::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. [[User:Wismike|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 [[User:Learn together|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. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:09, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
I think we have multiple intertwined issues here:
#How certain must information be, to include it in a biography article?
#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".)
#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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 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.
:[[User:Learn together|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. [http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9702/05/farrow.book/index.html (CNN)] {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}
::This is, I believe, common knowledge. He wasn't convicted, exonerated, or had the charges dismissed -- the DA simply never brought charges. [[User:Learn together|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. [[User:DanH|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. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 16:41, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
::This is a much better article overall. Thank you. Sincerely. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 10:09, 16 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
*You're welcome! That is why around here I am known as "Mr.Love" :p --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 18:10, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
== '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.{{unsigned|Pachyderm}}
*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:
Alabama<br>
Colorado<br>
District of Columbia<br>
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)<br>
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)<br>
Iowa<br>
Kansas<br>
Montana<br>
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)<br>
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)<br>
Oklahoma<br>
Pennsylvania<br>
Rhode Island<br>
South Carolina<br>
Texas<br>
Utah<br>[http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/2/objectId/709FAEE4-ABEA-4E17-BA34836388313A3C/catId/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825/118/304/192/FAQ/]
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.
--<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 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 [[United States Constitution| Constitution]] itself.[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] 23:30, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
:*No, but a good guess! ;-) Sorry, we had an edit conflict. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:33, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You forgot KY in the list of commonwealths! [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 14:00, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
What's inaccurate about this statement is that Woody and Mia never cohabited. They never lived together. [[User:HSanchez|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
: ''<reins in>'' well, she was adolescent at any rate. [[User:Bugler|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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. [[User:Bugler|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?) [[User:Bugler|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? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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. -[[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)
(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)
::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. [[User:NateE|NateE]]<sup>[[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]]</sup> 13:04, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
::There is a difficulty with the age on Soon-Yi - a large one. In her book, Mia Farrow stated Soon-Yi was 17 when Woody started his affair with her, and, indeed, I hadn't heard any other figures until only recently. I also seem to recall the young age being the accepted figure at the time of the trial and I would have to wonder why it wasn't challenged back then (or at least I hadn't heard that it was), if indeed Soon-Yi was well past the accepted age of the start of adulthood. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:15, 24 September 2008 (EDT)