Talk:Roman Polanski

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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

That argument does not sound convincing to me... Chick Pea Corea (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Source? Chick Pea Corea (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

MoS Chick Pea Corea (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

The last paragraph is his filmography, not biography. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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

I refer you to MOS. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

Guideline is policy unless where explicitly stated otherwise... The two biographical paragraphs should be in chronological order, it's just confusing now and don't tell me it's not. It is confusing, and weird Chick Pea Corea (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

No... A guideline is a guideline and a policy is a policy. Please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I don't find it confusing, especially because the last paragraph is non-chronological (thee is no distinction between filmography and biography BTW, filmography is part of the biography). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It was the compromise that was decided upon after a very drawn out and contentious debate on the talk page, through an RfC and in the editing comments section. It was the solution everyone agreed to. That’s how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Rcarter555 (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Paragraphs should be in chronological order. Yes what he did was terrible but he also did other 100 very good and very bad things. Chronological order should be sustained. Wikipedia should be free from any influences, agendas, and preassures. Myan1948 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Myan1948: And what arrangement of these four paragraphs would result in chronological order? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

well it's very simple: first: "Polanski's parents moved the family (...) in 1937 (...) in 1969 Manson's murder etc

then 2nd paragraph: in 1977 ... - years 1937 and 1969 had happened before 1977 :D - its so simple.

then the last paragraph about his films

Putting this "1977 paragraph" just to highlight that he was a RAPIST just to make some agenda influanced people happy is just stupid. Wikipedia is not a place to please anyone. Lefts side or right side, Me-too movement or any other movements. Myan1948 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The positioning was decided due to the enduring attention it has received in reliable sources, while acknowledging he was independently notable as an excellent filmmaker prior to his conviction and flight to Europe to escape prison time, and whose career continued there to widespread acclaim. Some editors wanted mention in the first sentence of the first paragraph, or failing that the second sentence of the first paragraph. I felt that was too much emphasis, and was behind the compromise solution you see here. Finally, I might suggest that you take a chill with the tendentious comments and show a little respect for all the editors who participated in the long process we went through to arrive at this point. Xan747 (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but why the compromise was needed at all in the first place? It was needed to fulfill someone's agenda. That's what I'm talking about. Wikipedia should be free of that. Chronological is a natural, neutral, objective way to go. Myan1948 (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

And I don't need to chill. Thank you very much. Calling for a little respect maybe you should be respectful in the first place Myan1948 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

That's twice now you've directly accused other editors of having some sort of agenda, which is tendentious and disrespectful. Xan747 (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"enduring attention it has received in reliable sources"

that ('enduring attention') is for tabloid newspapers, not encyclopaedias.

duncanrmi (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so why do you want the last paragraph to be out of chronological order? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The last paragraph is different. It refers overall to his works, not events from his life. It justs lists his main films. It's a different one. Myan1948 (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2026

Change “Raymond Roman Thierry Polański[b] (né Liebling;[1] born 18 August 1933) is a Polish[2][3] and French filmmaker and actor.”

To “Raymond Roman Thierry Polański[b] (né Liebling;[1] born 18 August 1933) is a Polish[2][3] and French filmmaker, actor, and convicted child rapist.” ~2026-86985-7 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. See the notice at the top of the talk page. Prior discussions have established a consensus against mentioning Polanski's conviction in the first sentence of the article. Day Creature (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This is absolutely how the article should open. What use is it to know that he is an actor and filmmaker if you don't also know he's a child predator? It's more important to how he'll be known in history than the films he's been part of. Brasil221 (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

why is his child sex conviction not in the first paragraph

I'm sure you've had this before but it's 2026 so let's open this can of worms again. ~2026-18508-60 (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum not that long ago, including multiple RfC’s and this was the compromise that was agreed to. I don’t see the point in reopening this argument again. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Ditto. Peaceray (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Well it still isn't in the first paragraph that's a good reason to reopen it. Are you a jew? ~2026-29385-00 (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It isnt in the first paragraph because that was the consensus agreed to. Whether I’m a Jew or not is irrelevant to the editing of this entry. Rcarter555 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

you want everything in the first paragraph? what about the murder of his wife & unborn child?

duncanrmi (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't get to decide such matters The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

He's not a rapist

That girl wanted it. Statutory rape isn't rape, and especially not with a 13-year-old party girl like her. She forgave him. Go listen to the Quentin Tarantino interview with Howard Stern. Every point Quentin makes is correct. Albert Eisenstein (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

"Statutory rape isn't rape" The use of coercion or outright violence in such cases depends on the circumstances. In Polanski's case, the so-called "party girl" had been given a Quaalude in combination with an alcoholic beverage. The description of the event makes it another case of drug-facilitated sexual assault. Dimadick (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

You are wrong. Go listen to Tarantino on Howard Stern in 2003, and listen to every point he makes, because, though he may have taken everything he said back in 2018, everything he says in the interview is still correct. Albert Eisenstein (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I am going by the sourced information in the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. Dimadick (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Five important words: Quentin Tarantino on Howard Stern Albert Eisenstein (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Show me Tarantino's law degree. SpaceboundRocket (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Dentons' Bob Tarantino earns 2019 doctoral law degree ...Dentonshttps://www.dentons.com › about-dentons › news › may Albert Eisenstein (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Haha very funny.

So, does this prove your believe that Samantha Geimer was asking for it? SpaceboundRocket (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Listen to the Tarantino interview, and that proves it. Albert Eisenstein (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I listened to it. Under US law, adults havng sex with a minor is still statutory rape because minors cannot legally consent. SpaceboundRocket (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

How is this page not locked

seriously, looking at the sickening discourse, minimising a convicted rapist's crimes, wtaf... ~2026-56264-91 (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Wanna get shot? Albert Eisenstein (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Why in the world is wrong with you? Reporting this comment. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)