Talk:Lana Del Rey

BRD - Controversy section

This is a good edit. It is reasonable to give her defenses against a major controversy. It it fades into obscurity it can be removed. Also feel the same about (other) feminism-related information if it is cited to RS. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

One should wait to see how it plays out before posting about it on the spur of the moment. If it’s a prolonged controversy that lasts months in the press then maybe. But everything someone posts on social media doesn’t warrant a controversy section. --MusicAndArtFan (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the overall theme of feminism, which the instagram post was related to as far as I remember, has become relevant to her biography. The other incident is relevant because it builds on that controversy. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Her views on Feminism have already been documented. I also included her support of the me too movement. --MusicAndArtFan (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I updated the information on her views on feminism to defect those views as of 2020. This should do. As for the controversy, just see how it plays out before adding things. Give it a month or two.--MusicAndArtFan (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Judging from this paragraph some instagram posts are more important than others? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I was clarifying that it was Navajo Nation where she built houses. There are many Native American reservations. As for the mass shootings, again, this was to bring clarity to the issue she was raising awareness of through her philanthropy; this issue of gun violence in the United States as the US is one country. Not to confuse it with gun violence in other places. Most performers every now and again put something on social media that generates controversy and then it dies down. Since the post comparing herself to other artists, that news item has died down. News cycles are short. It’s not like she has been involved in a prolonged controversy lasting months. A two week period is not a long time. As for her video from the protest, she deleted the one showing the looting. She corrected a mistake. Why make it one mistake a topic for a Wikipedia discussion. Now if we were talking about David Duke, yeah you would have to talk about racism with him as he runs the KKK. That is relevant for him. As for Lana Del Rey, she said some things on Instagram, some folks didn’t like it. People moved on. If we are to include all of Lana’s minor Instagram controversies on here, then perhaps all of the minor social media Controversies of everyone else should be on their respective Instagram pages. I can name a handful of musicians who have made many more controversial statements than Lana ever did and even they don’t have controversy sections on their Wikipedia page. Wikipedia needs to be impartial and a social media controversy pales in comparison to someone like Eric Clapton getting up on stage and using racist words like he did decades ago. It pales in comparison to when Michael Richards went up on stage and started shouting the N word repeatedly in front of the audience. Lana Del Rey’s Instagram posts don’t measure up to any of that and therefor don’t need to be included. If she went out there and started using racist words then that would be different, but she has not done that. If her Instagram controversies are still occurring another month or two from now, then maybe it could be included and that is still a big maybe. --MusicAndArtFan (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@MusicAndArtFan: I don't see how In the early-2000s, Del Rey worked at a homeless shelter and did humanitarian work, including building houses at Navajo Nation. , sourced to a tweet, is more relevant than controversy that was covered in MANY secondary reliable sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I re-added the controversy section to the article with more robust sourcing, including a Billboard reference that documents her having been involved in multiple controversies. As the article stands, the controversy section is supported by four reliable sources per WP:RSP, while the philanthropy section contains zero. Given that the section now meets the requirement to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources per WP:DUE, the inclusion of the controversy section is perfectly appropriate. KyleJoan^talk 04:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @KyleJoan: regarding this edit, while I support the restoration of the Controversy section, obviously, I much prefer my version, especially the full quote of what she said about people who "look like" her, which was tied to feminism in the original post. Feminism is a theme on this biography. Also, please note that we are in a WP:BRD cycle and you should participate in this discussion rather than just proceeding with your preferred outcome before it is decided here. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

BRD does not fully apply here because the "R" in BRD describes an inclusion that cannot be immediately fixed by refinement, which we have disproved per the re-inclusion with more sources. That aside, I restored most of what you wrote sans the Alison Roman comparison and the quote, the latter of which I replaced with quotes from a USA Today analysis. I'd like to hear why you believe both of these bits should still be included. Regarding the full quote, we can obtain other users' opinions on which of these two proposed inclusions are more appropriate.

1. Del Rey responded to the criticism by stating that her remarks "were taken out of context" and that the artists she'd listed "were among her favorites".
2. Del Rey responded to the criticism that race was the theme of her post by saying "To be clear because I knowwwwww you love to twist things. I fucking love these singers and know them. That is why I mentioned them," and "when I said people who look like me — I meant the people who don’t look strong or necessarily smart, or like they’re in control etc."

I personally believe that the two essentially convey the same message but that the direct quotes read more confusing and unnecessarily lengthy.

Edit: I've copyedited the materials further, so I concede that there is a significant disparity between your original inclusion and the version present in the article. Now that we've established that the inclusion of the section is appropriate, we can open an RfC to obtain more editors' views on which version of the section is more appropriate if you'd like. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 05:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC about proposed controversy section

Should this section on controversies surrounding Del Rey be included in the article? KyleJoan^talk 14:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Controversies

Del Rey has been the subject of multiple controversies. In May 2020, she attracted criticism for an Instagram post in which she defended herself against accusations of glamorizing abuse in part by naming other female artists, mostly women of color, and citing their respective successes with works about "imperfect sexual relationships". Del Rey responded to the criticism by stating that her remarks "were taken out of context" and that the artists she'd listed "were among her favorites". In the same month, she received further criticism after posting a video of looters during the George Floyd protests.

Del Rey's response

In addition, if you support the inclusion of the controversies section, annotate which of the two wordings detailing Del Rey's response you prefer:

A: Del Rey responded to the criticism by stating that her remarks "were taken out of context" and that the artists she'd listed "were among her favorites".

B: Del Rey responded to the criticism that race was the theme of her post by saying "To be clear because I knowwwwww you love to twist things. I fucking love these singers and know them. That is why I mentioned them," and "when I said people who look like me — I meant the people who don’t look strong or necessarily smart, or like they’re in control etc."

References

Survey

• Support version B: I think it is best to give her full response to the "look like her" statement which was tied to the views on feminism already mentioned in this article. This particular statement was a major point of contention. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support section inclusion and A as proposer. These controversies surrounding Del Rey have been documented extensively in reliable sources, so including the section is appropriate per WP:DUE. Regarding how to phrase her response, I find a simple, clear account per a reliable source more effective than unnecessarily lengthy direct quotes. KyleJoan^talk 16:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Version B It's better as it is her own statement. ~ HAL333 21:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neither Frankly this is not encyclopedic content at all. This is fodder for stan Twitter. Trillfendi (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support B per KyleJoan and HAL333 - Given the extensive sources/attention on this I'd say this is encyclopedic, IMHO we should include her whole response not just snippets. –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support B per points raised above. Idealigic (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing and interpretation for recent comments on feminism

The section on "Social Views" currently contains the following statement:

"As of 2020, Del Rey has identified herself as a feminist and has voiced her support for a third wave of feminism."

This statement is sourced to an Instagram post (primary source) with the following text concerning feminism:

“Let this be clear, I’m not not a feminist -but there has to be a place in feminism for women who look and act like me – the kind of woman who says no but men hear yes – the kind of women who are slated mercilessly for being their authentic, delicate selves, the kind of women who get their own stories and voices taken away from them by stronger women or by men who hate women.”

The use of the double negative ("I'm not not a feminist") and immediately following with a qualifying statement implying that there isn't a "place" for her in feminism is not exactly an unambiguous statement of "identification" as a feminist. The text of the original source is very informal (spelling errors, punctuation errors and loose formatting) and it's not necessarily clear if the use of "not not" is an intentional double negative, a typo of repeating a "not" which was intended to appear once, or a typo of turning what was intended as a "now" into a "not". Without secondary sources to interpret the meaning of this sentence and contextualize it in Del Rey's public history, I don't think it is appropriate to use it in the article the way it is used now. The semantic content is not apparent from the primary source.

The statement that Del Rey "voiced her support for a third wave of feminism" is also (potentially) confusing to the reader and might require further qualification or contextualization than the current text has. The currently-cited source actually does not discuss any "waves" of feminism, but they are discussed in another primary source (https://www.instagram.com/p/CAghpnsJ8Sm/). The following text is relevant:

"...I want to say that what I was writing about was the importance of self advocacy for the more delicate and often dismissed, softer female personality, and that there does have to be room for that type in what will inevitably become a new wave/3rd wave of feminism that is rapidly approaching. Watch!"

Based on this primary source, there are two issues with the text that currently appears in the Wikipedia article. The first is of Del Rey's "support" for a third wave of feminism, which is again not clear from the source material. Del Rey says that a "third wave" of feminism is "inevitable" and that it needs "room for [her] type". Saying that something is inevitable is not equivalent to saying that you support it. The usage of the term "third wave" in reference to something that is "rapidly approaching" (i.e. in the future) is also potentially confusing to readers of the Wikipedia article since the current scholarly and popular consensus is that there have already been a third and fourth wave of feminism. Secondary sources should be added to contextualize and explain how Del Rey's conception of the history of feminism fits with the conception found in other Wikipedia articles.

I therefore propose the following re-writing of the section in the Wikipedia article:

'As of 2020, Del Rey wrote that she was "not not a feminist" and expressed a belief that a "new wave" of feminism characterized by validation of female fragility "is rapidly approaching."[instapost1,instapost2]'

104.13.110.123 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Poetry

The word poet is regularly added to the infobox or the introduction paragraph. I am aware she will soon be releasing a collection of poems, but even after that, her Wikipedia entry should not present her as a poet. It is not what she is known for and only creates confusion. Unless she actively pursues poetry by putting out successive other publications and gains recognition as a poet in her own right with some consensus in the field of literature, it is inaccurate to describe her as a poet. AleXMetz^{❯❯❯Reach me!} 18:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrelussier (talk • contribs)

She has regularly stated that poetry was her first passion. The fact that she didn't just released her first collection, but also announced a second one coming out March 2021 is enough to add poet to her infobox. It's like when celebrities do this one time design with some brand and you have them being called fashion designers on their infoboxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.106.22.34 (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Here’s what I think. There is no question about it, the publication of del Rey’s collection of poems, Violet Bent Backwards Over the Grass, is worthy of mention on her Wikipedia page. For instance, the upcoming publication of her poetry collection is already covered in the section titled: 2020: Chemtrails over the Country Club and poetry collections. It might be too early (or maybe not) but creating a section dedicated to her ventures into poetry could be suitable. However, in an encyclopedia, we need to be careful and balanced when using classifications. I think Lana del Rey has yet to reach the notability threshold that would justify the addition of “poet” to her occupations. Therefore, I opine that we should refrain from presenting her as a poet in the infobox, or in the lead section. In the editing history, one user explains why he believes "poet" should be added to Del Rey's occupations. Here's what it says:

"With the launch of the Violet Bent Backwards Over the Grass audiobook, Lana is officially a poet, as the book is composed of poems written by herself. This is undeniable. Several websites wrote about it, she received expert reviews about the audiobook. We cannot hide the fact that she is a poet just because she is not famous as a poet. And to be honest, it is noticeable how the audiobook stood out in online sales, so we cannot say that she is not recognized as a poet. And later, as a writer."Misscupcakke's Revision of "Lana Del Rey"

I thinkt it's imoportant to clarify that no one denies that del Rey is putting out a collection of poems. That’s an incontestable fact. This is not what I'm questioning here. The user refers to “expert reviews” but unfortunately doesn't provide the sources to corroborate. If you're in possession of such sources, you should provide them without hesitations, the page will only be more accurate for it. I’ve searched to see if I couldn’t find the reviews in question. Indeed, several articles have been written about Del Rey's collection of poems and published on diverse platforms. Still, among all the publications I was able to gather, in terms of source quality, none would have been considered as highly reliable.Furthermore, as I’m writing this, I am not able to find a single literature-centric publication mentioning it. In all truth, up tp now, most of the media coverage it received took the form of features merely advertising the recent release of the audiobook and foreshadow the September release of the hardcover. The newspaper The Guardian and the online publications The Independent and Pitchfork, all published reviews; as of now, these sources are arguably the most reliables. Finally, the user writes that “we cannot hide the fact that she is a poet just because she is not famous as a poet”—ay, there's the rub. Indeed, this is precisely the reason why I believe it would be inaccurate to present her as a poet.

All this had me wondered how many Wikipedia articles belonged, at the same time, to these two categories: singer-songwriters and poets. An advance search on Wikipedia for bioraphies of person attached to the two produces a modest number of hits. I believe this speaks volumes about how balanced we need to be when we allocate a category, an occupations, or any other classifier, within an encyclopedia. It is also pretty revelatory to observe who are the members of this very select group, so here are a few of them.

• Bob Dylan authored numerous publications of all sorts and was the recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2016.
• Patti Smith published her 25th book in 2019.
• Nick Cave has published nine books. He wrote some collections of poems, as well as some novels and essays. He also ventured into screenwriting.
• Jim Morrison has published some collection of poems at the turn of the ’70s. Some editors later published another part of his writings posthumously.
• Tupac Shakur has not published any collection of poems, yet scholars have recognized the importance of his work as a lyricist. Several renowned universities offer entire classes that focus on his writings.

Honestly, albeit I have a fragmented knowledge of these artists' production, I am not a fan of any of them by any means. I have never been; I don't think I'll ever be either. I'm mentioning it not to give the impression that I'm engaged in a partisan debate. It is absolutely not the case. I merely pick them because they are great models of artists who have gained recognition from the music industry, who are part of pop culture, but whose work also has been legitimized by authorities within the field of literature. It illustrates how the validation process isn't identical in both spheres. It also shows that, no matter how much an artist is lauded and adored, it doesn't mean that the appreciation for his work is readily commutable to all disciplines for the sole reason he or she is a celebrity. Having said that, I still recognize the important contributions these artists have made to the arts and I totally respect them. At this point it's only a question of personal preferences. At any rate, I just wanted to underline that beyond their legendary stature, these figures all have something in common, and it is the academic appraisal their respective productions have received.

In conclusion, I've garnered some excerpts from the Manual of Style of Wikipedia to support my rationale.

I Wikipedia's best practice regarding the lead paragraph. (The same practice applies to the infobox)

"The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph."

II Wikipedia's best practice for biographies, to establish a person's notability.

1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.
3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

III Wikipedia's best practice for biographies of creative professionals (poets are part of that subcategory), to establish a person's notability in his or her field.

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.°°°° AleXMetz∆°^°˚TALK 21:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

change "As of 2020, Del Rey has identified herself as a feminist and has voiced her support for a third wave of feminism." to "In May 2020, Del Rey identified herself as a feminist in an Instagram post and voiced her support for a third wave of feminism." YehudaHaNasi (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TheImaCow (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)