Talk:Woody Allen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Woody Allen was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 10, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article is a former WikiProject Biography Collaboration (24 September – 25 October 2007). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.
WikiProject Jewish culture (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Jazz (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Atheism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Woody Allen is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject New York City (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Comedy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
  1. Beginning of time – June 2006 Sexual abuse allegations, Soon-Yi's stepfather?, original name, Jewish/atheist
  2. June 2006-Present



Uh, I don't normally contribute to Wikipedia, so I'm not really sure what to do with these, but I thought someone who's more of a regular here might want to make use of these links.


Supposedly the first link is about Whatever Works, but it really isn't. It's more about Woody Allen's worldview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Greece?[edit]

"More recently, Ancient Greece has become a source for ideas." No link, no source, no further details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamharush (talkcontribs) 17:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Umlaut? Königsberg or Konigsberg?[edit]


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 -- 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 (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. (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment[edit]

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Films directed by Woody Allen[edit]

Since Woody Allen is a person and not a film, I think this article should not belong to the "Films" category. Agreed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed.Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Allen signed petition defending Roman Polanski[edit]

I propose that the following sentence be added to the artcle:

In 2009, Allen signed a petition asking that film director Roman Polanski be released from Swiss custody after Polanski was arrested for raping a 13-year-old girl.[1]

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont' agree with this:
a) Woody Allen was only one of the signatories, he was not the leading personality behind the petition.
b) Fact that he signed a petition is of minimal importance relating to his biography - while the other initiatives he took part in are not mentioned in the article.
c) The proposed formulation is misleading, as Polanski was detained because of warrant relating to charge over 30 years old, not to any recent charge - and formulation used collides with Wikipedia policy on facts unrelated to the subject of the article, and at the same time violates neutral point of view required by rules for articles on biography of living persons.--ja_62 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Clear BLP violation, selective presentation of facts in order to increase disparaging impact of claim. More generally, content like this should be incorporated into 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski rather than scattered throughout Wikipedia. This is nowhere near significant enough in the context of Allen's life to mention in his biography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. It's factually inaccurate, to start. Polanski was not arrested in Switzerland for child rape, he was arrested on a 30 year old fugitive warrant, not child rape, the petition is not about the crime, but is about the manner and the legality of Polanski's recent arrest. That's a completely different thing, about the process. It is undue weight in regard to that, and it is not relevant to what makes this article subject notable. It's a violation of WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The "woody allen-character" section[edit]

I move to delete this section, as it is entirely speculation. Woody Allen has refuted this many times. Reduced to its essence, the section only serves to make two false claims: 1) All the characters in all the Woody Allen films that have ever displayed neuroses are not really several different characters but the same character that he's been working on since the 60's. 2) He chooses other actors to play that one character, since he is now too old to play him. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In essence, that is nothing more than original research/writer opinion. There is nothing establishing that the roles Allen played were a character created by him, much less that he stopped portraying characters in his films because he was too old. The only film in which it could be confirmed that the age factor changed the film plot focus was in Scoop, in which the "crush" was changed from Allen having an interest in Scarlett Johannson to the converse. This isn't appropriate in this article. LaVidaLoca (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

His name[edit]

If he legally changed his name to Heywood Allen then why is the caption allen stewart konisberg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Because the caption is of his birth name. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't his legal name appear in the first sentence of the article? E.g. Heywood "Woody" Allen (born Allen Stewart Konigsberg, December 1, 1935) is an American filmmaker... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Did he choose that name (as opposed to Woodrow) partly because of Heywood Broun? I've never read anything to that effect, but given the rarity of the name and who Broun was, it seems like too much of a coincidence. Richard K. Carson (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit with American Apparel[edit]

In regards to his lawsuit, is there an article that has information about it? If not, should there be a section about it in this article? I found out about it from seeing the American Apparel press release about the settlement: WhisperToMe (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. It seemed like a big deal to me, while it was happening, but in the grand scheme of things Woody, I don't think it bears much relevance. I think it bears more relevance regarding things American Apparel. If you still think it should be mentioned, I recommend inserting it into the "Work about or inspired by Woody Allen" section.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Woody's umlaut[edit]

LOL- Nice catch, Sara's Song. On both counts.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sara's Song (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ronan Seamus Farrow[edit]

I'm not so sure that we really need Woody's son's assessment in this article. I'm curious what other editors think.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because it had no reliable source. Was there one and I missed it?

--Javaweb (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb Why is his name different on his wikipedia post? Satchel Ronan O'Sullivan Farrow

And why is his adopted daughter, Dylan, who says molested her not even listed as his daughter when his two other adopted daughter are. Seems like you all are trying to whitewash his pedophilia tendencies. You list his girlfriend Stacey Nelkin was 17 and in high school!! Soon Yi too! No one sees a pattern here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


God and the meaning of life is an important part of Allen's work,[1] and he is himself an agnostic/atheist who has made comments about the meaninglessness of life (e.g. "Your perception of time changes as you get older, because you see how brief everything is. You see how meaningless … I don't want to depress you, but it's a meaningless little flicker"[2]; "... I'm spiritually empty 'cause I am an atheist and I've never found any consolation for the misery of life and the terror of what we go through, and I'm talking existentially now, not politically."[3]), but there's nothing in the article about this aspect of his work and life. I'm not sure how to best incorporate it though. Fences&Windows 13:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The chart about recurring collaborators[edit]

How do editors feel about this. I think it's tacky, takes up too much room and is not needed. If editors feel it's important to the article than fine but wouldn't putting it in prose be better than this? Opinions please, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you - the table/chart looks messy, is confusing and adds very little value. Not needed. - Josette (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The big black X draws the eye to an aspect of the article that is not the number one priority, and in doing so, it overshadows more relevant content. The template is used in a small number of articles and, although I appreciate that it is used in good faith, I don't think it adds value. I agree with you and Josette. It looks like the exam paper for the worst student in the class, and I think it deserves an "F". Rossrs (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Support: "it's tacky, takes up too much room and is not needed". Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem[edit]


This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

List of actors/actresses in Allen films[edit]

I think this section is useless. The actors and actresses aren't in any order (as far as I can see), and the list isn't even complete. To fix these problems would require a substantial amount of time. Furthermore, is this section even interesting? Perhaps if presented differently (like a category format) it would make more sense, but right now, I would support the deletion of this section. Wolfehhgg (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Support deletion m.cellophane (talk)m.cellophane —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

Reference needed for statement about Mr. Allen's psychoanalysis[edit]

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.

Expelled from NYU?[edit]

It's been reported on several websites that he was expelled from NYU, although the reason isn't quite clear. BrotherSulayman (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Allen has said he was "thrown out". See this Fresh Air transcript and search text for "flunked". --Javaweb (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
He says he was uninterested in school at the time so he failed his courses. --Javaweb (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Clothing is Singular...[edit]

See this example in The NY Times headline. Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article,, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"Significant Works About Woody Allen" Section[edit]

This information contained in the section doesn't seem to warrant its own section. It would probably make more sense if the info here could be integrated into other sections. Any other suggestions?Jpcohen (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Please reference the film. It has no jokes or humor. "Gloomy" is not "speculation". The previous movies he directed were comedies. "sharp departure" is accurate as well. No speculation involved. Making wikipedia more objective is a good thing. However, none of these statements are controversial and there is no question about objectivity. --Javaweb (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

No disrespect but labeling the movie "gloomy" is a negative judgement. If you want to add a negative assessment of Interiors, I would recommend finding outside sources. For instance, if an Allen biographer calls the movie "gloomy," then that doesn't break the rules regarding WP:OPINION.Jpcohen (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps calling the movie "dark" would seem less judgemental.Jpcohen (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem. It helps to have other editors review changes. --Javaweb (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Did Allen get good performances from his actors[edit]

the removed text is not trivial. It helps answer that question. --Javaweb (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

It doesn't mention how he got good performances from his actors it just says that some actors and actresses in his movies won awards. It didn't tie into Allen at all, it wasn't him personally winning those awards and it just seemed odd to mention others in a section devoted to the awards that he himself won--GroovySandwichYum. 04:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The recent American Masters Doc from PBS mentions this exact thing and I think it's encyclopedic and interesting information about Woody himself to learn how many of the actors and actresses in his films have won awards, especially academy awards, and I've come to this page to find that exact information. I think it should be mentioned. Dancindazed (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


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

potential resource American Masters[edit]

Woody Allen: A Documentary premiered November 20 2011 from 9-11 p.m. (ET/PT) and Monday, November 21 from 9-10:30 p.m. (ET/PT) on PBS (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"O.P.S. prices"[edit]

Buried in the Talk archives is the explanation that "O.P.S. prices" refers to the Office of Price Stabilization, an agency of the Economic Stabilization Agency, which exist4ed only during the Korean War. I think if the joke is worth including at all, "O.P.S." needs to be explained in the article, not just on the Talk page. While explaining a joke means it will not be funny, it would at least be understandable. If the joke cannot be explained without a lot of tangential exposition, I suggest deleting it as unencyclopedic trivia. jnestorius(talk) 17:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

help with the name of this "film"[edit]

Some one knows the name of this film by Woody Allen, in which he play a joker that wants to have sex with a queen... I don't really know if he directed it or if he wrote it

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) --Javaweb (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Carla Bruni , French First Lady[edit]

There was a change to show Carla Bruni is now the former French first lady. At the time of "Midnight in Paris", Carla Bruni was the current First Lady. Can someone think of a way of wording it that would capture that? --Javaweb (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Javaweb I revised the clause of that sentence to, "Carla Bruni, who was the First Lady of France at the time of production." It accurately reflects her status during shooting in a concise way that maintains the flow of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

He' the one[edit]

He is so good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Need a section for the TV show, 'Kraft Music Hall: Woody Allen looks at 1967'[edit]

On December 27th, 1967, Woody Allen hosted a televised variety show titled “Kraft Music Hall: Woody Allen looks at 1967". The "Kraft Music Hall", which ran from 1967 to 1971, featured a different host on each weekly show. Woody Allen's clip: Shouldn't mention of this be in the main article? Theaternearyou (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Allen is an author too[edit]

Allen is an author too. he has at least three published books. i don't know how to add "author" to the list of his occupations under his photo. 15:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Michael Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Oscar night tradition?[edit]

I read somewhere that on Oscar night (or perhaps only on Oscar nights in which he is nominated), Allen performs music at a New York club in lieu of attending. This isn't mentioned in the Academy Awards section; I'm sure it's probably referenced in a biography of him. (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Born" vs né[edit]

Re:this edit: "Woody Allen (born Allan Stewart Konigsberg)" in the context of the article is clearer and simpler in English, the language of pages beginning with urls "" "Woody Allen ([né] Allan Stewart Konigsberg)" is so unclear, the word needed a link to its definition. --Javaweb (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Which is it?[edit]

In the wives section, there are two conflicting dates for his fist marriage.

54 - 59 and right below that 56 - 62

So which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox bloat[edit]

The infobox is already bloated with irrelevant details about his personal life, including a list of his children and other relatives. Adding his girlfriends to the box overloads it with trivia. As it is, there are already entire subsections devoted to old girlfriends from his school days, when at most that kind of personal romance trivia shouldn't warrant entire sections, IMO. --Light show (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Birth name Allen, Allan[edit]

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)

Sexual Abuse Allegations[edit]

I believe that the sexual abuse allegations warrant a section. This was removed and I added it back - but an editor is trying to whitewash the page. The reason these warrant a section is that:

  • The allegations continue to be a source of widespread discussion among critics and fans of Allen's work
  • Allen's daughter, Dylan, not only complained of abuse when she was young but, now, as an adult, says that Allen did indeed molest her
  • Allen's family has cut off ties with him and his biological son maintains that Allen is a child molester

I don't see how these facts do not warrant inclusion in an even handed discussion of anyone's personal life. To remove mention of any of these things violates NPOV.

Clubintheclub (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed I checked the New York Times reference and it says what you said, no OR or SYNTH. I can't check the vanity fair reference from work, so I can't vouch for that one, but the New York Times reference is fine. New York Times is a reliable source.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Great Do you mind adding a section when you have a chance? I am trying mediation/administrative warning w.r.t. the dispute with the editor who is whitewashing this page. I do not want to modify anything here myself. Clubintheclub (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

[redacted proposal per BLP]

Clubintheclub (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Allegations of sexual abuse by a family member are important in a biography. I also believe this warrants its own section - it is 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 (talk-- 20:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Generally we do not add allegations, just as we do not for people's sexual preferences. Our adversarial legal system allows any allegations to be made at legal proceedings. Clearly in a divorce you have an advantage if make allegations like this against the person you are divorcing, it determines who gets custody. They may be true, may be false, but by reprinting them we are perpetuating trial allegations. We should stick to self-confessions and trial outcomes for sex truth or falsehood. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The matter at issue is already treated, more evenhandedly and more appropriately, at Woody_Allen#Marriages_and_romantic_relationships, in the Mia Farrow section. Since Clubintheclub repeats some of the language there verbatim, they are clearly aware of that, and their claim I was "trying to whitewash the page" should be treated quite skeptically in light of that. There is no need for a second, more graphic and more inflammatory, treatment of the matter. My own preference aligns with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s analysis, above, but I am quite reluctant to disturb the long-standing consensus on this point -- and certainly would not do so without prior discussion and consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the issue that I feel is not addressed is that the daughter herself, not the mother, claims that she was molested. Clubintheclub (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The allegations may be true, or may be false. We do know that false memories can be implanted through repetition. The McMartin preschool trial children, now adults, still believe they were taken through secret tunnels and molested, because they were told over and over that they were. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the fact that we have a first hand admission (by the victim) of the abuse enough to mention it? Its not "our" accusation, its the accusation of the admitted victim. If she later recants, then that can be added to the article or the accusation stricken altogether. If its added to the "Mia Farrow" relationship section, its in proper context with the article not in its own section which brings Undue attention to the claim. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Roseanne Barr underwent repressed memory therapy and was convinced that her parents raped her as a child. Implanting false memories is very easy, read anything by Elizabeth Loftus. It is amazingly easy with children and surprisingly easy with adults, when the memories are about their distant childhoods. See Lost in the mall technique --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Likewise, I don't think allegations warrant a section, despite the well-publicized chirps. That would place it as a TOC item in an encyclopedia, tabloid style. The article already looks a bit obsessive giving everyone he ever dated or winked at their own section, or listed in the info box. --Light show (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
At the Oak Hill satanic ritual abuse trial, Dan Keller just was released and apologized to. He spent over 20 years in prison based on false sexual abuse testimony by children. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ms. Farrow was dumped for her adopted, adult daughter. Farrow had a strong motive to hurt Allen and that daughter. Farrow then claimed Soon-Yi was "retarded"(her word). Now we are supposed to believe Allen chose a brain-addled wife to live with for 20+ years and raise their 2 kids. She also had an accusation against Allen. She made an accusation against Allen in court and was not able to prove it and a team of experts concluded the accusation was false. Also,how likely is it that Allen would have been allowed to adopt his 2 kids if they believed the claims? Unless the allegations are proved, they are BLP --Javaweb (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Javaweb

Farrow also claimed that Soon-Yi was a victim of statutory rape to discredit Allen. She floated the concept that she was as young as 15 during her relationship with Allen, saying her adoption papers were incorrect in estimating her age. She also argued that diminished capacity ("borderline retarded" was the phrase) prevented Soon-Yi from giving consent for sex which would also be statutory rape. If you are going to court for child support and for custody, you go to win, and you use all the legal weapons available. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Currently Dylan Farrow's renewed allegations against Woody Allen are on the online front pages of several newspapers and all over social media. It seems that there are a lot of people who are sceptical about the allegations, but that is no reason not to include them - they are clearly an important facet of his current reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am really wondering that there is no single statement (!?) about the actual allegetions in the English Wikipedia so far. Due to the upcoming discussion in Germany the German Wikipeadia stated today: "In 2013, the abuse allegations against Woody Allen were raised again, when the daughter Dylan Farrow stated in an interview with the magazine Vanity Fair and later on, in an open letter on the website of the New York Times in early 2014, that she has been sexually abused by him at the age of 7 years, see also

Ibohnet (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That Dylan Farrow has gone public in this way is a fact and is beyond dispute. I don't think anyone could seriously say it's not notable. Whether the substance of her allegations are true does not alter the fact that she has acted in this very public way against Allen. I believe it will deserve a brief mention... not necessarily now, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but certainly in the near future. Marteau (talk)
But see and . I don't see any reason to rush to judgment on a contretemps between two people (Mia Farrow and Woody Allen) with track records of creepy behavior. Dylan Farrow is a victim -- but whether of her father's sexual abuse or her mother's psychological abuse hasn't been determined, and the Wikipedia editing community is hardly well-qualified to even frame the discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but that does not address my point at all. My point is, that what Dylan has done (accuse Woody Allen) is beyond dispute, is NPOV, and is not original research (in other words, simply saying he has accused is not a BLP violation, it's simply a fact). WHAT she was accusing Allen of is, of course, under dispute. THAT she has accused Allen is NOT under dispute. I simply do not see how saying that Dylan did something which is beyond dispute (i.e. accuse Allen very publicly) is a BLP violation. It is possible and would probably preferable to say that Dylan lodged accusations (again, this is simply an irrefutable, neutral fact) without going into the details of the allegations. Marteau (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not a new allegation, although the specificity may be greater than previous accounts. The allegation is already mentioned in the context of the custody dispute. If the allegation were included in this manner, NPOV and BLP would require us to add the medical team's determination of its likely falsity, and the allegations of Farrow's supposed campaign in response to Allen's award nominations, and more, ad nauseam. If we're going to follow the "do no harm" foundation for BLP policy, this is a topic that should be handled minimally and quite carefully absent a real resolution or balanced evaluation in reliable secondary sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that Dylan Farrow's allegations have been widely reported on press and television, I think it would be biased not to give them some mention. We don't need to say that they are true, if there are reliable sources which dispute these allegations they should be included. PatGallacher (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

They were widely reported before the NYT piece. The allegations in general been widely reported for years. The allegations in general are already mentioned in the article. Recirculating them - especially via a journalist with close ties to Mia Farrow - doesn't make them more noteworthy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree we should be very conservative with stuff like this. I don't see any harm in adding one bland sentence to the effect that she has repeated the allegations in 2014. It is easy to source. --John (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that for the time being a sentence or two is enough. Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should add a sentence. But I think it's a little weird and counter-intuitive to put that sentence under the "Romantic relationships" section. This is now a clearly separate issue from his relationship with Mia Farrow and shouldn't be shoved in there just because it's convenient. Realistically, I think we need a second section under Personal life for "Sexual assault allegations" - or a Controversy section, like the one on Tom Cruise's page - where we simply state that his daughter published allegations in 2014. In any case, there's plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for including information about high-profile allegations or even rumors about the subject if they blow up in the news. (See the section on Kevin Spacey's page just addressing his sexuality.) (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you have a point about the controversies section. But I'd be opposed to only this issue getting a special section. Coretheapple (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
We don't do controversy sections. One sourced sentence, added to what we have, is all I can support. --John (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of what I've added? I broke it out as a sub-sub-subsection, moved one sentence and added two, one of which is Allen's denial. I don't feel very strongly about this, so if you want to fold it back into the Farrow subsection I wouldn't object. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Not bad. I removed the subsection as I felt it gave too much emphasis, and I adjusted the wording slightly. --John (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it's OK now. Sub-sub-sub (etc)-section not really necessary at this point. If something actually happens, if there are repercussions beyond bad publicity, we can revisit. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I read this entire section, and I was almost amused by it. Those who were against inclusion--and, despite all talks of "consensus", the subject and the shocking allegations, made under oath in legal proceedings, and publicly by several victims, are buried in the text--almost to the last one, hang their hat not on the notability of the comments, but on the "motivation" of one of several people who have laid out what to the non-jaundiced eye are quite shocking allegations of long-standing pedophilia (it is not the weasel word 'abuse'). Those who are in favor of upholding wikipedia policy, of course, point out that the veracity of the allegations is totally unimportant, and the real inquiry is the notability of them.
But, as always happens with the class of people who have enjoyed long standing protection on these wikipedia pages (see Bernard Goetz, George Zimmerman, for instance), it does not matter how long the discussion or how impassioned, or even logical or reasoned those in favor of inclusion make their point on the talk pages, the article will remain the property of those with a vested interest, and no matter how many gyrations the parties engage in here on the talk pages, that, too, will be buried in "archives--the memory hole, I call it--in due course, so that both the article and official talk page will present the official version of the story as sanctioned by the gatekeepers at wikipedia, and, they hope, the internet.
I know I speak for millions of disillusioned, who really thought when these pages first sprung up, that they will be the alternative to the managed "reality" we have everyday with the bought media, but, after a while, we simply have to give credit where it's due. Maybe, we all do love Big Brother, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Soon Yi links[edit]

The Soon Yi Previn bracketed hyperlinks are recursive to this page after a redirect, please remove them as they are pointless. (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

age of Moses Farrow at time of decision not to see Allen[edit]

According to the NYT article sourced in the Mia Farrow section, Moses was 15 at the time (not 14, as was previously written). That is confirmed in this recent Deadspin article as well: --Bobjohnson111980 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert B. Weide (January 27, 2014). "The Woody Allen Allegations: Not So Fast". The Daily Beast.  also has an update on Moses:

Moses Farrow, now 36, .... has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of “finally seeing the reality” of Frog Hollow and used the term “brainwashing” without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi.

--Javaweb (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Javaweb

Intro improvement[edit]

Currently the first line of this article claims: "Woody Allen (born Allen Stewart Konigsberg; December 1, 1935) is an American screenwriter, director, actor, comedian, author, playwright, and musician whose career spans more than 50 years." It should also include the acknowledgement that he is a "unconvicted pedophile".

This is because WP:TRUTH states 'to define the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth".' For his own former step daughter to make such vile comments about him means that this article should note them as he is currently an unconvicted pedophile.7 Because assuming WP:Good Faith, there is no reason for her to be lying as she exposes herslef to the world as a victim of sexual abuse. That is sufficient for this Wikipedia's rules. Despite the gravity of the accuastions, the fact is Allen is now an "unconvicted pedohpile" to the same degree - articles about actors - through accusation are accused of being difficult to work with. That has not been tested in a court of law, but articles on this site still claim as much. (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But the accusation has not been verified. As required by state law, the State of Connecticut looked into Mia Farrow's accusation. In 1993, the head doctor of the police-appointed medical team gave sworn testimony that Dylan "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" because of the inconsistent presentation of the story by Dylan.[1] Doctors did not find any physical evidence of abuse. Even Nicolas Kristof, the columnist and friend of Mia Farrow who published the accusation, says he "should be presumed innocent". There are also other sources that dispute the accusation. --Javaweb (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Javaweb
(responding to IP) The entire population of the United States, with a few exceptions, consists of "unconvicted pedophiles," in that very few of us have been convicted of that crime. Let's get real about this. The allegations are already in the article. They are not new. However, I agree that a sentence or two, no more, and certainly no separate section, will suffice at present. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I mention this upthread, but I don't think inserting this new sentence about the allegations in an irrelevant section (Mia Farrow) makes sense, or that it's the right solution to our nervousness about mentioning allegations. The allegations were relevant to Mia Farrow when she was the one making them, and when she was indicating they were related to her relationship with Woody Allen. Now one of his daughters is making allegations that aren't related to her parents' marriage at all, so I think it needs a new section or subsection - not to make it more prominent, but simply to shelve the information logically - as this really isn't about Mia Farrow at all. (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of reason it does not warrant a separate section. Period. Coretheapple (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well... maybe not a separate section but perhaps a subsection under the "Farrow" header. I'll explain my thoughts in a separate section. Coretheapple (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Open Letter From Dylan Farrow, as fact, was removed[edit]


We are all fans of Woody Allen, but we can not hide the bad news in an encyclopedia.

In February, 2014, Dylan published an open letter explaining "how Woody Allen abused me". [Dylan Farrow. "An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow". ]

A fact is not a question of NPOV. The Dylan's letter is a fact, the reader need the facts (to interpret with its proper point of view). The facts must stay at the article. --Krauss (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether to add a mention of the letter is covered by NPOV and WP:BLP. I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned at all, but it should be done with brevity, and neutrally. These are old, defamatory and unproven allegations. Coretheapple (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we add a brief mention of this open letter and Allen's reply [4]. PatGallacher (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact that Dylan made the accusation, and that is notable enough that it should be mentioned in the article.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

One possible approach[edit]

I tend to agree that our current posture of not having anything on the reassertion of the Dylan allegations, old as they are, is untenable. But the BLP and NPOV concerns are well-warranted and in fact are what brought me to this issue, seeing it discussed on a noticeboard. Allen just issued a strong denial. My suggestion is that we carve them out of the Farrow subsection and insert them at the end of the "personal life" section as a subsection entitled "Dylan Farrow controversy." I'll WP:BOLDly do that and if anyone finds it objectionable it can be reverted and we can hash it out. Coretheapple (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I added. I think it is pretty minimal and proportional. Also I added the word "children" to the overall header, to make it read "Marriages, children and romantic relationships." That is more accurate, as the section deals with his relationship with his kids and step-kids. It also is consistent with having the discussion of the Dylan allegations in this section. Coretheapple (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Just as a reminder, we cannot use a tabloid with a poor record for fact-checking to source anything remotely controversial on a BLP. See WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting issue with edit request[edit]

For some reason, any text below the "semi-protected edit request" in the section that follows is not visible. This seems to be a formatting issue. Can someone fix this please? I'm at a loss to figure out how it's done. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It was missing a </ref> tag at the end. --John (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Aha! I missed it. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014[edit]

I propose that the current sentence "Farrow won custody of their children" be developed to include more facts. As it stands, most people will assume Farrow sued Allen for custody. All these fact are taken from the same article sited in the original Wikipedia entry.

Proposed change (with facts from same article cited in current Wikipedia entry): — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulietWaters (talkcontribs) 17:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In August of 1992, a week after Farrow accused him of molesting Malone, Allen sued for full custody of his three children. His lawyers maintained Farrow concocted the charges out of anger over his affair with Soon-Yi. Justice Elliott Wilk of State Supreme Court denied Allen's request, and further denied him visitation rights with Malone, permitting only supervised visitation with Ronan. [2]

  • I don't think that would be appropriate at this page; maybe at Farrow's? Maybe not even there; we are not a tabloid newspaper after all. --John (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Can it be changed to in August of 1992 Allen sued for full custody of his three children.

Also, if we're not a tabloid then we should not be using The Daily Beast as the only source for the recently added statements about Moses Farrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulietWaters (talkcontribs) 22:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Separate section for Dylan Farrow allegations?[edit]

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.) (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. (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. (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: 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 [5][6] -- 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.[7][8] Commentary like this [9] 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. (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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014[edit]

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. [2]

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 [2]

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

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

RfC: Dylan Farrow's sexual assault allegations[edit]

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 [10], 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 [11] 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 [12] [13] [14] 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 [15].

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 [16] 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.

Being gentle with survivors on this talk page[edit]

Just a very humble request that we remain aware that sexual assault survivors are reading this talk page, and that bringing up whether Dylan Farrow is vindictive, whether it's all false memory, and so on can make it harder for them to participate as editors and to feel okay as human beings. The majority of survivors have had their vulnerable experiences picked at by others' skepticism and doubts and disbelief, and it can be kind of excruciating...I'm not saying this should affect the outcome of the Woody Allen page or the subsection debate, just that on this talk page, maybe we could try to make our cases based on policy instead of speculation, and be extra cautious and compassionate with our fellow editors who are still trying to contribute and serve the Wikipedia community while being survivors themselves. Not trying to raise anyone's defenses here and really appreciate how thoughtful many of the people on this page have been, just noting that this is also an opportunity to make women and sexual assault survivors feel okay in the WP community. (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Any comment blaming Dylan probably violates BLP and should be deleted from the talk page. Just to clarify a fact in case it might be mentioned in the article, no one is blaming Dylan Farrow. Not her brother, Moses, who says she was "brainwashed", nor anyone representing Mr Allen. --Javaweb (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Javaweb

OK, we need compromise here[edit]

  • Child abuse is horrible
  • False accusations are horrible
  • Ignoring this allegation completely is horrible
  • Flat out stating it as fact is also horrible

So shouldn't we at least mention it, but also mention that Allen is calling it a vindictive attack, like on Mia Farrow's page? Crisis.EXE 23:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That's more or less what we do at present. --John (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It's in the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello. I have a question regarding adding a section for the Dylan Farrow's allegations of sexual abuse. (Please note I have only skimmed the discussion here). One of the arguments against a separate section for the controversy is that these are allegations and not proven. Also, that it is not consistent with Wikipedia's policy to include allegations and controversies as separate sections/headers. I feel it appropriate to point out another celebrity who was accused of child sexual abuse multiple times, Michael Jackson. On his page, under Life and Career there are two separate sections with headers labeled as "...child sexual abuse allegations...". By not including a similar account on Woody Allen's page Wikipedia appears biased, IMO. ---Rebecca 1:59 5 February 2014 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

You may have noticed that Micheal Jackson is dead, so we no longer have BLP concerns. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Micheal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and for michael jackson it was a major scandal over many years with multiple accusations, alleged victims, trials, settlements etc. His cases got multiple documentaries, books, comedy routines, etc focused on that particular topic. He became notoriously notable for child abuse allegations. This is a single allegation happening decades ago, where he was never charged, and at least one investigation found the allegations unambiguously unfounded. There are certainly alternate opinions, and the alleged victim has obviously continued to give her POV, but comparing Allen to Jackson is apples to oranges. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Michael Jackson was never found guilty either. If you are trying to minimise this accusation, Gaijin42, it's worth noting that Michael Jackson was never accused of sexually abusing his own child. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse. It is not less serious because there is one accuser compared to many.

Also, there is no need to call Dylan Farrow an "alleged" victim. "Alleged" should apply to the accused, not the accuser.

Actually "alleged victim" is correct and common usage, particularly for colloquial talk page usage. Although in the article I might say something like purported victim or accuser.I am not trying to minimize the incident. Indeed one incident of sexual abuse is very bad. Thats my point. This is one incident. Jackson had multiple. He was charged and tried in multiple. He settled in multiple. There are entire books written about the jackson allegations. Entire movies. It was a major part of his reputation. Maybe someday this incident will or should be too, but currently it is not. Wikipedia is not the platform to make it so. We reflect the sources, not drive the sources. Yes, if true being his own child probably makes a horrible incident "worse" - but again its a single incident, during a messy divorce, that has had official investigations come back as "not true". The judge at worst said "not sure". This is a major BLP issue, but the controversy and subject are both WP:WELLKNOWN. It should be covered. It is. Making a full section would be WP:UNDUE until the sources reflect that it is a major part of his reputation. (As opposed to the WP:RECENTISM of the current news spike). In his biographies, in documentaries that cover him, this is one element of his relationship with Mia Farrow, and the divorce, and Soon Yi incident. That is quite correctly the way we cover it now. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of users disagree with you on this. Why don't you take a poll rather than relying on the status quo as the superior way to address this issue? Also, I don't think you can have a NPOV here when you've listed yourself as a "masculinist".

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ad hominem arguments don't go over well on wikipedia. There IS a poll, about 2 sections up. Very few people have commented. It is up for those who want a change to build a consensus for that change, not the other way around. Consensus in this cae is also constrained by policy. blogs, SPS, completely uncited opinions, are not acceptable on a BLP, particularly not on an issue making accusations like this. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt personally attacked Gaijin42. It was not my intention.

Since the underlying claim is clearly disputed, language which supports one set of claims and is not consistent with the other should be avoided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That's mangling the English language to suit your own purpose. (Uenuku (talk)
The Woody Allen claims are much different, and the latest ones were investigated years ago and were not supported. We have to be careful not to give them excessive emphasis. We have an RfC pending on this very issue, and over the next month it should be able to get a broad assortment of opinions on how to proceed. Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. We can (or could) spare much grief and warring if people would just post indisputed facts and links to indesputed facts only. We were starting to see links to opinion pages and blogs of "pundits" and such who gave opinion and points-of-view which is in my view inappropriate for this issue. When this page becomes editable, I would encourage editors to try leaving their agendas at the door and simply stick to the indisputed facts, including linking only to dispasionate facts and not opinions. Marteau (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think people have been trying to do just that. What has actually been most controversial is the inclusion of quotes from both sides. Most editors and administrators are trying to maintain a neutral point of view, but not everyone's idea of neutrality is the same, and different people have different ideas about how to achieve this. Unfortunately I think resolution here is a little more complicated than asking everyone to only include undisputed information, because everything in this case is disputed by two sides of the same family. (Uenuku (talk)
No, actually, everything is NOT disputed by the the "two sides". What is not disputable by anyone is that Dylan Farrow wrote a public letter. What is not disputed is that Woody Allen publicly said he thinks its lies. These are true with 100% metaphysical certitude. ANYTHING that does not adhere to that standard should not be included regarding this issue, including ANY opinions, editorials, analyses, etc or links to such. Marteau (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

New article for the allegations[edit]

If there is one already, I missed it and arguing endlessly here about what to include seems rather moot. Reference it here and point to another article that goes into detail. This is a serious issue, people want to know what is known about it, Wikipedia is the only source that brings together everything about everything in a way that we can maybe not trust but at least verify. There is no reason not to have another article on Wikipedia, it's not like it's running out of space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

By its very nature, an allegation is non-neutral. Read the earlier discussions about a section devoted to "allegations" which would make Wikipedia a forum for a trial by media. As stated in the guidelines:
Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. --Light show (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think articles or sections about serious allegations in themselves are non-neutral. If the facts about the allegations are presented neutrally, I can see no problem. These particular allegations are also a matter of public record. ~~Uenuku~~
It's just remarkable that virtually all the people here who think the twenty-year-old allegations by Dylan Farrow against her father command immediate attention, but fall silent about Moses Farrow's recent allegations of physical abuse against his mother. Apparently presenting those on Wikipedia is less "neutral." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Allegations often lead to counter-allegations. Great for selling tabloids, but not useful here. --Light show (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The issue of whether to include anything against Mia Farrow in her article should be considered on its own merits, is not relevant to this discussion. "Other stuff doesn't exist" is an even weaker argument than "other stuff exists", see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PatGallacher (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
We're looking at a paragraph's worth of material here, MAYBE two, given the evolving concensus. This is not TMZ, wall-to-wall coverage is not indicated or desirable.. this issue will fit very neatly as a para under the subject article, namely, "Woody Allen". Marteau (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a separate article is not warranted and would be a "POV fork." Coretheapple (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 February 2014[edit]

Woody Allen just published a response to the Dylan Farrow allegations in the Sunday New York Times.[17] 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)

Massive visitation and Woody-Mia correlated audience[edit]

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.

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", [18]. 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". ]
(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". ]

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[edit]

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.

Suggested edit, Soon-Yi Previn[edit]

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)

NO New Section On Allegations[edit]

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.[19] Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


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)

New photo?[edit]

Should the photo of Allen that exists currently be kept? I notice there is a newer photograph of Allen here. (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)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).