Talk:Woody Allen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Soon Yi marriage?

Add marriage to Soon Yi. --Daniel C. Boyer

The article says he and Soon Yi adopted two children, but I remember them having biological children? Both maybe? Not sure where to research this sort of meddling information. --Feitclub 02:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Konigsberg

IMDb lists his name as Allan Stewart Konigsberg, not Stewart Allen. ... ? Any fans who can answer this? --KQ

I'm pretty sure they're both wrong - it's Allen Stewart. I've changed it to that --Camembert

My Woody Allen biography by Eric Lax says it's "Allan Stewart Konigsberg", so i think IMDb is right. Still, the usenet FAQ states it's "Allen Stewart Konigsberg" --Michael Schulze

On his writings

What about his writings?

He's written some books too. I'm adding three of them. -- Creativist

What about his plays?

He's written some plays, one of which is "God" but I don't see them listed. Here's a source:

http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsA/AllenWoody.htm

These definitely need inclusion, especially Play It Again, Sam which was later adapted into a movie. Woody starred in that one but didn't direct it.--feitclub 19:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of them are gathered in his classic trilogy: Side Effects, Without Feathers, Getting Even. --BMF81 03:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing the most prominent aspect of Allen

The field were Allen has been a real master is humorism writings. Of course he's most known for his movies, but that's just because of cinema having a bigger audience.

I think there should be a big section about his classic trilogy (Side Effects, Without Feathers, Getting Even), where almost all his writings are gathered. Some facts to report:

• he was particulary prominent in the comedy genres of parody (his most frequently used), satire, burlesque
• his writing were tecnically perfect (maybe need to say it a little more NPOV-ly), which made them still fresh today.
• his most frequently used Figure of speeches are: anticlimax, allusion and non sequitur

--BMF81 03:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

His favorite movie dispute

The article claims "The Purple Rose of Cairo" to be Allen's favorite but I have heard that he has never publicly named one. Of course I have also heard "Love and Death" is his favorite. Does anyone have any sources concerning this issue?

In interviews, he's stated both "Stardust Memories" and "Purple Rose" as his favorites. I'm sure a quick Google search will show this. Eleemosynary 00:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Actor?

Surely actor should be listed in the opening line, yes? (He did act, if not star, in most of his movies) --"Cyclopsface"

Jewish

Should Allen really be listed under 'Jewish American Actors", "Jewish Directors" etc.?

I don't think he's Jewish. That's just the character he plays in his movies. In real life, he's an Athiest or an Agnostic or something . . . I think.

Can anyone confirm?

He may be secular, and so are most of his characters, but no-one makes more jokes about their Jewishness than Woody Allen. I presume he associates himself with general Jewish culture and upbringing, rather than the religion. The Singing Badger 00:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's, IMHO, foolish not to describe Allen as a Jewish-American director, writer, etc. His Jewish background is a central part of most of his movies and writings and is intrinsically bound up in almost every character he plays on screen. His Judaism is one of Allen's most distinguishing and important characteristics. Also, in response to the note above, you can be an Atheist and still a Jew. (I am.) In the view of many Jews, Judaism is a race and a nation as much as it is a religion, and in America it has particular cultural connotations as well, most of which are exemplified by Allen and his films. Allen is undoubtedly Jewish regardless of whether he believes in God or not. --Apascover 21:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, despite what some people say, Judaism is not a race or ethnicity. It is only a religious ideology. The whole "Jewish Race" thing is used by Neonazis to further thier beliefs and by Israeli nationalists to further thiers. -Alex, 12.203.169.186 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

"Jewish" is also a word used by Jews to describe Woody Allen. JonathanPenton 08:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the development of language? Get a dictionary. Or look it up on wikipedia for Christ's sake! The word Jew or Jewish, whether the word's original meaning was this or not, has developed to be an adjective describing any or more of the following; a culture, a religion, or a race. Quit being pretentious and buy yourself a usage guide to the English language. (Mschonert 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Remember to remain civil, Mschonert. Justforasecond 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Relationship with Soon-Yi

Lets get our facts straight. Mia and Woody were never married. Therefore, the use of the term "step-daughter" is factually incorrect. In addition, Soon-Yi was born in 1970, which would make her 22 in 1992. The editorializing of "white man with asian fetish" is absolutely inappropriate. Giles22

Ok lets take out the fetish stuff, that is original research, I agree. I'll remove it.

Soon-Yi was not born in 1970 -- at least not before the affair -- her birthdate was backdated to make their relationship more palatable (and possibly more legal).

You don't have to be married to be a step-father. The page on father says "Step-father - wife/partner has child from previous relationship"

The "Previn" last name is also nonsense -- Previn wasn't even in the household, Mia was raising her. It's just a way to dis' Mia and make it seem like she wasn't really Woodrow's stepdaughter -- but I'll give on this one too.

He is somewhat goofy looking. Its obvious to any adult, other than those that can't see. -155.91.28.231 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We need verification of her age. Her wikipedia page says that she was born in 1970. What proof do you have that she was 16 in 1992? It cannot be on the page unless there is indepdent, documented, verifiable proof of her age. Giles22

Please see her IMDB page. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0696661/ Where is your evidence that she's only 16 in 1992? Giles22

Whoever keeps adding "As Soon-Yi was an orphan without a birth record, her age is hard to verify^[1]. Estimates of her age in 1992 range from '19 to 21' [2], at least 35 years younger than Allen." can you please stop. Being an orphan has nothing do with having or not having a birth certificate. The link has nothing to do with the stated material and any expressions made that she was younger, were made in the climate of a court battle over custody. If there was evidence of any wrongdoing there would have been prosecution, and no charges were ever filed. Wikipedia is a place for verifiable facts, not tabloid gossip. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Soon-Yi actually doesn't have a birth certificate. Unlike the typical U.S. orphan whose parents have died but is otherwise documented, she was found on the street ("eating out of garbage cans" as Woody put it) with nothing to say who she was or where she came from, etc. If this is hard to believe, remember that South Korea in the early 70s was a far cry from the high-tech highly-educated nation it is now...and even now there is plenty of craziness that you'd never imagine in the US. When she was found Soon-Yi couldn't speak any recognizable language -- she spoke some sort of gibberish. Somewhere along the way someone (the orphange? social workers?) estimated her age but it was impossible to know for sure. Mia took her in for some sort of bone-density test which gauged her age but there was some margin of error. I can't find the details, but here's a link to a Time magazine article that says: "WOODY ALLEN AND SOON YI PREVIN He was 56; she was 21 (although she has no birth certificate, and could have been younger) But..." [3] (I can't get into the article without registering or something) Justforasecond 05:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)a

You also might take a look at "The Importance of Being Famous", which is where the original link pointed. You can see some of it on http://print.google.com Page 236 does not have the Soon-Yi age info, but is fairly condemning of Woody. Justforasecond 05:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Page needs work

This page needs some major work (NPOV, timelines, facts). And while Allen's offbeat looks are certainly a part of his comedy, is this the best photo we can get? Eleemosynary 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. It is terribly POV AGAINST Woody. Lets work on revising. Giles22 13:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The child sexual abuse allegations

If the charges were dropped, do they merit their own section? They may indeed belong in the article, but perhaps under the heading of the Farrow lawsuit. Also, does anyone have any further info why, if the charge was dismissed (presumably exonerating Allen), he was still barred from seeing his biological children? Was that part of the settlement agreement?Eleemosynary 04:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: the new details that were added. The charges were dropped. It is enough to mention the fact that he was ACCUSED in the article. There is no need to include speculative facts regarding what may or may not have happened. Giles22 17:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The details add cited, relevant information to the section. They are not speculative. Only Woody, Dylan, and Farrow know what the truth is (or at least, how they saw it) regarding the initial allegations, but that's always the case. Why should they be left out? -155.91.28.231 19:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

These aren't even first-hand accounts. Mia has never provided any details such as this on the record. They do not belong. Giles22 21:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't revert wholescale -- right now the article has the same quote twice:

Allen has defended his actions, saying that he never lived with Farrow while they were partners before their sexual relationship. However, Allen has also said of his relationship with Soon-Yi, "It's got a more paternal feeling to it."[4] In a 2005 Vanity Fair interview, Allen described their relationship as having a "more paternal feeling".

I'm not sure how it got in there. Anyway, I took this out but after the last revert it showed up again.

What level of verifiability are you looking for? I don't want anything unsubstantiated in here but I do think this is an important chapter in Woody's life. -Justforasecond 23:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

LOOK, the charges were dropped. Those facts are substantiated hearsay. It's enough that we mention that charges were filed in the first place. Giles22 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, we have citations to Connecticut Magazine and this isn't original research. I guess the only thing left is whether its POV(?). I think its phrased fairly, though we can work on it if you see it otherwise. It's OK to have details of crimes for which people weren't convicted in the wikipedia. O. J. Simpson was not guilty, for example, but there's a huge section on "murder of his wife and trial". This is an important chapter in Allen's life, let's not leave it out. -155.91.28.231 02:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No this is not a major section of his life. The major section of his life is his FILM and WORK. We have already mentioned the allegations. Not only did this never go to trial, he was never indicted and no grand jury even considered the evidence. It does not belong. Giles22 14:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

We're at something of an impasse here. I would consider an investigation into sexual abuse of your daughter an important chapter. In addition, there is quite a bit of evidence that something was going on and the prosecutor said that he didn't prosecute because it would traumatize Dylan. Would you like to try mediation or seeking advice from the village pump? Btw, I inserted a line saying Woody was never tried and never indicted. -71.112.11.220 15:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The current content on child abuse seems to deliberately distort information; for example the NYTimes article cited expresses a very different POV from the POV it is used to support. The material in the article is currently biased, and IMHO should be either removed or at least significantly 'toned down'. — Stumps 17:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. More info from the NY times added to resolve this bias. Are there any other POV issues in this section? -71.112.11.220 17:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

pov and "vandalism"

Please refrain from calling other's edits "vandalism". It is uncivil and in violation of wiki policies. All of the edits regarding Dylan's abuse are documented. How is that vandalism?

You have a history of vandalism, no matter how many times you blank your Talk Page. Gotcha. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll ask again, how is adding cited content "vandalism"? -71.112.11.220 19:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to quote "Paul Klenk," who has admonished you before. Apparently, his words went unheeded: *"I see that you have, for the third time in a few minutes, added an unencyclopedic remark about Ann Coulter's sex life. You are disrupting the page, and editing not out of a spirit of NPOV, but to deliberately provoke others and bait them to revert your work."

That's how adding "cited content" can be "vandalism." Best of luck in future endeavors. Eleemosynary 23:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"needs work" is a bit of a jab, don't you think? When I came to this about a week ago it was almost completely unorganized, other editors must have visited this page back then and done nothing to improve it. "Now that it has a TOC it really needs improvement"

Nope. It still needs work. Wrong again. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Many of the recent edits were unexplained.

Only the ones that weren't patently obvious. Let me know which edits you need explained. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The relationship with Farrow was lengthy -- no one said "relationship with Farrow that was EVEN LONGER than with Soon-Yi". Did the description really need to be lowered to the same level as his relationship with Keaton? This change is (sic) pov. Perhaps it is unintentional but it tells the story as if Farrow was just a fling.

Nope, it does not. You're muddying the issue. Thank you, though, for conceding my edit was NPOV. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What was the point of the edit? Was their something inaccurate about the earlier phrasing?

Chaning offscreen to personal life is odd -- the section is all about things that happened away from the theaters (with references to movies). It is no more personal or private than the section about his career or gradeschool education.

Not odd, just more accurate. You're quibbling. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The initial relationship with Soon-Yi was an affair and he was her stepdaughter at the time (lookup affair and stepfather for definitions). They married later--which has its own section.

She was Mia Farrow's legal stepdaughter. Not Allen's. Your "look it up in the dictionary" ruse is just that... a ruse. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've already said what a stepfather is (Allen meets the defition)

It is widely called an "affair" (an illicit sexual relationship) "Farrow discovered Allen's affair with her adopted daughter when she found naked photos of Previn in the director's apartment." [5]

Allen's films in the 2000s have been a series of failures. Check out their revenue and reviews -- or just watch them. Melinda and Melinda was unbelievably bad.

Completely POV, on your part.

Take a look at the reviews and revenue numbers.

You've got a point there. When Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life opened in 1946, it received dismal reviews and weak box office receipts. That must be why the film has vanished from the public's consciousness, rightly forgotten as an unmitigated failure. Eleemosynary 00:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Grouping the 1960s and 1970s is just weird. His golden period is from ~75 to ~85, so grouping the 70s and 80s might make sense.

"Golden period" is a POV idea. Save it for your doctoral thesis. It doesn't belong here. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are judging how "good" a movie is in the boxoffice, just take a look at ALL of Woody's films, including the ones that people consider among his best. NONE OF THEM do well at the box office. You think Melinda and Melinda was bad, that's your opinion. I happened to really enjoy it. I also thought "Anything Else" was one of his better pictures. Desconstructing Harry and Sweet and Lowdown were also excellent in their own right. Giles22 18:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read, Allen's best period was from ~75 to ~85. Those years included Annie Hall, Purple Rose of Cairo, Manhattan, and Hannah and her Sisters. I wouldn't say they were "good" or "not good" in the article (we can say so on the talk page), but they received a great deal of acclaim and important awards. In contrast, '95 to '05 (and especially '00 to '05) have been fairly dry -- "Deconstructing Harry" was released in 97 and I thought it was pretty good, but Melinda and Melinda, Curse of the Jade Scorpion both received (mostly) poor reviews and had poor box office showings. I think you'll agree that Melinda will probably never be as highly regarded as Annie Hall -- though again that doesnt' belong in the article. Anyway, about all we can say here are simple facts (revenue) and groupings of them (decades) and the analysis of others (reviews, and meta-reviews). If I'm wrong about the golden period, I won't argue with you, just put the info up there.

Check the anon user's Talk Page history. He's got quite a vandalism history. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the highly relevant, consensus building comment. -71.112.11.220 19:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Allen's son Seamus Farrow

Where did someone get the idea that Seamus has a "phobia" of Allen? It seems inappropriate and gossipy since it isn't even backed up by a source. The Mia Farrow page repeats the same story, while the Seamus Farrow page says nothing about it, and in this article Seamus is quoted as saying "I've looked at the facts and come to my own conclusions. I think the wisest thing is not to talk about it. I'm not angry or twisted in any way." I've replaced the "phobia" thing with a less contentious statement based on the above article--please don't put it back unless you can back it up with an equally reliable source. --The Famous Movie Director 08:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I added a reference for it. The article (on cbsnews, cnn.com and others)said "phobic", not "phobia", making google searches difficult. -Justforasecond 04:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The article I quoted above (from Seamus' own mouth) seems to present a contrary view, but it's much more recent--I guess he's matured since age eleven. I think the "phobic" bit deserves a mention, so I've clarified about the age of the source. --The Famous Movie Director 06:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. -Justforasecond 23:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

consenses and inaccuracy

Originally named Satchel, after baseball pitcher Satchel Page, his name became Seamus after his parents divorce.

Please stop re-inserting this material, as Woody and Mia never married.

We can work towards a consensus, but it there is currently none -- if there were we wouldn't be having these reverts every day ;)

-Justforasecond 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so intent on inlcuding unverifiable details of the sexual abuse? He was never tried, charges were dropped. Mia hates Woody more than anything for the Soon Yi business, don't you think she would have pushed these charges further if there any bases for them? Go look in her book or any of her interviews, she never comes CLOSE to saying that Woody masturbated to Dylan or anything like that. It is gossip and does not belong on wikipedia. Giles22 14:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Giles, all this information is cited and verifiable, unlike other parts of the article. This is absolutely not gossip -- Woody would have sued the pants off the writer and paper that published it. Woody was never charged, which the section says. The prosecutor claimed this was to protect his daughter. The prosecutor relayed details of the investigation to a journalist, Andy Thibault, who published them in the Connecticut Magazine. I don't know exactly what Mia said in public, and it is anyway irrelevant. Mia is not the only permitted source for this information. -Justforasecond 16:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's absolute garbage. This site is purporting these claims as "facts" which they indeed are not. Giles22 18:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Mia is not the only permitted source for this information"--doesn't one part of your POV pushign part of the article claim that MIA saw Woody masturbating to her daughter? she has never come anywhere close to saying this in public. Therefore, I think she is one hell of an important source on this matter, don't you think? Giles22 01:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, that the charges occurred, yes, that is fact, and if you insist on keeping it in the article I won't argue. But not only are the facts behind them completely distorted in a POV manner, they are SPECULATIVE, not factual, and not based on any first hand accounts. They don't belong. Giles22 18:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that someone does not sue a newspaper is not proof that the material printed in it is accurate. There are other motives for not suing, such as avoiding further cost and publicity. — Stumps 03:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe the article is accurate and Woody knows he can't sue.

Anyway, we shouldn't say whether the allegations are true or not true. We're not judges, we're editors. And right now, no one is arguing that the article in Connecticut Magazine just plain doesn't exist. Some folks *think* it isn't true, but that's not really important in wikipedia. -Justforasecond 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So every single article on the internet deserves a mention in its Wikipedia subject now? This is not widely reported information, nor is it a major news source. I think not. There is a reason this those details were not reported by ANY OTHER media outlet, just some minor POV pushing Connecticut publication. If you insist on including the article, why not just include a link to it at the bottom? But the "facts" therein simply do not belong. Giles22 15:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the idea of link to the Connecticut article, clearly described so that those who are interested in chasing these details can see where to find them. Even a reference in the body of the article to 'a controversial report' would be ok, but I do not like the idea of including in the wikipedia entry a lot of controversial detail. — Stumps 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying whether they are true or not -- but for some reason you seem absolutely sure that they are false, POV-pushing. Why, exactly, do you think these are untruths? You weren't there...were you? -Justforasecond 18:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent Soon-Yi deletion

Giles, you could have asked about that Soon-Yi statement you deleted. It is printed somewhere-out-there but it could take me half an hour to go dig it up. What's the rule for stripping things out that are uncited? -Justforasecond 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC) ~I actually did a search for it, and could not find it. Don't you think that the way the sentence is written and where it is inserted in the article REEKS of POV pushing? Let's be honest about that. It is a deliberate attempt to slander Woody. Is it possible to put forth some of the darker details of Woody's life in an objective, non-character assasinating way? That's all I'm asking. Giles22 15:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Let the facts show!

I, personally am a fan of Woody Allen. However if they were allegations of sexual abuse, then these are actuall events, and should be reported on in the actual article. Stop being self-involved with your own opinions. JedOs 11:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The facts are there. Anything else is speculative, unverifiable, and unnecessary. Giles22 16:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This is all verifiable and cited. This is a lot more than can be said about most of wikipedia.

None of it is speculation -- this is information from the prosecutor on the case.

Unnecessary is an opinion question. You think its unnecessary, others don't agree. -Justforasecond 03:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

from rfc, it's all a matter of proportion & context. a lot of celebrities have had various rumors, allegations, investigations, etc. what is woody allen mostly known for? google can be a good guide as to a person's public impact. the details of the abuse allegations are more appropriate for a tabloid, not an encyclopedia. Appleby 19:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

FACTS? These are disputed! They are also highly speculative. How can you report this as factual info? Including details that he was accused is sufficient. Giles22 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Giles, in wikipedia, as in life, there are few absolute truths. We can't really expect Woody to come out and say "yup I molested her!" so this is will always be disputed. Reporting what was published is as close to truth as we're going to get. You certainly weren't there during the alleged molestation and probably never interviewed Dylan or Mia, so I don't know where you're coming from with the certainty that this is speculation. Dylan said certain things, the prosecutor said certain things, Mia said certain things, these were published in Connecticut Magazine. -Justforasecond 02:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved here, but maybe it would be appropriate to create a separate page about the allegations of sexual abuse. It looks like there are a lot of things that could be expanded more fairly in a separate space with much more consideration of the verifiability of the sources, the legal context etc. Maybe under a title like "Trial of..." or "Custody battle..." --The Famous Movie Director 13:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of a separate page for the allegations — Stumps 15:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's to be included at all, it should be done in a link or in a seperate page. Giles22 15:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we almost have consensus on this??? What does Justforasecond think? I suspect that part of the problem with the controversial details is the sheer amount of them. The extra space that a separate article provides for a full discussion of allegations and credibility of sources. Does someone want to make a start on this? — Stumps 15:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as long as we keep the basics in a breif paragraph here (took place in aftermath of breakup, no charges were filed, mia said she saw him masturbating over dylan, proecutor didn't want to harm the child so didn't file charges) what do yall think? -Justforasecond 16:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather avoid any specific details from the Connecticut article in the main entry, as they seem to provoke endless reverting. Obviously we need a paragraph giving an overview, and pointing off to the specific article, but in order for this proposed 'resolution' to work, I think the parapgraph in the main article has to avoid any material which has recently been regarded as controversial by the contributors here. Specific details from particular sources may give rise to dispute. I'd rather see the overview paragraph only contain facts that are BEYOND DISPUTE and agreed by all the contributors here ... e.g. that there were charges. — Stumps 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Stumps, I agree. Good job on coming up with a solution. Giles22 17:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Making side-chain articles is often a strategy for removing legitimate but controversial info. We don't want to fall into that trap. To do this the right way we'd need to make sure that we cut down the length -- to a paragraph or so -- but not hide the essence of the charges off in some dusty corner of wikipedia. -Justforasecond 19:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not legitimate enough for the main article. Please stop trying to push some sort of agenda with the inclusion of this information. It just doesn't hold up, I'm sorry. Giles22 21:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Giles, I think this is a reasonable approach. Limit the detail, but keep the bullet points. -Justforasecond 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look at the article again. This is not properly documented information. Where is the authoritative citation? Should this information be taken at face value? Should substantiated claims found in this one report in a minor publication really be given encyclopedic value? Look at what's in the article right now in its current form.

First of all, there's an entire subcategory for "Accusations of sexual abuse of daughter Dylan."

Then, the information reads: "Also in 1992, during a protracted legal battle following the revelation of Allen's affair with Soon-Yi, Farrow accused Allen of sexually abusing their seven-year-old adopted daughter Dylan. The case never went to trial and Allen was never indicted."

This mentions the "essence of the charges" and is really sufficient in my opinion. Speculative statements about masturbation or an opinion that Woody had it in for the cops simply don't belong. Giles22 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Giles, we've gone through this many times. This information meets all wiki criteria. I didn't make up any of it or do original research, and included citations. Connecticut Magazine is not the NY Times, but it isn't the National Enquirer. It has about 100,000 subscribers who are mostly older, educated Connecticut residents. The most recent issue covered controversial topics such as Christmas gifts, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to impeach the mag's credibility. If you'd like to add "according to so-and-so" to various parts of the article go ahead. In my opinion that is usually a fair way to state things, though some editors think it casts doubt on legitimacy to qualify statements in that way. I would add that the "Woody is one of the most widely respected directors" line at the top of the article is not cited and that should not be neglected either. -Justforasecond 23:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia has a principle of avoiding unnecessary offensiveness? I recall reading somewhere that articles should cause the minimum offense possible while still including the vital information. Under this principle, information that there were some sexual abuse charges is suitable while more explicit details like "Dylan said that Allen had inserted his right index finger into her vagina and kissed her all over" should perhaps be left to the side article. Readers clicking on the side article will know what they're getting into, while someone who just wants an overview of Woody Allen's life and biography will still get the basics. We need to recognize that some people don't want the explicit details. The specificity of the sexual abuse claim isn't important in the main article since it was not made in an official capacity--and it looks like we don't even have a reliable source cited for the sentence I quoted above. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to cite reliable sources for such potentially slanderous claims. As for all the further details about the private detectives--it's just starting to look cluttered. --The Famous Movie Director 00:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've had enough of this for a while. I thought I was exposing the hidden dark side of this man, who everyone thinks is just a goofy looking, sometimes ingenius, writer-director. Everything I've read, and several of his movies seem to tell the story of a very troubled man who is neurotically obsessed with infidelity and underaged women. But apparently showing how this connects to his real life doesn't strike some folks too well. The details people object to are in Connecticut Magazine, which I don't know much about, but which seems to be a pretty basic, everyday, magazine. Not the kind of place that would open themselves up to a huge slander lawsuit just to get Woody, but YES, there is a POSSIBILITY that they decided to risk going out of businesses and made up a bunch of details about him thinking they were safe because Woody just didn't want more publicity. I can't keep coming here to revert this article everyday, so, do as you wish, and Happy Holidays. -Justforasecond 00:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Woody in Los Angeles Right Now

The article says, "In 2002 Woody made a surprise appearance at the Academy Awards telecast – his first ever due to his intense dislike of Los Angeles." Can this be substantiated? He is, for example, in Los Angeles right now, where he's making a series of public appearances at Q&A screenings over the next few days promoting his latest film. 207.69.139.154 02:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd chalk it up more to his dislike of the Academy Awards instead of his feelings about LA. Anyway, we shouldn't speculate without some sort of source, preferably a direct quote. Gamaliel 03:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Accusations of sexual abuse of daughter Dylan

Also in 1992, during a protracted legal battle following the revelation of Allen's affair with Soon-Yi, Farrow accused Allen of sexually abusing their seven-year-old adopted daughter Dylan. The case never went to trial and Allen was never indicted.

Farrow claimed to have seen Allen masturbating over Dylan. During three weeks of interviews Dylan said that Allen had inserted his right index finger into her vagina and kissed her "all over".

During the investigation Allen hired a team of private detectives to "get some dirt" on the investigative team. One of their targets was Sgt. John Mucherino. The investigators wanted to know if Mucherino was a drinker or gambler, and if he had any marital problems. Some of the detectives were former police officers who were friends with Mucherino.[5]

Prosucutor Frank Maco said he had evidence to charge Allen, but would not do so for Dylan's sake. Of Dylan, Maco said "I saw complete withdrawal any time I tried to discuss the incident. This was complete withdrawal and regression. At the time she was so fragile and damaged I knew she would not be a good witness. I knew she needed healing. I was not going to interfere with her recovery."

Allen subsequently filed a complaint against Maco, which was dismissed.[6].

In Dylan's custody trial, which Allen eventually lost, psychologist Susan Coates testified that Allen's relationship with Dylan was "inappropriately intense", but that she never observed Allen acting in a sexual way toward Dylan.

Coates also reported that a 1990 evaluation of Dylan said Dylan would easily be "taken over by fantasy".

As to Farrow, Coates said she was convinced that she might harm herself or Allen. Farrow had made angry phone calls and given Allen a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children. Coates said "I understood from Mr. Allen that Miss Farrow had repeatedly called him and said that she thought he should be dead, that she wanted to kill him". Farrow says the Valentine was not a threat, it was "an attempt to depict to a man who didn't know or didn't care what he had done."

Coates described Farrow's phone call to her reporting the allegations of abuse as puzzlingly calm.[7]

Allen is barred from unsupervised visits with his biological children.

Some of these events echo the plotline of Allen's Husbands and Wives, released at the time of the legal battle In that film, Woody and Mia play a couple whose decade-long relationship is falling apart, with Woody's character becoming attracted to one of his college-age students. Farrow discusses the events in What Falls Away: A Memoir, ISBN 0385471874.

Umlaut

While the Germans spell Konigsberg with an umlaut, Americans don't. In semi-official Allen biographies the umlaut is now used. The umlaut is silly and pretentious.Dinopup 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

psychoanalysis

is it not fair to say that Woody Allen was influenced by Freud's psychoanalysis? Is it possible that we make one reference to this influence?

JMJ

I just don't think it belongs in that particular sentence with "literature, philosophy, and New York City." Why do you think it should be included? Because some of the characters are in analysis? I don't really see any of Freud's ideas explored in the work. Giles22 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In Annie Hall, often considered his magnum opus, psychoanalytic terms are used throughout

JMJ

It just seems a little strange to me to put it there, but if you really feel strongly about it, go ahead and put it in. Giles22 19:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel that since Woody Allen spent a few years in psychoanalysis and since he seems to make reference to psychoanalytic themes it is worth mentioning. But instead of psychoanalysis i have used psychology - do you feel this word sits better?

JMJ

Psychoanalysis is fine to include in the article, but combining it with "draws on" is problematic. Can you write what you've written above -- that he was in psychoanalysis and makes reference to it in the films -- and put that in the article? He probably does "draw on" it (spend a few years in therapy and I guess it will effect your outlook) but it would be better if d have to find some independent analysis saying so.

Justforasecond 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to make any large changes on this page, firstly because there is no obvious space to enter this infomation and secondly because you seem happy to take control of the page. I am glad that it has come to our attention that "psychoanalysis" needs to be mentioned somewhere.

Here is a quote from the BBC news website:

It is common knowledge that Woody Allen spent years in psychoanalysis, although, he says: "After eight years, I got up from the couch one day and offered my analyst a draw. We shook hands." unsigned comment

Psychoanalysis section added Justforasecond 16:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Atheist?

On 2005-12-20, 65.185.213.33 added Category:Atheists to this article. Shortly before that, s/he had added Category:Pantheists to several other biographical articles, in no case providing supporting evidence. It looks suspicious to me. Anyone agree? Charivari 08:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.[6] Justforasecond 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That satirical quote doesn't really prove anything. It is a joke. Giles22 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could help out by doing a little research instead of just claiming everything else has lousy sources/doesn't prove anything/was never claimed by mia publicly.

Woody Allen is a reluctant (he hopes there is a God) but pessimistic (he doubts there is) agnostic[7]

"I was unmoved by the synagogue, I was not interested in the Seder, I was not interested in the Hebrew school, I was not interested in being Jewish," Woody says. "It just didn't mean a thing to me. I was not ashamed of it nor was I proud of it. It was a nonfactor to me. I didn't care about it. It just wasn't my field of interest. I cared about baseball, I cared about movies. To be a Jew was not something that I felt 'Oh, God, I'm so lucky.' Or 'Gee, I wish I were something else.' I certainly had no interest in being Catholic or in any of the other Gentile religions."'[8] Justforasecond 17:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In many cases (check with Google) Allen has said he is an agnostic. So, why is he in the Atheists category? Many agnostics feel this is relevant. Also, since Allen is quite a philosopher, his words often need some interpretation. 213.243.160.111 10:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

extended quote removed

i removed a fairly long quote from woody in the 2000s section. it's better to pick out the relevant parts of longer quotes and summarize them. Justforasecond 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip. I'll try to find the time this week to do that. --Dogbreathcanada 21:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

to add more info about woody allen

he is a musician too. here is his band webpage: http://www.woodyallenband.com/flash_index.html

I have heard reference to "Woody Allen's only appearance in a sitcom" referring to Just Shoot Me. I have little info since it's been a long while, but I am certain there was a Woody Allen sitcom in the '70's. Starred Woody as loosely himself, Louise Sorel as his wife, and Marty Brill as the next-door neighbor. None of this is on IMDB either! Can anyone flesh this out and also update IMDB?

cjl

)

Filmography

I think we should add a filmography to this page, they are pretty helpful for browsing/navigating purposes. If there are no objections I'm going to add one in the next few days. Estrose 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor Revision

This page needs a lot of work, but I removed a line from the subsection on his relationship with Farrow alluding to the plot of Manhattan, which seems to me pretty much irrelevant for one, and a clearly biased point of view, for another. It was, after all, the last sentence in the section, which seems to encourage readers to make a connection between fictional Tracy and Farrow's allegation of child abuse.

Themightybotox 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits by User:Justforasecond

I strenously object to your additions to this article. This topic is already sufficiently described without going into heavily biased and highly speculative details of a sole article - claims that even MIA FARROW herself did not make.Giles22 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Strenuously object? None of these details are speculative. A police detective and the well known Connecticut Magazine are cited here....both perfectly valid sources. Apologies about the lack of references to source material -- Giles stripped them out a while back. Justforasecond 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the earlier comments in this talk page.Giles22 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Giles, no other editors with this article on their watchlist thought this information unworthy. The consensus is to keep it in. I don't know why you are so intent on keeping things out unless "MIA FARROW" has said them, but if you insist, yes Mia did claim that Woody had abused Dylan. Reputable sources are used here and there is no speculation -- just content from the magazine. Justforasecond 23:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Freud

Ought Woody Allen to be categorised as a "Freudian"? Does he really adhere to Freud's theories or is it always tongue-in-cheek when he uses Freud in his movies?

new free image of Woody Allen

Sulpture of Woody Allen in Uviéu (Asturias - Spain)

Image:Estatua Woody Allen en Oviedo.jpg

I am just curious as to why they have a statue of him at Oviedo. Do they have statues of other famous people? Or, is Woody Allen really big there? -- Abid Ahmed 18:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be the French love affair with Jerry Lewis -- inexplicable. Justforasecond 19:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the only one famous that have a statue in Uviéu--Mikel 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It was built in his honor in 2002 when Allen won the Prince of Asturias Arts Prize

Protected

Please work out your differences. And remember to source assertions of fact, particularly those that could be considered defamatory. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 14:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations available

Here are the citations necessary for un-protection. Justforasecond 19:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC

These are all peoples' opinions; they can't be presented as fact and then slap an inline link up there as your justification. For instance, the magazine article says that a babysitter saw him masturbating over Dylan. Your text here says Farrow claimed to have seen him masturbating over Dylan. So not only is this information not properly couched or attributed (According to Magazine X, a babysitter claimed to have seen Allen masturbating over Dylan), it's factually incorrect if you're using this source to support it. We can't be sloppy about claims like this. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's fix it then. All we have to do is change "Farrow claims to have seen X" to "Babysitter says she saw X". Sound good? Justforasecond 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fix the rest of it, too; I sampled one reference and one assertion and haven't looked at any of the others, all of which need better attribution and couching. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of sexual abuse of daughter Dylan

Also in 1992, during a protracted legal battle following the revelation of Allen's affair with Soon-Yi, Farrow accused Allen of sexually abusing their seven-year-old adopted daughter Dylan. The case never went to trial and Allen was never indicted.

Farrow claimed to have seen Allen masturbating over Dylan. During three weeks of interviews Dylan said that Allen had inserted his right index finger into her vagina and kissed her "all over".

During the investigation Allen hired a team of private detectives to "get some dirt" on the investigative team. One of their targets was Sgt. John Mucherino. The investigators wanted to know if Mucherino was a drinker or gambler, and if he had any marital problems. Some of the detectives were former police officers who were friends with Mucherino.[9]

Prosucutor Frank Maco said he had evidence to charge Allen, but would not do so for Dylan's sake. Of Dylan, Maco said "I saw complete withdrawal any time I tried to discuss the incident. This was complete withdrawal and regression. At the time she was so fragile and damaged I knew she would not be a good witness. I knew she needed healing. I was not going to interfere with her recovery."

Allen subsequently filed a complaint against Maco, which was dismissed.[10].

In Dylan's custody trial, which Allen eventually lost, psychologist Susan Coates testified that Allen's relationship with Dylan was "inappropriately intense", but that she never observed Allen acting in a sexual way toward Dylan.

Coates also reported that a 1990 evaluation of Dylan said Dylan would easily be "taken over by fantasy".

As to Farrow, Coates said she was convinced that she might harm herself or Allen. Farrow had made angry phone calls and given Allen a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children. Coates said "I understood from Mr. Allen that Miss Farrow had repeatedly called him and said that she thought he should be dead, that she wanted to kill him". Farrow says the Valentine was not a threat, it was "an attempt to depict to a man who didn't know or didn't care what he had done."

Coates described Farrow's phone call to her reporting the allegations of abuse as puzzlingly calm.[11]

Allen is barred from unsupervised visits with his biological children.

Some of these events echo the plotline of Allen's Husbands and Wives, released at the time of the legal battle In that film, Woody and Mia play a couple whose decade-long relationship is falling apart, with Woody's character becoming attracted to one of his college-age students. Farrow discusses the events in What Falls Away: A Memoir, ISBN 0385471874.

These are not first hand accounts. You quote an editorial that speculates on events that happen and report these events as fact on wikipedia. This is intellectually dishonest. Get some reputable sources! Not blogs! Not editorials! Why do you think that there aren't any? Why do you think you are reduced to citing this gossip piece/editorial ad nauseum? Because this wasn't reported anywhere. You are putting far too much credibility into a single piece in order to broadcast this as "fact" on wikipedia. This flimsy argument that you are using to support your personal campaign against Woody Allen is getting very old and tiresome. The fact that Woody was accused has been documented in the article. Woody was never even INDICTED, let alone tried. If this wasn't good enoguh for a Grand Jury, why in the world should in be reported in Wikipedia as FACT?!Giles22 19:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Settle down, Giles. This comes from police detective Frank Maco and the reputable Connecticut magazine. At wikipedia, this is considered an encyclopedic source and we have no reason to question it. Wikipedia never takes a stand on what is true in cases like this, the best we can do is summarize what is reported and include citations to what sources are available. Justforasecond 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take your witch-hunt elsewhere. Your red-faced huffing and puffing and continuous citing to some unverifiable allegations in an obscure publication and and article that's a 9 years old is getting very tiring indeed. How about starting your own gossip blog? That would be more appropriate then trying to insert this into an online encyclopedia. Giles22 01:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks Giles. Justforasecond 01:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Giles makes an interesting point. Did he actually just say that the opinion of a grand jury is worth less then what wikipedia has written? Happyfish 13:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I haven't seen anything from Giles here in a while, I guess we can unblock the page and get back to editing. Kate, please do the honors. Justforasecond 16:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless consensus is reached, and I mean a REAL consensus, this slanderous, unverifiable gossip will not reenter the article. At least not on my watch. I solicit comments from other users.Giles22 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's all verifiable, Giles. Please show your willingness to reach consensus, you don't own the article. Justforasecond 22:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the idea of moving some of the material to a seperate article discussing the allegations (but still I would insist on only including what is actually verifiable).Giles22 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see you've become civil and returned to the table, Giles. They are already verifiable. We can move these to a separate article with a shorter summary here, but let's also move the movies off to a separate article. The movies take up much more space. Justforasecond 18:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Shouldn't the thrust of the article be "Woody Allen, the film director" as opposed to "Woody Allen: The target of some obscure pedophelia innuendo launched by a sole, regional Connecticut publication?"Giles22 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Woody Allen, not "Woody Allen, the film director". The film section is pretty long though, so we should probably break it off. Justforasecond 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

personal attack removed

Justforasecond is playing games, and his attempt to turn this article into a condemnation of Woody Allen is transparent and laughable. One look at his user page shows he has an axe to grind with Woody Allen, and he'd like to do it here. One would be hard-pressed to find a more unintentionally hilarious line than "the reputable Connecticut magazine." Giles22 is trying to make this an encyclopedic article, and Justforasecond is trying to make it a POV screed, citing allegations in a domestic custody trial as encyclopedic fact. It's not gonna happen. Eleemosynary 12:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and follow wikipedia policies, Eleemosynary. Wikithuggery is unwelcome here. Justforasecond 22:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Not gonna work. Your game-playing, vandalism, and obstruction have been exposed. Lectures on "civility" by vandals will be ignored. Eleemosynary 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wake me when he's gone, please. Justforasecond 02:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. I'll be hanging around, reverting your vandalism, in order to bring this article to an encyclopedic standard, which has been agreed upon by consensus. Eleemosynary 04:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get how you can cite just one publication to take a stand on a controversial topic about a very public person such as Woody Allen. I would think if Allen was truly involved in something as disgusting as pedophilia, publications such as NY Times, Post and others would have something to report on that. So, can we just get on with it, and unprotect this article. I also would like to thank users like Giles22 and Eleemosynary for their effort. -- Abid Ahmed 00:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Connecticut Magazine is a highly respected publication and an encyclopedic source. I'm sure if these details were libelous Woody would have said something or sued...but he didn't. Justforasecond 16:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and perhaps acting foolishly to jump into this debate. I was surprised to see that there was so much intense debate that the page needed to be protected. IMHO, the specific details of these sexual abuse allegations aren't relevant to this entry. If the particular allegations were widely reported and/or the subject of a legal proceeding, it would. If a user feels that the allegations deserve greater attention/investigation, Wikipedia is not the place for that.

Can we move on?

I think the section on Soon-Yi needs work:

The revelation had a very negative impact on Allen's reputation and career[citation needed], and for several years, he subsequently had mediocre success at the box office, until his 2005 film Match Point.::

No doubt Allen's scandalous relationship with Soon-Yi hurt his reputation, though it seems a stretch to so strongly connect this with his box office failures. A lot of those movies received poor reviews and even the good ones seemed unlikely to capture a wide audience (Deconstructing Harry, Sweet and Lowdown, Everyone Says I Love You).

In a 2005 Vanity Fair interview, Allen described their relationship as having a "more paternal feeling."::

The whole "paternal feeling" comment seems inappropriate. Is it necessary to really further attempt to characterize the relationship after already explaining its context?

Allen's movies after 1999 have included Melinda and Melinda and The Curse of the Jade Scorpion. ::

This is random and if these films are to be included in this makeshift filmography, they ought to have some kind of explanation justifying it.

And, finally, that section on the 2002 academy awards needs a cite. Here's one from E! Online It notes his distaste for the awards show... - Krwarnke 20:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"IMHO, the specific details of these sexual abuse allegations aren't relevant to this entry. If the particular allegations were widely reported and/or the subject of a legal proceeding, it would. If a user feels that the allegations deserve greater attention/investigation, Wikipedia is not the place for that." Wow, what a great point! Especially for a newbie. I agree with him 100%. As for [Justforasecond] and his dislike for Woody Allen, I browsed to his userpage where I noted his mention of Soon-Yi as Allen's step-daughter. Of course, we all know that Soon-Yi isn't actually his step daughter because he and Farrow never married, and he never adopted Soon-Yi. Clearly his facts are not to be trusted. Also, IMHO, just because one or two magazines write articles are not enough justifiable evidence for something to be fact. People lie all the time. When it comes to something like this the only facts that can be trusted are official news sources, offical press releases from the person themself, or police evidence. Anything else should not be considered "factual references". If that were the case, we could find lots of evidence to prove all sorts of things about George W. Bush. Vanity Fair slams him in almost every issue, but that doesn't mean they're correct.:: ehmjay 20:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember to remain civil Ehmjay -- "Clearly his facts are not to be trusted" could be construed as a personal attack. Thanks! Justforasecond 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember to remain civil [User]-- lol, this is getting really old on this particular page. I think he's merely mentioning your "personal vendetta" against Woody Allen, probably evident by statements like this "later movies have mostly been losers (with a recent overrated but bearable exception)" on your user page. And, concerning the comment below, i have a slight suspicion that Allen ever heard of or read that magazine, so he never bothered suing them -- who knows. Anyways, we should and shall remain civil... -- Abid Ahmed 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Woody a stepfather?

Friends, as I've said elsewhere on this page, please read the definition of stepfather. (wife OR partner has child from previous relationship) You need not be married to be a stepfather and Woody is indeed Soon-Yi's stepfather.

Connecticut magazine is a well-respected and Encyclopedic source. If you like, feel free to put "According to Connecticut magazine..." in front of anything from that publication, but there are no grounds to accuse the magazine of lying. Official press releases from Woody himself are far less likely to be true. Who hasn't seen a CEO saying he's innocent or an athlete claiming he's never used steroids? The difference is when a magazine lies about someone, they open themselves up to lawsuits, while an individual's press release about his own conduct cannot. Think about the wikipercussions if it was legitimate to go to every article strip out cited information with the explanation being "people lie all the time"

Anyway, if it were me and Connecticut magazine published information saying I had molested my daughter I would sue them for every cent they were worth. But that's just me. Who knows how Woody's mind works? Justforasecond 00:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe you would think that it's best to drop the whole thing and not expose your daughter to what would certainly be a long and painful legal process. But hey, who knows how your mind works? If I may add my two cents here: Justforasecond you are facing what seems to be a concensus that your accusations have no place in this article.Pascal.Tesson 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that Woody is SoonYi's stepfather? Justforasecond 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say such a thing? What I am denying is your right to rewrite parts of the Woody Allen entry using a single obscure reference to accusations of child molestation when no criminal charges were brought against the man. Pascal.Tesson 03:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I just want the stepfather question out of the way. Thanks.

For the molestation charges, Connecticut magazine is an encyclopedic source. It isn't a blog or some homegrown conspiracy theory website. It's been around for a long time, has a decent circulation. Really just a run of the mill magazine. Justforasecond 04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

Okay, I've done some research and come up with the following proposed resolution to our Woody Allen Sex Abuse Allengations issue.

I propose a section entitled, "Custody Battle and Sex Abuse Allegations" or something of the sort. It would fit after the section on Soon-Yi Previn (which I still maintain requires clean-up).

Here's the text:

After Allen and Farrow separated, a long, public legal battle for the custody of Dylan, Moses, and Seamus began. Allen sued in the Connecticut State Supreme Court for sole custody of all three children. Farrow sued in a Surrogate's Court to void Allen's adoption of Moses and Dylan. During the proceedings, Farrow alleged that Allen had sexually molested their adopted daughter Dylan, who was then seven-years old.

In March 1993, a team of investigators from Yale-New Haven Hospital concluded that Dylan had not been sexually abused. The report did say, however, that both Allen and Farrow had, according to The New York Times, “disturbed relations” with Dylan. Farrow's lawyer responded that the report was “incomplete and inaccurate.” [Henneberger, Melinda. “Connecticut Prosecutor Won't File Charges Against Woody Allen,” The New York Times, September 25, 1993.]

Farrow won the custody battle and Allen was only granted sharply limited visitation rights. The judge said the sex abuse charges were inconclusive [Brozan, Nadine. “Chronicle,” The New York Times, May 13, 1994] and labeled Allen's conduct with Dylan as “grossly inappropriate.”[Henneberger]

In October of that year, New York State child welfare investigators dropped their inquiry when they too concluded charges were unfounded. One month later Farrow dropped the sex abuse charges saying she did so for her daughter's sake. Kennedy, Randy. [“Woody Allen Fails to Beat a Prosecutor,” The New York Times, November 4, 1993.]

While Allen was appealing the verdict of the custody case, the Connecticut state prosecutor, Frank Maco, publicly maintained that he had “probable cause” for charging Allen and said he felt he could prove to a jury that Allen was guilty. He then passed on a copy of his comments to the court hearing the ongoing battle to void Allen's adoption. [Thibault, Andy. “Woody, Mia, and Frank Maco,” Connecticut Magazine, April 1997; Perez-Pina, Richard. “Panel Criticizes Prosecutor in Inquiry on Woody Allen,” The New York Times, February 24, 1994.]

Allen filed a complaint alleging that Maco's comments and actions portrayed him as guilty without allowing him a trial to clear his name, and could inappropriately influence the ongoing case. The prosecutor was criticized, though neither censured nor disbarred, by a Statewide Grievance committee for his comments.[Ibid.]

--Krwarnke 07:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This looks pretty good to me. Justforasecond 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that child welfare investigators of the New York state Department of Social Services looked into these charges and concluded "No credible evidence was found that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated. This report has, therefore, been considered unfounded." (New York Times, Oct.27 1993.) Pascal.Tesson 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So, according to New York State child welfare investigators & NY Times, if i understand correctly, the child was never sexually abused by Woody Allen, may be mistreated but not sexually abused her parent(s). Krwarnke -- the piece you wrote is very well written and informative, but i was wondering if it's a bit too long for an alleged crime. Should we start a new entry for this? Great work. -- Abid Ahmed 16:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the prosecutor, Frank Maco, there was probable cause for charging Allen and a jury would have found Allen guilty, and Allen's conduct weighed on the decision to deny him custody of his children (other than his stepdaughter Soon-Yi who was over 18 by this point). I think this is probably about the right length, but maybe its a little on the short side -- it leaves out some of the important details that Maco described. One part of the article we could cut back on is the movies section. This is not just a filmography, its about Woody Allen the man. Justforasecond 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No. The New York State child welfare investigators concluded that the child had been neither mistreated nor abused. Furthermore, the fact that Frank Maco thought that he could convince a jury does not make Allen guilty or deserving of slanderous allegations. Justforasecond, why are you on such a mission? Cutting the Woody Allen entry in the movies section is non-sense: the only reason that Woody Allen has a Wikipedia entry is his work as a director. The gossip and rumours about his personnal life have no relevance here. Pascal.Tesson 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Justforasecond. In my mind this is probably somewhat long (especially for an encyclopedia article), but it's balanced and would seem to assuage all users concerns. I ask that we all come to an agreement here and move away from trying to assert Allen's guilt or innocence. He has never been tried or convicted for any of these allegations and two separate investigations did not result in any charges. It is not the job of Wikipedians to determine Allen's guilt or innocence.

Having said that, I feel that these details of his personal life (as I have described them) are relevant, as Allen's split with Farrow was very public and nasty, featuring serious allegations.

A shorter version? If all users agree, here is a somewhat shorter version of the proposed resolution. (I haven't added all cites yet.)

update: now added.

After Allen and Farrow separated, a long, public legal battle for the custody of Dylan, Moses, and Seamus began. During the proceedings, Farrow alleged that Allen had sexually molested their adopted daughter Dylan, who was then seven-years old.

In 1993 two separate child welfare investigations concluded that Dylan had not been sexually abused. One report did, however, suggest that both parents had "disturbed relations" with the child.[Henneberger, Melinda. “Connecticut Prosecutor Won't File Charges Against Woody Allen,” The New York Times, September 25, 1993; Brozan, Nadine. “Chronicle,” The New York Times, May 13, 1994.]

Farrow won the custody battle and Allen was only granted sharply limited visitation rights. The judge said the sex abuse charges were inconclusive [Brozan] but did label Allen's conduct with Dylan as “grossly inappropriate.”[Henneberger]

In November 1993, Farrow dropped the sex abuse charges saying she did so for her daughter's sake. The Connecticut state prosecutor, Frank Maco, publicly maintained that he had "probable cause" for charging Allen and said he felt he could prove to a jury that Allen was guilty.[Kennedy, Randy. “Woody Allen Fails to Beat a Prosecutor,” The New York Times, November 4, 1993; Thibault, Andy. “Woody, Mia, and Frank Maco,” Connecticut Magazine, April 1997] These comments drew criticism, particuarly since Allen was never charged with a crime, and was appealing for custody rights. Perez-Pina, Richard. “Panel Criticizes Prosecutor in Inquiry on Woody Allen,” The New York Times, February 24, 1994.

-Krwarnke 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

updated: -Krwarnke 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't bad, and certainly is more fair in the characterization of the issue.Giles22 17:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work Krwanrnke, but I still have a few concerns. For one, you seem to be missing the article [Panel Criticizes Prosecutor In Inquiry on Woody Allen, NYTimes, Feb24th 1994] which reports that a disciplinary committee found Maco's handling of the case a "cause for grave concern", although it also concluded Maco had not violated the state's code of conduct per se. Also, I am worried about the perception of the phrases "grossly inappropriate" and "disturbed relations" when taken out of context. Pascal.Tesson 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Pascal.Tesson. That article criticizing Maco does so for Maco's saying he had "probable cause" for charging Allen. It is implied under "these comments drew criticism." As for those phrases, they are ambiguous, which is just how the media described those conclusions and all the information I currently am aware of. It seems fair to note that both the judge and the report did express different levels of concern about Allen's behavior. -Krwarnke 17:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the following:

After Allen and Farrow separated, a long, public legal battle for the custody of Dylan, Moses, and Seamus began. During the proceedings, Farrow alleged that Allen had sexually molested their adopted daughter Dylan, who was then seven-years old.

In 1993 two separate child welfare investigations concluded that Dylan had not been sexually abused. One report did, however, suggest that both parents had "disturbed relations" with the child.[Henneberger, Melinda. “Connecticut Prosecutor Won't File Charges Against Woody Allen,” The New York Times, September 25, 1993; Brozan, Nadine. “Chronicle,” The New York Times, May 13, 1994.]

Farrow won the custody battle and Allen was only granted sharply limited visitation rights. The judge said the sex abuse charges were inconclusive [Brozan].

In November 1993, Farrow dropped the sex abuse charges saying she did so for her daughter's sake. The Connecticut state prosecutor, Frank Maco, publicly maintained that he had "probable cause" for charging Allen and said he felt he could prove to a jury that Allen was guilty.[Kennedy, Randy. “Woody Allen Fails to Beat a Prosecutor,” The New York Times, November 4, 1993; Thibault, Andy. “Woody, Mia, and Frank Maco,” Connecticut Magazine, April 1997] These comments drew criticism from a Connecticut disciplinary committee, particuarly since Allen was never charged with a crime, and was appealing for custody rights. Perez-Pina, Richard. “Panel Criticizes Prosecutor in Inquiry on Woody Allen,” The New York Times, February 24, 1994.

I am fine with Krwarnke's first post. As a relative outsider new to the page, my assumption is that he's weighed both sides and the language seems remarkably fair. I don't support the other proposed changes which strike me as attempts to shorten the info. Justforasecond 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the changes work well and present the information in a less biased, more balanced, and more encylopedic fashion. Giles22 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond, what important information do you feel was included in my original post that has been excluded from the most recent version? The issue here, after all, should not be about length but about content. I prefer the shorter version because this is an encyclopedia article and the differences from the first draft to the most recent serve to simplify the situation. (Less about the dual court cases, less about Maco, a more condensed timeline). -Krwarnke 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was fine with the first one. This one looks mostly OK. I'm just wary of whittling this down when there's little effort to whittle trivia like Woody's 2002 visit to Los Angeles or statements like "Allen seems to be reinvigorated by the change of scenery [in the UK]" Justforasecond 20:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the latest edit by Krwarnke is just fine. The most important thing was to make it concise and not leave out any important information. People that are interested in reading more about the allegations etc. can just refer to links posted right next to the article. Now, onto more "important things", Allen's visit to the oscar is very important as he is one of the biggest critic of the awarding of fellow workers, and he has mentioned it through his characters many times in his films (and publicly of course). Obviously, it is not as important as Polanski being absent from the Oscars, but it is certainly notable because his appearance (in support of the City of New York) only strenghtens the fact that people forgot their differences during that period to do whatever that helps the city and its people. And, Match Point is certainly Woody Allen's biggest hit and strongest film in more than a decade. And, it is important in some aspects to note that setting his movies in London rather than NYC, as many crtics have pointed out. And it's obvious that Woody has taken a liking to london since his next film is also set there. -- Abid Ahmed 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that Allen showing up at an awards ceremony is more important than charges he molested his daughter. It's fine to mention that Match Point was filmed in the UK, but that Allen is "reinvigorated by the change in scenery" is POV and unverifiable. Ah well. At leat the page is unlocked for now. Thanx to Giles for getting it locked to the wrong version, and thanks to Krwarnke for getting it unlocked. Justforasecond 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad if i wasn't clear. Showing up at the Oscars is probably not as important, and thats why it's a shorter article and at the bottom of the page. "seems to be reinvigorated" it says - so i guess that esxplains that. Happy Editing -- Abid Ahmed 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Per a requested at WP:RfPP, I've unprotected this article. Hopefully you've been able to resolve your dispute and will refrain from edit-warring, but if not, I have the article watchlisted and will reprotect at the first sign of an edit war. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers -- Abid Ahmed 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits on Allen's 2000 films

The section on Allen's 2000 films is sprawling and I propose cutting it down. The long quote is nice, but it's not very readable and probably is best summarized and linked to. The references to Curse and Melinda and Melinda seem random and I've removed them here. My proposed edit:

After a number of films that floundered with critics and at the box office, Match Point (2005) was one of Allen's most successful films in the past 10 years. The film, set in London, starred starred Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and Scarlett Johansson. It earned more than $23 million domestically (more than any of his films in nearly 20 years [12]) and was nominated for an Academy Award. In an interview with Premiere Magazine, Allen stated this was the best film he has ever made.

Allen, well-known for his love of New York, is in post-production on another film set in London, Scoop, starring Hugh Jackman, Ian McShane, Kevin McNally and Johansson. He recently announced that he was in pre-production for a third film there as well[1].

Critical of the American film industry, Allen said, “I'm happy to work in London, because I'm right back in the same kind of liberal creative attitude that I'm used to." [2] European audiences have tended to be more receptive to Allen's films, particularly France, a country where he has a large fan base. He himself has said that he "survives" on the European market.

Also, can we edit/archive this talk page... it's way too long-Krwarnke 00:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however, i think we might as well keep the references to Curse and Melinda and Melinda for now. Getting rid of and summarizing that quote is a very good idea. -- Abid Ahmed 02:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I kinda like having the whole talk page in one place, but this de-protection seems to be marking a new chapter in Woody's article...archival could be appropriate. Justforasecond 03:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Italic text