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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Please stop bolding comments, especially comments that are possible BLP issues. Also do not import peoples comments and signitures it is confusing and wrong, if you want to bring a comment to someones attention just link to the diff. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Off2riorob WHAT ON EARTH ON YOU DOING!, STOP VANDALIZING THIS DISCUSSION Off2riorob, you have been retooling the entire discussion board, making edits of others comments, removing bolding on my postings, leaving it on others. Recrafting how everything is presented. You have not reason or right to do this, why on earth do think its okay? I am looking at trying to undo the damage you have done, but because you did this serendipitously over time I don't know how to undo it.
You have no right to do this!! When I have used Italics and Bold, and indenting, its been well within the guidelines. Off2riorob how can you just go around changing the entire page, and remove text at a whim? The formatting I did was in the context of what I was writing, you have now gone in and removed the context I was trying to communicate. You have edited within my signature repeatedly. I have been made aware of one error on my part, which was when quoting another editor, to not carry forward the signature line. I understand that. This has nothing to do with that.
Off2riorob what you have done is change the text of authors, without permission, selectively left other authors formatting in place, and then left the entire mess up for new readers to see as if you hand not gone in and changed text within signatures. When I wrote and used bold, it was for a reason, it not up to you to snip and clip and reformat authors as you see fit.
What the heck -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 04:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Even here you are editing my remarks, without permission, notification, or indication to readers. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 19:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Others are Editing Members Signed Comments. Without permission or notice, Deleting Content of Signed Remarks. Vandalizing the Original Context and leaving the Edited Version as if Original
Withing these discussions page at least alias (specifically Off2riorob) is editing other members signed comments, without permission or notice, deleting the original context and modifying within Signed Comments.
Meaning this Discussion page has been in large part changed and edited to suit the agenda of one user, (i.e. Off2riorob ) These continued changes are ongoing. (he is defending his actions of unauthorized editing others signed comments) These edits are specific to some users, while users of Off2riobb favor, have there content unchanged or changed minimally.
I don't know how this can be considered other than pure out Vandalism, which he is now defending. As it is true, I am new to Wiki, as an editor, I am English and History major, who plays by the rules, as well as 'my internal ethics'. I am, only once on Wiki, and without any sockpuppets too. How do I say this concisely.....
Let me try to split the baby here:
Tombaker321: Please stop bolding people's names. Since your idiosyncratic practice of addressing people has met with objections and really isn't standard Wikipedia usage, it would be courteous of you to cease this behavior. Thank you.
Off2riorob: Please stop editing other people's comments. Since this has been objected to and is contrary to standard Wikipedia talk page usage, it would be courteous of you to cease this behavior. Thank you.
Sound good? Okay, let's have some cookies and move on to more pressing topics. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Gamaliel: As a matter of pragmatism, carrying forward, I won't bold names, and simply use italics for quoted text.
However, as you are an administrator I do not understand what you are asking of all others.
Is this lax attitude held by most administrators? I ask because I though the integrity of editors comments was part of the foundation of Wikipedia. You imply its just a "nice to have", not mandatory. Yes, I will certainly do as I was directed, and how I responded above. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
re " Ad hominem argument - It is not surprising under the circumstances that this phrase is tossed by someone who does not know the ropes. It is bad form, not a rhetorical coup.
re: "waiting for the admins response" - Go to the administrator's page and ask for clarification. Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE: Maintaining an orderly talk page discussion allows some reformatting/refactoring [within limits—especially with respect to new editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia practices]. AND: Assertions of bad faith shall cease.
RE: URBAN XII's "VIEWPOINT" This editor's last edit to article is illustrative. BIG PICTURE: It is understood that the article is contentious. If making negative comments about an editor whose perspective is different from yours, be sure to acknowledge that in the comment [EDIT TO ADD: and if it is not clear, URBAN XII and I are of different perspectives on the article at hand].
FROM PERSPECTIVE OF CONTENTION: Since the excessive bolding made the new editor's comments (which I disagree with) look bad (and therefore less effective), I disapproved of them being unbolded, and will be happy to restore them as they were. :)
Now, wrap this up—this does not belong on article talk. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: This does not belong on the article talk page - collapsing myself - but for new editors skim this (before we wrap this up)
|
---|
A quick note for the moment (more later). All of us have been new editors, and all of us have made formatting faux pas which we had to learn not to do, and all of us have had our early errors adjusted. Even as experienced editors, we have had our long-winded forum-y excursions collapsed by admins or others—and usually they have been right. :) Some rules of thumb regarding what has transpired:
Enough for now. |
Reminder, this kind of discussion should not be taking up article talk page space. New editors will always have things to learn—that is normal. Learning it all on article talk pages is basically prohibited: focus on the article. Proofreader77 ( talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I pulled down the three cites for this sentence
"Polanski avoided visits to countries that were likely to extradite him to the United States and traveled mostly between France, where he resides, and Poland."
It is possible that I did not read the three articles as carefully as I might have, but I didn't see any reference to travel to Poland. I also looked generally around and about on the web and couldn't find any visits to Poland, but I remember seeing somewhere, a month or so ago, that he had not been a frequent visitor to Poland, but of course, cannot find it again. I know this is trivial. We could take out Poland, as in the reference to. Oberonfitch ( talk) 03:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, coming in as an uninvolved administrator requesting assistance. While dealing with disruption on some Troubles (Britain/Ireland)-related articles, we noticed a disruptive anonymous editor who continually changed IP addresses, usually in the 99.1xx range. This user appears to work in a controversial area, accumulate warnings and blocks, and then switches to another controversial area. One of the areas was here, at the Roman Polanski article, so I'm posting a notice here. If anyone can help identify any other IPs or accounts of this user, we would appreciate your assistance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. -- El on ka 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
"Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug and muscle relaxant, and despite her repeated protests and being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy upon her.[41][42][43][44]"
We have four links for one sentence. 41 is to the smoking gun grand jury testimony, 42 is a USA Today article from AP which is not terrible, 43 is the Post article, seems okay but largely duplicates 42, and 44 is a link to a Salon article, which in my opinion, should be tossed right off as op-ed. The obvious problem is that these link to the much fought over sentence involving the actual charges. Of these, 41 (primary source) and 44 (op-ed piece) are the only ones that detail the sodomy, oral intercourse, etc. I am not even going to suggest removing the the charges, so don't freak out. Is it possible to find another secondary source and eliminate 41, 43 and 44? Oberonfitch ( talk) 05:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Polanski has always maintained his innocence is not mentioned. This must be fixed immediately; its a major violation of WP:BLP. The article as is implies that he does not dispute the legal case's merits. The Squicks ( talk) 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | As you know, Mr. Polanski was not convicted of rape. He was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse, and that's a different crime than rape. | ” |
“ | The only one he was willing to admit and to plead guilty to was that he had had consensual sex with the minor. | ” |
The fact that guilt does not hinge on consent for the crime of unlawful sexual intercourse does NOT mean that Polanski's assertion that it was consensual is not to be included.
As has been mentioned in previous discussion (many times), BLP NPOV has not been brought to bear in our coverage of the case, yet. Stay tuned. (but not in this topic:) Proofreader77 ( talk) 03:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at this link regarding the settlement. It appears that the parties did come to agreement, and that the agreement was acted on, although it differed from the stipulations made in 1993. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski3-2009oct03,0,6765170.story Oberonfitch ( talk) 17:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone has added (after the ref, but apparently based on the ref):
“ | Although he agreed to this settlement, Polanski still had not paid his victim as of 1996. The last court filing in August 1996 stated that he owed Ms Geimer $604,416.22, including interest. The court records did not reveal whether the 76-year-old director had ever paid. | ” |
I had addressed this line just last week. I just had it with the lawsuit and the settlement and the amount. Articles circulating around say that the 1997 coming out of Geimer and her asking the court for him to stop being pursed....was contingent on her receiving the money. The timeframes work out. The court records available do not reflect anything. But the court records don't need to reflect anything. The court only acts upon what is brought before them, Geimer stopped asking the court for relief, and then came out publicly supporting Polanski. She was either paid, or she is clearly satisfied with the outcome of her civil case. I would then be in favor still of how I had written the line based off the same article. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
BEFORE/AFTER side-by-side comparison of diff
| |||
---|---|---|---|
|
references
|
---|
|
Number-indexed version
| ||
---|---|---|
|
(1) The ref-scoping is incorrect (e.g., first sentence changed has ref beyond the scope of the next ref), rewrite is based on one L.A. Times ref, while sentence by sentence refs are removed—which should certainly not be done in a contentious article.
(2) Clearly not "more NPOV"—e.g., adding negative quotes of judge into summary while subtracting mention of support of victim and mother for plea agreement.
(3) Big picture: contains contentious details which need to be balanced first in the article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case before being summarized here.
(4) Perhaps eventually a true NPOV version of this summary will be created—but that would presupposed that the main article on the case more carefully tracks the timeline and events (including assertions by the prosecutor and the defense attorney regarding the relation between the in-chambers discussions and the in-court presentation.
BOTTOM LINE: Contentious section. Not NPOV. Recent rewording certainly did not improve that.
Proofreader77 (
talk) 01:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(EFFECTIVE) SUMMARY OF A-E ABOVE: Changer asserts there have been no valid issues raised with edit (and asserts that a single editor may not declare article/section imbalanced).
COMMENT: Achieving NPOV in a BLP is a serious matter (and a higher order priority than NPOV in general). One editor may well be speaking for many (who wish not to waste time in contentious current events maelstroms) as well as the subject (who is expected not to be editing, and whose position must be represented to achieve a fair balance.) To be further illustrated in due course.
AND OBVIOUSLY (TO MOST): Contrary to assertion E., "facts" never speak for themselves—selections of "facts" (of various—and variously perceived—weight) are presented by human beings. (Hence the pillars and processes of Wikipedia.)
--
Proofreader77 (
talk) 23:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. | ” |
PS, Yes the "BEFORE" summary is also flawed. There is much work to do to get this right/NPOV.
Proofreader77 (
talk) 16:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
As should be clear, a formal BLP NPOV dispute will be required. Note: The current-events-initiated single-purpose account is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and therefore (understandably) making arguments (repetitively) which have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. (I am not able to instruct the editor in question, due to the contentious nature of the article and our different perspectives). Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the above because it was almost a direct, word-for-word copy of the source. While I'm neutral on having it in the article at the moment, (given some concerns that we now have a separate article for this sort of detail, so perhaps it would be better left there), we can't have it as it was presented. - Bilby ( talk) 22:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Noting Tombaker321's 11/2 response version to "Interim reversion" of his previous version. :)
AGAIN NOTING: A WP:BLP/ WP:NPOVD will (most likely) soon be initiated regarding selection (and presentation) of facts summarizing the sexual abuse case in this (main) article. (I.E., This subtopic is documentary.) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
SOURCE LINK: "How a girl's stark words got lost in the Polanski spectacle"
Their is a pretty good article from the Los Angeles times, October 25 I think, 2009, that really gives alot of info that I didnt know. For example how the victim went on television I think around 1997 and said "it wasn't rape then" and how Polanski "wasn't forceful". It also tells how someone (im not sure who) told Polanksi if he didn't agree to leave the country he might have long jail. And so Polanksi left and a newspaper said Polanksi Fleed. The article isn't one sided it seems like. It also makes it seem like Polanksi gave the girl alochol and a pill. And it makes you think tha tmaybe he did commit a crime and / or crimes. It has a lot of info. And the writer doesnt seem baist in implying hes guilty or not guilty. Here is the link and I was thinking of putting some info in here and maybe I will, but maybe someone else might want to put some info from this article in this Wikipedia article then? Here is the link then and w http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski25-2009oct25,0,5115267.story?track=rss 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 17:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
MY COMMENT This is not news analysis, but something else. ("Creative journalism" was another nomenclature phrase—consider "Black Hawk Down" in initial newspaper incarnation). It is not op-ed, but it was written with a POV (makes a case). Perhaps further comments later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC) [RESIGN COPY] Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a very informative and well researched article. It was offered in discussion by a different editor as a "heads up". Beyond that, there was no need to add comments, including my own. I regret getting sucked in. Apologies to the rest. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The NPOV Dispute Tag is "Drive by Tagging" without specifics, and should be removed. The current consensus is the NPOV Dispute Tag is unwarranted.
Please comment now agreements or disagreements to the current consensus.
If the current consensus has changed, it will be reflected here via your comments, before any tag removal. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | [TomBaker321:] I strongly object to the concept of "shrinking the information". The section as written is done with significant economy in its writing. Compare it to the section "Gérard Brach collaborations" its half the size of that. An editor stating "we are going to compress this thing" as a declarative statement, is contrary to collaboration, and is not operative on the community. ... | ” |
(Note: Talk topic covering when TomBaker321 initiated his changes/expansion is: Recent rewording of sexual abuse case (claim: "more NPOV"/disagree))
NOTE: The consensus is (at least, has been) that the summary section of the Sexual assault case should NOT keep expanding: there is the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case to fully cover the issue. As previously mentioned, it was TomBaker321's focusing attention on this main article summary (with an, I have alleged, Polanski/defense exclusionary information selection bias) which inspired the timing of this NPOV dispute.
SO: Yes, the Sexual assault (summary) section will probably (by consensus) eventually be compressed—the complication (now) is that the summary should be balanced first, then compressed ... i.e., it may need to get a bit larger, before being carefully compressed under the framework of achieving NPOV. Proofreader77 ( talk) 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This topic is being closed, and being withdrawn. Please use other areas to raise concerns on additions. Thank you. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see the parenthetical "such as the UK" removed from "countries likely to extradite" Polanski. There are probably dozens of obliging countries (Canada?, Germany? Turkey?) that would have entertained extradition. I don't think it is necessary to mention the UK specifically, except in relation to the fact that he left England and sold his house shortly after fleeing the US, which is briefly addressed in the lead and probably could be left out. The difficult paragraph does not mention England at all. This seems like detail for the sex assault article. Oberonfitch ( talk) 23:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
He plead guilty to having sex with a minor, which is normally called statutory rape, so that category is appropriate. Other edits done at the same time by the user, broke one paragraph apart mid-sentence. So I reverted them. Dream Focus 16:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism – or to revert content in your own user space. Reversion for other reasons should be accompanied by an explanatory edit summary, and must therefore be done by a different method. | ” |
I deleted text, see diff here that was unsourced POV. I forgot to bring it up here. I didn't think it would be of much consequence. Sorry. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 16:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
(NOTE: Moved here from a user talk page by edit-summary instruction of remover who had been given an opportunity to undo the improper removal of the NPOV tag. Will detail further for article talk.)
“ | In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. | ” |
That's the same tune as initial response of "drive-by" tagging ... which is ridiculous. How many hundreds (thousands?) of words do you see above? Removal #4 edit summary is one you use when there has been nothing posted on the talk page—not when there is voluminous talk page notes/discussion you disagree with; Removing the NPOV tag then with that edit summary is not only improper but insulting.
Bottom line. I've exchanged thousands of words with TomBaker321 ... for a reason. We are examining that reason ... so it will not take talk-page-full after talk-page-full of argument that isn't on the same page. Right now we are NOT on the same page. In the link above, I have indicated the sentences in which there will be NPOV contention. NPOV contention because of the broad issue exclusion of Polanski/defense POV (e.g., the concurring voices of the prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton who clarify where the muddle is now).
If you see edit wars in the Sexual abuse case summary, that will likely be the issue.
At this time the summary is NOT NPOV because of what it lacks (See bolded phrase). (Again, I put this on this talk page by the edit-summary instruction to move it here from a user talk, where I handle matters like this—a matter of content, yes, but also civility. It is insulting to keep repeating "you haven't said anything." Yes I have.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I added information about Polanski's POV during the time of his arrest. His relationship with Kinski (15) before ,concurrent and the years after the charges. This is more first hand, than references to Vannatter's appraisal of Polanski inner thoughts provided in the documentary. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
COMPARE: I have recently removed a top-of-page POV tag from Al Gore which had been placed 40 days previously and had been left in place 30 days after the issue seemed resolved (to make sure).
That there is edit-warring to get the tag out of the Sexual assault section when a semi-experienced editor has made abundantly clear he believes the tag belongs on the section at this time seems outrageous. It would not have even crossed my mind to remove a tag placed with talk page support—no matter how much I disagreed with its justification (as I did not believe the one on Al Gore was justified for the reason given). The tag means there is a disagreement. There is here. (Obviously)
NOTE: Tombaker321 makes reasonable-sounding assertions, e.g., the rhetorical flag of "SPECIFICS" (or "S p e c i f i c s") is repeated, to rhetorical effect (and included in edit summaries as basis for reversions)—who would disagree with that? Fine, except it asserts nothing specific (enough to satisfy Tombaker321) has been provided. I disagree. (Obviously)
I assert that sufficient specificity has been provided to clarify the existence of the NPOV dispute, precisely at which points in the summary the problems lay, and where the balancing information comes from.
I.E., we disagree about NPOV, and disagree about what counts as sufficient specificity to justify an NPOV dispute. (Big surprise.)
Details re how long a slog the past month has been - i.e., NPOV flag was not first step
|
---|
But we now should pause here to consider what "reasonble" means in the situation at hand. Consider that last night (before today's additions) Tombaker321's arguments against the NPOV dispute flag being in place consisted of ~2500 words/15,000 characters (without signatures and formatting)—again, that is arguments against an NPOV flag ... repeating again and again that he wants the specifics of every disagreement—including each proposed and refs. Surely, my posts are voluminous as well ... but that is partly to discover the bounds of what "discussion" with Tombaker321 entails (quite a lot more than one would expect) Now let us be clear that the NPOV dispute tag was not a first resort. I have been in this dance with Tombaker321 for a month. For example,
|
BOTTOM LINE: The contention of creating an NPOV summary ... between, let us say, two teams ... will tend toward being a LONG SLOG. BUT let us see if that can be condensed under a formal NPOV dispute with the flag flying to make clear the contention is in progress (and editing is under close BLP/NPOV scrutiny). Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 09:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | NOTE: Tombaker321 makes reasonable-sounding assertions, e.g., the rhetorical flag of "SPECIFICS" (or "S p e c i f i c s") is repeated, to rhetorical effect (and included in edit summaries as basis for reversions)—who would disagree with that? Fine, except it asserts nothing specific (enough to satisfy Tombaker321) has been provided. I disagree. (Obviously)
I assert that sufficient specificity has been provided to clarify the existence of the NPOV dispute, precisely at which points in the summary the problems lay, and where the balancing information comes from. I.E., we disagree about NPOV, and disagree about what counts as sufficient specificity to justify an NPOV dispute. (Big surprise.) |
” |
Roman Polanski is a WP:BLP. I state the obvious as a reminder that the issue of NPOV in a BLP is not an ordinary NPOV dispute. RS information which balances/contextualizes/etc negative may not be excluded (e.g., by floods of personal interpretation/opinion of what "facts" are the facts.)
Let me be clear that I am primarily referring to information from the key participants of Roman Polanski case:
|
AND (documents)
|
When I refer to Polanski/defense-POV, I am referring to information (primarily from the set above) which provides countervailing/contextualizing balance to the (correctly) negative information in this matter.
“ | Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. (FROM: WP:NPOVD) |
” |
I placed the {{POV-section}} in the sectionSexual assault case (summary) because it does not currently reflect available Polanski/defense-POV information.
Those removing the POV-section tag disagree that I have provided sufficient specifics to satisfy (their interpretation of) policy. That is how they have framed the issue.
Here is how I frame the issue:
The tag says this:
The
neutrality of this section is
disputed. |
Quoting:
“ | Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. | ” |
Those removing the tag have called my placement of {{POV-section}} "drive-by-tagging."
That assertion is prima facie bullshit.
Yes hip-boots will be required attire :) while BLP NPOV is achieved for the section covering a very culturally contentious matter. It should not be the least surprising (or upsetting) that an POV tag is sitting in that section while we hammer that out. The tag informs readers there are unresolved issues with the current version. Removing the tag is saying "no issues here." That is, yes, bullshit. There is disagreement.
Those removing the tag under these circumstances are asserting their judgment of NPOV and WP policy and understanding of the events overrides all.
This is a BLP. I am not the only editor who believes (yes, even this short summary version) the coverage of the Roman Polanski sexual assault case is not yet sufficiently NPOV for a BLP.
Further steps in
WP:Dispute resolution may well be required beyond this page, but process does require we attempt to resolve the issue here.
--
Proofreader77 (
talk) 17:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for rewriting the section. I've tried to stay at a pretty high level on the matter. It's based off of the lede from the detailed article, which is what Benjiboi's revision was also from. I feel it covers the major parts of the case thus far, and strongly pulls the reader into looking at the detailed article ("Hmm, the lawsuit was settled, but how?").
The reference numbers are pulled from Benjiboi's post, and would, of cource, need to be updated. I spot checked a few of the sources, and tweaked things a bit from that. I have not gone through the detailed article carefully, looking for any major points that are missed, but I didn't see any with a cursory glance. I would include a sync tag, just to make sure it gets looked at. The other part is we need to make sure that anything in the long version that's not in the detailed article be moved over to there.
Thoughts on this, and especially alterative suggestions. Ravensfire ( talk) 03:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
:: And there I'm getting stuck - it does get confusing at that point. I think what needs to be said is that the evaluations recommended probation only, but that the judge controversially decided to impose jail time on Polanski. Shortly before the sentencing, Polanski fled the United States to Europe. And then "As a French citizen ..."
The version of the entry before the NPOV dispute handled this topic, without the errors being rediscovered.
Somehow I think the hexagon is a poor reinvention of a working wheel. We had a fact checked, contemporaneously discussion pounded out version. A single handed ambiguous NPOV orchestrated its deletion -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 11:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Please stop bolding comments, especially comments that are possible BLP issues. Also do not import peoples comments and signitures it is confusing and wrong, if you want to bring a comment to someones attention just link to the diff. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Off2riorob WHAT ON EARTH ON YOU DOING!, STOP VANDALIZING THIS DISCUSSION Off2riorob, you have been retooling the entire discussion board, making edits of others comments, removing bolding on my postings, leaving it on others. Recrafting how everything is presented. You have not reason or right to do this, why on earth do think its okay? I am looking at trying to undo the damage you have done, but because you did this serendipitously over time I don't know how to undo it.
You have no right to do this!! When I have used Italics and Bold, and indenting, its been well within the guidelines. Off2riorob how can you just go around changing the entire page, and remove text at a whim? The formatting I did was in the context of what I was writing, you have now gone in and removed the context I was trying to communicate. You have edited within my signature repeatedly. I have been made aware of one error on my part, which was when quoting another editor, to not carry forward the signature line. I understand that. This has nothing to do with that.
Off2riorob what you have done is change the text of authors, without permission, selectively left other authors formatting in place, and then left the entire mess up for new readers to see as if you hand not gone in and changed text within signatures. When I wrote and used bold, it was for a reason, it not up to you to snip and clip and reformat authors as you see fit.
What the heck -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 04:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Even here you are editing my remarks, without permission, notification, or indication to readers. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 19:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Others are Editing Members Signed Comments. Without permission or notice, Deleting Content of Signed Remarks. Vandalizing the Original Context and leaving the Edited Version as if Original
Withing these discussions page at least alias (specifically Off2riorob) is editing other members signed comments, without permission or notice, deleting the original context and modifying within Signed Comments.
Meaning this Discussion page has been in large part changed and edited to suit the agenda of one user, (i.e. Off2riorob ) These continued changes are ongoing. (he is defending his actions of unauthorized editing others signed comments) These edits are specific to some users, while users of Off2riobb favor, have there content unchanged or changed minimally.
I don't know how this can be considered other than pure out Vandalism, which he is now defending. As it is true, I am new to Wiki, as an editor, I am English and History major, who plays by the rules, as well as 'my internal ethics'. I am, only once on Wiki, and without any sockpuppets too. How do I say this concisely.....
Let me try to split the baby here:
Tombaker321: Please stop bolding people's names. Since your idiosyncratic practice of addressing people has met with objections and really isn't standard Wikipedia usage, it would be courteous of you to cease this behavior. Thank you.
Off2riorob: Please stop editing other people's comments. Since this has been objected to and is contrary to standard Wikipedia talk page usage, it would be courteous of you to cease this behavior. Thank you.
Sound good? Okay, let's have some cookies and move on to more pressing topics. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Gamaliel: As a matter of pragmatism, carrying forward, I won't bold names, and simply use italics for quoted text.
However, as you are an administrator I do not understand what you are asking of all others.
Is this lax attitude held by most administrators? I ask because I though the integrity of editors comments was part of the foundation of Wikipedia. You imply its just a "nice to have", not mandatory. Yes, I will certainly do as I was directed, and how I responded above. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
re " Ad hominem argument - It is not surprising under the circumstances that this phrase is tossed by someone who does not know the ropes. It is bad form, not a rhetorical coup.
re: "waiting for the admins response" - Go to the administrator's page and ask for clarification. Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE: Maintaining an orderly talk page discussion allows some reformatting/refactoring [within limits—especially with respect to new editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia practices]. AND: Assertions of bad faith shall cease.
RE: URBAN XII's "VIEWPOINT" This editor's last edit to article is illustrative. BIG PICTURE: It is understood that the article is contentious. If making negative comments about an editor whose perspective is different from yours, be sure to acknowledge that in the comment [EDIT TO ADD: and if it is not clear, URBAN XII and I are of different perspectives on the article at hand].
FROM PERSPECTIVE OF CONTENTION: Since the excessive bolding made the new editor's comments (which I disagree with) look bad (and therefore less effective), I disapproved of them being unbolded, and will be happy to restore them as they were. :)
Now, wrap this up—this does not belong on article talk. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: This does not belong on the article talk page - collapsing myself - but for new editors skim this (before we wrap this up)
|
---|
A quick note for the moment (more later). All of us have been new editors, and all of us have made formatting faux pas which we had to learn not to do, and all of us have had our early errors adjusted. Even as experienced editors, we have had our long-winded forum-y excursions collapsed by admins or others—and usually they have been right. :) Some rules of thumb regarding what has transpired:
Enough for now. |
Reminder, this kind of discussion should not be taking up article talk page space. New editors will always have things to learn—that is normal. Learning it all on article talk pages is basically prohibited: focus on the article. Proofreader77 ( talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I pulled down the three cites for this sentence
"Polanski avoided visits to countries that were likely to extradite him to the United States and traveled mostly between France, where he resides, and Poland."
It is possible that I did not read the three articles as carefully as I might have, but I didn't see any reference to travel to Poland. I also looked generally around and about on the web and couldn't find any visits to Poland, but I remember seeing somewhere, a month or so ago, that he had not been a frequent visitor to Poland, but of course, cannot find it again. I know this is trivial. We could take out Poland, as in the reference to. Oberonfitch ( talk) 03:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, coming in as an uninvolved administrator requesting assistance. While dealing with disruption on some Troubles (Britain/Ireland)-related articles, we noticed a disruptive anonymous editor who continually changed IP addresses, usually in the 99.1xx range. This user appears to work in a controversial area, accumulate warnings and blocks, and then switches to another controversial area. One of the areas was here, at the Roman Polanski article, so I'm posting a notice here. If anyone can help identify any other IPs or accounts of this user, we would appreciate your assistance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. -- El on ka 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
"Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug and muscle relaxant, and despite her repeated protests and being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy upon her.[41][42][43][44]"
We have four links for one sentence. 41 is to the smoking gun grand jury testimony, 42 is a USA Today article from AP which is not terrible, 43 is the Post article, seems okay but largely duplicates 42, and 44 is a link to a Salon article, which in my opinion, should be tossed right off as op-ed. The obvious problem is that these link to the much fought over sentence involving the actual charges. Of these, 41 (primary source) and 44 (op-ed piece) are the only ones that detail the sodomy, oral intercourse, etc. I am not even going to suggest removing the the charges, so don't freak out. Is it possible to find another secondary source and eliminate 41, 43 and 44? Oberonfitch ( talk) 05:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Polanski has always maintained his innocence is not mentioned. This must be fixed immediately; its a major violation of WP:BLP. The article as is implies that he does not dispute the legal case's merits. The Squicks ( talk) 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | As you know, Mr. Polanski was not convicted of rape. He was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse, and that's a different crime than rape. | ” |
“ | The only one he was willing to admit and to plead guilty to was that he had had consensual sex with the minor. | ” |
The fact that guilt does not hinge on consent for the crime of unlawful sexual intercourse does NOT mean that Polanski's assertion that it was consensual is not to be included.
As has been mentioned in previous discussion (many times), BLP NPOV has not been brought to bear in our coverage of the case, yet. Stay tuned. (but not in this topic:) Proofreader77 ( talk) 03:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at this link regarding the settlement. It appears that the parties did come to agreement, and that the agreement was acted on, although it differed from the stipulations made in 1993. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski3-2009oct03,0,6765170.story Oberonfitch ( talk) 17:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone has added (after the ref, but apparently based on the ref):
“ | Although he agreed to this settlement, Polanski still had not paid his victim as of 1996. The last court filing in August 1996 stated that he owed Ms Geimer $604,416.22, including interest. The court records did not reveal whether the 76-year-old director had ever paid. | ” |
I had addressed this line just last week. I just had it with the lawsuit and the settlement and the amount. Articles circulating around say that the 1997 coming out of Geimer and her asking the court for him to stop being pursed....was contingent on her receiving the money. The timeframes work out. The court records available do not reflect anything. But the court records don't need to reflect anything. The court only acts upon what is brought before them, Geimer stopped asking the court for relief, and then came out publicly supporting Polanski. She was either paid, or she is clearly satisfied with the outcome of her civil case. I would then be in favor still of how I had written the line based off the same article. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
BEFORE/AFTER side-by-side comparison of diff
| |||
---|---|---|---|
|
references
|
---|
|
Number-indexed version
| ||
---|---|---|
|
(1) The ref-scoping is incorrect (e.g., first sentence changed has ref beyond the scope of the next ref), rewrite is based on one L.A. Times ref, while sentence by sentence refs are removed—which should certainly not be done in a contentious article.
(2) Clearly not "more NPOV"—e.g., adding negative quotes of judge into summary while subtracting mention of support of victim and mother for plea agreement.
(3) Big picture: contains contentious details which need to be balanced first in the article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case before being summarized here.
(4) Perhaps eventually a true NPOV version of this summary will be created—but that would presupposed that the main article on the case more carefully tracks the timeline and events (including assertions by the prosecutor and the defense attorney regarding the relation between the in-chambers discussions and the in-court presentation.
BOTTOM LINE: Contentious section. Not NPOV. Recent rewording certainly did not improve that.
Proofreader77 (
talk) 01:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(EFFECTIVE) SUMMARY OF A-E ABOVE: Changer asserts there have been no valid issues raised with edit (and asserts that a single editor may not declare article/section imbalanced).
COMMENT: Achieving NPOV in a BLP is a serious matter (and a higher order priority than NPOV in general). One editor may well be speaking for many (who wish not to waste time in contentious current events maelstroms) as well as the subject (who is expected not to be editing, and whose position must be represented to achieve a fair balance.) To be further illustrated in due course.
AND OBVIOUSLY (TO MOST): Contrary to assertion E., "facts" never speak for themselves—selections of "facts" (of various—and variously perceived—weight) are presented by human beings. (Hence the pillars and processes of Wikipedia.)
--
Proofreader77 (
talk) 23:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. | ” |
PS, Yes the "BEFORE" summary is also flawed. There is much work to do to get this right/NPOV.
Proofreader77 (
talk) 16:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
As should be clear, a formal BLP NPOV dispute will be required. Note: The current-events-initiated single-purpose account is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and therefore (understandably) making arguments (repetitively) which have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. (I am not able to instruct the editor in question, due to the contentious nature of the article and our different perspectives). Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the above because it was almost a direct, word-for-word copy of the source. While I'm neutral on having it in the article at the moment, (given some concerns that we now have a separate article for this sort of detail, so perhaps it would be better left there), we can't have it as it was presented. - Bilby ( talk) 22:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Noting Tombaker321's 11/2 response version to "Interim reversion" of his previous version. :)
AGAIN NOTING: A WP:BLP/ WP:NPOVD will (most likely) soon be initiated regarding selection (and presentation) of facts summarizing the sexual abuse case in this (main) article. (I.E., This subtopic is documentary.) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
SOURCE LINK: "How a girl's stark words got lost in the Polanski spectacle"
Their is a pretty good article from the Los Angeles times, October 25 I think, 2009, that really gives alot of info that I didnt know. For example how the victim went on television I think around 1997 and said "it wasn't rape then" and how Polanski "wasn't forceful". It also tells how someone (im not sure who) told Polanksi if he didn't agree to leave the country he might have long jail. And so Polanksi left and a newspaper said Polanksi Fleed. The article isn't one sided it seems like. It also makes it seem like Polanksi gave the girl alochol and a pill. And it makes you think tha tmaybe he did commit a crime and / or crimes. It has a lot of info. And the writer doesnt seem baist in implying hes guilty or not guilty. Here is the link and I was thinking of putting some info in here and maybe I will, but maybe someone else might want to put some info from this article in this Wikipedia article then? Here is the link then and w http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski25-2009oct25,0,5115267.story?track=rss 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 17:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
MY COMMENT This is not news analysis, but something else. ("Creative journalism" was another nomenclature phrase—consider "Black Hawk Down" in initial newspaper incarnation). It is not op-ed, but it was written with a POV (makes a case). Perhaps further comments later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC) [RESIGN COPY] Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a very informative and well researched article. It was offered in discussion by a different editor as a "heads up". Beyond that, there was no need to add comments, including my own. I regret getting sucked in. Apologies to the rest. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The NPOV Dispute Tag is "Drive by Tagging" without specifics, and should be removed. The current consensus is the NPOV Dispute Tag is unwarranted.
Please comment now agreements or disagreements to the current consensus.
If the current consensus has changed, it will be reflected here via your comments, before any tag removal. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | [TomBaker321:] I strongly object to the concept of "shrinking the information". The section as written is done with significant economy in its writing. Compare it to the section "Gérard Brach collaborations" its half the size of that. An editor stating "we are going to compress this thing" as a declarative statement, is contrary to collaboration, and is not operative on the community. ... | ” |
(Note: Talk topic covering when TomBaker321 initiated his changes/expansion is: Recent rewording of sexual abuse case (claim: "more NPOV"/disagree))
NOTE: The consensus is (at least, has been) that the summary section of the Sexual assault case should NOT keep expanding: there is the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case to fully cover the issue. As previously mentioned, it was TomBaker321's focusing attention on this main article summary (with an, I have alleged, Polanski/defense exclusionary information selection bias) which inspired the timing of this NPOV dispute.
SO: Yes, the Sexual assault (summary) section will probably (by consensus) eventually be compressed—the complication (now) is that the summary should be balanced first, then compressed ... i.e., it may need to get a bit larger, before being carefully compressed under the framework of achieving NPOV. Proofreader77 ( talk) 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This topic is being closed, and being withdrawn. Please use other areas to raise concerns on additions. Thank you. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see the parenthetical "such as the UK" removed from "countries likely to extradite" Polanski. There are probably dozens of obliging countries (Canada?, Germany? Turkey?) that would have entertained extradition. I don't think it is necessary to mention the UK specifically, except in relation to the fact that he left England and sold his house shortly after fleeing the US, which is briefly addressed in the lead and probably could be left out. The difficult paragraph does not mention England at all. This seems like detail for the sex assault article. Oberonfitch ( talk) 23:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
He plead guilty to having sex with a minor, which is normally called statutory rape, so that category is appropriate. Other edits done at the same time by the user, broke one paragraph apart mid-sentence. So I reverted them. Dream Focus 16:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism – or to revert content in your own user space. Reversion for other reasons should be accompanied by an explanatory edit summary, and must therefore be done by a different method. | ” |
I deleted text, see diff here that was unsourced POV. I forgot to bring it up here. I didn't think it would be of much consequence. Sorry. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 16:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
(NOTE: Moved here from a user talk page by edit-summary instruction of remover who had been given an opportunity to undo the improper removal of the NPOV tag. Will detail further for article talk.)
“ | In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. | ” |
That's the same tune as initial response of "drive-by" tagging ... which is ridiculous. How many hundreds (thousands?) of words do you see above? Removal #4 edit summary is one you use when there has been nothing posted on the talk page—not when there is voluminous talk page notes/discussion you disagree with; Removing the NPOV tag then with that edit summary is not only improper but insulting.
Bottom line. I've exchanged thousands of words with TomBaker321 ... for a reason. We are examining that reason ... so it will not take talk-page-full after talk-page-full of argument that isn't on the same page. Right now we are NOT on the same page. In the link above, I have indicated the sentences in which there will be NPOV contention. NPOV contention because of the broad issue exclusion of Polanski/defense POV (e.g., the concurring voices of the prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton who clarify where the muddle is now).
If you see edit wars in the Sexual abuse case summary, that will likely be the issue.
At this time the summary is NOT NPOV because of what it lacks (See bolded phrase). (Again, I put this on this talk page by the edit-summary instruction to move it here from a user talk, where I handle matters like this—a matter of content, yes, but also civility. It is insulting to keep repeating "you haven't said anything." Yes I have.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I added information about Polanski's POV during the time of his arrest. His relationship with Kinski (15) before ,concurrent and the years after the charges. This is more first hand, than references to Vannatter's appraisal of Polanski inner thoughts provided in the documentary. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
COMPARE: I have recently removed a top-of-page POV tag from Al Gore which had been placed 40 days previously and had been left in place 30 days after the issue seemed resolved (to make sure).
That there is edit-warring to get the tag out of the Sexual assault section when a semi-experienced editor has made abundantly clear he believes the tag belongs on the section at this time seems outrageous. It would not have even crossed my mind to remove a tag placed with talk page support—no matter how much I disagreed with its justification (as I did not believe the one on Al Gore was justified for the reason given). The tag means there is a disagreement. There is here. (Obviously)
NOTE: Tombaker321 makes reasonable-sounding assertions, e.g., the rhetorical flag of "SPECIFICS" (or "S p e c i f i c s") is repeated, to rhetorical effect (and included in edit summaries as basis for reversions)—who would disagree with that? Fine, except it asserts nothing specific (enough to satisfy Tombaker321) has been provided. I disagree. (Obviously)
I assert that sufficient specificity has been provided to clarify the existence of the NPOV dispute, precisely at which points in the summary the problems lay, and where the balancing information comes from.
I.E., we disagree about NPOV, and disagree about what counts as sufficient specificity to justify an NPOV dispute. (Big surprise.)
Details re how long a slog the past month has been - i.e., NPOV flag was not first step
|
---|
But we now should pause here to consider what "reasonble" means in the situation at hand. Consider that last night (before today's additions) Tombaker321's arguments against the NPOV dispute flag being in place consisted of ~2500 words/15,000 characters (without signatures and formatting)—again, that is arguments against an NPOV flag ... repeating again and again that he wants the specifics of every disagreement—including each proposed and refs. Surely, my posts are voluminous as well ... but that is partly to discover the bounds of what "discussion" with Tombaker321 entails (quite a lot more than one would expect) Now let us be clear that the NPOV dispute tag was not a first resort. I have been in this dance with Tombaker321 for a month. For example,
|
BOTTOM LINE: The contention of creating an NPOV summary ... between, let us say, two teams ... will tend toward being a LONG SLOG. BUT let us see if that can be condensed under a formal NPOV dispute with the flag flying to make clear the contention is in progress (and editing is under close BLP/NPOV scrutiny). Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 09:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | NOTE: Tombaker321 makes reasonable-sounding assertions, e.g., the rhetorical flag of "SPECIFICS" (or "S p e c i f i c s") is repeated, to rhetorical effect (and included in edit summaries as basis for reversions)—who would disagree with that? Fine, except it asserts nothing specific (enough to satisfy Tombaker321) has been provided. I disagree. (Obviously)
I assert that sufficient specificity has been provided to clarify the existence of the NPOV dispute, precisely at which points in the summary the problems lay, and where the balancing information comes from. I.E., we disagree about NPOV, and disagree about what counts as sufficient specificity to justify an NPOV dispute. (Big surprise.) |
” |
Roman Polanski is a WP:BLP. I state the obvious as a reminder that the issue of NPOV in a BLP is not an ordinary NPOV dispute. RS information which balances/contextualizes/etc negative may not be excluded (e.g., by floods of personal interpretation/opinion of what "facts" are the facts.)
Let me be clear that I am primarily referring to information from the key participants of Roman Polanski case:
|
AND (documents)
|
When I refer to Polanski/defense-POV, I am referring to information (primarily from the set above) which provides countervailing/contextualizing balance to the (correctly) negative information in this matter.
“ | Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. (FROM: WP:NPOVD) |
” |
I placed the {{POV-section}} in the sectionSexual assault case (summary) because it does not currently reflect available Polanski/defense-POV information.
Those removing the POV-section tag disagree that I have provided sufficient specifics to satisfy (their interpretation of) policy. That is how they have framed the issue.
Here is how I frame the issue:
The tag says this:
The
neutrality of this section is
disputed. |
Quoting:
“ | Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. | ” |
Those removing the tag have called my placement of {{POV-section}} "drive-by-tagging."
That assertion is prima facie bullshit.
Yes hip-boots will be required attire :) while BLP NPOV is achieved for the section covering a very culturally contentious matter. It should not be the least surprising (or upsetting) that an POV tag is sitting in that section while we hammer that out. The tag informs readers there are unresolved issues with the current version. Removing the tag is saying "no issues here." That is, yes, bullshit. There is disagreement.
Those removing the tag under these circumstances are asserting their judgment of NPOV and WP policy and understanding of the events overrides all.
This is a BLP. I am not the only editor who believes (yes, even this short summary version) the coverage of the Roman Polanski sexual assault case is not yet sufficiently NPOV for a BLP.
Further steps in
WP:Dispute resolution may well be required beyond this page, but process does require we attempt to resolve the issue here.
--
Proofreader77 (
talk) 17:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for rewriting the section. I've tried to stay at a pretty high level on the matter. It's based off of the lede from the detailed article, which is what Benjiboi's revision was also from. I feel it covers the major parts of the case thus far, and strongly pulls the reader into looking at the detailed article ("Hmm, the lawsuit was settled, but how?").
The reference numbers are pulled from Benjiboi's post, and would, of cource, need to be updated. I spot checked a few of the sources, and tweaked things a bit from that. I have not gone through the detailed article carefully, looking for any major points that are missed, but I didn't see any with a cursory glance. I would include a sync tag, just to make sure it gets looked at. The other part is we need to make sure that anything in the long version that's not in the detailed article be moved over to there.
Thoughts on this, and especially alterative suggestions. Ravensfire ( talk) 03:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
:: And there I'm getting stuck - it does get confusing at that point. I think what needs to be said is that the evaluations recommended probation only, but that the judge controversially decided to impose jail time on Polanski. Shortly before the sentencing, Polanski fled the United States to Europe. And then "As a French citizen ..."
The version of the entry before the NPOV dispute handled this topic, without the errors being rediscovered.
Somehow I think the hexagon is a poor reinvention of a working wheel. We had a fact checked, contemporaneously discussion pounded out version. A single handed ambiguous NPOV orchestrated its deletion -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 11:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)