Talk:Ronan Farrow/Archive 1

Untitled
I am fairly sure he spent two years at SRC. He is listed as an alumni. Also a Sophomore Seminar teacher at SRC sometimes mentions the various alumni he has taught, Seamus being one of them. Generally after two years at SRC most students tranfer to another college. They usually tranfer as juniors and therefore spend two years at the college they transfer to, but they sometimes transfer as freshman and spend four years, or transfer as sophmores and therefore spend three years at that college.

Just to clarify: He spent two semesters at Simon's Rock, but the article is incorrect - he didn't graduate from there. He later transferred to Bard, where he spent three years. I was in his graduating class at Bard in 2004. I never got to know him personally but his presence was well known. Here's a Fox News interview with Mia Farrow that mentions, specifically, his attendance at Bard.

"...Seamus, is 14 and about to start his senior year at Bard College. You read that right: college. Seamus is a genius, no kidding, and has fit in well with the students. How he gets to Bard, which is on the Hudson River in Westchester County, N.Y., is the real story..."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93988,00.html

IIRC he was living on campus but the interview is otherwise correct.


 * No disagreement at all. My earlier revert was only because the previous edits had removed any mention of Simon's Rock. --FOo 21:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Moderation/Senior Project at Bard
I am a former instructor of Ronan's and can verify that although he did moderate in both biology and philosophy, he ultimately completed his Senior Project jointly between the latter department and the political science department (faculty members from both sat on his project board). I've updated the sentence to accurately reflect his areas of study and project topic. Cozick 06:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link
The link to the article from The Insider, titled "Woody and Mia's Son," no longer works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tetty2 (talk • contribs).

Name?
The name of the page is Ronan Seamus Farrow, but in the newspaper article he wrote (Source 11), he is credited as Ronan O'Sullivan Farrow. Which one is correct?


 * He seems generally to be credited as Ronan Farrow and secondarily as Ronan O'Sullivan Farrow, as you say, which is also more consistent with his birth name. I'd suggest moving to 'Ronan Farrow' with an extra sentence in the body explaining this. mogget2 23:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

AsadR (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tetty2 (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I met this guy, people used to tell him, your father married your sister dude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xocoyote (talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Something I don't understand if he is Woody Allen's biological son why doesn't he carry Allen's last name? Maybe this should be explained in the article. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe he carries Farrow's name because Farrow and Allen never married.

Substantiation of Holbrooke advisor role
As much as Mr Previn was a prodigy, it would seem that his association with the late R Holbrooke is overstated as one of an advisor. Does Mr Previn ever describe it this way? This statement needs review and solid substantiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.8.74 (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Lip
Does he bite the center of his upper lip?96.248.108.79 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Hans Wurst

His use of the name "Seamus"
If you google "seamus" and "farrow" you will easily find news stories that show that for a time Farrow was going by the name "Seamus Ronan Farrow", including when he started college at age 11 (See, for example). You also can find comments by Mia Farrow indicating that he decided at some point before he turned 19 to switch to "Ronan Seamus Farrow" (See, for example). Since "Seamus" is not in his birth name, not a name he currently uses, and it is not clear if he had a legal name change to add it, I did not add mention of it to the article. But if another editor decides it is important enough to include, I see no reason to object. 99.192.57.117 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Custody Battle/Relationship With Allen
A biography covers the most significant and influential events of a person's life--why does this article include so little about the notorious custody battle between his parents? It's not good enough to say that this info is covered in the wikipedia articles about his parents--these happenings are part of Ronan's life too. Acknowledging the custody battle and his strained relationship with Allen afterwards in no way diminishes the good work Ronan is now doing overseas, if this is the reason why people have been so reluctant to discuss his earliest years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.229.131 (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus against including a detailed chronology of the custody battle makes sense, first of all because that data is duplicative. It makes more sense to include that info, in maximally detailed form, in his parents' articles (since it relates only peripherally to this person, and very directly to them). It's more concise and logical to include a link to that existing discussion than to repeat it.

--Bstormere —Preceding comment was added at 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed on not duplicating the info on his parents relationship. I don't think represents a reluctance to discuss his earliest years, since the article does mention this and link to more info - it's just good wiki policy. e.g., Prince Harry and Prince William's wikis don't include a detailed explanation of the breakdown of their parents' marriage. AsadR 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not look down on Wiki if we instinctively left an already abused child alone! But there's a solid criterion here too. We're not Entertainment Tonight hunting for the juicy stuff. Relevance guides. Should RS Farrow have become an advocate for children who had survived custody battles, his childhood might be relevant. But Darfur genocide? Glad to see, by the way, that the annoying Wiki habit of categorizing everyone by their ethnicity was thought irrelevant.("Jewish American comedian Woody Allen....) Profhum (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On that subject if he's listed as Jewish-American and Irish-American why not Australian-American too? That's his maternal grandfather. It could go on and on. As for his relationship with Woody, I thought I read that he won't have anything to do with him, but I could be confused with another child. That might be relevant if it is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.75.111 (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

His Jewish heritage is disputable – as it was said, if Frank Sinatra is his biological father, he has no Jewish origin. – 2 October 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.92.17.49 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sinatra in infobox?
Ought we not indicate in the infobox the possibility of Sinatra parentage? DeistCosmos (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

At this point it's purely conjecture .. by his own mother. Her answer was coy "Possibly", it may be a troll, as Roland says, "Listen, we're all possibly Frank Sinatra's son." It may merit one sentence somewhere but not a separate section and not infobox. Until new information develops. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur with User:Green Cardamom. Too speculative. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Lawyer
His State Dept. bio says he's a lawyer and The Hollywood Reporter specifies he's a member of the New York Bar. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"my father and my brother-in-law" quote
This quote appears in a lot of newspapers, website and blogs that all say, "Ronan once said this..." -- and yet no one seems to be able to point to any actual original source. This may be like the supposed Kurt Vonnegut commencement speech quote on the net...but that he never gave. Unless we can find the actual source he purportedly said this to, we can't responsibly attribute this quote to him.

The Vonnegut commencement speech is only one of several examples of "attributed" quotes making the rounds of the Internet that no one actually said. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This story includes a screenshot of Farrow's "brother-in-law" tweet: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/hollyworld/ronan-farrow-blasts-woody-allen-fathers-day-tweet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.165.78 (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have traced the quote to a January 23, 2005 article in The Mail on Sunday from England. It does not appear that the original article is online, but there are contemporaneous reports of the article being published. At the time Ronan was going by "Seamus". Here is a bit of the article:
 * Woody Allen's son has launched a stinging attack on his father - saying he will never forgive him for marrying his own adopted daughter. Speaking for the first time about the scandal that tore his family apart, Seamus Farrow branded his father immoral for marrying Soon-Yi Previn, who is 35 years his junior. 'He's my father married to my sister,' said Seamus, 18. 'That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent.' 
 * I think the quote is legit (even though it looks like they got his age wrong by a year - he was 17 then), but it would be wise for someone with library access to the archives of The Mail to verify it first. 99.192.75.77 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what purpose inserting this quote serves other than to draw attention to Farrow's unconventional family life. I was the one who originally inserted it but I'm inclined to agree with Tenebrae that it's probably unnecessary. BlueSalix (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper (as opposed to a supermarket tabloid magazine), so not everything in it is WP:RS. I've often found the Mail will use the term "said," which implies the subject spoke with the reporter, interchangeably with "once said" to someone somewhere. And I agree with BlueSalix that we already give the fact of Farrow's family situation, and while a quote about how he feels about it might illuminate character, it's probably not necessary for any comprehensive understanding of the subject. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove "Journalist" Functional Title
On review of Farrow's various published writings it appears he exclusively contributes opinion columns and op-eds and doesn't conduct actual news reporting. Policymakers and policy commenters, including Vladimir Putin, John McCain, John Thune, etc., frequently contribute opinion columns and op-eds of the type Farrow has authored and we don't describe them as "journalists" in their Wikipedia entries. I propose deleting references to Farrow being a journalist. BlueSalix (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If he's strictly an op-ed writer, it's true that "journalist" is incorrect. If he's a columnist, it's murky, since some columnists write primarily opinion columns while others contain new interviews with newsmakers and reporting. Unfortunately, in trying to access a Wall Street Journal column seemingly footnoted here, I ran into links like "Farrow 2006a" and "Farrow2006b" that just link back to this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've consistently run into the same issue with this article and have so far given those citations the benefit of the doubt but they should probably be removed. This is what I've found vis a vis Farrow's writings by googling the phrase "by Ronan Farrow" in Google News Archives plus manually searching for the articles listed in this WP entry -
 * Wall Street Journal #1 - (re-published at the Yale Law School website on the basis of which I trust it was at one time published in the Journal) - described as "a commentary"
 * Wall Street Journal #2(re-published at the Yale Law School website on the basis of which I trust it was at one time published in the Journal) - described as "a commentary"
 * New York Times (online only - originally published in the Times' International Herald Tribune) - published in the section "Opinion"
 * Los Angeles Times - published in the section "Opinion"
 * I was unable to find any other published writing by Farrow beyond these four outlets. BlueSalix (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinion is considered Advocacy journalism. If you do a little research, you should be able to find more published writing by RF. In 2013 alone, he wrote for The Atlantic in May 2013, Guardian in June 2013  and Foreign Policy in July 2013  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.40.227 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guardian and Atlantic columns were also opinion columns. Op-eds are not advocacy journalism. BlueSalix (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Sinatra Farrow's dad or is Kim Jong-il?
It appears most news reporting in the MSM on Farrow originates with his Wikipedia entry. I've reviewed a number of articles written on him in which he is described as having "advised the House Foreign Affairs Committee" and none can be traced to an earlier point than the first date at which that line was inserted in this entry (note that this entry previously - and recently - attracted a large number of sockpuppets; a single editor with 7 different identities, all of which only contributed to Ronan Farrow, was banned just last week after I requested a CheckUser). Upon reviewing Farrow's employment history at the House in LegiStorm, it appears he worked there as an unpaid intern for 38 days in 2007. While this is a primary source, I have nonetheless removed the line that Farrow "advised the House Foreign Affairs Committee" since it's a circular, self-affirming assertion (it was inserted in WP by a sockpuppet without a source, prompting it to appear in RS reports, thereupon validating its existence in WP). In other instances, valid sources have been inflated (a UN press release said Farrow "spoke at a breakfast" at UN headquarters - this was reimagined in this WP entry as Farrow "hosted a summit"; another UN press release said Farrow had twice visited Darfur on two four day press junkets between 2004-2006 - this was reimagined in this WP entry as Farrow "worked in [UNICEF refugee camps] Darfur from 2004-2006"; in another instance an article on Richard Holbrooke's death, in which Farrow isn't mentioned at all, was used to insert a claim that Farrow was at Holbrooke's bedside as he died ... I have corrected these, and other embellishments as well, under WP:BOLD). I suggest we be less sanguine and proceed with great caution in the insertion of claims about Farrow's increasingly Juche accomplishments (he designed the Chunnel at the age of 3, edited the script to the Matrix, birthed Trip Palin on the back of a snowmobile, etc.) even when they appear in otherwise WP:RS sources. BlueSalix (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent points and good research.


 * I would also note we need to be equally careful in that Wikipedia can't use quotes or other material attributed to unnamed anonymous "sources," particularly in opinion columns. Anyone can say anything, truthful or not, hiding behind a lack of accountability. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We also need to convert the raw URLs to full cites. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify this point? I was always under the impression anonymous sources were acceptable if credited to a WP:RS secondary source. Specifically per: Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as Deep Throat in The Washington Post, are acceptable, because Wikipedia's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source. (Attribution/FAQ). BlueSalix (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Certainly: That's a passage from an essay, which is not Wikipedia policy or guideline but simply a forum of opinion. As for not quoting or paraphrasing claims and opinions by anonymous unnamed "sources," I would imagine that among careful, responsible editors that this goes without saying. In any event, WP:RS states, "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive." If we don't even know who these quoted "sources" are, we can't gauge accuracy, or bias, or anything else. That's tabloid journalism. (I would note "Deep Throat" was never quoted by WaPo, and that his material gave leads that Woodward & Bernstein then followed up on to confirm independently. Apples and oranges.) --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone is suggesting quoting Farrow directly, and I'd agree we should only quote him directly from reliable sources. To the other point, can we quote other people commenting about Farrow if those people aren't named? WP isn't a journalistic endeavor. I'm not sure it's our job to gauge accuracy or bias if we can establish the outlet itself as WP:RS? If the oultet operates according to normal standards of media ethics and has enough of a IRL presence to provide legal restraints against false light, can't we acknowledge the WP:RS source reported something? For instance: During his presidency they were reported to frequently display their affection for one another; one press secretary said, "They never took each other for granted. They never stopped courting." (sourced to BBC with the identity of the P/S unreported), or, Many later said they heard what they first thought to be a firecracker or the exhaust backfire of a vehicle just after the President started waving. (sourced to Warren Commission final report) If we were to say "the Anytown Times reported some bystanders had been frightened by the parade float with one observing 'it was totally inappropriate to have it here'" we are simply acknowledging what WP:RS Anytown Times reported on the parade. BlueSalix (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think everyone can agree than an encyclopedia should have higher standards than journalism. The latter is the first draft of history; the former should be the final word, as much as humanly possible


 * Other stuff exists and there are always exception since virtually nothing on WIkipedia or humanity is one-size-fits-all, but there are clear distinctions between your examples above. The deleted passaged quoted an unnamed, unidentified "source" giving opinion ("'You have seasoned, experienced NGO officials dealing with some very sensitive foreign policy and humanitarian aid issues, whose main contact in Holbrooke's office is a [21] year old whose experience has been traveling to southern Sudan with his mom,' one official reportedly said.") That's a) different from specifying a press secretary, as the BBC did, since "an official" could be anything, and b) different from a government report that took professional investigators many months to complete, which compiled fact and eyewitness accounts as opposed to stating an opinion, and whose unnamed sources aren't being quoted. Also, that Politico column is just that: an opinion column where a columnist is entitled to argue for one side or another and from which we expect opinion, not factual reportage.


 * I have to admit, I'm perplexed two mature, rational encyclopedia editors are discussing using anonymously sourced quotes for an encyclopedia, which should be above reproach. Tabloid sites like Radar Online routinely make claims about people being pregnant or believing this or that, based on unnamed "sources." Unnamed sources have no accountability and can say anything they want to, true or not &mdash; and in the political realm, many who make anonymous statements have axes to grind.


 * Additionally, "reportedly" is a notorious weasel word of the type Wikipedia strongly discourages. Having to use that word and inserting anonymous, unsourced or dubiously sourced opinion statements ... I honestly don't believe you want that any more than any other good editor does. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to clarify, I'm not discussing using anonymous sources. I'm discussing acknowledging the reporting of a WP:RS source (see: wiki/Death_Of_Princess_Diana, Watergate Scandal, etc. etc.). BlueSalix (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not discussing "'You have seasoned, experienced NGO officials dealing with some very sensitive foreign policy and humanitarian aid issues, whose main contact in Holbrooke's office is a [21] year old whose experience has been traveling to southern Sudan with his mom,' one official reportedly said."?
 * I'm discussing acknowledging the reporting of a major, WP:RS source. The fact that Politico reported something occurred establishes that Politico reported something occurred. We can simply acknowledge Politico reported something if it's relevant and germane and represented the zeitgeist of the moment. (e.g.: Death_Of_Princess_Diana, Watergate Scandal, etc. etc.) BlueSalix (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Quoting an anonymous source's opinion is not reporting facts: It's reporting opinion &mdash; and an anonymous, unnamed, accountable one at that. Putting something like that in an encyclopedia seems irresponsible. This is all beginning to give me a feeling that you might be displaying a bias in an effort to discredit the article subject. I wouldn't normally think so, but pushing so very strongly to insert what I believe most editors would clearly see as unsourced anonymous opinion to offer a particular slant is striking me as less than neutral.


 * If you're insistent that the article absolutely needs an unnamed source giving his or her opinion in order to make the article more encyclopedic, perhaps we should seek third-party mediation or an RfC. Because this is beginning to seem like a desire to insert political bias. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about this as a rational compromise -- we do not insert the quote from Politico, however, we add ", a decision that was met with shock by some NGO officials." There are two parts to the Politico article in question - 1. the decision was met with shock by a number of persons, 2. a quote from an unnamed (it's not clear it was anonymous) source. The first part can't reasonably be called an anonymous source, but is simply observational reportage (e.g. you would say "many people in attendance reacted with shock to the car crash" instead of "John Smith, Jane Smith, Jane Dow, John Dow, Harry Qang, Ronald McDonald, Lindsay Peters, Michael O'Donley, and Jeff Germane, reacted with shock to the car crash"). BlueSalix (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd have to look at the Politico article again, but "shock" is a hugely charged word, and it's the opinion of the columnist. The fact is that the source is an opinion column, in which the columnist can cherrypick to say anything she wants &mdash; as is her right; she's trying to make an argument to us. That column isn't a straight BBC or CNN or Associated Press news story. How about, instead, we find a genuine news story and not an opinion column. I think that would be stronger in terms of neutral credibility, and I'm quite sure most other editors would agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I want to clarify I do not have any "political bias" [sic] with respect to the subject of this entry and had never even heard of him prior to last week. I simply discovered this page in its former state and was shocked to find an almost exclusively sockpuppet-written cotton candy biography on WP. Second, the Politico column is possibly a news analysis column, but it is not an opinion column (to even characterize it as news analysis is probably a stretch). It is possibly written in a punchier style than a report in the Wall Street Journal circa 1954, however, that's the editorial format Politico uses across all their reporting; there is no doubt Politico is WP:RS. Third, it's not our job to try to tone down WP:RS reports. If "shock" is the word that's used, that's the accurate descriptor. BlueSalix (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And "shock" is the columnist's opinion characterizing what anonymous, unnamed "sources" told her. We're supposed to state facts, not summarize anonymous opinions that could be motivated by bias, by jealousy, by axes to grind, by any number of reasons that we can't contextualize since those "sources" refuse to make themselves accountable. Tabloid journalism quotes anonymous, unnamed sources &mdash; an encyclopedia does not.


 * If we truly want to put the appointment in context, I would suggest we find genuine, on-the-record quotes and not anonymous claims that may or may not be accurate. And I'd have to say, it seems like Farrow is being singled out for some reason when routine statements like "So-and-so was appointed to such-and-such" or "named to this-and-that" for others isn't normally challenged and belittled ... not in any of the newsgathering sources I've run across for this article, nor throughout Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First (and once again), observation is not opinion. Second, I would (again) kindly ask you stop implying I'm part of some conspiracy to "get" Ronan Farrow. You make a salient point worthy of discussion (whether or not reactions to political appointments, e.g. Sonia_Sotomayor) should be included in WP bios) that then immediately crushes any possibility of a rational discussion when you follow it up by denouncing me as part of an anti-Ronan Farrow conspiracy (particularly when there's nothing in my edit history to suggest I would have any interest in Farrow beyond that which any editor might have). I would warmly welcome a decision not to continue suggesting I'm engineering a plot against the subject of the article simply because we have a routine edit disagreement. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's please not exaggerate for effect: No one was "denouncing [you] as part of an anti-Ronan Farrow conspiracy." I suggested the possibility of personal bias; that's hardly an attack or denunciation, and when assured me that wasn't the case, I stopped and said (at 21:25, 6 October 2013), " I would very much like to extend him my good faith." OK?--Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then "I would appreciate you stop accusing me of personal bias," if that's how you prefer I word my request. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopia
I would kindly request the following contribution by me stop being characterized as "interpretive" by the other active editor in the reversion history of the inexplicably odd edit war that's just erupted:
 * In January 2008, Farrow and his mother, Mia Farrow, accompanied U.S. Rep. Donald Payne on a short visit to Kenya,[24] following which he wrote an opinion column for the Los Angeles Times criticizing counter-insurgency operations in the Ogaden desert by Kenya's neighbor, Ethiopia.[25] The Ethiopian consul in Los Angeles, Taye Atske Selassie, responded to the column by noting Farrow had only interviewed a single person living in Kenya to arrive at his conclusions and observing Farrow had "failed to study the geopolitical intricacies of the Horn of Africa."[26]

The exact quote is "he quoted a single person in Kenya claiming Ethiopian security forces were responsible for human rights..." and "The article failed to study the geopolitical intricacies of the Horn of Africa and the emergence of terrorism as a weapon of proxy war by a rogue regime in the region." Obviously my contribution was not interpretive. Accurate summary/paraphrase is not "interpretation." Second, I would kindly and humbly request a cessation of the aggressive characterization of my contributions as motivated by some hidden, ulterior agenda. Thanks, in advance, for your kind consideration. Third, in respect of the unyielding insistence on the new version of the edit - as long as we can agree to stop reverting the date to the incorrect date (which, after much effort, seems to have been agreed upon) I'm resigned to see this somewhat confusing and choppier version of this section as fait accompli and, in interest of collaborative editing, won't object. BlueSalix (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's all in the phrasing: "noting" instead of the more neutral "saying." "Only one person" instead of the direct quote "a single person," without the intensifier "only." There's no reason not to use a direct quote, the most neutral form there is, when a person, in this case a diplomat, is making a political statement.
 * In any case, my colleague and I have appeared to reach a middle ground, and I would very much like to extend him my good faith.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Saying" is factually incorrect as he didn't "say" it. "Saying" indicates communication that was spoken or verbalized. It's also grammatically incorrect in the sentence as currently structured. And that's the tip of the iceberg with this paragraph as now constituted. That said, as noted, I accept this less accurate and more difficult to read revision - in the absence of an indicator of interest in compromise - as fait accompli. I'm not really all that passionate about the subject that I want to push these points if it's just the two of us (plus the socks) editing. BlueSalix (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Saying" is an expression of thought using language. A writer is saying something even if he's written it in a book and he doesn't talk to every reader personally.


 * And it's inaccurate to say there was no compromise. I said at the start I felt the second point was undue-weight personal opinion in a letter that wasn't challenged or contextualized as it could be in a straight news report. But in the interest of compromise I accepted your reinsertion of it.


 * None of this is to take anything away from the very important service you did in checking the claims and removing the fluff. I would say I did not touch (other than a non-substantive copy edit or punctuation) the vast majority of your edits, so I believe we're far, far more in agreement that not. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Extensive Sections Were Deleted Without Discussion
Many sections User:Tenebrae had contributed during the extensive, recent revision of this article following the sockpuppet incident have been purged without discussion. I have reinserted two of them, specifically: We should really discuss any further edits before making them. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Restored Tenebrae's contributions to Allen's counter-contention to Mia Farrow's paternity claim,
 * Restored Tenebrae's contributions to the "Early Life" section.


 * As I mentioned in my edit summary reverting the above, I happen to agree with the other editors and I'm not so rigid as not to be able to recognize when other editors' improve on my work. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As noted in the post you made in my Talk page, I understand and thank you for clarifying that. BlueSalix (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for Article Improvement
To keep things a little tighter and more concise - and discourage the edits sans discussion that have been pro forma to this point - I'm going to group these into a single section. I'd like to suggest several edits be opened to discussion: Since this has been a heated article, in advance of this discussion, I would kindly like to request dialog be limited to the above three points, and that editors voluntarily choose to post other suggested edits into a different section, and post questions about the integrity of other editors on personal Talk pages. Thank you very much! BlueSalix (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest the title of the sub-section "United Nations" be changed to "United Nations and Israel" as the article in question appears to be specific to Farrow's opinion of the UN in relation to Israel. (I had originally added this entire section and, while it reads as I originally wrote it, the title has changed slightly - which is fine if others have a different read on the source - I'm thinking, though, that an overzealous editor may have erroneously deleted the words "and Israel" since the rest of my contribution here was untouched.)
 * I suggest User:Tenebrae's edits to the paternity question be restored. WP:UNDUE is being given to Mia Farrow's opinion of Sinatra paternity to the exclusion of two sources that dispute the accuracy of that claim (the legally established father, Woody Allen and Sinatra's widow, Barbara).
 * I suggest my edit to the length of Farrow's House internship be restored for the reasons discussed above in the Talk page ("Sinatra or Kim Jong-il?").
 * Multiple editors have already upheld edits rolling back your insertions on these subjects and replaced them with more neutral language, so it's disingenuous to raise them for relitigation. That said, for the record:


 * These headers should be kept highly general or otherwise removed. In this case, the actual text of the article in question is primarily concerned with UN reform and uses Israel as an example, without defending or even addressing Israeli policy itself.
 * Tenebrae has already said several times that his preference is for the current version, so citing him here is misleading. The current language gives no weight or validation - it simply directly reports an ambiguous single-word quote which attained some notoriety. Reactions to that quote, positive or negative, are gossip. Reporting the quote itself (which makes no specific or clearly ascertainable claims) is not. This is not complicated.
 * The main source (a government website) uses the language "served on" and the timeframe "during law school". There is no indication as to whether the pay period linked to is the only or full involvement with that group - it is common for Congressional offices to retain unpaid graduate student researchers and interns. The current language makes no claims beyond what's in the source. Current language also clearly limits the time period described to the individual's graduate school enrollment, meaning there is no inflation of significance or scope as you suggest there might be. This is why other editors have upheld this approach.AsadR (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I couldn't have said it better than AsadR does. I, for one, am quite tired of BlueSalix's disingenuous, sneaky attempts to keep inserting his POV. I made clear to him in no uncertain terms that I found other editors' work on the paternity section to be an improvement on my own. He knew this and yet he deliberately acted as if he didn't.


 * We're supposed to assume good faith on the part of other editors, but BlueSalix repeatedy has shown himself to be weasely and dishonest, and I'm calling him out on it. Maybe it's time for editors to think about requesting a topic ban on him so that we don't have to keep policing this article for his politically based spin and his disingenuous attempts at misdirection. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are free to disagree with my suggested edits, however, I don't believe it is necessary for you to call me "weasely", "disingenious", "sneaky" and, once again, threaten to try to have me banned. I've asked you eight times to kindly refrain from calling me names. At the outset of this discussion I asked name calling me limited to user talk pages so as not to derail this. I again implore you. With respect - BlueSalix (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * AsadR, you make salient points on #1 and #3 and I agree and retract my suggestion. To point #2, I'm still concerned about WP:UNDUE vis a vis Mia Farrow's claim which has a rumor-mongering effect without context. What do you think? BlueSalix (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you denying you knew that I was fine with other editors' edits? Because I can show you the timestamps to prove otherwise. C'mon: Answer me. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Tenebrae, I'm not. I have - on three occasions - acknowledged you changed your opinion on your edits, I just happen to still agree (while kindly acknowledging that you no longer do) that your original edits were good contributions and inclusion of them should be opened to discussion. That's all. There's no need to shout at me. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Who is Ronan Farrow's father?
The answer to this question might depend on what you mean by the word "father". Sometimes by "father" we mean "biological father". If that is what is meant by "father" then the best answer to that question is we don't know. So far as we know no DNA tests have been done to determine paternity and Mia Farrow's recent comments give at least some reason to be less than certain that Woody Allen is Ronan Farrow's biological father.

Sometimes by "father" we mean "legal father". In the case of adoption, sometimes some people treat it as a second-class version of fatherhood. But, as Ronan Farrow himself has said about Soon-Yi's status as his sister, "To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted children." To say that an adoptive father is not a father is an insult to all adoptive parents, too.

Now I am not an expert on paternity law, but my understanding is that a person can be legally someone's father even if they are neither biologically the person's father nor are they an adoptive father. How that can happen is much like Ronan Farrow's situation, should it in fact be true that Frank Sinatra is his biological father. One man (Woody Allen) sincerely believes that he is the biological father of a child (Ronan Farrow) and takes on the role of father. Once that role as father has been established, he remains the legal father of the child at least until such a time as his status as biological father can be disproved. But even then it is not automatic that legal fatherhood would end if he were proved not to be the biological father.

The fact that there was a court case 20 years ago that centred on the issue of whether Mia Farrow or Woody Allen would get custody of three children, including Ronan, and the fact that Allen was awarded visitation rights demonstrates that the courts have declared that Allen is Ronan Farrow's legal father. Even though Ronan Farrow clearly has strong negative feelings about Allen, he still refers to him as his "father" when he talks about him.

So what this all means is that we do not need to settle the question of who Ronan Farrow's biological father is to determine who his legal father is. Woody Allen is, without a doubt, the father of Ronan Farrow. The infobox for this article had Mia Farrow and Woody Allen listed as his parents before the recent Sinatra comments were made. I propose that the infobox be reverted back to indicate that Mia Farrow and Woody Allen are Ronan Farrow's parents. Because whether their relationship is a biological one or a legal one or both, they are his parents.

Ronan Farrow either has one father (Woody Allen as both biological and legal father) or he has two fathers (Frank Sinatra as biological father and Woody Allen as legal Father). But either way, Woody Allen is his father. 99.192.91.234 (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Woody Allen was the name listed on Ronan's birth certificate. During the custody battle 20 yrs ago, Mia Farrow tried to revoke Mr. Allen's 1991 adoption of Dylan and Moses (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/23/nyregion/nude-photographs-are-focus-of-woody-allen-s-testimony.html). However, she didn't dispute the fact Allen was Ronan's natural father. On her autobiography What Falls Away, she stated that she at one point removed Ronan from her Will because Mr. Allen promised to take care of Ronan if something happened to her. Ronan Farrow's Twitter comments ("Listen, we're all *possibly* Frank Sinatra's son.") basically dismissed his mother's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.40.227 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the significance of all this is. The article states only two sentences of neutral, concrete fact without additional extraneous comments: "Mia Farrow, asked in 2013 about longstanding speculation Ronan Farrow is the son of Mia Farrow's ex-husband Frank Sinatra, responded, 'Possibly.' [8][9] No DNA testing has been conducted to determine Farrow's paternity." Period. No is saying, nor should an encyclopedia say, anything else, since anything else would be speculative, including quoted speculation from others. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understood my point, so let me say it again succinctly: The info box used to list Mia Farrow and Woody Allen as Ronan Forrow's parents. After the Sinatra comment was reported, the listing of them as parents was removed from the infobox. There is no doubt (and it is not speculation) that Allen is Ronan Farrow's legal father. (If you doubt this, please re-read my above longer initial contribution to this discussion). Therefore I have proposed that the infobox be restored to as it was before naming Mia Farrow and Woody Allen as Ronan Farrow's parents. 99.192.75.99 (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.91.234)


 * When making a point, It helps when one doesn't write long walls of text. Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and don't always have a lot of time to wade through wordy essays. That said, now that you've pointed out it's an infobox issue &mdash; which you don't mention until your fifth paragraph &mdash; I'll address it. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I should not write explanations that are just under 500 words long as that takes about a minute and a half to read, and who can expect anyone to pay attention to so many words and still understand what the person is saying by the end? Next time I'll just try to use more grunts and fewer words. Clearly, it is my fault that you did not understand what I was saying. 99.192.67.95 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.91.234)


 * Don't be sarcastic. Good informational writing is short and to-the-point. That's writing 101. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
I am fairly sure he spent two years at SRC. He is listed as an alumni. Also a Sophomore Seminar teacher at SRC sometimes mentions the various alumni he has taught, Seamus being one of them. Generally after two years at SRC most students tranfer to another college. They usually tranfer as juniors and therefore spend two years at the college they transfer to, but they sometimes transfer as freshman and spend four years, or transfer as sophmores and therefore spend three years at that college.

Just to clarify: He spent two semesters at Simon's Rock, but the article is incorrect - he didn't graduate from there. He later transferred to Bard, where he spent three years. I was in his graduating class at Bard in 2004. I never got to know him personally but his presence was well known. Here's a Fox News interview with Mia Farrow that mentions, specifically, his attendance at Bard.

"...Seamus, is 14 and about to start his senior year at Bard College. You read that right: college. Seamus is a genius, no kidding, and has fit in well with the students. How he gets to Bard, which is on the Hudson River in Westchester County, N.Y., is the real story..."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93988,00.html

IIRC he was living on campus but the interview is otherwise correct.


 * No disagreement at all. My earlier revert was only because the previous edits had removed any mention of Simon's Rock. --FOo 21:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Moderation/Senior Project at Bard
I am a former instructor of Ronan's and can verify that although he did moderate in both biology and philosophy, he ultimately completed his Senior Project jointly between the latter department and the political science department (faculty members from both sat on his project board). I've updated the sentence to accurately reflect his areas of study and project topic. Cozick 06:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Name?
The name of the page is Ronan Seamus Farrow, but in the newspaper article he wrote (Source 11), he is credited as Ronan O'Sullivan Farrow. Which one is correct?


 * He seems generally to be credited as Ronan Farrow and secondarily as Ronan O'Sullivan Farrow, as you say, which is also more consistent with his birth name. I'd suggest moving to 'Ronan Farrow' with an extra sentence in the body explaining this. mogget2 23:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

AsadR (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tetty2 (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I met this guy, people used to tell him, your father married your sister dude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xocoyote (talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Something I don't understand if he is Woody Allen's biological son why doesn't he carry Allen's last name? Maybe this should be explained in the article. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe he carries Farrow's name because Farrow and Allen never married.

Substantiation of Holbrooke advisor role
As much as Mr Previn was a prodigy, it would seem that his association with the late R Holbrooke is overstated as one of an advisor. Does Mr Previn ever describe it this way? This statement needs review and solid substantiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.8.74 (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Lip
Does he bite the center of his upper lip?96.248.108.79 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Hans Wurst

His use of the name "Seamus"
If you google "seamus" and "farrow" you will easily find news stories that show that for a time Farrow was going by the name "Seamus Ronan Farrow", including when he started college at age 11 (See, for example). You also can find comments by Mia Farrow indicating that he decided at some point before he turned 19 to switch to "Ronan Seamus Farrow" (See, for example). Since "Seamus" is not in his birth name, not a name he currently uses, and it is not clear if he had a legal name change to add it, I did not add mention of it to the article. But if another editor decides it is important enough to include, I see no reason to object. 99.192.57.117 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Custody Battle/Relationship With Allen
A biography covers the most significant and influential events of a person's life--why does this article include so little about the notorious custody battle between his parents? It's not good enough to say that this info is covered in the wikipedia articles about his parents--these happenings are part of Ronan's life too. Acknowledging the custody battle and his strained relationship with Allen afterwards in no way diminishes the good work Ronan is now doing overseas, if this is the reason why people have been so reluctant to discuss his earliest years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.229.131 (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus against including a detailed chronology of the custody battle makes sense, first of all because that data is duplicative. It makes more sense to include that info, in maximally detailed form, in his parents' articles (since it relates only peripherally to this person, and very directly to them). It's more concise and logical to include a link to that existing discussion than to repeat it.

--Bstormere —Preceding comment was added at 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed on not duplicating the info on his parents relationship. I don't think represents a reluctance to discuss his earliest years, since the article does mention this and link to more info - it's just good wiki policy. e.g., Prince Harry and Prince William's wikis don't include a detailed explanation of the breakdown of their parents' marriage. AsadR 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not look down on Wiki if we instinctively left an already abused child alone! But there's a solid criterion here too. We're not Entertainment Tonight hunting for the juicy stuff. Relevance guides. Should RS Farrow have become an advocate for children who had survived custody battles, his childhood might be relevant. But Darfur genocide? Glad to see, by the way, that the annoying Wiki habit of categorizing everyone by their ethnicity was thought irrelevant.("Jewish American comedian Woody Allen....) Profhum (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On that subject if he's listed as Jewish-American and Irish-American why not Australian-American too? That's his maternal grandfather. It could go on and on. As for his relationship with Woody, I thought I read that he won't have anything to do with him, but I could be confused with another child. That might be relevant if it is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.75.111 (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

His Jewish heritage is disputable – as it was said, if Frank Sinatra is his biological father, he has no Jewish origin. – 2 October 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.92.17.49 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sinatra in infobox?
Ought we not indicate in the infobox the possibility of Sinatra parentage? DeistCosmos (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

At this point it's purely conjecture .. by his own mother. Her answer was coy "Possibly", it may be a troll, as Roland says, "Listen, we're all possibly Frank Sinatra's son." It may merit one sentence somewhere but not a separate section and not infobox. Until new information develops. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur with User:Green Cardamom. Too speculative. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Lawyer
His State Dept. bio says he's a lawyer and The Hollywood Reporter specifies he's a member of the New York Bar. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"my father and my brother-in-law" quote
This quote appears in a lot of newspapers, website and blogs that all say, "Ronan once said this..." -- and yet no one seems to be able to point to any actual original source. This may be like the supposed Kurt Vonnegut commencement speech quote on the net...but that he never gave. Unless we can find the actual source he purportedly said this to, we can't responsibly attribute this quote to him.

The Vonnegut commencement speech is only one of several examples of "attributed" quotes making the rounds of the Internet that no one actually said. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This story includes a screenshot of Farrow's "brother-in-law" tweet: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/hollyworld/ronan-farrow-blasts-woody-allen-fathers-day-tweet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.165.78 (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have traced the quote to a January 23, 2005 article in The Mail on Sunday from England. It does not appear that the original article is online, but there are contemporaneous reports of the article being published. At the time Ronan was going by "Seamus". Here is a bit of the article:
 * Woody Allen's son has launched a stinging attack on his father - saying he will never forgive him for marrying his own adopted daughter. Speaking for the first time about the scandal that tore his family apart, Seamus Farrow branded his father immoral for marrying Soon-Yi Previn, who is 35 years his junior. 'He's my father married to my sister,' said Seamus, 18. 'That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent.' 
 * I think the quote is legit (even though it looks like they got his age wrong by a year - he was 17 then), but it would be wise for someone with library access to the archives of The Mail to verify it first. 99.192.75.77 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what purpose inserting this quote serves other than to draw attention to Farrow's unconventional family life. I was the one who originally inserted it but I'm inclined to agree with Tenebrae that it's probably unnecessary. BlueSalix (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper (as opposed to a supermarket tabloid magazine), so not everything in it is WP:RS. I've often found the Mail will use the term "said," which implies the subject spoke with the reporter, interchangeably with "once said" to someone somewhere. And I agree with BlueSalix that we already give the fact of Farrow's family situation, and while a quote about how he feels about it might illuminate character, it's probably not necessary for any comprehensive understanding of the subject. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Sinatra Farrow's dad or is Kim Jong-il?
It appears most news reporting in the MSM on Farrow originates with his Wikipedia entry. I've reviewed a number of articles written on him in which he is described as having "advised the House Foreign Affairs Committee" and none can be traced to an earlier point than the first date at which that line was inserted in this entry (note that this entry previously - and recently - attracted a large number of sockpuppets; a single editor with 7 different identities, all of which only contributed to Ronan Farrow, was banned just last week after I requested a CheckUser). Upon reviewing Farrow's employment history at the House in LegiStorm, it appears he worked there as an unpaid intern for 38 days in 2007. While this is a primary source, I have nonetheless removed the line that Farrow "advised the House Foreign Affairs Committee" since it's a circular, self-affirming assertion (it was inserted in WP by a sockpuppet without a source, prompting it to appear in RS reports, thereupon validating its existence in WP). In other instances, valid sources have been inflated (a UN press release said Farrow "spoke at a breakfast" at UN headquarters - this was reimagined in this WP entry as Farrow "hosted a summit"; another UN press release said Farrow had twice visited Darfur on two four day press junkets between 2004-2006 - this was reimagined in this WP entry as Farrow "worked in [UNICEF refugee camps] Darfur from 2004-2006"; in another instance an article on Richard Holbrooke's death, in which Farrow isn't mentioned at all, was used to insert a claim that Farrow was at Holbrooke's bedside as he died ... I have corrected these, and other embellishments as well, under WP:BOLD). I suggest we be less sanguine and proceed with great caution in the insertion of claims about Farrow's increasingly Juche accomplishments (he designed the Chunnel at the age of 3, edited the script to the Matrix, birthed Trip Palin on the back of a snowmobile, etc.) even when they appear in otherwise WP:RS sources. BlueSalix (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent points and good research.


 * I would also note we need to be equally careful in that Wikipedia can't use quotes or other material attributed to unnamed anonymous "sources," particularly in opinion columns. Anyone can say anything, truthful or not, hiding behind a lack of accountability. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We also need to convert the raw URLs to full cites. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify this point? I was always under the impression anonymous sources were acceptable if credited to a WP:RS secondary source. Specifically per: Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as Deep Throat in The Washington Post, are acceptable, because Wikipedia's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source. (Attribution/FAQ). BlueSalix (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Certainly: That's a passage from an essay, which is not Wikipedia policy or guideline but simply a forum of opinion. As for not quoting or paraphrasing claims and opinions by anonymous unnamed "sources," I would imagine that among careful, responsible editors that this goes without saying. In any event, WP:RS states, "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive." If we don't even know who these quoted "sources" are, we can't gauge accuracy, or bias, or anything else. That's tabloid journalism. (I would note "Deep Throat" was never quoted by WaPo, and that his material gave leads that Woodward & Bernstein then followed up on to confirm independently. Apples and oranges.) --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone is suggesting quoting Farrow directly, and I'd agree we should only quote him directly from reliable sources. To the other point, can we quote other people commenting about Farrow if those people aren't named? WP isn't a journalistic endeavor. I'm not sure it's our job to gauge accuracy or bias if we can establish the outlet itself as WP:RS? If the oultet operates according to normal standards of media ethics and has enough of a IRL presence to provide legal restraints against false light, can't we acknowledge the WP:RS source reported something? For instance: During his presidency they were reported to frequently display their affection for one another; one press secretary said, "They never took each other for granted. They never stopped courting." (sourced to BBC with the identity of the P/S unreported), or, Many later said they heard what they first thought to be a firecracker or the exhaust backfire of a vehicle just after the President started waving. (sourced to Warren Commission final report) If we were to say "the Anytown Times reported some bystanders had been frightened by the parade float with one observing 'it was totally inappropriate to have it here'" we are simply acknowledging what WP:RS Anytown Times reported on the parade. BlueSalix (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think everyone can agree than an encyclopedia should have higher standards than journalism. The latter is the first draft of history; the former should be the final word, as much as humanly possible


 * Other stuff exists and there are always exception since virtually nothing on WIkipedia or humanity is one-size-fits-all, but there are clear distinctions between your examples above. The deleted passaged quoted an unnamed, unidentified "source" giving opinion ("'You have seasoned, experienced NGO officials dealing with some very sensitive foreign policy and humanitarian aid issues, whose main contact in Holbrooke's office is a [21] year old whose experience has been traveling to southern Sudan with his mom,' one official reportedly said.") That's a) different from specifying a press secretary, as the BBC did, since "an official" could be anything, and b) different from a government report that took professional investigators many months to complete, which compiled fact and eyewitness accounts as opposed to stating an opinion, and whose unnamed sources aren't being quoted. Also, that Politico column is just that: an opinion column where a columnist is entitled to argue for one side or another and from which we expect opinion, not factual reportage.


 * I have to admit, I'm perplexed two mature, rational encyclopedia editors are discussing using anonymously sourced quotes for an encyclopedia, which should be above reproach. Tabloid sites like Radar Online routinely make claims about people being pregnant or believing this or that, based on unnamed "sources." Unnamed sources have no accountability and can say anything they want to, true or not &mdash; and in the political realm, many who make anonymous statements have axes to grind.


 * Additionally, "reportedly" is a notorious weasel word of the type Wikipedia strongly discourages. Having to use that word and inserting anonymous, unsourced or dubiously sourced opinion statements ... I honestly don't believe you want that any more than any other good editor does. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to clarify, I'm not discussing using anonymous sources. I'm discussing acknowledging the reporting of a WP:RS source (see: wiki/Death_Of_Princess_Diana, Watergate Scandal, etc. etc.). BlueSalix (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not discussing "'You have seasoned, experienced NGO officials dealing with some very sensitive foreign policy and humanitarian aid issues, whose main contact in Holbrooke's office is a [21] year old whose experience has been traveling to southern Sudan with his mom,' one official reportedly said."?
 * I'm discussing acknowledging the reporting of a major, WP:RS source. The fact that Politico reported something occurred establishes that Politico reported something occurred. We can simply acknowledge Politico reported something if it's relevant and germane and represented the zeitgeist of the moment. (e.g.: Death_Of_Princess_Diana, Watergate Scandal, etc. etc.) BlueSalix (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Quoting an anonymous source's opinion is not reporting facts: It's reporting opinion &mdash; and an anonymous, unnamed, accountable one at that. Putting something like that in an encyclopedia seems irresponsible. This is all beginning to give me a feeling that you might be displaying a bias in an effort to discredit the article subject. I wouldn't normally think so, but pushing so very strongly to insert what I believe most editors would clearly see as unsourced anonymous opinion to offer a particular slant is striking me as less than neutral.


 * If you're insistent that the article absolutely needs an unnamed source giving his or her opinion in order to make the article more encyclopedic, perhaps we should seek third-party mediation or an RfC. Because this is beginning to seem like a desire to insert political bias. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about this as a rational compromise -- we do not insert the quote from Politico, however, we add ", a decision that was met with shock by some NGO officials." There are two parts to the Politico article in question - 1. the decision was met with shock by a number of persons, 2. a quote from an unnamed (it's not clear it was anonymous) source. The first part can't reasonably be called an anonymous source, but is simply observational reportage (e.g. you would say "many people in attendance reacted with shock to the car crash" instead of "John Smith, Jane Smith, Jane Dow, John Dow, Harry Qang, Ronald McDonald, Lindsay Peters, Michael O'Donley, and Jeff Germane, reacted with shock to the car crash"). BlueSalix (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd have to look at the Politico article again, but "shock" is a hugely charged word, and it's the opinion of the columnist. The fact is that the source is an opinion column, in which the columnist can cherrypick to say anything she wants &mdash; as is her right; she's trying to make an argument to us. That column isn't a straight BBC or CNN or Associated Press news story. How about, instead, we find a genuine news story and not an opinion column. I think that would be stronger in terms of neutral credibility, and I'm quite sure most other editors would agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I want to clarify I do not have any "political bias" [sic] with respect to the subject of this entry and had never even heard of him prior to last week. I simply discovered this page in its former state and was shocked to find an almost exclusively sockpuppet-written cotton candy biography on WP. Second, the Politico column is possibly a news analysis column, but it is not an opinion column (to even characterize it as news analysis is probably a stretch). It is possibly written in a punchier style than a report in the Wall Street Journal circa 1954, however, that's the editorial format Politico uses across all their reporting; there is no doubt Politico is WP:RS. Third, it's not our job to try to tone down WP:RS reports. If "shock" is the word that's used, that's the accurate descriptor. BlueSalix (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And "shock" is the columnist's opinion characterizing what anonymous, unnamed "sources" told her. We're supposed to state facts, not summarize anonymous opinions that could be motivated by bias, by jealousy, by axes to grind, by any number of reasons that we can't contextualize since those "sources" refuse to make themselves accountable. Tabloid journalism quotes anonymous, unnamed sources &mdash; an encyclopedia does not.


 * If we truly want to put the appointment in context, I would suggest we find genuine, on-the-record quotes and not anonymous claims that may or may not be accurate. And I'd have to say, it seems like Farrow is being singled out for some reason when routine statements like "So-and-so was appointed to such-and-such" or "named to this-and-that" for others isn't normally challenged and belittled ... not in any of the newsgathering sources I've run across for this article, nor throughout Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First (and once again), observation is not opinion. Second, I would (again) kindly ask you stop implying I'm part of some conspiracy to "get" Ronan Farrow. You make a salient point worthy of discussion (whether or not reactions to political appointments, e.g. Sonia_Sotomayor) should be included in WP bios) that then immediately crushes any possibility of a rational discussion when you follow it up by denouncing me as part of an anti-Ronan Farrow conspiracy (particularly when there's nothing in my edit history to suggest I would have any interest in Farrow beyond that which any editor might have). I would warmly welcome a decision not to continue suggesting I'm engineering a plot against the subject of the article simply because we have a routine edit disagreement. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's please not exaggerate for effect: No one was "denouncing [you] as part of an anti-Ronan Farrow conspiracy." I suggested the possibility of personal bias; that's hardly an attack or denunciation, and when assured me that wasn't the case, I stopped and said (at 21:25, 6 October 2013), " I would very much like to extend him my good faith." OK?--Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then "I would appreciate you stop accusing me of personal bias," if that's how you prefer I word my request. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)