Talk:Lena Dunham

Obama campaign ad

I rephrased the item, because there's no literal "comparing" going on by Dunham, but the conservative blog says there is. Note that while I prefer this version over the prior version, I still don't fully like the claim, and do invite further revision and refinement of it. --Lexein (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"According to a right-wing blog reaction" What???? Have you seen the video? Anyone with two ears can clearly see she is comparing voting for Obama to losing one's virginity. A sick marxist tactic. Even the official Youtube video is titled as such: Lena Dunham: Your First Time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.33.188 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I know this is disappointing, but she doesn't use any comparison language such as "first-time voting is like first-time sex." It's just not there. She makes an implication, and it's a double-entendre, but neither The Atlantic nor the quoted blogger say those things, so neither can we. I was quoting the right-wing blogger quoted by The Atlantic. Sticking with MOS. Not naming the blog is okay, as long as "as quoted in" remains. --Lexein (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

People. Look. The Atlantic called the blog "right-wing". Shall we not? Shall we pretend that the quote was a quote of The Atlantic? I say, "no". Shall we leave out Reagan's prior use? Why? Discuss, and stop the edit warring. --Lexein (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, Lexein, but it seems like you are trying to push the POV that there's nothing wrong with the ad due to "precedent" with the Reagan note and the "right-wing" qualifier. I personally prefer the version I left it at. It sticks with the source and says the she spoke a monologue in the ad of double entendres. The note about Reagan is irrelevant to the issue, and having the terms "left-wing" or, like in this case, "right wing" just speaks POV to me, as in everyday conversation the terms are used with a negative connotation. In short, just stick with what the source says, say it in an NPOV way, and let people go elsewhere for their daily source of partisan attacks and defenses. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 05:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the qualifier that it did come from a right-wing blog (though perhaps "conservative blog" would be a better way of wording it). However, I do agree with CRRaysHead90 that the Reagan mention is out of place, even though it is true. Reagan otherwise has nothing to do with the subject, and we really don't need a "even though they did something similar 30 years ago" disclaimer on every plausible political topic on Wikipedia. Kansan (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion appreciated. But I wasn't pushing any POV. First, I merely tried to get our summary of the The Atlantic report to be more accurate than prior versions. CRRaysHead90, your comment about me, and your conveniently selective diff that I:

(quoting:) push the POV that there's nothing wrong with the ad due to "precedent" with the Reagan note and the "right-wing" qualifier.

abusively misrepresent my edit. I actually corrected factual errors and POV in somebody else's addition. I don't really care if the Reagan is in or not. I don't mind changing "right-wing" to "conservative" either - that blog author might care, since the blog self-identifies as "right". --Lexein (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's my fault for not looking at the diffs more, I apologize and will strike that part of my comment, but I still stand by the rest of it. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 18:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, sincerely. I hope you don't mind that I added a bit from the end of the Fox piece. Of course, now it seems too "quotey", and even "scare quotey", even though I'm quoting Fox, not its sources. But paraphrase seems dangerous as well. Suggestions? --Lexein (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added the bit in there about Regan's prior use (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lena_Dunham&diff=520195660&oldid=520169636). The intention was not to provide a precedent, but rather to put the claim of "controversy" in perspective. The language I used may not have imparted that intention sufficiently, however, I do think it is important to provide some kind of context to a so-called controversy, or not use the word at all. I admit bias, but the only controversy I saw was created by conservative media -- the general populace woke up the following day with a distinct lack of outrage. The current article, which says Fox News expressed the opinion that "some didn't find it offensive" wouldn't pass muster were it were simply written here in a Wikipedia, so it doesn't seem any more encyclopedic to quote the opinion and throw a link on there. "Some" say that the reaction is a fabricated distraction. We're going for impartiality and fact here, not conservative or liberal spin control. 75.119.90.35 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Some justification, in order, for not including Reagan at the moment:

1. Dunham's ad is relevant in her article as a thing that she did.
2. Reaction to it follows, naturally, and we describe that.
3. Then (if it goes on for any length of time, with extensive coverage as a significantly reported event with reverberating consequences), secondary reactions and corrections to the primary reaction follow - this would include the history, including Reagan, and other presidential campaigns which directly or indirectly use this tactic.

I think one point Kansan and CRRaysHead90 were making is that we're not "there" yet to justify adding the Reagan claim, because this isn't an article about "first time" or "campaign tactics" or even "getting out the vote" (which is why I didn't add Dunham's own remark about the ad's seriousness about supporting women's rights). It's just about Lena Dunham. So I agree with not including Reagan at the moment.

Now, mention of Reagan definitely belongs along with mention of this ad in an article including a section on notable political campaign messages, but I don't know where that is, and I say "section", not "article", because the topic might not meet WP:GNG yet. --Lexein (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Nepotism?

I just read this Salon article suggesting people have accused Dunham of benefiting from nepotism. I don't get it. Her father doesn't even have his own article and her mother is a photographer. Does she have some famous relative in Hollywood or something? --BDD (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Dunham is NOT the father

Could we just quit with the vandalism on her page, citing her father as ventriloquist Jeff Dunham? He's not her father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.68.222 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Source? IPadPerson (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section?

CAN THIS BE INCLUDED WITH MENTION OF HER BOOK? 'Dunham writes of casually masturbating while in bed next to her younger sister, of bribing her with “three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds . . . anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.”' IT SEEMS RELEVANT>>>? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.224.128.1 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section about controversy connected to Lena Dunham's works and statements? As this talk page shows, there has been quite some controversy. --188.183.61.78 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. Both of the above recently mentioned stories are not WP:RS, and should not be used in the article at all, much less for a WP:CSECTION, which should generally be avoided anyway. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable source" should not be read to indicate an exclusively left-wing bent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.89 (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a WP:RS -- [1]. How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How can the molestation story not be a reliable source when it quotes her own book? A little google news search shows 375 articles in the last 24 hours for Lena Dunham + molestation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.173.188 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, this should not be included, at least not until more substantial sources appear. Gossip sites, even ones hosted by major news outlets, always blow-up at anything remotely sexual. The coverage I've seen is mostly just repeating what she herself tweeted. Repeating that kind of gossip without commentary would be trashy tabloid nonsense, and would give WP:UNDUE weight. Considering that the defamatory claim that she molested her sister is not backed up by any legal action, or the sister herself, or by a neutral reading of the original source, the high standards of WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:BLP apply. This does not belong. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

More substantial? CNN, ABC, LA Times, The Independent, Time, Sydney Morning Herald, Jerusalem Post, Toronto Sun and the Washington Post just to name a few of the 455 plus news outlets that have run an article on this in the last 24 hours are not substantial enough media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.173.188 (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

By 'substantial' I mean quality, rather than quantity. A flood of newsblog posts and blurbs that all reference the same National Post piece isn't really the same thing as in-depth coverage. It does appear that the quantity is growing, but so far, they mostly seem to be the same story with slightly different wording. Right now, most, (but not all) of these stories are just saying that a handful of right-wing news outlets are accusing Dunham of molestation, and then transcribing her and her sister's tweets verbatim. Some mention that she canceled a couple of book signings, which may or may not be related. Sexual abuse is a very serious charge, and the few news outlets that actually bother to look into the matter in any depth dismiss it as "misinterpreting"[2] or "misguided"[3], or point out that it was developmentally normal.[4][5] Even the National Post article that started all this was using the incidents to make a point about her parent's supposedly lax attitude, and not specifically claiming molestation. Rather than throw out Google hit-counts as if they mean something, how about drafting a plausible sentence about the incident? I still seriously doubt it's going to meet WP:DUE and WP:BLP, but without a proposed edit there's nothing to discuss. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's in her memoire. It's a major international story. It's been covered on all the stations listed earlier - outlets that you would, and have in the past, used to justify including material in articles. Your arguments have no merit and make no sense at all.

It's was published in her own memoire, then deemed newsworthy by multiple RSes. I understand the need to be cautious about including it in the article, so take it easy and see how it plays out as a current event, but to say doctrinaire it's a BLP violation seems a little ridiculous. It's already a major story and not libelous. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's by her own admission that she has done these things, she even likened herself to a sexual predator, to paraphrase the writing in her own book. Is it really libelous if she is her own source of this, and admits to having done it? While it would be good to wait and see how this plays out and develops, I definitively think this would be worthy of being included in the article at some point. 95.109.103.15 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly a major story, and she clearly did not admit to being a sexual predator when she was 7, so insinuating that she may be a child molester without damn good sources is certainly against WP:BLP. She has, in fact apologized for the offensive jokey use of the term 'sexual predator'.[6] As I noted above, the National Review article that started this doesn't really claim she was a predator, it was making a highly opinionated point about her permissive parenting. The fact that other sources are reporting on the supposed controversy is not, by itself, really helpful for turning this into content for the article.

If there is a point to be made about this, it needs to be phrased very, very carefully. Once it is phrased in such a way, my prediction is that it's going to be obvious this is WP:UNDUE weight. Any mention of this would presumably have to include the sources that point out that the behavior itself is not considered abnormal by pediatricians and child psychologists. Here's another source using the opinion of Ritch Savin-Williams. As an actual expert on sexuality and human development, I think Savin-Williams's opinion is more significant than Kevin D. Williamson. Again, as above, most coverage that isn't routine gossip blurbs treat this as a misunderstanding at best.

TruthRevolt is not a reliable source for contentious BLP content, so if we're going to include this, why have to ask why we are connecting her to the concept of child sex abuse? How significant is this? The chair of the Department of Human Development at Cornell doesn't think it's a big deal, her sister apparently doesn't, her mother apparently didn't, and obviously Dunham didn't, either, or she wouldn't have put it in the book. Do we really need to include "several right wing news sites claimed that passages in Dunham's book may have indicated that she was sexually abusive towards her sister, an interpretation which is refuted by psychologists and analysts, and denied by both Dunham sisters"? followed by forty-five different newsblog sources which mostly parrot the same few tweets? What a waste of time.

Rather than argue in endless circles, I think someone who thinks this is worthy of inclusion, (which is obviously not me) should propose better actual content. Otherwise this isn't going to go anywhere. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflating the "sexual predator" and "7 years old" parts of the narrative is a common issue here by people who haven't actually read all the material or who're deliberately obfuscating Dunham's behavior. They are two separate stories, in her own words, and describe a pattern of behavior continuing until she was 17. The "rocks in vagina" incident happened when Dunham was 7, the "sexual predator" remarks occur later when she describes her ongoing relationship with her sister including statements that she tried to "break her down" emotionally to lead her to be dependent on Dunham (including things like delivering bad news about family deaths), that she bribed her sister with candy for long kisses on the lips or rewarded her for lying on top of Dunham by letting her watch her favorite TV shows, etc. The exact quote is "As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a "motorcycle chick." Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just "relax on me." Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying." Then it continues by discussing how she so succeeded in breaking her sister down that she felt the need to sleep in Dunham's bed where Dunhman would sometimes masturbate. So dismissing that as part of the "normal sexual exploration" narrative of the single "rocks in vagina" incident is blatantly wrong. Your entire refutation is based primarily on falsely identifying this as being based on a single incident. As for the family dismissing this, while they're downplaying this particular incident her sister Grace has spoken out about Dunham's violation of her agency & personhood in the past, which Dunham responded to by saying "I consider Grace to be an extension of me, and therefore I couldn’t handle the fact that she’s a very private person with her own value system and her own aesthetic and that we do different things.” That's a direct denial of her sister's rights and exactly the sort of thing an abuser would claim. (That quote is from a 2010 interview when Grace noted that the sisters have had ugly & almost violent fights over Dunham's use of her sister, so this is not a new thing relating to this story.) JamesG5 (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That interpretation of Dunham's words is not universally shared, and is subjective. I can point to several sources that describe it as a "misinterpretation" or worse. Here's a recent one quoting Alissa Quart saying such interpretations are ideologically motivated, or are overly-literal, or just miss the point of her book. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be included, although it needs actual sources, but it does bring in a lot of additional problems. If nothing else, it's easy to get into a point-counterpoint situation which inflates the controversy section way beyond due weight. Is this really going to define Dunham's career from now on? Not should it, but will it? We can't possibly know that yet, so filling up the article with summaries of opinion pieces about this isn't a good idea. Drawing controversial conclusions from primary sources in BLPs is never a good idea.

Additionally, as has been documented on the book's article, there are many, many sources explaining that her behavior should not be characterized as abusive.Bizarre and implausible sure, but not abusive. Do the passages indicate that she's neurotic and self-obsessed? Well, yeah. Even the most flattering reviews of the book seem to agree with that, but that's not really what this is about, is it?

I concede my prediction that this would be undue weight hasn't held up so well. Since this a response to something I wrote a week ago, and the situation and sources have developed since then, adding this to the middle of the talk page section could be a source of confusion. As I mentioned below, when this first broke, it was being inserted (badly) into the article with either primary opinion-pieces, or with very flimsy gossip blog stuff. Please keep that in mind when reading this. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice batch of dissembling, but you entirely ignored my substantive point, which is that on this page & the page for the book in both the entries on the page & in talk page comments by you the facts of the controversy are mis-stated as revolving around the vagina incident when she was 7, when it was clear from the beginning except in biased pieces written in her defense that the "sexual predator" comment was in relation to ongoing behavior that continued for years. I'm not a crazed Dunham hater, I've never posted about her before & was barely aware of her before this. Neither this page nor the book's page should be reframed as the hit piece some would like them to be. At the same time Wikipedia is supposed to be about the facts & currently this is not accurately reflective even of her own narrative as written. THAT source was available from day 1.JamesG5 (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Chill out. I'm not your enemy, and accusing me of dissembling is uncalled for. If you think it should be clarified in the article, yes, that's an important point, so talk about how to actually include the info. The controversy still isn't even mentioned on this article, so talking about which points should and should not be included is premature. Right now zero points are being included. Grayfell (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're my "enemy." I do think, and many others have noted, that you have a clear agenda here and have shown it repeatedly. You made blatantly false statements in your response to me, such as there being no valid sources when the story broke when, in fact, excerpts from the book that were immediately available belied your own statements from the very beginning. The position you were espousing was based on hastily written defenses of Dunham that didn't acknowledge the facts, so saying "there was no good info" when you chose bad is simply not true. As soon as I have more than 10 minutes free I'll work up some thoughts for both pages & post to get feedback. JamesG5 (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is worthy of inclusion - more so than hundreds of articles concerning viral content backed solely by video sharing sources and popular (sub) culture and fringe web publishers. This story is still headlining and as pointed out, these are coming globally from many reputable outlets with massive reader-ships and decades of print pedigree. What we seem to have here is a vocal editor tenuously defending the suppression of publishing the indisputable fact that there is widespread commentary and interest surrounding an analysis of the text. Incidentally that is how such a Controversy section should be structured, i.e., that there is a media storm over the original article(s) with proponents of this reacting positively or negatively, thus fulfilling the reporting of an obvious and unfolding event whilst maintaining a NPOV. Rather though, by engaging in gonzo editorial maneuvers to grossly play down the continued interest in the matter through loose application of various WP standards, a NPOV is not achievable in the article since it's effectively being sanitized. The defense that the stories all have a single source is as untenable now in the 24-hour online news cycle era as it ever was: One wonders if the Gospels should be struck similarly due to the single-source violation. 150.101.218.178 (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Denham's SJW army is in full Damage Control mode right now and won't allow this article to be edited or any mention of the recent controversy (despite it being talked about in every major news outlet)

I'd give it 20 minutes before this above comment is deleted 167.187.101.240 (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

167.187.101.240 (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to address this point. I personally semi-protected this article after a spate of vandals turned up to disrupt the article, in line with our usual policies. You can check the page history - there's not a single sign of PR or any other defence, only a bunch of idiots. The protection expires soon, in such a way as to allow new and unregistered users to edit, but I will semi-protect the article again if I have to. As protecting admin, it's open to me to say that the controversy behind this disruption appears to be significant enough to warrant a mention, if mentioned properly. You can go right ahead and propose some text. Also, please note that I have no relation to any individual or group connected to the article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you talk about it? As long as it's objective and following the path of the controversy (where it started, reaction, etc.) then it's fine. And it's notable, it's something related to the actor that's outside her normal job, and most controversies should be mentioned. Doesn't need to be talked about at length, but it does need to be mentioned. 74.12.33.107 (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Issues of White Privilege bear analysis as discussed in the Ebony post, "The Problem With Lena Dunham's White Privilege" based on an article at VSB by Maya Francis in which she notes, "there has always been something Woody Allen-like about her content."Whitpriv (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources that mention the white privilege issue, but obviously, caution is called for. I don't think VSB has been established as a WP:RS, especially for this, because it would be an opinion piece in a BLP article. The Ebony article is just recycling the VSB piece, which is better than nothing, but still not a whole lot to go on. What, exactly, should content about white privilege in this article look like? Girls does address some of this, as it relates to that series. Many of reviews I've read of the book (which now has its own article, Not That Kind of Girl) also mention it. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely stunned that this was taken down. My overview quoted from her own book. It caused quite a stir and I feel that undoing it is censorship. Will quoting directly from the book change this because I will happily go to the library to source the material. user:theabolitionist

Talk:Lena Dunham#Proposed edit is the section of this talk page where the issue is currently being discussed. As per the ongoing discussion, using the book itself to support the controversy fails WP:BLPPRIMARY, among others. Please see Wikipedia:Free speech, and remember that Wikipedia is not obligated to give you a platform for unrestricted speech. Please join in the current discussion if you want, but remember to WP:ASSUME good faith. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, at no point did this have anything to do with free speech. This has everything to do with an insightful and truthful addition to her Wikipedia page. The only site I sourced that could be considered unreputable (Gawker), was used to quote her Twitter posts, of which I only quoted words released publicly via her official twitter account. The other sourced material was the L.A. Times. Unless we're discrediting individual authors or news outlets, I fail to see how what I sourced (direct quotes from her books outlined in published articles) should be inadmissible or unworthy of addition to her article. I've read over the proposed edit section and feel that the community believes this topic (maybe not my proposed section) to be a worthy addition. I fail to see how this is anything other than honest biographical coverage on Dunham herself. I also fail to see how my addition was biased. Please Advise. theabolitionist (talk)06:03 Thursday, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

You said that undoing your edit was censorship, which is why I wanted to explain Wikipedia's position regarding free speech. Your voice is your own, but your edit was made in Wikipedia's voice, and Wikipedia has rules and procedures for how to build an encyclopedia.

You're right, there is consensus to include this information, but figuring out how to do it is not simple.

Regarding sources, Wikipedia makes a distinction between primary and secondary sources which is why the book itself is only of limited use here (WP:PRIMARY). Secondary sources are almost always preferable. This is discussed (at length) below. Additionally, biographies of living people are held to higher standards of sourcing and neutrality, especially regarding primary sources. Your edit discussed the controversy, but it did so in a very limited way. Virtually everything about this is built on opinion pieces, which need to be attributed clearly, rather than being presented as an uncontested mainstream opinion. In addition to those who object to her behavior, there are many opinion pieces, including several by recognized experts in child sexuality, that disagree with the interpretation that Dunham's behavior was abusive (Not That Kind of Girl has sources). Your edit also failed to mention where the controversy came from. "Several news outlets" is way too vague, while "media outcry" is a loaded term. These paint colorful pictures, but are not neutral. The quotes by Dunham were removed from their supporting context. Again, they were used to support a single perspective which is not shared by all reliable, secondary sources. The edit gave undue weight to one side of the story. Grayfell (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is such a bureaucratic fustercluck. Lena Durham is embroiled in a scandal over //alleged// child molestation, as documented by multiple news sources, including her own twitter, why can't it be mentioned? It's definitely something people who are interested in Lena Durham would find noteworthy, to say the least86.17.122.228 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing about all the news? Not one item on her page? Looks like Wiwi is being manipulated for sure. Sad, I will be sure to account for the lack of factual information in wikipedia on the future. Looks like one editor is arguing against everyone else and the result is a less than accurate depiction of this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.139.150 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think you can figure out an acceptable way to explain all this, go for. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Came to this page expecting to something about 1) the controversy regarding her "sexual predator" statements and 2) the Barry story. I suspected this page was being whitewashed and I was very disappointed looking at its history to see that it was. It is beyond belief that this is occurring and possibly a news story in and of itself. Mdlawmba (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And your proposed edit is...? Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That you stop editing. I came here to read about this stuff, looked at the talk page, and find you are blocking information.184.98.165.245 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Other than a single WP:BLP vandalism revert, I haven't edited the page in almost two months. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Is ABC News a Reliable Source for the Lena Dunham media event?

"Lena Dunham Cancels Appearances Amid Molestation Accusations":

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/lena-dunham-cancels-book-tour-dates-amid-molestation/story?id=26660693

GaiaHugger (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That section title is not a helpful way to frame the discussion. This is a newsblog post about a fairly routine book-signing cancellation that's been puffed up with details from a National Review opinion piece of little factual significance. Neither the tweets, nor the ABC post actually say that the cancellation is directly related to the supposed molestation thing. It just says she canceled 'amid' accusations. So how does this meet WP:DUE weight? What, exactly, are you suggesting should be added to the article with this source? Per BLP guidelines, we need to be very clear who is doing the accusation, and we need to give serious, strong consideration to leaving it out all together. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we can and should wait until this receives more substantial coverage, and take our time figuring out if and how we want to describe this. Grayfell (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it was a both a helpful and even perfect way to frame the discussion. Weight and significance are indeed bestowed upon a story by its appearance in a reliable source -- indeed, the reporting in a reliable source is frequently the ONLY criteria for inclusion! And what we MUST not do (as you are undoubtedly aware) is delve into the factual underpinnings of the reliable source, or propose odd interpretations of what the source so very clearly says. As you are also aware, Ms. Dunham's comments have sparked a highly-publicized and widespread debate about her denigration of people of color and others not blessed with her White Privilege and wealth. So this controversy shall not only be included as a significant section to this biography, but will become a separate, stand-alone Wikipedia article in its own right. As to your characterization of the National Review piece as being puffed up or without factual significance, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the Review, over a half-century old, is certainly an RS and the factual significance is supplied by the quotes from Dunham's book. That inclusion takes them out of the category of original research. I'll conclude with a little friendly advice -- what is really not helpful are trivial, querulous, opinion-based suggestions on how another editor frames a question. It quite nearly borders on bad faith and a personal attack. GaiaHugger (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack? My comments have been entirely about content. Bad faith? How? Having a news story be hosted by a major network doesn't grant the story WP:DUE, and suggesting that ABC's reliability is the issue is a loaded question. Any WP:SPINOUT article is also going to have to follow WP:BLP. Creating a WP:Coat rack article about Dunham's controversies is a very bad idea. It will almost certainly be deleted as an WP:Attack page. As for the National Review, its age has nothing to do with anything, and Williamson's opinions need to be clearly attributed to Williamson and balanced against WP:BLP. Finding blurbs that confirm that he has such an opinion doesn't change that. Friendly advice: don't call people querulous when claiming to give them 'friendly advice'. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that it has now moved beyond churnalism [7] [8] and we have an admittedly very short response there is probably now enough material to write a short NPOV section.©Geni (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Per above, I'm still not entirely convinced that would be appropriate, but any actual NPOV proposals would be very welcome. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of the coverage generated from Not That Kind of Girl revolves around the controversial passages in question, the reliable sources now covering this are in abundance. I'm opposed to creating an entire controversy section, but dedicating one or two sentences to the controversy that her book created makes sense to me.LM2000 (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A way to make the section NPOV would be to title it after her book, then include a description of the book and some positive reviews, then some media commentary on some of the more controversial aspects of it. Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a good approach. The controversy is part of the book release, so it seems like the clearest way to frame it is as part of a 'reception' section for the book. Grayfell (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Not That Kind of Girl now has its own article. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Grayfell, it's worth noting that this talk page now has its entry in the Wayback Machine, and you will never be able to deny your sincerely dedicated involvement in attempted suppression of true and reliably sourced information about Lena Dunham. Rulatir (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit

Here's a proposed edit to include the sexual abuse stuff in a non-obnoxious way: Create 'Writing' and 'Movies and television' subheadings for Career. Place a Main template linking to Not That Kind of Girl, move the bit about the book deal to that section, and expand the current part about the book, like this:

Writing

Main article: Not That Kind of Girl

On October 8, 2012, Dunham signed a $3.5 million deal with Random House to publish her first book, an essay collection entitled Not That Kind of Girl: A Young Woman Tells You What She's "Learned". The book was published in September 2014. Dunham dedicated the foreword of the book to her friend, Nora Ephron. The book has reached The New York Times Best Seller list. Several reviews compared the collection of essays to works of Ephron and Helen Gurley Brown, another cited influence of Dunham's.

In November, a critical article about Dunham by Kevin D. Williamson in the conservative magazine National Review said that passages of the book implied that Dunham, when she was 7-years-old, had behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner towards her infant sister. Although the accusation was picked up by other conservative news outlets, it has been refuted by both Lena and Grace Dunham themselves, as well as psychologists, pediatricians, and sociologists, who describe the behavior as age appropriate, and non-abusive. Dunham did apologize for a comedic use of the term 'sexual predator' in the book, which she described as insensitive and triggering. According to Dunham, her sister has found the controversy laughable.

Sources
References

Thoughts? Grayfell (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Just some brief comments. We should mention TruthRevolt as well as The National Review as their criticism has received plenty of coverage as well, some sources are reporting Dunham might even pursue legal action against them. Second, her quip about being a sexual predator wasn't regarding the incident where she was seven, it involved bribing her sister with kisses, we should probably describe that better, as well as the passages about her sharing a bed with her sister. It also may be a good idea to drop the "conservative" in "Although the accusation was picked up by other conservative news outlets" as she received some heat from The Daily Beast and Ebony as a user in an above thread linked to.LM2000 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good points. Grayfell (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain the criteria for "non-obnoxious"? Is it being applied to all information in this article?Blackthorne2k (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

By non-obnoxious, I mean phrased in a way that uses reliable sources, gives due weight, is respectful of WP:BLP issues, and sticks to a neutral point of view. When this story first broke a month after the book was released, there was a surge in completely inappropriate vandalism based on very superficial/primary coverage. Now that some time has passed and sources have shown up indicating continued, deeper coverage, the next step is to figure out how to phrase this so it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand the issue with vandalism and knee-jerk editing, and I think that the criteria that you mentioned are reasonable and would apply to any article. As long as "obnoxious" applies to presentation style and not certain information, I think that you would not find much opposition from anyone. I've watched her show since it debuted, but many, many people are just hearing of Dunham for the first time because of this event/issue. They are going to come looking here for a thorough and objective explanation of everything that happened. We don't get to leave any relevant information out just because it strikes us as distasteful, no matter how legitimately distasteful it is. This is an article about Dunham, not an article for Dunham fans and this media event may be the most significant and noteworthy event in her career in terms of how many people were aware of it. Sad as that may be, it is the reality and we must do the event justice without taking a side or attempting to blunt it.69.249.213.156 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned in our discussion above, this piece is entirely biased to be favorable to Dunham and ignores a number of valid criticisms of her words in the book. It also misrepresents the issue as revolving around a single incident when she was young & ignores the fact that she talks about an ongoing pattern of behavior that continued for a decade. It falsely states Grace Dunhman has refuted it - a few cryptic tweets do not a refutation make, nor does Duhman saying "my sister laughs about it." It also falsely represents the whole thing as only existing among conservative outlets, when a number of prominent voices on the left have called it out - I discovered the whole thing via a prominent black feminist's column about Dunham showing the worst side of white feminism. NPOV and WP:BLP are important, but they reject biased pieces in favor of a subject just as much as they do unwarranted attacks on them. JamesG5 (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, would you be willing to propose a better wording? Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that an entire controversy section would be too much for the story as it currently presents itself, and that mentions, should be kept to a subsection under reception of the book. I also agree with this not being a fan page, but that content should be kept as relevant and balanced as possible. Furthermore, as the incidents occurred in childhood and considering the number of reliable sources who deems the incidents to not be child abuse, but sexual exploration in childhood, I think the wording should be considered with incredible care. I also feel that it's perhaps worth mentioning the initial miss print which painted her as seventeen instead of seven when the vagina incident occurred it seems to have sparked the controversy however I'm still researching the extend of this. I don't know how i feel about the line regarding her little sister finding it laughable. It might be too heavily weighed on Lena Dunhams perspective depending on the timeframe of incidents. If these were childhood occurrences it seems appropriate, however if the occurrences are spread out over the childhood and teen years you have a false sense of normalcy involved and a brief mention that the incidents are reoccurring throughout childhood might be prudent if the laughable comment is to be kept. Still researching this however so will expand on it later in the talk section. DuusieDos (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem removing the 'laughable' line. Since this does directly involve the younger sister, my reasoning for including it was to give weight to her perspective on this, but I can see that it's way too open to interpretation, and the sourcing isn't great for one passing mention. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to iron out the whole 7 vs 17 years old thing. As far as I understand, the "vagina incident" took place while she was 7, but that is different than the "sexual predator passage". Here is the quote from the text:

"As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a "motorcycle chick." Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just "relax on me." Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying."

Additionally there was a passage where she described "breaking down" her sister emotionally using news of family tragedy that was mentioned in publications as part of the controversy. How exactly this should all be presented needs further discussion. However, it would clearly be dishonest and inaccurate if the controversy was described to be about the singular childhood "vagina incident" rather than the reaction to her description of a long-term pattern of behavior toward her sister. As I said before, this is a complicated issue and people are going to be looking to wikipedia for a thorough and objective explanation of everything. As much as we may like Dunham (I've watched her show for years), that is not the hat that we should be wearing right now. We have a job to do, unpleasant as it may be.Blackthorne2k (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. My concern is that the passages are WP:PRIMARY, and need to be contextualized. Several sources, including book reviews that were published before the scandal materialized, point out that the book is intended to be humorous, is often in poor taste, is exaggerated for effect, and is extremely personal and confessional. Here's one supporting that point, but there are more out there: [9]. She's a comedic writer, and if the book describes an emotionally complex relationship with her sister, it would be absurdly over-literal to ignore the possibility of differing interpretations. Obviously sources don't agree in how they interpret the book, and the article should reflect that. With so many sources essentially saying "this isn't a big deal" and "this is being misread" going into a lot of detail about it seems very odd to me, but at this point, so does ignoring it. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The "laughable" comment was from Lena herself, and given that you just made the case for her being an entirely unreliable source it certainly doesn't belong. Please also keep in mind that this can't be looked at solely in context of the book and blithely dismissed with "oh, she's just being over the top and funny" when you look at interviews going back for years where Grace has described near-violent fights over Lena failing to respect Grace's privacy, including outting her to their parents, and Lena responding with things like saying she doesn't consider her sister to be a person. The treatment of their relationship in the book is an extension of a long pattern of behavior Lena has engaged in towards Grace, and that context shaped much of the criticism. The book doesn't exist in a vacuum. BTW there are just as many, in fact more, sources saying it IS a big deal and isn't being read seriously enough.JamesG5 (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The whole 7/17 misunderstanding is as far as I can gather because of a miss print in the book. The vagina incident (wow i hate this term) happened when she was 7. I am however having a hard time confirming if the rest of the described behavior happened in childhood or continued all the way up to near adulthood. Can anyone confirm? DuusieDos (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC) I Should mention that I agree that limiting the controversy to a single incident would be dishonest, I was commenting on the single childhood incident, I didn't suggest only focusing on it. Sorry if it was ambiguously written. DuusieDos (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:DuusieDos, No apologies necessary, this is all part of the process. I heard about a misprint in a review about the book, but I haven't seen anything about a misprint in the actual book itself. Do you know which specific text in the book was attributed to a misprint and by whom?

User:Grayfell, I hear what you are saying about issues of interpretation, but I don't understand how you are saying we should handle it in the article. Do you know of any sources making the claim that Dunham's account of any specific event was a fabrication? Has Dunham or her publishing house made any statements to that effect? Without a specific claim that any given events did not occur as depicted in the memoir, how could we be in danger of being absurdly over-literal? How would we even present differing interpretations without establishing the facts that are the subject of the interpretation? As an encyclopedia, our job is to provide comprehensive information on the subject. What specifically are you proposing that we omit or include to avoid being over-literal?Blackthorne2k (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:JamesG5, Can you give us any 3rd party sources that detail or make claims of abusive behavior by Dunham towards her sister that are not in the context of the book?Blackthorne2k (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Blacktorne2K I am mobile but I grabbed this one quickly, it discusses Dunhman outting her sister to their parents against her sister's wishes, behavior that her sister has said elsewhere provoked violent fights, and has the "I don't see my sister as a person" quote from Dunham explaining why she doesn't feel like she has to respect her. http://www.afterellen.com/lena-dunham-talks-about-coming-out-for-her-sister-and-being-an-ally-in-the-new-york-times-magazine/09/2014/ JamesG5 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I went off the editors note from Truthrevolt However you are correct in that they ambiguously stated that the typo was in the book excerpt. So we should assume it's a typo in the article.DuusieDos (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I proposing following edit of the first draft. added: 2014 replaced: "Said" with "Claimed" considering "Wrote" as a third option. replaced: "refuted" with "repudiated" as the word refute means to present evidence of falsehood which is impossible. added: "Rejected by" (psychologists, pediatricians, and sociologists) deleted: passage about sisters comment which adds undue weight without the context of possible continued abuse

In November 2014*, a critical article about Dunham by Kevin D. Williamson in the conservative magazine National Review claimed* that passages of the book implied that Dunham, when she was 7-years-old, had behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner towards her infant sister. Although the accusation was picked up by other conservative news outlets, it has been repudiated* by both Lena and Grace Dunham themselves, as well as rejected* by psychologists, pediatricians, and sociologists, who describe the behavior as age appropriate, and non-abusive. Dunham did apologize for a comedic use of the term 'sexual predator' in the book, which she described as insensitive and triggering.

Sources
References

I feel that perhaps a mention of her reaction to the accusation as well as mention of other instances of possibly abusive behavior along would bring context to the section and make her sisters comment usable. I also feel that perhaps a restructuring might be in order, as to not make the controversy section larger than it need be. Thoughts? DuusieDos (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have collapsed the redundant sources to try and keep the talk page at a manageable length. Please revert if if you disagree.

I agree with all of those changes, although more is needed.

Regarding the book, many sources indicate that it's being misinterpreted, not that it's being fabricated. As a full-length book, any passages we use should either be incontestable, or should be interpreted by reliable secondary sources. This is a WP:BLPPRIMARY issue. I think that the only relevant interpretation of the book that we (as editors) can make is that Lena has had a complex and intimate relationship with her sister, which doesn't really seem worth mentioning. Obviously there's a lot more going on, but we shouldn't be relying on ourselves to make those interpretations. When we start discussing what the book says, rather than what the sources say about the book, I think we might be making a mistake. I know that sounds odd and counter-intuitive, but this is just the kind of situation that WP:BLP is designed to address. If we use the term "breaking down" in the same way we would quote a news article about a predator, then we are definitely being overly literal, and we need to keep in mind that's not the only way, and is probably not the intended meaning. If you disagree, that only emphasizes my point that it's not up to us to make those calls. The passage had context, and Dunham was writing about herself in a way that was intended to be entertaining. It's not up to use to determine if her words were tasteless, or criminal, or hilarious. This is why I'm really wary of trying to interpret the book itself. Sources about the book are, in almost all cases, preferable. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Grayfell, I don't think that we, as editors, should be making any interpretations about the book whatsoever. We can certainly include information about interpretations that have been expressed in reliable and noteworthy sources, but we don't decide which interpretations we like or dislike. Furthermore, what words were published on the pages is more a matter of historical fact than interpretation, and the incontestability of any given passage is not for us to decide. To be clear, we are not documenting or sourcing the actual events of Dunham's life. We are simply documenting what she wrote in her memoir and the subsequent events and reactions thereto. Our job isn't to make value judgements, but to document what happened as comprehensively as possible. In this section, our job is to source and document what the controversy was about, the different sides of the controversy, etc. The claims that the passages depict abusive behavior are one aspect of the controversy that we will document objectively. Likewise, the assertions that the passages depict normal behavior or were misinterpreted is another aspect of the controversy that we must document objectively. The same goes for documenting the legal threats and demands made towards Truth Revolt, their response, subsequent statements by the Dunhams and any other significant events in the controversy. We don't decide which information is good or bad, only which information is reliably sourced.

Do you feel like we are at least in agreement on the nature of the task at hand?Blackthorne2k (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe we should decide whether the controversy surrounding the book release should be on Lena Dunham or on Not That Kind of Girl I feel like adding it to the book's page instead of Lena Dunham's would minimize the exposure and be more in line with WP:BLP

I think we will be in line with WP:BLP as long as we make sure to use reliable sources and thorough in-text citations. Could you please explain what you mean by minimizing the exposure?Blackthorne2k (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're not in line with WP:BLP however it does state that: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" and I feel like in light of this the controversy might be more appropriate on the Book's page since it did origin from it's release, and considering the volatile nature of the accusations I think removing it one stop from Lena Dunham and into the page about her book would make the controversy less impacting on her article and maybe more objective. I don't know which page I personally think should contain the controversy, perhaps a footnote about the controversy should be on the book's page linking to a section in Lena Dunham but I think we need to decide and that's why I'm asking what you guys think.DuusieDos (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the subject's privacy is handled different for a public figure like Dunham. This is from the WP:BLP section on public figures:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

I believe the politician example provided in the same section is directly relevant to the way we handle this scandal:

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

Blackthorne2k (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Blackthorne2k: Absolutely, I think we are in agreement. Honestly, I'm not sure why you phrased that to suggest we might not be. I feel like I keep having to restate this, but when this story first broke, it looked to me like gossipy nonsense. I was mistaken about that, but I'm not too bothered by that, since these are very serious charges, and it's much better to err on the side of caution for this kind of thing. I am the one who proposed wording to include it in this article, but it seems like everyone is assuming I'm dead-set against mentioning it at all.

I focused on the actual passages because you quoted them on this talk page. The fact that there are multiple passages and incidents being discussed in this controversy is important and was missing from my original suggested edit. I just wanted to make it very clear that we should be very cautious of trying to interpret the book, which it seems like we agree on. To clarify, we can, in some circumstances, use primary sources in a BLP, but this is not one of those circumstances. My major concern with the passages is that we should not pick-and-chose a handful of passages out of a 250+ page book that happen to fit the narrative of a controversy (again, I think we agree on that). I'm restating this because this is something some editors appear to be confused about. Reliable, secondary sources are citing these passages, and that's very different, but it's still something editors need to be aware of. Using other sources about Dunham's sister might be a WP:SYNTH problem, also. My comments were not intended as a counterpoint, just as a clarification (which wasn't actually very clear).

As for determining WP:DUE weight, from what I've seen comparatively few usable sources are covering this as proper news, rather than opinions/newsblogs/editorials. This controversy isn't exclusively gossip, but it is covered by a lot of borderline, gossipy sources. Any opinions should be treated very cautiously, and clearly attributed in the article. I would suggest as a bare minimum that only opinion pieces by authors who themselves have articles be used, so readers can get context about where these opinions are coming from. Actual news sources are much better for establishing due weight. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to attribute any misunderstanding I may have of anyone's intentions to my read of things rather than their write of things. It is important to be very clear as some internet searching will show that there appear to be a significant number of people watching how we proceed. Even if I can, or think I can, intuit what another editor is getting at, I will usually err on the side of asking for clarification. This is for my benefit as well as everyone watching. My goal is to document the controversy with a level of encyclopedic integrity that will leave all observers, from every possible side, with no choice but to respect it.

As to which passages in the book we include in the documentation of the controversy, I think those choices will have been made for us by the reliable sources that we will use. We can't start with a conclusion and then find passages to support it. With a public figure/celebrity of Dunham's stature, we can only document what others have written on the subject, as that would probably fall into O.R. As you mentioned, there are going to be a lot of sources and not all of them will be reputable/reliable. It is going to be a task to distil what we should be documenting from the media explosion. I am personally going to take some time to look at what elements of the controversy are documented by multiple sources. My guess is that we are going to have to play it safe and use the "Author says...." format more and Wikipedia's voice very little.

I think a good place to start would be to make a timeline of the controversy that includes all events, and only events, that can be backed up with multiple solid sources.Blackthorne2k (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Need to add this current information about this individual.

Sources. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/12/06/barry-one-launches-legal-fund-considers-suit-against-lena-dunham

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2864054/Man-matches-description-Lena-Dunham-s-alleged-rapist-starts-legal-fund-clear-prepare-law-suit-against-Girls-creator.html

24.255.242.40 (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, the IP editor wants information pertaining to the alleged rapist added to the article. So the IP editor will work on that, and come back with specific changes, and then we'll have to tell him/her at that point that there is no concensus for adding material pertaining to the rape allegations at this time. So we may as well say it now cut to the chase and say, "There is no concensus for adding material pertaining to the rape allegations at this time." Marteau (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2014

In response to various investigative reports questioning the veracity of the book’s claim she was raped at Oberlin College while a student there by the leading republican on campus named Barry, Random House told TheWrap that the publisher had offered to pay Barry’s legal fees saying, “The name ‘Barry’ referenced in the book is a pseudonym. Random House, on our own behalf and on behalf of our author, regrets the confusion.” 206.83.205.80 (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article. You have a very short time before the vandals turn up to change her occupation and the page will have to be locked again. As they will continue to turn up and change her occupation, whether we have decent coverage or not, this page will be locked for a long time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2014

The issue regarding the alleged false rape has now reached NPR coverage - http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/09/369600711/book-news-random-house-promises-changes-to-lena-dunham-book?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter 64.134.56.129 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You're supposed to propose some text for the article. The page is now unprotected: have at it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation by 174.97.56.49

I recently reverted an edit by 174.97.56.49 because it was a word-for-word copy-paste from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/publisher-alter-lena-dunham-book-755193 and have warned the user on their talk page. It was not due to the content, per se. I simply selected the wrong revert tool which did not give me the option of entering the reason and wanted to make the reason clear here. Marteau (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Cosby!

You all show your bias. Shame on you. I dare you to leave this statement intact. You allow the Cosby controversy to besmirch his page, but Ms. Dunhams' issues must be hidden here? For shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.237.40.107 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I am unclear of what this expression of outrage is in reference to. Is the contributor attempting to be sanctimonious? I am unsure. If so, I would advise that an Internet search be undertaken, as online forums where this kind of conduct is welcomed are innumerable. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand it, and that I don't understand all of your large words. Or the technical arranging necessary here, but I'm learning.

Let me make it more clear. Bill Cosby, a public figure, has a wiki page. On that page, there is a section devoted to unsubstantiated claims he sexually abused others. Lena Dunham, another public figure, also has a wiki page. On that page, there is NO mention of claims SHE HERSELF made about sexual abuse of others at her own hands.

Every so-called 'editor' of wiki that allows Cosby to have allegations on his page (as well as other figures, I imagine) and at the same time cleanses Dunham's of hers, are biased. That is what I meant.

I will say, I am shocked to see my statement still standing. Maybe there is SOME decency left in wikipedia.--174.237.0.219 (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages is to improve the article, which includes discussing any problems with what the article contains or does not contains. Although you could have been more tactful, and although you cast aspersions towards those who work on this article, that is basically what you were doing and that is why it remained. Things are occasionally removed from talk pages but such actions are typically reserved for only the most egregious offenses. Marteau (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I amplify the original poster's sentiments. It is inexplicable that a person who has now had to have her image "rehabbed" [10] due to controversy does not have a Controversy section like so many other pages I've seen here. Aside from her behavior with her sister, she compared Bill Cosby to the Holocaust. I know editors like to throw around the ABC:XYZ, but to a non-editor, there is plain bias in how this page is handled, versus how others have been handled. If the rules produce this result, the rules are wrong. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you know of reliable sources that can be used for a biography of a living person, then be WP:BOLD and edit the page. Add the content yourself. If you're not sure about that, then propose an edit here. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy that the page is unprotected this time, and it has been for a while, so I can say that you should add it yourself to the article. Don't overdo it - all we need is one small accurate neutral well-referenced nugget, and the others will do the rest to put it into shape. But let me give you a pointer about where many seem to be failing, at least on this page. The point of view that the main thing here is - "claims SHE HERSELF made about sexual abuse of others at her own hands" is wrong. The relevant claims are made by other people, and the story is the reaction to them - cancellations, apologies, interviews, etc. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, right ---- "apologies"! Anyone who believes Dunham's extremely reluctant, grudging and very late clarification re the alleged "pseudonym" were apologies in any way is living in fantasyland. Quis separabit? 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Zzuuzz: Your arbitration here has been effective and deserves commendation. Also, @Marteau: Your response was also warranted and an important reminder to all copyeditors. Thank you both. I hope that we can all proceed to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic, as there are many other forums to express personal opinions regarding Dunham and her oeuvre. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted) per WP:BLP. Quis separabit? 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a not a forum for sanctimonious expressions: implied or explicit

I understand the concern that has arisen in regard to the subject of this page, including what is contained in the previous thread, but recent editing necessitates the publication of a reminder that Wikipedia is neither a gossip discussion forum or a platform to express moral outrage through thinly disguised "encyclopedic" editing. A similar issue has recently arisen on the The Babadook page, so if this is part of a surreptitious campaign by similarly-minded copyeditors, then I implore the corresponding members to seek out other channels to express their perspectives on issues they find particularly disturbing. If you are unsure whether this recommendation applies to you, then it may be helpful to know that exclamation marks, bolding and upper-case phrases/sentences frequently appear in the Talk posts of the sanctimonious. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

All material related to living people must be reliably sourced, and policy prescribes the use of high-quality mainstream reliable sources, particularly for material which relates to negative, defamatory claims or statements about a person. TruthRevolt is a highly-partisan activist blog, not a mainstream reliable news source, and as such, is not an acceptable reliable source here. Any organization whose self-reported mission is to "unmask leftists in the media for who they are, destroy their credibility with the American public, and devastate their funding bases" cannot be taken as a reliable source for negative claims about living people (this would go equally for an organization declaring its mission was to "unmask conservatives in the media.") NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What about Salon? http://www.salon.com/2015/01/15/lena_dunham_on_book_backlash_i_dont_care_what_conservative_white_men_think_about_me/ Marteau (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is some seriously disturbing removal of mass quantities of sourced text for what appear to be unsound or lazy claims (claims of UNDUE) and/or partisan purposes. Consensus should be sought. Dunham is a powerful and influential individual and she should be held to the same standards as any such person in her actions and her public comments. NOTE: the fact that some of the text removed here was deemed unacceptable for the Emma Sulkowicz-related article does not automatically require that it be removed from here, where it was written first, btw. They are two different women with different back stories (albeit included together in the NYP story). There is not the faintest fig leaf for protecting Dunham as an alleged rape victim entitled to privacy when she brought up her dubious and contested claim of an allegedly unwanted/unsatisfying sexual contact while high on cocaine and Xanax in her book for which she was paid millions of dollars. Dunham herself has claimed that any mistakes arise from her being an "unreliable narrator". Nor is there any justification whatever for removing her (Dunham's) Salon.com sourced comments that "conservative white men" represent "the enemy party". Quis separabit? 13:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

On 05:14, 24 February 2015, @Marteau removed the Schaefer Riley analysis under the inaccurate/disingenuous edit summary "the Breitbart -> Breitbart News Network". Quis separabit? 13:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If this is going to continue we need to seek dispute resolution. Quis separabit? 14:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I assure you my intention with that edit was only to do as I summarized... to change "the Breitbart" to "Breitbart". I'm not sure how all those other edits occured at the same time... I have to guess I edited an old version and saved it. Going forward, I will be more careful and review even the simplest of changes before I commit an edit. Marteau (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "partisan" about suggesting that quoting an entire paragraph of text from a single writer about a single issue is undue weight on that single writer's opinion, given that we do not give any other single writer such a priority. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean like Ari Melber?? Quis separabit? 21:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The sentence quoting Schaefer Riley is 26 words. The sentence quoting Melber is 24 words. Neither is a full paragraph now. However, before my edit, we directly quoted an entire paragraph of Schaefer Riley's arguments, which both Gamaliel and I viewed as undue weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know this was about counting words. I stand by the original Schaefer Riley piece, which is brilliant, but I agreed to the trimming. When a pro-Dunham piece is UNDUE and too long, I hope you will have your clippers out to trim that down. (Don't worry, dude, I'm not mad, I just sound that way when I write sometimes, even without caps.) Yours, Quis separabit? 22:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)