Talk:Allen v. Farrow

Revert; wp:selfpub

First of all, w regard to this revert,[1] disgraced gossip blogger Roger Friedman is only notable for being fired. Second, our guideline specifically says

Anyone can create a personal web page ... or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as ... personal websites ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

This fellow is horribly disreputable, so much that for a decade nobody has been willing to pick him up as a freelancer, which he was at Fox before he got fired. Read the above warning about if it is suitable, someone else will probably have published it in an RS. Read the above about "exercise caution." No RS picked this up. I believe it should clearly be deleted. And what does it add that makes it important to argue for its inclusion? 2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with removing the person but for different reasons. With Metacritic, we see that the sample breaks down to 10 positive reviews and four mixed. So the section should be balanced to reflect that. To include a wholly negative review would be undue. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I have BLP concerns regarding the implication in the film and reviews that Allen is a child molester, which is why I favored using Friedman's review for balance. I agree that he is far from optimal. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Erik: I concede that there is a case that can be made that Friedman is not sufficiently notable. I emphatically disagree with your view of UNDUE. There are two review-aggregation sites, Metacritic and and Rotten Tomatoes. Friedman was included in Rotten Tomatoes and not in Metacritic. The fact that he was not included in the latter is of absolutely zero consequence. There is nothing about Metacritic that gives it special standing or superiority over Rotten Tomatoes, or makes it an arbiter of what reviews are worth quoting and which are not. Considering the BLP issues here, a documentary accusing Allen of being a child molester, I think BLP requires us to include notable reviews of all shades of opinion, minority views or not, whether or not Metacritic includes then. Right now our "critical response" section is one bash of Allen after another. That is the dominant sentiment, so so be it. But if there is a notable negative review I think BLP requires that we include it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Metacritic is more appropriate to reference for balancing than Rotten Tomatoes because it actually categorizes some reviews as mixed. Rotten Tomatoes only looks at reviews as positive or negative. Metacritic also lists reviews that we are more likely to sample directly, where Rotten Tomatoes has a ton of reviews that we would not normally sample on their own. However, from RT, we should identify the average rating (6.93/10) in the article body. Also, WP:BLP does not say anything about requiring all opinions. It is WP:UNDUE that says, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all..." The Metacritic balance shows reviews in positive/mixed territory, and RT shows an average rating more in the 69 out of 100 territory. It doesn't seem like RT provides a direct score for the Friedman review, but it seems like an outlier from that territory. One way it may be included if another periodical found that review worth quoting, tying in its relevance from the periphery. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I do see that Daily Mail mentions the Friedman review, also describing Friedman as one "who has long championed Allen, claiming he has been being unfairly treated in the scandal that saw him go from Oscar darling to Hollywood pariah", but we can't use that per WP:DAILYMAIL. I don't see anyone else mentioning that review, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:BLPBALANCE requires that we include a negative review from a notable source even if it is the only one in the universe. I would vehemently object to excluding a negative notable, not self-published review of this series for that reason. We have a documentary making incredibly serious allegations against Allen, calling him a child molester, which to my mind mandates our showing opposing views re the documentary. But they have to be notable and not self-published, and I'm not willing to press that point with Friedman, and yes the Daily Mail is not sufficient. Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That link says, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all." I think we are having different takeaways from the same language. I don't believe the language supports always having some kind of minority view by default when a film is universally praised or panned. While this film is neither, as I said above, it seems to be in the more mixed/positive territory. Furthermore, Allen's reply is quoted at length (though I am not sure if any adjustments need to be made to that), and it is one that has been reported by others. There will be additional episodes, so perhaps there will be other articles that will assess individual ones or the whole series through a more critical lens. In any case, we should flesh out sampled reviews to get into why a critic saw the film as such. I think if we use only one sentence per critic, as some articles have done, it is too much of a flattening (unless the review really lacks insight), and more could be extracted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there were mixed reviews, and some of the positive reviews expressed reservations, I don't think we can dismiss a negative review in advance as expressing a "small minority" point of view. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way I think your edit paring down the size of the critical review section helps the balance issue a lot. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that's where we differ. I don't see that as opening a space for an explicitly negative review. We would try to go with a good range within the positive-within-reservations and mixed. Look at this that lists 20 critics with individual scores ranging from 42 to 91. We have more than enough to sample in that particular range. That's why the Friedman review is an outlier. The Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are the relative minority viewpoints for this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well as I said I think it helps a lot that we no longer have one review after another after another (some of which, admittedly, I added) praising the documentary and drumming away at how it terrible it is for Allen. Going forward I think we need to be sensitive to the fact that this is a highly unusual documentary, one that contends that a living person committed heinous crimes. Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

I really don't feel that the introduction of this article is neutral in the least. While everyone's free to have their own opinion on the claims regarded in the documentary, saying that the charges are supported by the series seems like a bit much, particularly when one of the reviews cited in the article states that the documentary is more emotional based than fact based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2143:8500:ddb2:a4e1:ccc1:91f3 (talk • contribs)

That depends upon which version of the lead, as there were at least two. We need more than just the bare-bones first paragraph. That is too short. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There's been some back and forth on the lead. We need to adequately summarize the article in a neutral fashion. Just stating that it's a documentary about the Allen sex abuse case is not enough. It must convey that this is highly negative toward Allen according to reviews, and that Allen denounced it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

We have to be mindful of WP:SYNTH. One review saying something doesn't mean that all or most reviews agree. In such cases, the attribution must be precisely focused. However, if other coverage summarizes the reviews to date as being highly negative toward Allen (or some other summary), then we can reference that higher-level coverage. For example, found this that says, "...it has been hailed as a potential turning point in public perception of the case. Critics, however, say it is one-sided because of Allen’s failure to participate." I can't view the whole thing, but it may quote Friedman, from the sound of the headline. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The headline is a reflection of Allen's reply. I've replaced the lead language with the Times material as it is more neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected about the headline. I mixed up the respondents. I'm fine with the current incorporation of the Times reference. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The quote in the lead section ("has been hailed as a potential turning point in public perception of the case") doesn't actually say much (See MOS:WEASEL). Hailed by whom, and based upon what knowledge or expertise? Arllaw (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Arllaw: That's a valid point. It is compromise language to convey the reviews, which have almost unanimously have described the series as a damming indictment of Allen. At one point the lead said something to the effect that the series "has been described as highly negative to Allen," which I think is squarely permitted by policy, but which was reverted as violating WP:SYN. I disagree. If you do too, feel free to restore that or similar language. Coretheapple (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't violate WP:WEASEL: "Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies." We can use in-text attribution to identify The Times as the source of the quote, but there's nothing wrong with that source summarizing about a hailing and the negative criticism (what "critics" means here, as it does not mean film critics in general). However, we should separate the "received favorable reviews" claim from that and have an inline citation for that directly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Summarizing the content for lead purposes is not "analyzing and interpreting." I think your view of the policy is unreasonable. Coretheapple (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the ambiguous quote in the lead and replaced it with a neutral statement that the documentary is negative to Allen. That is what EVERY review says. Saying so is not "analysis" or "synthesis" or "original research." It is simply summarizing what the article already says, over and over again. We do not have to look high and low for third-party sources to provide for us, for lead purposes, summary sentences like that. This is perfectly acceptable under MOS:INTRO and does not constitute analysis or original research. This is the purpose of a lead---to summarize the content. It is not synthesis. Let's not hamstring this article with unreasonable, rigid application of policy, please. Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Without veering too much into WP:OTHER, I thought I'd refer to another documentary (on a different topic) that faced criticism as "one - sided" - that is, told primarily from the viewpoint of Robbie Robertson. The article needs development, but manages to remain WP:NPOV while still alluding to this debate. This is the doc: Once Were Brothers: Robbie Robertson and the Band. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead isn't place for discussion about whether or not a work contains bias, that is for the body of the article. Keep it in sub headings, the heading is for introducing the topic, not the issues that have come up about the topic. Czarnibog (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Nelkin vs. Englehart

Re this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allen_v._Farrow&type=revision&diff=1010250006&oldid=1010249545 and comment nul edit: wanted to add that Nelkin made that claim, not Allen in fact, Allen makes this claim in his autobiography. --WickerGuy (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I am sure that there are many facts contradicting the plot of the documentary, but it is not our job to point them out. Coretheapple (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps in a separate section of this article but they would need to be third-party sourced.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if there are multiple sources that contest the factual accuracy of the series, that can be added either as a separate section or subsection, or perhaps combined with the existing subsection on one-sidedness. Mostly I just see one-sidedness alleged. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This would have to be sourced to go into the article, but the most glaring one is the completely false account of the reason Frank Sinatra divorced Mia Farrow. There is also major factual omissions, the complete absence of Dory Previn from the series. I have a definite pro-Woody bias here, but I have been with Wikipedia since 2007, and am well-acquainted with all the many rules of editing here required to keep Wikipedia even keeled.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Where would you suggest we place this? The plot section is not a good place, as that is just a recitation of plot. I don't see how we do that without a source pointing out specific inaccuracies. If you can figure out a way of getting these into the articles I'd be quite content. Coretheapple (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be sourced from third party sources. I'm inclined to wait until all 4 episodes are aired. I don't know if an equivalent to Imdb's "Goofs" section is workable or not.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

On occasion people insert "film vs. reality" sections into articles, but usually they are uncontroversial and policy considerations are overlooked. This one is a hot topic. Now, if there is enough sourcing to warrant one, a section could be created on alleged factual inaccuracies. But the sourcing would have to point out inaccuracies in the documentary. One may come along and may already be out there. Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Necessary additions

There are at some additions that MUST be made, insofar as they demonstrate the bias and lack of professionalism of the people who made the documentary.

1. Allen is portrayed as a predator for having had an affair with Christina Engelhardt. Fair enough. But in numerous interviews (easy to find on the web) Engelhardt describes having threesomes with Woody AND Mia. This speaks to both Mia's reliability and that of those who made the documentary.

2. Nowhere does the documentary mention the unconditional support Mia offered for years to CONFIRMED child rapist Roman Polanski.

3. While the documentary (especially the final episode) implies that Allen's case is similar to that of Weinstein, Cosby, etc, it fails to mention that Weinstein and Cosby--and indeed ALL of the Metoo celebrities--were accused MANY times by MANY people. Allen has been accused exactly once, in the middle of a messy breakup. Nowhere does the documentary discuss cases where children had false memories, such as the McMartin School scandal (see wikipedia).

It is important to distinguish an 'accusation' from an 'allegation'.

An 'accusation' can mean 'a formal charge brought against a person in a court of law' (Wiktionary definition), and Allen has never been formally charged. On the contrary, the prosecutor explicitly chose to *not* charge Allen for a lack of credible evidence, and Mia Farrow agreed to that.

Woody Allen has been 'alleged' though of sexual assault, an allegation being 'an assertion, especially an accusation, not necessarily based on facts' (Wiktionary definition).

In this well-documented case, Mia brought 7 year old Dylan to a pediatrician and Mia told the pediatrician that Dylan may have been abused. Dylan denied the abuse first, but one day later she told the pediatrician what Mia said Dylan had told her. The pediatrician was then obliged to report this to the police. His own investigation did not establish evidence of abuse.

This allegation has been thoroughly investigated by two independent child abuse expert instances in CT and NY. They both concluded that the allegation was not credible. Hence no formal accusation was ever made. Mcouzijn (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

4. The documentary is incredibly tendentious. While describing various malefactors, for example, we see a picture of Dylan as a child, implying that Allen is certainly guilty.

5. In his book and his 60 Minutes interview, Allen discusses some of Mia's insane behavior. Nobody asks her about this, even though it obviously speaks to her reliability.

6. While the documentary does mention that Timothée Chalamet announced that he refused to work with Allen again, it failed to mention his confession that he did so because he'd been told that it would improve his chances of winning at Oscar.