| Line 128: |
Line 128: |
| | :::::The moral depravity doesn't come from him being 51 and her being 21. The depravity comes from the fact that Priven was his longtime lover's ''daughter'' and he left the mother (Farrow) for the daughter (Priven). That's not legally incest, but morally it's abhorrent, and no number of "witty comedies" are going to erase that fact. I am siding with Bugler that the "sanitizing" of his actions is inappropriate and makes us sound more like WP than an encyclopedia responsible for upholding family values. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:43, 20 September 2008 (EDT) | | :::::The moral depravity doesn't come from him being 51 and her being 21. The depravity comes from the fact that Priven was his longtime lover's ''daughter'' and he left the mother (Farrow) for the daughter (Priven). That's not legally incest, but morally it's abhorrent, and no number of "witty comedies" are going to erase that fact. I am siding with Bugler that the "sanitizing" of his actions is inappropriate and makes us sound more like WP than an encyclopedia responsible for upholding family values. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:43, 20 September 2008 (EDT) |
| | ::::::All I'm saying is that's a lot of fuzziness, and we aren't a gossip rag. I'm not trying to censor or sanitize, I'm trying to make a credible article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT) | | ::::::All I'm saying is that's a lot of fuzziness, and we aren't a gossip rag. I'm not trying to censor or sanitize, I'm trying to make a credible article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT) |
| − | ::::::Looking again over your edits, I agree with most of them. Previn wasn't an adolescent; the "creative ebb and flow" comment is too speculative; and your clarification of the ages of Previn and Allen and the marital status of Allen and Farrow are all good edits. The edit that is bothering me is the removal of "moral depravity" from the section title and the first line of section and replacing it with "controversy" and "embroiled in controversy", respectively. This wording shifts the blame off Allen and puts it on the media or the general public, saying we placed him in this controversy, rather than him performing a depraved act that became revealed through his own carelessness. He did seduce Farrow's daughter, he left nude photos around, Farrow found them and he admitted to the whole thing, even saying a few years later that it was a good thing it happened that way. There's no fuzziness in that part of his life story, only grotesqueness. I would also suggest reinserting some sort of caption on the photo that mentions his morally depraved actions, because that's the reason we have an article on him. We are not the celebrity-obsessed WP, so the articles on celebrities that we do have are there for some other reason than that person's current popularity. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 15:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
| + | |
| | + | (unindent) Looking again over your edits, I agree with most of them. Previn wasn't an adolescent; the "creative ebb and flow" comment is too speculative; and your clarification of the ages of Previn and Allen and the marital status of Allen and Farrow are all good edits. The edit that is bothering me is the removal of "moral depravity" from the section title and the first line of section and replacing it with "controversy" and "embroiled in controversy", respectively. This wording shifts the blame off Allen and puts it on the media or the general public, saying we placed him in this controversy, rather than him performing a depraved act that became revealed through his own carelessness. He did seduce Farrow's daughter, he left nude photos around, Farrow found them and he admitted to the whole thing, even saying a few years later that it was a good thing it happened that way. There's no fuzziness in that part of his life story, only grotesqueness. I would also suggest reinserting some sort of caption on the photo that mentions his morally depraved actions, because that's the reason we have an article on him. We are not the celebrity-obsessed WP, so the articles on celebrities that we do have are there for some other reason than that person's current popularity. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 15:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT) |