Talk:Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation
(Redirected from Talk:Woody Allen sexual assault allegation)
Latest comment: 1 day ago by Captainllama in topic Relevance or pertinence of Farrow's lawyer's statement
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Relevance or pertinence of Farrow's lawyer's statement
editSomeone added this statement to the paragraph about Coates, Mia Farrow, and Woody Allen: "Farrow's lawyer accused Coates of gullibility for having accepted Allen's version of events".
There is nothing factual about Coates' alleged 'gullibility'. Not even about her 'accepting Allen's version of events'.
As paid attorneys routinely attempt to discredit adverse parties during trials, I don't find the above statement noteworthy, relevant or pertinent, and I suggest removing it. Mcouzijn (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Worth noting that the source given doesn't even contain the content claimed, or anything else of significance. It's essentially "Lawyer cross-examines doctor". Captainllama (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)