Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:38, 5 March 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ronan Farrow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Biography C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Human rights C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 18, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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).

Personal life

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

1. Johnson, Richard (8 November 2013). "Ronan Farrow loves the ladies — and guys, too". New York Post. Retrieved 8 February 2014. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |curly= and |coauthors= (help)
2. Glazek, Christopher. "DOES RONAN FARROW'S SEXUALITY MATTER?". Vice Magazine. Retrieved 8 February 2014. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |curly= and |coauthors= (help)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 ] ("fictitious and extravagantly absurd") and Barbara Sinatra ] ("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. (:

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)

Mia Farrow / Frank Sinatra Extramarital Affair

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In 2013 Mia Farrow claimed she had an extramarital affair with a 73 year-old Frank Sinatra, while he was married to Barbara Sinatra, and that this affair "possibly" produced Ronan Farrow, the subject of this article, who - up to that point - had been assumed to have been the child of Woody Allen. No DNA testing has been done on Ronan Farrow to determine the validity of Mia Farrow's claims of an extramarital sex affair. Barbara Sinatra has rejected Mia Farrow's implication that she (Barbara) was in an adulterous relationship saying "It’s just a bunch of junk. There’s always junk written — lies that aren’t true." ] If you support including Barbara Sinatra's rejection as to the validity of Mia Farrow's claim about the fidelity of Barbara's husband, indicate below with support. If you support excluding Barbara Sinatra's response to Mia Farrow's claim, indicate below with oppose. A separate section has been created for longer discussion.

EDIT (Feb. 17, 2014): By editor (User:5Q5) request, I am including specific text for consideration in this discussion (I'm very open to discussing edits to the below, I just wanted to get something on the page so we have a more concrete plan of action - please provide comments and suggested amendments in the Discussion section). Most of this is already contained in the article, I have just recopied it here for convenience of context - additions have been highlighted and deletions are stricken (on further review, the, stricken information is sourced to tabloid magazines like US Weekly).

Farrow is estranged from his father, Woody Allen. In 2011 he commented, "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression." On June 12, 2012, he tweeted, "Happy Father's Day — or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law's day." Farrow's parentage has been the source of some confusion. Asked about longstanding speculation that Ronan Farrow is the son of Mia Farrow's ex-husband Frank Sinatra, Mia Farrow claimed in a 2013 Vanity Fair article that Sinatra might "possibly" be Ronan's father. After the allegation became widespread in the news media, Ronan Farrow tweeted humorously on October 2, 2013, "Listen, we're all *possibly* Frank Sinatra's son." In a statement released by his publicist, Allen originally rejected the suggestion as “fictitious and extravagantly absurd,” however, in a subsequent New York Times editorial posed the question “is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s?” Barbara Sinatra, Frank Sinatra’s wife at the time Mia Farrow suggested she engaged in a sexual relationship with the singer, has dismissed the idea as “lies” and “a bunch of junk.”

Sources: ], ], ], ]

Support

• Support Claims of spousal infidelity are of a serious nature and the effected party includes both parts of the conjugal couple; to exclude Barbara Sinatra's informed opinion (as Frank Sinatra's wife) that her husband had been cheating on her would lead a person reading this article to assume this was simply an accepted fact as opposed to a disputed or unresolved historical episode. Misplaced Pages is about maximizing access to information; there needs to be an extremely compelling case as to why we should obfuscate or conceal knowledge and it hasn't been met, IMO. Barbara Sinatra is not a man-on-the-street but, in fact, one-half of the conjugal couple Mia Farrow claims suffered marital infidelity. Barbara's rejection of Mia's claim should be knowledge that is available to our readers. BlueSalix (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support, with condition. Ronan Farrow, the subject of this biographical article, Tweeted a reaction that included Frank Sinatra's name. Therefore, and for additional reasons I give in the Discussion section below, I feel someone from Sinatra's side deserves to have a response noted. I would not support more than a short sentence, with a reference, the latter of which can contain a quote or fuller quote. Someday, a better quote/position from a Sinatra family member may come along. Nothing here should be considered permanent. The story can change in the future. 5Q5 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support. There seems to be an undue amount of argumentation over a pretty minor question here. I don't feel strongly on this one way or the other, but there's a clear desire among the participants here for input from more editors, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents. It seems reasonable to me to include Barbara Sinatra's response since Frank's is unavailable. (If Frank Sinatra were alive, his response would be appropriate to include, and Barbara's would not.) It strikes me that Barbara has just as much first-hand information about the situation as Woody Allen does. - Nellis 01:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Thanks for the invitation to comment. The whole thing sounds like gossip to me. Even verifiable gossip is still gossip. But, I'd like to somehow convince the opponents of including Sinatra's denial that if you find you must include the affair rumor started by Mia Farrow, then for reasons both of balance and of fairness to Barbara Sinatra, then include a short statement of her opinion. You must cite the actual source, The Desert Sun, and if possible (if you live in Palm Springs or have a library with access to the archive), read the full article http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/mydesert/doc/1439073598.html (I have only read the abstract.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• While I don't think my position can be expressed as a pure "support" position, I think my sentiments are at least under the same umbrella. These are two living persons making statements about a third living person (and a deceased person) with nothing essentially in the way of facts backing them up. They're assertions that have been quoted widely. In that respect we should cut any weak sources and only use the best ones we have in the situation. Beyond that, I would not suggest including quotes for either "position", as they often can appear to go beyond statements and into advocacy, especially when they are doing things like calling the other person's statements lies. That Mia Farrow gives the child's paternity and that is disputed can be said in two sentences without quoting either expressly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. If we're going to include the vague rumor started by Ms. Farrow, it seems appropriate and NPOV to include the one sentence containing the denial by Ms. Sinatra. We ought to provide balance for the reader's consideration, and in the end the reader will decide for themselves what it's worth anyway. Alternatively, we could just remove all of it. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support (invited by the bot) What a person who is closely related to, and somewhat involved in the described situation said about it is germane and of significance to the topic. We are not evaluating her as a source or as a source of authoritative information on whether or not such a relationship existed, we are covering what an involved person said on the topic, attributed as such. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose   As I wrote above, Barbara Sinatra's opinion is irrelevant. She has no access to any verifiable information, is not one of the parties directly involved, and is only guessing. Adding her uninformed, not-disinterested guess just adds to rumormongering. And if she feels she does have legal stake in it, as even the nominator noted, then that also makes her potentially biased. I would additionally note that having someone with no firsthand knowledge or concrete evidence, who is guessing, call a living person a liar seems a violation of Misplaced Pages:Libel. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (changed to support, with condition). The original source of the Barbara Sinatra story, The Desert Sun, has retracted the story from the Internet (update: paywall archived here), which used to be at http://www.mydesert.com/article/20131002/LIFESTYLES01/310020006/Farrow-rumor-phony-Barbara-Sinatra-says and is now a dead link on various national news sites that repeated it, like ABC News and USA Today, the latter of which, along with The Desert Sun, are owned by the Gannett Company. The story also cannot be found at a new URL on the paper's site. Perhaps Barbara Sinatra complained that she was misquoted or misstated her position. If the originating newspaper won't stand by the article, then all subsequent sources that repeated it are unreliable. 5Q5 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I looked for it at archive.org, and it also is not archived there. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not think Barbara Sinatra adds anything to the facts in the case, and makes the total piece less credible. If I had to summarize the story, Mother, Father and son all hint that Ronan is the biological son of Sinatra, for which father and any sentient reader observes a resemblance. The reliable sources ask us to believe in the likelihood of his being the son of Sinatra, without absolute truth. That is the story, what the sources say. None of the other details add to this story in any way. When they do, they should be added. Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Other Opinions

• Oppose This whole paternity discussion should be deleted. How could Mia Farrow not know the father of her son after 25 years?! Please use some common sense. Her one word answer of "possibly" is nothing but trolling public. Woody Allen IS the father unless there is a definite DNA result that proves otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.50.220.60 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as trivial. This reeks of recentism and a certain amount of tabloid curiosity. Without more in depth statements, Mia's "possibly" conflicts greatly with her sworn statements of paternity in the divorce. Allen paid child support for Ronan based on that. People are merely speculating on coy remarks by Mia and it really doesn't even need to be covered. It would not be adequate to quote only that tidbit by Allen as his whole point was that it discredited Mia. This has been an on-going family feud for 20 years that can't be covered in a paragraph here. --DHeyward (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I've previously stated my reason for support by noting that "Claims of spousal infidelity are of a serious nature and the effected party includes both parts of the conjugal couple; to exclude Barbara Sinatra's informed opinion (as Frank Sinatra's wife) that her husband had been cheating on her would lead a person reading this article to assume this was simply an accepted fact as opposed to a disputed or unresolved historical episode." I should also like to observe that several persons close to Mia Farrow have recently raised serious questions as to whether or not publicity claims she makes are based in an honest recollection of events or are part of a vendetta to hurt Woody Allen. In light of what Mia Farrow's son Moses Farrow has recently claimed about her, Mia Farrow's assertions should be treated with great caution. I am greatly concerned about scandalizing a living person (Barbara Sinatra) by leaving an unchecked rumor that she was involved in an adulterous relationship when sourced to a person (Mia Farrow) whose honesty has been called into public question by her own family members. BlueSalix (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of Barbara Sinatra's position is (weakly) troubling to me because 1. She is 85 and her memory may or may not be as reliable as it once was. Does she have a history of denying things about the past that were later proven true, I wonder? 2. No proof is offered that she was with Frank 100% of the time during the time period in question. 3. She has a motive for portraying her marriage to Frank as a solid one, that being to protect her reputation. 3. Her quote actually begins with "I can't hardly believe that." According to dictionaries, "hardly" means "almost not". 4. We don't know what the reporter said to her that resulted in her statement. Her defense that Ronan was left out of Frank's will is not a strong one, as Frank might not have known either. 5. If you include Barbara Sinatra, then it could be argued that Nancy's Sinatra's comments could also be included, since the news articles do. / / Despite what I have just written, this is not a big issue with me (I don't really care), so I will ask before I add a "weak oppose" if you can find any other bio articles on Misplaced Pages where a similar paternity issue was raised so that we can see how it was handled. I have to leave my computer for the day, but I would suggest searching on Google for the string: site:wikipedia.org paternity questioned 5Q5 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix is so determined on this, he writes a long and hardly neutral RfC question, a long Support comment and a long Discussion comment. This is a bit much. And please: It would be "scandalizing" Barbara Sinatra to suggest Frank Sinatra had affairs? Are you serious? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

All superb points 5Q5, however, I don't think they rise to the level of justifying our decision to conceal information, especially when it involves an accusation that someone (Barbara Sinatra) was involved in an adulterous relationship; an accusation against someone justifies inclusion of their response. Was Barbara too old to remember, was she acting out of motivation? These are all questions we should leave for the reader to process and evaluate by laying out all pertinent information in an accessible way, the core of WP, IMO. (As for the "hardly" comment, I interpret that to mean she couldn't hardly believe Mia Farrow would make this accusation, not that she could hardly believe it was false. Ultimately, we don't need to apply our individual interpretations, though, simply present all pertinent information so the reader can decide.) BlueSalix (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As you did the last time this came up, you seem determined to bludgeon your point across with long comments to every editor here, attempting to dominate the discussion and get your way. Adding Barbara Sinatra's uninformed assertions is rumormongering, which you've attempted to do before. If you insist on putting up walls of text in an effort to cloud the issue and obfuscate, I'll have to be equally determined to oppose this attempt at adding tabloid-style additions to what's supposed to be an encyclopedia article.

"Conceal information"? That's a manipulative way to put it. Not adding uninformed guesses is hardly the same as "concealing" pertinent information. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• In Ref to Retraction - 5Q5 Per your note above about the Desert Sun retracting the story - the Desert Sun, like many Gannett newspapers, puts much of their content behind a paywall after 90 days, leading to unfortunate cases of link rot. The story can still be found here ] in their archives under the headline "Sinatra calls Farrow Rumor 'phony deal'". As that was your only expressed point of contention, would you consider changing your opinion to Support now? ☺ (No pressure, just trying to tie up loose ends. Alternatively, though, could you modify your comment so others participating in the discussion don't believe the story was retracted? It's just helpful to keep the discussion on track as these tend to veer; either way, though, thanks very much for considering!) BlueSalix (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• • 5Q5, I'm sorry to see BlueSalix putting undue pressure on your. So, then" Conversely, I would urge you not encourage rumormongering and adding uninformed opinion from biased sources that have nothing to do with any paternity issue. If we add Barbara Sinatra's opinion, then why not Nancy Sinatra's, and Dylan Farrow's, and Moses Farrow's, and Diane Keaton's? Not one of them knows anything. Adding tawdry tabloid conjecture and uninformed opinion is not how an encyclopedia works . The Encyclopedia Britannica certainly wouldn't add Barbara Sinatra's uninformed opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

5Q5 responds: Okay, BlueSalix, apparently the paper archived it behind a paywall, as you indicate here. I did the suggested Google research and found these two Misplaced Pages celebrity biographical articles with paternity issues that include many sourced comments from people who were just friends, sisters, half-sisters, etc., and in the case of Anna Nicole Smith, it happened after her death, just like Frank Sinatra: John Edwards extramarital affair and Anna Nicole Smith#Birth_of_daughter. It seems to me, BlueSalix, that maybe you should propose the line and reference you want to add to the article here to keep us from arguing further about generalities. I wouldn't want to give undue weight to Barbara Sinatra over Farrow and Allen, so I suggest keeping the proposed line short and adding any lengthier quote in the reference template like I did with Woody Allen. 5Q5 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. We can't say, "Well, other Misplaced Pages articles do it" as a rationale to do something, since other Misplaced Pages articles may be violating policies or guidelines. And adding an uninformed guess by an unaffiliated party (i.e., one of the possible parents themselves or a DNA tester with permission to speak) is rumormongering.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Great insight and points, 5Q5, and I agree any reference should be concise and must avoid WP:UNDUE. I'll wordsmith this for a day or two and then post a specific proposal for everyone's consideration. BlueSalix (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You've already got an RfC that we're accepting or opposing. Until there's a consensus to include something, it's jumping the gun to go to the next step and act as if it's accepted and that now it's just a matter of wording. Thats disgraceful. From the non-neutral RfC question to now, this RfC has been handled in the most heavy-handed, non-neutral way I think I've ever seen. And all to add an uninformed opinion that muddies the water and adds to rumormongering in an encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OtherStuffExists, as you know, is a lowly essay, not a policy or guideline. It mainy refers to article deletion and creation, but the closing section WP:OtherStuffExists#Precedent in usage would seem to support body-of-article consistency with other article usage on adding a little something on the various viewpoints in a celebrity paternity case. Stress "little." I'm leaning toward just a simple line at the end might be okay, perhaps something like "Frank Sinatra's widow, Barbara Sinatra, reportedly is unconvinced., but we'll see what BlueSalix proposes. There is still a question on my part as to whether her unusual choice of words ("a phony deal") were meant to refer to Farrow's paternity or Vanity Fair's journalistic integrity and a magazine that you would have needed to buy when the story was published. I added Ronan Farrow's Tweet to the article with some improvement tweaking of that section. 5Q5 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The larger point is that just because someone else does something in Misplaced Pages, that doesn't mean we bring an article down to their level. It means we bring those other articles up to encyclopedic standards. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, those two celebrity paternity cases I cited do seem absolutely ridiculous on Misplaced Pages today. Way too much written, but I guess at the time it was front page news and live on cable television. If Ronan gets a DNA test someday, Barbara Sinatra's line from the article would obvously be dropped. But since Ronan himself Tweeted a reaction and mentioned Frank Sinatra's name, I'm leaning toward letting someone from the Sinatra camp respond to be fair. Since discussion of a specific proposed line is being discouraged, I think I'll have to vote support. This is getting tiring. I have other things to do. :) 5Q5 (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. It is such a false supposition to say that simply stating plain facts is "unfair." Barbara Sinatra is in no position to know anything about Ronan Farrow's paternity, and it's unfair to readers of an encyclopedia to include an uninformed opinion by an uninvolved party. If we're going to start adding uninvolved people's guesses, why not add Nancy Sinatra's as well? Or anybody else's? Because none of these opinions has any impact whatsoever on whether something is true or false.

I'm just glad Misplaced Pages doesn't work on a vote concept but on a consensus concept. And with all of three editors discussing this tabloidy addition, it hardly makes for any large consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

From 5Q5: Regarding the proposed line by BlueSalix, I don't much like the new intro line; sounds redundant and unnecessary: Farrow's parentage has been the source of some confusion. There is no confusion in the legal record. The next line explains it more accurately as "longstanding speculation." ...... I would like to suggest revising the proposed new last line to Barbara Sinatra, Frank Sinatra’s wife at the time and now widow, dismissed the allegation reported in the Vanity Fair article as "lies” and “a bunch of junk." Be sure to keep the no DNA test line. ...... Tenebrae, you wrote in your post above that the "plain facts" are that "Barbara Sinatra is in no position to know anything about Ronan Farrow's paternity" and that she offers an "uninformed opinion by an uninvolved party." How do you know those to be facts? How are you in a position to know what conversations Frank and Barbara ever had about Woody and Mia's relationship and the birth of Ronan? Were you with Frank or Barbara or Mia 24/7 or otherwise know their whereabouts in April 1987? Nancy Sinatra seems to have a relationship with Ronan for some reason, so there's some kind of connection to the Sinatra family. Obviously, the local newspaper, ABC, CBS, USA Today, New York Daily News, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, People, et al, think Barbara Sinatra did have standing to comment. Those are not tabloid sources. I have changed my opinion on this to support because, as I indicated, Ronan Farrow brought up Frank Sinatra's name in his Tweet, in which he basically didn't deny the "possibly" aspect. He thinks it's a joke, probably enjoying the publicity. Didn't this story and his face make the cover of the tabloids? Major news organizations felt it was journalistic and balanced to include a reply from the only surviving member of Frank Sinatra's marriage, his widow. As a former member of the Society of Professional Journalists, I have to agree with them. Why don't you set up a Google alert and if Barbara Sinatra ever says something new, or if Ronan or Mia comments further more decisively on the issue, the paternity section in the article can be overhauled to reflect the new information. ...... I am dismayed as to why no other editors are commenting. I guess, like me, this isn't really a big deal. I've never even see a Mia Farrow movie or Ronan on TV. I say, let's just add a sourced line on Barbara and move on until there is new information on the subject. 5Q5 (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: "How are you in a position to know what conversations Frank and Barbara ever had about Woody and Mia's relationship and the birth of Ronan?" That's opposite-world logic. Anyone advocating that we ad opinion from another party has to provide evidence that the opinion is informed. Otherwise you could ask, "How are you in a position to know what conversations Frank and his cousin / chauffeur / golf buddies ever had about Woody and Mia's relationship and the birth of Ronan?" No. It doesn't work that way. Anybody can state an opinion. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Barbara Sinatra even heard about this prior to Mia Farrow bringing it up.

To have a party who does not know and is only guessing call someone a liar is simply that party expressing an uninformed opinion, which they have a right to do, however misguidedly.

But an encyclopedia adding an uninformed opinion calling someone a liar is much more serious and wholly inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Entirely agree with Tenebrae. Misplaced Pages articles are predicated on facts, not opinions. It is a fact that Mia Farrow claimed Frank Sinatra was Ronan's father, and has been reported in credible sources. As such, this information may be included in an encyclopedic article. Barbara Streisand's opinion regarding whether Frank Sinatra was engaging in extramarital affairs is not relevant unless it has factual substantiation. Barbara is a biased observer with access to limited information. Without substantiation, her opinion has no relevance to a matter in which she was not a participant. Factchecker25 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Excusing for the moment that you got a couple of facts wrong in your post above (1. Mia Farrow said Frank was "possibly" Ronan's father; an allegation not a fact, though I suppose you're saying it is a fact that she said something that was only possibly true, but that could also be said of Barbara Sinatra's statements, as it is a fact that she made them as well to a reporter, published in high quality sources. 2. Barbara Streisand??), how do the two of you know Barbara Sinatra was stating an opinion? Suppose she was with Frank Sinatra the entire first half of April 1987 and therefore she was stating for a fact that he never met with Mia Farrow? It seems to be your opinion that she was stating an opinion. She never used the word "opinion" or "that's what I think" in her comments. ...... No opinions by witnesses/parties to a controversy allowed in Misplaced Pages articles? Are you kidding me? One needs only to start at the list of conspiracy theories article with its 140 references and move on to the many articles on ghost sightings, poltergeists, UFO cases, etc., then over to D._B._Cooper#Theories_and_conjectures and I could go on and on with examples of opinions in articles. ...... Mia Farrow and Ronan Farrow brought up Frank Sinatra's name. It's encyclopedic to include a response from someone on the Sinatra side for balance. That's why the news media went to chief Sinatra spokesperson Barbara Sinatra. ...... Here's the intro from WP:NPV: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. ...... A simple sourced line is appropriate at this time until new information occurs that makes it unnecessary or replaced with improved material. That could happen next week for all we know. These people are going to be asked about this for the rest of their lives. Something new will surely appear. HEY RONAN, GET A DNA TEST, WILL YOU! (You know he's got to be reading this.) Geez, I wish I had the choice of Woody Allen or Frank Sinatra for a father. 5Q5 (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's a "fact that Mia Farrow claimed" to have had a sex affair with Frank Sinatra, and it's also a fact Barbara Sinatra (Streisand?) said Mia's claim was a lie. The content of Barbara Sinatra's statement is not a fact, but that she made a statement is a fact. We're only proposing reporting on the reality of a prominent person closely connected to this story having spoken something relevant, we're not proposing judging the validity of the content of her message. BlueSalix (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the November 2013 Vanity Fair article in which Mia said "possibly," child Ronan and mother Mia attended Frank Sinatra's funeral and Mia was allowed to place a note and her wedding ring into his coffin. Asked if he was the great love of her life, she answered, "Yes."
NEW QUOTE BY RONAN FARROW JAN 2014: He was asked how the paternity controversy might affect his new show on MSNBC.

"There was a very serious conversation at MSNBC about, 'Oh, crap, is this going distract from the story? Yes! . . . Look, I get it, it’s hilarious, it’s wild. There are salacious aspects of the story I’m able to sit back and appreciate with everybody else. And then it's, 'O.K., how do we move to the substance and redirect this conversation so we’re actually talking about stuff that’s useful?'"

— Ronan Farrow, "Ronan Farrow Wants to 'Redirect The Conversation' About His Family", Vanity Fair online, January 3, 2014

Continued: Look, fellow editors, it comes down to this. Mia Farrow and Ronan Farrow have inferred very publicly, even if jokingly, that Frank Sinatra had an affair while married -- he cheated on his wife. The wife then deserves a response under WP:NPV. This Consensus isn't really necessary, except to discuss the wording of the proposed material. I didn't start this Consensus request, but pretty soon I may just WP:BE BOLD and add the dang Barbara Sinatra line to the article myself, unless someone else beats me to it. 5Q5 (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, is that jumping the gun. No, what you say is simply not true: This is not about the wording since the RfC hasn't even closed with a consensus that Barbara Sinatra's opinion belongs here at all. And WP:BE BOLD certainly does not mean ignoring the RfC and unilaterally adding the disputed, contentious line that the RfC is about!

The proposal is asking whether it's OK for an encyclopedia to have someone with no direct, personal knowledge about Mia Farrow's paternity claim call this living person a liar based on no concrete information but only her biased personal opinion.

No. An encyclopedia cannot brand someone a liar based on no hard evidence but just one non-disinterested outside party's uninformed opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Since Frank Sinatra is dead, his wife is his legal spokesperson. Further, as his wife she is an injured party in the alleged affair and her statements are relevant, a position shared by all the major news organizations in the United States that published her statements. Can you please provide us with information that negates the following "nonnegotiable" Misplaced Pages policies? Thank you in advance.
WP:NPV: "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. . . . they should be attributed in the text to particular sources."
WP:ASSERT: "When a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution. . . . citations are a different matter: adding a footnoted citation to a fact or an opinion is always good practice.
WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• 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." 5Q5 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. In Rose v. Daily Mirror we find that a surviving spouse is not defamed by false statements made about her husband, however, statements made about her husband's fidelity are also statements made about her (in that she was the inactive half of an allegedly adulterous relationship); the suggestion that her husband was unfaithful (a) gives rise to questions about her ability as an able and loving spouse, and, (b) gives rise to potential probate claims against her property. While legal considerations are largely irrelevant in the editing of WP and always secondary to WP policies, they can sometimes - as in here - provide a compass to sort out the chaffe and identify a best course forward. WP must always be about maximizing access to information; it must never be about omitting details to burnish the illustrious pedigrees of the members of the Social Register. BlueSalix (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong: As a journalist I can tell you the courts see a major difference between opinion as regards a public figure and an assertion of fact. Unlike Woody Allen, Barbara Sinatra isn't stating an opinion that "maybe he is or maybe he isn't." She's straight out calling Mia Farow a liar without providing a single bit of evidence to support that assertion. This completely runs afoul of Misplaced Pages:Libel, which states, "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Misplaced Pages is not defamatory." Calling someone a liar without any evidence to support it is defamatory. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

And unlike a politician's infidelity where the mistress or a hotel clerk is on the record despite the politician's denial, Barbara Sinatra is neither one of the parties nor an eyewitness to infidelity. (One can't be an eyewitness to fidelity, obviously, unless you had eyes on someone 24/7.) Responsible newspapers don't go around quoting people who guess at whether a politician was unfaithful. They can only quote people who have evidence. Barbara Sinatra is calling someone a liar without evidence. As I note in the paragraph above, Calling someone a liar without any evidence to support it runs afoul of Misplaced Pages:Libel. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 Review Request from 5Q5: I've taken editor Tenebrae's views into account about not giving the impression that Misplaced Pages is suggesting that Barbara Sinatra was calling Mia Farrow personally a liar (she could have been referring to the gossip style journalism of the piece) and I've come up with the material in the box below for your consideration, which retains some lines already in the section and some revisions by BlueSalix, as indicated at the top of this request. I also found a new quote by Ronan Farrow that sums up his position. If editor BlueSalix, who began this Consensus request and editor Tenebrae will give me the green light, I will post this. BlueSalix can then close this Consensus request and we can all move on. This is a compromise. Agreed? (My signature is below the box.)

Personal life

Farrow is estranged from his father, Woody Allen. In 2011 he commented, "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression." On June 12, 2012, he tweeted, "Happy Father's Day — or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law's day."

Asked about longstanding speculation that Ronan Farrow is the son of Mia Farrow's ex-husband Frank Sinatra, Mia Farrow claimed in a 2013 Vanity Fair article that Sinatra is "possibly" Ronan's father. After the allegation became widespread in the news media, Ronan Farrow tweeted humorously on October 2, 2013, "Listen, we're all *possibly* Frank Sinatra's son." Frank Sinatra's widow, Barbara Sinatra, expressed doubt about the paternity claim made in the Vanity Fair article. In a statement released by his publicist, Allen originally rejected the suggestion as "fictitious and extravagantly absurd"; however, in a subsequent New York Times editorial he authored on February 7, 2014, he posed the question with uncertainty: "Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s?" No DNA testing has been conducted to determine Farrow's paternity. Ronan Farrow commented further on the matter to various reporters while attending a benefit with his mother at the American Museum of Natural History on October 21, 2013:

You know, I wasn't there, so I don't have a lot more to offer than you. Of course, it is a distraction . . . But I take it in stride. Look, we all have, you know, our family histories to bear. . . . You know, that story has been out there for years. It was somewhat surprising to see it break in such a huge way of late. I’m fairly . . . I mean, I appreciate how hilarious it is. I mean, it’s a ridiculous situation. That said, I’m pretty unfazed by it in substance, because it’s been out there both publicly and privately for so long. You know, I have a relationship that I'm very happy with, you know, with all parties involved. For me, the imperative is "All right, we’ve talked about it, I get a kick out of it, everyone gets a kick out of it. Let’s move onto the substance," — which is one reason I’m so excited to be rolling out this show. . . . Look, I grew up in a family with 10 adopted siblings, so you know, if anything, I consider it an insult to them to obsess too much over the question of genetic provenance.

— Ronan Farrow, October 21, 2013

References

1. Schulman, Michael (October 25, 2013). "Ronan Farrow: The Youngest Old Guy in the Room". The New York Times. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
2. Ravitz, Justin (October 2, 2013). "Ronan Farrow Jokes About Mia Farrow, Frank Sinatra, Woody Allen Baby Daddy Story". Us Weekly. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
3. "LIFE.com: Cheating Scandals of the Stars". Life via Xfinity. Undated. Retrieved 2013-11-21. After Allen and Soon-Yi wed in 1997, his biological son Ronan Seamus Farrow said, 'He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression.... I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent.' {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
4. Farrow, Ronan (June 12, 2012). "". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
5. Carlson, Erin (June 18, 2012). "Woody Allen Son Slams Dad on Father's Day: 'Happy Brother-in-Law's Day'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
6. ^ "Mia Farrow and Eight of Her Children Speak Out on Their Lives, Frank Sinatra, and the Scandals They've Endured". Vanity Fair. October 2, 2013. Retrieved 2013-10-02.
7. Palmer, Roxanne (October 2, 2013). "Woody Allen Or Ol' Blue Eyes? What Ronan Farrow's Eye Color Says About Who His Father Is (Not Much)". International Business Times. Retrieved February 16, 2014.
8. "Sinatra calls Farrow rumor 'phony deal'". (offical archive of The Desert Sun. October 3, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help) (Note: the archive date of October 3, 2014 refers to the next day published online version of the October 2, 2014 original print story. Online news stories are archived at The Desert Sun and accessible for a fee after 90 days. The URL of the online story before archiving, as cited in news reports, is http://www.mydesert.com/article/20131002/LIFESTYLES01/310020006/Farrow-rumor-phony-Barbara-Sinatra-says.)
9. "Frank Sinatra's Widow on Mia Farrow's Paternity Bombshell: 'It's Just a Bunch of Junk'". hollywoodreporter.com. The Hollywood Reporter. October 2, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
10. "Barbara Sinatra: Mia Farrow's son isn't Frank's". usatoday.com. USA Today. October 3, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
11. "Mia Farrow's Son Ronan May Have Been Fathered By Frank Sinatra, Not Woody Allen". abcnews.go.com. ABC News. October 2, 2013.
12. Allen, Woody (February 7, 2014). "Woody Allen Speaks Out". New York Times. Retrieved February 10, 2014. 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? {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
13. "Ronan Farrow on Sinatra Paternity Rumors: 'You Know, I Wasn't There'". vulture.com. New York Media LLC, owners of New York magazine. October 2, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
14. "Frank Sinatra's Widow Calls Ronan Farrow Paternity Report 'Phony'". eonline.com. E! Entertainment Television. October 22, 2013.

5Q5 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"Expressed doubt" is certainly a more neutral way of expressing it and reflects opinion rather than an outright statement of denial, which would be a claim of fact. While I disagree it's relevant, I won't object if a third-party admin closes this to include that phrase; I don't think it's appropriate for us to close the RfC early before other editors who may want to comment within the 30 days get a chance to do so.

Some technical notes: We don't need three cites — one additional RS cite, either The Hollywood Reporter or USA Today, to account for The Desert Sun article being behind a pay wall, is sufficient. Also, in another cite, the full name of the paper in the footnote should be The New York Times, and we use the field "work" rather than "publisher" since "work" automatically italicizes. The word "authored" is bad writing — preferable to use "wrote" — and we don't need it anyway: We can say the same thing in fewer words and more neutrally as "in a subsequent New York Times editorial he asked,".

I absolutely don't believe that the huge block of Farrow text, which despite its length says nothing substantive or definitive, belongs here in the least. It's way WP:UNDUE and so should be the subject of a separate RfC.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. The subject of a biographical article discussing the controversy surrounding his own paternity is undue weight? Wow. I thought Undue referred to minority viewpoints. 5Q5 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. You know, I've had enough. Do what you want, fight on without me. I quit this article. My support opinion stands. 5Q5 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the fact Ronan Farrow is saying it is not what's undue weight — it's the huge block of text that's undue weight. Of what possible value is a stammering phrase so general it says nothing, such as "Look, we all have, you know, our family histories to bear"? That entire paragraph could be encapsulated in a few words. And I'm still not sure they would say anything substantive, but that's a separate issue.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 25 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 )

"There is strong evidence in the record from neutral observers that Mr. Allen and Satchel basically have a warm and loving father-son relationship, but that their relationship is in jeopardy, in large measure because Mr. Allen is being estranged and alienated from his son by the current custody and visitation arrangement. Frances Greenberg and Virginia Lehman, two independent social workers employed to oversee visitation with Satchel, testified how "Mr. Allen would welcome Satchel by hugging him, telling him how much he loved him, and how much he missed him." Also described by both supervisors "was a kind of sequence that Mr. Allen might say, I love you as much as the river, and Satchel would say something to the effect that I love you as much as New York City * * * then Mr. Allen might say, I love you as much as the stars, and Satchel would say, I love you as much as the universe." Sadly, there was also testimony from those witnesses that Satchel had told Mr. Allen: "I like you, but I am not supposed to love you;" that when Mr. Allen asked Satchel if he would send him a postcard from a planned trip to California with Ms. Farrow, Satchel said "I can't Mommy won't let me;" and on one occasion when Satchel indicated that he wanted to stay with Mr. Allen longer than the allotted two-hour visit, "Satchel did say he could not stay longer, that his mother had told him that two hours was sufficient." Perhaps most distressing, Satchel "indicated to Mr. Allen that he was seeing a doctor that was going to help him not to see Mr. Allen anymore, and he indicated that he was supposed to be seeing this doctor perhaps eight or ten times, at the end of which he would no longer have to see Mr. Allen."

In contrast to what apparently is being expressed by Ms. Farrow about Mr. Allen to Satchel, Mr. Allen has been reported to say only positive things to Satchel about Ms. Farrow, and conveys only loving regards to Moses and Dylan through Satchel. Thus I find little evidence in the record to support the majority's conclusion that "Mr. Allen may, if unsupervised, influence Satchel inappropriately, and disregard the impact exposure to Mr. Allen's relationship with Satchel's sister, Ms. Previn, would have on the child." (Majority opn, at 334.)

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 " 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)

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,"
Misplaced Pages: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)

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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

"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 Misplaced Pages 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, "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)

"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)

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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,"

1. Perez-Pena, Richard (May 4, 1993). "Doctor Cites Inconsistencies In Dylan Farrow's Statement". The New York Times. Retrieved February 4, 2014.
2. Brozan, Nadine (May 13, 1994). "Chronicle", The New York Times.
3. February 2, 2014. "Woody Allen rejects 'untrue and disgraceful' sex abuse claims". AFP. Retrieved February 3, 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
4. Suzanne Moore (February 3, 2014). "The kangaroo court of Twitter is no place to judge Woody Allen". The Guardian.

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

First, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment