Talk:Ronan Farrow/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

BlueSalix assertion

Despite Blue Salix's note in his edit summaries, 108.50.220.60 is not one of the sockpuppet IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive. Based on that, Blue Salix appears to be edit-warring for three inappropriate edits:

• redundantly repeating "interned" in the same sentence about where he interned;
• an irrelevant, non-notable sentence about him being recruited as part of a team — no one would infer that anyone on a diplomatic mission is doing it rogue and freelance — and with a WP:PEACOCK term
• a discussed and long-removed, irrelevant opinion from Barbara Sinatra.

This is part of a pattern with User:BlueSalix, whose edits on this page have been primarily to denigrate the article subject. This editor appears to primarily edit articles about conservative Republican politicians and seems to show a politically oriented bias against this liberal subject. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

1. The issue with the Barbara Sinatra quote was arrived upon by consensus achieved in a discussion involving only the above editor plus the multiple sockpuppets that have been active in this entry for more than a year. 108.50.220.60, like the other 15 socks involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive, AsadR and the rest, has engaged in a pattern of behavior that indicates he is "patrolling" this entry; it is the only entry this IP editor has ever edited in his time on WP.

2. Please note Tenebrae has engaged in a pattern of behavior vis a vis this entry; his edits are widely supported by socks. When I make accusations of sockpuppetry, he has unfailingly taken the side of the socks (see here). In each case, so far, my requested sockpuppet investigations have been upheld and the socks banned.

3. Please note Tenebrae frequently, and vociferously, declares I am showing "political bias" and frequently repeats the intentionally deceptive statement that "he appears to primarily edit articles about conservative Republican politicians." I invite anyone to review my edit history. The bulk of my edits are to non-political articles, however, I have edited a few articles about politicians in the area in which I'm from, including exactly 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans. My most recent edit on a political person was Jamie Pedersen, a LGBT Democratic state legislator, several months ago. (As a general aside, I have to note that the idea that I'm a "Republican" is funny if you knew me IRL, as I'm very far from that; though I'm disturbed I've been forced to make an overt declaration of ideology in order to participate in editing.)

4. As already noted, I do not intend to make any further undos of the 108.50.220.60's edits deleting sourced material. If Tenebrae would like to file an ANI notice against me, he should pursue that instead of raising this in Talk.

5. All further discussion in Talk should focus on the article, not individual editors. Thank you.

BlueSalix (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with his inability to confirm how an IP who disagrees with him is purportedly a sockpuppet — as noted, the SPI didn't mention this IP — and his pattern of edit-warring without discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the Barbara Sinatra quote, she's entitled to her opinion, but she's an outside party with no concrete, quantifiable material to add. Nancy Sinatra gave her opinion as well. So have other people. None of these are relevant to the simple facts as stated here. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This IP, as with the other 15 socks whom I've asked to be blocked (and were), is only active in this one entry, despite his edit history going back more than a year. He is dormant for months until an edit occurs, and then immediately becomes active within minutes to undo it. This is the MO of the previous socks being run by the PR agency that is working this entry, as I know you know. Thank you for your feedback. As far as Barbara Sinatra, to keep things succinct and since you've decided to file an ANI on this, I'll be tabling the content-focused portion of the discussion until a ruling has occurred. BlueSalix (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your conspiracy-theory assumptions aside, what's the name of the purported publicity company supposedly adding promotional content to this article? And you can't call somebody a sock based on your personal opinion of him and then say it's all Checkuser's fault that you didn't go to there or file an SPI. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Admins have protected this page based on my concerns with 108.50.220.60. You can read the consensus opinion with respect to 108.50.220.60 here, if you like: [[1]] I certainly do not believe I have "conspiracy-theory assumptions," nor do I believe the admins were acting out of a conspiracy theory when they decided to protect the page, however I respect your right to reject the consensus opinion with respect to 108.50.220.60 and declare we were all acting out a conspiracy. Wikipedia is all about diversity and dialog, after all and we don't always have to agree with each other. Thank you! BlueSalix (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Someone recently made several edits to this page to list Ronan Farrow's father as Frank Sinatra. These edits appear to be utterly unsourced, and given there is no proof that Farrow's father is Sinatra, I'm deleting them (furthermore there is ample discussion ofh is paternity existing in the article). Ezgranet (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize... these edits have already been reverted. Please disregard my above post. Ezgranet (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

shouldn't the lead have something of the question of his parentage. its apparent from photos of the man that he is the spitting image of Frank Sinatra. Sayerslle (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Frank Sinatra is without doubt the father of Ronan. I understand the need for caution, but he is an exact double of Sinatra. Declaring in the lede that he is Allen's son is absurd. Walterego (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

He also looks like a young Mia Farrow. See this Google image search. According to my calculations, Ronan Farrow was conceived sometime in the first half of April 1987. Curiously, 1987 was a year that Frank Sinatra went on a nationwide concert tour and was staying in resort hotels, possibly without his wife. He could have met Mia backstage or invited her up to his room. She was still very much a working actress at the time, traveling, etc. I'm not spreading gossip here. She's the one who said "possibly." Here's Sinatra's concert schedule for 1987. The first half of April he was perfoming in Las Vegas and Palm Springs. 5Q5 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to our own deductions, we absolutely cannot state that Ronan Farrow is Frank Sinatra's son. That's a bright-line vio of original-research POV. Aside from the fact that genetics doesn't work by eyeballing, and that Ronan Farrow for all we know looks like one of Mia's or Woody's grandfathers in their youth, our saying, "Well, he looks like Frank," is no basis whatsoever for contradicting the birth data as reported in reliable-source newspapers and magazines has stated for years, that he is Woody Allen's son. We give the mother's statement of a possibility otherwise, we give Allen's response, and Ronan's reaction. Those are the only direct parties, with Sinatra dead. That's all we can say.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that unless there is a publicly acknowledged DNA test to indicate otherwise, the article has to state what is legally the case. 5Q5 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link to the article from The Insider, titled "Woody and Mia's Son," no longer works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tetty2 (talk • contribs) 04:00, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Mia Farrow's Claims about Sinatra Parentage

I believe we should delete Mia Farrow's claims about Sinatra's Ronan Farrow's parentage. Since this is essentially just a rumor that originated in an off-hand remark by someone with a grudge against Woody Allen I'm not sure this really sits at an encyclopedic level. If we are going to report rumors, we should probably include counter-assertions, such as the Woody Allen and Barbara Sinatra rejection of the claims, to avoid giving WP:UNDUE to rumors. If commenting, please clearly indicate whether you support: (a) deleting the Sinatra rumor entirely, or, (b) including the Allen [[2]] ("fictitious and extravagantly absurd") and Barbara Sinatra [[3]] ("It’s just a bunch of junk. There’s always junk written — lies that aren’t true.") responses. BlueSalix (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought this was old and settled ground. It's not a rumor about someone if the person herself is saying it about herself. I don't think Woody Allen rejected the claim; he certainly didn't in his current NY Times op-ed piece, where he says it might be true. ([4]:

Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son?

And Barbara Sinatra is in no position to know. Only two people would be: Farrow and the late Sinatra. (If a DNA test is done, then the tester with the family's permission could be a third person.) --Tenebrae (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I added a line in the article indicating Allen's position on the uncertainty of Ronan's true birth father, sourced from his New York Times Feb 7, 2014 editorial. Both parents have now raised the important issue, so I think it is a legitimate item for inclusion. 5Q5 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Great addition, 5Q5; thanks for handling. Since Barbara Sinatra was married to Frank Sinatra at the time, and we're including a rumor started by Mia that she had an extramarital affair with a 73 year-old Frank Sinatra, do you think we should also add Barbara Sinatra's statement that such an affair was impossible? I'm a little uncomfortable including rumors about someone's spousal fidelity unless it's balanced out; the surviving spouse in that relationship definitely has an important insight that warrants preservation in the historical record, IMO. Thoughts? BlueSalix (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Sinatra's opinion is irrelevant. She has no access to any verifiable infjust adds to rumormongering. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2014 (Uormation, is not one of the parties directly involved, and is only guessing. Adding her uninformed, not-disinterested guess' TC)

I have to agree with Tenebrae. Ronan, Mia, and Woody all have a genetic stake in the matter, and so would Frank if he were still alive. Even if someday there is a genetic test, Barbara Sinatra's opinion might only be relevant to Frank's article or hers. Same thing if Nancy, Frank Jr., etc. comment. 5Q5 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A valid point, however, I think a legal stake - which Barbara Sinatra has as the primary holder of Frank's estate - as to whether or not she was the victim of an extramarital affair, which Mia Farrow has claimed, is of equal strength to a genetic stake. But you make a sound argument, 5Q5. I may throw up a RfC just to see where it shakes out. BlueSalix (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose adding factual material regarding Ronan's early relationship with Allen

Obviously this is a matter of public concern.

There's now an extensive public record.

In particular:

1. Woody Allen says that Mia kept him apart from Satchel from birth. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0 2. The custody opinion says that the romantic relationship between Allen and Farrow faltered after Satchel's birth. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html

As an aside -- if Satchel was actually Frank's kid, not Woody's, then suddenly Mia's and Allen's behavior at the time makes an entirely new kind of sense.

3. The appeal of the custody opinion, in dissent, contains the following passage: (from http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197AD2d327_1461.xml/ALLEN%20v.%20FARROW )

Together, I think those pieces shed a very great deal of light on Ronan's upbringing, the very mysterious question of why he has no relationship with Allen despite Allen being granted visitation, and who each of them is as a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.1.245 (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand. Could you be a little more specific about what you propose adding? Perhaps post sample text? BlueSalix (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, can you please post the line here that you are proposing to add, or are you suggesting generally that any editor should add something? Since it is an unregistered editor who didn't add a signature, I'll assume it's the latter. A lot of celebrities have broken up and gone through custody issues. We don't really know if Woody and Ronan are totally estranged from each other today. Maybe they have each others' email address. Maybe they were estranged and just today they started contact again. We know that Moses re-established contact. I don't think we need to waste encyclopedia space writing about these things personally. But, hey, you've succeeded in getting the word out via your proposal here, so in a sense you got what you wanted. Lol. 5Q5 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

All this is OR synthesis and essaying — taking a fact here and a fact there and putting them together in a way to bolster one's argument or belief. That goes against policy.The very phrase "there is strong evidence [that suggests such and such]" clearly is setting up an argument for or against something. It's also linguistically manipulative: You call it strong. Others might call it mediocre and non-definitive. Who's right? You? Or them? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Three Polls

There is a claim (which may be true) that I am against the consensus. I would like to close the argument with a simple demonstration that I am alone in my opinion (and I will then stop). I agree that Woody's denial is essential.

I will not vote, because implicit in each question is my opinion. Any administrator is welcome to contribute a final judgment, which will help me understand both the lines, and the process:

• "Is it okay to use the Yale report as evidence of Woody's innocence when it is discredited in second sourced references (in NYT) of a judges ruling?" [5]

• HERE IS THE CURRENT TEXT (PROPOSE DELETING, discredited fact)

• "A police-appointed medical team in 1993 concluded Dylan "was not molested," citing contradictory statements by her."

I do not believe that this represents the best information on the topic. It is my recommendation to delete this section, and handle the assertion of his non-guilt in a different manner. I will first give my reasons, and then give citations. All will be second sources, reading the primary reports (the entire transcript from the court, for example) is more specific, but I can use secondary sources to prove the points, but the purpose of the these sources is to show that the quote is misleading, and conclusions discredited. We must show Woody's non guilt in a different manner.

First, this "police-appointed medical team" is called the Yale investigation this quote is from the custody hearing for Ronan states.

Justice Wilk, however, questioned the manner in which the Yale-New Haven team carried out its investigation of the allegations, as well as conclusions by two psychotherapists who treated Dylan that she had not been abused. "I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse," Justice Wilk wrote.

The justice said he believed the conclusions of the psychotherapists had been "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen." He added that the unwillingness of members of the Yale-New Haven team to testify at the trial, except through a deposition by the team leader, and the destruction of the team's notes had "compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and, therefore, less credible."

Note that the NYT reports a trial judge representing Ronan Farrow when he was 5 as saying the "police-appointed" team was "loyal" to Allen, which compromises the police-appointed part of the quote. He also cites their behavior as being inconsistent with any finding of fact. Therefore I believe it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to present this as a finding of fact either. There are other ways to show his non-guilt.

• "Is it okay to quote the judge as implying there was no case against Woody when he said that a trial was unlikely to proceed, and that there was significant concerns, and unsupervised visitation of Ronan was innappropriate?" [6]

• HERE IS THE CURRENT TEXT, PROPOSE TO SHORTEN TO "Allen was never prosecuted". POSSIBLY ALSO add "Allen was later denied unsupervised visits with Ronan"

The judge eventually found that the sex abuse charges were inconclusive.

First I will show this quote as dishonest, later discuss proper treatment.

This quote in our article is about the same judge. And we can use the primary source to show the quote is inaccurately portrayed.

He actually said "The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that [Allen] could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse"

and, "prove that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her"

| The secondary source | The primary source

Alternative treatments must include that no prosecution occurred. And this is where the judgment call on BLP comes in. The most generous thing I could say for Allen is that “No prosecution occurred.” Charges were written, so it *might* be fair to say “no charges were filed”, but that too is almost disingenuous. But I can live with that as well.

[7]

The problem I have is balance, since this is about Farrow’s quote, and not Allen’s guilt. Allen was not allowed unsupervised visits with Ronan Farrow. So finding balance is hard. Saying less makes balance easier. Bringing in the secondary sources on the prosecutor from the NYT article is needed if too much emphasis is placed on the charges. So let’s keep it simple “no prosecution occurred.”, but this text may be needed for the benefit of the person for whom the biography is written: “Allen was denied unsupervised visits with Ronan during a custody hearing”

• "Is it okay to assert Woody's strong denial in the context of a Ronan biography without offering some balance when both the claim and the claimant are notable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs) 23:11, March 5, 2014 (UTC)

• HERE IS THE CURRENT TEXT, RECOMMEND LEAVING AS IS OR SHORTENING TO "Allen vigorously denies the allegations."

Allen has repeatedly denied the allegation, calling it "untrue and disgraceful."[52][53]

I think both of the references are fine. This amount of text is a good balance if the unsupervised visits above is used, however for brevity, I might prefer to shorten this text to “Allen vigorously denies the allegation.” and omit the custody decision.

I love that you're trying to find the consensus but these questions are a bit convoluted to me. Perhaps if you quote what is presently in the article, which would seem to be the present consensus version, and then bold the changes you would make so It's easier to tell what exactly is being asked. In the new version include the sources you think support the changes. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. I will do precisely as you request. To be clear, I will respect the consensus. I just want to be clear on what we are agreeing to.Bob the goodwin (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I demur with the above stated OR and SYNTH -- and the implicit claim that a non-doctor can "discredit" a medical evaluation. It is akin to saying that a judge found "George Gnarph" had cancer when the medical team said he did not -- it requires equal or superior direct expertise to "discredit" any finding by a medical professional. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The debate is not medical it is legal. The question is about proclaiming innocence. Woody Allen had his limo transport these practitioners to the appointments, and the report was written by a doctor who had never seen the children. The quote in our article is a legal claim supported by medical people. The person with greatest expertise has discredited this report as a finding of fact. But we are stating these claims as legal fact. Do I hear a consensus that the Yale team can be quoted in Wikipedia as a statement of fact? I will fold this point with such consensus.

OR, SYNTH, and SOAPBOX besides. The editor is arguing a case, making the "poll" irrelevant and inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy only allows 'no-edit' rules when there is a consensus, and in no case is any editor allowed to issue 'no-edit' rules that would disrupt consensus discussions. I will go away when there is even a modicum of consensus on each point. Does consensus consider the Yale report to be considered valid as fact in an encyclopedic article?Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but Wikipedia is clear that, WP:PUBLICFIGURE having been addressed, we don't touch the disputed section until the RfC is finished. If you're threatening to, I will ask for this article to be fully protected against WP:POINT disruption. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You said a poll was inappropriate. That is a no-edit request on a consensus conversation. I have no doubt you would escalate.Bob the goodwin (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, again I appreciate the effort but I think you're not communicating effectively what you think you are. My initial reaction is to refer you to the main article of Woody Allen to effect any changes there, as that is where the main thrust of this content should be, and vetted. Then come to this article to sort out what summary is appropriate, and needed here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Response that is exactly why I proposed a link to the other article rather than bringing in the content. Tenebrae has been effective at casting the debate in a different light than I proposed. I stated earlier that copying text was not a valid form of research given that the topic here is about Ronan, and the topic he copied from was Woody. I would be thrilled to replace all three sentences with "Allen was never prosecuted" and a link to the main article, or alternatively "Allen vigorously denies the allegations." I have been asked to give suggestions, and have tried many. Some in talk, and some as BRD. But my very first suggestion was to just refer people to the other article. Demonstrating his non-guilt is mandatory. I am not sure I have enoughany interest to help on the Woody story, I am here for the Ronan biography, and particularly because he has put so much of his public persona on this accusation. I am here to get this issue right. I promise to leave this and Woody alone if we get consensus on the question of this article, and in particular the three sentences copied over from the other article. I really want to go away, but won't until there is a consensus. Either lets remove questionable content from this article, or reach consensus that the current content is acceptable within this article so I can move on.Bob the goodwin (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, nice attempt at misdirection. RE: "Copying text was not a valid form of research." It's not a form of "research" at all. The footnoted citations show the research that editors at Woody Allen debated, argued about and finally reached consensus on. Rewriting it to meet your biases is not on the table — every single other editor here is telling you that. The proper thing, as User:Binksternet and others have said, is to use language and citations that already have been vetted by editors who found consensus at Wood Allen." That is the least biased, most neural thing we could do. But you want to paint Woody Allen guilty with your conspiracy-theory OR synthesis, despite every other editor here telling you that that goes against policy and is disruptive. If you can't respect other editors, respect the fact of the RfC and quit attempting this end-run around it. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• • If this is the change you're proposing I can't support it at this time. Mostly because it implies Allen's guilt where the previous version gave specific developments, and let the reader decide what to think. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, Sport, you are kind to respond, but the link was not what I am now proposing. BRD was a means to get the discussion back to the content, and I accept the consensus that we do not want to imply Allen's guilt even through Ronan's voice. The changes I was suggesting fall into two categories: PR that is misleading, and wanting to respect the voice of Ronan. I can put the second one aside for a minute.Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that this "poll" is a sneaky attempt to do an end-run around the RfC. For this I other reasons, I reiterate that it is irrelevant and inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see this as a sneaky attempt but rather an over-eager one to understand the reasoning behind why editing is going in a certain direction, which the user may see as POV editing. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, @Bob the goodwin:, I take you at face value that you are trying to have a discussion on some points, in a highly contentious, and well-publicized dispute. In my experience I suggest allowing this section to be closed, as it is largely redundant and supplementing the RFC on the molestation accusations. it could make sense to make it a sub point of that discussion, actually. At this point I don't see a strong reason to change the echoing of what this article has taken from the Woody Allen article where undoubtably this is under scrutiny. This is also likely to come up again and be revisited soon enough, and I suggest the future editors also defer, with common sense, to the Allen article, as guiding how this inflammatory content should be handled. If you feel the content still needs to be modified then the Allen article is the place to address it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks, I respect your guidance. Bob the goodwin (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that Bob the goodwin simply recuse himself from editing this article and find something else to do with his time? TheScotch (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No need, he addressed what he felt were valid issues, they have been gone over, and everyone has largely moved on. This thread has been quiet for several day now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

NATIONALITY: AMERICAN?

It should be corrected to "USA". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.144.23 (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I hope the research links below help to explain why.

WP:NOTUSA: "Do not use U.S.A. or USA, except in a quotation or as part of a proper name (Team USA),"
United States: "The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), America or simply the States,"
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."
Interesting though, I spent 15-20 mintes researching but I could not find anything that specificially discusses the usages of the words American, Central American, Latin American and South American. In Central America and South America the predominent language is Spanish, where American is spelled Americano. 5Q5 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely with 5Q5; it would be great if there were a widely accepted alternative in the English-speaking world to "American," as in Spanish-speaking Americas where the nationality is estadounidense, however, there isn't so making the nationality "USA" would be liking saying a citizen of France's nationality was "French Republic" instead of "French" which would not make any sense. BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"only" three days

It's important not to confuse coincidence with causation. Farrow has been a journalist for years. It takes far more than three days to book a hall, send invitations, craft the physical awards and do all the other myriad things involved in a substantial, high-profile awards ceremony. The Daily Mail headline says "only three days" but neither the headline nor the story say the award was given only for his three days of work on his show. Placing the intensifier "only" in the passage here makes it ready as if that were the case when it clearly was not. The sentence reads perfectly accurately without the intensifier. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Did Ronan make an accusation of child abuse against Woody Allen

This is an article about Ronan, and not Woody, so the questions are about Ronans activities, and whether they have RS, and whether the RS is properly captured, and if the facts add to the article. A discussion was requested, and so it can be discussed here. This is the change being discussed: [8]Bob the goodwin (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

We can't just throw around accusations of such loaded terms as "child molester" — words Ronan Farrow himself, far as I can see, has never specifically used — since Allen is innocent until proven guilty and indeed no prosecutor has ever even brought charges suggesting that. No publication can print a libelous statement and used the defense, "We're just reporting the libelous statement someone else said" — it's still libelous, or at the very least potentially so.

Do you have information to explain why this is libelous? My understanding of the word and the policy are different, but am open to debate if you have evidence.Bob the goodwin (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think any Wikipedia admin would agree that we can't call someone a child molester who has never been convicted or even tried for that. Start an RfC if you think otherwise. Because if you're going to insist on reverting in order to call an innocent person — we're innocent until proven guilty — a child molester that's going to ANI. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a stronger argument to cite other examples in Wikipedia than to put words into the mouths of administrators. Your points might have merit, although I think not, but would like to see references/examples/data to back up your claims.Bob the goodwin (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support His specific words were "Missed the Woody Allen tribute - did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?"; summarizing this as "he called [Woody Allen] a child molester" is accurate and acceptable. I've reinserted your edit.BlueSalix (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The term "child molester" is much broader than "he molested one person once." That is a loaded label implying a serial pattern.

Anybody can make any claim they want to. That doesn't mean Wikipedia has to defame what the law considers an innocent man. You really don't think calling someone a child molester who may be innocent isn't serious?? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I'm taking it to an admin. You can't just go around calling people child molesters. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wha? We go from a consensus dialog to a complaint with this small amount of discussion? Weird. I thought there were some points to discuss still. Bob the goodwin (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Child molester" is not a term one throws around lightly against someone who has never been charged with child molestation. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Doesn't the fact that prosecutors chose not to charge Allen and that the Yale sex-abuse facility found no evidence of molestation suggest that there maybe an encyclopedia ought to be extremely careful of throwing that term around cavalierly? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I am open to any number of wordings so long is there is no WP:WHITEWASH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs)

• Tenebrae, that doesn't imply a serial pattern. You can in fact be a child molester if you only molested one person once. Anyway, the wording is wrong. Just quote what he said, many reliable sources covering that. Or state that he accused him of being a child molester. The Woody Allen article already mentions the case. Dream Focus 10:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dream. I think User:Binksternet found a neutral, accurate way to frame the issue. No matter whether the term means one or hundreds, I think we can agree that "child molester" is extremely loaded terminology and that more neutral phrasing could be, and now has been, used. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I would certainly believe and hope that it's non-controversial, if we're claiming someone is a child molester who has never been charged with child molestation, that we include independent parties' conclusions and the alleged molester's denial. I've added a grand total of two sentences of text and cites ported here from Woody Allen — it's not my writing except for some minor copy edits that anyone can compare against the original text to ensure that they are grammatical/syntactical only. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your two sentences. I did not mind them in the context of the Woody page, but selective copying from a source implies something very different. You say you did not think this was controversial. And you repeated the claim that we were claiming someone is a child molester. It is controversial, and we are not claiming that. We can add a link to the Woody page, where I think your points are more valid. You are opening up a can of worms with those two sentences because this is a page about Ronan. I can dig up lots of RS that draw very different conclusions than you present, and in the support of Ronan's POV. For example, the judicial ruling denying Woody unsupervised visits to Ronan when he was a child is devastating. That document has been well covered in the RS press and is more valid as an independent parties conclusion than those often cited in Woody's defense. There is also the matter of accusations from other people beside Ronan. Balancing the two sentences you added with two more to support Ronan's perspective would give this item too much space. It would probably suffice to leave the quote as is, with a link to the Woody article. I tried to start with four words that were true and neutral, if it grows to 5 sentences it will give more voice to Ronan's accusation, when the primary issue is that he made the accusation. A simple link should close the issue for both of us? Bob the goodwin (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

My God, could you be any more blatant in your bias? Look at the OR synthesis you present in your comment above to argue one side over the other! You personally believe Woody Allen is a child molester and refuse to allow even two established, well-cited sentences to say otherwise. This is simply incredible. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil. I have never met Woody or Ronan. I have no connection to this matter at all. I have no opinion on his guilt or not. Ad hominem attacks do not endear me to your arguments. I am trying to accurately portray an accusation. I argue above and below to add a link to the verbiage rather than copy from another article. It was already established in the discussion with the administrators that the accusation was appropriate to cite, it was preferable to use the original quote, and that we should discuss how to balance the accusation. I am happy to bring evidence to the table demonstrating your two sentences make a POV that is contrary to Ronan's, and that there is plenty of RS to support Ronan. However I do not believe a biography of Ronan is the correct place to litigate both sides of the argument. But if that is the way you want to proceed on those two sentences, I am happy to do try and bolster Ronan's accusation with abundantly sourced evidence. My preference is to add a link.Bob the goodwin (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"[T]here is plenty of RS to support Ronan." "I am happy to do try and bolster Ronan's accusation." That's exactly my point. We're not here to "bolster" one side or the other. And whether you've ever met them or have connection to them is irrelevant. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you argue for the sake of arguing? It is appropriate in the context of a Wikipedia to add or delete content to get to the right balance. You just disagree with the balance. I think that two sentences of 'evidence' that demonstrates Ronan made a false accusation may require review of other evidence that he made an informed accusation. Neither of which I believe belong in this article! I don't mind having admins and other editors disagree with me, but please stop misrepresenting legitimate editor discussions of balance as evidence of my having any POV. Bob the goodwin (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"Do you argue just for the sake of arguing?" Clever opening line, with the subtext "of, Oh, my opponent doesn't have a valid point. He's just arguing to argue." Very nice. Clever misdirection. You should be proud of yourself for trivializing a serious issue in which you're arguing in favor of an unproven accusation of child molestation. You're the one who said, "[T]here is plenty of RS to support Ronan" and "I am happy to do try and bolster Ronan's accusation." That's clear and blatant POV bias. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal life:bisexuality reports

I recommend we add the following:

In November 2013 the New York Post reported that Farrow is bisexual; a separate story in Vice Magazine made the same claim. Farrow has not publicly responded to either report.

References

We should not make a definitive statement as to his sexuality, but we have to acknowledge the fact that widespread RS reports have occurred as they form part of his biographical story, whether accurate or not; I have based my wording on the excellent recommendations made by George Ho in the David Ogden Stiers article. Please clearly state Support or Oppose while participating in this discussion and limit comments to the topic of the discussion, and not individual editors. Please AGF and WP:CIVIL throughout. Thank you - BlueSalix (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The RFC on Stiers was closed as "no consensus" for inclusion of rumors; statement of rumors is removed there. I bet this proposal will falter. George Ho (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Great observation - thanks for the update, George Ho. I think we have a stronger case here as these are two reputable RS making original claims, versus the DOS issue of a reputable RS repeating a claim by a non-reputable source. I would, therefore, question whether this case can be accurately categorized as "rumor" versus "reporting." There are many instances in reporting where the subject chooses not to confirm a report. For instance, Prince Charles has not publicly confirmed he blocked designs for the Royal Opera House, but we still acknowledge reports by RS with the proviso "claimed" and "stated." (If the condition for entry into WP were that the subject had to publicly confirm a report on himself, all our bios would be pretty short, PR-friendly affairs.) What do you think? BlueSalix (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Some building is irrelevant to sexuality matters. Why comparing two distinguishable things? George Ho (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We cannot make claims about someone's sexuality based on anonymous "sources." Something that personal needs impeccable, highly reliable, scrupulously attributed sourcing. Neither the Post nor Vice — hardly The New York Times — give such sourcing. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

An absolutely pair point you raise, George Ho; I only note that it is - similarly - a case of information acceptable for inclusion, even in the absence of affirmation by the subject. While I would agree with your reticence if this were scandalous information, I don't believe being bisexual or gay is anything particularly negative and I view it as consequential as claiming someone has brown eyes. I also would agree with you that we should absolutely not claim Farrow is bisexual or gay and I would not suggest we should; my suggestion is that we acknowledge wide media scrutiny when it occurs, ergo, the finely worded sentence "the New York Post reported that Farrow is bisexual" and not "Farrow is bisexual." This is a factual statement because the New York Post did, indeed, report he is bisexual. BlueSalix (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a tactic some editors use to put rumors into Wikipedia, and I'm not saying you were aware of that or doing it consciously or in bad faith. But it's well-established that we can't sneak in a rumor in with the excuse that, "Well, the rumor was reported in a reliable source!" I'd also note that WP:RS doesn't mean that all reliable sources are reliable all the time, as in this textbook case: "Reports" about someone's private life cited to anonymous, unnnamed, unattributed "sources." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm too exhausted to convince you that scandalizing sexuality is not a good thing and that omitting contestable rumors is not a bad thing. I think you should add the RFC tag below and the more neutral post to bring in more comments. No need to ping me again. I guess, if you want to propose similar thing to all BLPs, you can bring this issue to VPP next time. George Ho (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I'm going to put you down as Oppose for now. It's not a race, we can marinate on this for awhile and see where it nets out; maybe it's not worth including. Either way, thanks very much for your input! BlueSalix (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Omit for now, although … It is getting to a tipping point, but the main reason to include his non-disclosure, is in contrast to him publicly calling out his father specifically, about sex-related issues. See:
  • Op-ed: The Curious Case of Ronan Farrow: Ronan Farrow, the soon-to-be MSNBC host, plays it close to the vest with his love life, but isn't afraid to publicly blast his famous father. Is this a conflict or simply a choice?
  • Revealed: Mia Farrow's son Ronan 'has dated both men and women - but he refuses to label himself gay, straight or bisexual'

It may be wisest to wait a bit and see what develops or if there are more reports on this. Anderson Cooper's article discussed his sexuality in context of reporting before he came out in 2012. See this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia doesn't "out" anybody, and in terms of encyclopedic confirmation, I certainly wouldn't trust anonymous, unattributed sources in the '"Daily Mail. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)