Talk:Ronan Farrow/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Mia Farrow / Frank Sinatra Extramarital Affair

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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." [[1]] 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: [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]]

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. Wikipedia 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^(talk) 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)

• Support the inclusion of the response from Barbara Sinatra. But....... my first choice would be to remove all mention of the entire issue as non-notable gossip.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 14 March 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 [[6]] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia articles do it" as a rationale to do something, since other Wikipedia 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.[ref with her quote], 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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."[refs] 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia 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)

[From 5Q5, my signature is below box] 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" Wikipedia 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: [included in PUBLICFIGURE] 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 Wikipedia:Libel, which states, "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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.)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Estranged

i think we have a logic omission here. Following their separation, Mia Farrow won custody of their children. Allen could see Ronan only under supervision. There is likely sources talking about what kind of childhood, and by extension, relationship with Allen, that Ronan had. This likely led to some of the current events, and what looks like animosity. I think this is an area interested editors could address. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Lots of WP:COATRACKING about a living person who is not subject of this article has been removed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That went completely against the admin's conclusion in the RfC, in which he specifically says the personal-life material is expected to be here, and I'm sick to death of hearing a non-binding essay quoted like gospel. Essays are just opinion pieces — we can find essays to support almost anything we want them to support. Let's stick with policies and guidelines here, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The subject of this article making unbacked allegations against another living person cannot be glossed over. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

While the RfC did not generate consensus that the allegations should be removed, it did not preclude that option either. There was only minimal discussion of removing them. The subject of the RfC was a different question altogether: whether to balance the allegations with further coverage, a point that consensus strongly supported. Given that, more discussion (and bold editing) may be necessary to determine whether to remove the allegations entirely. There is not local consensus for it currently, but that's why we discuss proposals. My apologies if I wasn't clear on these distinctions in the close. The point to be gathered from the RfC is that if the allegations are included, then complete coverage of them is warranted. I hope that helps to clarify.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Jess. As you mentioned there might be, there was a WP:BOLD edit. It was reverted, and general protocol is bold, revert, discuss. Yet after having his bold edit reverted, the redlink editor simply started edit-warring rather than discussing the issue. And his comment above isn't a discussion but a pronouncement: "This is what I've decided and I'm making this unilateral change no matter why anyone else thinks." That's just the opposite of a consensus discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This redlinked user knows what every experienced user should know: that aspersions against living people have no place in any wikipedia article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I see this is spiraling into edit warring territory, and I'm not really interested in seeing anyone get blocked here. I'm sympathetic to TheRedPenOfDoom's removals. While they are not entirely consistent with the previous RfC consensus, the material removed is a sensational diversion largely about Woody Allen and Dylan, even if it was instigated by Ronan. The problem is that the issue of whether this allegation is broadly important in the scope of Farrow's biography was not really a subject of the RfC. So, maybe that needs to get discussed more explicitly right now. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ronan Farrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151013103414/http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2011/03/31/empowering-youth-be-agents-change to http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2011/03/31/empowering-youth-be-agents-change
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131027104038/http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/msnbc/pressreleases?pr=contents%2Fpress-releases%2F2013%2F10%2F16%2Fronanfarrowjoin1454075.xml to http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/msnbc/pressreleases?pr=contents%2Fpress-releases%2F2013%2F10%2F16%2Fronanfarrowjoin1454075.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928122839/http://www.refugeesinternational.org/press-room/press-release/release-ri-honor-mia-farrow-and-ronan-farrow-29th-anniversary-dinner to http://www.refugeesinternational.org/press-room/press-release/release-ri-honor-mia-farrow-and-ronan-farrow-29th-anniversary-dinner
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829073743/http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/feature-articles/names-to-know-2011 to http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/feature-articles/names-to-know-2011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203005733/http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-cheatingscandalsofstars/7/ to http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-cheatingscandalsofstars/7/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

David Pecker, AMI, Trump

April 11 2018, Chris Cuomo interview. He is all over “it”. Wikipietime (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

ITALIAN DESCENT

he is the son of SINATRA therefore he is of italian descent

There's no evidence of that. Activist (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Euphemism

What does "Farrow has identified as part of the LGBT community" mean? Sees like WP:EUPHEMISM. Are we saying "Farrow identifies as gay"? Then let's say that. I'm a straight person who support my gay friends at civil-rights and political rallies, so I'm part of the LGBT community as far as that goes.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

He has never explicitly said he is gay. He has only described himself as "part of the LGBT community". It's theoretically possible that he is bisexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:4300:A014:D447:7831:DDE6:C5E (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Education in infobox

@Therequiembellishere: Would you please link to the article or archive or wherever that indicates for me not to follow the guidelines as per Template:Infobox person? All of your edit summaries have neglected to do so. Thanks. (And congratulations on editing Wikipedia for longer than seven months – I have too!) —Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Am I seeing things?

Clarification needed please. In Early Life, this: "after deferring admission for several years, he graduated from Yale Law School,[7]" — the reference gives that it was a year after graduating at 15, and that he entered YLS at 16. This isn't several years. Anyone? Manytexts (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Good observation. Perhaps an editor assumed Farrow deferred because he didn't graduate until 2009. But maybe instead he took time off after matriculating. I've removed the deferral language. - Nellis 18:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter story says that he was disabled for years after contracting a bone infection, and first attended classes at Yale Law at 18. It also says he graduated from Bard at 16. Activist (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

If they don’t know that Frank Sinatra is his father then why does it say under parents Father- Frank Sinatra and not Woody Allen?? NurseK26 (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Lineage

We cannot assert both FACT A, and FACT A is uncertain. If there is some legitimate reason to think that his lineage is uncertain, then we should be consistent about this throughout the piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.76.9 (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The person that subsequently removed this said, 'removed "widely accepted to be" as that implies that there could be doubt to his lineage, of which there is not'... and yet the piece itself says that his mother has expressed doubt. If we know his mother is wrong, then let's cite this, remove the speculation. But we cannot have it both ways. Or, maybe we can, you know, humanity, privacy, kindness, compassion, so you know. We can let it go, but what else are we letting go the other way? What I am asking is can we state this in a way that serves the democracy of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:1FA3:0:84D8:CA82:E636:ABD6 (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The person who undid my edit again, without comment, please talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:1FA3:0:84D8:CA82:E636:ABD6 (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Partner

I want to avoid an edit war, so putting here for third opinion or hopeful consensus. A user originally added Farrow and Lovett's relationship to the infobox. Nothing in Personal Life, and no sources, plus never confirmed by both, so I undid that edit. Yesterday, my undo was reverted.

There continues to be no sources cited for Farrow's relationship with Lovett and a cursory google suggests that while it's heavily rumoured, it's never been confirmed. WP:BLP suggests presumption in favour of privacy, so my gut feeling is that it should be left out.

I am new to editing, though, so thoughts/comments from more experienced editors would be definitely appreciated. Sanctaria (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Although I've seen a photo of Farrow and Lovett together, that is not a source substantiating the claim that another editor or editors have made. You appear to have been correct in your edits. Activist (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither are the words "has been romantically linked with". Any gossip column can "link" anyone they like — it's still an unconfirmed, anonymously sourced claim, i.e. a rumor. And The Hollywood Reporter cite used to justify the claim said nothing that supported it. Here is all THR said: "...he's in L.A. running down sources for his next New Yorker piece. (He won't reveal the topic.) And the trip — during which he stayed with Jon Lovett, the former Obama speechwriter and comedic co-host of the popular political podcast Pod Save America — allowed him to 'have a small thing with close friends — a rare glimmer of a social life,' he says." Lots of people crash with their friends in another town; the words "romance/romantic/romantically" never appear. WP:GOSSIP vio in a WP:BLP.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

In this episode of David Axelrod's podcast, Farrow tells a story about his partner, Axelrod then identifies said partner as Jon Lovett and Farrow does not contradict him: https://www.axefilespodcast.com/episodes/249-ronan-farrow And in this episode of Kara Swisher's podcast Farrow tells a similar story about the same time period, again referencing his partner and Swisher also identifies said partner as Jon Lovett and again Farrow offers no contradiction: https://www.recode.net/2018/5/4/17320710/transcript-journalist-ronan-farrow-recode-decode So neither of them has publicly confirmed it but it has also been stated by others with no public correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:185:7F:E32E:4839:E3CB:3F60:5753 (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong date of NBC stopping the publishing of the Weinstein Story.

"In 2016, NBC had decided against airing Farrow's initial findings." I am pretty sure that it was in August 2017, not 2016! Maarilena (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)