Talk:Lana Del Rey

Picture

She looks uncharacteristically bad in the first picture. I think it should be replaced, because people won't easily recognize it as her face. Is it even? She looks SO gross in that picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.233 (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree... People won't recognize her at all with that photo. Zovator (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. I recognized her right away when I first saw it. Are there any other high-quality and recent photos of her on Wikipedia right now? --Thevampireashlee (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this photo is rather bad, her face is rather screwed up. There is a lot better photos of her. Also, the photo in the Performances section is rather dated. I think it should be replaced with one from the Paradise Tour Lirimefaut (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The performances section should not even be in the article. It's cluttered and trivial. Which is why it's flagged to be merged into Paradise Tour. Other parts should be moved to Born To Die (Lana Del Rey album). Listing all of her performances is quite daunting and frankly unnecessary. We could mention where she performed certain songs on their respective pages, such as we see on Video Games (song)#Live performances. And which picture are you referring to? The reddish one from the Cologne performance? I rather enjoy that picture, finding it quite characteristic and beautiful. Additionally, it faces from left to right, toward the article text, which helps keep a reader's eyes facing toward the article, instead of away. Psychology shows that this type of placement prevents distraction and is quite a common rationale for image arrangement on articles here on Wikipedia. As far as the infobox picture goes, I rather like it. I don't find it "gross" or "screwed up". I think it's beautiful. Plus, it's a high-quality, full-frontal, recent picture of her where she is smiling and gorgeously made-up. The image that has been suggested for replacing it is very grainy, low-quality and you can hardly see her face. This image: File:Lana Del Rey Cannes 2012.jpg makes her look like Cindy Lou Who, her face looks lopsided, and she is quite possibly nude (not that that's particularly relevant). This image I would also consider as pleasant alternative, despite it being slightly less recent than the current one and of slightly lower quality. All in all, I vote for the current image (i.e. this one should stay, because the proposed one, is (and pardon my crudeness) "garbage". --Thevampireashlee (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I vote for this image as well, it is a large improvement. I think it should be changed.Pouvoir1 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

I'm requesting that an authorized person adds information about her mentioning she may not produce another album, effectively ending her singing career. The following information is crucial and should not be left out despite that she's still a living person. The information below is from this website: http://www.nme.com/news/lana-del-rey/61850

The 25-year-old told Vogue magazine that she didn't know if she could add anything by recording another album. She said: "I don't think I'll write another record. What would I say? I feel like everything I wanted to say, I've said already."

The sentiment echoes previous comments she made in an interview with the Press Association, during which Del Rey, real name Lizzy Grant, said her priorities had changed in the years spent as a struggling artist.

She said

Rejection and not getting anywhere changed me. I've gone from wanting to be a world-famous singer to wanting to focus on becoming an active, helpful member of my community who lives their life with dignity and grace.

Also, it needs to be noted that the announcement came shortly after the badly received performances on SNL and especially David Letterman. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This interview pre-dates the release of the Paradise Edition of Born To Die, which, if not a complete new album, suggests that she has more to say RGCorris (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case, this new information should be added as well. Her announcement and her expression of disappointment is too important not to mention. Also, observing feedback about that album at DrownedInSound would suggest it's not Lana Del Rey having more to say. Instead it suggests the album was a timely release for Christmas to make money. Also, Lana Del Rey didn't say anything about releasing new albums. She only mentioned recording another album. The actual release of albums is not up to her, but up to her producers. Besides, whether or not LDR feels she has 'more to say', her expression of disappointment and the follow up (not recording new material) is noteworthy and relevant.Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I can edit myself as I have become an auto-registered user. Nevertheless I'd still like to invite interested people to discuss first. To summarize the situation for your convenience: Lana Del Rey expressed her disappointment about her career. She repeated that sentiment again, whilst announcing she'd not produce a new record, after her live performances on SNL and David Letterman were criticized. RGCorris indicated new records are being produced nevertheless, though the records do not hold original material. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Who changed the date of birth to being a year older? it was originally set set 1986, now it's changed to 1985, I'm pretty sure she was actually born in 1986 as it was before, I even double checked and in a biography of her states her birth year was 1986. Zak Hammat (talk) 2:11, 30 June (ASST) I have just seen the talk articles and proof that her actual year was 1985 and 1986 was just a misinformed year, resulting in most interviews and articles that her age being mentioned was misinformation, so is 1985 really the year of birth? if she was then she would have been 20 the first year being active in 2005, which seems a bit old and Google still says the birth year 1986, which I thought was more likely accurate. Zak Hammat (talk) I've double checked for proof and it is found that IMDb confirms 1986 was her actual birth year, turns out the fault was in the early articles. Zak Hammat (talk) 3:18, 30 June (ASST) There is another link supplied confirming 1986 is factual, in the early life section there is a URL to an interview with her from October 7, 2011 and she herself says in this interview she was in fact 25 at the time, therefore it is 1986 so she today is 27(source). 11:48, 30 June (ASST) So if those 2 early articles mentioned are correct, then that must mean Lana lied about her age in the link of October 7. 2011. 3:14, 1 July (ASST) Deneuve15, the one responsible for changing the birth date has been blocked from editing by Kww, and if he ever changes the birth date without consensus again he will be blocked permanently, birth dates should never be changed and are to be left alone, her year of birth was in fact 1986, therefore it should be staying this way. Zak Hammat (talk) 12:52, 5 July (ASST)

I haven't been blocked, so you can remove your comment - thanks: the birth date should be correct and the source I provided is correct, the birth date can be changed if there is agreement that the source is valid, remember Wikipedia is about factual information:Deneuve15 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You were blocked, you just were unblocked later. Zak Hammat is correct that if you change it again without getting a consensus here, you will be blocked again, per the terms of your unblocking.—Kww(talk) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You really have it in for me don't you! just because I want to put up a valid edit. I'm aware of your 'unblocking' terms and as you can see I added my request to edit on the talk page with the source link below. I completely disagree that the year of birth can't be changed which is what I stated to Zak Hammat in the comment above where he states the birth date can never be changed - if it's wrong it should be changed. I really don't see what the problem is - wiki is about FACTS with reliable sources. You clearly have some 'control issues' going on and can you please unblock my user page or I will go to admin boards as you don't seem to know what you are doing. Deneuve15 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Merely correcting your comment where you stated that you "haven't been blocked". Your user page doesn't show that you are currently blocked: I fixed that for you when you asked.—Kww(talk) 19:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

But merely 'avoiding' correcting comments that are actually relevant to wiki editing i.e. the date of birth can never be changed; which is nonsense it all comes down to reliable source information which, you actually chose to remove and then block me. You seem to be making this all very personal which isn't what wikipedia is about! this needs to go to adminDeneuve15 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have in fact noticed that she did not start writing until she was 18 but there is no particular year set for this, all there is that her first year active is 2005, yes I have seen those sources there, and I actually stopped changing that birth date but I'm not the reason you got blocked, it was Kww who blocked you for it cos you need consensus, and if you change it again without consensus he will block you permanently, I read his message, however I can see there is misinformation about the age, it is confusion but I see birth dates should not be changed all the time, her year of birth is set to 1986 and can no longer be changed cos the page is now secure, but really nobody's birth date at should be getting changed a lot, usually IMDB is more accurate, you need to stop messing around with this, but really I'm sick of seeing them play with us like this.Zak Hammat (talk) 00:43, July 14 (ASST)

I hate to tell you this, no offence but I'm with Kww on this, I highly doubt he has any problem, it's you, because like I said birth dates should not be messed with, there is now a new source about her upcoming video "Tropico" and it still states her with her mostly confirmed age right now 27, so it in fact should just be left to alone, it's up to the owners of the page.Zak Hammat (talk) 1:16 July 15 (ASST)

Zak Hammat I hate to tell you this but you don't seem realise no one owns the page. This is clearly stated by Wikipedia "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." What Wiki is concerned about is the source and how reliable it is. What concerns me is the extent that you and Kww have gone to to try and stop the source being used which is why it is going to admin to sort out. Even after seeing the United States copyright agreement which clearly states the correct year of birth and previously agreeing it is correct you now have changed your mind? Wiki is about facts not preferences. Also if you are going to mention sources at least cite them so they can be determined as valid ...or not.Deneuve15 (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

artistry section needs changes.

I rarely edit, so I could be wrong, and I don't feel like making an account, but some of the artistry section sounds bad. It says " the chapbook Leaves of Grass" and "a poem called Howl" when both of these works are very well known. It also refers to David Lynch as a "neo- noir" director, when his genre and style tend to vary.

I remove the word "neo-noir". You're right. I checked the accompanying sources to see if it was included there, but it was not. As far as removing the words "chapbook" and "poem", I decided against it. They seem to serve the purpose of briefly describing the medium without the reading needing to click the link to the next article. Before reading your edit request here, I had no idea what either work was. I assumed they were songs. Just goes to show that what they are is not necessary common knowledge. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Year of Birth needs correcting

The birth date should be correct and the source I provided is very reliable: Elizabeth-Woolridge_Grant applied for copyright at the United States Copyright Office in 2005 twice and once in 2012 where she submitted her correct year of birth because it's a legal document

- go to http://cocatalog.loc.gov and enter; grant elizabeth woolridge in search option and select name - 3 separate copyrights made by Elizabeth Grant with year of birth 1985. This was also confirmed by close family friend and publisher Ron Jackson in an article on the T.R.A.F.F.I.C journal site which her father is involved, it stated she was celebrating her 23rd birthday on June 21st 2008 and also in an interview with her father back in January 2010 where it states her age as 24 at that time. Can add these other links if needed. Deneuve15 (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

other sources;
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2008/dailyposts/07-04-08.htm Published July 4, 2008, age 23 - trade publication "Domain Name Journal" Publisher-Ron Jackson
http://www.dnjournal.com/columns/rj_bio.htm Ron Jackson Bio - broadcast journalist
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2011/dailyposts/20111024.htm Ron Jackson family friend to the Grant's
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/510931 Publication- newspaper adirondack daily enterprise January 28, 2010, age 24
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/lana-del-rey-body-music-video-shoot_n_3528514.html published 07/01/2013 age 28
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2322773/Lana-Del-Rey-admits-struggles-people-dislike-music-strips-shoot.html Published 21:16, 10 May 2013 age 27
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/4991466/lana-del-rey-sizzles-in-red-underwear-to-play-stripper-in-video.html By TIM NIXON Published: 01st July 2013 By Tim Nixon, age 28
Deneuve15 (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel,you added this in your edit;
Elizabeth Woolridge Grant (born June 21, 1986) She was born in 1986 not 1985. Please see the talk page and the link here before you change her year of birth. name=plastic/"Lana Del Rey." Gale Biography in Context. Detroit: Gale, 2012. Biography In Context. Web. 15 July 2013."Lana Del Rey." Contemporary Musicians. Vol. 76. Detroit: Gale, 2013. Biography In Context. Web. 15 July 2013

Suggesting to see a link when there is no link? Also Given that the specific part of the article is about Elizabeth Woolridge Grant and not the persona Lana Del Rey shouldn't your links reference Elizabeth Woolridge Grant, they currently suggest the information relates to a persona rather than Elizabeth Woolridge Grant Deneuve15 (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

From Vogue Magazine:

Lana Del Rey is an American singer/songwriter and Vogue cover girl. Born in New York in 1986, her birth name is Elizabeth Woolridge Grant.

Vogue Magazine is a reliable source and according to Vogue the "persona", as you call it, and Elizabeth Grant are one and the same person. QED.

From Glamour magazine:

Name Lana Del Rey Birthday 21 June 1986 Biography Lana Del Rey, real name Elizabeth Grant, is an American singer/songwriter

Again: Another reliable source. No distinction between "persona" and real person. QED #2.

From AllMusic:

Born June 21, 1986 in Lake Placid, NY Aliases Elizabeth Woolridge Grant Lizzy Grant May Jailer

QED #3 and so on...

Do you see the pattern here? Conclusion: Until such time as you produce very strong reliable sources, refuting the multitude of reliable sources currently in the article and saying that the DOB of the "persona" is different from the DOB of Elizabeth Grant, the information supported by the six reliable sources has to stay in the article. You are entitled to your theories, of course, except they cannot be added to the article at the present time because without the support of reliable sources they are simply original research. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A link is not suggested or required. See WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries, or in off-line sources."

Full agreement with Dr.K on this nonsense about personas. You can't dismiss a half dozen reliable sources and then concoct a theory about a persona with a separate birthdate without a shred of evidence.

You have no legal document nor any evidence that this alleged document means what you say it does.

Unless any actual evidence is presented I think we're just spinning our wheels here. Gamaliel (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well said. I agree completely. Thank you Gamaliel. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel Δρ.Κ.It has been quoted on many reliable sources that Lana Del Rey is a persona of Elizabeth Woolridge Grant, so accusing me of making up "nonsense about personas" is in fact incorrect. I'm surprised you are editing on a BLP that you seem to know so little about. I have added an extract below taken from Billboard cover story on Lana Del Rey in which her producer David Kahne clearly states she created a persona. This is why the year of birth changed her date of birth is 1985 but in all PR and therefore bio's on Lana Del Rey that were subsequently released her birth date has changed. As David Kahne states in his interview below "I think she wanted to be Lana Del Rey and didn't want to be Lizzy Grant. That was her family name, and she's very dramatic. She wiped [out] this other person. I think she actually thinks that she's that other person"

David Kahne, who produced Grant as well as albums for Paul McCartney, Regina Spektor and Kelly Clarkson, thinks otherwise. Agreeing to work with her in 2008 after 5 Points connected them, he witnessed the beginnings of her reinvention from a platinum blonde guitar-cradler to an alt-indie princess. Contrary to what Del Rey asserts, Kahne is under the impression that she bought the rights back from 5 Points to stifle future opportunities to distribute it-an echo of rumors that the action was part of a calculated strategy.

"I think Lizzy Lana owns it, so [her team] wanted it out of circulation. That's why they bought the rights from them," Kahne says. "I think she wanted to be Lana Del Rey and didn't want to be Lizzy Grant. That was her family name, and she's very dramatic. She wiped [out] this other person. I think she actually thinks that she's that other person, and she probably is. So that was the decision that she made, that she didn't want traces of that whole person around, as far as I can tell." He hasn't worked with her since 2008.

To jump-start her transformation from Grant to Del Rey, she relocated to London and spent 2010 taking meetings with "every label," but, she says, she was repeatedly rejected. Though his work with Del Rey ceased after they recorded three post-album songs, including "Yayo" and "Gramma," Kahne observed the physical transformation that's become a focal point of criticism.

"She looks different. [She] doesn't sound different to me, though," Kahne says

Obviously trying to find sources to prove Elizabeth Woolridge Grant's year of birth is 1985 has been made difficult as Kahne says "she didn't want traces of that whole person around / She wiped [out] this other person" but it's not impossible. I personally think as there is enough evidence of this and her persona and it hasn't even been included in the - article it should be. It was a huge story at the start of her launching herself as Lana Del Rey. It's also evident that Lana Del Rey herself and her management/team cannot be relied upon to supply facts because Kahne also states in his interview above that Lana Del Rey bought the rights to her fist album which she tried to deny (as she had claimed to being very poor, also part of her persona) but after this interview was released she backtracked in an interview with the BBC and admitted to buying the rights to her album on leaving her first label this was also confirmed in a later interview with the label owner David Nichtern. So there is clearly a problem with attaining facts in the case of Lana Del Rey as she is a persona.
Also my point was that you stated there was a link in your edit it isn't actually a link but a reference to a source I was merely pointing out you should clean up your edit as when you made it you added no link just a reference. Deneuve15 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamalieljust to answer your point about the United State copyright agreement "not being evidence that this alleged document means what you say it does" you can cross check anyone's year of birth with that catalogue and they all come up correct with what wikipedia has. The year of birth is normally just included with the first few copyright claims for example search title: Eraserhead / written, produced, and directed by David Lynch - states Lynch, David, 1946- that is his year of birth, in fact of the many I have cross checked only Elizabeth Woolridge Grant's is different to what wiki has Deneuve15 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Are you are referring to the note that reads "Please see the talk page and the link here before you change her year of birth."? As you can see from my only edit to this article, I did not insert that note. Again, please read Help:Diff, which will help you understand how to distinguish between the edits of different contributors and to link to them so you don't have to repeatedly cut and paste large blocks of material into talk pages.

• You already know my opinion about this web catalog. I do not feel that it meets the criteria for reliable sources on Wikipedia, and even if it does I certainly don't feel it trumps six other reliable sources. You are welcome to seek a different opinion on the reliable sources noticeboard.

• It is fact that Grant has a stage name or persona or whatever you want to call it. What is your theory is that this persona includes a new birthdate for the new persona. You need to provide a source that directly makes this claim before we can even consider this matter any further. Connecting a couple of alleged discrepancies with some comments from interviews to create a theory about a new birthdate for a new persona is what we call original research and is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel Δρ.Κ. shouldn't this information be included in the article as information on her BLP, as far as I can see there is no mention of the extent that Elizabeth Woolridge Grant went to to create a new persona.Deneuve15 (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been quoted on many reliable sources that Lana Del Rey is a persona of Elizabeth Woolridge Grant, so accusing me of making up "nonsense about personas" is in fact incorrect. I'm surprised you are editing on a BLP that you seem to know so little about.

Did you bother to read my quotations from above? That's exactly what they say. That Lana is a persona of Elizabeth. So please do us a favour and do not misrepresent what we told you. That Lana is the persona of Elizabeth Grant is self-evident and hardly an issue here to be "surprised" about as you seem to be. What we do not agree with is your far-fetched thesis that the two have different birth years as you are trying to push without backup from any reliable sources. So, again, please read our replies before you make any other random comments feigning surprise. As far as including any details about the "persona" in the BLP that's an entirely different issue and you should open a new thread about it. This thread is about the alleged YOB discrepancy and you seem adequately confused about the issues that we don't need any more issues to create more confusion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ. Thanks I appreciate what you are saying, the thing is I haven't as you said "concocted a theory about a persona with a separate birth date without a shred of evidence", I have seen the evidence it's very easy to run background checks on people everyone's data is stored and it's very easy to obtain so I have the evidence; in fact if anyone ran a basic public record search on Elizabeth Woolridge Grant NY it turns up the same date of birth on all of them - 21st June 1985 - what I'm obviously having a problem with is providing that evidence in line wikipedia guidelines. So please do me a favour and stop implying that I have no foundation to state my discussion on and have a bit of respect that I wouldn't come and edit on wikipedia without knowing this to be absolutely certain.
I'm happy to open up a separate heading on a 'persona section' and was not 'feigning surprise' it's quite clear the changed date of birth came with the launch of the persona Lana Del Rey, clearly the problem with our 'discussions' is I'm fully aware I am correct as I have the evidence but you believe I'm talking 'nonsense' this would obviously lead to a conflict of interests in a 'discussion' but probably explain my persistence.
I don't believe I'm confused about the issues I believe wikipedia restricts adding access to factual information based on a set of rules and as in most 'institutions with rules' this stifles transparency. I should just be happy with the fact that my 'original research' is backed up by many public records, I just don't seem to be allowed to share that with anyone on this platform.Deneuve15 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
• WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to move the topic too far from its original point, but there currently is a section in the article about Del Rey's many personae. Here's a quick link: Lana Del Rey#Musical style and personae. If substantial text regarding her different personae is added (and, naturally, accompanied by reliable sources) I would not object to splitting it into its own sub-header. Any way. Resume. :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As Gamaliel says just above we are not allowed by policy (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) to go about snooping for tidbits of information so that we can make the case that Lana is younger than Liz. That is completely unacceptable. We are here to build an encyclopaedia not a news agency looking for the latest scoop. We are editors not investigative reporters. Tell you what. Why don't you go to the New York Times and tell them what you found. If they find it intriguing enough and publish it then we can also consider publishing it. But not before then. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ. You are aware that all the links that have been cited came from one source; Shore Fire Media. Shore Fire Media is Lana Del Rey's PR company who send out their information to all the sources and publications you have cited, that's how PR and media works. So if wiki considers a PR company to be a more reliable source than a record of a legal document with a US government agency, wiki has got a problem. I don't know how the media works in Greece (I doubt it's any different) but in the U.K. the media is corrupt, 70% of the population agree. It would be great if there was a source that separated itself from that but clearly wikipedia can't be relied on to provide factual information, it basically rehashes the garbage that's already out there, which then gets mirrored and spread around the globe and you are contributing to that... 'voluntarily', wow.Deneuve15 (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. When everything else fails there is nothing better than a few personal comments against your opponent to try and "shame" him into submission. It won't work. For your information this is a wiki. This page is watched by 120 editors and is read many times per day. I am not acting in a vacuum. None of these 120 editors who watch this page or those who read it daily has come to either support you or refute me or Gamaliel. This should tell you that they have given us their tacit support. So please leave your personal comments about me and find another way to benefit this project. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ. Merely returning the tactical favour, if you notice at the top of this page there are some guidelines that do apply to you, Gamaliel and everyone else; be polite, and welcoming to new users, assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. I'm not into shame but I like the truth and facts and if anyone started a tactic of shame and submission you both need look no further than your own comments above. Isn't there a saying hypocrite, take the gigantic chunk of dirt out of your own eye then you will see clearly to remove the speck of dust in your friends. Suggesting that the 120 editors who watch this page have given you their tactical support is a bad move and only backs up what I was saying.Deneuve15 (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I repeat my offer, Deneuve15. If you collect a group of sources that support 1985 and a group of sources that support 1986, I'll help you craft an RFC that will get editors from all over Wikipedia to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Deneuve15. Your theory that the birthdate is wrong rests on a number of assumptions that we do not share:

• The web catalog represents, with 100% accuracy, the contents of some unknown alleged legal document.
• The information in this unknown alleged legal document is 100% accurate.
• The conflicting birthdate in all other sources is inaccurate.
• Shore Fire Media (or some other agent of Lana Del Rey) is the source of this inaccurate information.
• Shore Fire Media is engaged in a deliberate campaign of deception the birthdate.
• The inaccurate birthdate is part of a campaign to conjure a new persona.

This sort of thing may indeed happen all the time in the realms of media and publicity. What does not happen all the time on Wikipedia is this: we do not accuse public figures of being engaged in deliberate campaigns of deception based on our own conjecture or theories. It isn't ethical, it doesn't further truth or accuracy, and it is against Wikipedia policy. The latter is what I think Dr. K was getting at when he mentioned those 120 editors. Not that they have our back in this fight, but that Wikipedia policy reigns here, and you may shame or cajole a few editors here into agreeing with you, but it doesn't matter, because those other ed itors, and thousands more, and the Wikimedia foundation will enforce that policy. If you feel that we have interpreted policy incorrectly, or disagree with the policy itself, then please discuss that matter at a relevant noticeboard like WP:BLPN or WP:RS, but not here.

I admire your passion for truth, but Wikipedia is not the forum for uncovering new truths, new discoveries, new creations or revelations. You should bring your theory to the proper forum, perhaps something like Gawker or Spin, and should they examine your theory, find it accurate, and publish it, we will gladly use that publication as a source for this article. Until then, or until you come up with a reliable source that adheres to Wikipedia policy, I don't think we have anything else to discuss here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gamaliel for your well-made comments. You interpreted the spirit of my arguments very well and you provided solid policy-based advice. I have nothing else to add to your comments or those made by Kww other than to say that I agree with both of you. I also think that there is nothing else to add to this discussion because it has become an utter waste of time since Deneuve is now engaging in personal attacks which indicate that there is no benefit in trying to assist that editor further. So I am done here. If new reliable sources are found explicitly supporting 1985 as the YOB, as opposed to doing original research and using synthetic inference to support it, then we can reopen the discussion. But not until then. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Published sources in 2013, as age 28 (please see sources at start of topic) therefore Y.O.B 1985. As far as I'm aware these sources are considered reliable and adhere to Wikipedia policy, more to follow shortly....Gamaliel I'm still not sure why you dispute a record of a copyright agreement made by Elizabeth Woolridge Grant for her song writing (including a song from her album Born to Die), it is a record of a legal copyright claim, so I will be taking administrator Kww up on his offer once I have collated all sources. ThanksDeneuve15 (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, if these sources don't mention 1985 explicitly they are useless. For example I did not use this very reliable reference because it does not mention 1986 explicitly: The Daily Telegraph: Lana Del Rey, Hammersmith Apollo, review, article by James Lachno 6:07PM BST 20 May 2013, quote: "Unusual” was one way to describe the 26-year-old New Yorker as she baby-talked and pouted her way through an hour and 20-minute set of songs from her chart-topping album, last year’s Born To Die...." But I just added three more reliable sources specifically mentioning her birthday as 21 June 1986. We now have nine reliable sources explicitly mentioning 1986 versus zero mentioning 1985. You do the math. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Also your method of searching for the string "Lana Del Ray 27 year old" is flawed. For example: You have a link to the Daily Mail which calls her a 27-year old. I have four recent links from the same newspaper which call her a 26-year old:

• by KIMBERLEY DADDS PUBLISHED: 21:12 GMT, 15 May 2013: Quote: "The 26-year old turned up to the Cannes Film Festival Opening Ceremony..."
• Daily Mail 26 May 2013: The 26-year-old singer was performing an intimate gig in the city as part of her European tour...
• Daily Mail 3 June 2013: The 26-year-old also wrapped up her long legs in panty-hose and finished off the outfit with a pair of tall lace-up black boots.
• Daily Mail 4 June 2013: The 26-year-old singer rocked a sleeveless floral mini dress with a print that could have been a childhood favourite.
• Another example: New York Daily News: "Lana Del Rey poses nude for British GQ Posted on 2012-09-11 Lana Del Rey had some things to get off her chest. The 26 year-old "Video Games" crooner ditched her clothes and her inhibitions for a nude photo shoot and even more revealing interview in the latest issue of British GQ magazine." 26-year old in September 2012. That means 1986 is her YOB. Similarly, you used the Huffington Post to call her 27-year old in 2012,
• here is the Huffington Post in May 2013 calling her 26-year old: "The stunning 26-year-old wore a vintage-style embroidered gown by Austrian designer Lena Hoschek." Conclusion: The evidence points strongly to 1986 as her YOB despite your efforts to prove otherwise and the sources you found are confused about her YOB and thus are not reliable.
• Another Huffington May 2013 26-year old,
• Guardian May 2013 26-year old,
• The Hollywood Reporter 31 July 2012: 26-year old,
• "Woman Of The Year: Lana Del Rey" GQ Magazine: 01 October 2012: "The truth of Del Rey's story is this: born Elizabeth Grant in New York City 26 years ago, she was raised upstate in Lake Placid.",
• Elle Magazine "Jul 17, 2012 - H&M tapped 26-year-old singer and songwriter Lana Del Rey for her first modeling job in the brand's fall campaign",
• the BBC 27 February 2013: Speaking to Newsbeat after her win, the 26-year-old said:,
• The Sun 26 January 2012: The 25-year-old — who describes her unique style as “Gangsta Nancy Sinatra”,
• Philly.com: July 17 2012: On Monday, H&M confirmed that the 26-year-old is the global face of the Swedish retailer's autumn/winter ad campaign,
• The Daily Mirror March 2013: The 26-year-old fitted in with the supporters by taking her place in the stands,
• ENET.gr: May 2013: The 26-year-old's album “Born to die” has sold more than three million copies worldwide.,
• The Daily Telegraph Fashion: 25 June 2012: The 26-year-old, who took to the stage at BBC Radio 1's Hackney Weekend, was signed up by Next Models in January, joining...
• The Scotsman 14 May 2013: The 26-year-old then pulled out a recent copy of Vogue, carrying a recent photoshoot, to prove who she was to the shop assistant.,
• Reuters 27 January 2012: Rarely has a pop star just starting out been so loved and loathed as Lana Del Rey, the 25-year-old....
• Billboard magazine 21 January 2012: Lana Del Rey: The Billboard Cover Story The 25-year-old songstress became one of 2011's most seemingly organic upstarts.
• NY Daily News 6 April 2012: Lana Del Rey, Axl Rose rumored to be dating despite 25-year age difference. Do you see the trend? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your diligence is impressive! And exhausting to watch. ;) Gamaliel (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Gamaliel for your nice comments. All in a day's work on wiki. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

She's 28. https://www.dobsearch.com/people-finder/view.php?t=1374605159&searchnum=146878410703 Littlecarmen (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

She's 28, actually. Here Lirimefaut (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Does that rule apply to talk pages as well as articles? If so, that's a ridiculous catch-22. We're debating a discrepancy over a date of birth which can only be truly resolved by referring to public records. I know there's things in the guidelines about using common sense, not being completely captive to the rules, and using editorial discretion. This seems like a situation where that should apply. Evilentity1 (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you see the part in WP:BLPPRIMARY which bolds the do "not use" and italicises the "not" for even more emphasis?

Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

This material is clearly unacceptable. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We can certainly discuss the issue on the talk page. But I don't see how this unknown website "dobsearch.com" is going to convince anyone to forget about the 472 thousand other sources Dr. K cited above. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gamaliel. :) I have more where these came from:

• The Guardian, The Observer 21 January 2012: However, fame did happen to someone called Lana Del Rey, a 25-year-old sultry, seductive songstress who is the current hottest name in US music ... Of course, Lana Del Rey and Lizzy Grant are the same person.. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you completely missed my point. Did you not see the part where I said "Does that rule apply to talk pages"? Let me rephrase my question as a hypothetical: Imagine we had just two articles from reliable sources with conflicting dates of birth for a person. Now imagine we have access to public records which resolve which one is correct. Obviously we would not be able to use that as a source on the article page, but is that rule really intended to bar us from using that information on the talk page to determine which article is accurate and can be used as a source? (Whether our situation here is at all analogous is a completely separate question and one which we can debate.) Evilentity1 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I responded directly to your point when I said we could discuss the issue on the talk page. Obviously we can discuss this in exactly the manner you suggest here. The second part of my response engaged in that very discussion, when I said that I thought that this link you want to discuss was of dubious worth compared to the sources gathered by Dr. K. Gamaliel (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I intended my last post in response to Dr. K. Ok, so do we agree we can discuss supporting evidence here that might not be appropriate to cite in the article itself? If you consider the public records on dobsearch.com "dubious", what public records would satisfy you? (Also, some additional supporting evidence that also might not be appropriate to cite in the article itself is that Lizzy Grant herself lists her DOB as 1985 on her personal Facebook account.)

Statements that there are "472 thousand" sources for 1986 "versus zero mentioning 1985" are as much hyperbole as they are unhelpful. There is no good reason not to consider the Domain Name Journal, Adirondack Daily, HuffPo, Daily Mail, or Sun articles supporting 1985 Deneuve15 cites as less reliable than the articles listed supporting 1986. The argument that you can't base it on her stated age and publication date is spurious. I also don't see why a LoC copyright filing shouldn't be considered reliable supporting evidence. The reality is there are some number of reliable sources for each date which absent contradictory sources would provide more than sufficient documentation on the article page for either. We must decide which are more credible. While I agree that there are a larger number of sources supporting 1986, and that in such disputes some weight should be given to the side with more sources, I disagree that that should be the deciding factor. Relying on the number of articles ignores the possibility of circularity. These articles likely relied on each other or information from Lana's management for sourcing. And ask yourself, where else might they have got their information? (Hint: Click your article tab.) But how do you explain so many disparate sources-- her personal Facebook account, her filings with the Library of Congress Copyright Office, any public records search, and a number of articles from reliable sources dating all the way back to 2008 up until the present-- in agreement supporting a 1985 DOB? The most plausible explanation is the 1986 sources parroted inaccurate information disseminated by Lana and her management. Any other conclusion strikes me as willfully obtuse.

At the very least, shouldn't the article be edited to note that there are discrepancies between reliable sources and her DOB is disputed?

Evilentity1 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

no, the article shouldn't note that, because you don't have sources that meet Wikipedia requirements. You don't have a copyright filing, you have a web catalog. You don't have a public records search, you have a commercial web site of unknown reliability listing numerous people who may or may not be Lana del Rey. You don't have an official Facebook account, you have an unverified one which may be a fan creation. (And if she is engaged in a deliberate deception, why leave up her old Facebook?!). Perhaps there are a few articles, but as Dr. k has demonstrated, the preponderance of sources is against you. What you folks don't seem to understand is that we aren't gatekeepers who need convincing to bend the rules, we are just some people explaining to you what the rules are. We didn't create them and we can't break them. Bring your new evidence to Gawker, because we can't use it. Gamaliel (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, I was able to pull up her voter registration info in the state of New York here entering the county (Essex) and zip code (12946) of her hometown of Lake Placid and her 1985 birth date. It does not work if you use 1986. At this point I don't feel the real world facts are really in dispute. That's pretty definitive. We have a set of reliable sources that meet Wikipedia standards that align with the facts (the articles mentioned in my last post that Deneuve15 cited). We should use them. Evilentity1 (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

UTC)

If you think you have a convincing case, here is my advice: put together some consise bullet points, leave out the lengthy harangues, and present it at WP:BLPN for the opinion of numerous editors experienced with these policies and issues. Im not prepared to throw out hundreds of sources based on this, but perhaps you will find a different opinion there. Gamaliel (talk)

I agree. What is being attempted here is the rejection of the who is who of reliable sources using synthesis and original research from primary sources. We have dozens of sources including music industry leaders such as Billboard magazine dedicating a special piece to her and verifying her YOB as 1986, GQ magazine giving her premium billing as the "Woman of the Year" and doing the same and we are being asked to reject all this in favour of original research and synthesis? This is exactly the situation WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:BLPPRIMARY have been designed to prevent and it flies in the face of literally dozens of reliable sources which clearly support 1986 as her YOB. If, despite all this evidence, more advice is needed by these brand-new accounts, they should seek a second opinion at a different forum. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you are conflating big name prestige with reliability. Especially considering I can even cite articles from "music industry leaders" (including your "reliable" GQ Magazine) that establish her age as a year younger than 1986, not older (age 24 in 2011 = 1987 DOB):

• Oct. 6, 2011 GQ Magazine article calling her a "24-year-old woman"
• Sept. 27, 2011 NME article calling her "24-year-old Lizzy Grant"
• Nov. 29, 2011 Clash music article: "the twenty-four-year-old’s startling talent"

Why shouldn't we trust a local daily paper (Adirondack Daily) to get the age of a local girl right? Why shouldn't we trust a trade journal (Domain Name Journal) discussing a June 21, 2008 reunion of two men it did separate cover stories on, including her father Rob Grant, and showing a photograph of the two men with Lizzy at her hometown airport on that day, that it "was also Rob's daughter Lizzy's 23rd birthday"? Shouldn't we find sources in agreement dating back to 2008 up until the present more credible than differing sources that consist only of highly managed interviews/profiles over a much shorter interval?

Also, here are a few additional secondary sources supporting her current age as 28:

• Fall 2009 Blurt magazine profile: "24-year old Lizzy Grant"
• Dec. 12, 2011 Oyster magazine interview where she states she moved to New York at age 18 and has "been there for about eight years now"
• May 8, 2013 Fashion magazine profile referring to her as "the 27-year-old talent"

As I said before, shouldn't the article at least be edited to note that some sources differ from the 1986 DOB? WP:V states "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."

At this point, WP:OR or not, WP:BLPPRIMARY not-- and I would argue not since there are reliable secondary sources that can be cited that confirm the 1985 date-- I think with the voter registration I've presented as conclusive evidence as you can get short of a birth certificate that she was in fact born in 1985. Given that, isn't anyone concerned about the feedback loop this article is creating? I mean, I could present all my evidence to Gawker as sarcastically suggested, but is anyone really going to publish an article just to correct this fact? And without such a "Lana Del Rey Actually Born in 1985" headline, your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines will torpedo any correction. Meanwhile, more lazy music journalists will "fact check" her DOB with this article, adding to the "dozens of reliable sources which clearly support 1986 as her DOB", and round and round it goes... To draw an analogy, I feel like the interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines being applied here would favor a whole bunch of secondary sources claiming Barack Obama was born in Kenya in the face of a public record of his birth certificate confirming his birth in Hawaii (because that's WP:OR and WP:BLPPRIMARY!), even if a number of reliable secondary sources also claiming Hawaii existed and dated farther back. Evilentity1 (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are conflating big name prestige with reliability. I do not. Reuters, the BBC, The Guardian, Billboard magazine and many others, are all very reliable sources and you cannot dismiss them as big name prestige. Either you like it or not, Wikipedia recognises them as reliable sources WP:RS and many of them have explicitly stated her YOB as 1986. There is no point wasting any more time trying to argue these points in a circular fashion. As we told you before go to WP:BLPN and repeat your arguments there. You can also go to the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN. Until then and since the vast majority of reliable sources has determined her YOB as 1986, there will be no change to the article regarding this information. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I will make a case at WP:BLPN. However, you still do not adequately address why the many sources indicating a 1985 DOB (or for that matter a 1987 DOB) shouldn't be considered reliable (other than that they are a minority). As WP:V states "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Completely disregarding reliable sources indicating a 1985 DOB without an independent reason to doubt their veracity is not giving each side its due weight or maintaining a neutral point of view. I would be satisfied with an "although some sources say 1985" addition to the article or something of the sort. At least that has some potential to avoid the feedback loop issue as it would hopefully prompt journalists to look into the matter rather than simply echo this article.

However, assume for a moment I'm correct and the date actually is 1985 and the 1986 references are erroneous for whatever reason. What evidence that I haven't presented would satisfy you? It seems to me that a near impossible bar has been set here. Would a correction by a source for the 1986 date be enough? An article in a secondary source looking into her voter registration records? A long-form birth certificate? I'm honestly curious. There must be some threshold of evidence that's possible to meet that does not essentially boil down to "I have MOAR sources than you! (Never mind whether they were blindly quoting each other, Lana's press kit, or this article.)" I'd also like to register my complaint that the atmosphere has seemed rather hostile here including denigration of newbs (WP:DNB anyone?) and smacking of attempts to shut down debate. Evilentity1 (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel and I have made the same arguments repeatedly so repeating them again is not going to serve any purpose. It is good that you chose to go to BLPN for a second opinion. As far as being a newb, let me put it this way: Apart from the fact that all these brand new accounts do not appreciate the guidance and advice that were given to them, making this a very thankless task, a brand-new account who comes on a talkpage with their very first edit and continues the discussion where a previous new user just left off, invoking all kinds of policies and policy or essay acronyms, does not look all that newbish. But I will leave it at that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you've inappropriately interpreted our actions as hostile. For example, my suggestion that you bring your theory to Gawker was not sarcastic, it was genuine. Many errors in Wikipedia have been corrected by establishing facts in a published forum. The most famous example is perhaps Philip Roth's letter to the New Yorker regarding his novel The Human Stain. As for your contention that no one would be interested in the subject, I've personally used as a source for Wikipedia a lengthy newspaper article mostly on the subject of the real birthdate of Jeane Dixon. If we were hostile to new editors, we would not spend so much time trying to explain and guide you through Wikipedia polices and procedures. I think that what has happened here is that you see us as gatekeepers inappropriately interpreting and applying Wikipedia policy, instead of two editors just trying to explain to you the same thing any other two editors would. If that is the case, I think it is time for Dr. K and I to stop engaging in this discussion and for you to engage other editors at a relevant noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well said. I fully agree. Thank you Gamaliel. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Evilentity1 has interpreted your actions correctly and is experiencing the same resistance as I did. There are clearly enough conflicting 'reliable' sources to show that there is an inconsistency in the Y.O.B., clearly showing the year 1986 is uncertain, let alone that public records and legal records confirm 1985 as the correct Y.O.B. Unfortunately Δρ.Κ. removed an edit made by Auric;Year of birth uncertain, which given the amount of 'reliable' sources that are conflicting, seems an inappropriate edit. Luckily there are many editors and administrators on wiki, I think administrator Kww offer of an RFC that will get editors from all over Wikipedia to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion is a good option as Δρ.Κ. and Gamaliel do appear to be strangely resistant to any other view than the one they currently have. If I remember correctly; while specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred (this has been shown) but some secondary sources are conflicting. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, (again this has been shown) Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, (again this has been shown). This is no longer as Δρ.Κ. and Gamaliel suggested original research (OR) as reliable published sources exist that confirm the primary source. Also Gamaliel I would just like to add that considering you class the BBC etc.. as reliable sources I would have to disagree with that statement, when for example; the BBC footage claimed to be form an IRA propaganda video was in fact from a computer game. When they used fake footage claiming child slavery that was acted out for the BBC to make a story and the Frozen Planet series claiming footage shot in the Arctic that later emerged as polar bear scenes that were filmed in a zoo. I could go on but I could fill many pages with how 'unreliable' your so called 'reliable' media sources are so I'll leave it at that so there is room to discuss the current inconsistency with the Y.O.B.Deneuve15 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. All our advice was offered in good faith. I'm sorry you've chosen to disregard it and interpret it as hostility and resistance. Good luck with your efforts, I hope that you listen to the responses from other editors with a different, more charitable state of mind. Gamaliel (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What Gamaliel said so eloquently. Plus please take up your statements about the status of BBC as a reliable source with the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN and try to convince them that it is not a reliable source. You can also assist EvilEntity1 with taking this matter to the BLP noticeboard located at WP:BLPN and try to gauge their opinion there if you think it could be different from ours. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Just received this reply from a BBC News Planning Editor in response to a correction request I made:

"Dear [redacted] – thank you for getting in touch. We work very closely with artists and other figures in the music industry.

Should Lana Del Rey or her management team change the personal information they give out then we will change our reporting of it accordingly.

Given that there seems to be some dispute over this we would wait until it was resolved and they alerted us to any changes"

Posted without comment. Evilentity1 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Name meaning

Lana del Rey means "wool of the king" in spanish. I think it's important to add that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.234.231.75 (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)