Talk:Woody Allen/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Separate section for Dylan Farrow allegations?

There seems to be general agreement as to the wording, the three sentences I added, but not to whether there should be a separate section. I originally made it a separate section but it was reverted, and I was OK with that. Now it's been restored. Discuss? Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll go first: No separate subsection at present. I think that we should monitor the situation and make it a separate section only if developments warrant. Right now, given the length of Woody Allen's career, I think it smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Not subsection quality: Allegations relating to bitter family conflicts and breakups should be handled extra carefully, even if one party to the dispute gets their letter published. Promoting it to a section would get too close to potentially violating a number of BLP guidelines and general moral and legal issues:
  • Giving it a section gets close to self publishing a claim against a third party;
  • It copies tabloid style reporting of allegations and gossip to attract readers, ie. National Enquirer or Daily Mail;
  • It promotes one party's allegation as the primary reason for its own section;
  • It helps promote Trial by media, giving an allegation more prominence, which will affect a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law;
  • It makes WP join the Media circus;
  • Promoting the allegation will lead to gradual expansion of private life material, counter-disputes, etc. and will be nearly impossible to keep neutral. Suggest keeping WP on the high ground.--Light show (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Definitely not, as discussed above. --John (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • My opinion: Revise the entire "Marriages, children and romantic relationships" Section. I feel like we're unhappily stuck between "put this sentence somewhere illogical, but less prominent" and "put this sentence somewhere logical, but more prominent". If we could reframe this whole section to be less defined by romantic relationships - for example, breaking it into decades/eras instead of wives/girlfriends - then it would no longer be weird to have Dylan's information lumped in with Mia's, it would be more flexible for future developments, and it wouldn't require a separate section about the allegations. Thoughts? (And thanks to Coretheapple for initiating this.) 173.239.141.98 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
As an end-user if I am interested in learning about his personal life, I'm thinking I'd find it more useful to see it organized by "who and what" (as it is now), rather than "when". It also seems to me to be easier to get a good quick overview of the man and the content in the sections with headings named after people and activities, rather than years. Marteau (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes to a Dylan Farrow sub-sub-section. As others have pointed out, having her under the heading of "Mia Farrow" is bizarre. A chronological listing also to me seems unnatural and I would not recommend. Either the material belongs here or it does not. If it does, I am in support of sub-sub-sectioning her issues as it seems more logical and readable for the end-user. Marteau (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a casual reader of this page, not someone with a strong opinion on whether the Dylan Farrow allegations are true or not, I find it extraordinarily strange (creepy, even) that allegations of sexual abuse would fall under a heading called, "Marriages, children and romantic relationships." I came to the talk page to understand why it was there. I've read the preceding debate about neutrality and balance, but I think you've gone too far in seeking that and have left the reader with the impression that the allegations are not credible. The sentences themselves aren't the problem, it's the fact that you've worked so hard to bury them in this sub-sub-sub section. Reading the debate here actually leads me to believe that the editors do not, in fact, believe the allegations to be credible: "Allegations relating to bitter family conflicts and breakups," "reporting of allegations and gossip," "even if one party to the dispute gets their letter published," etc. These aren't allegations about a family dispute, they are specific and detailed first-person allegations about sexual assault made by an adult. The letter was referenced in the New York Times, not a tabloid (the full letter was in the blog, but both the blog and Kristof's column itself have to meet some pretty high journalistic standards). No one will ever know whether the allegations are true or not, but they are certainly not going away. They are a real, important fact of Allen's life -- very important for some readers -- that needs to be treated seriously.

I think a good case was made above for pulling this out from under the Mia Farrow section and would support that change. Another suggestion would be simply to remove the sub-heading, "Marriages, children and romantic relationships," from the "personal life" section and make each sub-sub-heading it's own more descriptive sub-heading and provide a new one there for Dylan Farrow (does that make sense?). So it would go: (heading) Personal Life --> (sub-headings) Marriage to Harlene Rosen, Marriage to Louise Lasser, etc. Relationship with Mia Farrow, Controversy with Dylan Farrow (or something else similarly descriptive), etc. Clarinetist, Psychoanalysis.

Thanks for considering my input. 66.208.21.162 (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Elizabeth

Hi, I actually think your idea (retitling the subheadings) makes a lot of sense. Just wanted to say that. 199.119.232.238 (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand your position. However, we are restrained by policy when it comes to allegations quite as serious as this, in which Allen has not been convicted and indeed in which were investigated some years ago and not pursued. Keep in mind that this is a man with a career stretching back nearly sixty years. Everything needs to be kept in proportion, and the concern is that a separate section would give excessive "weight" to the allegations.Coretheapple (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the applicable policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No separate subsection, and we ought ought to pull the new material over to this talk page until an appropriate text can be settled on. There are two sides to this story, and backlash is out there to the Farrows' actions [1][2] -- not to mention the hedged speculation about other matters related to the timing of the renewed accusations, coming shortly after Mia Farrow's brother was convicted of child sexual abuse.[3][4] Commentary like this [5] sets forth solid reasons why matters like this should be handled with great care - rather than, as has been happening here, handled hurriedly, in reliance on near-real-time mass media coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
But wouldn't it be counterproductive and actually magnify the whole thing if we discuss the entire debate? Right now we have the allegation and denial, and I think that's the fairest way to deal with it. If we have more text, in my view we run into a "weight" issue, by virtue of going into more detail. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
In any case, per talk page guidelines: Talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article.
The Natalie Wood article section relating to her drowning death could be a useful. The boat's captain published statements a few years ago that much of what he testified thirty years earlier was untrue, and that he intentionally lied to the investigators. His alleged actions made major national news. But it only became worthy of permanent inclusion to the article after the police "reopened" the case based on those allegations. There was also a lot of talk about what to include, since it was a major news story.
After nine months of further police investigation, the case was again closed but with an amendment to the original cause of death. There was never an article section started based on the captain's new allegations, which seemed to imply that homicide might be at issue. WP editors reported the case reopening, findings, and closing, and just let the legal system do its job. --Light show (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anybody violating the talk page guidelines. Coretheapple (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It's just a heads up. --Light show (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
No need for it. Some IPs have come over here, I assume they are casual readers of the encyclopedia, perhaps not steeped in Wikipedia rules, raising fair questions. I don't agree with them, but they're valid questions and suggestions concerning the article. Coretheapple (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there needs to be a debate. Or undue weight. But because so many people are coming to this page to form an opinion, facts need to be extra tight and should reflect the court records and nothing outside of the court records. Farrow did not "win" custody, because she didn't sue for Allen for custody. He sued her for full custody and lost. The Daily Beast article is not an appropriate source of information. It's full of debatable opinions and errors of fact. There should be nothing in here that can be used to support the growing opinion that Wikipedia is biased because it is written by men. It should be just who sued who, who said what and when. User:JulietWaters 3 February 2014 (JulietWaters) —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand and agree with the policy about weight. My perspective is that the controversy is a significant element of the story of his life that merits inclusion here and that omitting it (or "burying" it) is actually more unbalanced than dealing with it completely. Whether the accusations are true or not is irrelevant, what's important is that this is a piece of his story that has remained a topic of controversy for 20 years. Court documents are not the only credible sources. I think the statements made by the judge in the custody case are credible (already included), as are those of the state investigator who said there was "probably cause" to bring charges (the fact that he was later censured is also significant). I'm not sure whether Dylan's "letter" is a credible source or not per WP's policies, but given that she wrote it as an adult, it seems notable. It's not WP's place to draw a conclusion about what's true or not, but to present credible elements of a controversy. I think most of the balanced and complete text is already there, along with reiteration that no charges have ever been filed, but my issue, again, is the fact that it's all weirdly in a Mia Farrow section about a custody battle under a heading generally about his romantic relationships. It doesn't make sense that it's in that section and given that there are multiple third-party statements drawing different conclusions and now a further statement from Dylan herself. It's a topic associated with Allen for the past 20 years and I think it's out of proportion not to deal with it in a more complete way. 66.208.21.162 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Elizabeth

I agree. There is a tendency with Wikipedia editors to position things not to reflect reality, but to reflect policy and often, wishes and desires. "Undue weight" for this is an example. This issue has HUGE weight in regards to Woody Allen's real life. Yet, for various reasons, the consensus desire here is to minimize the "weight" given here... minimize it to a degree not reflected in reality in the real world. In the real world this IS a big deal and has GREAT weight. Should it? Perhaps no. Does it? It sure does. Saying it should not have even a sub-sub-heading, but remain under "Mia Farrow" (or not even be mentioned here at ALL) makes sense only if you are very familiar with Wikiculture. Marteau (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I've waffled on this, originally agreeing that there should be a separate section, but changing my mind. It's a close question. This is one of those situations where good arguments can be made on either side. An RfC may be appropriate to get wider community input, as this is a highly trafficked, high-visibility article. Coretheapple (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Marteau is right, this is a "big deal and has great weight. Should it?" Absolutely, if your livelihood depends on keeping that mass media circus going. Unfortunately, "allegation" is a legal term, and reporting them here is against guidelines. The news-hungry press reprinting a letter by an alleged victim, when it should have first gone through legal channels, undermines everyone's credibility as an end run, and becomes a trial by media. --Light show (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I've not read all this thread, but I wanted to give my opinion - I believe there needs to be more coverage of Dylan Farrow's allegations in the article, especially considering Dylan has no article of her own. If people don't get info from here they're going to get it elsewhere, and at present the article reads like a bit of a Woody Allen fanpage. Shiningroad (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggested edit, Soon-Yi Previn

Regarding this sentence: "Though Allen never married Mia Farrow and was not Previn's legal stepfather, the relationship between Allen and Previn has often been referred to as a stepfather involved romantically with his stepdaughter because she was adopted and legally Farrow's daughter and Allen's son's sister."
I think this needs editing for several reasons.
(a) "has often been referred to as a stepfather involved romantically with his stepdaughter" -- I'm not quite clear what this means to say. The word "referred" does not seem appropriate -- the implication is that they are incorrect (as, legally, it IS incorrect). Perhaps it would be better to say something along the lines of, "Despite the fact that Allen was never legally Previn's stepfather, many believe their relationship to be inappropriate." Or something clearer like that.
(b) "because she was adopted" -- The passive voice here is misleading and makes it seem like Allen adopted her, which is false.
Sorry if somebody else already pointed this one out -- I don't have hours of free time to read the comments. Bobjohnson111980 (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Massive visitation and Woody-Mia correlated audience

There are a strong correlation in the audience of the two articles, see peaks with red numbering: (1) 2014-01-13; (2) 2014-02-02; (3) 2014-02-08.
Source: http://stats.grok.se/

About Wikipedia's audience, we can check the traffic statistics,

The graphics show to us (you can follow the links and explore it changing months) something more: when, in the timeline, a peak of interest by Woody's article is correlated to a peak of interest by Mia's article.

Many Wikipedia readers that read Woody Alen's page, read Mia Farrow's page, and vice-versa: this is a valid hypothesis, attested by the Wikipedia statistics (illustred). And both are significative: both have an average of more than 2,000 pageviews/day, and all illustred peaks have more than 50,000 pageviews at the first day.

The two highest peaks have more than 200,000 pageviews, while the Wikipedia's homepage (one of the most visited pages of the world!), received, in the same period, ~12,000,000 pageviews each day. So, the peaks are near to ~2% of the enteire Wikipedia's audience. It is not a playground, it is a serious content, a serious audience and sensitive exposition for Wikipedia.

Analisyng the 3 peaks:

(1) At 2014-01-13. Woody's peak of ~220,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~6000, ~37 times) and Mia's peak of ~57,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~2500, ~23 times).
When Woody Allen received a Golden Globe award for lifetime achievement (few weeks before Dylan's letter), "there was a lively debate about whether it was appropriate to honor a man who is an artistic giant but also was accused [by Mia] years ago of child molestation", [6]. So, this "lively debate" explains part of the strong correlation of audiences.
(2) At 2014-02-02. Woody's peak of ~230,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~6000, ~38 times) and Mia's peak of ~145,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~2500, ~58 times).
Was the reaction of one day before's [Dylan Farrow. "An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow". kristof.blogs.nyTimes.com.]
(3) At 2014-02-08. Woody's peak of ~66,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~6000, ~11 times) and Mia's peak of ~61,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~2500, ~24 times).
Was the reaction of the [Woody Allen. "Woody Allen Speaks Out". nyTimes.com/SundayReview.]

Conclusions about correlation:

These two articles, Woody and Mia, can't be treated as "totally isolated contents". The traffic statistics is a good tool to show us when they are correlated: some consistence between articles must be checkd and preserved, and the envolved articles needs to be consolidated in time.

Conclusions about the present debate:

The public of this "real time debate" need to see another opinion, another sources and a "big picture of the facts"... They are looking for it, and they find here at Wikipedia! We need to supply, if possible in "near real time", the sources and the confirmed facts!

Of course, we can't endorse opinions or favor unconfirmed facts, but we can't omit objective facts, even if it is only a line of article's text. Wikipedia reputation relies on its non-biased objectivity, reliability and "big picture of the facts", that public are looking for. See (graphics) the slow decay after peaks: the "memory of the public" viewing pages after events and after all Internet movement... They are looking for response here, we can not hide or omit facts, even in the first days (peak-decay interval): the price (of delay or omission) is too high for Wikipedia in rancked serious articles.

--Krauss (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Of course, we can't endorse opinions or favor unconfirmed facts, but we can't omit objective facts, "
Yes we can, and we do, exclude objective facts, and do it all the time. An encyclopedia is not intended to include ALL information about a subject. It is intended to SUMMARIZE subjects. "An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." WP:NOTEVERYTHING. A simple summary of the Woody Allen/Mia Farrow/Dylan Farrow thing will be sufficient. Cataloging every detail about this is not and should not be the mission here, but a simple overview. Marteau (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I agree (!)... Well, please, allow to express myself better. First, about "objective facts". The objective fact in this particular Woody-Mia-Dylan debate, is not the sexual molestation, but the letter existence, and I think we are in complete agreement about it.
Second, and more important for discussion here, all my talk was not to repeat what Wikipedia is or is not. My point is "what a wikipedist can do fast, just-in-time?". So, hum... It is not trivial, let me dwell on my explanation, creating a subsection for this point. --Krauss (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Tools and recommendations for edit just-in-time

What a wikipedist can do fast, just-in-time?. How muth fast a fact must be posted here? What the problem with "near-real-time mass media coverage"?

In a narrow window of time, when we have time-constraints, not all work can be made, and (far as I know) no Wikipedia principle show the right way. I think the solution is to use the oficial statistcs tool to check what principles are valid for each situation. Examples:

  • Chelyabinsk meteor, December 2010 lunar eclipse, ... or the Dylan's letter. They are events that caused a "near-real-time Wikipedia coverage"! All these events caused a more than 10-times pagiviews in its articles, all with a total of more than 1% of the entire Wikipedia traffic of the day when ocurred. We can say "mega traffic events"... We can also relativise to each particular article's traffic, that is, the article's own "local-mega traffic event", or, simply "a good peak of traffic in the article".
  • Need for information: surprise-meteor, just-now-lunar-eclipse, etc. They are new (traffic/statiscally) relevant facts, that must be noticied just-in-time. Two problems: what is fast enough to say "ok Wikipedia noticied just-in-time"? and what is a "relevant fact"?
    I think fast enough is "as soon as possible for wikipedists on duty". In the examples, some little edits was made in the early hours, and, at the second day after event, all the main points of the "new news" was discussed. About reliability of the information (the event is a objective fact or an Facebook rumor?), I think all good wikipedist that whant "contribute just-in-time", must be able to check primary source (Dylan's letter, NASA technical repport, etc.), to check if he/she is in agree to the cited secondary source.
  • Need just-in-time consensus: to start the "new news" at an article subjected to the "traffic peak event" is not easy, can endanger the Wikipedia's reputation and yours. So, even when you checked sources, etc. you go slow, editing only some lines about the news... And, how to check the consensus? How muth time we need to say "ok, nobody complained, I am at right way and can edit more"??
    I think this "time window for wait endorsement or consensus" can be inferred from its page traffic. Also talk-page traffic: the Talk:Woody_Allen have less than 10 pageviews/day in normal days, but with the February "traffic peak events" it jumps to 100 and 300 pagiveis/day... There are many wikipedist talking these event-days (!).
    Se the 2 February traffic-peak-event here. I added here the line citation at 20:41h of 2 February, and fast, 20:46h, @HullaballooWolfowitz deleted. No problem, he say "NPOV-BLP", but 22:38h I complained here, at talk page. Fast consensus emerged (23:23h a @Coretheapple talk, 01:02h of 3 @FebruaryPatGallacher talk, and 07:19h a @Bellerophon5685 talk). At 08:40h 3 February, @Coretheapple added back my line of fact (Dylan Farrow allegations).
Suggestion of "recipe" or "Rule of thumb", for just-in-time editing at popular articles
  1. Expose the objective fact with one line: one line, one paragraph... Only for add citations and do some article's updating. There are no major risk for Wikipedia. Only wait to others confirm that your source is a good source and your. Wait a time compatible with the traffic statistics (as showd in the example above).
  2. Develop the exposed fact, and/or summarize complementary subjects: as soon as the "exposed fact" has been stabilized, edit to develop it. Again discussions could arise and some wait for consensus is necessary to a large development.

With these simple recommendations (use traffic statistics for check relevance, for check time-window, and use the "recipe" for progressive wait-consensus-and-edit) we not need any new Wikipedia principle to edit just-in-time of the occuring news and traffic-event.

NO New Section On Allegations

The allegations are 20 years old. The case is well documented and was already incorporated in the article under the Mia Farrow section. Nothing has changed. There's no new investigation. What else needs to be mentioned? Saying that recently she renewed her allegations and Allen denied them again? That's all that should be added, this is ridiculous. Dkspartan1 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you weigh in at the "RfC" a few sections above.[7] Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 February 2014

Woody Allen just published a response to the Dylan Farrow allegations in the Sunday New York Times.[8] I think it's imperative that his response be reflected, briefly, in the "Dylan Farrow" subsection. I'd suggest adding the following words, "....and responded in detail in a letter published in The New York Times that he described as his final comment on the subject." Coretheapple (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But I think first we should revert the last edits made by user:Uenuku, who has been reported for edit warring with several editors. His edits didn't even mesh with the reference here. And another edit he's made came directly from a 2013 Vanity Fair story instead of an unbiased news report from 1993 (our original source). I understand the locked version is not an endorsement, but I think we should at least stick to the noncontroversial version. Is there an administrator around here? --Artoasis (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The last sentence in the section already states, "Allen repeated his denial of the allegations, calling them "untrue and disgraceful."[139][140] But we could probably include comments by their son, such as:
"Dylan's older brother, Moses Farrow, stated in an interview, ""Of course Woody did not molest my sister," claiming that their mother "implanted" false memories of child abuse into Dylan as a child. Dylan strongly denies that assertion, however.(ABC News) - --Light show (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The existing sentence is footnoted to a statement released by his lawyers a couple of weeks ago. This is new and detailed. In fairness (sigh) I guess we have to include Dylan's emphatic response to it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It's also questionable whether Dylan, Ronan, and now Moses, need to have their own subsections. I'd remove all subsections for the children. --Light show (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Not done for now: it seems a tad too early for an edit request here. Edit requests are supposed to be used when there is a consensus about what changes to be made to the article, but I'm not seeing a clear consensus for a new wording here quite yet. When such a wording is agreed on, please reopen this request. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, but since this is a BLP, shouldn't we bend over backwards? Coretheapple (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense, considering some facts about the subject have been updated. As it stands, a section is devoted to Dylan's serious allegations, while her brother's, which counter those allegations, are not included. The article therefore implies a bias. If we're going to accept recent citations, then counter-allegations are important. --Light show (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. These are serious charges. He has responded in a very public venue in what he says will be his final word on the matter. We should add a reference to it, lest we be imbalanced. I can't conceive of a final resolution on the wording that doesn't have some reference to his personal response. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
In this situation, "imbalanced" means a non-neutral pov, explained by the guidelines: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. --Light show (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite

Please rewrite this:

By the time he was working for Caesar, he was earning $1,500 a week; with Caesar, he worked alongside Danny Simon, whom Allen credits for helping form his writing style.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

Would like to remove "also" from "Farrow also went to court to have Allen's two adoptions with her nullified." It is a matter of court record that Allen initiated court proceeding by suing for full custody.

As well, this needs a more credible source than the dailybeast article, which is fuzzy with the facts. For instance. The judge never ruled that the sexual molestation investigation was "inconclusive". He wrote "I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse,..." i.e. he wrote that a report that concluded that there was NO sexual abuse was inconclusive. Very different. [1]


JulietWaters (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No comment as to the legal proceeding part, but your interpretation of the judges statement is incorrect I think. The Judge is comparing their own opinion to that of the report, not giving an opinion about the report itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that we should include what the judge said. But he very, very clearly gave negative opinion on the credibility of that report [1]

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-verdict.html

JulietWatersJulietWaters (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - no response from proposer after 12 days - Arjayay (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Dylan Farrow's sexual assault allegations

Closing inre: an WP:ANRFC request. The "amount of detail" question, to some extent, rests on the consensus of whether this topic should be in its own section. So, this becomes complicated because there was no consensus on whether this topic requires its own section in the context of this biography, which means the section will remain as it is for now. "How much detail" lacks some specificity in terms of what details are relevant to add/remove. I think some editors, such as Scholarlyarticles, make a decent case as to why some additional elaboration may be helpful to the extent that the coverage is related to a lasting and demonstrable impact on Allen's biography as opposed to details that are only relevant within the scope of the allegations. Teasing these details apart may not be easy, but I encourage editors to consider information brought up by Scholarlyarticles and Gaijin42 to see what may be appropriate to include under those terms. Furthermore, if there is substantial disagreement as to what is relevant, it may be best to separate these allegations out into a separate article and create a local summary here with a "main article" hatnote in a relevant section. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two separate questions require consideration:

1. How much detail should be given to Dylan Farrow's sexual assault allegations?

2. Do they warrant a separate section?

At the current time, the allegations are covered in the following paragraph at the bottom of the "Mia Farrow" subsection. The first three sentences are preexisting, the final two recently added:

After Allen and Farrow separated, a long public legal battle for the custody of their three children began. During the proceedings, Farrow alleged that Allen had sexually molested their adopted daughter Dylan, who was then seven years old. The police-appointed medical team concluded that Dylan "was not molested", citing contradictory statements by Dylan.[122] The judge eventually found that the sex abuse charges were inconclusive.[123] In February 2014, Dylan Farrow repeated the allegations in an open letter published by Nicholas Kristof, a friend of Mia Farrow, in The New York Times.[124][125][126] Allen strongly denied the charges, calling them "untrue and disgraceful."[127][128]

This is the subject of a discussion in a previous section, but given the high visibility of this article, and the sensitive nature of the publicized allegations, I think that wider community input would be desirable. Coretheapple (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • As I wrote earlier, allegations of sexual abuse by a family member are important in a biography. The allegation and its impact warrant their own section - the issue is completely separate from Allen's relationship with Mia Farrow. To combine them together implies that the allegations are spurious and were invented by Mia and/or Dylan Farrow to direct custody proceedings in Mia Farrow's favour. ~~Uenuku~~
  • Comment I think that more detail and/or a subsection are not warranted at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The word "strongly" in regard to Allen's denial should go per WP:WTW and general encyclopedic style. Dylan's allegations are equally strong, so we shouldn't use the adjective for one of the parties and not the other; but best thing is to avoid the word alltogehter. Since we are briefely quoting Allen "untrue and disgraceful", it might be right to also include a short quote from Dylan. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


  • comment Being published in the NYT tends to lend "weight" to the viewpoints published. In that light, perhaps we should be mentioning that Kristof (the columnist who published the open letter) is a personal friend of Farrow [9], the letter was published in Kristof's blog, not in the NYT proper (as opposed to the column I just linked, which is under the masthead), and the friendship has raised the notice of the NYT editors [10] perhaps we need to think about how to describe the statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • 'additional comments and while on the subject of the NYT, Here are a few more of the stories (not columns actual stories) published on the topic [11] [12] [13] A few choice quotes from the story that we should perhaps be covering if we chose to expand
      • Ms. Farrow conceded that the girl would not tell a doctor of the abuse, and that a medical examination a few days later showed no sign of it.
      • Mr. Allen and his lawyers have suggested that the video, which has many stops and starts, reflects Ms. Farrow's efforts to cajole false answers from the girl. Ms. Farrow said she simply turned the machine on each time Dylan began to talk about the incident.
      • She took Dylan to a doctor the same day the videotape was made, Ms. Farrow recalled. "I think she said he touched her, but when asked where, she just looked around and went like this," she said, patting her shoulder.
      • Four days later, Ms. Farrow took Dylan to another doctor. "There was no evidence of injury to the anal or vaginal area, is that correct?" Mr. Abramowitz asked. "Yes," she said.
      • The doctor who headed the Connecticut investigation into whether Woody Allen molested his 7-year-old daughter, Dylan, theorized that the child either invented the story under the stress of living in a volatile and unhealthy home or that it was planted in her mind by her mother, Mia Farrow, a sworn statement released yesterday says.
      • Regarding the "inconclusive" report - it was inconclusive as to which particular reason we should not believe it, not inconclusive as to if we should believe it or not.
        • Dr. John M. Leventhal, who interviewed Dylan nine times, said that one reason he doubted her story was that she changed important points from one interview to another, like whether Mr. Allen touched her vagina. Another reason, he said, was that the child's accounts had "a rehearsed quality." At one point, he said she told him, "I like to cheat on my stories."
        • Dr. Leventhal said: "We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination
      • A Connecticut prosecutor's handling of a child-molestation complaint against Woody Allen was cause for "grave concern" and may have prejudiced the legal battle between Mr. Allen and Mia Farrow, a disciplinary panel has found.
Note, I am not a particular fan of Woody Allen, his dysfunctional neurotic comedy is not my cup of tea, but we are treading on very serious BLP allegations here, and while this certainly covers WP:WELLKNOWN we need to adhere to policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Doctors cannot always ascertain whether abuse has taken place. It depends on the nature of the abuse among other things.
  • Comment. We need to seriously keep in mind WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not the place to seek justice, expose wrong-doing, change public opinion, or wage public relations battles (see WP:RGW). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; tabloid sensationalism and speculation have no place here. That goes for both sides of the conflict; neither Woody Allen nor Mia Farrow should have their character assassinated. As to whether there should be expanded coverage of the allegations, I have no strong opinions. Perhaps the controversy should be spun off into its own article, where details irrelevant to Woody Allen's life would be on-topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the following quote as it exists here in WP is slanted. It reads:

    After Allen and Farrow separated, a long public legal battle for the custody of their three children began. During the proceedings, Farrow alleged that Allen had sexually molested their adopted daughter Dylan, who was then seven years old. The police-appointed medical team concluded that Dylan "was not molested", citing contradictory statements by Dylan.[122] The judge eventually found that the sex abuse charges were inconclusive.[123] In February 2014, Dylan Farrow repeated the allegations in an open letter published by Nicholas Kristof, a friend of Mia Farrow, in The New York Times.[124][125][126] Allen strongly denied the charges, calling them "untrue and disgraceful."[127][128]

First, the inappropriate contact with Dylan was noted in 1991 well before the separation. Woody Allen was in therapy for it with Dr. Coates before the Farrow/Allen split. Second, the more pointed what-happened-in-the-attic sexual abuse allegation (during the custody fight) was reportedly made by Dylan (NOT Mia) to her pediatrician who then reported it to the police as is mandated by law. Third, the police appointed medical team had some difficulties in their handling of the case as was noted by the custody judge [14].

Finally, I'd like to note that it would likely be better to have a section about Controversies and Scandals that cover Allen's parenting because that was what the legal proceedings were about. The 33-page report of the judge [15] can be linked and is probably one of the most objective documents we can get. He concluded that while he wasn't sure what happened in the attic, he decried Allen's parenting and self-absorption, denied him custody and unsupervised visits and called his relationship with Dylan "grossly inappropriate."

He also underscored the problematic nature of Allen's relationship with Soon Yi vis a vis his other children (his adopted kids) and cited Allen's lack of appreciation of how damaging his relationship to Soon Yi was to the other members of the family as further evidence of his lack of judgment, poor parenting and narcissism. The judge awarded Mia over a million (all the attorney's fees.). Allen's parenting and questions concerning his sexualization of child figures within that could be a section in itself and the references to the judge's report the centerpiece.

Dylan's op-ed, Allen's response, and the stand of Moses, Ronan and Mia could be mentioned. This could be done in a paragraph or two. The fact is that this was a self-inflicted custody battle. Allen knew very little about the kids he was seeking to adopt but kept appealing decisions, filing complaints and running up legal bills. There is a very clear (if lengthy) final opinion on the whole thing that is quotable and not subject to interpretation. The sequelae of Allen's self-inflicted battle, and the abuse allegations litigated within have dogged him for twenty years (whether or not they should) and continue to cast a shadow over his artistic creations. It deserves due attention. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference needed for statement about Mr. Allen's psychoanalysis

for the statement that Woody Allen ended his psychoanalytic sessions about the same time as he began a relationship with his present wife.

This is presented as his own statement without source.

Clothing is Singular...

See this example in The NY Times headline.

New photo?

Should the photo of Allen that exists currently be kept? I notice there is a newer photograph of Allen here. 75.156.69.71 (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Both photos are used in the article. Because they both face inward to the body text, they fit well in the current placement. --Light show (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Umlaut? Königsberg or Konigsberg?

Hi,

I'm confussed about his official family name. While it's sure that the original form must be Königsberg, I wonder what form he has in his papers... does he have an umlaut in his american passport? German wikipedia lists Konigsberg without umlaut.

popolfi --217.224.15.195 11:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be extremely rare for an American family to use such a form. I'm sure the umlaut got dropped as soon as whatever ancestor came over to the United States.—Chowbok ☠ 16:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Chowbok is correct. Of course Woody Allen is of German descent and thus he has a German name. Of course, as he is a Yiddish Jew we are not allowed to say he is of German descent so we can keep wikipedia's myth of Jewish racial purity. _ Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.86.174 (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The article doesn't say he has German heritage, it says "His family was Jewish and his grandparents were Yiddish- and German-speaking immigrants." The source doesn't support saying he is German. That's why the category was removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
In the old Germany existed a city called Königsberg, with umlaut, in the former East Prussia. But I don´t think that the reason is that his family came from this country. Jews took mostly very "soundful" names, like Blumental (valley of flowers), Rosenkranz, Goldberg (gold mountain) etc. Königsberg means: the king´s mountain. 91.221.59.5 (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I just found his parents and grandparents in the 1940 and 1930 US Census, also his father's WWI military service record (Navy, served on USS Great Northern) and in none of those instances is there an umlaut recorded. They consistently used the "Konigsberg" rendering of the name. Also of note for the article, if someone would like to add it, both his grandfather and his father in those census records are listed as "salesman" of "butter and eggs" in particular. Owlmonkey (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Atheism

Did he renounce his atheism or something? The cats for him are gone. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:29 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Birth name Allen, Allan

This subject has come up twice before on this talk page, but nobody has suggested multiple birth names. In looking up Woody Allen's birth name, I found a lot of sources saying Allen, a lot of sources saying Allan, and a few saying Alan. I was looking only at sources published before Wikipedia started in 2003, so as to avoid circular referencing.

Here are some Allen sources
Here are some Allan sources

I think we should tell the reader that various birth names are reported. I do not think we should choose one of them as being the one true answer. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Official documents should clarify this further:
  • His marriage license to Harlene S Rosen on 15 Mar 1956 in Los Angeles lists him as "Allan S Konigsberg"
  • The 1940 US Census lists him as "Allan Konigsberg" living with his parents and aunt and uncle
Owlmonkey (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Views on religion

There is no text on this in the article except for "Allen has described himself as being a "militant Freudian atheist".[139]".

In an interview to an Israeli newspaper he goes into more detail:

(translated by Google):

"Hero in the magic light of the moon is completely realistic and speaks in my name," he declares, "He felt that what you see is what there is, there is no 'meaning' life, no special purpose to the universe, there is no life after death, and the rest is nonsense - Religion , clairvoyants. everything is cheating. nothing to do with the sad reality of life. character played by Colin that people are being misled by religious leaders, mind readers and fortune tellers using a crystal ball. understands that while there are some moments that are alive - with her mother, for example - or a magical touch here and there, yet it as part of the somber shadow of the grim reality under which we all live. "   Still, there is one dramatic moment in the film where he really anxious and pray to God, then comes to his senses and decides that everything is nonsense. It seems that you yourself discover so cynical towards this character.   "This is totally cynical.'s The reality. You can get to a hospital, like him, and pray, but there is no meaning. Hoping and praying it meaningless. Whether you have good doctors and a little luck you'll be fine. Whether the situation is against you you can pray day and night , but it will not help. "

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4551878,00.html 79.180.48.165 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If his religious views need expanding here, I don't think doing it by quoting his thoughts about a ficitonal character's motivations and saying it speaks for him is the way to go about it. Marteau (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Soon-Yi

I find it odd that there is not much discussion regarding Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi Previn. In Allen's Wikipedia page, there are quotes of him telling jokes about marrying Soon-Yi who, outside of celebritydom, is his daughter. In Mia Farrow's Wikipedia page, there is no mention of Woody Allen marrying her (their) daughter. Could anyone enlighten me?

--Doug Roy, P.Eng. (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of material about her or her relationship with Farrow or Allen that belongs in the encyclopedia that is not currently here. If you are, feel free to add it or alert us to it. Marteau (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

filmography

No one cares about his filmography as an actor (currently shown). Either show his directorial filmography or defer the whole thing to the dedicated page. 104.59.83.70 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, with the caveat that his contributions as a screenwriter are as or more important than those as a director. Just a technicality in his case, since he always fills both roles, but needs to be said given Wikipedia's insistence on perpetuating the mistakes of auteur theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.190.158 (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Details on psychoanalysis, career, and family.

Here's a July 29th interview with Woody Allen, conducted by Sam Fragoso, on NPR. One of things it gets into is Allen's psychoanalysis - how much, when on and off. (The article makes it sound like he's been in analysis most of his life without a break.) His perception of his career is also discussed as is his relationship with his wife and teenage daughters. http://www.npr.org/2015/07/29/426827865/at-79-woody-allen-says-theres-still-time-to-do-his-best-work Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Match Point in the lead section

Allen has said in an interview that Match Point "may be the best film that I've made." [2] I think this is quite a significant and noteworthy statement by Allen and is worth mentioning in the lead section after his best-known films. What do you think? – IAmTylerSanders (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Marks, Peter. "Allen Loses to Farrow in Bitter Custody Battle". The New York Times. Retrieved November 5, 2011.
  2. ^ Schembri, Jim "Words from Woody", The Age, 6 January 2006. Retrieved 28 January 2012.

Child Sexual Abuse Allegations

This section is all out of order. It starts by referencing "the sexual abuse case," which has not even been introduced yet. What charges? They need to be described and explained before being referenced. Further, what's stated in the first paragraph seems at odds with the conclusions stated in the rest of the section. I hope someone is interested in cleaning this up? Chafe66 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The whole section only gives Allen's side on the story and must be rewritten. I have tried, but my edits have been reversed. Maybe a bug, maybe a Woody Allen fan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.125.70 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that reliable sources are needed, not poor ones such as tabloids, etc. See also BLP description. --Light show (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What about the New York Times? http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-verdict.html The veredict of the Judge is not an invention from tabloids — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAlitxu (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts much more meat. the current state of this section is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.150.172 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

WP is not a courtroom or tabloid

Some editors are misusing the article to slant an incident (via the closed allegation) that took place about 24 years ago. They are relying on primary sources, namely original court documents and the judge's decision, to create an imbalanced synthesis, instead of the more neutral secondary sources, as preferred. The section has thereby become overloaded with new minutiae, including two obviously non-neutral letters. This effectively turns the section into a new platform to reopen the now closed case and restate opinions. The new open letter by Ronan, an opinion piece, even compares the incident to Bill Cosby's. It is evidence only that any publication, whether the Hollywood Reporter or New York Times, will be happy to attract readership by using tabloid sensationalism.

To further slant the neutrality of the subject, the latest edits removed a number of reliable sources and citations, along with quotes, without explanation. --Light show (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edit-warring now going on with a redlink editor, I have posted a friendly notice to him at User talk:ShadowRFK. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but how come present state of article recounting affair is considered valid? There were obviously numerous changes in the article since, always reverted back. As you pointed out, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. But interestingly, the section now is relying predominantly on one source - even thought cited in more publications. It does not mean it is valid. It means, what you wrote before, it is feeding press.

This section is one sided and facts are not correct. Why do you think it is better do cite Moses Farrow than court documents? Why is in article repeatedly falsely pointing out friendship between Mia Farrow and journalist, who was investigating the affair? This man is a Pulitzer-winning author with no personal interest whatsoever. So how come it is labeled "unreliable" opposing to the Moses Farrow bits?

I am deeply concerned about the state of the article. And I am obviously not the only one. Please consider other sources, and more importantly, consider the validity of sources more thoroughtly. AboutGirl (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, you're not the only one. Some of us are also concerned about WP's and the MSM's ready acceptance of a reprinted personal letter to create or promote a scandal. Because the allegation about the single incident was never proven to be true, even after police and medical examinations, a publication even implying that the accuser's account was true might be committing libel. Nor can we use selected text from court documents which are easily misused to create a synthesis, also not allowed.
What makes this issue novel is that although a first-person accusation letter about a crime on the alleged victim's blog would be totally unacceptable as a reliable source, a major newspaper allowed one of its journalists to reprint the letter in his own personal blog partly because he was a friend of the alleged victim's mother. The rationale for reprinting it and recreating a firestorm was, he wrote, because "there was a lively debate about whether it was appropriate to honor a man who is an artistic giant..." That allowed the RS issue to bypass scrutiny. However, the journalist blogger included no other facts which went to the heart of the allegation, nor any opinions. So why did they get involved? He wrote: "Partly because the root issue here isn’t celebrity but sex abuse."(cough, cough) Which implies that any and all sex abuse allegations by anyone could get equal treatment by the MSM and the New York Times. But he also added that Allen nonetheless "deserves the presumption of innocence," which does little to overcome the trial by media or the media circus the reprinted letter accomplished.
One obvious question then is whether citing the blog's reprinted letter violated BLP guidelines?

Norma Lee Clark

I leave it to Allen mavens to determine whether a mention of Allen's long-time private secretary belongs on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Woody Allen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Woody Allen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Birth surname spelling

Recent edits changed spelling of birth surname from Konigsberg to Königsberg (with Ö), even in the source quotation. Is that correct? The changes seem to me a bit suspicious and there's no explanation given in the edit summary.-ז62 (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Almost certainly wrong. All the sources that I have been able to access online spell it without the umlaut. Same goes for Allen's father according to this obit. I have reverted the changes. Favonian (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your changes. I somewhat presumed that the spelling with umlaut reflects how the surname could/should be spelled in standard German, but not the actual spelling used by the family - however I was not sure enough to revert changes on the spot.--ז62 (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse: Doctor Leventhal's interviews of Dylan Farrow

In the section on the sexual abuse allegations, it states that the court appointed doctor, John Leventhal, never interviewed Dylan. In fact, he interviewed her nine times according to a New York Times article cited on the page... http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dylan-farrow-s-statements.html. This error may be a deliberate act of bad faith in an attempt to discredit the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7109:cd00:c49d:ba42:52c8:f167 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 23 September 2017‎

A bit more complicated than that, since The New York Times, which made the nine-interview claim in 1993, is more contemporaneous than a 1997 Connecticut Magazine article cited in a 2013 Vanity Fair article. Given that all three are RS, it is POV to cherry-pick one over the other, so both are now included. Note that the original cite to Slate.com was to an article that did not make the statement itself but attributed the statement to Vanity Fair. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Article on Woody Allen: Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2017

I suggest adding the following to the end of the first paragraph on Soon-Yi:

Her adoptive parents have estimated her birth date as October 8, 1970.[1]

This reference was obtained from the article on Andre Previn. 2601:141:300:9103:21E:C2FF:FE9F:4C2 (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This doesn't seem very relevant to this page. Also this date is mentioned on the page Soon-Yi Previn. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=3uQCAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&lr&rview=1&pg=PA33#v=twopage&q&f=true

Biological son

How can you make an accurate differentiation when both his parents have publicly expressed their doubts[1][2] about Ronan's biological relation to Allen? You have to ask yourself, under such circumstances, is this differentiation really worth mentioning? Gene2010 (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Mia Farrow and Eight of Her Children Speak Out on Their Lives, Frank Sinatra, and the Scandals They've Endured". Vanity Fair. October 2, 2013. Archived from the original on 2013-10-02. Retrieved 2013-10-02. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Allen, Woody (February 7, 2014). "Woody Allen Speaks Out". The New York Times. Retrieved February 10, 2014. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra's? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son?
Thank you for initiating discussion; that's so important to the Wikipedia process.
Doubts aside, Woody Allen in all official records and with no actual evidence otherwise is the biological father. Anything else is speculation. Indeed, as noted at the RfC close at Talk:Ronan Farrow#Mia Farrow / Frank Sinatra Extramarital Affair, "because much of this comes down to speculation on the part of the relevant parties, a single sentence is probably best," and a single sentence to that effect is included here.
Because every other one of the children is adopted, the adjective "biological" has been in place at that point in the article for reasons of context and perspective. Additionally, it provides parallel construction to "might be the biological child of Frank Sinatra," and additionally as well it provides consistency with previous mentions of Satchel/Ronan. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
But was the juxtaposition really necessary when we have probable cause to doubt its accuracy? It misleads readers, like myself until I click on Ronan Farrow and find out more. My first reaction was, why would Wikipedia make such gratuitous assertion in the possibly most viewed section? Gene2010 (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I think I see where we're going with this. There is actually no probable cause to doubt its accuracy. It's simply speculation, and Wikipedia doesn't deal in speculation or fringe claims. Woody Allen is officially, in all records and until concrete evidence proves otherwise, Ronan's biological father. I would note that if either Allen or Mia Farrow had genuine, serious doubt, and this wasn't simply an actress being dramatic, then Allen and Ronan Farrow would have undergoine a simple blood test. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It's frustrating to have to clarify this. No, this is not where it's going. It's NOT about the truth because we don't know, and frankly it's none of our business. It's about Wikipedia presenting it as a fact without reliable sources. It's simply WP:OR. Please do a search of Ronan Farrow and the word biological, and see how the sources are covering it. Gene2010 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
If you have links to the sources you're discussing, do post them here; when I search for "Ronan Farrow biological," the first thing I get is a notorious tabloid, the Daily Mail. Virtually everything else is simply 2015 items reporting the unproven speculation. Official records list Allen as biological father, Ronan himself refers to Allen as "my father" [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/my-father-woody-allen-danger-892572}, and the wording here echoes a reference to Shiloh as Angelina Jolie's biological child, to differentiate from the adopted. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
In the meantime, this from The New Yorker, which has an impeccable record for fact checking: an article by the highly esteemed John Lahr (see also John Lahr bibliography: The Imperfectionist: Why is Woody Allen singing in his new movie, and how did he survive the scandal? (December 9, 1996): "...Mia Farrow, with whom Allen has two adopted children—Moses, who is eighteen, and a daughter, Dylan, who is eleven—and one biological son, nine-year-old Satchel." The New Yorker makes the same distinction Wikipedia does, for context, perspective and clarity. "Biological" is in no way, shape or form WP:OR. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Jeez, man, that's before his own mother expressed her doubt to the press. Let's see the sources after a simple search at your command: Guardian, HuffPost, CNN, ABC News, etc etc. If you still think we definitely should emphasize the word "biological", we probably need other editors' input. Gene2010 (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That's what RfCs are for, and I'd certainly support your initiating one. But a spurned and angry ex-partner with a history of trashing him has to be taken with a grain of salt ... especially since Sinatra's wife Barbara is on record saying Sinatra had had a vasectomy at the time. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woody_Allen/Archive_4&oldid=1145820312"