Light show (talk | contribs) →Liebling / Polański: quote |
Tombaker321 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
:Tombaker, if you have questions about the BLP policy, you're also welcome to ask them on my talk page. You're also welcome to cite sources which have published reports as to any controversy. Meanwhile, please don't make rash assumptions as to what I may or may not have read. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 11:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
:Tombaker, if you have questions about the BLP policy, you're also welcome to ask them on my talk page. You're also welcome to cite sources which have published reports as to any controversy. Meanwhile, please don't make rash assumptions as to what I may or may not have read. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 11:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Gwen, again, the discussion here is the manner of balancing the NPOV of this article as it stands. '''The source and points are listed above''', yet you have not offered any contribution to the specificity of them. You are simply not working in this talk space for the betterment of the article, (ie you are not remarking on the specific discussion, and don't understand the context), then it would be most proper to share referrals to policy pages, only on individuals talk pages, rather than this working group. Perhaps you can have a peer or mentor, read your interaction here, to help you understand. You are certainly squashing the dialog by using your admin role, in this stifling manner --[[User:Tombaker321|Tombaker321]] ([[User talk:Tombaker321|talk]]) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Liebling / Polański == |
== Liebling / Polański == |
Revision as of 21:32, 14 July 2010
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The name of the Swiss Minister
{{editsemiprotected}} Someone please change Eveline Widmer-Stumpt to Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf!!! It's embarassing. Fabiovh (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Done: However, you're an autoconfirmed user, so you could have edited the article yourself. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Possible sources
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Removed external links
PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT IN THIS THREAD (as that will archive it)
Our External links policy is pretty strict; links should significantly add to our reader's understanding of the subject if the article was written at a Featured article level. The following links might be wonderful Reliable sources for the article itself but should be used as sources not as an ever-growing link repositorium.
- Roman Polanski bibliography (via UC Berkeley Media Resources Center)
- March, 1977 Grand Jury Testimony of Polanski's victim
- Media coverage of the Polanski rape trial
- Interview with Samantha Geimer
- Roman Polanski site by French writer Alexandre Tylski
- Interview with Roman Polanski (Defunct as of 9/09)
- Watch Knife in the Water
- The Guardian profile: Roman Polanski
- Interview on the Charlie Rose Show at Google video.
- Cinema Retro Presents a Polanski Guide to Urban Living
Contradictory new allegation
Right now, actress Charlotte Lewis is cited with having been molested by the directory when she was 16 years old, and 4 years after Polanski had fled to Europe. According to this article, Polanski fled in 1978, so 4 years later would mean 1982. Lewis was born in August 1967, thus reaching the age of 16 only in August 1983. What do we do with those obvious contradictions? Are there any wiki policies tackling regarding such problems? --Catgut (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- After waiting for about 48 hours and without having provoked any answer, I've decided to remove the paragraph the credibility of which seems to me rather unclear. I think WP:BLP is to be respected: "BLPs... must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Btw, the possible harm could also include actress Charlotte Lewis. --Catgut (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Whip it out and we'll talk about it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- This well sourced article gives specific quotes from a previous article where Lewis specifically denies and gives alternate versions of what she is saying now. The context of what she said in the previous article is very much related to a sexual relationship. Given these loud contradicts, there is no way the current charges, should be shown without referencing her prior statements. Her lawyers says clearly that charges were never made back at the time, saying its unknown is not correct. Lewis would clearly know what was done, and she denied it to her lawyer. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/324256,polanski-accuser-gave-different-version-in-previous-interview.html Long story short...at this time these allegations do not have enough substance to show, when they do, it can be addressed then. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems rather ridiculous to remove mention of Charlotte Lewis altogether. After all, the allegations were made by Lewis herself, so the suggestion that including them would somehow be harmful to her is silly. Secondly, given Polanski's history and his current legal situation, a person making such public allegations should certainly be included in the article. It does not seem to me that including material that is now appearing in multiple news outlets in any way violates BLP. Off2riorob's concerns that it could violate BLP are unjustified, and Tombaker321's argument that "these allegations do not have enough substance" to be included is clearly contradicted by the general newsworthiness of the comments themselves. It's also fairly silly since the allegations are mentioned at both the articles for Lewis and for the film itself.144.81.85.9 (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Which of Ms.Lewis' public comments would you have to be included. The ones where she said she would have liked to have a relationship with him, but did not. Or the one where she says she seduced him. There are 3 stories, no police reports, and Gloria Allred refusing answer the basic question if her client is shopping a book deal. Its all very suspect, as well as the very very late timing of the disclosure 9 months after the event. I am no defender of a confessed child predator, but this woman motivations and contrary remarks, do not have enough weight. If she testifies as an impact witness in a court case she may well rate more consideration of inclusion. It would seem at the current pacing that the Swiss Judges are going to not extradition, as the food dragging seem to be more purposeful that required by the internal bureaucrat slow process.
- See http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/so-thats-three-different-stories-from-polanskis-latest-accuser-20100519-vf36.html --Tombaker321 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- The Guardian clears things up rather well. [1] Sometimes young rape victims end up in a relationship with their abuser apparently. And she'll deny anything happened, that common for abuse victims to do. The fact that she once had a teenage girl crush on him, and wanted a relationship, doesn't mean she'd consent to sex with him. We should report someone who provides a balanced detail, not just taking one side or another, but instead like the Guardian did, explain they don't know what happened yet, but you can't dismiss it outright based on certain things. Dream Focus 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- The whole Gloria Alread thing messes up any use of this reference given she has had multiple stories in interviews in the past. If she wanted to help the police in the current case she could have given testimony to the police and just done that. Instead she goes up their with Gloria to do a press conference. Reflecting every accusation won't do, and this one was done by a lawyer not in the court, but a lawyer trying to sway public opinion. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The Guardian clears things up rather well. [1] Sometimes young rape victims end up in a relationship with their abuser apparently. And she'll deny anything happened, that common for abuse victims to do. The fact that she once had a teenage girl crush on him, and wanted a relationship, doesn't mean she'd consent to sex with him. We should report someone who provides a balanced detail, not just taking one side or another, but instead like the Guardian did, explain they don't know what happened yet, but you can't dismiss it outright based on certain things. Dream Focus 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- See http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/so-thats-three-different-stories-from-polanskis-latest-accuser-20100519-vf36.html --Tombaker321 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
60 Minutes interview link should be to its official site
- Instead of a link to a YouTube video of the 60 Minutes interview with Roman Polanski, there should be a link to where it is officially legally hosted at the 60 Minutes site. [2] A lot of their stuff is on there. Lot of stuff to sort through to find the right one which is the appropriate interview. I don't think you should use YouTube links when there is a copyright violation involved. Dream Focus 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'll try to find a link, although this is an older interview. But are you saying for a fact that any YouTube recording of a TV show is always a copyright violation? My understanding was that YouTube (Google) had their own system for removing copyrighted material, so that it was at least reasonable to have a link to a program under a presumption of acceptability. I sometimes add links when they provide a reliable source of information to support an article, so the question is important. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- News sources such as CBS place these old interviews into the public domain by choosing to not cause the removal of them from Youtube and other "tube" sites. There are ample means for CBS to check and remove content they dispute, and with stored checks, it won't more than only part of one employees time to check. For content they want on Hulu.com or there own site, they do cause the removal. So without CBS hosting the bandwidth themselves, and it not on the 60 minutes website, I see no issue with the inclusion of this type of link. As it is an interview he granted, it seems appropriate. --Tombaker321 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Sexual Abuse Section - Swiss Rejection of Extradition Request.
The current information in the sexual abuse section give great detail on portions of what the Swiss said was there basis for the denial of the US request. However it is not at all balanced by the US perspective. This makes it appear not NPOV in my view. Problems include. 1. There is a dispute of whether the documents were requested or not. 2. It a large change from standard extradition requests, the Swiss evaluated the merits of the case, and the punishment used. They speculated that the 42 days of evaluation could have been the entire sentence. That speculation is defense argument for matters that have not been determined in the courts. In this way the Swiss became a judge of the case, to which the US was not allowed to argue against. This deviation from standard means of handling extradition requests is already being speculated to have a lasting impact on other cases.
Here are some of the concerns on the other side of what is currently written:
- The Swiss government said its decision to reject extradition was partly based on U.S. authorities' failure to turn over transcripts of secret testimony given by the attorney who originally handled the director's case. The testimony "should prove" that Polanski already served his sentence with the court-ordered diagnostic study, the Swiss Justice Ministry said.
- The main issue appeared to be how the Swiss government expanded its focus beyond the formalities of the American extradition request to pass judgment on allegations of misconduct by Los Angeles authorities.
- "This was an admission that when higher interests are at stake, not everyone is equal before the law," wrote the widely respected Neue Zuercher Zeitung newspaper. "Some are a bit more equal."
- Another Zurich paper, the Tages-Anzeiger, called the Swiss decision "shaky."
- "It breaks with the tradition of only examining the formal correctness of extradition requests," it said. "Perhaps the new practice will in the future also benefit detainees who have less of a lobby than the world-famous director."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwv8qKQSMIhfdh2oT7hD0TeXDMpgD9GUC3O80
ALL of this does not explain why Polanski skipped out of his sentencing hearing, if he believed he had served his sentence, and when he quite capable lawyers representing him before the judge.
So I see the rational used by the Swiss to be controverted and biased to the defense agreements, which have never been tested before a court of law. To where these arguments were argued, the Judges refused to grant their merit. The method the Swiss used to determine the extradition request is entirely new. So I believe these sentences in the section either need balancing of the two sides, and or pared down. Others thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, write to your MP or get a soapbox. Apart from that, we should add that he has has all his bail conditions removed and he is free to move around Europe as he desires, he has also been given his millions of dollar bail bond back and that Americas claim for extradition was so failed and weak the the judge also told them they could not appeal. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Absolute rubbish, law courts gave preferential treatment, utter twaddle Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand. You say it's twaddle. But many media organisations are giving coverage to the view. Which should take precedence, media allegations reported or the opinion of Off2riorob? I would have thought the former. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- It will all be worthless opinion, the story is , extradition request, sent to jail, appeal, lawyers, result.. adding jonnys opinion that this and that is all rubbish imo and irrelevant. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Says you. Let's see what the sources say about how the Swiss have handled the Polanski criminal charges saga over the coming days. I agree with the editor above that this is likely to bring more NPOV to the article. This is a very controversial subject and US views of what has happened are as notable European views. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Carefully cited quotes from reliable sources as to widely published controversy about a BLP are allowed. The original research of editors is not allowed. Cite sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would also be highly, highly wary of characterizing any outlook as "European" or "American" without a straightforward citation to a source. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, nor would I do so in the article without sourcing - here, I was referring to the media snippets discussed in this segment immediately above. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- An editor's original outlook on a BLP isn't allowed on a talk page, either. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Was that last one aimed at me specifically Gwen? I have understood the point about not using the R word. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- An editor's original outlook on a BLP isn't allowed on a talk page, either. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, nor would I do so in the article without sourcing - here, I was referring to the media snippets discussed in this segment immediately above. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Absolute rubbish, law courts gave preferential treatment, utter twaddle Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, write to your MP or get a soapbox. Apart from that, we should add that he has has all his bail conditions removed and he is free to move around Europe as he desires, he has also been given his millions of dollar bail bond back and that Americas claim for extradition was so failed and weak the the judge also told them they could not appeal. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Gwen: You are being needlessly cryptic with your recitation of rules, while at the same time not reading the sourced and quoted information above. It's obfuscation to this discussion, to speculate what editors could do - but is not happening now. Original research OR is clearly defined, as is BLPTALK related to making content choices.
Gwen: Please read the sourced and quoted material above. That is the discussion for here. There is a clear controversy about the method of the Swiss decision, and its unique special treatment, which may set precedents for other extradition requests. After you read the sourced material in this topic, I would welcome your contributions beyond that of rote recitations, as if bot. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Tombaker, if you have questions about the BLP policy, you're also welcome to ask them on my talk page. You're also welcome to cite sources which have published reports as to any controversy. Meanwhile, please don't make rash assumptions as to what I may or may not have read. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Gwen, again, the discussion here is the manner of balancing the NPOV of this article as it stands. The source and points are listed above, yet you have not offered any contribution to the specificity of them. You are simply not working in this talk space for the betterment of the article, (ie you are not remarking on the specific discussion, and don't understand the context), then it would be most proper to share referrals to policy pages, only on individuals talk pages, rather than this working group. Perhaps you can have a peer or mentor, read your interaction here, to help you understand. You are certainly squashing the dialog by using your admin role, in this stifling manner --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Liebling / Polański
This aricle contradicst itself. The lead says Polanski is an "artistic" name, which – I suppose – means a pseudonym. The lead and the infobox also suggest that his birth name is Liebling. The Early life section says he was born Polański and that his father had changed his name from Liebling to Polański before Roman was born. Could someone please check the sources and correct this? — Kpalion(talk) 19:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Did some checking:
- "He was born as Raymond Polanski, because his father had discarded his own original name, Liebling. . . . For most of the Nazi occupation he was known as Roman Wilk (Wolf), a suitable name for the little Catholic he would become when hidden by Polish families." Roman Polanski: the cinema of a cultural traveller By Ewa Mazierska p. 15.
- The same name details are confirmed in Roman Polanski: A Life in Exile By Julia Ain-Krupa, p. 1:
- "His father, Ryszard (a Polish Jew who worked in plastics and who was an aspiring painter,) had moved to France not long before (he was now Polanski, but had formerly been Liebling, another word for 'darling.' He fell in love with and married a Russian Jewess names Bula Katz, who was divorced just as he, and had a daughter, Annette, from a previous marriage. Together they had Roman, making the family complete."
- Can modify with consensus --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)