Talk:Mia Farrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

JOHN PAUL JONES (filmed in 1958 and released in 1959)[edit]

Despite statements on various Internet sites, including Wikipedia, if Mia Farrow ever did have an uncredited role in "John Paul Jones", it must have ended up on the cutting room floor. I have the Warner Archive full length DVD version of the Technirama wide screen film and she is nowhere to be seen in it. However her younger brother, John Charles Farrow, then eleven years old when filming began in March, 1958, does appear in it, playing the title character as a young boy. David Rayner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRayner (talkcontribs) 09:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:People with absolute pitch?[edit]

Having heard Mia Farrow sing in The Last Unicorn (and lived to tell the tale), I can only assume this categorization is meant to be a joke. She's not a bad voice actress, but her singing voice is wincingly painful to endure.

You are wrong, wiki is correct: Farrow has absolute pitch according to http://www.perfectpitchpeople.com DFS (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

POV[edit]

'Farrow declined the sentimental offer'

Children[edit]

Errm... "...and adopted two children, Soon Yi, Lark Song, and Daisy"??? -- JohnOwens 02:20 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

What's more, she married Previn in 1970, they had three children and divorced in 1970. Wow! --KF 01:57 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
From the current version of the article:"By 1994 Mia Farrow had 14 children, 9 of them adopted. 6 from her marriage with André Previn - 3 of whom were adopted, and 3 from her time with Woody Allen - 2 of whom were adopted."
Even if the mistakes above (March, June) have been corrected, there's still something wrong here. Can anyone answer this simple question: How many children are there who can truthfully say that Mia Farrow is their biological mother? Follow-up questions: What are their names? How old are they? Who are their biological fathers?
I know this is not terribly important, but I find reading confusing information ever so frustrating. KF 00:35, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem is one "missing" child, and a tendency to keep renaming children. She has one biological child by Woody Allen: his original name was Satchel O’Sullivan Farrow, and he later used the name Seamus Farrow, she has three children by Andre Previn, a son named Fletcher Farrow Previn, and a pair of twins, Matthew Phineas Previn and Sasha Villiers Previn.

  • Biological children
    • fathered by Andre Previn
      • Matthew Phineas Previn
      • Sascha Villiers Previn
      • Fletcher Previn
    • fathered by Woody Allen
      • Satchel O'Sullivan Farrow, now called Seamus Farrow
  • Adopted children
    • adopted with Andre Previn
      • Soon-Yi Previn
      • Lark Song Previn
      • Summer Song Previn, called "Daisy" Previn
    • adopted with Woody Allen
      • Moses Amadeus Farrow, called Misha Farrow
      • Dylan O'Sullivan Farrow, called Eliza Farrow
      • one additional child, possibly named "Malone" though this is also given as another name for Dylan/Eliza
    • adopted alone
      • Isaiah Farrow
      • Tam Farrow (deceased)
      • Keili-Shea Farrow
      • Gabriel Wilk Farrow

-- I have seen it written that she has 14 children, 3 of whom are adopted with Woody Allen, but have never seen a name of that third child, and I think it possible (since the names of the children keep getting changed) that someone has miscounted and she actually has 13 children, 2 of whom are adopted with Woody Allen... -- Someone else 02:08, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, this appeared in the Telegraph in 2002:

Tomorrow all of Farrow's children (apart from Soon-Yi) will be there: the twins, Matthew and Sascha, 32, and Fletcher, 30 (all by André Previn) and Seamus, 14 (by Woody Allen). Then there are the adopted children: Malone, 16, who is American; Lark, 28, Daisy, 29, and Frankie-Minh, 10, who are Vietnamese; Moses, 24, who is Korean; Isaiah, 10, and Quincy, eight, who are African Americans; and Thaddeus, 14, who is Indian.

. It may be difficult matching the number of adopted children, but I don't think there's much doubt about the biological ones. -- Someone else

Great. After reading this -- thanks a lot, by the way -- all I'm going to remember is that she has given birth to four children and adopted a bunch of others. I've just decided that the rest is really irrelevant. To end this on a somewhat different note, let's quote Philip Larkin: They ...
KF 03:42, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well, I love Mia. She has been through hell, and not just from Woody. She is a great example of a loving, caring person. She is brilliant, and beautiful. I envy her for marrying Sinatra, although he was terrible to her. He was beautiful as well, but a "dog". Out of all his wives, Mia rises above the rest. The others were scanks compared to her.
I love Mia and I think we can all learn alot from her about love, compassion and kindness. We need more Mia's in this world to rescue kids.
GUYS SHE DOESNT TAKE CARE OH HER KIDS AT ALL> I"VE BEEN TO HER HOUSE< SHE HAS A NICER PERSON TAKE CARE OF THEM.
Dude, she might have someone HELPING to take care of her children (espeically when doing a film) but I highly doubt she "doesn't take care of them at all." Mia has adopted all these children, given birth to almost a handful of her own, and yet she has NEVER taken care of them? Sure... -- FireflyAngel, 14 March 2005

This is so, so, so confusing. I think I read on the main page that there were 14 children originally, but 2 died, leaving, presumably, 12. Is that right? It's too bad that people aren't supposed to edit their own pages, as surely Mia is the only one who would likely be able to get this all straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talkcontribs) 05:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Seamus Farrow[edit]

Where did someone get the idea that Seamus has a "phobia" of Woody Allen? It seems inappropriate and gossipy since it isn't even backed up by a source. The Woody Allen page repeated the same story (I've changed it too), while the Seamus Farrow page says nothing about it, and in this article Seamus is quoted as saying "I've looked at the facts and come to my own conclusions. I think the wisest thing is not to talk about it. I'm not angry or twisted in any way." I've replaced the "phobia" thing with a less contentious statement based on the above article--please don't put it back unless you can back it up with an equally reliable source. --The Famous Movie Director 09:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


What is the point of including a off-handed quip about his parentage as a statement of fact? It was a joke based on the rumors widely circulated by Woody Allen's PR firm to discredit Mia Farrow. Including her joke here as a statement of fact is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.155.211 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither Mia Farrow, nor anyone else, can live in a "Soho Loft in Greenwich Village"[edit]

Soho and Greenwich Village are separate neighborhoods. Relgif 00:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Domestic partner[edit]

I have removed Woody Allen from the "domestic partner" tag in the info box. The word "Domestic" in "domestic partner" means someone that she lived with. Farrow and Allen never lived together, not even one day. — Walloon (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

do·mes·tic dəˈmestik/Submit adjective 1. of or relating to the running of a home or to family relations.

He was there everyday helping raise the children, cooking them breakfast and putting them to bed, by his own admission. They lived together as a conventional family anytime they went outside of NYC - which was quite often. That is a domestic partner. You are buying into Allen's PR spin talking points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.155.211 (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Films with Woody[edit]

mia was lisa, woody allens characters fiance in oedipus wrecks, a segment of the new york stories he directed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.194.87 (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Villiers[edit]

Where does the Villiers part of her last name come from? --87.178.42.38 (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Spouses[edit]

Please delete "Krusty the Clown". It's just ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.211.248.65 (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Children's names[edit]

Is there some added value by including all the names of the children, the vast majority of which are not notable imo. I suggest removal as under BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As you know there is currently a debate going on about this issue (names of the children of celebrities) on the BLP talk page. I suggest we wait to see how that discussion plays out before taking any action.Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Rusty, this is an individual case and need no playing out of other discussions is very relevant here, thanksOff2riorob (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. This is an issue that arises in connection to the biographical articles on a number of famous people and I think it is worth discussing at the policy level. I believe the list is appropriate and would have many good sources such as [[1]], and [[2]]. However, I had been holding off on saying so in case the conclusion that arose out of the policy discussion was that the names of children of celebs should not be mentioned at all if they were not notable enough for articles in their own right. After all, unless I am mistaken, you only raised this issue here because I had used this article as an example in that discussion. I agree that the policy as curently worded would encourage deleting the section in question. However, I don't think that would benefit the article, and I would argue for keeping it regardless in this case, but I also think that your deletion of Morgan Freeman's children's names from that article was not good for it either. I am not sure yet about Jim Butcher. Therefore, I am hoping we can have this argument in one place (the WP:BLP policy talk page) rather than having it on a whole bunch of different bio article talk pages. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Humanitarian awards[edit]

I can find no independant reference to the Tianamen Square Award anywhere. Who gives it out? If it cannot be sourced it should be deleted as should all humanitarian awards that are not verified by the donors. BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Vanity Fair: Mia's story[edit]

Here's a Vanity Fair article that talks about the Soon-yi/Woody Allen/Mia Farrow debacle: Orth, Maureen. "Mia’s Story." Vanity Fair. November 1992.

Be careful using this one, and follow BLP. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Also:

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox pic[edit]

Hi, the infobox pic was removed as being awful - poor representation. I had a look and although it is not airbrushed I think it is a fair representation and I replaced it. what do other contributors think about this picture? Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying this looks anything like Mia Farrow in her hey-day? Why not just use a picture of a casket? 74.104.40.149 (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Pics, especially of living people are not supposed to be in their hey day. Pics of living people should be as recent as possible and as fair a reflection as possible, which imo this pic likely is. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
That lacks all reason. For pics to be as fair a reflection of the topic as possible, you don't include a deathbed picture because the person is alive and then switch back to their famous 1970s pic. In fact, for living people specifically, it would be wrong to violate someone's recent privacy instead of using earlier, public photos, of the kind you find in a book, textbook or ENCYCLOPEDIA, on the subject matter. 74.104.40.149 (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Writings[edit]

In the article, we now have 23 articles under the "Writings" section. An editor just added another title today. Are we going to limit the number of titles in this section? Are there any criteria on what writings should be added to this section? Personally, I think this section is redundant. Perhaps someone would like to create a new article on "Writing of Mia Farrow"? --BwB (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of Life[edit]

Quote from Mia Farrow, "That life is about losing and about doing it as gracefully as possible...and enjoying everything in between" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.221.61 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

July 2013, edits not consistent with Wikipedia policy[edit]

Copy of item posted on Talk page of editor Colinrilly, who made extensive changes to the Mia Farrow article on 16, 17 & 18 July 2013:-

With respect, your edits to the Mia Farrow article are not consistent with Wikipedia policy. No article is "owned" by the editor or the subject. To use such terms as "deleted paragraphs not written by mia, will come back later", "Added an extensive editorials section as a starting point until she tells me what to do next on it", "I sat down with mia and made changes to the base biography that she wanted", "deleted early life by her request" etc. are well out of line. Perhaps reading the two articles below might be starting point for you. I emphasise that I am not 'having a go' at you or Miss Farrow, just pointing out a problem that needs immediate attention. Melbourne3163 (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Lark Previn contracted AIDS in her 20s and died of AIDS-related pneumonia at age 35 in 2008[edit]

12.14.180.12 (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Massive visitation and Woody-Mia correlated audience[edit]

There are a strong correlation in the audience of the two articles, see peaks with red numbering: (1) 2014-01-13; (2) 2014-02-02; (3) 2014-02-08.
Source: http://stats.grok.se/

About Wikipedia's audience, we can check the traffic statistics,

The graphics show to us (you can follow the links and explore it changing months) something more: when, in the timeline, a peak of interest by Woody's article is correlated to a peak of interest by Mia's article.

Many Wikipedia readers that read Woody Alen's page, read Mia Farrow's page, and vice-versa: this is a valid hypothesis, attested by the Wikipedia statistics (illustred). And both are significative: both have an average of more than 2,000 pageviews/day, and all illustred peaks have more than 50,000 pageviews at the first day.

The two highest peaks have more than 200,000 pageviews, while the Wikipedia's homepage (one of the most visited pages of the world!), received, in the same period, ~12,000,000 pageviews each day. So, the peaks are near to ~2% of the enteire Wikipedia's audience. It is not a playground, it is a serious content, a serious audience and sensitive exposition for Wikipedia.

Analisyng the 3 peaks:

(1) At 2014-01-13. Woody's peak of ~220,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~6000, ~37 times) and Mia's peak of ~57,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~2500, ~23 times).
When Woody Allen received a Golden Globe award for lifetime achievement (few weeks before Dylan's letter), "there was a lively debate about whether it was appropriate to honor a man who is an artistic giant but also was accused [by Mia] years ago of child molestation", [3]. So, this "lively debate" explains part of the strong correlation of audiences.
(2) At 2014-02-02. Woody's peak of ~230,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~6000, ~38 times) and Mia's peak of ~145,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~2500, ~58 times).
Was the reaction of one day before's [Dylan Farrow. "An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow". kristof.blogs.nyTimes.com.]
(3) At 2014-02-08. Woody's peak of ~66,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~6000, ~11 times) and Mia's peak of ~61,000 (in a month-nonpeack-avg of ~2500, ~24 times).
Was the reaction of the [Woody Allen. "Woody Allen Speaks Out". nyTimes.com/SundayReview.]

Conclusions about correlation:

These two articles, Woody and Mia, can't be treated as "totally isolated contents". The traffic statistics is a good tool to show us when they are correlated: some consistence between articles must be checkd and preserved, and the envolved articles needs to be consolidated in time.

Conclusions about the present debate:

The public of this "real time debate" need to see another opinion, another sources and a "big picture of the facts"... They are looking for it, and they find here at Wikipedia! We need to supply, if possible in "near real time", the sources and the confirmed facts!

Of course, we can't endorse opinions or favor unconfirmed facts, but we can't omit objective facts, even if it is only a line of article's text. Wikipedia reputation relies on its non-biased objectivity, reliability and "big picture of the facts", that public are looking for. See (graphics) the slow decay after peaks: the "memory of the public" viewing pages after events and after all Internet movement... They are looking for response here, we can not hide or omit facts, even in the first days (peak-decay interval): the price (of delay or omission) is too high for Wikipedia in rancked serious articles.

--Krauss (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: I am adding at article a ommited citation of kristof.blogs.nyTimes.com 2014-02-02, please not delete it without first talk here.

Berlin 2006[edit]

Hi,

The article currently says the following:

Farrow visited 2006 Berlin [1] to be part of a charity auction of United Buddy Bears, which feature designs by artists representing 142 U.N. member states. [2]

This information added by this edit , however, does not seem to be correct at all. First of all, the name of the source cited is not "Mia Farrow in Berlin 2006". It is "Mia and Woody" so the title of the source is incorrect. Secondly, the source actually says Farrow's son Ronan was the one who visited Berlin, but makes no mention of Farrow herself:

He [Ronan Seamus Farrow] recently visited Berlin (photo above) to be part of a charity auction of "United Buddy Bears," which feature designs by artists representing 142 U.N. member states.

So the source is used to cite something that it simply doesn't. Moreover, a jpeg is being used to show Farrow was in Berlin in 2006, but all it shows is Farrow (possibly) and some "bear". There is no way to verify anything stated in the article from this photo. For reference, the use of this jpeg was discussed in some detail at the Wikipedia Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Therefore, we are left with information that is being cited by an incorrectly named source which cites no such thing at all and a photo which claims to show Farrow in Berlin, but which is impossible to verify. It is of course possible that Farrow was there with her son, but this is nothing more than WP:SYN if not supported by a reliable source. So, I have removed this information per WP:SOURCES and WP:BLPSOURCES. If somebody finds such a source, then please re-add the information. If no such source is ever found, however, then this information should probably never been added in the first place.

The "Mia and Woody" source does mention Farrow's visits to Darfur in general, but this information is mentioned in more detail and also properly sourced later in the same section. Since this earlier mention seems unnecessary and since the years of Farrow's earlier visits are also not directly supported by "Mia and Woody", I have removed that as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Soon-Yi's age[edit]

Do we know her age or not? The article currently says this:

followed by the adoption of Soon-Yi (born c. October 8, 1972) from Korea around 1978. Soon-Yi's precise age and birth date are not known, but a bone scan estimated her age as being between 5 and 7 years old at the time of her adoption.

If we don't know her age, where did that birthdate come from? 108.254.160.23 (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Adoption "off the plan"[edit]

"In 1973 and 1976, respectively, they adopted Vietnamese infants, Lark Song Previn and Summer "Daisy" Song Previn[75] (both born October 6, 1974) ..."

Since Lark's and Daisy's ages differed by two years (Daisy was 19 and Lark was 17 when this was written), it is obviously the second half of the sentence that is wrong, but I haven't yet located a good source for both girls' birthdates. General Ization Talk 23:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mia 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 10:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mia 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 02:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mia 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 06:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)