This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
[1] I'm concerned about this edit. Where in the documentary was that said? And in what context? Was it just some local police saying, "I suppose he didn't think it was illegal in America to have sex with a 13 year old, you know how those dirty Europeans are, it surely allowed over there," or is there some proof this is what he thought? You can't give undue weight to something. This sounds like just someone's personal opinion. What exactly was said? He didn't seem to realize the severity of his crimes? Dream Focus 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up edit (12 minutes after this topic created / but I had not noticed this topic)
RE EDIT[1]: See
where I took it back out myself immediately in next edit (in history) (Odd that that isn't mentioned when topic was created :) [note: this topic was created 12 minutes before change - did not notice at the time]
Proofreader77 (
talk) 22:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
[DETAIL] 2nd edit removed (reverted my restore) Vannatter description of Polanski's not appearing to understand his act was illegal and removed statement re has maintained it sex was consensual.
WHY (take out "consensual," too)? - After grand jury testimony and all charges in the indictment, the next statement shouldn't appear to imply an admission of all the acts heretofore mentioned in the paragraph as having been implied as "consensual" by Polanski (who has never admitted he did the other acts).
NOTE: The quote about the police officer's perception of Polanski specifically used the word "intercourse" (which would be what Polanski would plea bargain to); With that preamble, THEN the "has maintained" (since then) is OK —but without that didn't realize preamble setup (the "consensual" following mention of "intercourse"), then it is not ok.
BOTTOM LINE: It is probably best to leave out "consensual" mention in first paragraph at all —UNLESS a different kind of paragraph is constructed (summary intro, rather than just first step in timeline). Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Re 2 (which removed police perception of Polanski seeming to not understand he'd done anything against (American) law, AND ALSO REMOVED mention of "consensual"—LEAVING new final sentence of paragraph #1 as Polanski pleading not guilty to all charges of the grand jury indictment. (See rationale above at Follow-up edit) Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
See notes re Vannatter in collapsed diagram:
Santa Monica Courthouse courtroom layout if there had been a trial
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see top of this page, which informs you of the basics. (like all Wikipedia topic discussion pages)
"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."
I urge you to following the guidelines. If you choose to remove this topic, as I believe is proper, feel free to remove my comments here in this topic also. --
Tombaker321 (
talk) 09:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The article-editing issue of who is Philip Vannatter? i.e., what weight should be given to him, was raised by the main topic of this section created by DreamFocus (emphasis added):
“ | Was it just some local police saying, "I suppose he didn't think it was illegal in America to have sex with a 13 year old, you know how those dirty Europeans are, it surely allowed over there," or is there some proof this is what he thought? You can't give undue weight to something. This sounds like just someone's personal opinion. | ” |
The diagram (with several notes about Philip Vannatter's actions in the Roman Polanski case) illustrates why the POV of Philip Vannatter is one that carries significant weight (in this article). The diagram quickly conveys that information, hence its presence. Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Summary:
This is a reference section for that purpose. Discussion of particular edits belong in topics/subtopics addressing those edits. Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to find a picture that does not make Mr. Polanski look as though he has just wet his pants? Oberonfitch ( talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I wrote the following edit for the Sexual assault section.
I wrote the following for the reasons why. (Added Polanski’s POV about sexual relationships with young women. Polanski was involved with Kinski before and after the arrest. This relationship was well documented by the press during the times.)
This edit was undid by Alandeus, with the following reasons. (That part of the story belongs elsewhere)
My inclination is to re-insert this edit
I would like feedback in talk, before I do another edit on this. Thanks -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 10:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Not me, as you say, you believe it conveys polanski's pov...also it is nothing to do with the sexual assault. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think a sentence about this documentary should be included. Something like - Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a 2008 documentary about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of [the] conviction" and won both a Sundance and Emmy award.( 2008 Film Plays Role in Polanski Case) It may also make sense to cite how it re-ignited interest in his case or that it is currently cited in the appeals process. Obviously the sub article can include more but I think it's relevant enough to mention here. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a 2008 documentary about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of [the] conviction"; the New York Times noted it had low sales but won both a Sundance and Emmy award and re-ignited interest in the case.( 2008 Film Plays Role in Polanski Case, Waiting to come in from the cold) Interviews from the film were also cited in Polanski's 2009 court motion asking for dismissal of the case. | ” |
Outdent. I haven't seen the film so am only going on what reliable sources have said about it, looking at Wikipedia's article on it certainly doesn't indicate it was about anything but the case. Someone who has seen the film please feel free to fix that article. I think the awards are quite releative and bundled with the low sales help explain why it was a low sales at box office yet was influential. Likely we should mention its rotation on HBO. As for tweaking the film vs the lawyers "allege"? Seems little difference, but if we want to quibble it we need a source to state that only the lawyers did and that the film either made no conclusions or their account was disputed in the film. Likewise, we could leave it close to how it is and add a follow-up that testimony in the film is being disputed and cited in the current cases. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have received confirmation re W&D specifically as source for in-chamber timeline events. (A follow-up to original answer at WP:RSN). I.E., the documentary may be described by other sources by some denatured generality, but the doc is RS itself. If disagreement on that point, let us agree to take the matter to WP:BLPN (where the NPOV aspects of exclusion of sourced information from a BLP may be analyzed in this case). Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Now that some of the mystery has been sorted I've added what I think is some relevant and NPOV content adding some context of Polanski's actions. That he was on assignment for instance seems quite relevant and that he had many casual sex relationships with teenage girls also seems like it should be mentioned. I've boldly added this while removing the NPOV tag and archiving the growing mountain of words that didn't seem to be making anything clearer. Of course anyone can re-add the tag but with appropriate and, of course, on point and concise points of content they feel should be added, changed or removed in it's own talk section. -- Banjeboi 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It mentions that he plead not guilty, but didn't list why he changed his mind. He originally rejected any plea bargain, then his lawyers saw the evidence of the girl's panties, proving sex had happened. It currently reads In an effort to preserve her anonymity, Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain which Polanski accepted, and, under the terms, five of the initial charges were to be dismissed. They weren't preserving her anonymity since everyone knew her name, the foreign reporters stalking her and publishing pictures of her everywhere in the European news media. Both the panties, and mention of the harassment by the reporters, was mentioned in the documentary Wanted and Desired. So there should be some rewording to make it accurate. Or perhaps to protect her anonymity in America, since going to trial would reveal her to more harassment this time by American reporters, her lawyers offered a plea bargain. Dream Focus 16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
While this might seem an odd time to consider focusing on quality (amidst contentious current events), I asked someone heavily involved in WP:FA if that might be a reasonable idea. His answer was this: including thoughts on FA status beyond that: "It would be a test of WP's ability to be NPOV." That sounds like a beautiful challenge. What do you think? Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So the WP:original research concern is raised in context to support the reference improve clean-up tag. This seems rather misplaced. Either we have original research problems or we don't. Pending the alleged OR problems being listed here i think it's time the improve sourcing tag is removed as this article has lots of sourcing and I'm not seeing a lot of exceptional claims that would normally raise a sourcing flag in my book. Could anyone help point out any original research issues so they can be cleaned up or otherwise addressed? -- Banjeboi 16:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Added several cite needed tags erroneously and removed an award in addition, of course, to rolling back all the integrating of the one article back into two sections. I've asked for more eyes at 3rr but need to break for RL now so if anyone else is wondering where things are presently. -- Banjeboi 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
(Which removes link to main coverage.) The diminishing of significance of Sharon Tate's murder with this edit is noted in the context of BLP NPOV. (Playing down the brutal event which profoundly effected Polanski—burying it between first wife and Natashi Kinski.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I am not a fan of "personal life" sections as such because the personal and professional lives are often entwined and each impacts upon the other. When looked at separately the context is lost, the connection is undemonstrated and it creates two distinct chronologies. If you read a biography of a person in book form it usually starts before the person's birth and moves through chronologically to either the present, or to a point after the subject's death. I understand that some readers prefer easy to spot snap shots within an article, and that this type of segregating of information can make particular points easier to pick out, but looking at the entire article as a whole, it becomes disjointed. Looking at the career section there is an unexplained jump from 1968 (Rosemary's Baby) to 1973 (Chinatown) and it strikes me as a serious omission that there is no mention of the event that took place between these two films, and which Polanski has said was the biggest "watershed" of his life, and which has shaped both his professional and personal life ever since - ie Tate's murder. I completely agree with User:Benjiboi's comment that "Likely the whole "personal life" bits should be integrated. If nothing else, chronologically." I'd support that.
On a secondary note, I also agree that there has been a move to diminish Tate's murder. I remember several weeks ago, when Polanski was a very hot topic, some editors were saying that her death was of little significance, because his notability rests on his sex crime, and Tate has her own article etc etc. I never have, and never will, buy that. It would be like writing an article on Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and saying the assassination of JFK is not relevant because Mrs Kennedy wasn't killed (and JFK has his own article). I think there has been an attitude conveyed by some editors that has resulted in anything that may humanise Polanski being removed, and I'm not sure if that attitude still prevails. The murder case was a much "bigger story" than the rape case, (and I know it's not a competition, both are highly relevant) in its time, and it has resonated for over 40 years. Polanski was probably the one survivor most destroyed by the murders - not only did he lose his wife and unborn child, but also two friends who were in the house caring for Tate at his request, because he failed to arrive home. Some news reports following his recent arrest, have noted that following the murders he embarked on a self-destructive and hedonistic lifestyle far removed from his earlier lifestyle, and that it was the beginning of what brought him to ruin. Bearing all that in mind, it's given almost no weight at all. There are various elements of his personal life that are not presented in any kind of overall context, and I think the problem relates to all of these points, rather than specifically to Tate's murder. Rossrs ( talk) 08:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the original pre-edit version of the personal life section by hand (sure wish it could have been by a single revert). For the following reasons.
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 07:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I like it, the new time-line is very clear and easy to follow. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is particularly troubling since it was just of the feedback of the ANI board. And removal of the NPOVD combined simultaneously with new controversial editing of the Sexual abuse case.
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Surveying FA-Class (actors/filmmakers), notice general absence of "famous" directors. Aaron Sorkin's mostly a screenwriter, and he *has* a "Personal Life" section. (Note also Sharon Tate is FA class —with unusual structure: 42% of article about "Death and aftermath.") Film directors long-gestation projects are usully *not* related so clearly to life events as Polanski's. And even in Polanski's case, the "special" personal life sections may be more clearly related than the post-event movie themes. Point: Not yet clear which structure is best for Polanski. Ponder. Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
As there have been suggestions that structuring articles with distinct professional and personal sections is the accepted standard, I'll note the structure used in the FA-Class (actors/filmmakers). There are 43 articles.
Personal life section: 27 articles - Kroger Babb, Eric Bana, Joseph Barbera, Jackie Chan, Noël Coward, Kirsten Dunst, Jake Gyllenhaal, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Anthony Michael Hall, William Hanna, Phil Hartman, Ethan Hawke, Katie Holmes, Angelina Jolie ("relationships" rather than "personal life", but it's the same thing), Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy, James Nesbitt, Austin Nichols, Miranda Otto, Nancy Reagan ("Marriage and family"), Ronald Reagan ("Marriages and children"), Aaron Sorkin, KaDee Strickland, Jack Warner, Emma Watson, Reese Witherspoon, Preity Zinta.
Personal life aspects incorporated into main text: 16 articles - James Thomas Aubrey, Jr., Rudolph Cartier, Bette Davis, Karen Dotrice, Judy Garland, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, Abbas Kiarostami, Vivien Leigh, Kylie Minogue, Sydney Newman, Satyajit Ray, Sebastian Shaw (actor), Tōru Takemitsu, Sharon Tate, Anna May Wong.
This suggests to me that both formats have wide support in the general editing community and these article represent a diverse range of subjects, and, I would expect, a large number of editors. It therefore seems to be more a question of stylistic choice rather than convention or policy. Rossrs ( talk) 10:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added the Tag for a NPOV Dispute for the entire article.
More to follow -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Request_for_Page_Protection_of_Polanski_Page. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Re Offrirob. I do not believe it to be my point of view to request that large changes to the entire entry by a single hand be done without first seeking peer review of other contributing editors who in their own good faith have been working with other editors to build an entry. I believe it simply to be policy and SOP. Reformatting time to be that of Movie Release dates and folding other content into those movie dates, is novel. But that novelty will likely make the entry less accessible to new readers. At the least its worthy of discussion prior to its unilateral decree as being the baseline. I believe other editors with different opinions are acting in good faith, and I think your remarks should reflect the same.
Re: Rossrs, I think that major changes should be reviewed prior to installation. Benjiboi, has asserted a self neutrality (stated in their notice of edit war) that questions needlessly the good faith of existing contributors. As clearly as Offriob just challenges mine. Neither I believe to be productive or granting the assumption of good faith.
Re Rossrs re: definition of Encyclopedic definition in use by myself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents.
Which I would expect to be yours as well. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 23:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think you misinterpreted what I asked. I would never ask for "the" definition of "encyclopedic" when I can look it up as easily as you can. I asked for your definition of it, specifically in relation to "encyclopedic" vs. "narrative". When you replied, I commented that the points you made applied equally to either format, so it didn't serve to clarify your position or to answer my question. I was wanting to know why you disapprove of the narrative format, and you have now given something of an explanation. I think you are bringing your own bias into this. The narrative form does not exist only "for a journalist". If that were true, no featured articles would employ such a format, but given that a significant number do, it's clear that the format is acceptable. To say it's not acceptable is your viewpoint, and you're entitled to it, but please don't try to say that it's more than your own opinion. Another example (aside from those on the FA list described above) is Zelda Fitzgerald, a featured article in narrative style that was recently featured on the main page. During the 24 hours that it was one of Wikipedia's most visible articles, more than 100 edits were made to the article, but nobody attempted to restructure it away from its narrative style, and nobody commented on the talk page that the style was more suitable for a journal than an encyclopedia. In fact nobody commented at all, and you would have to expect that if it attracted 100+ edits, it must have attracted many more editors who simply looked at it without editing or commenting. Your comments at point D, are not supported by either policy or convention. It's simply one approach, and obviously the one that you prefer. As for WP:STYLE - yes it's our resource, but it doesn't compel the use of one structure over another. I've commented elsewhere that it's not entirely a style issue in this case, so I think it's important to note that "the entire style was changed" is only part of the story. In the eyes of some editors, myself included, the changes made the article as a whole easier to read, as opposed to easier to find specific points. That's a different thing. Rossrs ( talk) 13:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The basis of a NPOV Dispute Tag is that it is an out of order situation that should be remedied as soon as possible. The Tag itself should not just be left up.
So I remove the flag I began, while still maintaining the need. If this is viewed as an editor slipping and falling upon their own sword, okay.
I remain comfortable with what my approach was here. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:52, 18 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
[1] I'm concerned about this edit. Where in the documentary was that said? And in what context? Was it just some local police saying, "I suppose he didn't think it was illegal in America to have sex with a 13 year old, you know how those dirty Europeans are, it surely allowed over there," or is there some proof this is what he thought? You can't give undue weight to something. This sounds like just someone's personal opinion. What exactly was said? He didn't seem to realize the severity of his crimes? Dream Focus 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up edit (12 minutes after this topic created / but I had not noticed this topic)
RE EDIT[1]: See
where I took it back out myself immediately in next edit (in history) (Odd that that isn't mentioned when topic was created :) [note: this topic was created 12 minutes before change - did not notice at the time]
Proofreader77 (
talk) 22:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
[DETAIL] 2nd edit removed (reverted my restore) Vannatter description of Polanski's not appearing to understand his act was illegal and removed statement re has maintained it sex was consensual.
WHY (take out "consensual," too)? - After grand jury testimony and all charges in the indictment, the next statement shouldn't appear to imply an admission of all the acts heretofore mentioned in the paragraph as having been implied as "consensual" by Polanski (who has never admitted he did the other acts).
NOTE: The quote about the police officer's perception of Polanski specifically used the word "intercourse" (which would be what Polanski would plea bargain to); With that preamble, THEN the "has maintained" (since then) is OK —but without that didn't realize preamble setup (the "consensual" following mention of "intercourse"), then it is not ok.
BOTTOM LINE: It is probably best to leave out "consensual" mention in first paragraph at all —UNLESS a different kind of paragraph is constructed (summary intro, rather than just first step in timeline). Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Re 2 (which removed police perception of Polanski seeming to not understand he'd done anything against (American) law, AND ALSO REMOVED mention of "consensual"—LEAVING new final sentence of paragraph #1 as Polanski pleading not guilty to all charges of the grand jury indictment. (See rationale above at Follow-up edit) Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
See notes re Vannatter in collapsed diagram:
Santa Monica Courthouse courtroom layout if there had been a trial
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see top of this page, which informs you of the basics. (like all Wikipedia topic discussion pages)
"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."
I urge you to following the guidelines. If you choose to remove this topic, as I believe is proper, feel free to remove my comments here in this topic also. --
Tombaker321 (
talk) 09:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The article-editing issue of who is Philip Vannatter? i.e., what weight should be given to him, was raised by the main topic of this section created by DreamFocus (emphasis added):
“ | Was it just some local police saying, "I suppose he didn't think it was illegal in America to have sex with a 13 year old, you know how those dirty Europeans are, it surely allowed over there," or is there some proof this is what he thought? You can't give undue weight to something. This sounds like just someone's personal opinion. | ” |
The diagram (with several notes about Philip Vannatter's actions in the Roman Polanski case) illustrates why the POV of Philip Vannatter is one that carries significant weight (in this article). The diagram quickly conveys that information, hence its presence. Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Summary:
This is a reference section for that purpose. Discussion of particular edits belong in topics/subtopics addressing those edits. Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to find a picture that does not make Mr. Polanski look as though he has just wet his pants? Oberonfitch ( talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I wrote the following edit for the Sexual assault section.
I wrote the following for the reasons why. (Added Polanski’s POV about sexual relationships with young women. Polanski was involved with Kinski before and after the arrest. This relationship was well documented by the press during the times.)
This edit was undid by Alandeus, with the following reasons. (That part of the story belongs elsewhere)
My inclination is to re-insert this edit
I would like feedback in talk, before I do another edit on this. Thanks -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 10:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Not me, as you say, you believe it conveys polanski's pov...also it is nothing to do with the sexual assault. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think a sentence about this documentary should be included. Something like - Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a 2008 documentary about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of [the] conviction" and won both a Sundance and Emmy award.( 2008 Film Plays Role in Polanski Case) It may also make sense to cite how it re-ignited interest in his case or that it is currently cited in the appeals process. Obviously the sub article can include more but I think it's relevant enough to mention here. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a 2008 documentary about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of [the] conviction"; the New York Times noted it had low sales but won both a Sundance and Emmy award and re-ignited interest in the case.( 2008 Film Plays Role in Polanski Case, Waiting to come in from the cold) Interviews from the film were also cited in Polanski's 2009 court motion asking for dismissal of the case. | ” |
Outdent. I haven't seen the film so am only going on what reliable sources have said about it, looking at Wikipedia's article on it certainly doesn't indicate it was about anything but the case. Someone who has seen the film please feel free to fix that article. I think the awards are quite releative and bundled with the low sales help explain why it was a low sales at box office yet was influential. Likely we should mention its rotation on HBO. As for tweaking the film vs the lawyers "allege"? Seems little difference, but if we want to quibble it we need a source to state that only the lawyers did and that the film either made no conclusions or their account was disputed in the film. Likewise, we could leave it close to how it is and add a follow-up that testimony in the film is being disputed and cited in the current cases. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have received confirmation re W&D specifically as source for in-chamber timeline events. (A follow-up to original answer at WP:RSN). I.E., the documentary may be described by other sources by some denatured generality, but the doc is RS itself. If disagreement on that point, let us agree to take the matter to WP:BLPN (where the NPOV aspects of exclusion of sourced information from a BLP may be analyzed in this case). Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Now that some of the mystery has been sorted I've added what I think is some relevant and NPOV content adding some context of Polanski's actions. That he was on assignment for instance seems quite relevant and that he had many casual sex relationships with teenage girls also seems like it should be mentioned. I've boldly added this while removing the NPOV tag and archiving the growing mountain of words that didn't seem to be making anything clearer. Of course anyone can re-add the tag but with appropriate and, of course, on point and concise points of content they feel should be added, changed or removed in it's own talk section. -- Banjeboi 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It mentions that he plead not guilty, but didn't list why he changed his mind. He originally rejected any plea bargain, then his lawyers saw the evidence of the girl's panties, proving sex had happened. It currently reads In an effort to preserve her anonymity, Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain which Polanski accepted, and, under the terms, five of the initial charges were to be dismissed. They weren't preserving her anonymity since everyone knew her name, the foreign reporters stalking her and publishing pictures of her everywhere in the European news media. Both the panties, and mention of the harassment by the reporters, was mentioned in the documentary Wanted and Desired. So there should be some rewording to make it accurate. Or perhaps to protect her anonymity in America, since going to trial would reveal her to more harassment this time by American reporters, her lawyers offered a plea bargain. Dream Focus 16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
While this might seem an odd time to consider focusing on quality (amidst contentious current events), I asked someone heavily involved in WP:FA if that might be a reasonable idea. His answer was this: including thoughts on FA status beyond that: "It would be a test of WP's ability to be NPOV." That sounds like a beautiful challenge. What do you think? Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So the WP:original research concern is raised in context to support the reference improve clean-up tag. This seems rather misplaced. Either we have original research problems or we don't. Pending the alleged OR problems being listed here i think it's time the improve sourcing tag is removed as this article has lots of sourcing and I'm not seeing a lot of exceptional claims that would normally raise a sourcing flag in my book. Could anyone help point out any original research issues so they can be cleaned up or otherwise addressed? -- Banjeboi 16:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Added several cite needed tags erroneously and removed an award in addition, of course, to rolling back all the integrating of the one article back into two sections. I've asked for more eyes at 3rr but need to break for RL now so if anyone else is wondering where things are presently. -- Banjeboi 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
(Which removes link to main coverage.) The diminishing of significance of Sharon Tate's murder with this edit is noted in the context of BLP NPOV. (Playing down the brutal event which profoundly effected Polanski—burying it between first wife and Natashi Kinski.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I am not a fan of "personal life" sections as such because the personal and professional lives are often entwined and each impacts upon the other. When looked at separately the context is lost, the connection is undemonstrated and it creates two distinct chronologies. If you read a biography of a person in book form it usually starts before the person's birth and moves through chronologically to either the present, or to a point after the subject's death. I understand that some readers prefer easy to spot snap shots within an article, and that this type of segregating of information can make particular points easier to pick out, but looking at the entire article as a whole, it becomes disjointed. Looking at the career section there is an unexplained jump from 1968 (Rosemary's Baby) to 1973 (Chinatown) and it strikes me as a serious omission that there is no mention of the event that took place between these two films, and which Polanski has said was the biggest "watershed" of his life, and which has shaped both his professional and personal life ever since - ie Tate's murder. I completely agree with User:Benjiboi's comment that "Likely the whole "personal life" bits should be integrated. If nothing else, chronologically." I'd support that.
On a secondary note, I also agree that there has been a move to diminish Tate's murder. I remember several weeks ago, when Polanski was a very hot topic, some editors were saying that her death was of little significance, because his notability rests on his sex crime, and Tate has her own article etc etc. I never have, and never will, buy that. It would be like writing an article on Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and saying the assassination of JFK is not relevant because Mrs Kennedy wasn't killed (and JFK has his own article). I think there has been an attitude conveyed by some editors that has resulted in anything that may humanise Polanski being removed, and I'm not sure if that attitude still prevails. The murder case was a much "bigger story" than the rape case, (and I know it's not a competition, both are highly relevant) in its time, and it has resonated for over 40 years. Polanski was probably the one survivor most destroyed by the murders - not only did he lose his wife and unborn child, but also two friends who were in the house caring for Tate at his request, because he failed to arrive home. Some news reports following his recent arrest, have noted that following the murders he embarked on a self-destructive and hedonistic lifestyle far removed from his earlier lifestyle, and that it was the beginning of what brought him to ruin. Bearing all that in mind, it's given almost no weight at all. There are various elements of his personal life that are not presented in any kind of overall context, and I think the problem relates to all of these points, rather than specifically to Tate's murder. Rossrs ( talk) 08:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the original pre-edit version of the personal life section by hand (sure wish it could have been by a single revert). For the following reasons.
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 07:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I like it, the new time-line is very clear and easy to follow. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is particularly troubling since it was just of the feedback of the ANI board. And removal of the NPOVD combined simultaneously with new controversial editing of the Sexual abuse case.
-- Tombaker321 ( talk) 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Surveying FA-Class (actors/filmmakers), notice general absence of "famous" directors. Aaron Sorkin's mostly a screenwriter, and he *has* a "Personal Life" section. (Note also Sharon Tate is FA class —with unusual structure: 42% of article about "Death and aftermath.") Film directors long-gestation projects are usully *not* related so clearly to life events as Polanski's. And even in Polanski's case, the "special" personal life sections may be more clearly related than the post-event movie themes. Point: Not yet clear which structure is best for Polanski. Ponder. Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
As there have been suggestions that structuring articles with distinct professional and personal sections is the accepted standard, I'll note the structure used in the FA-Class (actors/filmmakers). There are 43 articles.
Personal life section: 27 articles - Kroger Babb, Eric Bana, Joseph Barbera, Jackie Chan, Noël Coward, Kirsten Dunst, Jake Gyllenhaal, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Anthony Michael Hall, William Hanna, Phil Hartman, Ethan Hawke, Katie Holmes, Angelina Jolie ("relationships" rather than "personal life", but it's the same thing), Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy, James Nesbitt, Austin Nichols, Miranda Otto, Nancy Reagan ("Marriage and family"), Ronald Reagan ("Marriages and children"), Aaron Sorkin, KaDee Strickland, Jack Warner, Emma Watson, Reese Witherspoon, Preity Zinta.
Personal life aspects incorporated into main text: 16 articles - James Thomas Aubrey, Jr., Rudolph Cartier, Bette Davis, Karen Dotrice, Judy Garland, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, Abbas Kiarostami, Vivien Leigh, Kylie Minogue, Sydney Newman, Satyajit Ray, Sebastian Shaw (actor), Tōru Takemitsu, Sharon Tate, Anna May Wong.
This suggests to me that both formats have wide support in the general editing community and these article represent a diverse range of subjects, and, I would expect, a large number of editors. It therefore seems to be more a question of stylistic choice rather than convention or policy. Rossrs ( talk) 10:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added the Tag for a NPOV Dispute for the entire article.
More to follow -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Request_for_Page_Protection_of_Polanski_Page. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Re Offrirob. I do not believe it to be my point of view to request that large changes to the entire entry by a single hand be done without first seeking peer review of other contributing editors who in their own good faith have been working with other editors to build an entry. I believe it simply to be policy and SOP. Reformatting time to be that of Movie Release dates and folding other content into those movie dates, is novel. But that novelty will likely make the entry less accessible to new readers. At the least its worthy of discussion prior to its unilateral decree as being the baseline. I believe other editors with different opinions are acting in good faith, and I think your remarks should reflect the same.
Re: Rossrs, I think that major changes should be reviewed prior to installation. Benjiboi, has asserted a self neutrality (stated in their notice of edit war) that questions needlessly the good faith of existing contributors. As clearly as Offriob just challenges mine. Neither I believe to be productive or granting the assumption of good faith.
Re Rossrs re: definition of Encyclopedic definition in use by myself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents.
Which I would expect to be yours as well. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 23:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think you misinterpreted what I asked. I would never ask for "the" definition of "encyclopedic" when I can look it up as easily as you can. I asked for your definition of it, specifically in relation to "encyclopedic" vs. "narrative". When you replied, I commented that the points you made applied equally to either format, so it didn't serve to clarify your position or to answer my question. I was wanting to know why you disapprove of the narrative format, and you have now given something of an explanation. I think you are bringing your own bias into this. The narrative form does not exist only "for a journalist". If that were true, no featured articles would employ such a format, but given that a significant number do, it's clear that the format is acceptable. To say it's not acceptable is your viewpoint, and you're entitled to it, but please don't try to say that it's more than your own opinion. Another example (aside from those on the FA list described above) is Zelda Fitzgerald, a featured article in narrative style that was recently featured on the main page. During the 24 hours that it was one of Wikipedia's most visible articles, more than 100 edits were made to the article, but nobody attempted to restructure it away from its narrative style, and nobody commented on the talk page that the style was more suitable for a journal than an encyclopedia. In fact nobody commented at all, and you would have to expect that if it attracted 100+ edits, it must have attracted many more editors who simply looked at it without editing or commenting. Your comments at point D, are not supported by either policy or convention. It's simply one approach, and obviously the one that you prefer. As for WP:STYLE - yes it's our resource, but it doesn't compel the use of one structure over another. I've commented elsewhere that it's not entirely a style issue in this case, so I think it's important to note that "the entire style was changed" is only part of the story. In the eyes of some editors, myself included, the changes made the article as a whole easier to read, as opposed to easier to find specific points. That's a different thing. Rossrs ( talk) 13:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The basis of a NPOV Dispute Tag is that it is an out of order situation that should be remedied as soon as possible. The Tag itself should not just be left up.
So I remove the flag I began, while still maintaining the need. If this is viewed as an editor slipping and falling upon their own sword, okay.
I remain comfortable with what my approach was here. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)