Talk:Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation/Archive 1

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because the current section in the Woody Allen article is already excessive and would be best spun off into this article. --The lorax (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, the proper thing to have done was start a split discussion at Woody Allen rather than unilaterally creating a completely redundant — and in my mind WP:UNDUE and salacious — page unilaterally. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Today's edit
The contentious edit regarding the prosecutor is still under discussion at Woody Allen. And if we're being balanced, the part about the nanny should also include this: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-02/news/mn-952_1_woody-allen "Nanny Casts Doubt on Farrow Charges : Custody: She tells Allen's lawyers the actress pressured her to support molestation accusations against him. She says others have reservations." February 02, 1993, by John J. Goldman, Los Angeles Times staff writer.

But I'm refraining for now since there is still a deletion discussion ongoing for this article.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Allegation, singular?
There seems to be a single allegation in this article, unlike the multiple ones in Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, etc. Rename? --GRuban (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That sounds more accurate. This seems like a noncontroversial renaming. Would other editors weigh in? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * :? --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The most recent CBS News interview uses the term allegations because there were other inappropriate behaviors that she additionally alleges:


 * --The lorax (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would qualify as a sexual assault allegation in the sense of the title of the article. --GRuban (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be moved to the singular. SarahSV (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point, let's change it.--The lorax (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential move
During the AfD, suggested moving this article to Allen–Farrow family dispute or Allen–Farrow custody dispute. Is there any support for this proposal? I find either name to be an improvement and prefer the first option.LM2000 (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't favour those now, for two reasons. First, attitudes have changed considerably since the CBS interview; those titles don't reflect how the sources are writing about this now. Second, when I made the suggestion, I didn't realize the extent to which one side repeatedly said that this is just a family dispute, a custody dispute.


 * But I'm willing to listen to other suggestions. SarahSV (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm a bit slow in following the events/recent developments, but the referenced CBS interview is from January 18 2018. Which sources changed - considerably - the attitudes since then?-ז62 (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Allen and the Farrows are no longer a family, and custody is no longer an issue, for over twenty years, and yet the allegation is getting coverage. That tends to argue against "family" or "custody" being the key points here. --GRuban (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are no longer partners (and had not been since 1992), and yet the dispute still get some coverage by some sources.
 * I still don't get what exactly have changed here since the last Thursday and what sources are meant to support it - and that's why've asked SarahSV what the recent changes have been.
 * The other issue here is which name is in general use for the dispute in question, regardless of who/which source is referring to the dispute in question.-ז62 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

How to summarize the state prosecutor's decision
Tenebrae and I disagree about how to summarize the state prosecutor's decision. It would be helpful if other people could offer a view. The dispute is about which of the following to use (diff):


 * 1) "In September 1993 the state prosecutor in Litchfield, Frank Maco, stated that he had written up an arrest warrant but had decided against pursuing the case, citing a desire not to traumatize Dylan Farrow. New York University Law School professor Stephen Gillers criticized the statement: "You don't declare the man guilty and then say you're not going to prosecute, leaving him to defend himself in the press."
 * 2) "In September 1993 the state prosecutor said that he would not pursue the molestation allegation."

The New York Times is the source: "A state's attorney in Connecticut said yesterday that he had 'probable cause' to prosecute Woody Allen on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to spare her the trauma of a court appearance."

SarahSV (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm going to reinstate the point about probable cause and not wanting to traumatize the child. CBS today summarized the state prosecutor's decision in the same way the NYT did in 1993: "The Connecticut state prosecutor on the case, Frank Maco, questioned the Yale New Haven report's credibility saying there was probable cause to charge Allen but he thought Dylan was too fragile to face a celebrity trial." SarahSV (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I only saw this discussion after I had gone with: "In September 1993 the state prosecutor said that he would not pursue the molestation allegation but also stated that there was "probable cause" to pursue legal action against Allen." I have no objection to the version supported by SarahSV. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thank you for the edit you made. SarahSV (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * An anon IP that never edited a Woody Allen article until two days ago suddenly arriving to support your opinion does not constitute a consensus. A prosecutor can say anything he wants to to save face, but the only concrete fact is that no charges were filed. Latching onto to this irresponsible claim that made no difference legally is wildly WP:UNDUE. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * UNDUE is judged by how the sources present it. The sources all refer to this. It's clearly important that the reason the trial did not proceed, according to the prosecutor, was to avoid traumatizing the child. SarahSV (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Examples of coverage:
 * NYT, 25 September 1993: "A state's attorney in Connecticut said yesterday that he had 'probable cause' to prosecute Woody Allen on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to spare her the trauma of a court appearance."
 * NYT, 4 November 1993: "A criminal-justice panel in Connecticut voted unanimously yesterday to dismiss a complaint by Woody Allen against a prosecutor who had said there was 'probable cause' to believe Mr. Allen had molested his 7-year-old daughter, but then declined to file charges."
 * NYT, 24 February 1994: "A Connecticut prosecutor's handling of a child-molestation complaint against Woody Allen was cause for 'grave concern' and may have prejudiced the legal battle between Mr. Allen and Mia Farrow, a disciplinary panel has found."
 * BBC, 5 February 2014: "The case caused controversy when a prosecutor later said there had been 'probable cause' to charge Mr Allen, but he had chosen not to, in order to protect the child."
 * CBS, 18 January 2018: "The Connecticut state prosecutor on the case, Frank Maco, questioned the Yale New Haven report's credibility saying there was probable cause to charge Allen but he thought Dylan was too fragile to face a celebrity trial."

SarahSV (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * For anyone new to the page, the dispute is about which sentence to use:
 * In September 1993 the state prosecutor, Frank Maco, said that he would not pursue the molestation allegation, despite having probable cause, citing a desire not to traumatize Dylan.
 * In September 1993 the state prosecutor, Frank Maco, said that he would not pursue the molestation allegation.


 * If we use the second, it means we will not be able to add that Allen made a formal complaint about the prosecutor's statement. SarahSV (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what listing a bunch of articles is supposed to represent. There are books' worth of material out there. Not everything is relevant or pertinent; see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And advocating for deliberately negative content that has no bearing on the actual, legal decision is an WP:UNDUE WP:SYNTH attempt to argue your bias for the subject's guilt. The fact that two agencies, in both Connecticut and New York, cleared Allen, and that two adoption agencies let him and his wife adopt two daughters, doesn't seem to enter into your being convinced, without evidence, that he is guilty. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You miss the point that, per WP:NPOV, we have to reflect the high-quality sources. Because you won't "allow" us to tell the reader what the prosecutor said, we can't describe Allen's formal complaint about it, and which parts of the complaint were upheld. SarahSV (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I miss the point. We don't include every word that everyone involved with the case uttered publicly. And more significantly, and I don't know where you're from, but in the United States we have the presumption of innocence. Here is a citizen who was not even charged with a crime, let alone tried, let alone convicted, Yet you seem to be bending over backwards to "prove" he's guilty. That's what I mean by undue weight. There's plenty here without a self-serving, self-contradictory prosecutor's irresponsible and criticized comment that, and here's the crux, made no difference in the legal conclusion.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.). 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Suppress? That's a remarkable word considering all the coverage every aspect of this issue has received in the media for 25 years. This isn't a book; as editors we choose the most important points for something the size of an encyclopedia article. The prosecutor's opinion did not change a single thing; including it is a deliberate attempt at WP:SYNTH argument to "prove" the subject's guilt. The only fact regarding the prosecutor is that he did not file charges.
 * Note that this very issue about the prosecutor has not reached consensus at either Talk:Woody Allen or here, yet an editor attempting to WP:OWN this article went ahead and made that and related contentious edits unilaterally. We can open a formal RfC perhaps. But in the meantime there is no consensus for making that extremely contentious edit unilaterally. And to that OWN-ing editor, I have three words: McMartin preschool trial. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So many sources discuss this—including Charles Patrick Ewing and Joseph T. McCann (2006). Minds on Trial: Great Cases in Law and Psychology, Oxford University Press—that it would seem odd to leave it out. I've added it to "Other inquiries and legal action", and I've summarized Allen's complaints about it. SarahSV (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * And there are books on trial psychology that do not include it. You are cherry-picking to make a WP:SYNTH argument, and there is no consensus for this highly contentious negative content. This may need to be formalized as an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

24.151.116.12 and I agree that it should be included, and as I recall did too. All the major sources discuss it. It was very widely written about. If you think it should be excluded, please gain consensus for that position. SarahSV (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Not seeing in this discussion agreeing, and no admin would consider a highly suspect anon IP in a consensus discussion. There is no consensus for this negative WP:SYNTH. I guess we'll have to go to RfC.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There's nothing "highly suspect" about the IP, and most admins would consider that a personal attack. SarahSV (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , if we're including investigator John M. Leventhal's comments, why wouldn't we include the Connecticut state attorney's perspective as well? What am I missing?--The lorax (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Break
This is what Tenebrae want to remove:

"On September 20, 1993, Frank Maco, the Connecticut State's Attorney for the Litchfield district, and a police detective talked to Dylan; Maco told a reporter: "I saw complete withdrawal any time I tried to discuss the incident." Four days later, he held a news conference to say that he would not pursue the molestation allegation, despite having probable cause, citing a desire not to traumatize Dylan. ...

Allen filed complaints with the Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission and the statewide bar counsel over Maco's statement about probable cause. The former dismissed the complaint in November 1993. In February 1994 the statewide Grievance Committee ruled that, while Maco had not violated the state's code of conduct for lawyers, his statement was a cause of "grave concern". In addition, Maco had sent a copy of his statement to the judge who was deciding whether to overturn Allen's adoption of Dylan and Moses. That act was "inappropriate, unsolicited and potentially prejudicial", the panel ruled."

Instead of the above, he wants the article to say: "In September 1993, the Connecticut state prosecutor said he would not charge Allen."

SarahSV (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment
In describing the actions of the state prosecutor who decided in 1993 not to press charges against Woody Allen regarding a molestation allegation, should the article say A or B? SarahSV (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Version A. On September 20, 1993, Frank Maco, the Connecticut State's Attorney for the Litchfield district, and a police detective talked to Dylan; Maco told a reporter: "I saw complete withdrawal any time I tried to discuss the incident." Four days later, he held a news conference to say that he would not pursue the molestation allegation, despite having probable cause, citing a desire not to traumatize her.  ... Allen filed complaints with the Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission and the statewide bar counsel over Maco's statement about probable cause. The former dismissed the complaint in November 1993. In February 1994 the statewide Grievance Committee ruled that, while Maco had not violated the state's code of conduct for lawyers, his statement was a cause of "grave concern". In addition, Maco had sent a copy of his statement to the judge who was deciding whether to overturn Allen's adoption of Dylan and Moses. That act was "inappropriate, unsolicited and potentially prejudicial", the panel ruled.
 * Version B. In September 1993, the Connecticut state prosecutor said he would not charge Allen.

Survey

 * Prefer version A: This was a major issue, it's a key part of the chain of events, and Allen filed at least two complaints about it. The legal profession was surprised that a prosecutor would issue such a statement. Here's how the New York Times reported it (25 September 1993):
 * "A state's attorney in Connecticut said yesterday that he had "probable cause" to prosecute Woody Allen on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to spare her the trauma of a court appearance. ... Mr. Maco's remarks about the case were criticized by some legal scholars, who said it was an unfair attempt to have it both ways by claiming victory without taking the case to trial. Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School and an expert on legal ethics, criticized Mr. Maco, saying, "You don't declare the man guilty and then say you're not going to prosecute, leaving him to defend himself in the press." "It's a violation of Allen's constitutional rights, in my view," Mr. Gillers said. "I can't overemphasize how remarkable this is.""


 * It was very widely covered. CBS included it in its recent coverage. I can't see any reason to omit it. SarahSV (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A Wikipedia article is not a book that can include every piece of tangential material.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Maco issue is covered in a tertiary source too, The New Encyclopedia of American Scandal, Infobase Publishing, 2000, p. 9, concluding "Maco's remarks were vehemently criticized by Allen's lawyers and experts" and explaining that Allen made a formal complaint. SarahSV (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Prefer version A which provides facts pertinent to the charges, and the withdrawal of those charges. Version B appears to me to be a whitewashing of the actions of a prosecutor which an official body called "potentially prejudicial".  Although a Wikipedia article is not a book, this particular article has a tight focus, and should include all information pertinent to the subject matter; it's not as if this was the Woody Allen article or Sexual assault, in which an argument for Version B might make more sense. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A B is severely brief to the point where it does not convey much of significance. The detail of option A is important and relevant. TheValeyard (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version A - version B is omissive. "A" provides relevant details for the article and context for the decision not to file charges. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version A - A is more descriptive and more detailed, B is just short and in some respects kinda useless. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version A – B is almost lying by omission. The implication of "no charges were laid" is typically that there was insufficient evidence to support a case being filed.  In this case, the person who made the decision has explicitly stated that there was sufficient evidence, and to omit that fact is misleading (at best).  A makes the point that the statements were (rightly) criticised as unfair to Allen, and highly unusual, so the coverage is balanced (at least to a first approximation).  In a choice between A and B, I consider A far more appropriate, but I haven't really considered whether it could be further improved.  EdChem (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version A Version B (or a similar condensed version) might be more appropriate for the main Woody Allen article, but we have space to flesh things out here.LM2000 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version A. We have the space to cover this in detail, and it would be odd not to given that we have several sources. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see where this is going, so I'm simply stating for the record that the side issue of the prosecutor's comments is tangential and had no affect whatsoever on the facts of the case. Aside from being incredible on its face — a prosecutor does not let someone he believes is a sexual predator simply go scot-free — it is, as legal professionals criticized, an attempt at smearing someone who under American democracy and its justice system is innocent until proven guilty. I don't believe Wikipedia should engage in rumormongering, and that's precisely what the unprofessional prosecutor was doing and what we now appear to be abetting. It is not "lying by omission" to not include a gratuitous slur that had no legal bearing or effect; it is helping spread that gratuitous slur by including it. Obviously, I accept the majority opinion here; it is equally important that the minority opinion be stated and on the record. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it would be helpful to cite specific sections of WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPCRIME, that you think support your position. I don't think public statements by prosecutors really count as "rumors" in the sense WP:BLPGOSSIP intended. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For a prosecutor to suggest someone is guilty who has never been charged or let alone tried and convicted is rumormongering. Indeed, as critics in the legal profession strongly noted, it was something a lot worse, and "rumormongering" is the mildest way of putting it. As for WP:BLPCRIME, it of course wouldn't have specific rules for this kind of prosecutorial misconduct, since, as those same critics stated, what the prosecutor did is unheard of. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (Via RFC) Version A, most definitely. This is something that happened, is relevant to the subject matter, and we have a good number of reliable sources for. B feels very much like "sweeping it under the rug": If an incidient was insignificant enough to warrant a sentence saying "nothing happened", that'd feel a little bit WP:UNDUE to me. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 12:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version A - Reading it gives you and idea what happened, Version B is so vague you are left with more questions than answers and feels like something is intentionally being withheld. Seanbonner (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version A - as providing more well-sourced relevant information to the reader. Responding to the suggestion expressed above that putting these fact together is WP:SYNTHESIS, a review of the sources shows that is the authors and editors of the sources who have linked discussion of these facts, which is the antithesis of synthesis. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version A More explanatory than B. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  23:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I've opened this RfC because the one Tenebrae posted above is neither neutral nor (in my view) informative enough. I rewrote it, but he reverted, so I've opened this to run alongside it. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The initial request for comment today is worded neutrally, and even links to SarahSV's preferred version. Making a prejudicial comment as SarahSV has done is ironically similar to the prosecutor who could not have won at trial and so vindictively chose to save face by claiming he did have enough evidence and was just deciding to let a predator off scot-free for a reason that would have precluded anyone from being charged for a similar case. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SarahSV's version is clearly superior to the original in being more informative. I suggest that Tenebrae withdraw theirs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's quite a remarkable thing to suggest, and by no means is it anything but opinion which version is "better." By your own statement you do not agree with the plainer, simpler article edit I espouse, and that's fine; I'm not sure the reason for this additional, prejudicial comment. Your and SarahSV's statements at the RfC question should be sufficient if you're both confident they are correct; no need to attack the first RfC's very existence. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the original RfC which was not written in the correct format. –dlthewave ☎ 22:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears as if some editor has had a meat-puppet, User:Dlthewave, unilaterally and without discussion attempt to actually erase the initial RfC! That kind of extreme talk-page vandalism is incredibly beyond the pale. I restored the version before this vandalism, and I would ask that such extreme behavior stop before admins need to get involved.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ronan's Father
This article asserts that Frank Sinatra is NOT Ronan Farrow's biological father but none of the citations used argue that point. (On the other hand, the article on Ronan asserts that Sinatra IS his biological father, using "citations" that don't actually support THAT assertion either.)

If you're going to say that Woody is Ronan's biological father, you need to cite sources that acknowledge the existence of the theory that Sinatra is Ronan's father and then refute (or purport to refute) that theory. Not one of the sources I clicked in this article acknowledges the existence of, let alone refutes, the Sinatra assertion (which is what Ronan believes). One "citation" that Woody is Ronan's father is just a NYTimes announcement shortly after Ronan's birth, which must've been a long time before anyone ever floated the theory that Sinatra was the father. Being not an assertion but an untested assumption made blindly by default, the NYTimes citation, absent mention of a paternity blood-test, is worthless for footnoting that Sinatra was not the father, and therefore worthless for footnoting the assertion that Woody IS the father.

I'm not asserting that Sinatra was Ronan's father. I'm saying that you haven't footnoted sufficiently to assert that Woody is Ronan's father.2604:2000:C682:2D00:948F:6864:E9B6:9D2B (talk)Christopher L. Simpson —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Redundancy
User:SlimVirgin, who has made their antipathy toward the article subject very clear, appears to be insisting on a redundancy, which is simply poor writing. We either characterize a court case as "won" or "lost", or we give the results: "the judge ruled such-and-such." It is completely redundant to say both. The only reason to use a redundancy is to make an WP:UNDUE intensification in order to reflect negatively on the subject. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you make any more personal attacks, I'll take this to AN/I. As for the writing, this is what we say:


 * "In response to the allegation, Allen sued Farrow for sole custody of Dylan, Satchel and Moses. He lost the case in June 1993; the judge denied him visitation rights with Dylan, gave him limited, supervised visitation with Satchel, and allowed Moses, a teenager, to decide for himself. The decision was upheld on appeal in 1994 and 1995."


 * It's significantly less clear if we omit "he lost the case", and when he lost it. In addition, here is how the New York Times reported it: "Allen Loses to Farrow in Bitter Custody Battle. Describing Woody Allen as a 'self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive' father, a judge in Manhattan yesterday rejected his attempt to win custody of his three children ..." They then give details about visitation, as do we. SarahSV (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * First, no, "when he lost it" is not missing since my edit kept the date of June 1993, so I'm not sure why you would make that claim. Second, if any of us feels an editor is showing bias, it is crucial to mention it. If you think we should all remain muzzled when we sense bias, then by all means let's discuss it at ANI.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Talk about edits, not editors, not what you think their attitude toward an article is, not what you think their motivation is. Don't make accusations.  If you want to talk about an editor, talk about yourself in the form of why you think your content version is better.  As written above, your comments toward  are uncivil and cast aspersions via unfounded clains.  Pretty sure you were reminded just an hour or so ago about all of this regarding your comments in the direction of another editor.  Please.  Just.  Don't.  When you make such comments, they only reflect badly on you and don't help convince anyone that your stance on content is preferable.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 00:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * He applied for custody and he lost the case. This is standard English. In addition to losing the case, he was also denied visitation rights with one child entirely, and given supervised visitation only with another. SarahSV (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae's edit (diff) to remove "He lost the case in" is misguided because that text is the key point, and it completes the thought of the previous sentence ("Allen sued Farrow"). The overview of what the judge ruled is also important for the lead as it is vital information regarding the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll make one last attempt at clarifying. At my edit at Marvels, here, I removed a similar redundancy (and did an unrelated change) from:
 * "Marvels was a success, winning multiple awards and launching the careers of Busiek and Ross...."


 * to:
 * "Marvels won multiple awards and established the careers of Busiek and Ross...."


 * It's the same thing. You either say "Marvels was a success...." (cite) or "Marvels won multiple awards and [etc.]...." (cite). Give either the summary or give the specifics. By any neutral, objective standard, it's redundant to say both.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no connection between a comic being a "success" and someone losing a court case they had instigated. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Sarah and John. Whether or not a comic was "a success" is debatable and subjective - maybe it made money for the writer, maybe it made money for the publisher, maybe it made the writer/artist/publisher famous, maybe it won awards, maybe it set a trend, maybe it made a mark on the industry, maybe it won critical acclaim, any of those could be claimed to be a success, and yet none of those necessarily imply the others. When someone wins or loses a court case, the judge specifically says in their judgment, ruling in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant; then adds additional details. It's worth adding a couple of words. --GRuban (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page ?
This is an unfounded allegation that is all that needs to be said, further discussion is biased. People can debate it til the cows come home but that will only serve to undermine Allen's presumed innocence. And that is what this page is doing. Wikipedia is not a soapbox this page is being used to discuss an unfounded allegation and thus promote that allegation. We can't investigate this matter ourselves. As individuals we are entitled to hold opinions or not as we see fit but Wikipedia is not the place for promoting our own opinions. Im not going to promote exculpatory evidence here either because Wikipedia is not the place to hold a debate about the truth or otherwise of this allegation. Allen has never been charged and the allegation was investigated by the authorities many years ago, events therefore have already taken their course , you may personally harbor doubts , and express it on social media but lets not pretend the case can be opened up again legally. Furthermore the genesis of this page can be put down to contemporaneous anxieties not facts. The facts havent changed in a quarter century yet this page was started on 7th January 2018, there were no new facts then, it just became an issue because activists persuaded the media to focus on it. In my view this page demonstrates all that is wrong with Wikipedia. Hmcst1 (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC) There is no reference to Allen's innocence on this page. The word innocent only appears once and not referring to Allen. So the reader is being misled to forget about the presumption of innocence Hmcst1 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC) There's even a page on Wikipedia about the Presumption of innocence. Maybe editors here should start with that Hmcst1 (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)This article can never be NPOV. It discusses something that the subject is entitled to be considered untrue, and which will probably never be proven. We do not know what we are looking at. It may be a child's fantasy or the machinations of a scorned woman or both, discussing them only serves to present what we are looking at as a real thing when in fact it is not. And any encyclopdia entry falsely suggests authority when in fact there cannot be consensus or agreement on an unfounded allegation.

It is not in a disinterested tone, it is salacious gossip. It is stating opinions as facts throughout.

WP:NPOVVIEW states POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. This is clearly a content fork. I note that the main article Woody Allen is now semi protected but not this. The background and the relationship with Previn is not relevant unless you are trying to make a case, which you should not be doing.

This article confuses the custody case with an accusation that is criminal in nature. That is largely also being done in social media and elsewhere right now but wikipedia should do better and should not reflect that category error.Hmcst1 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That was a lot of unnecessary verbiage to say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Accusations of sexual assault have been leveled at Woody Allen for decades, these accusations have been thoroughly covered by reliable sources, and the article follows the sources. TheValeyard (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ONE accusation of sexual assault. It continues to be 'news' only because certain people use that accusation in conjunction with the timing of Mr. Allen's movie releases as nothing more than a way to keep their own names and/or brands in the public eye. Yes, it is thoroughly covered. But it's not newsworthy and hasn't been for decades. Only the continued usage of this accusation for publicity reasons is notable. Perhaps this article could address those issues and even be moved to a more appropriate title. -- &#124; Uncle Milty &#124;  talk  &#124;  23:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Which is pretty much the argument you made at the Afd, which did not win out. Time to move on, rather than fighting fights that were lost. TheValeyard (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not really much of a counter-argument, nor a valid reason for me to stop expressing my opinion on the subject. -- &#124; Uncle Milty &#124;  talk  &#124;  12:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Time to move on, rather than fighting fights that were lost." May I remind you that the fight to prove anything against Woody Allen was lost when the Connecticut state prosecutor dropped the case. Hmcst1 (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You clearly havent read what Ive said if you think you can reduce my words down to 'I dont like it'. Woody Allen is entitled to a Presumption of innocence I don't see a response to my point about Presumption of innocence. An accusation made decades ago that never amounted to a charge does not merit a wikipedia article even if it is being reheated in the media today. He was exonerated at the time. End of story. Hmcst1 (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That is all you said, actually, it just took a lot of words to get there. Once a thing is notable, it doesn't lose that notability over time, for starters. Second, you seem to have this false notion that being exonerated equates to non-notability. The existence of a Wikipedia article on allegations of sexual assault does not make the accusations any more or less believable or true, the article is just here to cover a topic discussed in sources. If you truly feel the article should not exist, then try your luck at WP:AFD. TheValeyard (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned notability or addressed that question. You are clearly deploying strawman tactics and not arguing in good faith. Hmcst1 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I mixed up the bad arguments put forth by Milty ("It was just one old accusation") with the bad arguments put forth by you ("too biased", "unfounded!", the quaintly sexist "machinations of a scorned woman", etc...). TheValeyard (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not edit this page... :D TheValeyard is not once arguing with you about the things that you actually said. Reasonable things. So f u TheValeyard and every other Wikipedia editor who is like you just ignoring rational discussion because you are already biased and actually don't like this article to be deleted. It is also sad to see that no one except you even joined this discussion about deletion. If this is how Wikipedia works, it's sad. But what can you expect in the end this is also just a representation of human kind in virtual space. We are what we are obviously. Too emotional and biased and not willing to discuss things that are against our views. Sad sad sad.

Cate Blanchett and Emily Mortimer's views on the Woody Allen controversy
Cate Blanchett has spoken about the allegations levelled against Allen in a CNN interview:

"At the time that I worked with Woody Allen, I knew nothing of the allegations. At the time, I said it’s a very painful and complicated situation for the family, which I hope they have the ability to resolve....If these allegations need to be re-examined which, in my understanding, they’ve been through court, then I’m a big believer in the justice system and setting legal precedents,....If the case needs to be reopened, I am absolutely, wholeheartedly in support of that.”

Also, last month Emily Mortimer was asked about the Allen allegations in an interview for the London The Independent :

"It is such a difficult topic to have a soundbite on...I feel for people who are asked to provide these kind of short answers in an interview." “I believe in due process. I am the daughter of a criminal defence barrister and I think these things really need to go through all the legal processes before anyone can judge. I don’t really have an answer to those questions. I do believe he is a great artist. And as for the ins and outs, I don’t have a position yet.”

185.32.252.162 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is the original discussion archived? What is the reason?
Why is the original discussion archived? What is the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.61.187.113 (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

What Dylan said allegedly to Mia Farrow is unproven AFAIK and thus should not be stated fact.
I changed on sentence in the article in which read originally as follows: When Farrow asked Dylan about it, Dylan described what had happened and said she had not liked it; she also said that Allen had touched her "private part" while they were alone together in the attic crawl space. It's not clear if this is Mia Farrow's account of what Dylan said or if a third-party is recounting this. If it is Mia's account then there is always the possibility the she is not telling the truth about what Dylan actually said to her. Even if Dylan is claims she recall this conversation as happening when she was 7 and claims in happened as describe in the article, we still have the issue that we don't know if she is telling the truth, misremembering the conversation or that any conversation took place. All we know is that Mia and/or Dylan claim said conversation took place and that she describe Allen as having "touched her 'private part' while they were alone together in the attic crawl space". As such, it's important that we described the alleged conversation and what allegedly was said during it as just that an allegation or claim since no third party witnessed it and Dylan besides, an argument can be made that Dylan was too young at the time at age 7, to properly recall as an adult what she said to Mia (if she indeed claim to to remember the conversation. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Title is not sensational and not supported.
The title includes the word "assault" which is not supported by references. The allegation against Woody Allen is that of sexual molestation.

Sexual molestation is legally defined as the crime of sexual acts with children up to the age of 18, including touching of private parts, exposure of genitalia....

Whereas assault is legally defined as an act of physical violence intended to cause harm. Longbone (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Essay-like tag
The new section (April 16) on Woody Allen's memoirs is written very much like an essay making arguments rather than as a neutral report of Allen's statements, including many terms such as "however." It needs more work than I can give it at this time; I'm simply alerting editors in general. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The article "10 undeniable facts" by Maureen Orth
I wouldn't use this article as a source, as it contains multiple falsehoods, such as Woody Allen being "in therapy because he had an unhealthy obsession with his daughter". The Farrows repeat it often, but it's false. Moreover, the article was rejected by Vanity Fair's fact-checkers, and it was published only because Mia Farrow agreed to testify on its behalf should they be sued over it.

In fact, Maureen Orth herself has said that the fact-checkers weren’t going to allow the piece to be published. It was not published because it was fack checked, but because they got a written letter from Mia Farrow. https://www.theringer.com/2019/3/6/18252733/maureen-orth-leaving-michael-jackson-woody-allen-me-too-2019

"I remember, for the legal fact-checking process on the Woody Allen piece, I was in a room with the fact-checkers for eight hours. They weren’t going to allow the piece to be published until I had a written letter from Mia Farrow saying if we did get sued, she would be a witness to say what I had said was the truth from her point of view"

When a statement from Woody Allen or Mia Farrow is quoted, everyone knows it is what they; when an article is quoted from a magazine of a certain prestige, everyone thinks that the facts have been verified in some way. If the fact-checkers rejected that article and its publication was not done because the facts were verified but because the magazine found a legal defense to publish it the unverified, it would have to be something known to whoever accesses that source through wikipedia. It should be noted that it is Maureen Orth, the author of the pieces, who expressly and clearly said that the piece was rejected by the fack-checkers. --Tais de Atenas (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Rick Worley's film
There's a huge amount of well-documented information about this issue in Rick Worley's 2 1/2 hour film, "By the Way, Woody Allen Is Innocent": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muyaCg2dGAk -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Title is problematic and not supported by sources
The title includes the word "assault" which is not supported by references. The allegation against Woody Allen is that of sexual molestation.

Sexual molestation is legally defined as the crime of sexual acts with children up to the age of 18, including touching of private parts, exposure of genitalia....

Whereas assault is legally defined as an act of physical violence intended to cause harm. Longbone (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This legitimate criticism by Longbone vanished without further comment in the archive. I feel it should be addressed, so I have reposted it under a slightly different heading, and doubled the number of days before automatic archiving. And here's a shout-out to the main authors SlimVirgin and Tais de Atenas, as well as page creator The lorax.
 * I agree that »assault« is a problematic word in this context, even though the definition of sexual assault is wide enough to allow for non-violent versions. I personally prefer »abuse« to Longbone's suggestion of the similar »molestation«. »Abuse« covers all nuances, and is the main term used both in the first section of the sexual assault article, as well as in the article on Child sexual abuse. I therefore suggest moving the page to Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation, and adjusting the sub-heading in the main Woody Allen article accordingly. Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's literally how Dylan characterizes it in her CBS interview with Gayle King: "he instructed me to lay down on my stomach and play with my brother’s toy train that was set up...And he sat behind me in the doorway, and as I played with the toy train, I was sexually assaulted." The lorax (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is not Dylan's private blog, but an article that tries to asses all known facts and aspects of the accusations beyond one person's POV. Instead of quoting Dylan, please give a substantive, content-based reason why »assault« should be preferred to »abuse«. Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're going to go by what the involved parties call it, how about renaming the article to "Woody Allen's denial that he did anything wrong"? The title should be as neutral as possible. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, "sexual assault" is not the correct expression. The Yale-New Haven report calls it "sexual abuse" and the Child Welfare Agency calls it "abuse." I think either one would be preferable.

Tais de Atenas (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tais de Atenas. If an official agency of medical professionals who investigated it called it "abuse" rather than "assault", that seems the proper term to use. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As both a clear majority of original sources (e.g. NYTimes, Yale-New Haven, Elliot Wilk) use the term "sexual abuse", not "sexual assault", and a clear majority of the commentators on this talk page have agreed that "abuse" is the better term, I will now proceed to move the page. --Sprachraum (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Anon-IP edit-warring
An anon IP has re-reverted WP:SYNTH arguments after they were initially reverted. I noted in my edit summary and on the IP's talk page that upon initially being reverted, protocol per WP:BRD is to begin a discussion on the article talk page to try to reach consensus with other editors.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"Divided celebrity reactions" section
There is a line in this section that says: ''"From October 2017 statements supportive of Dylan, or expressing regret at having worked with Allen, were issued by Griffin Newman, Evan Rachel Wood, David Krumholtz, Mira Sorvino, Rebecca Hall, Timothée Chalamet, Rachel Brosnahan, Natalie Portman, Colin Firth, Hayley Atwell, and Freida Pinto. Newman, Hall, Chalamet and Elle Fanning said they would donate their earnings from Allen's film A Rainy Day in New York (2018) to charities." '' The way this is worded is a little misleading as it implies that all of these people believe Allen to be guilty of something. For example, in the source regarding Colin Firth, he simply says that he wouldn't work with Allen again but he does not say why nor does he say he regretted working with him in the first place. It could be because of any number of reasons that are possibly nothing to do with the historic allegations, or simply because Allen was mired in controversy and Firth (like many celebrities) simply didn't want to risk his own reputation - regardless of whether Allen was guilty or innocent. The article should make this clear rather than just simplifying and implying, and have a list of celebrities who openly support Dylan Farrow's position, and a list of those who simply wouldn't want to work with Allen again specifically due to this matter. It has to be made clear why they wouldn't work with him again, otherwise Wikipedia is becoming a further source of innuendo. 78.145.156.243 (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This article leaves out facts against Allen
I would like to see someone go back and print more facts that support Dylan was not lying. While the authors of this article say the Farrow vs Allen documentary is one-sided, this article seems one-sided and leaves out details the documentary shows, which are factual and well documented. It’s disappointing to read this article as if a conclusion has been made. 50.47.131.8 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you give a few examples of these 'factual, well-documented details' that support Dylan was telling the truth, and deserve to be included in the lemma? As far as the facts go, a conclusion has been made in 1993 by the CT prosecutor to not charge Allen, and conclusions have been made in the NY custody courts to not find Allen guilty of the abuse. No other legal decisions have been made concerning the abuse allegation. Mcouzijn (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Accuse or allege?
There is both ambiguity and inconsistency in the first two sentences of this lemma. The ambiguity is in the word 'accuse', which has both a legal and a non-legal meaning (see Wiktionary). It can mean 'to blame' in an everyday sense, without the need to provide evidence; and in the legal sense 'to charge someone for a crime or offence'. The inconsistency is that in the second sentence, the 'accusation' has changed into an 'allegation'.

To solve both problems, I propose that we replace 'Allen was accused of' by 'Allen was alleged of', as it is obvious that Allen has never been legally charged for the alleged abuse. Mcouzijn (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Can Allen v Farrow be used as a source?
I mean, usead as souce to cite a document that is shown in the program but cannot be found elsewhere. For example, the Peditrician reports following the visits of Mia Farrow and Dylan on August 5 and 6. If possible, how should the quote be identified?

Thanks Tais de Atenas (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No. 2600:8802:550F:B00:DDB2:6E8C:D67C:4C86 (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)