is not happening now. Original research OR is clearly defined, as is BLPTALK related to making content choices.
Gwen: Please read the sourced and quoted material above. That is the discussion for here. There is a clear controversy about the method of the Swiss decision, and its unique special treatment, which may set precedents for other extradition requests. After you read the sourced material in this topic, I would welcome your contributions beyond that of rote recitations, as if bot. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Outdent. For what it's worth, the Swiss newspapers had mixed views regarding the decision. Generally, the French-language papers praised it (but the Geneva paper criticized it), while the German-language papers criticized it. I heard (but don't have citations) that there was heavy criticism in the US papers. Maybe that should be summarized in the article, with appropriate citations. Separately, this section is pretty much identical to the separate article Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case. Wouldn't it be better to give the detailed account in the separate article and only a summary here?-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 11:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This aricle contradicst itself. The lead says Polanski is an "artistic" name, which – I suppose – means a pseudonym. The lead and the infobox also suggest that his birth name is Liebling. The Early life section says he was born Polański and that his father had changed his name from Liebling to Polański before Roman was born. Could someone please check the sources and correct this? — Kpalion (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
WTCIFTC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
As many of us know, there has been *much* energy devoted to very few words of the summary. Desire to "get everything in there" is understandable, but doesn't produce a good summary. There may well be different kinds of summary (other than high points of the narrative) that are better, but for now, sequence is consensus.
Perhaps only when Polanski case is resolved will we be able to attempt to improve bio (Feature Article?). That is what Wikipedians should be trying to do, not "summary cramming." Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
And yes "denial" re Vogue Homme is back, although mention of assignment's deleted. [
removed]
Contention hash = bad quality. Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
LINK directly to counterbalanced version in old revision Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." ~Abraham Lincoln
(That probably covers it—the full texts above and below are too WP:TLDR for precision analysis at Christmas time. Good grief. lol) Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have recently seen three very public topics on the good faith of editorship of the Roman Polanski entry. The first was done through a combined edit, with raising it to the notice boards. The second was done with noticeboards and NPOV drive by tagging. The third is being done right now.
The above are facts, I don't believe there is any dispute to the above, certainly more facts can be entered. Some may find these facts not easy to think about.
There are repeated claims that editors are either for jailing Polanski or not. This is a false assertion on the aggregate, and labels all editors as having a bias.
There are repeated claims that there are earnest biographical editors and those that "undermine" This again is false as it a casting of the entire group of editors. Such sweeping statements are always false.
The facts of this case are grim, disgusting, and not pleasant. The matter is still very much at issue.
The job of this BLP is to correctly put factual information down on the subject. Eliminating information that is factual just for the appearance of being an impartial juror is not the job of Wikipedia. Further as a resource and having the rigorous editorial review, its a good thing that we provide authors and other readers with solid information. There is much poor journalism on this topic. For example many journalist assert there was a sentencing plea bargain, this never existed, as some strong journalist have analyzed the court record.
It is not our job to frame history or events in a light that is either positive or negative. But we should reflect events as they are, and accurately.
Some editors continue to remove items from this article that are well sourced and verifiable, and germane to the BLP. These often are removed simply saying the text is too long. Not that is biased, not that it is accurate, but just listing as the justification of removal is they don't want to see another sentence. This is wrong. Further when removed, the editors removing to not then place them where they say they should go, they seem just to delete.
We are not on two sides. Certainly personal opinion are gray scales. But as to the accuracy of the article and the well cited information, it should not simply be removed to serve any exterior purpose. For example again: When Polanski plead innocent to all the charges, and continual stated publicly and in his autobiography the the sex was consensual. This was removed because the editor thought it was not something they wanted known. This is wrong.
Good faith edits, that are accurate, and germane should not just be removed because of length issues. There is no requirement of length. Deleting content and claiming there are pro and anti Polanski sentencing, is not serving anything. Multiple assertions of bad faith, should not be the status quo of any editor. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 00:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
_____________________________________
Samantha disagrees, she begs us stop
examining old panty stains. You see?
Remove the plastic gloves and grab a mop.
Wring out the angry ache for justice missed
because a judge went wild and joined the mob
of media. Add one more to the list
corrupted by Arendt's "the social" blob.
Society says Roman can't escape
the wages of his sins, or we'll go mad.
The system will be soiled if law lets rape
of one young girl not lead to jail for cad.
HerLawyerSpeaksForHer: There's harm to me.
ThreeDecadesIsEnough — Please let this be.
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
User tombaker has removed the timeline major points that were very well cited and very relevant, the new edit that is left removes the whole story and makes it appear that Polanski was arrested and bailed, this has removed the dates regarding the two months that Polanski spent in jail, the previous edit was well written and well cited and explanatory, the new edit is worse than what was previously there. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
this is what he removed ..
In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival. [1] [2] His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court. [3] [4] On November 25, 2009 a Swiss court accepted Roman Polanski's plea to be freed on $US 4.5 M bail. The court said Polanski could stay at his chalet in the Swiss Alps and that he would be monitored by an electronic tag. [5] The Swiss authorities announced on December 4, 2009 that Polanski had been moved to his home in the resort of Gstaad and placed under house arrest . [6]
and this is what he left...
On September 26th 2009, Polanski was taken into custody of the Swiss police under a 2005 international arrest warrant against him, at the request of US authorities, as he traveled accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival. [7] [2] Polanski was allowed to be confined at his Gstaad residence on $US 4.5 M bail, as he awaits resolution on appeals filed in the Swiss court, fighting the US extradition. [5] [8]
The original edit is clearly more informative. Tombakers edit has completely removed the fact that Polanski was held for two months. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The edits are based on this guideline.
Current:
On 11/26/09, Polanski was taken into custody at the Zurich airport by Swiss police at the request of U.S. authorities, for a 2005 international arrest warrant, as he traveled to accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival. [9] [2] After initially being jailed, Polanski was granted house arrest at his Gstaad residence on $US 4.5 M bail, while awaiting decision of appeals fighting extradition. [5] [10] Tombaker321 ( talk) 09:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
<redent I'm so thoroughly sick of this that I am leaving my seat and allowing Gerardw to occupy it, whilst pointing to the copious archives that perhaps he would like to peruse in his spare time. (No offense.) It's been fun boys. 21:36, 16 December 2009 Oberonfitch ( talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've put the beginning back to the condensed version that has consensus. (A consensus that was enforced with a block against edit warring against it.) Let it be for now. Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No consensus for inserting information from future interviews into middle of 1977 chronology.
No consensus (and absurd) to duplicate information already conveyed by current information. E.g., Geimer's version of events is conveyed by summary of grand jury testimony which unequivocally conveys not consensual—absurd to duplicate that information with quote from 2003 within same paragraph.
Polanski's guilty plea to "unlawful sexual intercourse" (rather than rape) implies sex without force. Polanski's attorney said Polanski plead guilty to consensual sex. (W&D)
--
Proofreader77 (
talk)
09:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is to let editors know that there is an ongoing discussion of edits made to to this article at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tombaker321_single_purpose_account_at_Polanski -- JN 466 11:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: flood of current events responders (heavy "child rapist!" POV required multiple locks ... with a one-week one from Oct.1 to 8).
I've been BLP/NPOV "currentevents wrangling" since 10/4, and have knowledge of editing patterns of all participants (including dynamic ips).
Bottom line: ANI is NOT about last edit—but all before. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw the timeline on AOL which says that Polanski was attacked by a serial killer when he was 16. Anybody know anything about this? I turned to Wiki for more information, but there isn't any.
Check this: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rower_(film) and this: http://web.archive.org/web/20070308045158/http://www.thestickingplace.com/books/dick_cavett.html
The following discussion appears on the Appeals court discussion page, and has application on this page for a better understanding of what's going on in the courts, offered by a lawyer: JohnClarknew ( talk) 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Offriorob, is continuing to revert well cited and appropriate edits. He has been brought to Administrators for his actions on these pages, and he has halled myself into the ANI forum, along with his cohort Proofreader77, to continually revert as a team, content they want to WP:OWN this WP entry. These continued bullying attempts will simply not be rewarded. Recent edits of content which is long established and been in the entry previously will not be removed by the teaming of editors to declare a consensus, which is false in fact, and in its assertion.
1. I am putting back the reversion which includes Polanski statement that the sex was consensual, something that is well sourced and pertinent to the topic. And Geimer statement of the her view on consensual. Polanski wrote this publicly in his own autobiography which shows the LP thought it important enough to write in his own auto-BLP.
2. The publisher of Vogue Homme denied that Polanski was on any job to take pornographic pictures of girls. As the pictures of the Geimer were illegal, and lead to a sexual assault, it is conjecture to say that Polanski was working a job, rather than doing a Hollywood Casting Couch. Leading with the unsupported claim, as if fact, is not supported by the best information we have in citations. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Should the following text be included in the description of the sexual assault case?
“ | The girl testified that Polanski gave her both champagne and Quaalude, a sedative drug, and despite repeated protests and being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy upon her.[53][54][55][56] A grand jury charged him with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[57] At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges | ” |
Collapsing aspersion on other editors - Proofreader77 ( interact) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Part of the dynamic that causes the need for RFC, is a voting block set. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Recent_events_regarding_the_bail Oberonfitch, Off2riorob, and Proofreader77 will configure in rapid fire order, and then attempt to gavel any discussion that is counter to their grouped opining. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 13:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Photo shoot (smoking gun ref)
This edit is repeatedly being inserted and removed, what are peoples opinions on this issue, it is in the lede with is high profile. The terminology and the weight of the expressions used is worthy of comment, I also think that quatity of the citation should be discussed. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The version that is long term..
In 1977, Polanski visited Los Angeles again to shoot photographs for Vogue magazine and was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old in Los Angeles, and later pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor [3]
The desired alteration...
In 1977, Polanski photographed child erotica he said was for Vogue Homme, a French men's magazine, and then was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old in Los Angeles. He later pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor . [4]
Sometime in mid-2009 the article was still integrated showing how many/most of the items in Polanski's personal life section influenced his career. The article used to ingrate all these life developments chronologically, which to me is intuitive but not all biographies are structured that way. As is, we jump through his entire then rewind to give a "best of" tabloidy coverage. The sexual assault section has again been rather twisted to be bloated and POV but that is a separate issue that also needs to be addressed. There was an editor who strongly resisted these changes, or to be fair, changes they didn't agree with, but they have since been moved on. Other editors who were active here left because of what seemed to be a frustration of efforts. I hope those interested in improving the article will return. My goal isn't to push for GA status, although that would be lovely, as much as removing what I see as glaring article flaws that are both a disservice to Wikipedia and our readers. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 18:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see these problems in the article at all, there is a fair NPOV in the article now and multiple changes for this unspecific (non existent) issues would only assert someone else's' POV on an article that is pretty fair as it is and that has been fought over repeatedly to bring it to this pretty stable state. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is long term stable and has support for its general situation and content, I don't support any major changes at this time. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Roman Polanski → Roman Polański — A search of the talkpage archives turns up no recent discussion of this. I think the page should be moved to Roman Polański. Here are the various relevant details:
— ˈzɪzɨvə ( talk) 18:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
In 1969, Polanski's pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered while staying at the Polanski's Benedict Canyon home above Los Angeles by members of the Manson Family.
should be:
In 1969, Polanski's pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered while staying at the Polanskis' Benedict Canyon home above Los Angeles by members of the Manson Family.
M. Walther 69.217.49.249 ( talk) 07:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
After mentioning his assault case in the lengthy lead, the following material, with numerous cites, is added, which goes beyond the "summary" purpose of the lead.
By including such news-related trivia in the lead it distorts the tenor and focus of the article. I propose removing this excess material, which is already in the body in any case, with even more cites.
I think the lead generally needs trimming - too much detail all round. It should be a summary of the information in the rest of the article, so it certainly shouldn't need citations. But I don't think the solution is to remove this particular passage in its entirety.-- Kotniski ( talk) 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that in the beginning of the paragraph it should state 'In March 1977...' and then when it talks about his leaving before sentencing it should be added somewhere that it was in August 1977. As it is now, it sounds like he immediately left the country and that is not what happened. He did 42 days of 90 in a psychiatric jail and was released pending the sentencing.
Right now, actress Charlotte Lewis is cited with having been molested by the directory when she was 16 years old, and 4 years after Polanski had fled to Europe. According to this article, Polanski fled in 1978, so 4 years later would mean 1982. Lewis was born in August 1967, thus reaching the age of 16 only in August 1983. What do we do with those obvious contradictions? Are there any wiki policies tackling regarding such problems? -- Catgut ( talk) 23:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems rather ridiculous to remove mention of Charlotte Lewis altogether. After all, the allegations were made by Lewis herself, so the suggestion that including them would somehow be harmful to her is silly. Secondly, given Polanski's history and his current legal situation, a person making such public allegations should certainly be included in the article. It does not seem to me that including material that is now appearing in multiple news outlets in any way violates BLP. Off2riorob's concerns that it could violate BLP are unjustified, and Tombaker321's argument that "these allegations do not have enough substance" to be included is clearly contradicted by the general newsworthiness of the comments themselves. It's also fairly silly since the allegations are mentioned at both the articles for Lewis and for the film itself. 144.81.85.9 ( talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Someone please change Eveline Widmer-Stumpt to Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf!!! It's embarassing. Fabiovh ( talk) 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The current information in the sexual abuse section give great detail on portions of what the Swiss said was there basis for the denial of the US request. However it is not at all balanced by the US perspective. This makes it appear not NPOV in my view. Problems include. 1. There is a dispute of whether the documents were requested or not. 2. It a large change from standard extradition requests, the Swiss evaluated the merits of the case, and the punishment used. They speculated that the 42 days of evaluation could have been the entire sentence. That speculation is defense argument for matters that have not been determined in the courts. In this way the Swiss became a judge of the case, to which the US was not allowed to argue against. This deviation from standard means of handling extradition requests is already being speculated to have a lasting impact on other cases.
Here are some of the concerns on the other side of what is currently written:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwv8qKQSMIhfdh2oT7hD0TeXDMpgD9GUC3O80
ALL of this does not explain why Polanski skipped out of his sentencing hearing, if he believed he had served his sentence, and when he quite capable lawyers representing him before the judge.
So I see the rational used by the Swiss to be controverted and biased to the defense agreements, which have never been tested before a court of law. To where these arguments were argued, the Judges refused to grant their merit. The method the Swiss used to determine the extradition request is entirely new. So I believe these sentences in the section either need balancing of the two sides, and or pared down. Others thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Gwen: You are being needlessly cryptic with your recitation of rules, while at the same time not reading the sourced and quoted information above. It's obfuscation to this discussion, to speculate what editors could do - but is not happening now. Original research OR is clearly defined, as is BLPTALK related to making content choices.
Gwen: Please read the sourced and quoted material above. That is the discussion for here. There is a clear controversy about the method of the Swiss decision, and its unique special treatment, which may set precedents for other extradition requests. After you read the sourced material in this topic, I would welcome your contributions beyond that of rote recitations, as if bot. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Outdent. For what it's worth, the Swiss newspapers had mixed views regarding the decision. Generally, the French-language papers praised it (but the Geneva paper criticized it), while the German-language papers criticized it. I heard (but don't have citations) that there was heavy criticism in the US papers. Maybe that should be summarized in the article, with appropriate citations. Separately, this section is pretty much identical to the separate article Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case. Wouldn't it be better to give the detailed account in the separate article and only a summary here?-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 11:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This aricle contradicst itself. The lead says Polanski is an "artistic" name, which – I suppose – means a pseudonym. The lead and the infobox also suggest that his birth name is Liebling. The Early life section says he was born Polański and that his father had changed his name from Liebling to Polański before Roman was born. Could someone please check the sources and correct this? — Kpalion (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
WTCIFTC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).