Talk:Ronan Farrow/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

More puffery

As this article has been subject to for quite a while, another attempt has been made at WP:PUFFERY. An editor is insisting we use "the honoring of Farrow" rather than "the selection of Farrow." Some organization gave Farrow an award. The pure, base fact is that the organization chose him, selected him, picked him. So to use the hyperbolic "honored" is just one more example of non-neutral terminology.

The cited magazines / newspapers can use whatever heated term they want — but just because they call a movie "a smash hit" doesn't mean WE have to say "a smash hit." We say "commercially successful." Same thing here. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Puffery? Not so. The issue of the sentence is NOT that some organization gave him an award. The issue of the sentence is a post-selection reaction (or skepticism) by three authors (1) to his receiving the award or (2) to him being honored with the award. The authors voiced no opinion as to the selection process when the selection was made (presumably, months before); rather, the authors voiced a post-selection opinion at the time of (1) his receiving of the award or (2) him being honored with the award. To say that they voiced skepticism to the selection of him is simply not fact-based.

I have a proposal in a good faith effort to provide a solution and avoid further discussion. I'm cool with Tenebrae's usage of the "selection" of Farrow, BUT ONLY IF another sentence is added to provide facts about the selection process to provide a short, fair, and balanced discussion of the actual selection process. I suggest the something like the following:

On February 26, 2014, Farrow received the third annual Cronkite Award for Excellence in Exploration and Journalism, given by the organization Reach the World to an individual "whose life and work exemplifies the intersection between exploration and journalism."[41] In the selection of Farrow, Reach the World cited a plurality of his positions and experiences before hosting the Ronan Farrow Daily show.[41] His selection, however, has been viewed with skepticism because the show had been on the air for only three days before he received the award.[42][43][44] - Television fan (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That proposed version goes beyond puffery: We don't even give this much background information and explanation when someone wins an Academy Award! And here, neither this award nor the organization apparently are even notable enough to have Wikipedia pages. Saying Farrow won an award is one thing. Saying he was honored is completely over the top. What is it about this guy that commands such drooling devotion that BlueSalix and I, who disagree on most things, agree that many editors come here to make this a loving fan page. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Although an inference exists, his "selection" or the basis for his selection has not been viewed with skeptic. "Honored" is supported by the reference -- "selected" is not. His skeptics have chosen "honored." If this is puffery, it arises from the skeptics -- not the organization. If you wish to remove what you think is puffery, then how about removing the puffed-up sentence voicing skepticism?

You've opened the door to the issue of "selection", and if you insist on opening the door and adding "selection" to the discussion, then I must insist on a balance of factual information on selection process. Even if the organization did not have a Wikipedia page (see below), its award is enough to garner three critics! If you think that this organization and award are barely worth mentioning, then sentence containing the politically-charged bias of the three authors should be removed. I'm fine with that. Alternatively, I am okay with the following options:

On February 26, 2014, Farrow received the third annual Cronkite Award for Excellence in Exploration and Journalism, given by the organization Reach the World to an individual "whose life and work exemplifies the intersection between exploration and journalism."[41] Referencing the fact the Ronan Farrow Daily had only aired for three days, his receiving of the award has been viewed with skepticism.[42][43][44]

or

On February 26, 2014, Farrow received the third annual Cronkite Award for Excellence in Exploration and Journalism, given by the organization Reach the World to an individual "whose life and work exemplifies the intersection between exploration and journalism."[41] Referencing the fact the Ronan Farrow Daily had only aired for three days, the giving of the award to him has been viewed with skepticism.[42][43][44] - Television fan (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Receiving" is perfectly neutral. I'm certainly fine with that.

Why are we explaining the award? Does the phrase "whose life and work exemplifies the intersection between exploration and journalism" even say' anything? The award is called " Excellence in Exploration and Journalism." It's like saying, "Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, given to an actor whose life and work exemplifies the best of supporting actors."

Can we agree that when an award is for "Exploration and Journalism" that it's redundant to say the award is for exploration and journalism? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point about redundancy because "exploration" and "journalism" are repeated; however, it doesn't give the reader that the context and basis of the award which also includes "life" and "work." In my opinion, "Excellence in Exploration and Journalism" is vague because more than one interpretation of the award can exist. Without a brief description, "exploration" and "journalism" in isolation could taken out of context and mean, for example, an exploration into a subject matter (police crime, workplace safety, child prostitution, exposure of corruption by public officials, etc...) and a journalistic reporting of the subject matter after it has been explored -- sort of an alternative to a Pulitzer Prize. The timeline for exploring the subject matter could be comprised of "days" or "weeks" and not a "life." In my opinion, the description is brief and provides context of the award that is not provided in the title of the award. - Television fan (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Any professional award is for a person's "life and work." When the Oscars give a Lifetime Achievement Award, we don't say "it's an award for his life and work in the movie indusry." That's bad writing, and I say this as a professional journalist and editor. You seem intent on owning that passage so I'm not going to edit-war over it, but it is objectively redundant, and repeating the words doesn't explain anything or make anything clearer. It's also unnecessary if there's a link to Reach the World that describes that organization's awards.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that an any professional award includes the person's "life and work." A Best Supporting Actor Award is not an award of the person's accomplishment throughout his life; rather, it is the person's accomplishment during the past year. Without belaboring the point, here is another alternative which you might find acceptable. I think it addresses your concern of redundancy and puffery ("activist, journalist, lawyer and U.S. government advisor" is not puffery because provides context to the meaning of "Exploration and Journalism") while addressing my concern about vagueness and clarity (moreover, "selection" criteria is provided with "activist, journalist, lawyer and U.S. government advisor" allowing the skepticism of the selection to come in):

Citing his life as an activist, journalist, lawyer and U.S. government advisor, Farrow received the third annual Cronkite Award for Excellence in Exploration and Journalism on February 26, 2014 from Reach the World.[41] Referencing the fact Ronan Farrow Daily had aired only for three days, the selection of him as the recipient was viewed with skepticism.[42][43][44] - Television fan (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It hurts me as a professional to find no other editors with the interest and abilities to deal with an WP:OWNy editor intent on saying, "Citing his acting in a movie supporting role, Jared Leto received an Academy Award for Supporting Actor." It also reeks of hype-y WP:TONE. But you seem insistent on reverting any attempt at improving your bad writing. I wish you could step back and accept the slightest bit of objective criticism. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good morning. "[A]ctivist, journalist, lawyer and U.S. government advisor" does not dovetail with "Exploration and Journalism"; exploration is not defined by activist, lawyer, and advisor. In this instance, the basis for the award is not self-explanatory in the title of the award. Onwards ... I am fine with "On February 26, 2014, Farrow received the third annual Cronkite Award for Excellence in Exploration and Journalism from Reach the World.[41] This action was viewed with skepticism.[42][43][44]" The rationale for both actions are omitted and a balanced paragraph results; however, given the recent surge in interest in him in the political sphere, it is likely that other editors will insert the reason for the skepticism. If this occurs, then I can always add the reason for his receiving the award. As for my bad writing, I am always appreciative with the improvements of other editors. - Television fan (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No one expressed a problem with explaining the reason for the skepticism, so I'm confused about your removing that. But lovingly labeling him "activist, journalist, lawyer and U.S. government advisor" is puffery. He won an award. We say that. But when, for example, an actor and an actress win an MTV Award for Best Kiss, nobody says anything but the name of the movie: nobody says "for the teasing passion and tender moment of hesitation before they smooched in earnest." This isn't a lifetime achievement award. For goodness' sakes, Booth Tarkington is one of only three novelists to win the freaking Pulitzer Prize more than once. And just as with that MTV example, we don't say, "for this themes, plotting, dialog." We say, "He won the Pulitzer Prize in fiction twice, in 1919 and 1922, for his novels The Magnificent Ambersons and Alice Adams. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I have not expressed it, I have had a problem with providing the reasoning for the skepticism; in other words, I am expressing it now. As I have stated before, however, it is likely that other editors will add it in the future. Thus, I have resigned arguing the presence of the skepticism reasoning. I would love to omit the reasoning for both sides and provide two short and simple sentences, but have come to accept a balance of reasoning should be the result. Please note that I have not "lovingly labeled" Farrow; it is a word-for-word cite from the reference. Would quotes around the phrase remove all doubt of puffery? Quotes currently exist in the description of the award. Unlike the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, "Excellence in Exploration and Journalism" is not self-explanatory when the reasoning of "activist, journalist, lawyer and U.S. government advisor" is specifically used. Also, it should avoid your concern of redundancy. - Television fan (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Keeping along the Academy Award analogies...I would find the following sentences acceptable on the page of 12 Years a Slave (assuming both are supported by reference): "The movie received the Academy Award for Best Picture, an award for which race is not a criterion in the selection process. Believing the film industry has a need for political correctness with respect to race, the selection of the movie was viewed with skepticism." - Television fan (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And neither I nor any other editor I can imagine would find that POV soapboxing acceptable.--Tenebrae

Without the quotes, it is an accurate paraphrase for the reason he received the award because it what follows is a list of the reasons supporting "activist, journalist, lawyer and U.S. government advisor."

This paragraph needs balancing to avoid bias, and providing a reason in one sentence balances with a reason in the next sentence. The paragraph should be balanced and unbiased by (1) providing reasons for both or (2) omitting reasons for both. As stated above, the reason for the award being given is NOT redundant; "life" and "work" are not self-explanatory in the title (e.g., it is not a "Lifetime Excellence")

Tenebrae, without providing a reason in the first sentence but providing one in the second sentence, the reader may believe the "Exploration and Journalism" means a person who explores issues on a cable TV show, and because it had only aired for three days, there are those who are skeptic that an award is given to one with minimal experience on a daily cable TV show. This leaves a biased or unbalanced impression with the reader. This has been my main issue, and I've tried to work with you by providing many alternatives to address your concerns. How about working with me to address my concern, balance the paragraph, and address its bias? - Television fan (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright then, how about removing the sentence about the award being met with skepticism. It's a non-issue: I rarely resort to "common sense" as a point, but there is no way on God's green earth that an organization can physically create an award, rent a hall, organize an entire awards ceremony and arrange for guests and press in just three days. It's self-evident that the award is not for a three-day old show. We don't have to report everything trivial thing in the press, and the purpose of an awards section is to say: So-and-so won this award given by such-and-such. If you want to put the "skepticism" in a "Controversy" section, do that. That's not what the Awards section is for. And then we can remove the redundant phrase, which is bad writing and would grate on any professional editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I learned of Farrow on the Rush Limbaugh Show (whom I listen to for his garbage and not for his political ilk). He's ranted on three different shows about Farrow's receiving of the award. Now, "common sense" and Rush Limbaugh may be an oxymoron, but that is all he rants about! The listener (of an audience of 16.5 million) is left with the impression that the so-called "liberal" media giving an award for a person who has three days in the business and because of his celebrity parents! Yes, it sounds crazy, but he omits the facts that state the real reason for Farrow's receiving of the award. I don't want the bias of a political matter leaving the reader with a one-sided impression. Okay, I am removing the phrase of the sentence that provides the reasoning. - Television fan (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your obvious hard work and good faith in working to make this passage the most accurate and well-written that it can be. I mentioned before that I certainly have nothing against giving the reason for the skepticism. In fact, since "was viewed with skepticism" is an unattributed passive-voice phrase, why not say directly something like, "Talk-radio hosts Rush Limbaugh, person 2 and person 3 viewed this with skepticism, claiming Farrow had only hosted a radio show for three days. So-and-so responded that the award is for a recipient's whole body of work." We'd have to find citing and such, but this way we show both sides of the issue (such as it is) neutrally.

Alternately, if this was just some talk-radio blip that didn't have legs or affect the culture at large, we don't need to mention every single thing someone says about an article subject and could remove the "skepticism" sentence entirely. These are two possible ways to go. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And after editing by three of us now, the second sentence, about the three days, gives no context and implies, ridiculously, that Reach the World gave him the award for Rona Farrow Daily. On its face, that's such a physically logistical absurdity, as I've noted above re: throwing a big awards ceremony in just two or three days, that I wonder why we need that sentence at all. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The second sentence can be omitted because of the implication; however, others think the information is worth adding even though it inserts a bias and an unbalanced implication of why he received the award. This is why I added "in recognition of his education and past work experiences" - to provide the balance in light of the presence of the sentence. My addition avoids the concern of redundancy and puffery IMHO, and balances out the implication of the "three days" of a cable TV show. In a separate issue, why can't the Limbaugh cite be used? We mention conservative commentator along with media outlets.- Television fan (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I can accept ‎Sportfan5000's edit of 20:37 on today's date although the latter half of the first sentence leans toward puffery; his work from 2001 is good. - Television fan (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW...Reach the World has existed as a Wikipedia page since October 14, 2009. - Television fan (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I'm confused why you didn't wikilink it. In any case, that doesn't affect my point about simple redundancy. That's not a matter of anything except quality of writing. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

after just three days

Interjecting here as other eyes, mine, have looked at this. I think the second sentence is fine at the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it balanced with other sources who echo what we state in the first sentence, that it wasn't tied to the show but his work from 2001. Please leave Limbaugh out of this, his opinion just doesn't hold much value on this. Meanwhile the rest of the awards could each have a phrase added, if needed, to explain why he got those awards. I did add the NYT reference at the awarding website explicitly referred to it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not omit the phrase about UNICEF? The phrase about his work since 2001 balances out the "three days" comment. - Television fan (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It was considered notable enough for the awarders to cite it, and I think it emphasizes why the critique may be focussing poorly. They have a point, but not the full picture, we do. And being a UNICEF ambassador is rather a big deal, a cursory mention in this section is acceptable, and helps readers understand why the award was given rather than the vague "because his work." It begs the question, what work? And we address that preemptively. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand the UNICEF reference provides a definition and/or answer to "what work"? However, the reader is provided links to the references to see the full picture. The UNICEF is but one criterion from which his was selected. The full list of criteria is available on the link to the reference. The UNICEF phrase seems a bit puffery to me. I would like to hear Tenebrae's comments should he choose to chime in. - Television fan (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the best way to avoid any questions whatsoever of puffery, bias, lack of context or inaccurate implications is to just state the basic, raw facts as simply as possible. I mean, geez, we don't get into any such extraneous stuff at Walter freaking Cronkite's "Awards" section. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment: molestation allegations

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.

---

A man who has never been charged with a crime is being called a child molester. An editor removed the following two sentences, which provide balance, calling it "POV." Considering the man is innocent in the eyes of the law, is it "POV" to include these sentences, already vetted by editors at the man's article?

A police-appointed medical team in 1993 concluded Dylan "was not molested", citing contradictory statements by her. The judge eventually found that the sex abuse charges were inconclusive. Allen has repeatedly denied the allegation, calling it "untrue and disgraceful,"

• Support - How in God's name is it POV, when someone is being called a "child molester", to balance that with evidence otherwise? We can't just call someone a child molester when police, doctors, the court and the man himself say otherwise. It is POV not to include both sides. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Disagree You should have waited for my comments and responded to them before doing an rfc. You make me laugh. You certainly have a strong perspective. I am not here to prosecute or defend Woody. I am here to write an encyclopedia. It is fact that he was accused. You are now entering evidence of his innocence. So I will bring in evidence to sustain Ronan's POV. I would rather neither were in the article. "Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her,” the June 7, 1993" Anyone who comes to this talk page can search for that quote. It is in the court record, and reported in multiple RS. Another quote to search for within RS is "Justice Elliott Wilk, who concluded that the report which exonerated Allen by the Yale-New Haven medical professionals was “sanitized and, therefore, less credible” and also said “the notes of the team members were destroyed prior to the issuance of the report, which, presumably, is an amalgamation of their independent impressions and observations.” It’s noted the medical professionals were also unwilling to testify at the custody trial, except a deposition given by Dr. Laventhal. There is ample RS to support that an accusation was made. It is also notable, and relevant. And we cannot simply use Ronan's biography page to use Wikipedia to promote a POV contrary to the opinion he gave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As I say above: My God, look at the OR synthesis you present in your comment above to argue one side over the other. I don't need to say anything else. You personally believe Woody Allen is a child molester and you don't want anyone on this page to suggest otherwise. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OR is not allowed in articles. Discussions in talk pages often include opinions and perspective. I present one side from the simple perspective that you have a two sentence defense on the part of Woody that is inconsistent with the opinion of the person whose biography is involved, and I was citing widely available credible evidence to support that what Ronan said had credible support. There is tons of RS on the above quotes. Please do not ever accuse me of intent. You were called on this several times by admins on the other discussion page. Bob the goodwin (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a clever tactic, trying to change the subject and personalize the issue; I also have no idea what supposed "admins" on what "discussion page" said what. But bravo — I'm honored you employ the same tarring tactics against me the same as you do against Woody Allen.

It is a fact that you have and continue to accuse me of intent. I have focused on the content and the discussion. This is a biography of Ronan, he made an accusation. The first administrator on your AFI BLP noted that the accusation was noteworthy and relevant, and we are now discussing how to represent Woody's side. There has been a statement made that the current version needs work, and I have been proposing changes. So far I have addressed every question (not using the prosecutors voice, not using People as reference). But I consider it inappropriate have information on a biography of Ronan Farrow, which in large part is notable because of his public remarks about his father, and to have his own biographical page treat his accusation as fringe when it is well covered in NYT. I think it is possible to simultaneously say that Woody was never prosecuted, and that there were reasonable concerns that Ronan felt the need to express. The easiest way to stop me is to debate the line in terms of Wikipedia and an encyclopedic entry, and not attacking the messenger.Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia policies apply to talk pages as well as article pages. Second, by your own OR synthesis words you've shown a clear bias that you believe Woody Allen is a child molester — and so you give a highly contentious, unproven claim undue weight. We choose what goes into an article, and so if Wikipedia is calling someone guilty of a crime — who has never even been charged with a crime — it is grossly irresponsible and of undue weight not to give context and balance. And in fact, WP:WELLKNOWN requires that we do.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You do not know what I believe. What I believe has nothing to do with what belongs in an encyclopedia. It is the job of an editor to find balance, and I am bringing the other side of a PR war, it is not the job of an editor to accuse POV, it is the job to debate balance. This biography is about Ronan, who is being openly discredited by Woody. I could care less about either. But I do care about the integrity of the encyclopedia, and would gladly take a single sentence from a respectable insider on where to draw the line. Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Child molestation" is a criminal and contentious accusation. Where no charges have been brought, it is entirely proper and actually required by WP:BLP that balance be presented lest we imply that the accusation has weight which has not been denied. As its weight has been denied, we are required to so note. Collect (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, here's what it says at WP:WELLKNOWN (boldface added): "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." --Tenebrae (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support, this us publishing third hand accusations (i.e. she says it, he says on Twitter that she said it, a reporter says he said it on Twitter). As I stand by my question at BLPN, are we required to publish everything someone says on their Twitter account? The answer is no. Mr. Farrow has lots of opinions on lots of subjects, we are not duty bound to report on all of them. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Proposed compromise. Rather than adding anything more, how about removing the allegations altogether (i.e., the two sentences that begin "In January 2014 as Allen...")? They're only tangentially related to the subject of the article, and adding even more information about this just goes further off topic. Discussion of whether or not Allen is a child molester belongs on Allen's page, not here. - Nellis 15:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I can go for that. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The reader may be coming here to see what the "official" version is. I think we should give it to them. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Per Binksternet. This incident does seem to be part of Ronan Farrow's notability and it shows the level of hostility that he has for Allen, so we have an NPOV problem if we leave it out. But maybe the description can be shortened, saying that Farrow posted to social media [something], referring to the allegations against Allen, with a link to a section or anchor in the Allen article. I don't have it in me to try to come up with concrete wording but I think it can be done in a neutral sentence or two, using the cites to CNN and Vanity Fair. We probably don't need the NY Daily News. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know that we need the detail given in the two sentences, but the current revision is unacceptable because it doesn't even say that the allegations are disputed. Something has to be done about this, such as adding a link to another article. Bob the goodwin should not have reverted the two sentences without putting in something else for the purpose. The removal clearly made the section worse from a BLP standpoint, an issue that takes priority over the BRD process. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed It would have been better if I had supplied alternative language, and I appreciate that feedback. I did so just now. This is still more text than I think the article needs, but is balanced and addresses all of the concerns I have heard. I am open to seeing improvements, and even brevity.Bob the goodwin (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I further emended it to show that "probable cause" was the opinion of the prosecutor, and that he faced disciplinary actions as a result which did not result in anything -- all from the same source cited. Collect (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Did you really just change two references to the New York Times with one from People magazine? Really? Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• blush I fixed to NYT ref. I removed the opinion of the prosecutor. Let me know if this is now the official version of the events, and let me know what to fix if it is not. Thanks for your help. Hopefully we can get this right.Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop adding your biased, POV edits while this RfC is under discussion. "Wasn't prosecuted out of concern for the child"? One could also say "wasn't prosecuted because the prosecutor felt there wasn't evidence". You've been here two months, and yet you feel it's OK to violate policy, to throw your personal POV into articles, to continue arguing a point that's snowballing against you, and to go on a one-sided crusade to call a man who is innocent in the eyes of the law a child molester.. As you yourself put it, "[T]here is plenty of RS to support Ronan" and "I am happy to do try and bolster Ronan's accusation." (12:27, 4 March 2014) We are not here to bolster anybody's accusation. We are not here for your OR synthesis of things like "The medical professionals were also unwilling to testify at the custody trial, except a deposition given by Dr. Laventhal." (12:07, 4 March 2014). Why are all the Support comments and reasoning by other editors hitting a brick wall with you? You've reverted twice. Are you going for three and four times? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You made the edit while the Rfc was also under discussion, and we are trying to fix the objections. You are ignoring the comments of the administrators. I will let this sit for a bit, and then start this up again. Please do not start the false accusations. There is an AFI still open, and I think it is clear that I am acting in good faith. As for your claim that the prosecutor felt he had no evidence, I quoted a NYT article that said the opposite. You cannot just make up facts. Please follow the rules and be civil. I was making the changes requested by BinksternetBob the goodwin (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

First, WP:PUBLICFIGURE required that either the whole passage be struck or that the "child molester" accusation be balanced by the denial. That supersedes all else. Second, Binksternet installed the same version I did, here — with the edit summary "Undid revision 598093600 by Bob the goodwin"! Enough with your falsehoods. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not false. You made a change during an RFC, and so did I. You made changes in response to comments, and so did I. I had expected that Bink would be more responsive to my changes, as he was to yours. If the consensus is that Wikipedia should only provide evidence in favor of Allen's innocence because charges were dropped, I can live with that. It was my belief that the issue was controversial, and there was a living person with a biography making a claim. I thought that is why we had discussions. I would be willing to start a RFC with that particular question, and live with the consensus (but I would consider it bad form for you to create a misstated RFC in the middle of the night.), I would also be willing to live with a simple poll. Bob the goodwin (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree that Bob's changes must stop as there is clearly no consensus for them. Bob, you removed two references from the New York Times which were needed because they gave the official legal status. Instead of those, you put in text supported by a reference from People magazine that was friendly to Farrow and hostile to Allen. You need to stop making this article into a trumpet blast against Allen; if there is a ever a civil or legal case about the alleged molestation, then we will tell the reader what the court decided. Until then, Wikipedia is not going to serve as the court of public opinion, with you as prosecutor. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Further to that, we would cover the subject it in the article about Woody Allen, not the article of his son. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is spot on in his assessment below. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet Thanks Bink, you are the first reasonable editor who is making a simple actionable statement. I will kindly rebut a couple of your claims because I know you would do the same, my edit was in response to your statement that your first reversion 'was better than not', and that I 'should have proposed other language'. I was also following guidance I heard in the ANI BLP page. I was also following (or rather learning to use) the BRT process, which I think has succeeded in bringing the conversation back to the content. I have always wanted someone to help draw the line. My second correction to the record is that I replaced the People citation with a NYT citation, so in the end replaced one NYT citation with another NYT citation. The other citation was left in tact and properly summarized. As for your claim that I am acting as a prosecutor, I offer as rebuttal the point that I cannot seem to get discussed on this page. A simple sentence will satisfy me, and I think your judgment would also be sufficient for me. Except for pointed claim of prosecutor in the last statement, I have been working on the assumption that this was a biography of Ronan, and that there were two strong PR forces in play that needed to be balanced in an article about Ronan. There is no shortage if RS, there is only the judgment of where the line is in the article. Third point of rebuttal, There is also the matter of how Wikipedia handles newcomers, and how it tolerates ad-hominem attacks, misrepresentation of RS, misrepresentation of editors statements. It cannot be stated that I acted outside of good faith, and outside of guidance and outside of civility.Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this has just descended into surrealism. Binksternet is saying flat out, "Bob's changes must stop as there is clearly no consensus for them." I find that you've made false and disingenuous statement,s and another editor below straight out says you're either lying or malicious. No other editor here agrees with you. Numerous editors are asking you to back off. There will be no poll. You have been behaving badly, and as many editor point out your edits are biased and violative. Look around at what the other editors are saying. Your edits are not being accepted and several editors have grown frustrated trying to be polite with you. It is by now WP:SNOWBALL, all over but for an admin closing this. It is time to stop what has been your SPA concern since around Feb. 26.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]]You are not an administrator. Bink or any administrator (or any other experienced editor that seems civil) can tell me to back off and I will, or people can give me honest help, or I can make the poll below an RFP. Bink asked me not to get advice on his talk page, but I am determined to get past the baiting and make improvements to the article, or prove to myself that I am outside of the consensus. You have started another lie with SPA. This is the third subject area I have worked in, including a vast amount of research in my sandbox that I did not yet have the skill level to make an article, and I came to this one at the recommendation to work in an area that I had no experience to learn the skill of being an editor. I was thinking about working on Lance Armstrong controversy, but didn't find any gaps in the WP coverage of it. I am carefully following the rules as I learn them, and cannot back down (absent instructions from a rational voice) without risking accepting Wikipedia as mob rule, or by giving up on trying to learn the skill. Show me I am outside the consensus and I am done here. Then I can review this experience with my mentor and go onto my next learning assignment. Tell me I am violating unwritten rules, and I will help and codify the unwritten rules for the next earnest newbie, and then faithfully follow them. Bob the goodwin (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

First, your edit history here shows all or virtually all your edits since the end of Feb. 26 have been to this article and related discussion pages. That's SPA. Second, RE: "Show me I am outside the consensus and I am done here": Look at the vast array of Supports that go against you, with no editor agreeing with you. You're outside the consensus. I quote Binksternet at 19:59 today: "Bob's changes must stop as there is clearly no consensus for them." And your behavior, I can knowledgeably say from a perspective of over eight years, is remarkably bad and disruptive. I'm sorry you can't step back and see that all the editors disagreeing with you aren't "attacking" you. You really, genuinely are in the wrong by trying to soapbox, and that's not just me saying it. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support some form of telling the reader that the allegations have not resulted in a civil or criminal court case. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In my edit-summary just now, I was referring to Bob the goodwin's edit, rather than Collect. While this discussion is going on, I would ask Bob the goodwin to refrain from making contentious edits. He is the only person arguing for his POV version. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. There is, of course, no reason to present this dispute in every goddamn article about every member of this dysfunctional clan, but if we're going to, balanced treatment is required. It would be far better to strike everything in the "Personal Life" section after the second sentence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I note that you commented on this talk page only after I gave opinion in favor of an editor I respect on an AFI you started against her. I think this may qualify as wiki-hounding, which is what Carrie accused you of in her AFI boomerang rebuttal with significant evidence. It would be so much easier if we just focused on the content and the encyclopedia, and addressed differences of opinion in plain English. Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bob, either you can't tell time or you're a goddamn liar. (You asked for plain English; don't complain when you get what you ask for.) As everyone reading this can see, I posted here at 00:38 this morning. You didn't post to ANI until 1:47, about an hour later [1]. If there's any retaliation, it's by you. (Not to mention the fact that I've been discussing this subject on various pages since mid-January.) It's also very strange for me to see that you made the same accusation at ANI a little while ago. I pointed out your error and suggested you apologize. Instead, 30 minutes later, you're doubling down on your falsehoods. Is this behavior motivated by utter incompetence or malice? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

HW exhibits every signal of being a serial bully, likely incapable of acting in good faith, Bob the goodwin, don't take it personally even when it it obviously so. just WP:Don't feed the trolls and move on. Take all of this as a relatively free learning lesson on how to not abuse people online. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well I learned two things. I did make a mistake, and want to make a habit of owning up to it, and I do owe HW an apology. The time stamps are confusing. I am taking bait too often, because I can't figure out where the punches are coming from. Thanks for insight into two simultaneous mistakes. Bob the goodwin (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Include, I was very uncomfortable with how the information was presented but it is getting better. As Ronan has his own bully pulpit, as well as being more attuned with manipulating social media opinion, it's important to keep this material in check, against allegations, no matter how alarming. Allen's denial, as well as official investigation results, have to be clearly presented so Wikipedia remains NPOV. Nuances of phrasing can make clear the accusation was made, was considered notable, yet has been refuted, and denied. That may be the best that can be done. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and agree — that's exactly why the wording and RS citations currently here were taken directly from stable, neutral text that has been vetted by editorial consensus at Woody Allen. There's no need to reinvent the wheel.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support, No allegations has been proved to be true. I'm not sure, how could one, if familiar with WP:BLP & WP:NPOV, argue to include only one side where the subject is accused of something but not when the subject has denied the allegation and allegations were found indecisive or paradoxical. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support: It could be considered libelious against Ronan if it were to be considered to stay. When he's been convicted in a court of law, then it should be added. Ging287 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support the inclusion of the three sentences cited at the top of this RfC.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Support a course of extreme care and total reliance on the texts of court decisions. This is a sensitive, still unfolding event. All the usual rules must be followed. -The Gnome (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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.