Talk:Roman Polanski

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roman Polanski article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17: 12 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance).

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Mid‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Screenwriters Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 1, 2014.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:1C2:1803:A250:35D5:8E18:7E2A:2083 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In his up front bio it should say convicted child rapist and serial rapist. That is a lot more important than his academy awards and accolades.

The lede already mentions his arrest and guilty plea. RudolfRed (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it won't too much try the patience of those here...

I hate to reopen this closely-related discussion, but I'm wondering if a slightly different approach might be possible.

Raymond Roman Thierry Polański (né Liebling; 18 August 1933) is a French and Polish film director, producer, screenwriter, and actor who in 1977 was convicted of a sex crime.

Again, not trying to stir the pot, just wondering if we don't state it as "Polanski is a French and Polish film director, producer, screenwriter, actor and convicted sex offender" we might be able to find consensus that the conviction does actually belong in the first sentence. Just not the label.

Feel free to shut me down if everyone thinks this is unlikely to change anyone's view on including this in the lead, again not intending to disrupt here. I just do really think the fact is important enough in summarizing this article for the lead, and wondered if maybe the problem was the language -- that is, using a negative label rather than a neutrally-stated fact -- that was being proposed. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed ad nauseum above, as you can see, including two separate RfC’s. I don’t see any world in which consensus is changed. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get it, and I respect the discussions, which are long and complex enough that I wasn't sure whether mentioning it as a simple neutral fact rather than labeling him as a sex offender, which is what the recent discussions look to be about, had been part of previous discussions. I thought that, if that alternative hadn't been discussed, maybe it was still worth discussing. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- The entire next paragraph is about the subject, and the yearslong, relentless push to make his entire life about this event really is trying. It was WP:UNDUE then, it is now, and it will be the next time this conversation starts. I really think that, for at least a year, everyone (including me) should WP:DROPTHESTICK and let the poor dead horse rest in peace for a while. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, again I get that, and I don't actually have an objection to giving myself a w-ping for a year from now. :) The reason I brought it up is that the first sentence should actually hit the main points, and I feel like this is one of the points that will likely be mentioned in the first sentence of his obit. Valereee (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, one of the things Valereee was doing here (I think; they can correct me) was an experiment on wording, or a test on how such wording might be received (badly, as noted; people are rather raw). We have been developing an essay on Wikipedia:Crime labels. One of the motivations for the essay was the proliferation of lengthy arguments over labels, such as this article has experienced. Arguments that repeat the same common points, while making the same mistakes in interpretation, endlessly. I write to point out this dimension, to advertise the essay, and to invite a review of our essay from those of you "seasoned war veterans" who may be interested. Bdushaw (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffled around the lede conviction paragraph from #2 to #3

Reason: chronology. The previous order was against Wikipedia Policy. Now everything is still prominently displayed, and WP is not broken. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chick Pea Corea: The second paragraph was an acceptable compromise. Why do we need to reopen this can of worms? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was do not include in the first sentence, but make it more prominent. Source on it being in the second paragraph being the result? Chick Pea Corea (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was part of that discussion (which I think mainly took place in the edit comment section unfortunately) and the second paragraph was absolutely the compromise that everyone came to. Rcarter555 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That argument does not sound convincing to me... Chick Pea Corea (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. You need to get consensus for your change. Don't violate 3RR. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Chick Pea Corea (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source of what? That you need to get consensus for a change that has been reverted? That's Wikipedia's 3RR policy. I invite you to review it. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, source for your statement being the consensus. I'm merely following the... result of the RfC above. And the Manual of Style, of course. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were multiple discussions outside of the RfC that landed on the second paragraph as the consensus. But that's irrelevant, as you are the one making the change to the status quo, that change was reverted and the proper procedure is to come to the talk page to gain consensus for your change, NOT to keep changing it back which is editing warring AND a violation of 3RR. By the way, I find nothing in the Manual of Style that mentions chronology, so I'd be happy if you'd point that out to me. But, as you may know, there are many exceptions to the Manual of Style and none of them are meant to be a hard and fast rule. Rcarter555 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What policy was it against? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MoS Chick Pea Corea (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MoS is guideline, not policy. I would also note that your version isn't chronological either... 1977 still comes before 1962... So if MoS says we "must" do something why only half ass it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph is his filmography, not biography. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more or is that all you're going to write? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to MOS. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... MoS... Which you just learned was guideline not policy. That should have rocked your world. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]