5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 130:
Line 130: + + +
no edit summary
(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)
(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)
:If you feel that it places too much blame on the media, then sure, change the titles. However, I don't think it's fair (or encyclopedic!) to simply say "he was a morally depraved man", since there's really no evidence of that; only assumption. You are assuming that he had evil intentions, you are assuming that he seduced her, you are assuming that their holy act of marriage was somehow wrong. I'll grant you that he wasn't without sin (since he was living with and presumably sleeping with Mia Farrow but wasn't married; same with Priven) someone he wasn't married to, but it's not a sin to break up with someone to marry someone else, unless you can actually proved that he used his "father figure status" (which, despite his full admitions to the whole affair, he denies that he really was that much of a father figure to her), it's just gossip to say that that is indeed what he did.
:As for the photo caption, that's not what photo captions are supposed to be for; they describe the picture. Also, I would take a look at our Actors, Musicians, and Sports categories before you say that we ''only'' have articles on celebrities who are famous for some ill reason. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 24 September 2008 (EDT)