Talk:Woody Allen/Archive 6

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) Vmavanti (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Earlier versions had a Britannica reference for the Heywood legal name and a comment <**ref name="Woody Allen">Woody Allen at Encyclopædia Britannica.<**/ref> <**!--We have a precedent of honoring the legal name first and foremost, cf. John Wayne. --**> [** added to defeat markup]. Any reason not to put that back?--agr (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Britannica site, and it says his legal name is "Heywood Allen".
 * He called himself "Heywood Allen" in his old standup routine, so it's not based on nothing, but all the legal documents I can find call him "Woody Allen". Don't those have to use his full legal name, at least on the first page?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  09:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Statements by Bechet Allen and Ronan Farrow
It does not seem right to literally reproduce Ronan's statements in the article in which he makes direct reference to the opinion that Allen should not have been allowed to have contact with children -casting doubt on what may have happened to these children- and omitting that one of Those children, after reaching the age of majority, have pronounced herself publicly expressing that the only thing they have received from Allen is "support and love".

The provenance of incorporating Bechet's comment could discuss whether Ronan's literal quotation speaking definitively of her and her sister, would not exist. It is not reasonable for the article to raise such doubts about what happened to Allen's children without mentioning that they have already spoken. If the article introduces a subjective opinion of someone who sows doubts about what may have happened to these girls, the article should pick up what they say about it.

Nor can it be forgotten that Ronan has only contributed to the debate because he believes his sister and that is his main argument. In order to maintain it, he has made mistakes and falsehoods that is not a place to discuss, but that do not make their statements outside the article.--Tais de Atenas (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As if Moses' statement is totally consistent. He writes: "To those who have become convinced of my father’s guilt, I ask you to consider this: In this time of #MeToo, when so many movie heavyweights have faced dozens of accusations, my father has been accused of wrongdoing only once, by an enraged ex-partner during contentious custody negotiations. During almost 60 years in the public eye, not one other person has come forward to accuse him of even behaving badly on a date, or acting inappropriately in any professional situation, let alone molesting a child. As a trained professional, I know that child molestation is a compulsive sickness and deviation that demands repetition. Dylan was alone with Woody in his apartment countless times over the years without a hint of impropriety, yet some would have you believe that at the age of 56, he suddenly decided to become a child molester in a house full of hostile people ordered to watch him like a hawk." This ignores that Woody is known to have dated at least 2 17-year-olds when he was in his 40s. People may not have a problem with that, but my understanding is Moses Farrow is a family therapist in California, where the age of consent is 18: this would mean, should Moses ever become aware of a similar relationship to those, he would have a legal obligation to report it to the authorities (regardless of his personal opinion of such relationships). It shouldn't come as a surprise to Moses then that some people would consider that a signal, where he is claiming there has been none. Woody Allen's dodge which is included in this article is he was never a father to Soon-Yi. That may be, but what Ronan Farrow has said is "He's my father married to my sister. 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 lived with all these adopted children, so they are my family. To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted children." It's a bit nuanced, but Ronan doesn't actually say Woody is Soon-Yi's father. He says "He's my father married to my sister", and I don't think there is any disputing Woody has married his children's sister. I think to most people that alone would be considered taboo regardless of his status as a father to her, and indeed the relationship seems to have permanently split this family, pitting siblings against siblings, and side-taking that it seems like will never be resolved. But hey "the heart wants what it wants." Woody was in a relationship with Mia Farrow for 13 years. Then Woody took beaver shots of Mia's much younger daughter which Mia discovered: just making pornography with your girlfriend's (or ex-girlfriend's if you prefer) much younger daughter I think most people would view as a red flag. In any case, there is plenty of evidence that suggests Woody Allen from his middle ages on has periodically had several instances of preferring much younger females, in ways that I think many people would consider against social norms and crossing moral boundaries. Lastly, the idea that pedophiles are always recidivists is a myth: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-repeat-sex-offenders.html. It is a myth deeply embedded in our culture, but as a therapist Moses should be more familiar with that information than the public at large, but he cites the myth nevertheless as fact in his statement. This could be incompetence, denial, or deception, but it is not true. I'm not trying to incorporate these thoughts into this or the sexual assault article at this time, but those are the facts as I see them, with regards to Moses' blog post. Gripdamage (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the sanity this page needs, instead of snippiness about "vulgar language" (while linking to a guideline that absolutely does not forbid vulgarities), or claiming that it is a "BLP violation" or of all things, a hoax, to note that...yeah, he was intimate with Soon-Yi.50.194.115.156 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact must be said that Moses lives in Connecticut, not in California. On the other hand, no matter what the age of consent is, there is no therapist in the world who says that having sex with a 17-year-old is a sign of sexually abusing 7-year-olds. Moses can not only be surprised that someone thinks that, he can tell that person that he is wrong. In relation to Ronan, his moral stance regarding Woody Allen would be more credible if he explains what he thinks morally about his own father may be Frank Sinatra, and that this information has been hidden from both him and Woody Allen for years.I suppose that his high moral standard does allow him to relate to women who have slept with their friends' husband and then have made the husband abandon them, so maybe is nor as high as it may seem. The reality is that Ronan's relationship with Woody Allen was affectionate and that what broke it were not "high moral standards". As for the compulsive nature of sexual abuse of minors, it cannot be forgotten that what Woody Allen is accused of is a highly compulsive form of sexual abuse. Beeing at Mia Farrow's house, on a supervised visit in which there were two nannies with instructions not to lose sight of him, in which there were six other children in the house, on a day when he was especially hated in that house because it had just been discovered that he had not broken his relationship with Soon Yi, he was supposed to (for first and last time in his life) be unable to resist the urge to abduct Dylan and sexually abuse her in a place where he could have been discovered at any time. Sexual abuse of minors may have less recidivism than was supposed, but whoever has the irrepressible compulsion to abduct a child 20 minutes to sexually abuse her does not do it just once in his life, and Moses Farrow is aware of it.Tais de Atenas (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

== On the circumstances of how Dylan's original statement emerged and witness statements. ==

Hello AlsoWukai

Yua have edited/deleted my lastest two contributions. Please, let me explain why I think you are wrong.

Regarding the first contribution, the text can be read now is

"When Farrow asked Dylan about it, Dylan allegedly said that Allen had touched Dylan's "private part" while they were alone together in the attic" But that is factually wrong. As can be seen in the court ruling Dylan did not say that when she was asked, but "over the next 24 hours"

"... Ms.  Farrow  videotaped  Dylan's  statements.  Over the  next  twenty-four  hours,  Dylan told  Ms.  Farrow  that  she  had been  with  Mr.  Allen  in  the  attic  and  that  he  had  touched  her privates with his finger. "

As the same court ruling says ", the videotape compromised the sexual abuse investigation

"Her decision to videotape  Dylan's statements,  although  inadvertently compromising the sexual abuse investigation, was understandable."

And the expert hired by Mia Farrow said in the trial that

"Dr. Herman noted that it was "unfortunate"  that Mia, and not an objective  and trained  evaluator, videot aped Dylan's testimony, mainly because the way she focused on specific things could possibly "set a tone for a child about how to answer. I think it could raise anxieties of a child." In short, he said, "I don't think it helps matters, I think it complicates  matters."

This is what the expert hired by Mia Farrow herself said, nor even the conclusions of the experts of the prosecution or the experts hired by Woody Allen.

You may think that these facts should be expressed differently in wikipedia, but the current wording of the article is seriously inaccurate and gives the impression of a spontaneous Dylan testimony that did not exist.

Regarding the second one, you said : "netrality, rv original reserch" I know wikipedia does no admit (an must not admit) original research, but we are talking about testimonies that were made in the trial, that all of them have been published in books or newspapers to which everyone has access.

Regarding neutrality, I must beg your pardon, but I can not see the point. All of them are testimonies that were said at the trial and collected in the press or by the same people who did them. In what sense to say it is a lack of neutrality? Thanks in advance and I hope we can comment it and find out how to improve the article Tais de Atenas (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:AlsoWukai that Tais de Atenas' edit here is too vague to be neutral, since it contains suppositions attributed to a book's author rather to a specific doctor, therapist, witness or the like.


 * However, Tais de Atenas' overly wordy edit about one nanny recanting a claim and another stating Farrow had told her something could be included in much trimmer form, with citing from contemporaneous news accounts rather than a quickie book lifting from those accounts. A recantation is certainly worthy of inclusion here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, the contribution refers to the statement before the judge of Dr. Stephen Herman, who was the expert hired by Mia Farrow. It is not a vague neither a supposition: it is the exact words attributed to the Dr. Herman in his declaration. It is quoted. That´s why the court ruling concluded that " Her(Mia Farrow´s) decision to videotape  Dylan's statements, although inadvertently compromising the sexual abuse investigation, was understandable". At least it must be said that the narration of Dylan emerged from an interrogation over a 24 hour period and that was made in a way that compromised the sexual abuse investigation. I find no reason to leave out the statements of the expert paid by Mia Farrow that explain - from the point of view most favorable to the accusation - why the videotape compromised the investigation. Thank youTais de Atenas (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand English may not be your first language, but in the edit I linked to, your passage that reads "...Farrow interrogated Dylan in a way that could suggest a way to answer for the girl and videotaped different fragments of the interviews" clearly and unequivocally does not mention a judge or anyone else. My point stands. And "could" remains supposition in any case.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Soon Yi age- date of birth-
The article refers to the age of Soon Yi saying:

In 1977 Mia Farrow and André Previn adopted Soon-Yi Previn, who had been abandoned from Seoul. At the time of the adoption, her passport said she was seven years old; a bone scan in the U.S. estimated that she was between five and seven years old

But Soon Yi has a Korean legal birth document with a presumptive birth date of October 8, 1970,

https://books.google.es/books?id=UPBIAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22Soon-Yi%22+Previn+%22October+8%22&q=%22October+8%22&redir_esc=y

The Seoul Family Court established a Family Census Register (legal birth document) in her behalf on December 28, 1976, with a presumptive birth date of October 8, 1970.

If there is a legal document, issued by the competent authority that establishes the age of Soon Yi, it is not possible to take news from the magazine without contrast and that arise at a time when the source (Mia Farrow) was interested in making the age of Soon Yi seems minor.

Therefore, I suggest that the current wording be modified and, exactly as if the legal document were European or North American, it was given the corresponding value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tais de Atenas (talk • contribs) 09:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Theatre / Playwright
There’s a lot of overlap between these sections. Should they be merged? MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Number of children
Someone just put "5" in the infobox. I'm seeing Dylan and Ronan, and he adopted 2 girls with Soon-Yi. I'm not seeing a fifth in this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Moses. Mo Billings (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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"?


 * Done. SilkTork (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The sexual assault allegations should be in the lead too
Woody Allen sexual assault allegations have their own article, I'm sure they should be prominently displayed in the lead, not tucked away in personal life section and hard to find. The fact that it isn't in the lead gives me the impression that the article has been "sanitized", but I haven't looked at the history to make sure. I would have done this myself, but it looks like the article has good amount of activitiy, so I'll leave the decision to whoever the main editor is. TryKid (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Traditionally allegations are used in lead paragraphs if they are a) proven, or b) are in mass number. Given that this is a one-to-one case with an outcome of an innocent verdict, the two options would be to not include it all, or include it with equal emphasis put on the verdict. I won't fight the community decision, but I lean toward the former.
 * I think the latter is far more rational. By all means mention the verdict about the accusations. It should still be mentioned. Kkollaps (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * An RfC from 2018 closed with consensus not to include.LM2000 (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with TryKid that the assault allegations need to at least be mentioned in the lead. Substantiated or not, they're widely known and referenced, and they are essential to even a rudimentary understanding of Allen's career and place within pop culture. Leaving them completely out of the lead is simply inadequate. I'd prefer to leave this to the main editor here, but it needs to be done. Mr Subtlety (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * : I agree with the above statement, but has a consensus been reached? I can merge it into the lead section unless the main editor wants to do it. bettydaisies] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated comment added 22:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware at how large a consensus there needs to be to override an old consensus, all I know is that if the allegations are put in the lead, it would be necessary for the not guilty verdict to be there as well (and if Dylan Farrow's recurring allegations are mentioned, so must Moses Farrow's testimony, etc.). In the interest of balance. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * '''Oppose including in lead"" that said fell free to start a new RfC.-- Moxy 🍁 01:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I know people have multiple opinions regarding the allegations themselves, but it undoubtedly affected his career, as well as his public image. bettydaisies
 * Support including in lead. Yup, they should obviously be mentioned in the lead, especially given how hagiographic and laudatory it currently is—almost as if past editors have tried to cram it so full of information that we’d forget the biggest story of his late career, an allegation that has been supported by a famous actress (Mia) and an award-winning investigative journalist on sexual assault (Ronan), no less, as if this isn’t significant or newsworthy. That RFC was also from 3 years ago—yet just about all the media attention he's gotten since then has mentioned or focused on this story. Kkollaps (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose including in lead Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, and the fact is Allen was cleared of any wrongdoing by at least three agencies in two different states, New York and Connecticut. And not only are the allegations not what he is notable for — he was and is long notable as a comedian and filmmaker — but we'd run afoul of both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPCRIME by including unproven allegations it in the lead.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, I just saw that, as a previous editor mentioned, a 2018 RfC found consensus not to include allegations in the lead. A discussion alone can't overturn RfC consensus: There would need to be a new RfC.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support including in lead Obviously. Dude can barely work in the US anymore (distribution problems, several previous actors ended giving up their salaries, contracts revoked) and every news article that comes out about him mentions it prominently. But good luck fighting fan bias and PR folks here. Gripdamage (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This update will probably need another RFC, but let's wait until the release of that new 4-part HBO documentary (Allen v. Farrow) coming out soon about the allegations, which earlier reviewers are calling devastating. It'll prompt yet another undeniable round of media coverage about the topic and make it more difficult for the fanboys to justify repressing that information from the lead on their shaky Wiki technicalities. Kkollaps (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Why would we give any particular respect to the allegations of Mia Farrow because she's "a famous actress"? She's also Woody Allen's furious Ex, with (as she seemed to believe) ample cause to seek revenge. As for Ronan Farrow being "an award-winning investigative journalist on sexual assault," Ronan is also Mia Farrow's doting son. The HBO ALLEN V. FARROW documentary, far from "devastating," was hamstrung from the start by the directors' unprofessional choice not to include input from Allen and Previn. They were invited to do an interview only three weeks before the film would be shown, when it was already complete. They refused to support such an obviously dishonest undertaking. Ronan Farrow had extensive business dealings with HBO, by the way, which explains the extreme bias of the doc.
 * Younggoldchip (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I would add that it's extremely strange and suspicious that there is no section on Allen's personal life in the lead at all—his marriages, relationships, divorces, children, very public custody battles, etc. Just incredibly weird and sanitized. Kkollaps (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course topics significant enough to have their own daughter pages should be in the lead. Even if there was no daughter page it would appear to be one of the most notable aspects of the subject’s life based on coverage in reliable sources. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion. I felt that the allegations were WP:DUE back in 2018, and the changing cultural narrative around Allen since then makes it all the more clear. Let's please not get stuck in an outdated status quo and fall behind the curve on this one. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion. Much of the support here seems to be based upon one very recent extremely biased documentary. The aftermath of one bad relationship choice (Mia) and its seemly endless biased discussion isn't the type of information appropriate for a biographical lede. &#124; Uncle Milty &#124;  talk  &#124;  11:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. A sentence or two is warranted. I'm surprised there is split opinion on this. It is clearly warranted, and was even before the Allen v. Farrow documentary. He does indeed have a long career, but the lengthy battle with Farrow has generated extensive coverage in reliable sources and cannot be ignored in the lead. This should really be an RfC by the way. Coretheapple (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of commencing an RfC at the bottom of this talk page. I suggest that further input go there, and that persons who have commented above reiterate their views in the RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Echoing another comment, it seems absurdly dishonest to not include the allegations in the lead. They have colored his entire public image for literal decades. People searching through his profile will be confused by the omission. I think this article is still biased in favor of Allen, mostly because of a misguided notion of biographical neutrality. Please show me another biography of a living person, with credible allegations of raping multiple children, for whom those allegations are omitted from their intro. Elliotgranath (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You say, "Please show me another biography of a living person, with credible allegations of raping multiple children, for whom those allegatons are omitted from their intro." The answer is that there are no credible allegations that Allen raped children, or anyone else. Dylan Farrow was medically examined at the time that Mia Farrow made these accusations. Medical professionals found no signs of abuse at all. None. No bruises, abrasions, no signs of penetration, molestation or any other inappropriate behavior. Furthermore, Dylan's first account upon being questioned was that Allen had touched her shoulder. It was only after extensive conversations with her mother that she adopted a different narrative.
 * Younggoldchip (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)