Talk:Woody Allen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Books

Allen is an accomplished author and has published four books (Getting Even, Without Feathers, Side Effects and Mere Anarchy which was published just last year). Why are these not even mentioned?

• In addition to that most of his scripts are written by him, countableas books either...

Mixing medias or differntiating media aren't the same shoes..--94.220.248.219 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Height and Weight

Throughout Allen's career there are numerous jokes poking fun at his size. Does anyone know Woody Allen's exact height and weight? I understand his weight must have shifted throughout his many years but I doubt there was any dramatic change.

Age

Would somebody please prove this? He as an actor and a director must be born at another day!--Danaide (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the substantiated dates of his birth must be wrong because the mindless blatherings of an astrologist says so. Nino137.111.47.29 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Soon-Yi Previn

I removed the assertion that the revelation Allen had been having a relationship with Soon-Yi had a "very negative impact" on his career, suggesting it hurt his performance at the box office.

James R. Kincaid, in his book Erotic Innocence argues Allen's films were no less successful than they were prior to the scandal. James Campbell, in his review of the book for the New York Times (Aug 23, 1998) agrees.

As for the comment about their relationship having a more "paternal feeling," it seems unnecessary for the article to characterize the nature of Allen's relationships. (No such action is done for any of Allen's other companions). -Krwarnke 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed again. I am just curious as to how you go about researching. i am just jealous... --Abid Ahmed 08:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The "paternal feeling" statement pretty important. Though Allen is Soon-Yi's stepfather, he has emphasized how unfatherly he was -- not living with Farrow, adopting the other children but not Soon-Yi. Paternal feeling calls this into question and was widely reported. There is info characterizing Allen's other relationships, for instance, the awful "moving violation" joke about his first wife. Justforasecond 14:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond, you are constantly going against the concensus reached on the talk pages. I am deleting the uselesss "paternal feeling" thing. We can still list the Vanity Fair interview as further reading. Pascal.Tesson 15:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The motivation for including this (as evidenced by your comments above) seems terribly POV. I'm not saying that we should never include anything that casts the figure in a negative light, but your reasoning for wanting to include this random quote is highly suspect. Giles22 15:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Pascal, we need more logic than saying something is "useless". This was no "random quote", this was reported by many news agencies. Justforasecond 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to take out both the "moving violation joke" and the "paternal feeling." Having said that, I feel that the section on Previn ought to at least mention the substantial age difference between them. Allen was greatly criticized for this and many people still refer to this today, even though Previn was of age at the time and is now 35... -Krwarnke 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And please let's work this out on the talk page. Let's not force this page into protection again.....-Krwarnke 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond: you not only have reverted to the "paternal feeling" quote when everyone but you agreed on the talk page to have it removed. Moreover, you have changed "nude" to "pornographic" and added an "however" which is clearly misleading. This is vandalism pure and simple. Pascal.Tesson 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion:

Shortly after the separation with Farrow, Allen began a public relationship with Soon-Yi Previn--Farrow's adopted daughter. Even though Allen and Farrow had never married and he was not formally recognized as Previn's stepfather, the relationship drew much scrutiny for its appearance of impropriety. At the time Allen was 57 and Previn was 22.

Allen and Previn married in 1997. The couple later adopted two daughters, naming them Bechet and Manzie after jazz musicians Sidney Bechet and Manzie Johnson. -Krwarnke 18:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work again. My only concern is how this matches with the end of the Mia Farrow section. There seems to be some confusion as to the timing of Allen and Farrow splitting as a couple, Allen and Previn having an affair and this nude photos business. Pascal.Tesson 19:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to me that the order is 1) Allen secrety has affair with Previn, 2) Farrow finds nude photos, 3)Allen and Farrow split, and 4)Allen and Previn begin a public relationship. -Krwarnke 19:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Woody had sex with his girlfriends daughter. The judge said that he should never be allowed to be with any minors unsupervised. These facts are far more numinous than his or any other artistic output. This article will be much better when this is articulated in it's proper place, i.e. at the top. ----

"Numinous"? Rray 12:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

About the categories

Say, is it still fair to put this article in the category of "articles with unsourced statements"? Also, why is Woody Allen in the obsessive-compulsive category? Not that this seems so far-fetched but do we know as a fact that he is diagnosed as having OCD? If so, is this worth adding into the article? Pascal.Tesson 12:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Other famous OCD sufferers include Paul Gascoigne, Woody Allen, Harrison Ford, Emily Lloyd, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder. In an earlier era, Charles Dickens and Marcel Proust are also said to have been victims of the condition[1] Famous People Who Have or are Thought to Have OCD:

• Donny Osmond
• Howard Hughes
• Howie Mandel
• Roseanne Barr
• Marc Summers
• Howard Stern
• Billy Bob Thornton
• Hans Christian Andersen
• Florence Nightingale
• Woody Allen
• Charles Darwin[2] Justforasecond 14:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well actually the second reference [3] does not list Woody Allen. The first reference[4] is a showbiz column of an english paper listing OCD sufferers without anything to back it up. I can easily see the daily mail using the wikipedia list! Pascal.Tesson 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading the discussion on the OCD wikipage, I think it is best to remove the OCD-category since there seems to be no reliable source identifying Allen as an OCD-sufferer. Pascal.Tesson 15:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm that's odd. The second link shows Woody when using google cache. [http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:wpzExLhZMyoJ:www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/factsheets/ocd.shtml+ocd+woody+allen&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a

Trivia?

How about a new section entitled Trivia that would include the bits about psychoanalysis, the 2002 academy awards and the clarinet stuff? It seems bizarre to have all of these sections individually receive such sizable mention. -Krwarnke 19:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The awards stuff is pretty random and would fit perfectly into trivia. As for the clarinet...I don't know. It's a pretty big hobby of his, but I don't think anyone will remember him for it. Justforasecond 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond edits

I know I'm singling out someone here but I feel that Justforasecond is not taking the concensus reached on the talk page seriously. He is also making biased edits on the Soon-Yi Previn page. Some people (Giles22, Krwarnke most recently) are working hard to bring peace to converge towards something that the majority of us feels is a legitimate, fair and objective depiction of events. But we cannot continue to eternally revert insidious edits. Pascal.Tesson 01:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Pascal, I just discovered this latest judge's comment. I think it adds depth to the custody decision, but if Krwarnke doesn't like it I'll accept its removal (I assume Giles will want it removed). I don't think there could have been a consensus about it as it was never covered. PS sorry to bring up a minor point but it is spelled "consensus" Justforasecond 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I will actually agree with Justforasecond on this one. it's a direct quote and not POV, and i believe it does add something to the article. -- Abid Ahmed 02:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am baffled. I just hope others will counter that. My point is that regardless of whether a judge had or did not have this opinion, it is not the role of an encyclopedia to report it, especially taken out of context of the judge's whole decision on what is certainly a very complex situation. We agreed on a certain version of that section of the article and had the page unprotected but you keep coming back with the clear intention of portraying Woody Allen as guilty of something. This is actually a goal that is clearly stated on Justforasecond's user page which more or less disqualifies him as a neutral editor. It is clear that the whole story of Allen's relationships with Mia Farrow, Soon-Yi Previn and Farrow and Allen's adopted children is a complex story that neither of us (or the NYTimes for that matter) can seriously document enough to give a definite opinion about. Yet, these edits are deliberately adding quotes here and there that portray Allen's conduct as extremely reprehensible. Let us simply face the fact that we cannot judge this in all fairness and write a neutral account. Pascal.Tesson 02:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the fairest way might be to say the judge was critical of Allen's relationships with his children, though I think the way Justforasecond has portrayed it goes a bit too far. We don't need to go over the top to demonize Allen. The judge criticized him for being a bad father. Let's just leave it at that. -Krwarnke 04:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it to Krwarnke. Just be careful with POV terms (some extremists would argue that the judge didn't really say Allen was a "bad" father) Justforasecond 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we please get Krwarnke to resolve the Israel-Palestine situation? or may be the Argentina-Brazil situation -- since, it's world cup time now....the current edit is fine with me, cheers. -- Abid Ahmed 16:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Academy Awards & Nominations

Is it correct to list Annie Hall's win as Best Picture under an award for Allen? All of the other listed awards and nominations are the ones that he is more individually responsible for (screenwriting, directing). A Best Picture nominee is kind of an ensemble award, right? Not something to list as a personal accomplishment of Allen's. What do you think? -Krwarnke 17:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the director typically gives the big speech when a pic wins this award. Maybe it could have an asterisk or somethin? Justforasecond 17:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the award for best picture is usually presented to the producer. Not 100% sure but I remember a few instances where this was the case and it struck me as weird as I was watching the oscar show. Pascal.Tesson 22:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure; the people who receive the Best Picture awards (and who give the speeches) are the producers, save for a couple of incidents in the 1940s when studio heads gave the speeches. If you're not sure of who gives speeches at the Oscars, all you have to do is watch a telecast (or the appropriate clip from one), but it's been the producers on the receiving end of this award since the beginning. In the cases where the award SEEMS to be going to someone else, such as the director or writer of the film, that's only because that person served both functions (directed AND produced the film, for example). Some OTHER award shows give the best picture award to the director, but the Oscars have always given it to he producers. As for whether Annie Hall's Oscar deserves mention in a list of Woody Allen's accomplishments: Allen himself would not have received the award, but Hollywood has long recognized that Allen is the "auteur" (as much as I hate that concept) responsible for the film and its success, so while an encyclopedic biography would be incomplete without the mention, it would be inaccurate to actually include the Oscar in a list of awards Allen himself has won (unless he produced the film, but I don't think he did; I'll have to check the credits). -- Minaker

Picture

Shouldn't the opening picture feature Allen a little more prominently? Although I doubt there are many people alive today above the age of 25 who have no clue what Allen looks like, I am willing to bet that there are quite a few who don't, and a somewhat fuzzy picture of him, featuring Allen looking tiny and dwarfed by more in-focus surroundings, is not the best for a lead-in.209.169.114.213 20:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Was Woody Allen really born in Iraq? Is he a wanker? Hmmm.

Soon-Yi Previn/Farrow?

Justforasecond, I thought we agreed on the resolution. Soon-Yi was widely known as Soon-Yi Previn and if you're going to change that, you should prove that she was known at the time as Soon-Yi Farrow (which is entirely possible). As for the stepfather wording, the wikipedia makes clear that the *true* meaning of stepfather is ambiguous, and that under *some* definitions of stepfather, Allen could be considered it and under others he couldn't. He never adopted Soon-Yi and he never married Mia, thus never formally becoming Soon-Yi's stepfather. -Krwarnke 05:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think we discussed this section...so far it's been about the child molestation. But as for the facts:

• the piece says "woody was not formally recognized as previn's stepfather". this is uncited. there is no "formal" stepfather recognition ceremony; adoption usually makes someone a "father", not a stepfather. yes, marriage usually results in a step-relationship, but a marriage ceremony is not a formal stepfather recognition ceremony. and as we all know, stepfather does not imply marriage.
• soon-yi was a farrow (or at least "farrow previn") at the time of the affair. anyone following the case will recall this. she became a previn later. if you remember differently, my guess is you won't, perhaps we can find the details. but for now there is no citation saying she was a previn back in '91, so it doesn't make sense to call her a previn either. Justforasecond 05:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I did some research and found that she was then known as Soon-Yi Farrow Previn [5]. Today she is widely known as Soon-Yi Previn and if you're going to change that, I thought it would require substantiation.

OK, well let's introduce her as "Soon-Yi Farrow Previn (she later dropped the Farrow)" Justforasecond 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, there is no formal recognition ceremony to becoming a stepfather, but the point is that he contested that he ever acted as a stepfather to her and so did she. He never married Farrow and therefore did not become a stepfather through that process. Your assertion that he was a father simply because he was a companion to Farrow is hardly rock-solid.

If there's no formal recognition to being a stepfather, then the article should not say "woody has never formally recognized as soon-yi's stepfather" -- it's meaningless. no one is ever fromally recognized as a stepfather. Justforasecond 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Stepfamily says: "it is currently unclear if a stepfamily can be both established and recognized by less formal arrangements, such as when a man or woman with children cohabits with another man or woman outside of marriage."

Wikipedia's father says "Step-father - wife/partner has child from previous relationship". Woody adopted other of the children and had two biological children with Mia. If not stepfather, what title should this command? Justforasecond 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So it's not a given that Allen was her stepfather. In fact, it was a highly contested point. I'll look at how to reword it. Just would have been nice if you had brought it up originally when I first proposed it.... -Krwarnke 06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Krwarnke, while I commend you for the swift re-edit of Justforasecond's latest glorious edits, I think it's not right to give in to his crusade and yet again reword thing ever so slightly the way he wants. The majority of people discussing the talk page agreed on the contentious paragraph and we should leave it at that. If Justforasecond wants to edit it every other day, fine, we'll just revert. Period. Even the "some say that he was the stepfather" is just a useless bit of info: we have the facts (Previn was Farrow's adopted daughter) and the reaction (perceived impropriety). I am reverting the paragraph to what it was before today. Pascal.Tesson 07:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond, please stop the edit-warring. A resolution was agreed upon. Now let's stick to it. You're not bringing new facts or new insights. You're just trying to impose the same point of view that led to the page being protected. You did not have support for these edits then, you won't have it now. Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pascal...pascal. A younger man might take offense at all this but I just have to chuckle. We did resolve some details but the stepfather business has not been discussed. I actually thought krwarnke's compromise (now that he's done brining peace to the middle east and the US is out of the world cup ;) was a step in the right direction. Justforasecond 17:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to be condescending. For the record, the "stepfather" was indeed discussed. See the archives of the talk page. You have no support. The resolution for the disputed section should remain as is for the time being. If you have some constructive suggestions, please discuss them at length here first. Then we can figure out what kind of support your proposed edits have. Pascal.Tesson 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh Pascal++. For the love of Woody, the stepfather aspect was not previously discussed. Krwarnke was the first to acknowledge that Woody was, by one definition, her stepfather, just today. He worked out a pretty good compromise, which you obliterated without discussing "at length". Justforasecond 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pascal.Tesson, the reason why I made those changes was not to simply appease Justforasecond, but because he pointed out inaccurate wording on my behalf. What I wrote was "he was never formally recognized as her stepfather" suggests that there is such a thing as a formal recognition of stepfatherhood. There isn't.

Allen failed to meet the conventional definition of stepfather since he never married Farrow and, he argues, never even lived with her. But their long-term relationship and the fact that they adopted two children together and had another biological child together, blurs that line: He was a indisputably a father to three of Mia Farrow's children. By being a biological or adopted father to three of Farrow's children and her long-term partner, could he not have been considered a step-father to all of her children?

These definitions are sticky and on this point, unanimity is impossible since the answer is based on how you define a stepfamily. That, we have seen, is hardly black-and-white. That was the reason for my changes and I actually thought they were pretty good changes. I don't see anything wrong in listing Previn on first reference as Soon-Yi Farrow Previn. Having said that, these unannounced drastic edits aren't very conducive to reasonable debate and a consensus-making environment. - Krwarnke 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody offer up a non-wikipedia source for a defintion of "stepfather" which includes people who aren't married? This does not seem backed up by law; even given that there are no precise definitions of stepfamily, they all seem to agree that "marriage" is an important part of it.

ThatGuamGuy 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)

Allen was never her step-father. He would probably at one point been equivalent to a guardian (in the legal sense). The use of the word "step-father" is incorrect, though. Nino137.111.47.29 (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say Soon-Yi had a relationship with Allen since she was 7, if she was adopted at age 8 by Farrow and Previn? Nada (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

Ok so let me propose this (changes in bold). In the Mia Farrow section, rewrite the paragraph as

Farrow and Allen never married, but they adopted two children together: Dylan Farrow and Moses Farrow; and had one biological child, Seamus Farrow. Allen did not adopt Farrow's older adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn who is now known as Soon-Yi Previn.

and the Previn section as follows

Shortly after separating from Farrow in 1992, Allen openly continued his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, Farrow's adopted daughter. The relationship drew much scrutiny for its perceived impropriety because of Allen's relationship with Farrow and because of the important age difference. At the time, Allen was 57 and Previn was 22.

Allen and Previn married in 1997. The couple later adopted two daughters, naming them Bechet and Manzie after jazz musicians Sidney Bechet and Manzie Johnson.

The information is there. Let people make their judgement. Also I think perceived impropriety is a more exact depiction of how people felt. To me appearance of impropriety sounds as if the reality is that there was no impropriety. Pascal.Tesson 00:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As you've written it, you're suggesting the major scandal was the age difference. I don't believe that was the case. From the New York Times (Dec. 25, 1997):

The marriage gave rise to video-store debate and street-corner speculation about what it would be like for Mr. Allen to have Mia Farrow as his mother-in-law. ...

But others were less charitable. "I think his film career is flirting with real trouble," said Raoul Lionel Felder, the Manhattan divorce lawyer. "People seem to have accepted the fact that the two were living together as one more sick relationship in a sick world. But now the idea of a wedding will infringe on moviegoers' sense of propriety." ...

Moviegoers may be more willing to accept a married Mr. Allen, said former Mayor Edward I. Koch. "Like many, I had trouble with the fact that people thought that she was his unofficial stepdaughter," he said. "But with the passage of time, I don't feel that anymore. And I think this marriage will play well."

The scandal, I think, is as Ed Koch puts it. People thought she was his stepdaughter. That has probably tarnished his reputation more than the sex abuse allegations (which seem to be less well known). - Krwarnke 11:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why you say that the sentence "The relationship drew much scrutiny for its perceived impropriety because of Allen's relationship with Farrow and because of the important age difference." suggests that the major scandal was the age difference. I think that both aspects factor into the unease that people felt at the time but maybe there is a way to stress the first. My argument in fact of the proposed edit is that it is truly neutral. The whole article makes it very clear what the relationships between Farrow, Previn and Allen were and I think attempts to say "he was his stepfather" or, for that matter, to say "he was not formally his stepfather" is trying to impose interpretation. Let the reader make the judgement, we provide all the info needed to do so. Pascal.Tesson 18:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be because of the word "important"; I'd argue that "significant age difference" would be a better phrasing. Something stating that the relationship with her mother began when Previn was 9 (or whatever; I don't know how old she actually was) might help that too. As written, it says there were two potential improprieties: that Allen was involved with her mother when they met, and that they have a significant age difference. However, a third potential impropriety in some people's minds would be that Soon-Yi was a child when they met and while he was involved with her mother. (This would draw a distinction, because the age difference is a different thing than that.) So my suggestion is:

"The relationship drew much scrutiny for its perceived impropriety because of Allen's relationship with Farrow (which began when Soon-Yi was [9??]) and because of the significant age difference."

I mean, there were also perceived improprieties such as people thinking he was actually her stepfather, but that would probably be too confusing to get into. - (unsigned)

In my mind the important thing to say here is that the relationship was scandalous because people thought Allen was Soon-Yi's stepfather. To say that it was perceived as being wrong because she was "Farrow's adopted daughter" is to miss the point. It's not Previn's relationship with Farrow that raised eyebrows; nor was it Allen's relationship with Farrow. It was the question of the nature of Previn's relationship with Allen. The other issue, much more secondary, is that of the age difference. I don't see why we need to pussyfoot around the word "stepfather." I'd support something like:

"Even though Allen and Previn denied he was ever her stepfather, the relationship drew much scrutiny for its perceived impropriety. At the time, Allen was 57 and Previn was 22."

- Krwarnke 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Allen, Allan or Alan?

I've read that his real first name is Allen here, Allan in the French article and even Alan, at the Encyclopaedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9272814). What is his real name after all? Can anyone cite a trustable source? --Kripkenstein 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This version of the EB says its Allen, if that means anything (which it doesn't seem to). Also, concerning the recent change about Heywood Allen, the article says it is his legal name. Same too for this web site though I'd like something a bit more authoritative. - Krwarnke 19:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

6 July Mastermind reference

It's me! (sorry, vanity I know..:->) Martyn Smith 15:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)......ahhh, some miserable b****r's deleted it1 Did anyone see it, though. Good, wasn't I....;-() Martyn Smith 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

I have nominated the article for good article classification. The page is pretty complete and the edit war from a few months ago was resolved rather peacefully (after a bloody start that had the page protected...) I think this is a good first step towards an eventual nomination for featured article status. Pascal.Tesson 00:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Emmy winner

I cut the following sentence:

In 1957, he won his first Emmy Award.

I cannot find a decent reference for that award.

About references

Justforasecond (talk · contribs) is intent on putting an unreferenced tag on the article. I think this is not really fair: there are quite a few sources inline, a long list of on and offline references. I'd like others to weigh in here. Pascal.Tesson 07:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many sections that aren't referenced. For instance the part about Allen's "cerebral style" and this entire paragraph:

Allen was born in New York City to a Jewish family of Austrian and Russian ancestry. His parents, Martin Königsberg (born on December 25, 1900 in New York; died on January 13, 2001) and Netty Cherrie (born in 1908 in New York; died in January 2002), and his sister, Letty (born 1943), lived in Flatbush, Brooklyn. He attended Hebrew school for eight years, and then went to Public School 99 (P.S. 99) and to Midwood High School. During that time, he lived in part on Avenue K, between East 14th and 15th Streets. Nicknamed "Red" because of his red hair, he impressed students with his extraordinary talent at card and magic tricks.

To raise money he began writing gags for the agent David O. Alber, who sold them to newspaper columnists. Reportedly, Allen's first published joke was "I am at two with Nature." At sixteen, he started writing for stars like Sid Caesar and began calling himself Woody Allen. He was a gifted comedian from an early age and would later joke that when he was young he was often sent to inter-faith summer camps, where he "was savagely beaten by children of all races and creeds."

Go through the article and you'll see many sections without references -- that's all the {{unreferenced}} tag means. The non-inline citations are no good, btw. Using non-inline citations alone, no researcher would be able to verify any individual statement without reading every citation (often entire books!) in their entirity.

Justforasecond 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, none of this has to do with your self-confessed crusade to uncover the truth about Woody Allen. A number of featured articles (e.g. Henry Fonda) have only slightly more references. Pascal.Tesson 18:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember to assume goo faith, Pascual. The article needs citations. Looks like we are making progress! Justforasecond 19:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a couple for the early life section. We're getting there! Justforasecond 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody placed a Reverence Needed Tag on an assertion that Humphrey Bogart was an influence on Woody Allen. Are these people nuts? He did an entire stage play and then a movie based around him trying to emulate Bogart. Stuff like this is self-obvious. My complaint is not with the assertion, but I have serious issues with the kind of people who make these kinds of unnecessary comments in Wiki articles. These improperly discredit the information in the article. If you don't know the subject, please do not tamper with the Wiki articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Seamus = Satchel = Ronan

In the part about Woody's children, it mentions Seamus Farrow, and later it mentions Satchel, whose name was changed to Ronan. However, nowhere in the article does it mention that Seamus and Satchel are the same person. (I had to go to Seamus's page to figure that out.) Perhaps that could be made a little more clear? --Lurlock 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

reworded for clarity. --Krwarnke 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Filmography

As currently written the article hits you over the head with Allen's filmography. First, a link to a list of Woody Allen's films, followed by a listing of all the same movies that are available in the link, a brief film essay that touches on most of the movies, as well as the "films directed by woody allen" link at the bottom. Can I propose scrapping the long list? I know we've put work into that, but it seems very redundant. --Krwarnke 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I scrapped it and included a longer link to the list of films. In the end this will lead to higher quality -- there will be only one place to add Allen films.

Btw, anyone html savvy know how to make the text wrap around the TOC? The box is big and creates a large gap between the intro and the rest of the article... --Krwarnke 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about wrapping, but one thing to do would be to include an infobox for Woody. The infoboxen seem to appear next to the TOCs (see George W. Bush) Justforasecond 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't see a quick way to do the TOC wrapping but the TOC can be made a little shorter if we don't use === for everything. I experimented with this in the relationship section. The movies could be adjusted this way too. Justforasecond 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Justforasecond. TOC is simplified and improved. Can someone look over the 2000s again. A new line got inserted there that is unreferenced and I think overstates the importance of "Small Time Crooks" in the Allen filmography. I'd be interested to hear what the other editors think. Also, for some reason, all of those paragraphs have now merged together into a monster of one.... Is it fair for this section to be so large compared to what is often seen as Allen's golden years? --Krwarnke 19:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Krwarnke

I put tags in that look like {{===notoc|blahblah}} to replace the ===blahblah=== that was making the TOC very long. Feel free to play around with these. I don't think the BAFTA awards deserve more attention than his best-received movies either, neither does his clarinet hobby. However, I put in a "golden years" section a while back and editor user:eleemosynary removed it saying "save it for your doctoral thesis" so you might meet with some resistance.

Justforasecond 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I found a templated called {{TOC float left}} which does the wrapping. Unfortunately, things look very ugly with this style TOC. Justforasecond 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why other wikipedians want to restore all the headings. I can understand if it were for the "films" section or even the "relationships" section, but the Awards section? Does this really need TOC billing?

As for the other question about "golden years", I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. I'm not advocating creating a new section referencing his golden years. What I'm saying is that Allen's contributions to film throughout the 70s and 80s are generally thought to be more substantial contributions to American film than those from the 90s and 00s. All I'm saying is that the section from 00s is VERY long (admittedly, I contributed to this), and is a disproprotionate reflection of his career. I support trimming the 00s down to a level on par with the 70s and 80s. Though, I've come to believe Wikipedians don't much care for brevity and succintness..... --Krwarnke 04:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Although, on a second look, I now notice that the text is wrapping around the TOC... doesn't look bad.....--Krwarnke 04:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

photo

can we put a photo that shows more of a closeup of woody? the current one could be just about any old skinny man in the country. we also need some fair use to the photo -- whatever movie/book the film comes from should be discussed in the text immediately next to it.

Justforasecond 02:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Statue

An statue of Woody Allen at natural size has been done in Oviedo, Asturias, Spain (Related to some good things he said about the city afte the Principe de Asturias Awards). The foto is in the spanish (and some other) wikipedias, at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Estatua_Woody_Allen_en_Oviedo.jpg. Do you think it is sensible to add it? I can look for the factual sources (Major speeches and news reports) but they will probably be in spanish...

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 29, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Good. Only complaint is that the sexual allegation things is kind of mentioned, then pops up again kind of weirdly. I would minimized some of the detials in the first mention and then put "(see XYZ section below)" after the first mention of Sun-Yi

2. Factually accurate?: OK, but not enough in-line citations for some of the statements. None of the headings "Comedy writer," "Early films," 1960s, 1970's, 1980s, and 1990s have inline citations. Not every sentence needs a citation, but more specific stamtement (quotes, statistics, and very specific details) need inline citations). It is not a big deal for the awards sections, since they are easily verifiable. Also, convert the weblink inline ciations to proper footnotes, so they can be easily seen for the reader, and it is more fair to the cited work. Since this is the only point that caused the article to fail, I am moving it to the Unreferenced GA/Nominations list, where you might get some assistance in bringing the article "up to code."

3. Broad in coverage?: Great.

4. Neutral point of view?: Good.

5. Article stability? Good.

6. Images?: Great!

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Esprit15d 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comments. By the way, I think that the article could also be better with respect to point 3. While it does provide a lot of basic info, it does not cover important encyclopedic info about Allen's impact and influence or any analysis of his work and its place in american film history. I believe that is not in itself necessary to obtain GA status but FA status can only be dreamed of if this is developed. Pascal.Tesson 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- the article meets good article criteria (though why submit it if we don't want external approval ;). The only real beef he has is lack of inline citations and the sexual abuse allegations (which we've talked about already). The reviewer didn't even spell Soon-Yi correctly. I'm not sure footnote-style links are preferable but I suppose they do give the names of the articles, which is valuable if an outside site disappears. Anyway, let's keep adding inline citations, we'll need more to be a featured article. Justforasecond 17:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I thought it made sense to have some sort of independent review. The other advantage of having GA status is that some editors actually spend time on GA articles to push them towards FA. Actually, the fact that the reviewer misspells Soon-Yi shows he is independent! :-) Pascal.Tesson 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New section & other stuff

I've just finished a bit of work on the article. Mostly small things. I've added a section on work inspired by Allen which can probably be filled a bit more but at least the documentary by Godard and the comic strip I think say a lot about his importance in popular culture. (Maybe that should be the section title).

Also I find it sad that the Life magazine cover was removed (although I do understand that it does not qualify as fair use as is). Maybe we could add a sentence saying that he became famous around that time and made the Life cover which, at the time, was a pretty big deal and a sure sign of his emerging popularity. Pascal.Tesson 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So I did it. I will ask the other editor what he thinks. Pascal.Tesson 21:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Aug 05 2006 interview

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_print.asp?art_id=24342&sid=9040771

some good stuff, woody reflecting on being older. "Once you get up in years, like 70s, there's nothing good about it. The dynamite women you see on the street, that world is gone to you. They're unavailable to you, and in the few cases where you could work your magic, it's to no practical avail because you can't plan a future if you're 70 and she's 22. So your flirtation life goes, which is a big part of everybody's enjoyment in life." Justforasecond 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A very sad way of looking at life and at other people, who apparently exist only to provide fodder for a wounded ego. Isn't this man presently married with two children? Thirty years of psychotherapy have done wonders. The man and his art are distinct, thank goodness. 66.108.4.183 17:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Arty" versus "Comedic"

I feel rather uncomfortable with this passage:

"Allen began giving more interviews and making the case that he shouldn't be thought of as intellectual and that his films were not arty. Some saw this as a positive sign that Allen would be returning to his strictly comedic roots; others saw it as pretentiousness."

This seems to me a rather general statement--also, why is it "pretentious" if he doesn't claim to make "arty" movies? I believe that throughout his career Allen has stressed that he most admires "serious" movies (Bergman etc.), but has never felt that he could match that kind of work. I don't think Allen ever made the case he should "be thought of as intellectual" (whatever that means); the above sentence is implying a fundamental change in Allen which would need to be substantiated. I think the only factual part of the two sentences is that Allen began giving more interviews (is that true, btw?) Johannes Wich-Schwarz 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the sentence and replaced it with a more factual note that he returned to his first four DreamWorks film seem to indicate a return to his comedic roots. Accordingly, I also point out that Match Point breaks away from this. Pascal.Tesson 09:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Johannes Wich-Schwarz 16:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

New York Flag

Someone please correct the image of the flag in the uppermost picture-box. The flag is the flag of New York State, and I think the appropriate flag linked should be the New York City flag. 66.108.105.21 16:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see that reference 9

provides the material for the section I thought was unsourced. Do believe in cases like this that it's best mentioned in the edit summary if saying so in the text would break the flow, however. Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs a new picture for the heading

Statues and portraits should not be used when real photographs are available. Made of people 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

First Joke.

Is it "I am at two with Nature." or "I am two with Nature." Google search is evenly split, and there didn't seem to be any good sources. Does anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ctbolt (talk • contribs) 06:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, I don't have acccess to any source myself, but google search seems to indicate that

1. "I am two with Nature", when sourced, comes from the [http://www.amazon.com/21st-Century-Dictionary-Quotations-Reference/dp/0440214475 21st Century Dictionary of Quotations]. If I am to believe the customer reviews, this book cannot in any way be used as a reference.
2. "I am at two with Nature.", when sourced, comes from Woody Allen: Clown Prince of American Humor, whose quality I can't tell, but which is at least a book specializing in Woody Allen, not a general citations book.

Therefore, I'd be inclined to prefer the second version. --rimshots^talk 09:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good - Ctbolt 09:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Woody Allen, Take the Money and Run.

It was noted that Louise Lasser co-stared in the movie, Take the Money and Run, when in fact, it was Janet Margolin. Louise Lasser WAS in the movie, but played a minor part. I can see how people may have gotten this wrong, since Woody Allen was romantically involved with both of them.66.41.73.146 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Woody Allen" character

It is my personal opinion that Scarlett Johansen's character in scoop is an example of the "woody allen" character, but I'm not sure if this is widely accepted. I think it is interesting and should be mentioned if it is as its the first time "Woody Allen" had been played by a woman and also intersting that Woody Allen himself played "Woody Allen" also in the same film. Anyway, if no one objects I'll add it myself in a couple weeks or someone else can.

Cyclopsface 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Scoop (2006 film)? Is that notable? Am i becoming unhip?
  But seriously folks, WP is Not OR and NPoV; go find reputable critics who said so, and use them as refs to justify including your paraphrase of their professional opinions.
  --Jerzy•t 04:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  

Mia Farrow section (again)

This relatively recent addition: "Allen was never tried for the sexual abuse of his adopted daughter, because the Connecticut state's attorney investigating the case found that although probable cause existed for prosecuting Allen, it was not worth subjecting the child to the possible trauma of a court trial." Needs to be reworked. The first part ("Allen was never tried for the abuse...") implies guilt when it is unknown what, if anything, he did. Also, if you read the source given, it says the state's attorney (Maco) made this decision despite previous investigations showing otherwise. Additionally, Maco drew criticism for his statements, which should be mentioned. Per WP:BLP I'm removing the quoted section so any random person who reads the article won't assume he's guilty. All are free to rewrite it in a way more representative of the "truth," whatever that is. Smw543 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mother?

In the infobox, Allen's mother's birthdate is written as 1906. However, in the "Early Years" paragraph it is claimed as 1908. Her first name is also spelled differently in both sections. (Nettie and Nettea) :\ - McSkrove ☺ 04:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDB says it's Nettie, 8 November 1906, New York City, New York, USA. I will change accordingly.Ademkader (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Woody Allen can be assumed to be a legal name

I'm about to edit the article to eliminate any question that Woody Allen is his legal name. Generally speaking in the US, any name you use for a non-fraudulent purpose is a legal name, and no legal proceeding is necessary. The Wikipedia article on this topice (Legal name) is short and to the point. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Spain

Please stop eliminating the Spanish reference to the large fan base, and leaving only the French. Truth is Woody has a special relationship with Spain. After shooting in the US and the UK, his first venture outside the Anglosphere has been to Spain. Let´s see: Melinda and Melinda´s wold premiere was in San Sebastián, the only statue of Woody is in Oviedo, he has received the Prince of Asturias price, his movies always open to full houses in the cinemas, he is a frequent visitor to Spain, performs with his jazz, and has himself said that 'Spain has become so dear to me'. There is no doubt that the love affair is mutual. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117935397.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.236.10 (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

need help

I'm translating this article into Russian. Can someone explain this joke to me: 'Woody Allen says he ate at a restaurant that had O.P.S. prices—over people's salaries'? What does O.P.S. stand for? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.32.70 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I thot at first you were a troll. Then it occurred to me it would be funnier if it stood for "over people's salaries", and something else. I see we don't have the article at OPS, but Office of Price Stabilization appears as a rdlk in our article Office of Price Administration:

During the Korean War, similar functions were performed by the Office of Price Stabilization (OPS).

That would correspond to his late 'teen years.
--Jerzy•t 04:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ok. thanks. --91.122.121.118 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish comedians ?

The following two contribs were made at Category talk:Jewish comedians (and have the accompanying Cat pg as context), but concern the article Woody Allen.

Why isn't Woody Allen included as a Jewish comedian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.242.10 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 23 October 2007

He certain did stand-up, so it's surprising not to see him included. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Further contributions to this discussion should be made here.

• The article calls him "comedian" in the lead, and the discussion in #"Arty" versus "Comedic" revolves around his comedic reputation. We must not quibble over "currently" or "primarily" or standup vs. other forms of comedy, or comedy vs. clever intellectualism, but rather his notability as a comedic performer.
  As to the other aspect, his heritage is Jewish, even if it turns out he's an atheist or a closet Pentacostal, even without the Jewish stereotypes he plays and Jewish themes he writes.
  In the absence of an justification on this talk page for its omission, i'm adding the tag. Say why if you want to take it out.
  --Jerzy•t 05:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  

• Ah! He has Category:Jewish comedy and humor, the parent-Cat of the Cat in question (as i am noting there). So the question is more subtle than it appeared, and more relevant to Category talk:Jewish comedians than was obvious from the previous discussion.
  --Jerzy•t 05:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  

"Blacklist"

Woody is blacklisted by the Hollywood Social Elite. You should be aware of this. Riddick51PB —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

What exactly is meant by this? And what is your source? H.G. 20:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Think about this. How many red carpet appearances has Woody made at the Oscars lately? Zero in the modern era. MTV VMA awards? Zero. VH1 Awards? Zero. While clearly having the talent to host any of these shows, he has not even been under consideration for any of these. SAG Awards? Zero. SAG Offices Held? Zero. In the modern hollywood era, Woody has not been seen in quite some time. That's basically a "Blacklist." Riddick51PB 17:19 EST, 15-September-2008. —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

This sounds rather speculative to me. We need hard sources for this kind of thing. H.G. 07:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• What makes you think he would even want to do things like host the VMA's? You're forgetting that he voluntarily didn't attend the Academy Awards when Annie Hall won the Oscar for best picture, and later said he didn't even watch it on TV. So I think it's quite obvious that he has willfully removed himself from the Hollywood "scene" instead of being shunned by it. --Jleon (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Is there any social Elite in Hollywood? I guess it might be an asocial Elite like in cologne the promi pool deal.

They try to take all of you and you should be their servant in their cases. Purification or sexual morality must be more than pseudo in this class.Luxery and you pay the bill isn't a nice game! Lexington Avenue, meet at the corner!--Danaide (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

murcia spain

on new years eve 2008-2009 mr. woody allen will be performing in murcia spain. what exactly is his connection with this little town in spain that he returns again? raquel samper comjudia murcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Dyed haircolour?

"He was Nicknamed "Red" because of his red hair;"

Well, taking a look at the following pictures, one might get a serious presumption, that this person is darkhaired, but dyed more or less orange: [6].

Therefore hereby the question: "What sources are there, that state the correctness of the cited sentence?" --VKing (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No sources; so that sentence is going to be removed (for now).--VKing (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy is Not . . . Constructive?

I'm not entirely sure this is the right place for this query, but here goes: Yesterday I added a few things with respect to Allen's films 'Interiors' (1978) and 'September' (1987), only to find several hours later that these edits were not deemed "Constructive" by whomever deems these things around here, whereupon they were removed.

In the first instance ("Interiors is considered by critics as a significant breakthrough past Allen's 'earlier, funnier comedies' (a line from 1980s Stardust Memories")." I added a quote from Pauline Kael's negative review of the film in 'The New Yorker', since at the very least it more accurately reflects critical opinion at the time of the film's release. Other words, short of striking the "breakthrough" bit altogether . . . since it is, by itself, extremely misleading . . . I thought at least some balance was required. I also restructured the sentence slightly in order to change the 'Stardust Memories' quote ("earlier, funnier comedies", which is flat-out inaccurate) to "early, funny"; as in "We enjoy your films, particularly the early, funny ones" . . . you know, the actual line, as it is spoken.

What precisely is not constructive about this? It may not be wholly positive, but it is accurate. Should that not be the governing priority; or is there something I'm missing here?

In the case of 'September', I'm on less certain ground; at least insofar as violating Wikipedia protocol is concerned. I added to the observation that 'September' extracts certain themes from Ingmar Bergman's 'Autumn Sonata', the additional observation that it derived its structure and much of its plot from Chekhov's 'Uncle Vanya'. Now, while I defy anyone to watch that film, then read that play and tell me this proposition is in error . . . it is, I'll admit, not a Fact (not as such).

So that deletion may have been righteous. I don't understand, however, why the 'Interiors' amendations were struck.

Anyone care to explain this (or, failing that, point me to where I ought to have been raising this matter in the first place)?

Thanks.

TomSutpen (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Orchestra

Manchester Orchestra refer some of there songs to movies he has made, should this be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICheets (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Immortal protestation"

The section on Soon-Yi contains the following: "Allen discounted the matter of equality and added this immortal protestation: 'The heart wants what it wants.'" If it's Woody Allen calling this an "immortal protestation," then that part should be in quotes as well. Otherwise, the phrase "immortal protestation" doesn't belong in the article at all. Removing it. Dausuul (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)