Jump to content

Talk:Woody Allen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexanderSoul (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 13 December 2018 (→Heywood Allen: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeWoody Allen was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Vital article

Lead

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

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

Except no charges were ever filed, the Yale-New Haven investigation found no molestation, and whether we personally believe them or not, anyone can allege anything against anyone. Mere allegations do not belong in a lead summary of what makes a subject notable, unless that's all for which they are notable. Allen was notable as a filmmaker, actor, playwright, TV comedy writer and standup comic long before any of the allegations. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are arguing that, when it comes to Woody Allen, there are no "prominent controversies". SarahSV (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Yale-New Haven report cleared him and the prosecutor did not file charges. Those are simple, concrete facts. There's no "controversy" but simply rumors and speculation. This isn't about whether Nixon was right or wrong to tape his Oval Office meetings, where the existence of the tapes are a fact. By your standard, leads should include every prominent, widely publicized celebrity gossip, no matter how unproven. We're not a tabloid. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In some sense the prosecutor guaranteed a controversy by not filing charges but stating that there was "probable cause". Likewise, with the judge's statements in the custody case. Both men's statements have been much discussed by reliable, independent, secondary sources over an increasingly long period of time. Added to that, are the statements and actions being taken by some performers in films directed by Allen, such as expressing regret or donating salary to charity. All these, too, are concrete facts, albeit not so simple. Finally, the other concrete fact is that the accuser continues to go on the record with her accusations. A "he said, she said" situation is not simply rumors and speculation; it is a dispute, which is one of the meanings of controversy, and, this one has become a prominent one over the years as the reliable sources attest. That said, if mention of it were included in the lede, I'd recommend something minimalist such as "Allen has been involved in a long running dispute with his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow over allegations of childhood sexual abuse." 24.151.116.12 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a legitimate editor and not a WP:SOCK, then register. An anon IP who has never commented on a Woody Allen article before suddenly appearing out of nowhere to support one side in a complex talk-page discussion between two editors is highly suspect. Do we really want to sidetrack into a sock-puppet/meat-puppet investigation?
A judge's opinion in a ruling has the force of law. A testifier's opinion is under oath. Any other opinion by a person outside the family that does not change any material fact is irrelevant. The prosecutor's comment, besides being incredible — he's not going to pursue what he believes is a child predator? He's going to say, "Let's keep a predator on the streets?" Really? — made no difference whatsoever to anything. It's immaterial. And Wikipedia does not include immaterial negative content about a subject.
As to the actors, those are professionals involved in that which makes the subject notable. Actions they take such as refusing to work with the subject concretely affect that which makes the subject notable, and of course should be included. Can you not see the difference between that a negative opinion that doesn't affect anything whatsoever? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your invitation to register. Focusing on the content of the article, you make a number of good points as to the relevancy and materiality of types of evidence in a court of law, why a court might properly exclude some and also why a reader might not be persuaded by such evidence. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tribunal. We must, of course, be scrupulous that false or unsupported claims not be presented (as set forth in some detail in WP:BLP), but it also is not our job to suppress notable material presented by reliable sources who do not find it to be irrelevant to their readers ("notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm" from above.). Are you still of the opinion that there is no prominent controversy presented by reliable sources? 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that no one here attempts to suppress notable material, the discussion here is basically about whether the sexual assault allegation/custody dispute is an issue notable and relevant enough to be included in the lead section.-ז62 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[Serious violation of WP:BLP redacted. WP:BLP applies to both article pages and talk pages.]
If he had, then that fact should've been included (though not in such vulgar language you use) in the article. As he hadn't (Dylan Farrow's accusations remain unproven and Allen was never formally charged; Soon-Yi Previn was not Allen's adoptive child, she was adopted by Mia Farrow and André Previn) your claim of an "incontrovertible fact" seems to be lacking in factual substance. Please read also Wikipedia:Libel and Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. Thank you.-ז62 (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Allen is guilty, the allegations against him are very clearly a significant part of his biography and are highly notable in the context of an article about him. It should absolutely be added to the lead. Sdkb (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputed the fact that the allegations were, from time to time, significant part of Allen's public image, but what still remains unresolved is whether this unproven allegation (originally publicized during 1992, chiefly in connection to a rather bitter separation of Allen and Mia Farrow, and then recently somehow revived in late 2017/early 2018 society/gossip columns) is significant enough to be included in the lead or whether it would be giving them an undue weight. Please also check the talk page history for further information on earlier discussion about this.-ז62 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.: Note that I've removed your changes from the lead paragraph, as I don't think it's reasonable to make such one-sided edits before clear consensus is reached in the discussion.--ז62 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations against Allen pass WP:DUE with flying colors. Note that there is an entire separate Wikipedia article solely about them, and that far more media coverage about Allen in the past year has focused on the allegations than on his professional work.
There is currently neither consensus for or against including the allegations in the lead, but either is a significant editorial decision, and currently the balance is in favor of inclusion, so I re-added it. It seems apparent that many of the contributors to this talk page are not coming from a neutral point of view, so this discussion is now listed in WP:3O. Sdkb (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: You can certainly claim that it's - somehow - "clear" to you, but you should perhaps attempt to back your claims with some reliable source, as previous results of the discussion had not resulted in support for such a change.
Sadly, it really seems apparent that lot of contributors to this talk had some kind of pre-conceived strong opinions against Allen, either without giving any rationale or reliable source for their opinion, sometimes even resorting to their own subjective feelings, or even based their position on completely incorrect assumptions, (expressed in rather vulgar language) which they somehow supposed to be "incontrovertible fact". Not to mention that some of them are IPs/unregistered, so their mere "numbers" could be somewhat unreliable criterion. -ז62 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is currently neither consensus for or against including the allegations in the lead, and the allegations have now been removed twice from the lead after you added them, and you've now started a RfC, let's leave them out until the RfC has run it's course and decided consensus on this dispute. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A third opinion was requested at WP:3O, but I have declined it on the basis that there are more than two editors involved in substantive discussion, and because there is another dispute resolution method (an RFC) in progress that would supersede the third opinion anyway. Third opinions are lightweight and non-binding in nature, a bit like sticking your head into a neighbour's cubicle and saying "hey, what do you think about X?" When there are many editors involved in a discussion, a more robust form of dispute resolution is preferable. I see an RFC has been started below; those tend to work well. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 11:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • No The allegation was investigated and refuted decades ago. No criminal charges were filed against Allen. It is the only allegation of sexual misconduct against Allen, and to mention it in the lead would give it undue weight. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And given recent revelations, a single allegation of sexual misconduct should probably be thought of as deductible. (Seriously, I agree with Cullen: No.) EEng 05:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No From my comments on previous discussions about this being in the lede: "The lede should be a brief introduction for why the subject is notable. Allen is notable for his work in film and comedy, so the lede should reflect this. One of the things I remember most about that article from The New York Times that brought the scandal back into the public a few years ago was how Dylan Farrow was upset that the allegations had not affected his career. Nothing has changed (yet) and wikipedia isn't the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS."LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Not relevant.Anamyouse (talk) 2:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.86.104.61 (talk)
  • No It's not a big part of the article, and not what he is known for. Having it in the lead would be over weight. Darx9url (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It's not part of his notability in any way whatsoever, and anyone can allege anything — and in this case, agencies in both New York and Connecticut could not confirm the allegation, a Connecticut prosecutor declined to prosecute, and two New York State adoption agencies vetted Allen and his wife to adopt two infant daughters. Additionally, Moses Farrow, Dylan's brother, who was there when the alleged event occured, said neither Dylan nor Allen was out of sight of two nannies and others. [1]. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The allegation has not been substantiated in 26 years's time. There was no 'accusation', as in: no formal charge. Hence no trial, no conviction. Hence there is no proper motive to include this in the lead as an important fact. Mcouzijn (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but only a sentence toward the end. This is a close question and I respect the "yes" "no" position outlined above. However, the sheer volume of coverage in recent years, and not just in tabloid sources, indicates to me that not mentioning the allegations would be an NPOV issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would just note that it's "allegation," singular. I think the fact of saying "allegations" just reinforces how widely misconstrued this is and how WP:UNDUE.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but the volume of coverage is such that I think we need to consider adding. I'm OK with not adding, however. I agree that there are good reasons not to add. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but why? I mean: this is a Request for Comments, i.e. not just votes, also arguments. The aim of an RfC is to discuss the issue, see if consensus can be reached and, if not, to decide by votes.Mcouzijn (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

minor copy edit

"in which he starred as a Leonard Zelig, man who has the ability to transform his appearance to that of the people who surround him.[72]" can someone with edit move the a from "as a Leonard" to ", a man who"?

A suggestion

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

Heywood Allen

This was discussed in a previous post, now in Archive 5 and I am unable to add to it now, so I will repeat it instead. Is there any basis for calling him "Heywood" Allen, since his name was neither Heywood nor Allen growing up? It sounds like a joke someone put in the mess up the article.AlexanderSoul (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woody_Allen&oldid=873582424"