Talk:Woody Allen

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NateE (Talk | contribs) at 17:04, 24 September 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Fabulous article.Panini 19:49, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

The "reference" to a statement by Ed Koch is not a "reference" at all. It is a dig. To say that Woody Allens career reached its pinnacle in the seventies is ridiculous. Just look at his productivity and awards since then! To put him in the category of "Child Molester" is slander. User:Wismike:Wismike

Awards (and there are many different forms of awards) are not the same thing as boxoffice. When a man used to have people watch his movies and now they don't, then his career is coming down from a pinnacle. CP reserves the right to point out behavior that is considered to go outside the bounds of family values, and that includes his subsequent marriage. I agree with you with the category removal. I hope that helps. Learn together 18:15, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
However, the current revision doesn't even suggest he has continued to produce mainstream movies, which is certainly notable. Also the speculation about his popularity doesn't fit well. I'm sure it's possible to have an article that neither attempts to downcast his reputation, nor promote his films. Overture 18:20, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
Well, at least the article is growing... While Allen's films did become darker, he did not just add satire at that time. All of his works featured satire. Learn together 20:10, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Gee, thanks for adding more dirt and watering down his achievements!! That'll teach that liberal-Jew-hasbeen-child molester! Wouldn't want nice christian kids to ever think of watching one of his movies. Wismike

I'm not entirely comfortable with this article myself. It's too gossipy. DanH 15:28, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

By the way, Woody Allen has never been a big box office draw. The exceptions would be "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" but even these movies wouldn't be considered blockbusters. If you compare his box office success before and after the "scandal" it isn't that different. Also, the relationship that he had with this much younger woman is not my cup of tea but last time I looked consensual sex between adults is legal. Geez, look at Larry King! In an article of that size, one sentence would be enough. Wismike

Trying to do baiting around here is not something we approve of. No one is to blame for Woody Allen's shortcomings except for Woody Allen. Trying to attach him as a member of XYZ group and to dare mention anyone from XYZ group doing something bad is against the rules isn't going to fly. We don't label people. Each person's actions speak for themselves. You may want to come to terms that this is a site that is allowed to mention values. As stated above CP reserves the right to point out behavior that is considered to go outside the bounds of family values. Now whether or not specific references could be reworded is fine to discuss. But the concept of glossing over inappropriate behavior is not.
As far as Allen's box office, I'll just say one thing that should make the point. If I'm earning the same hourly wage today that I did 30 years ago, how am I doing? Allen had, by his numbers, a hit just a few years before the scandal broke with Hannah and her sisters. In the 15 years since the scandal, the best he's done was in 2005 when his movie sold 1/3rd as many tickets. Now I didn't use that wording in the article because it's not important to do so. But don't try to recreate reality either by wishing to remove any mention of the changing nature of his box office. Learn together 17:23, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
The very article that you have created is "baiting". You are right, no one is to blame but Woody Allen. But that is basically all you see. If you had your way, the whole section on his achievements would be removed or modified to suggest that he is a failing movie director/writer. You should be embarrassed, not proud. Now go ahead and give me a time out. That will shut me up. Wismike
In fact, you use only 115 words to describe his career at all, good or bad. You use 140 to describe the "scandal". Give me a break! Wismike
You don't label people!! Give me a break!! Every article about a person in conservapedia labels someone something. The biggest knock on anyone her is that they are a liberal-athiest-scientist. Geez, look at the writings of your fearless leader!! You labeled poor Woody a child molester by including him in that category!! Wismike
We discuss people based upon their actions, but you have gone beyond that in your categorizations. You also appear to be taking out your frustration based on your perceptions of other articles and applying them to the Woody Allen article. Let me see if I can make this clear. In the article and talk section on Allen the word liberal is used twice, the word Jew is used once, and the word atheist is used once -- all by you. There is not a single mention in the article or the talk page of any of those things by any other person. You'll also find, that, for the most part, applications of atheist or liberal are to people who draw that to themselves. While Allen is an agnostic, it's not a point he hammers at in his movies and so that's left alone. Learn together 22:19, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

He's not a child molester unless he 'touched' his wife's foster daughter during her childhood. If he married his ex-wife's foster daughter as an adult, it does look strange (see incest). But let's not overstate the case.

There are many things in the liberal world to criticize. Why stretch this point? --Ed Poor Talk 23:59, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it is included in the article Ed, but around where I live, a man your or my age, taking naked pictures of a 15-16 year old girl is a perv. :p --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:27, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Listen TK, I can't find any references about the Soon-Yi's age when the photos were taken. Woody was accused of child molestation by Mia Farrow and the charges were dropped. That means that he was not a child molester (except I guess that doesn't apply in Conservapedia court). Wismike
I would suggest you drop the child molestation thing. It's not in the article and hasn't been since the second comment put on this page. If you wish to personally discuss the issue further with TK his email is always open, but pushing his buttons here or trying to play people against each other is not our way. Thank you. Learn together 11:30, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
Learn Together, it is clear without spelling it out why Mr. Allen is being targeted like this. It is because you consider him to be a liberal, child molester, athiest. How about if I change the "Strom Thurmond" article to clarify that he fathered his illegitimate child when the mother was 16 at the time and I point out that he married his second wife when he was 66 and she was 23. A 22 year old having sex with a 16 year old is definitely a child molester (at least according to the law) and a sixty year old marrying a 23 year old is no different than Allen's situation with Soon-Yi. But if I edited that article and put him in the "Child Molester" category, I would be banned from this site. But when you make Mr. Allen's situation the centerpiece of his life, you are just promoting good Christian values. If that is what you want to do, then be fair and even handed. Wismike
Again, we discuss people based on their actions, not categories that you have applied. I have no view as far as adding factual information to the Strom Thurmond article. I believe Strom Thurmond went through many changes in his life did he not? If you are concerned about being fair and evenhanded, then perhaps you should spend time at the talk section for Ted Haggard. Haggard's scandal section if 5 times as long as his non-scandal section. I am sure that given this information, that you will wish to protest this immediately. Happy Hunting Learn together 14:01, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
If similar requirements for disproving an incorrect statement were required at Wikipedia, would the John Seigenthaler false biography have ever been corrected? If one wishes to claim that John Seigenthaler is an example of the flaws in Wikipedia then it is necessary to be even more careful than Wikipedia about having proof positive of allegations of wrongdoing rather than placing the burden on someone else to prove such a statement incorrect. --Rutm 14:09, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

I think we have multiple intertwined issues here:

  1. How certain must information be, to include it in a biography article?
  2. Are we being fair across the liberal-cultural divide? (That is, one standard for both sides, not "let my side get away with stuff while judging the other side strictly".)
  3. When is stuff like this just gossip?

My take on these: (1) If convicted, indicted, charged, or arrested, then that's what the article says: Not that "he did it" unless it's a relatively uncontroversial case. (2) I personally believe that there should be only one standard of behavior, ethically, morally, legally, whatever you want to judge people on. So if sex with minors bother you, I would expect it to bother you whether the perpetrator is "on your side" or "on the other side". (3) Digging for dirt on celebrities or politicians is a standard way of conducting a discrediting attack. I would avoid airing dirty laundry unless it has a direct bearing on a public issue the person is involved in. --Ed Poor Talk 14:15, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

1) I would agree, but then the only example in this article that didn't meet that standard was removed by the second paragraph of the talk section and never reinserted.
2) Agreed, and I think we do a pretty good job in this regard. The scandal section made no mention of sex with a minor.
3) There is digging for dirt and then there is dirt that is thrown at you. To ignore that Allen had a major scandal would be a disservice to truth. Even the other wiki has allowed information on his scandal. The day that they become a stronger supporter for openness and allowing conservative viewpoints than we do, is a sad day indeed.
Learn together 16:35, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Mia Farrow accused Woody Allen of taken pornographic photos of her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn and having an affair with her when she was 17 years old. She also accused him of sexually molesting her 7-year-old daughter Dylan -- a charge Allen strongly denied. He was never charged. (CNN) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)
This is, I believe, common knowledge. He wasn't convicted, exonerated, or had the charges dismissed -- the DA simply never brought charges. Learn together 16:35, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

This may be common knowledge, but I'm uncomfortable with us setting a precedent for allowing gossip here when this is one of what sets us apart from WP. DanH 16:43, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

What is proper to include?

Woody Allen is not a convicted or admitted child molester. He is an accused child molester, who just happened to take sexually provocative nude photos of his common-law wife’s adopted daughter at the age of 15. Then at some point left them out, in some bizarre passive-aggressive, sadistic impulse, for his "wife" to find. That much is known and/or an admitted fact. After some years of legal wrangling, there was a private settlement. Indications are it didn't involve motivations of money, because Allen had signed a pre-nup with Farrow (who was worth far more than Allen), and was never accused of disregarding his legal or implied financial responsibilities. He then married this young woman, who was neither his adopted or birth daughter.

The point is, while neither adopted or legally his issue, Allen did live in a highly alternative life-style arrangement with Mia Farrow. And while doing so, publicly referred to all of the minors in his common-law household as his "kids" or "children". He legally accepted financial responsibility for them, contributed to their support, and drew up trusts for their future benefit. Therefore, in the minds of most people, I think it safe to say, he was fulfilling all the legal requirements of a Father.

In most countries, and by most people, his actions and judgements are regarded as highly immoral and suspect, at the very least.

I do not want to make a scandal sheet of the article, (as I found it originally). But I do not believe what is currently there is fair or balanced either, with all mention of his politics and morality erased. Accordingly, I am restoring information that is indeed germain to any balanced article about Allen. That information will also include a more detailed accounting of his professional life and honors. For while he is indeed a highly immoral (amoral?) man, his talents as a writer/director/actor are superlative. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:41, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

This is a much better article overall. Thank you. Sincerely. Wismike 10:09, 16 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

'Common law' wife/husband

There is no such thing as a 'common law wife'; irregular relationships are not recognised in law. If you mean that Farrow was his concubine, then you should just say so.

While we're at it, decades should be rendered 80s, 90s etc, without an apostrophe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pachyderm (talk)

  • Are you speaking me me, Pachyderm? If you were being snide to me, it was a mistake. because you have once again proved the nature of the beast. Your informaion most likely came from Wikipedia, a nortoriously inaccurate and biased site. The following States recognize and give legal rights to Common Law marriages:

District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Rhode Island
South Carolina

So while it might be legally inaccurate to refer to them as Common Law in New York, for purposes of communicating their status to readers, it was an accurate term to use. As for rendering decades, please state your authority.

--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:18, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

While I am not a lawyer, I do believe that "common law" is the basis for those "states" that are actually "commonwealths", MA, PA, VA(?) as well as for the Constitution itself.Samwell 23:30, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
You forgot KY in the list of commonwealths! Greg 14:00, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

What's inaccurate about this statement is that Woody and Mia never cohabited. They never lived together. HSanchez 09:05, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Why whisper?

Hold your horses I haven't gotten that far down in the article yet. For one starters, she wasn't adolescent and she wasn't his step daughter. HelpJazz 13:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

<reins in> well, she was adolescent at any rate. Bugler 13:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
The pedophilia controversy was over another of their adopted children, Malone, who was 7, but Allen was not convicted. Previn was 21 or 22 (she was born in '70), and not an adolescent. There was definitely something hinky going on, but he was first and formost and actor and director. HelpJazz 13:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
<reins further in> well, OK, she wasn't adolescent (I had been misinformed). But even so, I think that moral depravity is still the pertinent term. This is Conservapedia, not some mealy-mouthed Liberal moral equivalence shop, and we should tell the truth. I won't edit war with you over this, as I think we both realise that isn't a fruitful way forward, but I do think that you might be a bit more ... Calvinistic ... about it all. Bugler 13:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
There was definitely something hinky going on, but he was first and formost and actor and director. Would you say the same about Gary Glitter - f and f a musician? (And is hinky a typo or means of bypassing the old spam filter?) Bugler 13:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
You are correct, this is Conservapedia. However there are two parts to the name: conservative (which you correctly pointed out) and encyclopedia. If you think that a relationship with a 21 year old who is 30 years your junior is moral depravaty, then source it or essay it. I'm afraid I don't know much religious theory, so if I'm being Calvinistic it's not by training :)
I also can't say I know who Gary Glitter is. We don't have an article about him but WP does. They talk first about his music then about his controversy. I think the question to ask is: Is Woody Allen known as a producer/writer/director/actor who happened to marry his partner's daughter, or a man who married his partner's daughter who happened to be a producer/writer/director/actor? HelpJazz 13:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Hinky was neither a typo or a spam avoidance. I think it's a real word, but I also have a tendency to make words up.
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. -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. HelpJazz 14:48, 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. -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. HelpJazz 12:47, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
I changed the caption back from Woody Allen seduced his partner's daughter. This is not a blog and a photo caption is not a wanted poster. By all means, put in the article, but don't cheapen the site by putting stuff like that in the captions. NateE Let Us Communicate 13:04, 24 September 2008 (EDT)