Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 25 November 2005

Add marriage to Soon Yi. --Daniel C. Boyer

The article says he and Soon Yi adopted two children, but I remember them having biological children? Both maybe? Not sure where to research this sort of meddling information. --Feitclub 02:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

IMDb lists his name as Allan Stewart Konigsberg, not Stewart Allen. ... ? Any fans who can answer this? --KQ

I'm pretty sure they're both wrong - it's Allen Stewart. I've changed it to that --Camembert

My Woody Allen biography by Eric Lax says it's "Allan Stewart Konigsberg", so i think IMDb is right. Still, the usenet FAQ states it's "Allen Stewart Konigsberg" --Michael Schulze

What about his writings?

He's written some books too. I'm adding three of them. -- Creativist

What about his plays?

He's written some plays, one of which is "God" but I don't see them listed. Here's a source:

http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsA/AllenWoody.htm

These definitely need inclusion, especially Play It Again, Sam which was later adapted into a movie. Woody starred in that one but didn't direct it.--feitclub 19:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

His favorite movie dispute

The article claims "The Purple Rose of Cairo" to be Allen's favorite but I have heard that he has never publicly named one. Of course I have also heard "Love and Death" is his favorite. Does anyone have any sources concerning this issue?

In interviews, he's stated both "Stardust Memories" and "Purple Rose" as his favorites. I'm sure a quick Google search will show this. Eleemosynary 00:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Actor?

Surely actor should be listed in the opening line, yes? (He did act, if not star, in most of his movies) --"Cyclopsface"

Jewish

Should Allen really be listed under 'Jewish American Actors", "Jewish Directors" etc.?

I don't think he's Jewish. That's just the character he plays in his movies. In real life, he's an Athiest or an Agnostic or something . . . I think.

Can anyone confirm?

He may be secular, and so are most of his characters, but no-one makes more jokes about their Jewishness than Woody Allen. I presume he associates himself with general Jewish culture and upbringing, rather than the religion. The Singing Badger 00:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Relationship with Soon-Yi

Lets get our facts straight. Mia and Woody were never married. Therefore, the use of the term "step-daughter" is factually incorrect. In addition, Soon-Yi was born in 1970, which would make her 22 in 1992. The editorializing of "white man with asian fetish" is absolutely inappropriate. Giles22

Ok lets take out the fetish stuff, that is original research, I agree. I'll remove it.

Soon-Yi was not born in 1970 -- at least not before the affair -- her birthdate was backdated to make their relationship more palatable (and possibly more legal).

You don't have to be married to be a step-father. The page on father says "Step-father - wife/partner has child from previous relationship"

The "Previn" last name is also nonsense -- Previn wasn't even in the household, Mia was raising her. It's just a way to dis' Mia and make it seem like she wasn't really Woodrow's stepdaughter -- but I'll give on this one too.

He is somewhat goofy looking. Its obvious to any adult, other than those that can't see. -155.91.28.231 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We need verification of her age. Her wikipedia page says that she was born in 1970. What proof do you have that she was 16 in 1992? It cannot be on the page unless there is indepdent, documented, verifiable proof of her age. Giles22

Please see her IMDB page. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0696661/ Where is your evidence that she's only 16 in 1992? Giles22

Page needs work

This page needs some major work (NPOV, timelines, facts). And while Allen's offbeat looks are certainly a part of his comedy, is this the best photo we can get? Eleemosynary 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. It is terribly POV AGAINST Woody. Lets work on revising. Giles22 13:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The child sexual abuse allegations

If the charges were dropped, do they merit their own section? They may indeed belong in the article, but perhaps under the heading of the Farrow lawsuit. Also, does anyone have any further info why, if the charge was dismissed (presumably exonerating Allen), he was still barred from seeing his biological children? Was that part of the settlement agreement?Eleemosynary 04:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: the new details that were added. The charges were dropped. It is enough to mention the fact that he was ACCUSED in the article. There is no need to include speculative facts regarding what may or may not have happened. Giles22 17:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The details add cited, relevant information to the section. They are not speculative. Only Woody, Dylan, and Farrow know what the truth is (or at least, how they saw it) regarding the initial allegations, but that's always the case. Why should they be left out? -155.91.28.231 19:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

These aren't even first-hand accounts. Mia has never provided any details such as this on the record. They do not belong. Giles22 21:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't revert wholescale -- right now the article has the same quote twice:

Allen has defended his actions, saying that he never lived with Farrow while they were partners before their sexual relationship. However, Allen has also said of his relationship with Soon-Yi, "It's got a more paternal feeling to it." In a 2005 Vanity Fair interview, Allen described their relationship as having a "more paternal feeling".

I'm not sure how it got in there. Anyway, I took this out but after the last revert it showed up again.

What level of verifiability are you looking for? I don't want anything unsubstantiated in here but I do think this is an important chapter in Woody's life. -Justforasecond 23:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

LOOK, the charges were dropped. Those facts are substantiated hearsay. It's enough that we mention that charges were filed in the first place. Giles22 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, we have citations to Connecticut Magazine and this isn't original research. I guess the only thing left is whether its POV(?). I think its phrased fairly, though we can work on it if you see it otherwise. It's OK to have details of crimes for which people weren't convicted in the wikipedia. O. J. Simpson was not guilty, for example, but there's a huge section on "murder of his wife and trial". This is an important chapter in Allen's life, let's not leave it out. -155.91.28.231 02:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No this is not a major section of his life. The major section of his life is his FILM and WORK. We have already mentioned the allegations. Not only did this never go to trial, he was never indicted and no grand jury even considered the evidence. It does not belong. Giles22 14:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

We're at something of an impasse here. I would consider an investigation into sexual abuse of your daughter an important chapter. In addition, there is quite a bit of evidence that something was going on and the prosecutor said that he didn't prosecute because it would traumatize Dylan. Would you like to try mediation or seeking advice from the village pump? Btw, I inserted a line saying Woody was never tried and never indicted. -71.112.11.220 15:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The current content on child abuse seems to deliberately distort information; for example the NYTimes article cited expresses a very different POV from the POV it is used to support. The material in the article is currently biased, and IMHO should be either removed or at least significantly 'toned down'. — Stumps 17:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. More info from the NY times added to resolve this bias. Are there any other POV issues in this section? -71.112.11.220 17:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

pov and "vandalism"

Please refrain from calling other's edits "vandalism". It is uncivil and in violation of wiki policies. All of the edits regarding Dylan's abuse are documented. How is that vandalism?

You have a history of vandalism, no matter how many times you blank your Talk Page. Gotcha. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll ask again, how is adding cited content "vandalism"? -71.112.11.220 19:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to quote "Paul Klenk," who has admonished you before. Apparently, his words went unheeded: *"I see that you have, for the third time in a few minutes, added an unencyclopedic remark about Ann Coulter's sex life. You are disrupting the page, and editing not out of a spirit of NPOV, but to deliberately provoke others and bait them to revert your work."

That's how adding "cited content" can be "vandalism." Best of luck in future endeavors. Eleemosynary 23:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"needs work" is a bit of a jab, don't you think? When I came to this about a week ago it was almost completely unorganized, other editors must have visited this page back then and done nothing to improve it. "Now that it has a TOC it really needs improvement"

Nope. It still needs work. Wrong again. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Many of the recent edits were unexplained.

Only the ones that weren't patently obvious. Let me know which edits you need explained. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The relationship with Farrow was lengthy -- no one said "relationship with Farrow that was EVEN LONGER than with Soon-Yi". Did the description really need to be lowered to the same level as his relationship with Keaton? This change is (sic) pov. Perhaps it is unintentional but it tells the story as if Farrow was just a fling.

Nope, it does not. You're muddying the issue. Thank you, though, for conceding my edit was NPOV. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What was the point of the edit? Was their something inaccurate about the earlier phrasing?

Chaning offscreen to personal life is odd -- the section is all about things that happened away from the theaters (with references to movies). It is no more personal or private than the section about his career or gradeschool education.

Not odd, just more accurate. You're quibbling. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The initial relationship with Soon-Yi was an affair and he was her stepdaughter at the time (lookup affair and stepfather for definitions). They married later--which has its own section.

She was Mia Farrow's legal stepdaughter. Not Allen's. Your "look it up in the dictionary" ruse is just that... a ruse. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've already said what a stepfather is (Allen meets the defition)

It is widely called an "affair" (an illicit sexual relationship) "Farrow discovered Allen's affair with her adopted daughter when she found naked photos of Previn in the director's apartment."

Allen's films in the 2000s have been a series of failures. Check out their revenue and reviews -- or just watch them. Melinda and Melinda was unbelievably bad.

Completely POV, on your part.

Take a look at the reviews and revenue numbers.

You've got a point there. When Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life opened in 1946, it received dismal reviews and weak box office receipts. That must be why the film has vanished from the public's consciousness, rightly forgotten as an unmitigated failure. Eleemosynary 00:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Grouping the 1960s and 1970s is just weird. His golden period is from ~75 to ~85, so grouping the 70s and 80s might make sense.

"Golden period" is a POV idea. Save it for your doctoral thesis. It doesn't belong here. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are judging how "good" a movie is in the boxoffice, just take a look at ALL of Woody's films, including the ones that people consider among his best. NONE OF THEM do well at the box office. You think Melinda and Melinda was bad, that's your opinion. I happened to really enjoy it. I also thought "Anything Else" was one of his better pictures. Desconstructing Harry and Sweet and Lowdown were also excellent in their own right. Giles22 18:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read, Allen's best period was from ~75 to ~85. Those years included Annie Hall, Purple Rose of Cairo, Manhattan, and Hannah and her Sisters. I wouldn't say they were "good" or "not good" in the article (we can say so on the talk page), but they received a great deal of acclaim and important awards. In contrast, '95 to '05 (and especially '00 to '05) have been fairly dry -- "Deconstructing Harry" was released in 97 and I thought it was pretty good, but Melinda and Melinda, Curse of the Jade Scorpion both received (mostly) poor reviews and had poor box office showings. I think you'll agree that Melinda will probably never be as highly regarded as Annie Hall -- though again that doesnt' belong in the article. Anyway, about all we can say here are simple facts (revenue) and groupings of them (decades) and the analysis of others (reviews, and meta-reviews). If I'm wrong about the golden period, I won't argue with you, just put the info up there.

Check the anon user's Talk Page history. He's got quite a vandalism history. Eleemosynary 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the highly relevant, consensus building comment. -71.112.11.220 19:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Allen's son Seamus Farrow

Where did someone get the idea that Seamus has a "phobia" of Allen? It seems inappropriate and gossipy since it isn't even backed up by a source. The Mia Farrow page repeats the same story, while the Seamus Farrow page says nothing about it, and in this article Seamus is quoted as saying "I've looked at the facts and come to my own conclusions. I think the wisest thing is not to talk about it. I'm not angry or twisted in any way." I've replaced the "phobia" thing with a less contentious statement based on the above article--please don't put it back unless you can back it up with an equally reliable source. --The Famous Movie Director 08:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I added a reference for it. The article (on cbsnews, cnn.com and others)said "phobic", not "phobia", making google searches difficult. -Justforasecond 04:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The article I quoted above (from Seamus' own mouth) seems to present a contrary view, but it's much more recent--I guess he's matured since age eleven. I think the "phobic" bit deserves a mention, so I've clarified about the age of the source. --The Famous Movie Director 06:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. -Justforasecond 23:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

consenses and inaccuracy

Originally named Satchel, after baseball pitcher Satchel Page, his name became Seamus after his parents divorce.

Please stop re-inserting this material, as Woody and Mia never married.

We can work towards a consensus, but it there is currently none -- if there were we wouldn't be having these reverts every day ;)

-Justforasecond 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

consenses and inaccuracy

Originally named Satchel, after baseball pitcher Satchel Page, his name became Seamus after his parents divorce.

Please stop re-inserting this material, as Woody and Mia never married.

We can work towards a consensus, but it there is currently none -- if there were we wouldn't be having these reverts every day ;)

-Justforasecond 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)