Talk:Woody Allen/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Sexual abuse allegations in the lede

The sexual abuse allegations against Allen have become a defining and notable part of his public image. As recently as 10 days ago [1] the allegations are still being brought up. Actors that work with Allen are made to explain themselves. Since Allen was never officially convicted of said crimes, I will adjust the language to make clear that he was accused but not tried or convicted. Forsink (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No, they are not a "defining and notable part of his public image". Also, repeating the same false accusation over and over is not the same as "there have been multiple accusations". The actors who work with Allen are only being made to explain themselves by writers and talk show hosts with a vendetta against Allen. I do not agree that this false accusation be given any space in this article, certainly not with references like the ones you've used this time. By the way, your editing style seems as those you are quite experienced at editing Wikipedia. Why is that? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 07:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The alleged victim accused him once in the 1990s when she was seven years old, and again in the 2010s when she was an adult, hence "multiple times". Where is your evidence that those writers and talk show hosts have a vendetta against Allen? I used to edit on an IP here and there but decided to make an account, is that a problem? Forsink (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The lede should be a brief introduction for why the subject is notable. Allen is notable for his work in film and comedy, so the lede should reflect this. Whether the allegations are true or not isn't really relevant here, Stephen Collins admitted sex crimes but this is not in his lede.LM2000 (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for at least being civil. Forsink (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Forsink. The last decade of Allen's career has been indisputably overshadowed by the abuse allegations (and other claims of inappropriate sexual conduct i.e. his adopted daughter/now-wife) and every film that he's directed in that time has sparked widespread journalistic discussion about those allegations' damaging effects on his legacy, the complicity of the industry, and the like.

Contemporary readers coming to Allen's page are far more likely to be searching for details of the widely-referenced allegations than about his films. Not mentioning them in the lede (while mentioning, for example, something as trivial as a 2011 PBS special) seems like a deliberate omission of a notable detail in the interest of maintaining a attractive (i.e. biased) image of him in the article. This isn't a fan page. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

We can compare this case to articles where allegations do appear in the lede and they normally have to do with the effect they had on the subject's career. Harvey Weinstein was ousted from his company and ejected from the Academy, Roman Polanski was never able to return to the US, etc. One of the things I remember most about that article from The New York Times that brought the scandal back into the public a few years ago was how Dylan Farrow was upset that the allegations had not effected his career. Despite the allegations being out there since the early 1990s, Allen was able to make his films with A-list talent and received numerous awards for them. After this, Cate Blanchett won an Oscar for Blue Jasmine and thanked Allen in her speech. Nothing has changed and wikipedia isn't the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.LM2000 (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Every Woody Allen film makes sense when you realize he's an ('alleged') child rapist. His interactions and relationships with young women are important to understanding his films which are often about his interactions and relationships with younger women. --Some IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4100:B884:286F:F5CE:CE2B:FB2E (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Such claims should've been supported by some kind of source - with specification which films are allegedly relevant for these allegations and whether the perceived age difference and/or type of relationship depicted is in some way outside of accepted societal norms. Otherwise this sounds just like a very weak attempt at supporting such allegations with rather vague smears based upon subjective interpretation of Allen's body of work.-ז62 (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm rather worried about the tone of Uncle Milty and some others here that they are "false accusations" and that it "smears" him. Personal opinion on the veracity of these claims is completely unimportant. Relevance is seen in many recent articles again. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can say, noone here expressed mere personal opinion - the accusations were not proven to be factually correct, so false is an acceptable term here. Nevertheless false certainly can somewhat imply bad faith or intentional deceit on the part of accusators (which I believe was not Uncle Milty's intention) - and "unproven" or "unsubstantiated" would be perhaps more precise terminology here, as accusations against Allen were briefly investigated, but he was not charged with the alleged molestation.

As far as the "vague smears" are concerned, that was addressed to the claims of the anonymous editor (IP:2601:645:4100:b884:286f:f5ce:ce2b:fb2e) that "[e]very Woody Allen's film make sense when you realize [that] he's an alleged child rapist. His relations and interactions with young women are important to understanding his films which are often about his interactions and relationships with younger women" which - besides its vagueness - also looks like a remarkable example of circular reasoning combined with complete failure to comprehend the difference between films storylines and personal life of their creator to me. (Not to mention that the IP failed to specify what means "often" in this case, and which films allegedly support his/or her claim.)-ז62 (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can allege anything against anyone. While WP:BLPCRIME mostly applies to relatively unknown people, the very first sentence of the policy is broader, reading, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." Where there is not even an arrest let alone a conviction, spotlighting mere allegations in the lead is clearly way WP:UNDUE. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080202051058/http://www.woodyallenband.com/ to http://www.woodyallenband.com/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 16:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Primary

Hi Tenebrae, could you say why quoting the judge is a violation of WP:PRIMARY? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @SlimVirgin:, and thank you for discussing. According to the policy, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Quotes are not "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" but, in this case, a judge's opinion. The conclusion of the case is a straightforward, descriptive fact. Elsewhere in the article, we're quoting the judge but from a secondary source — but that's not our own cherry-picking of the judge's quotes.

Unrelated to WP:PRIMARY, the quote also seemed WP:UNDUE in that the conclusion itself is the plain, pertinent fact. Additional commentary doesn't change the fact, but only serves to sway the reader one way or the other. The most neutral thing is to state the fact simply: Allen lost the case. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae, the point of PRIMARY is that editors should not draw conclusions from primary sources, and it should be easy for any reader to check that the primary source supports the edit. That the judge said these things is a straightforward statement of fact. In this case, it is easy for anyone to check that the judge made those statements, and his words were repeated by prominent secondary sources, including the New York Times. That satisfies PRIMARY and DUE. If I were writing this, I would cite the judge's remarks to the primary source and a secondary source. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: No, I would liken this to libel law and also Wikipedia protocol: It may be a fact that someone said something, but that doesn't mean that what they're saying is a fact. In this case, we're cherry-picking a quote from a primary source to assert something that doesn't affect or change the raw fact (that Allen lost the case). --Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae, this is not what cherry-picking means. These issues, including the judge's remarks, have been discussed by high-quality secondary sources. Our job is to summarize those sources. You're suggesting that this article must ignore certain issues, no matter how extensively and authoritatively discussed, because you do not believe them; you see them as opinion rather than fact. But that makes no difference and is a misunderstanding of policy.

The section needs to be rewritten; it is both too long and misses key points. I will try to find time soon to read the sources carefully and perhaps try to streamline it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with you re: WP:PRIMARY here, and since it appears to be a contentious WP:BLP issue involving negative comments about a living person, I think we may need to go to RfC before reinsertion. Yes, those are cherry-picked quotes from a primary source. They have no impact whatsoever on the plain and neutral raw fact of the ruling. So why include them? Solely to make the subject look bad, for POV reasons.

I agree the section is too long. But what you may consider key points, someone else may not. Given the delicacy of the topic, this should be a multi-editor effort worked out in a sandbox. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I helped to write WP:PRIMARY, and I can assure you that it doesn't mean what you're asserting. But regardless, the material has been discussed by secondary sources, so PRIMARY is not an issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The section is so poorly written that I'm having difficulty copy-editing it. Someone has moved a paragraph in from another section, so it's repetitive. For example, we don't say what the allegation was at the time; what was reported to the pediatrician? We don't explain the background to that allegation. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to copy-edit it to make it more coherent. It's still too long, but there's no point in doing more until we know whether there will be a stand-alone article. If there is, this section can be reduced summary-style. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Need better sources for the sex abuse allegations.

The section about Dylan Farrow's allegations is a mess. The sources contradict each other and contain factually incorrect information. For example, in the first paragraph an article from Connecticut Magazine said that the Yale team "did not interview anyone who would corroborate Dylan's molestation claims" and later the entry cits a Slate article that says that nanny Kristi Goteke corroborated Dylan's account. But the Yale team did interview Kristi Goteke, (https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/yale-new-haven-hospital-allen.pdf), so either the Slate article about Kristi's testimony is wrong, or Connecticut Magazine's criticism of the Yale Team is wrong.

Another point of contention. The entry misquotes Judge Wilk. The entry says the Judge criticized the Yale team for being "colored by their loyalty to Woody Allen." But here is the quote, "both Dr. Coates and Dr Schultz expressed their opinions that Mr. Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan. Neither Dr. Coates nor Dr. Schultz have expertise in the field of child sexual abuse. I believe that the opinions of Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz may have been colored by their loyalty to Woody Allen." (https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/02/woody-allen-mia-farrow-custody-agreement-1993/) As you can see, the Judge was not talking about the Yale investigation, but about Dylan's own therapists who testified on Woody Allen's behalf.

One last thing that is less important. I don't like that the quotes in support of Allen by Moses Farrow, the New York Department of Social Services, and the Yale team are a sentence long each, while the quotes against Allen by Judge Wilk, Dylan Farrow, and Connecticut Magazine are all significantly longer. It makes the entry look biased. Perhaps someone could find sources that cover the entire story without biases or omissions so that the entry could have less weak or contradicting sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammyTrujillo (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@SammyTrujillo: thanks, this is very helpful. I've dealt with your first two points; will look at the last one too. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

And I have to say, despite my concern that this highly delicate and potentially contentious section should have been sandboxed, that SarahSV, with SammyTrujillo's insightful points, have made the section enormously better: less muddled and meandering, more neutral. Kudos to my fellow editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: many thanks for saying that, and SammyTrujillo, thanks again for your help. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think after some of the subsequent edits, and on second viewing of a couple of the first, that a little additional trimming of extraneous phrases were in order. Also, some purely grammatical edits were needed. At least 90 percent of SarahSV's edits remain, and I would ask for discussion before re-adding what may be contentious material. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You're removing important details from an account that hangs together, so please discuss them here. Otherwise we'll be back with an incoherent narrative. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, now you're exhibiting WP:OWN and refusing to discuss your edits or seek consensus, but to insist on your version and your version only. If you are trying to force other editors to accept your WP:UNDUE, biased version of a BLP, then I think we need go to an RfC, since 3RR doesn't apply to BLP claims and we'll just be going back and forth otherwise. So may we discuss what I consider inappropriate edits trying deliberately to portray the subject in a negative light, or do we escalate? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Tenebrae, please allow the section to be written. You've presided over this for a long time, and the result was a poorly written and factually false account, beginning with the first sentence. I'm not attributing the writing to you (I haven't looked to see who wrote it), but you've taken responsibility for it. You've also trying to stop a stand-alone article from being developed, where it could be explained properly. This was a major issue in the 1990s and may become one again. We need to get it right. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

Two editors disagree on a paragraph. Both versions are below with the disputed passages in boldface:

• Version A)

In his 33-page decision in June 1993, Justice Elliott Wilk said there was no credible evidence Farrow had coached Dylan. Wilk said the Yale–New Haven team's unwillingness to testify in court, except through Leventhal's deposition, together with the destruction of its notes, had rendered its report "sanitized and, therefore, less credible". He rejected Allen's bid for custody and denied him visitation rights with Dylan, calling Allen's behavior toward Dylan "grossly inappropriate". In September 1993 the state prosecutor said that he would not pursue the molestation allegation. The following month the New York Department of Social Services closed its own 14-month investigation, stating that there was no credible evidence to support the allegation.

• Version B)

In his 33-page decision in June 1993, Justice Elliott Wilk rejected Allen's portrayal of Farrow as a "woman scorned", said there was no credible evidence that she had coached Dylan, and criticized Allen for his "trial strategy" of turning family members against one another. Wilk said that the Yale–New Haven team's unwillingness to testify in court, except through Leventhal's deposition, together with the destruction of its notes, had rendered its report "sanitized and, therefore, less credible". He rejected Allen's bid for custody and denied him visitation rights with Dylan, stating that Allen's behavior toward Dylan was "grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her". In September 1993 the state prosecutor said that he would not pursue the molestation allegation, despite having "probable cause"; New York University Law School professor Stephen Gillers criticized the statement for having effectively declared Allen guilty. The following month the New York Department of Social Services closed its own 14-month investigation, stating that there was no credible evidence to support the allegation.

• A Aside from the grammatically unnecessary "that"s, B contains extraneous phrases that do not affect the facts but only serve to cast the subject in a negative light. The plain facts are disturbing enough and don't need POV emphasizing. How Allen may have portrayed Farrow or what his trial strategy was has nothing to do with the one salient fact: The judge rules again him. Period. That's the only pertinent fact. Second, we don't need "measure must be taken to protect her" because the ruling is the means to protect her. It's redundant. Finally, a prosecutor's gratuitous and unprofessional comment, criticized by others in the legal profession, does not change the salient fact of no prosecution. So a redundant passage, a tangential passage, and a POV passage designed solely to imply guilt. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Tenebrae, the fundamental error here is that you want to judge what is important, rather than trying to judge what high-quality sources regard as important. I'm following the contemporaneous reporting of the New York Times, and I'm trying to summarize the issues that the Times reporters highlighted. This isn't easy, and I won't pretend to be sure that I've done it well, but that's what I'm aiming for. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that, no, I'm advocating for us to write as simply and dispassionately as possible, and keep to the raw, basic facts. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You approved of the long quote from the Yale-New Haven report offering the two hyphotheses, and you added Moses' view that Dylan loved him (based on People magazine). These are not "raw, basic facts". Editors don't get to pick and choose. The paper of record here is the New York Times, and they covered it extensively. Our job is to summarize their reports. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those things are in the paragraph above, which is all we're discussing.

And denigrating my attempt at compromise, when I'd rather see those other things streamlined as well, is just remarkable. You seem to have a scorched-earth philosophy where any attempt at compromise is to be attacked. I mean, honestly: You were refusing to let another to — literally — add commas! The section is 90% yours, yet you're insisting on 100% yours ... every ungrammatical lack of comma included. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Punctuation

Tenebrae, you said I wanted to retain "every ungrammatical lack of comma". The only reason I mentioned commas is that you've made a series of edits adding them (e.g. [2]). This meant that, when I had the next edit ready, I had to search your diffs to find the changes so that I could incorporate them (even though I disagreed with them).

In case it helps for future reference (here or elsewhere):

• Re: introductory phrases. Chicago Manual of Style, 6.31: "Although an introductory adverbial phrase can usually be followed by a comma, it need not be unless misreading is likely. Shorter adverbial phrases are less likely to merit a comma than longer ones." One of their examples is "In 1931 Henrietta turned fifty."
• If you prefer a British style guide, New Hart's Rules, p. 75: A comma is not essential "if the introductory clause or phrase is a short one specifying time or location". Their examples: "In 2000 the hospital took part in a trial ..." and "Before his retirement he had been a mathematician ..." They add "Indeed, the comma is best avoided here so as to prevent the text from appearing cluttered."
• Re: too. Chicago Manual of Style, 6.51: "The adverbs 'too' and 'either' used in the sense of 'also' generally need not be preceded by a comma." Example: "I had my cake and ate it too."

SarahSV ^(talk) 03:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

And AP Stylebook prefers commas in those places. You're simply proving my point that you're WP:OWNing the section to such an extent that you literally will not let other editors change even so much as a comma.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but it isn't correct; as I said above, I incorporated your comma additions into my edits. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Associated Press Stylebook doesn't seem to prefer commas either. It says (p. 430): "The comma may be omitted after short introductory phrases if no ambiguity would result: During the night he heard many noises." Can you point to where it says otherwise? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the APS Online Style Manual [3], commas are used

• To set off an introductory clause beginning with a subordinating conjunction (if, although, because, when, since). CBE makes it optional if the clause is short....
• To set off an introductory infinitive phrase ("To accomplish the task, we...") or participial phrase ("Using hippocampal slices from adult rats, we studied...")....
• To set off a single introductory prepositional phrase to prevent misreading. A comma after a short introductory prepositional phrase is optional." The example given, however, is a short introductory prepositional phrase with a comma: "In all, eight experiments were performed. [...]"

And actually, yes, you did remove such commas. The one in "...that Allen had subsequently adopted, too.", added here, and the one in "Four days later, he issued his first public statement...", added here, were both removed by you here.

I want to say: I respect your work. I really do, and I said as much right here in black-and-white ... and just as significantly, I barely touched your edits. I estimate 90% of your edits I left untouched. So I'm not sure you respect others' edits, or at least not mine — despite the clear, articulate and I believe perfectly reasonable rationales I gave. And your refusal to allow, as I've demonstrated, even commas to be changed seems a little extreme to me. When something has gone 90% your way and you demand 100% ... I dunno. That doesn't seem collaborative and it seems WP:OWNish. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that AP was not referring to sentences such as "In 2018 such-and-such happened", but the point is that the comma is optional. I apologize for removing the ones you highlighted.

The thing that has concerned me are your edit summaries: you've implied that I'm adding "extraneous pot-shots", UNDUE, "exhibiting WP:OWN and refusing to discuss", and adding "gratuitously negative, POV content about a living person". This feels very aggressive, and I don't feel I can make null edits to say "not true". Then, on top of that, you tell me on talk that you have to fix my grammar and punctuation.

This, as you know, is a very sensitive and difficult thing to write well. We describe only a portion of it in this article. For people to collaborate on this, they have to be reasonably like-minded. Ideally there would be email discussion about difficult issues, because they can't be hashed out on talk. A good collaboration requires trust, and trust won't develop when people are taking potshots at each other. So I would like to see an atmosphere of mutual respect on this page, even when there's disagreement about details. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I would call your erroneous and insulting reference to People as "tabloid journalism" a potshot when the magazine is a Time Inc. publication with enormous resources and fact-checking, and to throw it in the gutter with the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail is simply, factually wrong. A magazine that covers celebrity news may be as fluffy to one person as a magazine that covers sports news may be fluffy to someone else. But that doesn't make People "tabloid journalism."

I think perhaps that someone who makes uncivil accusations like "aggressive" is actually the one being aggressive, since none of my comments are about you personally but about the edits themselves. The edit was "gratuitously negative, POV content" — I didn't say, "The editor is a moron", and in fact, I have stated that I respect you and your work and have demonstrated it by not touching 90% of it. And for all your talk of collaboration, what you seem to want is to have it read 100% your way. How is that reasonable or collaborative? You are essentially saying, "I am completely right and my reading of the material is the only valid reading." That's a remarkably hubristic attitude. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As for grammar and punctuation, I'm a professional journalist and editor for major publications and the author of several books, so, of course, grammar and punctuation are important to me. I know I can't prove my background because of our anonymity ... though my frequently going back into my posts to correct typos certainly suggests something like that! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues

Listing some of the issues here:

• Tenebrae wants to remove that Allen began custody proceedings after being told about the abuse claim. This is obviously important because the latter caused the former.
• The "on the same day" issue is purely grammatical. "That same, day" needs to be fixed, and even with the comma moved, it still won't be good. (Btw, there is no need for commas after short introductory phrases.)
• The judge's mention of "woman scorned" is important for obvious reasons, as was his mention of the "trial strategy" of turning people against each other. I can't imagine why you would want to remove that.
• Ditto "grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her". The judge said this, not a journalist or an involved party.
• "New York University Law School professor Stephen Gillers criticized the statement for having effectively declared Allen guilty." I would have thought it important to point out that the state prosecutor statement was criticized.
• Tenebrae also removed some text about Soon-Yi attending baseball games and college, and the summer-camp issue. I assume this was an error during a wholesale revert. If not, please explain what the issues are with those edits.

SarahSV ^(talk) 02:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV is correct about point one, because that was an inadvertent edit on my part. I didn't see I had done that, and I left it alone on my subsequent edit. (I'm addressing the other points; give me a minute) --Tenebrae (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The comma in "That same, day" is obviously a typo. C'mon. The larger issue is that it was a run-on sentence that needed to be broken. Again, I have left that run-on sentence alone in my my most recent edit. --02:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Tenebrae (talk)

The plain facts are disturbing enough and don't need POV emphasizing. How Allen may have portrayed Farrow or what his trial strategy was has nothing to do with the one salient fact: The judge rules again him. Period. That's the only pertinent fact. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A prosecutor's gratuitous and unprofessional comment, criticized by others in the legal profession, does not change the salient fact of no prosecution. Again, let's stick to the plain facts. The prosecutor's comment did not change a single thing. So why mention it, if not to deliberately try to paint the subject in a negative light. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the summer-camp removal was inadvertent on my part, and my subsequent edit did not touch your correction.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Let's discuss the issues one by one. First, I'd appreciate it if you would not imply personal attacks on me in edit summaries, as you did here.

What is your objection to "Justice Elliott Wilk rejected Allen's portrayal of Farrow as a 'woman scorned'? The sources highlighted this because that was Allen's portrayal of her: he had betrayed her, so now she was out to get him. It is a sexist stereotype. The New York Times highlighted it at the time ("Farrow Tries to Avoid Role of a Woman Scorned"), and partly for BLP reasons for Farrow, it seems important to include that the court rejected it explicitly. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with the plain fact: The ruling went against Allen because of his "grossly inappropriate" behavior and because of the "sanitized" report. It didn't go against him because of his trial tactics or his portrayal of Farrow. It went against hm because of his behavior and a report the judge did not find credible. Anything else is simply a gilding-the-lily attempt to negatively portray the subject of the article.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't know why it went against him, except what the judge said.

Within the context of your preference for just the "raw, basic facts", can you explain why the details of the judge's ruling must be left out, while you supported including Moses Farrow's opinions about his sister, sourced to People magazine? [4] SarahSV ^(talk) 04:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The ruling concerned child custody. Custody does not hinge on whether the judge liked an attorney's trial tactics. It hinges on whether the evidence shows if the person would be a responsible parent. As for "what the judge said," the judge ruled that Allen's behavior toward Dylan was "grossly inappropriate". Anything else is completely tangential.

A court ruling and a family-member's opinions are completely different things. But I'd happily support cutting out all family-members' opinions, if that's what you're advocating. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Custody can hinge on many issues. One of the issues in this case was that the judge was concerned about Allen's strategy (as he saw it) of turning family members and family employees against each other. The point I'm making is that there is a stark contrast between your approach to text that supports Allen (e.g. you add Moses Farrow in People magazine—tabloid journalism—talking about his sister's feelings, to which he had no access), and text that doesn't support him (e.g. you remove the words of the judge who is ruling on a case brought by Allen himself). SarahSV ^(talk) 00:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

First, I said I'd be happy to remove family-members' opinions, so this sounds like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Second, People magazine is a Time Inc. publication with global resources as well as associate editors who spend most of their time fact-checking. Third, unless you're suggesting that direct quotes the magazine article includes from an interview with the subject is fake, then I seriously question why you used the term "tabloid journalism" in an apparent effort to discredit valid journalism.

Incidentally, in the footnotes there, we should't be citing ABC News and The Guardian quoting People but rather cite People itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

People magazine is a celebrity-gossip magazine. It can be used to source interviews from the BLP subject (but even then with caution because it's so heavily PR-oriented), but it should not be used to source negative material about a third party. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you're making gratuitous claims against a direct interview with one of the affected participants in a well-accepted WP:RS source for reasons that show your true colors. You are convinced of Allen's guilt, and it is causing your to argue for WP:UNDUE weight against him.

I defy anyone to read the A) and B) paragraphs above and say which one is more neutral and balanced. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop the aggression. I am not "convinced of Allen's guilt". My position is that only two people know what happened. I would like to be allowed to summarize the high-quality sources and ignore the tabloids. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to that, in the hope of giving you the last word so that other editors who may want to comment in this RfC about one paragraph aren't discouraged from doing so because they see two editors monopolizing the page. -Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Charges

There is a significant difference between the New York Times reporting of the charges not being pursued and Wikipedia's current summary:

• The New York Times, 25 September 1993:

• A state's attorney in Connecticut said yesterday that he had "probable cause" to prosecute Woody Allen on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to spare her the trauma of a court appearance. The state's attorney in Litchfield, Frank Maco, said he had drawn up an arrest warrant for Mr. Allen, but then decided not to pursue the case. He said the girl's mother, Mia Farrow, had agreed that dropping the charges was in her daughter's best interest. ... Mr. Maco's remarks about the case were criticized by some legal scholars, who said it was an unfair attempt to have it both ways by claiming victory without taking the case to trial. Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School and an expert on legal ethics, criticized Mr. Maco, saying, "You don't declare the man guilty and then say you're not going to prosecute, leaving him to defend himself in the press."

• Wikipedia, 11 January 2018:

• In September 1993, the state's attorney, Frank Maco, announced he would not pursue Allen in court for the molestation allegations, despite having "probable cause", citing his and Farrow's desire not to traumatize Dylan further. Some legal scholars criticized Maco's comments, with New York University Law School professor Stephen Gillers saying, "You don't declare the man guilty and then say you're not going to prosecute, leaving him to defend himself in the press."

• Wikipedia, 13 January, 01:59:

• In September 1993 the state prosecutor said that he would not pursue the molestation allegation, despite having "probable cause"; New York University Law School professor Stephen Gillers criticized the statement for having effectively declared Allen guilty.

• Wikipedia, 13 January, 02:13:

• In September 1993 the state prosecutor said that he would not pursue the molestation allegation.

SarahSV ^(talk) 03:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I tried to give you the last word in hopes that other editors besides us would comment. I can see you continue to refuse to compromise or do anything other than push your own view as 100% correct. I'll reiterate: The prosector's highly criticized statement had no bearing on the fact that he did not pursue charges. If the evidence were there, he would have. But he didn't. We would be no different from Maco by including his words in an attempt to "declare the man guilty" despite a lack of prosecution.

There is no way to reasonably argue that the paragraphs and paragraphs of content already here don't go into the allegations in extreme detail. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And incidentally, a more accurate subhead would have been "Lack of charges."--Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Early life's apparent inaccuracy

The statement "his grandparents immigrated to the US from Russia and Austria and spoke Yiddish, Hebrew, and German" seems not accurate, as after millennia of not speaking in Hebrew, it became an official language in British-ruled Palestine in 1921 [...], and then in 1948 became an official language of the newly declared State of Israel, but never in Europe where the grandparents were from. Mentioning that they new Hebrew only for reading Torah is unnecessary, as every male did. Likely, the grandparents from Austria knew German, unless were from one of many poor Jewish shtetls on the former Polish territory (Galicia) speaking only in Yiddish ubiquitous also on the former Polish territory in Russia where German was not spoken and practically useless when Yiddish is similar to German and person knowing Yiddish would understand German. However, his name Konigsberg may suggest the origin in or near German speaking Prussia. Then all grandparents could have spoken German, but definitely not Hebrew, which was not spoken then. Thus, Hebrew could be dropped from the text.--67.87.191.162 (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@67.87.191.162: Perhaps you may ask for clarification or direct quotation for the family use of Hebrew, but the fact that Hebrew was not an official language in the territory from where they immigrated doesn't exclude its use/knowledge of by members of the family. The online source states that the family used both Yiddish and German at home, but nothing about Hebrew - but it does not preclude that other source would support the use of Hebrew. Generalized speculation does not seem to be an adequate enough rationale for article change, though. --ז62 (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Heywood Allen?

I recently went to the Woody Allen page and discovered that his name had been changed to Heywood Allen in the first sentence. I never heard him being referred to as Heywood. Is this a mistake? Maybe I'm wrong but I just thought I would let the editors know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.194.1 (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@169.253.194.1: I was initially also surprised when I've noticed this (it's been so for quite time, apparently), but turns out that giving full name in the lede follows the MOS:FULLNAME guideline, even if it's not the widely used form.-ז62 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Is the chart necessary? It seems to be original research to me. --Elonka 01:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Why?--ז62 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Should the lead say something about the controversy? WP:LEAD says: "[The lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

And later: "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves." SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Except no charges were ever filed, the Yale-New Haven investigation found no molestation, and whether we personally believe them or not, anyone can allege anything against anyone. Mere allegations do not belong in a lead summary of what makes a subject notable, unless that's all for which they are notable. Allen was notable as a filmmaker, actor, playwright, TV comedy writer and standup comic long before any of the allegations. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

So you are arguing that, when it comes to Woody Allen, there are no "prominent controversies". SarahSV ^(talk) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Yale-New Haven report cleared him and the prosecutor did not file charges. Those are simple, concrete facts. There's no "controversy" but simply rumors and speculation. This isn't about whether Nixon was right or wrong to tape his Oval Office meetings, where the existence of the tapes are a fact. By your standard, leads should include every prominent, widely publicized celebrity gossip, no matter how unproven. We're not a tabloid. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

In some sense the prosecutor guaranteed a controversy by not filing charges but stating that there was "probable cause". Likewise, with the judge's statements in the custody case. Both men's statements have been much discussed by reliable, independent, secondary sources over an increasingly long period of time. Added to that, are the statements and actions being taken by some performers in films directed by Allen, such as expressing regret or donating salary to charity. All these, too, are concrete facts, albeit not so simple. Finally, the other concrete fact is that the accuser continues to go on the record with her accusations. A "he said, she said" situation is not simply rumors and speculation; it is a dispute, which is one of the meanings of controversy, and, this one has become a prominent one over the years as the reliable sources attest. That said, if mention of it were included in the lede, I'd recommend something minimalist such as "Allen has been involved in a long running dispute with his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow over allegations of childhood sexual abuse." 24.151.116.12 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are a legitimate editor and not a WP:SOCK, then register. An anon IP who has never commented on a Woody Allen article before suddenly appearing out of nowhere to support one side in a complex talk-page discussion between two editors is highly suspect. Do we really want to sidetrack into a sock-puppet/meat-puppet investigation?

A judge's opinion in a ruling has the force of law. A testifier's opinion is under oath. Any other opinion by a person outside the family that does not change any material fact is irrelevant. The prosecutor's comment, besides being incredible — he's not going to pursue what he believes is a child predator? He's going to say, "Let's keep a predator on the streets?" Really? — made no difference whatsoever to anything. It's immaterial. And Wikipedia does not include immaterial negative content about a subject.

As to the actors, those are professionals involved in that which makes the subject notable. Actions they take such as refusing to work with the subject concretely affect that which makes the subject notable, and of course should be included. Can you not see the difference between that a negative opinion that doesn't affect anything whatsoever? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation to register. Focusing on the content of the article, you make a number of good points as to the relevancy and materiality of types of evidence in a court of law, why a court might properly exclude some and also why a reader might not be persuaded by such evidence. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tribunal. We must, of course, be scrupulous that false or unsupported claims not be presented (as set forth in some detail in WP:BLP), but it also is not our job to suppress notable material presented by reliable sources who do not find it to be irrelevant to their readers ("notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm" from above.). Are you still of the opinion that there is no prominent controversy presented by reliable sources? 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that no one here attempts to suppress notable material, the discussion here is basically about whether the sexual assault allegation/custody dispute is an issue notable and relevant enough to be included in the lead section.-ז62 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

[Serious violation of WP:BLP redacted. WP:BLP applies to both article pages and talk pages.]

If he had, then that fact should've been included (though not in such vulgar language you use) in the article. As he hadn't (Dylan Farrow's accusations remain unproven and Allen was never formally charged; Soon-Yi Previn was not Allen's adoptive child, she was adopted by Mia Farrow and André Previn) your claim of an "incontrovertible fact" seems to be lacking in factual substance. Please read also Wikipedia:Libel and Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. Thank you.-ז62 (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not Allen is guilty, the allegations against him are very clearly a significant part of his biography and are highly notable in the context of an article about him. It should absolutely be added to the lead. Sdkb (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No one disputed the fact that the allegations were, from time to time, significant part of Allen's public image, but what still remains unresolved is whether this unproven allegation (originally publicized during 1992, chiefly in connection to a rather bitter separation of Allen and Mia Farrow, and then recently somehow revived in late 2017/early 2018 society/gossip columns) is significant enough to be included in the lead or whether it would be giving them an undue weight. Please also check the talk page history for further information on earlier discussion about this.-ז62 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

p.s.: Note that I've removed your changes from the lead paragraph, as I don't think it's reasonable to make such one-sided edits before clear consensus is reached in the discussion.--ז62 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The allegations against Allen pass WP:DUE with flying colors. Note that there is an entire separate Wikipedia article solely about them, and that far more media coverage about Allen in the past year has focused on the allegations than on his professional work.

There is currently neither consensus for or against including the allegations in the lead, but either is a significant editorial decision, and currently the balance is in favor of inclusion, so I re-added it. It seems apparent that many of the contributors to this talk page are not coming from a neutral point of view, so this discussion is now listed in WP:3O. Sdkb (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sdkb: You can certainly claim that it's - somehow - "clear" to you, but you should perhaps attempt to back your claims with some reliable source, as previous results of the discussion had not resulted in support for such a change.

Sadly, it really seems apparent that lot of contributors to this talk had some kind of pre-conceived strong opinions against Allen, either without giving any rationale or reliable source for their opinion, sometimes even resorting to their own subjective feelings, or even based their position on completely incorrect assumptions, (expressed in rather vulgar language) which they somehow supposed to be "incontrovertible fact". Not to mention that some of them are IPs/unregistered, so their mere "numbers" could be somewhat unreliable criterion. -ז62 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Since there is currently neither consensus for or against including the allegations in the lead, and the allegations have now been removed twice from the lead after you added them, and you've now started a RfC, let's leave them out until the RfC has run it's course and decided consensus on this dispute. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. A third opinion was requested at WP:3O, but I have declined it on the basis that there are more than two editors involved in substantive discussion, and because there is another dispute resolution method (an RFC) in progress that would supersede the third opinion anyway. Third opinions are lightweight and non-binding in nature, a bit like sticking your head into a neighbour's cubicle and saying "hey, what do you think about X?" When there are many editors involved in a discussion, a more robust form of dispute resolution is preferable. I see an RFC has been started below; those tend to work well. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 11:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment about whether to mention sexual assault allegations in the lead paragraph

There is a clear consensus not to mention the sexual assault allegations in the lead paragraph.

Cunard (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2018 (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.

---

Should the lead paragraph include mention of the sexual assault allegations against Allen, and if so, how much weight should they be given? Sdkb (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• No The allegation was investigated and refuted decades ago. No criminal charges were filed against Allen. It is the only allegation of sexual misconduct against Allen, and to mention it in the lead would give it undue weight. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And given recent revelations, a single allegation of sexual misconduct should probably be thought of as deductible. (Seriously, I agree with Cullen: No.) EEng 05:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• No From my comments on previous discussions about this being in the lede: "The lede should be a brief introduction for why the subject is notable. Allen is notable for his work in film and comedy, so the lede should reflect this. One of the things I remember most about that article from The New York Times that brought the scandal back into the public a few years ago was how Dylan Farrow was upset that the allegations had not affected his career. Nothing has changed (yet) and wikipedia isn't the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS."LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• No Not relevant.Anamyouse (talk) 2:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.86.104.61 (talk)
• No It's not a big part of the article, and not what he is known for. Having it in the lead would be over weight. Darx9url (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• No It's not part of his notability in any way whatsoever, and anyone can allege anything — and in this case, agencies in both New York and Connecticut could not confirm the allegation, a Connecticut prosecutor declined to prosecute, and two New York State adoption agencies vetted Allen and his wife to adopt two infant daughters. Additionally, Moses Farrow, Dylan's brother, who was there when the alleged event occured, said neither Dylan nor Allen was out of sight of two nannies and others. [5]. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• No The allegation has not been substantiated in 26 years's time. There was no 'accusation', as in: no formal charge. Hence no trial, no conviction. Hence there is no proper motive to include this in the lead as an important fact. Mcouzijn (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, but only a sentence toward the end. This is a close question and I respect the "yes" "no" position outlined above. However, the sheer volume of coverage in recent years, and not just in tabloid sources, indicates to me that not mentioning the allegations would be an NPOV issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I would just note that it's "allegation," singular. I think the fact of saying "allegations" just reinforces how widely misconstrued this is and how WP:UNDUE.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Granted, but the volume of coverage is such that I think we need to consider adding. I'm OK with not adding, however. I agree that there are good reasons not to add. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes I concur with Figureofnine's reasoning and proposed placement/length. Dbrote (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but why? I mean: this is a Request for Comments, i.e. not just votes, also arguments. The aim of an RfC is to discuss the issue, see if consensus can be reached and, if not, to decide by votes.Mcouzijn (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• No – it doesn't belong. Gaustaag (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) Wikipedia not NCISpedia, we don't need to have content warnings in the description. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Little or none. This is less than 5% of the article, so Per WP:LEAD might get a tiny mention of about the same amount. It seems not to have had a major impact on his life though, so could be left out of BLP lead. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot). In their own section, as they currently are, these claims can be discussed with balance. By putting them in the lead, we'd just cheer on the POV bandwagon that wants to re-trumpet long-ago claims whose long-ago investigators found them not just unproven but coached. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• No The extensive coverage mentioned by Figureofnine is the justification for including the allegations in the article at all.--agr (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2018 (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.

A suggestion

Might I make a suggestion? Try to do less rather than more. Write about the basic facts of his life, then move on. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a tabloid or a TV show or Facebook. Wikipedia isn't the place to go for dirt, gossip, or the latest thing. There are already lots of places out there for that. Wikipedia is the last word on nothing. It's the first word. It's the first step in your research and your interest. If you want analysis, look elsewhere. Much debate and wasted time can be avoided if you simply stick to the facts and refrain from going into every detail of his life. That goes for all biographies on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) and all other articles on Wikipedia. The more detail there is, the more arguments develop, the more time is wasted. Try to keep the articles much shorter. If readers want a real biography, they can buy a book. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section

More people know Woody Allen for his relationship with Sun-Yi, than many of the things mentioned like Stardust Memories or the PBS documentary. Why is this missing?Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is what missing? The article talks about his relationship. Wikipedia has standards for determining what makes a person notable, what allows them to be in the encyclopedia. Being famous isn't enough. Dating someone isn't enough. Notability has to do with some kind of accomplishment. In Woody Allen's case, his accomplishments are in writing screenplays and directing movies. His personal life really isn't anyone's business.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Allen’s relationship with Sun-Yi, general history of confirmed and alleged relationships with underage or nearly underage women, and alleged molestation of Dylan Farrow is more widely known than his films. However, a conversation about putting Farrow’s molestation allegation in the lead already struck down that portion of the talk page and I believe that discussing only his relationship with Sun-Yi in the lead would have a similar reaction. On the other hand, I believe there is an good argument for combining all of these things into one or two sentences of the lead as it shows a pattern that relates to both his work directly (detailed here and here) as well as the public view of his work. Asking for this should probably be done as a formal request for comment, though. _ On a related note, the sentence ‘His relationship with Previn became public and "erupted into tabloid headlines and late-night monologues in August 1992."' implies that this is no longer a controversy, which is decidedly untrue. His son Ronan Farrow has spoken about this is the past few years and it is still brought up in many of the think-pieces about Allen. I suggest that this sentence be clarified, potentially by adding something along the lines of "and has stayed controversial since". _ Vmavanti, regardless of personal opinion about one’s personal life being of public concern, Wikipedia includes people's personal lives on their pages. CLPond (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)CLPond

Struck down in a poll of people who self-select to maintain Woody Allen's Wikipedia page no less: apparently it's not clear there would be any bias at all in such a sample of course, so despite it being what he's most known for, we'll keep it like this. It is ridiculous to bury the lead this way, and clearly fan service. Gripdamage (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hoponpop69:, @CLPond:, @Gripdamage: Can you give at least some reliable sources supporting your unreferenced assertions about Allen (allegedly) being more known for the unproven allegations from the mid-1990s than for his body of work/life in general, in the mainstream perception? ((These allegations are time for time reheated in gossip columns/tabloids - so I can freely admit that some people can actually have such deeply subjective perception of Allen, if they're basing their opinion on him primarily on gossip columns/tabloids they've read recently) Because the complete failure to give such reliable evidence giving support to inclusion of the sexual assault allegations in the leded was the reason why attempt to include this in the lead section failed so utterly and pathetically. Unreferenced statements, presented as "facts" like: "More people know Woody Allen for his relationship with Sun-Yi than many of the things mentioned, [..]" and "I agree that Allen’s relationship with Sun-Yi, general history of confirmed and alleged relationships with underage or nearly underage women, and alleged molestation of Dylan Farrow is more widely known than his films" or "[s]o despite it being what he's most known for, we'll keep it like this" sounds quite hollow, such as they're. (Examples given by user hidingCLPond, allegedly "showing pattern that relates to both his work directly" are opinion pieces, exploring possible similarities between Allen's work and the public perception of it - they're perhaps OK as references for "views on Allen" or such, but no reasonable person would use them for "facts on Allen".)

And yes - Wikipedia does include details of personal lives in bios (which is certainly the case here too), but this surely does not mean that it gives undue weight to them without a reasonable cause. Please see also wp:BLP and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. No offence meant. --83.208.47.178 (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. How come if you Google "Woody Allen", flip on over to the news tab, there's not a single recent article that views "Hannah and Her Sister's" as more important than "Dylan Farrow" like this article does? My good sources are every article I can find. And it's not like the articles are about the scandal: It's all about him filming a new movie, but nobody writes an article about him anymore without mentioning it, generally near the top. When they write an article about him filming a new movie, they think as background information this is more important to know than that he directed Hannah and Her Sisters. What exactly do you want? Everywhere but here man... What are your sources?

• https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/02/woody-allen-new-movie-spain
• http://fortune.com/2019/02/22/woody-allen-spain-movie-mediapro/
• https://www.indiewire.com/2019/02/woody-allen-preps-new-movie-spain-1202045953/
• https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/woody-allen-shoot-next-film-spain-1188949
• https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6737129/Woody-Allen-making-new-movie-despite-allegations-molested-adopted-daughter-Dylan-Farrow.html
• https://variety.com/2019/film/global/woody-allen-teams-spain-mediapro-next-film-1203145968/

I think it strongly suggests that knowing that he's accused of molesting his own daughter is considered more important to understanding who this person is right now, then knowing he directed Hannah and Her Sisters, but we're not burying the latter. Look for yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=woody+allen&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3-vDxzpHhAhXk24MKHRBsD68Q_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=944 Gripdamage (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes - those are exactly the results achieved with careful (ahem) selection of recent news, particularly if they're chosen from less than reputable entertainment sources. (And even in them it's usually mentioned along with the Allen-Amazon lawsuit, so - if your assessment of importance should've been followed, which I do certainly not support - should that be perhaps mentioned too in the lede too? - Many of your "reliable sources", as I've skipped them, gave more prominence to the lawsuit.) The unproven allegations are sufficiently covered in the article, but it would be mistaken to give them undue weight in the lede, as the mere fact of being involved in a controversy does not mean that the person in question is notable for being involved in controversy. regards-83.208.47.178 (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

p.s.: And it's Hannah and Her Sisters, not Hannah and Her Sister's, so you shouldn't been surprised you haven't find it mentioned anywhere.-83.208.47.178 (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh good one. I only spelled it right twice. So aside from being petty, I take it you got nothing. IP address? Are you his publicist or something? BTW my selection technique involved the dastardly technique of clicking the articles in the exact order they appeared in the search results. As I said, you can try it yourself. As you will see, no matter how you spell it, it isn't anything anybody thinks is important to know right now about Mr Allen. Gripdamage (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the situation has changed since the above vote. After reading so many sources, I went ahead and captured what I found in the page. If someone can find me a current source that doesn't suggest this thing about Woody Allen is one of the most important things to know about him right now, I'd sure be interested to see it. As I said in my comment, he's had a movie shelved, has a growing list of actors who won't work with him and are donating money they've made to charity. As far as I can see no news org or magazine will write a story about him making a new movie without mentioning this, and I don't think it makes any sense for wikipedia to not highlight what everyone else seems to think is important info. Gripdamage (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A slight gripe. These are not Mia Farrow's accusations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic1kMoM_kPw . The full custody document is available: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html In the findings of fact, the judge specifically notes that the babysitter "testified that she did not tell Ms. Farrow, until after Dylan's statement of August 5, that Dylan and Mr. Allen were unaccounted for during fifteen or twenty minutes on August 4. It is highly unlikely that Ms. Farrow would have encouraged Dylan to accuse her father of sexually molesting her during a period in which Ms. Farrow believed they were in the presence of a babysitter." As such these are Dylan's accusations not Mia Farrows, and Mia and Dylan (backed up by the custody documents) say that has always been the case. Characterizing them as Mia's accusations is part of this narrative that Mia poisoned the children to say these things, but this is an adult women telling us they are her own accusations. You don't have to believe her accusations are true, but you can't deny they are hers when there is documented historical evidence they are hers and as an adult she claims them as hers. These are Dylan's accusations. That Dylan Farrow is accusing Woody Allen is a fact. That those accusations are because her mother told her to is an interpretation of the facts. You can't report the interpretation as the fact and be NPOV. Gripdamage (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you've spelled it right once or twice, but your exact complain was worded "there's not a single recent article that views 'Hannah and Her Sister's' as more important than 'Dylan Farrow' " so it's in no way clear for what the exact wording of your search was. As for your hollow claims and unsubstantiated personal accusations, you should perhaps be more civil. The "sources" you gave are in no way newer or more reliable than the ones available during the poll. And you've already clarified you gave more weight to the recent gossip(news, I've explained why it's not exactly reliable way to asses its importance/relevance, and the results of the RfC poll still still firmly stand against your proposed changes. Perhaps it's time to drop to stick for you?

And right, these were accusations not only by Mia Farrow, there were/are also repeated by Dylan and Ronan Farrow, (and not supported by Moses Farrow), but that's not exactly the point here.

I'm not going to revert the changes you've made without achieving consensus for change (and directly against consensus achieved in the latest poll), as being an unregistered user makes me too much vulnerable to attacks by various agenda pushers here , but I hope some more respectable user would gonna go to repair the article to the last undamaged version. ---83.208.47.178 (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)