![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Due to excessive disorganization and material volume some current discussion and open issues have been archived.
As always, conscientious editors are directed to the archives indicated on this page, including the most recent [1], and asked to familiarize themselves with the community discussion on the topic, and any previously researched references of potential use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.1.147 ( talk) 14:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
{{editrequest}}
- - Following subhead: Sex crime conviction, replace body with following:
- - In 1977, Polanski, then age 44, arranged to photograph for Vogue Hommes Magazine[32], 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). On March 10, 1977 at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles, Polanski and Geimer met for a second photo shoot.[33]
- - In testimony, Geimer recalled that she was drinking champagne while Polanski photographed her, and that she was offered, and took, a portion of a Quaalude (the controlled substance methaqualone, which is a sedative drug). Polanski asked her to lie down on the couch, where the assault took place. Geimer stated that she repeatedly asked the filmmaker to stop and that he did not. Geimer testified that Polanski had, in the course of the assault, performed cunnilingus, vaginal intercourse and sodomy on her.[34] Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[35]
- - Please change following footnotes:
- [32] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6240914/The-hunt-for-Roman-Polanski.html
- [33]Samantha Gailey testimony, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia5.html
- [34]Ibid
- [35] http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/09/27/roman-polanski-arrested-us-warrant/
- - Oberonfitch ( talk) 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This should be added to the Main Personal Life section.
"Polanski started a romantic relationship with Nastassja Kinski, when she was 15 years old and he was 43. [1] [2] She appeared in his Oscar nominated film Tess."-- Charleenmerced Talk 16:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
His relationship with Kinski should be put under personal life, or within the section about his current charges. I don't understand why such a public relationship with a now famous actress should be excluded, because the editors feel it to be not in Polanski's best interest or best light. His public history was that of engaging with girls under the age of consent. If that is too much of a leap fine, but the world press recognized at the time his relationship with 15 year old Kinski, to erase that now is a disservice. Polanski is noteworthy for his public figure as much a his directorship. To eliminate or downplay his propensity to date underage girls ignores how the world understood his public figure. Again his public figure and how the world recognizes his public figure is arguably more significant than his films. Its not Wikipedia's job to remove facts because conclusion by the reader will readily be made. No wikipedia should not form a conclusion or statement that Polanski is a serial pedophile. But to exclude the fact of another relationship with an underage child, is revisionist history by the exclusion of fact. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.210.90.109 (
talk)
00:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
See following references
Polanski spent the first years after her death on a kind of sexual spree, and began spending time with younger and younger women, like 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1706557,00.html [15]
(Ever contrite, Polanski then began dating Nastassja Kinski, 15.)
http://www.slate.com/id/2077916/ [16]
He allowed art and life to overlap in similar fashion after the statutory rape case, by putting his teenage girlfriend, Nastassja Kinski, in a lavish adaptation of Tess of the d'Urbervilles, whose entire plot revolves around a rape (even if, in Polanski's version, the violence of the act is considerably less one-sided than in Hardy's).
In the years that followed, he was often photographed consoling himself with the company of very young women. He began a relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was just 15. So it was hardly surprising that a media firestorm erupted when Polanski was arrested, nearly eight years after the murders, for having sex with a 13-year-old.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3720836.ece [18]
Polanski immediately invited her to join him and his partner for what was later described as a "threesome", and she agreed. The girl's name, he learnt later, was Nastassja Kinski - an aspiring actress who was destined to star in his 1979 film Tess. She was just 15, and he was 43. Within a matter of days Polanski had decided to photograph his new, young lover for the glossy pages of the Christmas 1976 edition of French Vogue. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-477609/The-dark-secrets-Roman-Polanksi.html [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to get a disposition on this? I have provided 5 additional very authoritative sources which support her age, and her relationship. The simple single line, as proposed above, is concise, factual, with now 7 supporting references. It states the facts without venturing at all into any conclusions. PLEASE NOTE: The reference given above support that his relationship with Kinski of 15 happened prior to the Rape allegations. Kinski was photographed for the 1976 Chritmas French Vogue edition. He began his sexual relationship with her prior to that photography session for Vogue. Indeed the reference indicates the sexual relationship started upon first meeting Kinski. This corresponds to her being born in 1961, and her being 15 when the relationship started in 1976. The movie she stared in was in 1979 (likely filmed in 78) but it references as his girlfriend at the time. The date of the film and the date when the relationship began are not the same. He began the relationship with her at 15 and then as it continued he used her in the film role. The relationship occurred before and continuing after, the rape allegations. I believe we have the complete information and sources to support this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 October 2009
I believe the discussions and edits over the last few days have demonstrated that there are different views on which information on the crime that should be included. Several editors have supported the inclusion of the fact that he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her in some version or another. Some editors have argued for the inclusion of more details [6] [7], which I have reverted on several occasions [8]. Other editors have attempted to remove the description of the crime, stating only that Polanski performed "various sexual acts" on her.
I think it's clear that there will never be consensus to use the wording "various sexual acts", which has been opposed by a number of editors. If we are to reach some consensus, we need to agree that each side have some valid points. I'm very much in favour of protecting the victim of a serious crime, but totally ommitting the description of the crime from the article on the perpetrator simply isn't the solution (I have suggested removing the name of the victim). It will only be possible to reach an agreement if the opposing side acknowledges that some sort of description of the crime has to be included. I'm open to discuss other wordings, although I believe "performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her" is short and not unnecessary detailed, only describing the crime in broad terms. Urban XII ( talk) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, was arrested and charged [9] with six counts: "Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor", "Child Molesting", "Rape by the use of Drugs", "Sodomy", "Oral Copulation by Force" and "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse" the day after an incident with a 13-year-old he photographed topless. It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
It's factual, crisp and complete - without requiring much acrobatics on our part... 99.151.164.92 ( talk) 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times just reported that Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, "My personal thoughts are let the guy go... It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things."
The same article also reports that a petition defending Polanski has been signed by more than 100 celebrities and other prominent people, including Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Mike Nichols, Woody Allen and Neil Jordan.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 22:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Breitbart has published this list of all the people who signed the petition so far. While I don't think this article should name all of them, I do think it should have a link to this list. Grundle2600 ( talk) 13:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose that the following be added to the article:
The Los Angeles Times reported that Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, "My personal thoughts are let the guy go... It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things." The same article also reported, "More than 100 industry leaders and prominent authors -- including directors Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Mike Nichols, Woody Allen and Neil Jordan -- have signed a petition asking that Polanski be released from Swiss custody." [1] The full list of petition signers was published by breitbart.com, and can be read here.
Does anyone have any reasonable objections to my proposed addition?
Can anyone cite any wikipedia rules that my proposed addition would violate?
Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. We don't have to name the people who signed the petition. So my new proposed addition is:
The Los Angeles Times reported that Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, "My personal thoughts are let the guy go... It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things." The same article also reported, "More than 100 industry leaders and prominent authors... have signed a petition asking that Polanski be released from Swiss custody." [1] The full list of petition signers was published by breitbart.com, and can be read here.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 03:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This is really weird - both times that I linked to the Los Angeles Times article on this talk page, it was changed to a link to a different article about the wikipedia article being locked. Grundle2600 ( talk) 03:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01wells.html
« Reached in Paso Robles, Calif., on Wednesday, Mr. Wells said he had informed the district attorney’s office of his lie several months ago, and offered to make a formal statement, though none was taken. »
So, some changes have to be made in section Charges and guilty plea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.54.240.83 ( talk) 07:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Petition for Roman Polanski
We have learned the astonishing news of Roman Polanski’s arrest by the Swiss police on September 26th, upon arrival in Zurich (Switzerland) while on his way to a film festival where he was due to receive an award for his career in filmmaking.
His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.
Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.
By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.
The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.
Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.
Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians—everyone involved in international filmmaking—want him to know that he has their support and friendship.
On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.
If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.
Then a list of 100 names. My favourite part is "in a case of morals". What is zi world coming to when you can't even diddle a drugged 13yr old... tsk tsk. WookMuff ( talk) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I added this merely as reference. If you would prefer, here's the link. Thanks for AGF :P WookMuff ( talk) 13:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Prior to his September 2009 arrest in Switzerland, Polanski was directing an adaptation of Harris' The Ghost, a novel about a writer who stumbles upon a secret while ghosting the autobiography of a former British prime minister. It will star Ewan McGregor as the writer and Pierce Brosnan as the prime minister. Filming takes place in Germany. The Ghost is being co-produced as of February 2009 by the Babelsberg Studios.[26]
Any word on the status of this project? Surely it must at least be on hiatus, unless everyone working there is so sure of the outcome of the current situation. WookMuff ( talk) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Durnit, thanks for that, I keep forgetting to fill in the subject/title part WookMuff ( talk) 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to say, up front, that I think Roman Polanski deserves to die in jail, preferably beaten up by the guys that usually deal with child rapists. That is my opinion, however, and while it definitely colours my views of wikipedia policy, it does not overshadow them.
The OJ Simpson murder case has its own page, the Michael Jackson 1993 and later allegations both have pages, and now the 2009 arrest has its own page. Why doesn't the 1977 arrest and conviction have its own page? Does it? did I miss it? I think that a summary of the events belongs here, and much like OJ's bio first sentence containing convicted felon, I think that convicted child molester should appear in the first SENTENCE (Does his fame and talent make him less a child molester than john wayne gacy's art and social work make him a serial killer, which is certainly also a biased term).
However, if we just summarize these events, not giving undue weight to them anymore than apologizing or excusing them, then perhaps we could all move on to edit warring over the resulting page, 1977 Roman Polanski rape case or some such. WookMuff ( talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} In the Manson Murders section, the claim regarding Polanski's "greatest regret" has a citation-needed tag on it. Please add this source to the sentence and remove the tag (the source is in the 7th paragraph up from the end): Roman Polanski: The Artful Dodger. Additionally, the location of Los Angeles should be changed to Beverly Hills in the same sentence, per the source. Thanks.— DMCer ™ 06:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a reminder of what Wikipedia is (an encyclopedia), and what it is not (a court of law, a tabloid, a blog, a soapbox, take your pick). While there is plenty of information out there that exists in court documents, blogs, newspapers, tabloids, etc., and rightly belongs there, it does not necessarily belong in an encyclopedia. Just because certain prurient details of the sex acts committed during the crime have been described in tabloids, blogs, and court documents, does not mean that they belong in an encyclopedia article. The core of RP's crime is that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, not which specific sex acts he committed, but the very fact that he committed any sex acts at all. Consent is not in any way suggested by the phrase "various sexual acts." The details of exactly where he put what are irrelevant to the question of consent. The whole purpose of stating the victim's age, and the general reader most assuredly understands this, is that a 13 year old is incapable of giving proper consent. The heinousness of his crime rests upon the age of the girl, not the prurient details of which specific sex acts were performed. These serve no purpose to an encyclopedia article. I would like to remind certain editors here that it is not the business of an encyclopedia to prosecute people for their crimes, real or perceived, nor to lay out the evidence for others to do so. It is not the business of an encyclopedia to divulge the juicy details of a hot-button issue, nor to air the dirty laundry of a public figure, especially when that dirty laundry has such a profound effect on the lives of innocent victims who are not public figures. We should show some sensitivity to the privacy of the victim of the crime, and WP:BLP 4.2 says that we must respect her privacy. Exposing the prurient details of the sex acts is not libel, but it is an improper invasion of privacy – the victim's privacy – and forbidden under BLP policy. I have no problem whatsoever with stating that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. That is well-known and relevant. The details of the specific sex acts are not. Wilhelm Meis ( Quatsch!) 04:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I came here from WP:BLPN to support compliance with BLP policy, and that is my one and only concern here. I would remind anyone who suggests otherwise to assume good faith, as there is no foundation in my words or actions to the assumption that I have any ulterior motives here (i.e. to minimize or downplay RP's crime). I have never suggested that we downplay the seriousness of the crimes in any way, only that we respect the privacy of the victim. As far as I can tell, the only statement she has made recently about the incident (which is linked about a dozen times on this talk page) is that she has moved on with her life, but the continued invasion of privacy does harm to her and her family. We have a legal obligation, if not a moral imperative, to respect her privacy. The argument that drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl is in any way not a serious crime is, in a word, bullshit. Wilhelm Meis ( Quatsch!) 02:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Really, where is a link to an official statement that he was charged with as you state rape with the use of drugs? Off2riorob ( talk) 16:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Oh yea I see, he was charged..this is like normal the prosecution accuse you of the worst thing possible and then the downgrading begins, he was found and pled guilty to the much lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
"She wasn't unschooled in sexual matters," Polanski said. "She was consenting and willing."
But is it too late for justice to be served?
Geimer told Kauffman, "It's never too late. It's never too late to go back and fix something that wasn't done right. It's been too long, but it will never be too late."
In a 2003 Op-Ed for the Los Angeles Times, Geimer wrote, "The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 continues to happen to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity. That just never seems right to me. It makes me feel guilty that this attention is directed at me, when there are certainly others out there who could really use it."
Sodomy is a legal definition, attempt to remove it and calling RAPE, as a sexual act is misleading. Rape is an act of violence. He forced this girl by her own testimony. The accounts of her grand jury testimony are publicly available on the smoking gun. Do we go back in history and remove accounts of incest among Royalty because it may not be to the taste of the editors? There is no legal or moral need by Wikipedia to edit down history for what is overzealous editors think. The trial is a public record. Its the People against Polanski. The process of the court has the audience of the public. Wilhelm_meis has taken a very strange attitude of his gatekeeping of this topic. Wilhelm_meis believes he is responsible for how people think and feel about a fact based encyclopedia. Wilhelm_meis is trying to control how the reader concludes things by eliminating facts for consideration. Anal Rape and ejaculating into a 13 year old may be too graphic, but asserting Sodomy is not.
I urge that Wilhelm_meis be relieved of his role her, and that task given to someone else without the bias shown. Certainly there is someone else that can take a fresh look at this topic.
Or is this the Wilhelm_meis show? His actions show that his response are now internalized to him. Because he has invested so much energy into his positions, he is not fairly taking the contributions of others, with fresh eyes.
Its time to pass the baton, replace Wilhelm_meis, there is another editor who can proceed. This is not about Wilhelm_meis , its about the integrity of the strength of the cooperative authorship. Move in a new set of eyes. Wilhelm_meis is talking about his moral responsibility with his edits, what about the facts? Are we fact based or opinion based, and stop leaving out facts to calibrate the opinions of the readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.90.109 ( talk) 01:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems odd that there is no mention of the offer for Polanski to return and have the matter supposedly resolved in his favor that he rejected because the judge would not rule out televising the proceedings. I came to the article to confirm the date only to find it not mentioned as far as I could see. RoyBatty42 ( talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Polanski himself dismisses this account, the media reports about the interactions of the Judge Fidler seem to be all speculation.
"I don't know if it's resignation or a lack of interest or a fear of the media circus that would happen," Polanski said in a telephone interview from Paris. The rumour mills are just speculation, he says. "Every now and again they propose the notion that I am doing something about it. Then there is a new round of articles about my possible return. There's nothing!" Originally published in The Toronto Sun, March 8, 2000 SEE: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html The reference also include the 1997 article, with the key information be from un-named sources
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed this in several articles and some of the discussion on this article. Roman Polanski is not a pedophile. If you wished to characterize his attraction to young women, he would properly be called an ephebophile, or if you wanted to consider the 13-year-old as representative, a hebephile. Both of those terms would assume his preference is for non-adult partners, which I don't think has been sourced.
Similarly, I do not think the use of the term "child molester" is encyclopedic. Child molestation is defined in different ways in different jurisdictions. Further, while a 13 year old is a minor and in some senses a child, colloquially adolescents are usually distinguished from children. Calling Polanski a "child molester" suggests someone who preys on the pre-pubescent. Although Polanski's actions are indefensible, nonetheless distortion does not belong in the article. If having sex with underage minors and non-consensual sex acts are an important part of the article, I think when summarized they should be summarized thusly, and not with the inflammatory term "child molester."
Further, although statuatory rape is defined as "rape" in some jurisdictions, it is not in others, and indeed in some jurisdictions the term "rape" is not used, instead more specific and less loaded offenses are specified such as sexual battery, unlawful intercourse with a minor, etc. This is particularly important if you wish to comment on both his alleged sexual assault of the 13 year old with other cases where he may have had sex with minor in which assault did not take place.
Let's face it folks, this article is not going to smooth out and start making sense until people agree to stick to the facts. Wikipedia is not an arena of justice, it is an information resource. Pawsplay ( talk) 03:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
His sexual affair with Natasha Kinski (who was 15 at the time should also be mentioned). Both of them admitted to the affair. 99.150.203.9 ( talk) 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot over overthinking going on here. Pedophile is a simple definition. Use the dictionary of your choice. Its also a term that is used by law enforcement and by the general public. Polanski admitted to a count of sex with an underage girl. That means by definition he admitted to being a Pedophile. The term itself does not mean how many children are involved. His attraction to underage girls was manifested by a specific act to which he admitted to in his plea. Calling a person takes someones car by breaking in, can be called a car thief. Calling Polanski a pedophile is not controversial, its simply using a dictionary definition as its intended, and how its used in the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Because I was curious, as some people claim that despite being "one of the greatest directors of all time" (sourced in lead) that "his sex with a 13-year old was infinitely more important" and that the article should treat him as such...I used Google News Archive to look up Roman+Polanski for the five years after the murder of his wife, and the five years after his arrest for rape - 600 hits for one, 700 for the other. At the time, the events were treated with approximately the same coverage - yet WP gives 1 paragraph to his wife's murder and 16 paragraphs to his arrests (just in this article, not counting the fork-off). Clearly we have something of a problem here - either one is underrepresented in his biography, or the other is overrepresented. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 12:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"One of the greatest directors of all time" should be removed per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Urban XII ( talk) 14:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to use 16 paragraphs to describe the murder of a family member; Sharon Tate has her own article, and Polanski wasn't the one who was murdered. Certainly his rape of a child is much more important in his biography than what happened to a family member, which is only distantly relevant to his biography (1 paragraph seems appropriate). That he had previously lost a family member does not in any way excuse his rape of a 13-year old girl. Urban XII ( talk) 14:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
WookMuff, I agree with a lot of your views, and I'll admit right now that initially I didn't expect to. I can see a lot of logic in your comments. There is a lot of stuff about Polanski's own legal case because he was directly involved in the case. There is less mention of the Sharon Tate murder because Polanski was not involved in the legal proceedings as he left Los Angeles as soon as the arrests were made. He said he found it too painful, and there's nothing to suggest otherwise. I think the case is far more imporant than the article suggests. I'm very disappointed that there are comments further up in this discussion that suggest providing more information about the murder would somehow diminish the importance of the rape case. Nobody has suggested downplaying the rape in favour of discussing Tate. I have to wonder if there is more of the opposite feeling at play - perhaps to discuss the murder of Sharon Tate and the loss of the unborn child would somehow humanize Polanski, and so perhaps by diminishing the importance of the murder, the rape case can stand out more prominently. I don't suggest it's deliberate, but I think feelings run so high that anything that shows him as a real person who experienced pain, just doesn't fit his current image as a rapist. I would imagine that to have your pregnant wife murdered so brutally, with so little motive and to endure such a long wait without even knowing who did it, would have to be devastating, and Polanski has said that the murder came very close to destroying his life. He is on record as saying the greatest regret of his life was that he wasn't in the house with Tate. That's quite a thing to say. He was supposed to be with her, but he postponed returning from London and instead asked two friends to stay with her for two weeks. He should have been in the house a week before the murders. Not only was he not with her, but the two friends he asked to help, were also murdered. That's a huge burden of guilt for one man to carry, and if he says that's the biggest regret of his life, I think we should believe him enough to ensure that his biography doesn't try to brush it aside as if it doesn't matter just because he wasn't murdered. To read someone here say it's not important to Polanski because Tate has her own article, strikes me as absurd. It need only be mentioned insofar as it relates to Polanski, but it has to be acknowledged that it does relate directly to him.
It's true that it (and the death of his mother) have no verifiable effect, but to expand on other relevant aspects of his life, does not diminish the significance of the rape case. I'd be surprise if his background, including his Holocaust survival and the 1969 murders, don't form part of any psychological profile of him, and this may provide the "verifiable" (at least by "expert" testimony), element that is currently absent. Even if it's just "the psychiatrist said ..." Whatever. I've been looking at external news sources about Polanski, and obviously there is quite a range of commentary, but I've seen a few say that after Tate's murder, Polanski went on a "sexual spree", became self destructive, immersed himself in drugs, and basically started out on a road that led him .... we all know where he ended up. It's speculative, and we can't be making any assumptions or drawing conclusions, although if it's properly sourced there's no reason why the full context of his life can't be conveyed, with the rape case in it's place. He didn't just wake up one day as a rapist and he wasn't always a monster. The events of his life don't excuse anything he has done, but every biography needs context. I think it is easier to see how the dominoes fell with the rape case but I think we need to also look at the aspects of the biography that are not so easy, otherwise it will be never be complete, comprehensive or balanced. Rossrs ( talk) 10:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Just for reference, when we are discussion how Polanski's crimes should be described: Here is an article on a very similar case, a man who was on trial for rape in the US, fled to Europe, and was finally extradited from Switzerland: Alex Kelly (rapist). Urban XII ( talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There are many references to what the victim thinks and wants to see happen to Polanski at this point and time, and at the time of a 2003 interview, and during the documentary.
None of this is placed into proper context without disclosing to the reader that the Victim brought and won a closed settlement with Polanski for $500,000 The figure is known because of her attempt to get him to pay the amount in further court filings. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091003/ap_en_mo/us_polanski_settlement
"The civil suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in December, 1988, when the woman was 25, claims assault, battery, false imprisonment and seduction. The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, seeks damages for physical and emotional distress." see: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html LA Times article.
We have a victim who has won a settlement of $500,000 when a civil case asserted that Polanski "committed assault, battery, false imprisonment, and seduction" This factual record needs to be inserted by whatever wordsmithing the editors so choose.
You can not put into the text that she does not support any punishment now, when she sought civil punishment and won it, and the civil charges reflect it was anything except consensual.
These factual items need be inserted, its the only to give any context to her comments now. Lastly we do not know (and putting speculation here would be in appropriate) whether or not the settlement was based on her making public comments to one effect or another.
The facts of the Civil case, its charges, its settlement amount, MUST be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I want to be very conservative with this request. Here is a sample line for inclusion.
Geimer, sued Polanski in December 1988 when she was 25 years old, the civil lawsuit alleged sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. The case was settled out of court in 1993. Subsequently in 1995, Geimer filed papers with the court, attempting to collect a settlement of at least $500,000.
Something no greater than the above, but the reason this is a required entry here, is that it is said the victum wants the case to be discharged in 2003, in a documentary, and in interview now within the pages of Wikipedia for Polanski. Everything in my proposed line, is authoritatively sourced. The context and settlement of the Civil case must be included. Simply the facts.-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 20:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Are the Partitions of Poland and other 18th century events really relevant to Roman Polanski? How about just "a native of Russia" (the original wording) or "his mother, a native of Russia, was brought up as a Catholic as she had a Jewish father and a Roman Catholic mother of Polish ethnicity"? Urban XII ( talk) 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
When has Polanski ever called the sexual activity "consensual"? I've never seen or heard of this. This seems like an unfounded speculation. The Squicks ( talk) 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In an interview with novelist Martin Amis in 1979 (originally published in 1980 in Tatler), Roman Polanski (46) stated: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f—- young girls. Juries want to f—- young girls. Everyone wants to f—- young girls!" [41]
Maybe this should be included in the article somehow. I think he states his preference for "young girls" (i.e. children) quite clearly. Note that he made the comment after he certainly knew that his rape victim was a 13-year old, as he had already been on trial. The most astonishing is not the fact that he does not regret a thing, but that he thinks that everyone else have the same desire as him to rape small children (I intentionally avoid the expression "having sexual intercourse with children" because legally such a thing does not exist, it's always rape by legal standards) . Urban XII ( talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've got the book now. If anyone has questions about the contents of the interview, let me know. Gamaliel ( talk) 15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Source -- FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 13:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we should finally get rid of the weasel words in the lead section: "Polanski is one of the world's best known contemporary film directors and is widely considered one of the greatest directors of his time".
Polanski is also one of the world's best known child rapists of his time... Urban XII ( talk) 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"Polanski has been described as one of the greatest directors of all time" is certainly better than "widely considered", because frankly, we don't know anything about how "widely" he is considered to be "one of the greatest", hence, the fact that Frederic Mitterrand and other people consider him to be great does not support the wording "widely considered", it remains original research. Outside Paris, many people associate him primarily with the rape case. This is especially true in the United States, where he is "widely" considered a pervert/pedophile, which has been confirmed by numerous sources as well. The fact that his own rich and influential friends in Paris and Hollywood consider him to be "great" doesn't necessarily mean the this view is the majority view in either country.
However, "Polanski has been described as one of the greatest directors of all time" is still a borderline case as far as WP:WEASEL is concerned. It should at the very least preferably be attributed to an independent and credible source (not random comments by French politicians or his own friends to the media (WP:WEASEL: "What kind of bias might they have?")), and opposing views should be included when possible. Urban XII ( talk) 14:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, it seems that the French Minister of Culture is himself under fire, he would have confessed in a book La Mauvaise Vie to have paid underage boys for sexual services in Thailand. http://www.scooppeople.fr/article-9177-marine-le-pen-accuse-mitterrand-de-pedophilie.html http://www.amazon.fr/mauvaise-vie-Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric-Mitterrand/dp/2266157175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254857395&sr=8-1 82.120.124.51 ( talk) 19:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Normally I would remove such an aside immediately, but in this case the matter is certainly complex. (Someone else may certainly do so, and I would concur.) Let us not assume that the Polanski BLP is the place to add negative biographical information regarding anyone who defends him.
The question (which delays my removing it) is whether such information would EVER be included in this article (and if so, how to do so in compliance with NPOV and biographical information etc etc). Still pondering.
NOTE: The English translation of the Mitterand book mentioned will be published in April 1, 2010 (according to Amazon)
--
Proofreader77 (
talk)
19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines link for people to have a quick read. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to suggest extending the locked status of the article to avoid further disruption, there is clearly still strong opinions on opposing sides and I see little chance of anything less than the edit wars that were occuring before, any thoughts? Off2riorob ( talk) 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I support keeping the article protected for the time being, until some agreement can be reached. Urban XII ( talk) 13:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I am having avery hard time figuring out what happened to this talk page during my sleep. Did Oberonfitch delete all his/her comments? because the page seems very gappy and confusing now. WookMuff ( talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It appears my provider is whipping out new IP addresses at lightening speed. ALL of my addresses have begun with 99. And, with just one or two exceptions, nearly every IP editing starting with 99. is mine. I think my writing style ties them together quite nicely, and normally I wouldn't have been quite this caught up in article - but if you have any questions of ownership you can probably safely assume that the 99's you've read are mine SO FAR. Please feel free to ask should there be a need. 99.142.5.86 ( talk) 23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has become counterproductive, with editors attempting to edit war BLPvios into the article and the talk page, editors posting contentious material into subject headings, editors attempting to shout each other down, and one editor has withdrawn all contributions and left the project altogether. A little adherance to NPOV, BLP, and AGF would have prevented most of these problems, but anyone who even attempts to restore any order or adherance to policy draws flak for doing so. This article needs the intervention of admins on BLP and NPOV grounds. Wilhelm Meis ( Quatsch!) 23:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- "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."
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Due to excessive disorganization and material volume some current discussion and open issues have been archived.
As always, conscientious editors are directed to the archives indicated on this page, including the most recent [1], and asked to familiarize themselves with the community discussion on the topic, and any previously researched references of potential use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.1.147 ( talk) 14:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
{{editrequest}}
- - Following subhead: Sex crime conviction, replace body with following:
- - In 1977, Polanski, then age 44, arranged to photograph for Vogue Hommes Magazine[32], 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). On March 10, 1977 at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles, Polanski and Geimer met for a second photo shoot.[33]
- - In testimony, Geimer recalled that she was drinking champagne while Polanski photographed her, and that she was offered, and took, a portion of a Quaalude (the controlled substance methaqualone, which is a sedative drug). Polanski asked her to lie down on the couch, where the assault took place. Geimer stated that she repeatedly asked the filmmaker to stop and that he did not. Geimer testified that Polanski had, in the course of the assault, performed cunnilingus, vaginal intercourse and sodomy on her.[34] Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[35]
- - Please change following footnotes:
- [32] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6240914/The-hunt-for-Roman-Polanski.html
- [33]Samantha Gailey testimony, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia5.html
- [34]Ibid
- [35] http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/09/27/roman-polanski-arrested-us-warrant/
- - Oberonfitch ( talk) 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This should be added to the Main Personal Life section.
"Polanski started a romantic relationship with Nastassja Kinski, when she was 15 years old and he was 43. [1] [2] She appeared in his Oscar nominated film Tess."-- Charleenmerced Talk 16:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
His relationship with Kinski should be put under personal life, or within the section about his current charges. I don't understand why such a public relationship with a now famous actress should be excluded, because the editors feel it to be not in Polanski's best interest or best light. His public history was that of engaging with girls under the age of consent. If that is too much of a leap fine, but the world press recognized at the time his relationship with 15 year old Kinski, to erase that now is a disservice. Polanski is noteworthy for his public figure as much a his directorship. To eliminate or downplay his propensity to date underage girls ignores how the world understood his public figure. Again his public figure and how the world recognizes his public figure is arguably more significant than his films. Its not Wikipedia's job to remove facts because conclusion by the reader will readily be made. No wikipedia should not form a conclusion or statement that Polanski is a serial pedophile. But to exclude the fact of another relationship with an underage child, is revisionist history by the exclusion of fact. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.210.90.109 (
talk)
00:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
See following references
Polanski spent the first years after her death on a kind of sexual spree, and began spending time with younger and younger women, like 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1706557,00.html [15]
(Ever contrite, Polanski then began dating Nastassja Kinski, 15.)
http://www.slate.com/id/2077916/ [16]
He allowed art and life to overlap in similar fashion after the statutory rape case, by putting his teenage girlfriend, Nastassja Kinski, in a lavish adaptation of Tess of the d'Urbervilles, whose entire plot revolves around a rape (even if, in Polanski's version, the violence of the act is considerably less one-sided than in Hardy's).
In the years that followed, he was often photographed consoling himself with the company of very young women. He began a relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was just 15. So it was hardly surprising that a media firestorm erupted when Polanski was arrested, nearly eight years after the murders, for having sex with a 13-year-old.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3720836.ece [18]
Polanski immediately invited her to join him and his partner for what was later described as a "threesome", and she agreed. The girl's name, he learnt later, was Nastassja Kinski - an aspiring actress who was destined to star in his 1979 film Tess. She was just 15, and he was 43. Within a matter of days Polanski had decided to photograph his new, young lover for the glossy pages of the Christmas 1976 edition of French Vogue. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-477609/The-dark-secrets-Roman-Polanksi.html [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to get a disposition on this? I have provided 5 additional very authoritative sources which support her age, and her relationship. The simple single line, as proposed above, is concise, factual, with now 7 supporting references. It states the facts without venturing at all into any conclusions. PLEASE NOTE: The reference given above support that his relationship with Kinski of 15 happened prior to the Rape allegations. Kinski was photographed for the 1976 Chritmas French Vogue edition. He began his sexual relationship with her prior to that photography session for Vogue. Indeed the reference indicates the sexual relationship started upon first meeting Kinski. This corresponds to her being born in 1961, and her being 15 when the relationship started in 1976. The movie she stared in was in 1979 (likely filmed in 78) but it references as his girlfriend at the time. The date of the film and the date when the relationship began are not the same. He began the relationship with her at 15 and then as it continued he used her in the film role. The relationship occurred before and continuing after, the rape allegations. I believe we have the complete information and sources to support this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 October 2009
I believe the discussions and edits over the last few days have demonstrated that there are different views on which information on the crime that should be included. Several editors have supported the inclusion of the fact that he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her in some version or another. Some editors have argued for the inclusion of more details [6] [7], which I have reverted on several occasions [8]. Other editors have attempted to remove the description of the crime, stating only that Polanski performed "various sexual acts" on her.
I think it's clear that there will never be consensus to use the wording "various sexual acts", which has been opposed by a number of editors. If we are to reach some consensus, we need to agree that each side have some valid points. I'm very much in favour of protecting the victim of a serious crime, but totally ommitting the description of the crime from the article on the perpetrator simply isn't the solution (I have suggested removing the name of the victim). It will only be possible to reach an agreement if the opposing side acknowledges that some sort of description of the crime has to be included. I'm open to discuss other wordings, although I believe "performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her" is short and not unnecessary detailed, only describing the crime in broad terms. Urban XII ( talk) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, was arrested and charged [9] with six counts: "Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor", "Child Molesting", "Rape by the use of Drugs", "Sodomy", "Oral Copulation by Force" and "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse" the day after an incident with a 13-year-old he photographed topless. It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
It's factual, crisp and complete - without requiring much acrobatics on our part... 99.151.164.92 ( talk) 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times just reported that Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, "My personal thoughts are let the guy go... It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things."
The same article also reports that a petition defending Polanski has been signed by more than 100 celebrities and other prominent people, including Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Mike Nichols, Woody Allen and Neil Jordan.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 22:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Breitbart has published this list of all the people who signed the petition so far. While I don't think this article should name all of them, I do think it should have a link to this list. Grundle2600 ( talk) 13:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose that the following be added to the article:
The Los Angeles Times reported that Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, "My personal thoughts are let the guy go... It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things." The same article also reported, "More than 100 industry leaders and prominent authors -- including directors Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Mike Nichols, Woody Allen and Neil Jordan -- have signed a petition asking that Polanski be released from Swiss custody." [1] The full list of petition signers was published by breitbart.com, and can be read here.
Does anyone have any reasonable objections to my proposed addition?
Can anyone cite any wikipedia rules that my proposed addition would violate?
Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. We don't have to name the people who signed the petition. So my new proposed addition is:
The Los Angeles Times reported that Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, "My personal thoughts are let the guy go... It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things." The same article also reported, "More than 100 industry leaders and prominent authors... have signed a petition asking that Polanski be released from Swiss custody." [1] The full list of petition signers was published by breitbart.com, and can be read here.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 03:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This is really weird - both times that I linked to the Los Angeles Times article on this talk page, it was changed to a link to a different article about the wikipedia article being locked. Grundle2600 ( talk) 03:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01wells.html
« Reached in Paso Robles, Calif., on Wednesday, Mr. Wells said he had informed the district attorney’s office of his lie several months ago, and offered to make a formal statement, though none was taken. »
So, some changes have to be made in section Charges and guilty plea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.54.240.83 ( talk) 07:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Petition for Roman Polanski
We have learned the astonishing news of Roman Polanski’s arrest by the Swiss police on September 26th, upon arrival in Zurich (Switzerland) while on his way to a film festival where he was due to receive an award for his career in filmmaking.
His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.
Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.
By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.
The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.
Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.
Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians—everyone involved in international filmmaking—want him to know that he has their support and friendship.
On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.
If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.
Then a list of 100 names. My favourite part is "in a case of morals". What is zi world coming to when you can't even diddle a drugged 13yr old... tsk tsk. WookMuff ( talk) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I added this merely as reference. If you would prefer, here's the link. Thanks for AGF :P WookMuff ( talk) 13:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Prior to his September 2009 arrest in Switzerland, Polanski was directing an adaptation of Harris' The Ghost, a novel about a writer who stumbles upon a secret while ghosting the autobiography of a former British prime minister. It will star Ewan McGregor as the writer and Pierce Brosnan as the prime minister. Filming takes place in Germany. The Ghost is being co-produced as of February 2009 by the Babelsberg Studios.[26]
Any word on the status of this project? Surely it must at least be on hiatus, unless everyone working there is so sure of the outcome of the current situation. WookMuff ( talk) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Durnit, thanks for that, I keep forgetting to fill in the subject/title part WookMuff ( talk) 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to say, up front, that I think Roman Polanski deserves to die in jail, preferably beaten up by the guys that usually deal with child rapists. That is my opinion, however, and while it definitely colours my views of wikipedia policy, it does not overshadow them.
The OJ Simpson murder case has its own page, the Michael Jackson 1993 and later allegations both have pages, and now the 2009 arrest has its own page. Why doesn't the 1977 arrest and conviction have its own page? Does it? did I miss it? I think that a summary of the events belongs here, and much like OJ's bio first sentence containing convicted felon, I think that convicted child molester should appear in the first SENTENCE (Does his fame and talent make him less a child molester than john wayne gacy's art and social work make him a serial killer, which is certainly also a biased term).
However, if we just summarize these events, not giving undue weight to them anymore than apologizing or excusing them, then perhaps we could all move on to edit warring over the resulting page, 1977 Roman Polanski rape case or some such. WookMuff ( talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} In the Manson Murders section, the claim regarding Polanski's "greatest regret" has a citation-needed tag on it. Please add this source to the sentence and remove the tag (the source is in the 7th paragraph up from the end): Roman Polanski: The Artful Dodger. Additionally, the location of Los Angeles should be changed to Beverly Hills in the same sentence, per the source. Thanks.— DMCer ™ 06:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a reminder of what Wikipedia is (an encyclopedia), and what it is not (a court of law, a tabloid, a blog, a soapbox, take your pick). While there is plenty of information out there that exists in court documents, blogs, newspapers, tabloids, etc., and rightly belongs there, it does not necessarily belong in an encyclopedia. Just because certain prurient details of the sex acts committed during the crime have been described in tabloids, blogs, and court documents, does not mean that they belong in an encyclopedia article. The core of RP's crime is that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, not which specific sex acts he committed, but the very fact that he committed any sex acts at all. Consent is not in any way suggested by the phrase "various sexual acts." The details of exactly where he put what are irrelevant to the question of consent. The whole purpose of stating the victim's age, and the general reader most assuredly understands this, is that a 13 year old is incapable of giving proper consent. The heinousness of his crime rests upon the age of the girl, not the prurient details of which specific sex acts were performed. These serve no purpose to an encyclopedia article. I would like to remind certain editors here that it is not the business of an encyclopedia to prosecute people for their crimes, real or perceived, nor to lay out the evidence for others to do so. It is not the business of an encyclopedia to divulge the juicy details of a hot-button issue, nor to air the dirty laundry of a public figure, especially when that dirty laundry has such a profound effect on the lives of innocent victims who are not public figures. We should show some sensitivity to the privacy of the victim of the crime, and WP:BLP 4.2 says that we must respect her privacy. Exposing the prurient details of the sex acts is not libel, but it is an improper invasion of privacy – the victim's privacy – and forbidden under BLP policy. I have no problem whatsoever with stating that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. That is well-known and relevant. The details of the specific sex acts are not. Wilhelm Meis ( Quatsch!) 04:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I came here from WP:BLPN to support compliance with BLP policy, and that is my one and only concern here. I would remind anyone who suggests otherwise to assume good faith, as there is no foundation in my words or actions to the assumption that I have any ulterior motives here (i.e. to minimize or downplay RP's crime). I have never suggested that we downplay the seriousness of the crimes in any way, only that we respect the privacy of the victim. As far as I can tell, the only statement she has made recently about the incident (which is linked about a dozen times on this talk page) is that she has moved on with her life, but the continued invasion of privacy does harm to her and her family. We have a legal obligation, if not a moral imperative, to respect her privacy. The argument that drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl is in any way not a serious crime is, in a word, bullshit. Wilhelm Meis ( Quatsch!) 02:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Really, where is a link to an official statement that he was charged with as you state rape with the use of drugs? Off2riorob ( talk) 16:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Oh yea I see, he was charged..this is like normal the prosecution accuse you of the worst thing possible and then the downgrading begins, he was found and pled guilty to the much lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
"She wasn't unschooled in sexual matters," Polanski said. "She was consenting and willing."
But is it too late for justice to be served?
Geimer told Kauffman, "It's never too late. It's never too late to go back and fix something that wasn't done right. It's been too long, but it will never be too late."
In a 2003 Op-Ed for the Los Angeles Times, Geimer wrote, "The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 continues to happen to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity. That just never seems right to me. It makes me feel guilty that this attention is directed at me, when there are certainly others out there who could really use it."
Sodomy is a legal definition, attempt to remove it and calling RAPE, as a sexual act is misleading. Rape is an act of violence. He forced this girl by her own testimony. The accounts of her grand jury testimony are publicly available on the smoking gun. Do we go back in history and remove accounts of incest among Royalty because it may not be to the taste of the editors? There is no legal or moral need by Wikipedia to edit down history for what is overzealous editors think. The trial is a public record. Its the People against Polanski. The process of the court has the audience of the public. Wilhelm_meis has taken a very strange attitude of his gatekeeping of this topic. Wilhelm_meis believes he is responsible for how people think and feel about a fact based encyclopedia. Wilhelm_meis is trying to control how the reader concludes things by eliminating facts for consideration. Anal Rape and ejaculating into a 13 year old may be too graphic, but asserting Sodomy is not.
I urge that Wilhelm_meis be relieved of his role her, and that task given to someone else without the bias shown. Certainly there is someone else that can take a fresh look at this topic.
Or is this the Wilhelm_meis show? His actions show that his response are now internalized to him. Because he has invested so much energy into his positions, he is not fairly taking the contributions of others, with fresh eyes.
Its time to pass the baton, replace Wilhelm_meis, there is another editor who can proceed. This is not about Wilhelm_meis , its about the integrity of the strength of the cooperative authorship. Move in a new set of eyes. Wilhelm_meis is talking about his moral responsibility with his edits, what about the facts? Are we fact based or opinion based, and stop leaving out facts to calibrate the opinions of the readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.90.109 ( talk) 01:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems odd that there is no mention of the offer for Polanski to return and have the matter supposedly resolved in his favor that he rejected because the judge would not rule out televising the proceedings. I came to the article to confirm the date only to find it not mentioned as far as I could see. RoyBatty42 ( talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Polanski himself dismisses this account, the media reports about the interactions of the Judge Fidler seem to be all speculation.
"I don't know if it's resignation or a lack of interest or a fear of the media circus that would happen," Polanski said in a telephone interview from Paris. The rumour mills are just speculation, he says. "Every now and again they propose the notion that I am doing something about it. Then there is a new round of articles about my possible return. There's nothing!" Originally published in The Toronto Sun, March 8, 2000 SEE: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html The reference also include the 1997 article, with the key information be from un-named sources
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed this in several articles and some of the discussion on this article. Roman Polanski is not a pedophile. If you wished to characterize his attraction to young women, he would properly be called an ephebophile, or if you wanted to consider the 13-year-old as representative, a hebephile. Both of those terms would assume his preference is for non-adult partners, which I don't think has been sourced.
Similarly, I do not think the use of the term "child molester" is encyclopedic. Child molestation is defined in different ways in different jurisdictions. Further, while a 13 year old is a minor and in some senses a child, colloquially adolescents are usually distinguished from children. Calling Polanski a "child molester" suggests someone who preys on the pre-pubescent. Although Polanski's actions are indefensible, nonetheless distortion does not belong in the article. If having sex with underage minors and non-consensual sex acts are an important part of the article, I think when summarized they should be summarized thusly, and not with the inflammatory term "child molester."
Further, although statuatory rape is defined as "rape" in some jurisdictions, it is not in others, and indeed in some jurisdictions the term "rape" is not used, instead more specific and less loaded offenses are specified such as sexual battery, unlawful intercourse with a minor, etc. This is particularly important if you wish to comment on both his alleged sexual assault of the 13 year old with other cases where he may have had sex with minor in which assault did not take place.
Let's face it folks, this article is not going to smooth out and start making sense until people agree to stick to the facts. Wikipedia is not an arena of justice, it is an information resource. Pawsplay ( talk) 03:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
His sexual affair with Natasha Kinski (who was 15 at the time should also be mentioned). Both of them admitted to the affair. 99.150.203.9 ( talk) 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot over overthinking going on here. Pedophile is a simple definition. Use the dictionary of your choice. Its also a term that is used by law enforcement and by the general public. Polanski admitted to a count of sex with an underage girl. That means by definition he admitted to being a Pedophile. The term itself does not mean how many children are involved. His attraction to underage girls was manifested by a specific act to which he admitted to in his plea. Calling a person takes someones car by breaking in, can be called a car thief. Calling Polanski a pedophile is not controversial, its simply using a dictionary definition as its intended, and how its used in the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Because I was curious, as some people claim that despite being "one of the greatest directors of all time" (sourced in lead) that "his sex with a 13-year old was infinitely more important" and that the article should treat him as such...I used Google News Archive to look up Roman+Polanski for the five years after the murder of his wife, and the five years after his arrest for rape - 600 hits for one, 700 for the other. At the time, the events were treated with approximately the same coverage - yet WP gives 1 paragraph to his wife's murder and 16 paragraphs to his arrests (just in this article, not counting the fork-off). Clearly we have something of a problem here - either one is underrepresented in his biography, or the other is overrepresented. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 12:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"One of the greatest directors of all time" should be removed per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Urban XII ( talk) 14:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to use 16 paragraphs to describe the murder of a family member; Sharon Tate has her own article, and Polanski wasn't the one who was murdered. Certainly his rape of a child is much more important in his biography than what happened to a family member, which is only distantly relevant to his biography (1 paragraph seems appropriate). That he had previously lost a family member does not in any way excuse his rape of a 13-year old girl. Urban XII ( talk) 14:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
WookMuff, I agree with a lot of your views, and I'll admit right now that initially I didn't expect to. I can see a lot of logic in your comments. There is a lot of stuff about Polanski's own legal case because he was directly involved in the case. There is less mention of the Sharon Tate murder because Polanski was not involved in the legal proceedings as he left Los Angeles as soon as the arrests were made. He said he found it too painful, and there's nothing to suggest otherwise. I think the case is far more imporant than the article suggests. I'm very disappointed that there are comments further up in this discussion that suggest providing more information about the murder would somehow diminish the importance of the rape case. Nobody has suggested downplaying the rape in favour of discussing Tate. I have to wonder if there is more of the opposite feeling at play - perhaps to discuss the murder of Sharon Tate and the loss of the unborn child would somehow humanize Polanski, and so perhaps by diminishing the importance of the murder, the rape case can stand out more prominently. I don't suggest it's deliberate, but I think feelings run so high that anything that shows him as a real person who experienced pain, just doesn't fit his current image as a rapist. I would imagine that to have your pregnant wife murdered so brutally, with so little motive and to endure such a long wait without even knowing who did it, would have to be devastating, and Polanski has said that the murder came very close to destroying his life. He is on record as saying the greatest regret of his life was that he wasn't in the house with Tate. That's quite a thing to say. He was supposed to be with her, but he postponed returning from London and instead asked two friends to stay with her for two weeks. He should have been in the house a week before the murders. Not only was he not with her, but the two friends he asked to help, were also murdered. That's a huge burden of guilt for one man to carry, and if he says that's the biggest regret of his life, I think we should believe him enough to ensure that his biography doesn't try to brush it aside as if it doesn't matter just because he wasn't murdered. To read someone here say it's not important to Polanski because Tate has her own article, strikes me as absurd. It need only be mentioned insofar as it relates to Polanski, but it has to be acknowledged that it does relate directly to him.
It's true that it (and the death of his mother) have no verifiable effect, but to expand on other relevant aspects of his life, does not diminish the significance of the rape case. I'd be surprise if his background, including his Holocaust survival and the 1969 murders, don't form part of any psychological profile of him, and this may provide the "verifiable" (at least by "expert" testimony), element that is currently absent. Even if it's just "the psychiatrist said ..." Whatever. I've been looking at external news sources about Polanski, and obviously there is quite a range of commentary, but I've seen a few say that after Tate's murder, Polanski went on a "sexual spree", became self destructive, immersed himself in drugs, and basically started out on a road that led him .... we all know where he ended up. It's speculative, and we can't be making any assumptions or drawing conclusions, although if it's properly sourced there's no reason why the full context of his life can't be conveyed, with the rape case in it's place. He didn't just wake up one day as a rapist and he wasn't always a monster. The events of his life don't excuse anything he has done, but every biography needs context. I think it is easier to see how the dominoes fell with the rape case but I think we need to also look at the aspects of the biography that are not so easy, otherwise it will be never be complete, comprehensive or balanced. Rossrs ( talk) 10:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Just for reference, when we are discussion how Polanski's crimes should be described: Here is an article on a very similar case, a man who was on trial for rape in the US, fled to Europe, and was finally extradited from Switzerland: Alex Kelly (rapist). Urban XII ( talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There are many references to what the victim thinks and wants to see happen to Polanski at this point and time, and at the time of a 2003 interview, and during the documentary.
None of this is placed into proper context without disclosing to the reader that the Victim brought and won a closed settlement with Polanski for $500,000 The figure is known because of her attempt to get him to pay the amount in further court filings. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091003/ap_en_mo/us_polanski_settlement
"The civil suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in December, 1988, when the woman was 25, claims assault, battery, false imprisonment and seduction. The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, seeks damages for physical and emotional distress." see: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html LA Times article.
We have a victim who has won a settlement of $500,000 when a civil case asserted that Polanski "committed assault, battery, false imprisonment, and seduction" This factual record needs to be inserted by whatever wordsmithing the editors so choose.
You can not put into the text that she does not support any punishment now, when she sought civil punishment and won it, and the civil charges reflect it was anything except consensual.
These factual items need be inserted, its the only to give any context to her comments now. Lastly we do not know (and putting speculation here would be in appropriate) whether or not the settlement was based on her making public comments to one effect or another.
The facts of the Civil case, its charges, its settlement amount, MUST be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I want to be very conservative with this request. Here is a sample line for inclusion.
Geimer, sued Polanski in December 1988 when she was 25 years old, the civil lawsuit alleged sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. The case was settled out of court in 1993. Subsequently in 1995, Geimer filed papers with the court, attempting to collect a settlement of at least $500,000.
Something no greater than the above, but the reason this is a required entry here, is that it is said the victum wants the case to be discharged in 2003, in a documentary, and in interview now within the pages of Wikipedia for Polanski. Everything in my proposed line, is authoritatively sourced. The context and settlement of the Civil case must be included. Simply the facts.-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 20:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Are the Partitions of Poland and other 18th century events really relevant to Roman Polanski? How about just "a native of Russia" (the original wording) or "his mother, a native of Russia, was brought up as a Catholic as she had a Jewish father and a Roman Catholic mother of Polish ethnicity"? Urban XII ( talk) 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
When has Polanski ever called the sexual activity "consensual"? I've never seen or heard of this. This seems like an unfounded speculation. The Squicks ( talk) 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In an interview with novelist Martin Amis in 1979 (originally published in 1980 in Tatler), Roman Polanski (46) stated: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f—- young girls. Juries want to f—- young girls. Everyone wants to f—- young girls!" [41]
Maybe this should be included in the article somehow. I think he states his preference for "young girls" (i.e. children) quite clearly. Note that he made the comment after he certainly knew that his rape victim was a 13-year old, as he had already been on trial. The most astonishing is not the fact that he does not regret a thing, but that he thinks that everyone else have the same desire as him to rape small children (I intentionally avoid the expression "having sexual intercourse with children" because legally such a thing does not exist, it's always rape by legal standards) . Urban XII ( talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've got the book now. If anyone has questions about the contents of the interview, let me know. Gamaliel ( talk) 15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Source -- FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 13:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we should finally get rid of the weasel words in the lead section: "Polanski is one of the world's best known contemporary film directors and is widely considered one of the greatest directors of his time".
Polanski is also one of the world's best known child rapists of his time... Urban XII ( talk) 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"Polanski has been described as one of the greatest directors of all time" is certainly better than "widely considered", because frankly, we don't know anything about how "widely" he is considered to be "one of the greatest", hence, the fact that Frederic Mitterrand and other people consider him to be great does not support the wording "widely considered", it remains original research. Outside Paris, many people associate him primarily with the rape case. This is especially true in the United States, where he is "widely" considered a pervert/pedophile, which has been confirmed by numerous sources as well. The fact that his own rich and influential friends in Paris and Hollywood consider him to be "great" doesn't necessarily mean the this view is the majority view in either country.
However, "Polanski has been described as one of the greatest directors of all time" is still a borderline case as far as WP:WEASEL is concerned. It should at the very least preferably be attributed to an independent and credible source (not random comments by French politicians or his own friends to the media (WP:WEASEL: "What kind of bias might they have?")), and opposing views should be included when possible. Urban XII ( talk) 14:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, it seems that the French Minister of Culture is himself under fire, he would have confessed in a book La Mauvaise Vie to have paid underage boys for sexual services in Thailand. http://www.scooppeople.fr/article-9177-marine-le-pen-accuse-mitterrand-de-pedophilie.html http://www.amazon.fr/mauvaise-vie-Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric-Mitterrand/dp/2266157175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254857395&sr=8-1 82.120.124.51 ( talk) 19:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Normally I would remove such an aside immediately, but in this case the matter is certainly complex. (Someone else may certainly do so, and I would concur.) Let us not assume that the Polanski BLP is the place to add negative biographical information regarding anyone who defends him.
The question (which delays my removing it) is whether such information would EVER be included in this article (and if so, how to do so in compliance with NPOV and biographical information etc etc). Still pondering.
NOTE: The English translation of the Mitterand book mentioned will be published in April 1, 2010 (according to Amazon)
--
Proofreader77 (
talk)
19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines link for people to have a quick read. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to suggest extending the locked status of the article to avoid further disruption, there is clearly still strong opinions on opposing sides and I see little chance of anything less than the edit wars that were occuring before, any thoughts? Off2riorob ( talk) 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I support keeping the article protected for the time being, until some agreement can be reached. Urban XII ( talk) 13:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I am having avery hard time figuring out what happened to this talk page during my sleep. Did Oberonfitch delete all his/her comments? because the page seems very gappy and confusing now. WookMuff ( talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It appears my provider is whipping out new IP addresses at lightening speed. ALL of my addresses have begun with 99. And, with just one or two exceptions, nearly every IP editing starting with 99. is mine. I think my writing style ties them together quite nicely, and normally I wouldn't have been quite this caught up in article - but if you have any questions of ownership you can probably safely assume that the 99's you've read are mine SO FAR. Please feel free to ask should there be a need. 99.142.5.86 ( talk) 23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has become counterproductive, with editors attempting to edit war BLPvios into the article and the talk page, editors posting contentious material into subject headings, editors attempting to shout each other down, and one editor has withdrawn all contributions and left the project altogether. A little adherance to NPOV, BLP, and AGF would have prevented most of these problems, but anyone who even attempts to restore any order or adherance to policy draws flak for doing so. This article needs the intervention of admins on BLP and NPOV grounds. Wilhelm Meis ( Quatsch!) 23:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- "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."