Talk:Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

message: The article starts out citing the awards that the film got, then goes on to quote from the reviews and then discusses the recent controversy, but you never get a good idea what the film is about. Well, it's obviously about RP and his criminal charges, but you don't get a sense of what the filmmaker is trying to say, whether the film is pro-RP or anti-RP, and except for the retraction by Wells, you have no idea what the film is saying.  --rogerd (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. Feel free to add one. WP:BOLD It needs a number of sections that are usually found in film articles.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen the film.  I know, I know, the content should be from reliable sources, not personal observation, but I think the article would be better served by an editor who has seen it who adds content from reliable third party sources.  --rogerd (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs a synopsis or summary 

message: This entry should be about the film, what the film is asserting, and reviews of the film.  Most of entries are now of a legal political football game surrounding only one of the interviews and aspects of the film.  
Yes it may be appropriate to show what Wells said in the film, and later retracted. (though I could arguing against both, and focus simply on the film)  But the current ongoing discussion of that is not appropriate here.
Showing how off track this entry is see the current last line of it.
"“Even if Dave Wells were to be lying” in the original film, she said, “we still have a judge who was instructing the prosecutor and defense lawyer on how to behave, and doing it based on how he would look in the media,” she added, referring to other allegations in the documentary"
What other allegations in the documentary are being referred to???  
I would be in favor of listing those allegations detailed in the documentary.  A summery of them would be great, and appropriate here.  But to simply refer to them, and being a second hand reference of facts, gives weight to them, without know what they are is just wrong.  Also a judge telling the lawyers in his case how to behave is not noteworthy, its a judges job to control his courtroom, and media gag orders are common place.
We could go to any person remotely connected and get more quotes, but that is the problem, this should not be a tit for tat political football match.  I would argue this entry should only be about what is in the film as a documentary, a synopsis of the documentaries assertions.  Reviews of the movie could provide that synopsis.  The reviews can simply be referenced as links.  It should be noted that many of the published reviews contain the reviewers strong opinons on how Polanski should be treated.  Any synopsis here, should be simply what is contained in the film
At most it may be said here that the film later became the impetus of Polanski's lawyers filing papers with the court seeking the original cases dismissal. Which there are plenty of sources to include --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entry in Wikipedia is not proper 

message: I removed this phrase because it seems not to be NPOV and inaccurate without some explanation of what it's referring to. In its present context, it also sounds like it's referring to the Geimer case, and there is no evidence he was exonerated in the court system for that. I also can't say, not having seen the film, if it refers to the libel case he brought, but if so it seems it should be rewritten to reflect that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of phrase "his subsequent exoneration in the court system" and concerns about lede

message: It looks like a bunch of reviews.User:JCHeverly 23:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it even an article??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120217075405/http://filmsdistribution.com:80/fd_film.php?id_film=409 to http://www.filmsdistribution.com/fd_film.php?id_film=409
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120516165456/http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=2008 to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=2008
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified