Talk:Woody Allen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeWoody Allen was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
August 10, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

RfC: Inclusion of sexual assault allegation in the lead[edit]

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

Should a reference to the Woody Allen sexual assault allegation be included in the lead section? A discussion on inclusion in the lead was commenced a year ago without result, and I think community input is desirable. Please note that the current version of the article does not contain a reference to the abuse allegation anywhere in the lead section. There was an RfC in 2018 on inclusion in the lead paragraph not the lead section, with a consensus finding it should not be included in the first paragraph. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support. What I am proposing here is to include a reference in the lead section, where it is currently not mentioned. The 2018 RfC was worded narrowly and I do not believe it established a consensus for exclusion from the lead section. In any event, circumstances have changed. A documentary, Allen v. Farrow, has rekindled the issue and resulted in renewed coverage in reliable sources. Whatever one thinks of the documentary, it definitely has increased coverage of the allegation in reliable sources and mandates inclusion in the lead in my opinion. Not the lead paragraph, but the lead section. Coretheapple (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per the argument I made in the section above and because its by far one of the most notable things about the subject. Arguments against appear to either be personal or no longer relevant given the shift in coverage over the last decade. I understand that as with for example Michael Jackson or Bill Cosby the figure is genuinely beloved and some people take this extremely personally but that does not mean we should edit any differently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support in the lede, but not the first paragraph. Considering that it is discussed in this article and has received significant covergae by reliable sources, a mention is warranted. However, it should be (obviously) hedged and carefully worded. ~ HAL333 00:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditional Support It would look weird all alone, especially right now, of all times. But his entire (publicly known) personal life is in the body. If it were summarized up top like his Works and Awards sections rightly are, this would fit nicely there. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Per the above discussion.Sea Ane (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support including in lead. He can barely work in the US anymore as the thing the article says without equivication he is (distribution problems, several previous actors ended giving up their salaries, contracts revoked) and every news article that comes out about him mentions it prominently. Meanwhile, we just repeat he's a "treasure of the cinema". The contrast between how he is discussed in other media and here is stark and strange Gripdamage (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The reference shouldn't say the accusations were made by Mia. The story at the time and now is that they were made by Dylan and Dylan continues to make them. Attributing them to Mia seems like POV, weasely, misrepresentation. I can point you to videos of Dylan making them as a child and as an adult. Where is the evidence of higher weight than that, that Mia is the originator of these? How is it that Dylan's mother supports her more notable than that Dylan makes the accusations herself? As an adult woman Dylan is telling her own biographical story and says she was at that time, and it is giving undue weight to Woody Allen's accusations of manipulation by Mia to not attribute them to Dylan despite contemporaneous video and modern interviews of her being the one making the accusations. Gripdamage (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When Dylan was first questioned about physical contact with her adoptive father, she said that he touched her shoulder. It was only after Mia had conducted further interviews with Dylan, some videotaped, and one in which Dylan was nude, that the child changed her story. It is reasonable to wonder if she was coached. Professionals who interviewed Dylan at this time believed that she had been.
    Younggoldchip (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Support per most above 00the0 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've taken the liberty of adding a brief reference to the sexual abuse allegation to the bottom of the lead section; I think it's clear at this point that there is a clear consensus in favor of adding. Coretheapple (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you do things like that in the middle of an RfC about the matter, you're apt to generate WP:DRAMA.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty much unanimous still, so I'm not worried Hamlet will appear on the stage. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support for including in the lede. Demonstrably one of the most notable and discussed aspects of his biography. Plenty of RSs for this. There is a dedicated section on this in the body and even an entire article (Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation) that is almost as big as this one, so it seems really weird to me not to include it in the lede. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support for including, perhaps along with a summary of the subsequent effect on his career, distribution, etc. Kkollaps (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support It is fairly clear that his page has been intentionally edited to shield him as much as possible(a look at the edit history makes that abundantly clear). The lead has been overbloated with achievements while avoiding anything that would lead back to the allegation (eg while there is mention of Diane Keaton as a partner and collaborator the same is not true of Mia Farrow, also there is no mention of Soon-Yi). Maybe an editor/writer better than myself can look how to trim down the excess while painting a more rounded picture of the person Roan Asher (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I added context to his professional and personal relationship with Mia Farrow, along with Allen's personal relationship with Soon-Yi and the 1992 abuse allegation. I refrained from going too deep in the weeds as it can get complicated very fast in terms of possible recent repercussions and actors responses as the issue seems divisive among them. More can be written in rest of the article rather than overstuff the lede. I made it flow with the article in a clear and concise manner so that it isn't confusing to readers. The One I Left (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The allegations have their own section they are among the most important contents in the article thus satisfy WP:LEAD. Biko2311 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditional support per InedibleHulk. The purpose of a lead section is to WP:DULY summarize the key points of the entire article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Among other things, the topic has gotten far more coverage since 2018 (and it's reasonably clear that it's a WP:SUSTAINED part of his notability, with a major impact on his life and career), so it's hard to see how it can be omitted entirely from the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - in the lead, it's just fine where it's at in the body of the article. His notability does not derive from these unfounded allegations, no matter how many times they are repeated, and these allegations don't appear to have destroyed his career. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Mentioning the HBO documentary in the lead would not be WP:DUE but the allegations themselves are. The allegations against Michael Jackson are also mentioned in the lead of his article. I don't see why Allen should be treated differently. Since these allegations were made while Allen is alive and are still affecting his life they should be mentioned in the lead. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, per the "Support votes" above. Idealigic (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support MOS:LEAD provides clear guidance, the lead proportionally summarizes the body. There's a three paragraph section dedicated to the incident in the body so a mention in the lead is clearly appropriate. It should not go in the first paragraph, and this is a long article with a lot to summarize so be careful to appropriately weight it and keep it reasonably brief. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - in the lead. Woody Allen is notable for his filmmaking career. Certainly his break up with his wife and the allegations that followed have received plenty of coverage to receive attention in the article. This debate appears to be driven by recent events as two high profile people are having a war in the press. --Nemov (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021[edit]

Because of this edit [1] the Italic text parts of the lead below are duplicative...

…Critics have called his work from the 1980s his most developed period. His films include Zelig (1983), Broadway Danny Rose (1984), The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985), Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), Radio Days (1987), Another Woman (1988), and Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989). Many of his 21st-century films, including Match Point (2005), Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008), and Midnight in Paris (2011), are set in Europe. Blue Jasmine (2013) and Cafe Society (2016) are set in New York City and San Francisco.

In 1979, Allen began a professional and personal relationship with actress Mia Farrow and over a decade-long period collaborated in 13 films, beginning with A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982) and continuing with Zelig (1983), Broadway Danny Rose (1984), The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985), Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) and Alice (1990). They separated after Allen… Roan Asher (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree that the names are duplicated, but they make a different point. So you raise a valid issue here, not sure how to deal with it. Do you have a specific suggestion on how to change this? Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done I think you raise a valid point, and also there is an undue weight problem re having so much detail on the relationship with Farrow, imo. But if someone wishes to revert I won't object. Coretheapple (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I suggest that editors examine the paragraph of the lead in question and weigh whether, prior to my edit, it contained excessive text re Farrow (such as naming quite a few of their films together) and going into the Soon-Yi matter. I took that out too, but one could argue that it belongs. I'm on the fence on that part, but I removed as it seemed a bit extraneous. Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking it over, maybe this edit would be decent:
…Critics have called his work from the 1980s his most developed period. Allen's films during this time include Zelig (1983), Broadway Danny Rose (1984), The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985), Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), Radio Days (1987), Another Woman (1988), and Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989).
In 1979, Allen began a professional and personal relationship with actress Mia Farrow, over the period of of which they collaborated on 13 films. Husbands and Wives (1992) marked Farrow's final collaboration with Allen, as the pair separated shortly after the filming finished. On August 1992 Allen sued Farrow for custody of their biological son, Satchel and their adopted children Moses and Dylan. Four days later he made public his relationship with Mia and Andre Previn's adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn. The Connecticut State Police announce they were investigating Mr. Allen under allegation that he had sexually abused the seven-year-old Dylan, the same day.
The allegation gained substantive media attention, but Allen was never charged or prosecuted, and vigorously denied the charge. While public opinion was originally split, Hollywood and the New York film scene was at first on his side, but working in the US became harder for him. As a result many of his 21st-century films, including Match Point (2005), Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008), and Midnight in Paris (2011), are set and filmed in Europe. The allegations resurfaced after Allen won the Golden Globe Cecil B. DeMille Award and once again in 2017 in the wake of the #MeToo movement.
IDK, it might be a bit much, but considering the publicity and longevity of the allegations, the effect it has had on his career, and the overwhelming support for its inclusion in the RfC, I think it's serviceable. Feel free to trim it down and add any necessary references(I'm not that good at this part…) Roan Asher (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm closing the request as the page is no longer protected. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I haven't been verified yet, so could someone please remove the dead link@citation 26? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaoriisbestgirl (talkcontribs) 15:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Thank you. Domain name had been lost to scammers. | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Show of Shows?[edit]

There is a cited reference in the lede that Woody Allen started his career with Your Show of Shows, but that is contradicted later in the "Career" section, that he first wrote for Sid Caesar after that. Allen's IMDB page gives his first work for Sid Caesar in 1958 -- 4 years after Your Show of Shows and even after Caesar's Hour. Allen's personal site also lists the 1958 work as his earliest. Cross-checking, Larry Gelbart (also listed on this article as working with Allen on Your Show of Shows) doesn't mention collaborating this early. Allen may have submitted jokes to various shows (including Your Show of Shows) before becoming more successful but I question the accuracy of the Time article and think the lede should be revised without this reference. HalJor (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that this part of the article also contradicts the Your Show of Shows article which states "Likewise, Woody Allen did not write for Your Show of Shows, as he worked only on several Sid Caesar TV series and specials from 1958 forward." (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polanski petition[edit]

@Homeostasis07: I find this edit of yours to negatively effect the quality of the article because it removes context. It was a petition in support of Polanski being arrested. What he was arrested for is absolutely relevant and the charge has been highly publicized. (Also pinging @FMSky: to seek another opinion since they also edited the statement.) Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The circumstances of Polanski's trial is not relevant to Woody Allen's biography, nor is one particular piece of paper Allen happened to have signed. Misrepresenting the context of that piece of paper is not proper either, nor does reference to it belong in the dozens of biographies you added it to today. The addition of this misrepresented information to dozens of bios makes it clear to me that you have more interest in adding the information than you do in improving the bios you added it to. | Uncle Milty | talk | 03:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My rephrasing of the sentence is an appropriate reflection of the cited source's content. But I agree with Uncle Milty that this sentence overall serves absolutely no purpose on this article, nor the literally 40 other articles you added the exact same content to yesterday. And I haven't even checked whether these were your only additions of this content—you may have added more earlier. I have neither the time or inclination to fix all of these myself, and genuinely don't know how to go about rectifying this. An ANI, or a batch edit request? I am literal when I say 40 other articles. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] and [41]. Ugh... what a headache. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many biographical articles have information on the person's political views, activist efforts, personal beliefs, controversies, etc. Unless you are saying you also don't think that kind of information should be in anyone's biography, I don't see how someone in the film industry publicly supporting a petition over the arrest of someone else in the film industry isn't relevant when it was highly publicized and generated a lot of controversy. I don't see my original phrasing as a misrepresentation. I added it to so many articles because I think it's relevant and thus why would I only add it to one? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does your addition address any of these or give any factual evidence regarding his views/beliefs/etc.? All I've seen is the addition of limited information regarding the petition in a misguided attempt to infer some sinister motivation amongst those who signed it. | Uncle Milty | talk | 04:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Polanski petition is trivial and shouldn't be included. The addition of this to dozens of articles with almost exactly the same text indicates some kind of POV-pushing, frankly. I was bold and removed it. If a consensus disagrees that it's trivial, it could be re-added. Rray (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imdb recently started listing Soon Yi as Woody Allen's daughter as well as wife[edit]

I think we should remove the Imdb link to Woody Allen from this article until they stop listing Soon Yi as his daughter as well as his wife. I and many other people in the Facebook group "I Believe Woody" have written to Imdb asking them to remove this but they have not.

I plan to remove it now. If admins object, please revert it, but this is really bizarre.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imdb has fixed it.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mose's testimony[edit]

It should be added in better detail on what Moses Farrow knows, and that there is more then one victim that points to Mia Farrow. 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:8F (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soon Yi is Not Woody Allen's daughter.[edit]

It should be noted that Soon Yi is Mia Farrow and Andre Previn's adapted daughter, and has no relation to Woody Allen besides being his wife. 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:8F (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concern about WP:UNDUE[edit]

This edit introduced lengthy material about Moses Farrow's allegations against Mia Farrow. For a very long time, we simply mentioned and linked to sources on those allegations, which strikes me as more appropriate as they are not allegations about Woody Allen. I certainly see the relevance to a mention - they are part of the difficult history here. But the length of this section now takes up nearly 10% of the entire article.

There is an additional issue that this is largely sourced to a blog, rather than a WP:RS - reliable sources appear to mainly have simply noted the allegations and not treated them as fact but as allegations. As such it seems excessive for us to quote them at length. This page is about Woody Allen, not about Mia Farrow.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jimbo Wales I agree and have removed the bulk of the material. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would Moses Farrow's long and detailed indictment of Mia Farrow as an unfit mother be a problem because it's a post on his blog? Moses Farrow is a professional family therapist. He knew her intimately, as her adopted son, for many years. He describes her as violent, vindictive, irrational and obsessively controlling. This immediately throws into question not just her suitability as a mother, but as a believable witness in the allegations against Woody Allen. Moses Farrow's blog post, "A Son Speaks Out," is essential in assessing her reliability. Quotes from this post should have been included at length in the article. The fact that this information was reduced to four lines suggests that the editors did not want light shed on Mia Farrow's character and behavior from a reliable source. And that is not what editors are supposed to do. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question regarding birth location.[edit]

The first line in the "Early Life" section states that Allen was born in Brooklyn at a hospital in the Bronx. I'm guessing it means that the family lived in Brooklyn, but if he was born at a hospital in the Bronx, he can't also have been born in Brooklyn. Should this be re-worded or clarified somehow? Coulraphobic123 (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch. I tried clarify things. I also replaced the hospital reference given, which did not even mention his birth, with a New York Times ref I found in our Mount Eden Hospital article. The Times article explains what happened: his family lived in Brooklyn, but they chose the Bronx hospital for the birth.--agr (talk)

Dixieland category[edit]

This page is in the category 'Dixieland clarinetists' but the page makes no mention of this. (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the article, Allen and his band play "New Orleans jazz from the early 20th century", which is essentially synonymous with Dixieland. The article links to Dixieland, "a style of jazz based on the music that developed in New Orleans at the start of the 20th century". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome, thank you very much! (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Allen says he was born, in fact, on November 30th. What about he is telling a joke? Chvsanchez (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To my knowledge Woody was born on December 1st, not November 30th. I used to work for him, I just double-checked this with a co-worker and she confirmed Dec 1st.[edit]

Woody’s birth date is incorrect… (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

allegations of mia farrow's abuse by her son are not relevant to Woody's sexual abuse allegations. they belong on Mia's wiki.[edit]

allegations of mia farrow's abuse by her son are not relevant to Woody's sexual abuse allegations. they belong on Mia's wiki. Citizenjane97 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article issues and classification[edit]

Note: Citation and Classification maintenance review

The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4, The article is reasonably well-written. This article fails the B-class criterion, reassess to C-class. It is in the categories:

  • Articles with unsourced statements from June 2021
  • Articles with unsourced statements from January 2022
  • Articles with unsourced statements from February 2023
  • Articles with unsourced quotes -- Otr500 (talk)

External links[edit]

There were ten entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
  • Three sites I have run across on a multitude of articles AllMusic, Discogs, and IMDb (but there are others), prompted the following:

Note: Copied from Talk:Christina Aguilera#External links

"It seems that there is an unofficial collaboration between Wikipedia, AllMusic, Discogs, and IMDb to put these sites on as many articles as they can possibly get away with. Gives flashbacks to Find a Grave and the well-intentioned project to list the site on every dearly departed with an article on Wikipedia. While a noble endeavor these "External links" are only supposed to be added when they are "kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". The second paragraph of the External links lead states, Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Many times these links are added just because it has become the "norm"".
"This subject has had so much written about her it could probably fill two large presidential libraries so it seems dubious these sites would have information not overly covered in reliable sources. Adding the sites without consideration of relevance (and article benefit) is just giving them prominence, even if there is a "nofollow" on search engines, Wikipedia is inadvertently, or maybe not, advertising for these companies on a large chunk of Wikipedia articles." One of our Wikipedia techies could probably give a total on how many articles these links adorn.
Links (not in Template form) from the article copied here for any discussion:
  • AllMovie
  • IMDb
  • IBDB
  • iobdb
  • TCMDb
  • C-SPAN
  • Guardian topic
  • NYTtopic
Just because a link "may be used" is not a support or directive that these sites must adorn nearly every related article on Wikipedia. Sites that are added with no extra value is spam and cleanup efforts are backlogged to 2011. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]