Talk:Lena Dunham/Archives/2015/February

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)

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"  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 Your arbitration here has been effective and deserves commendation. Also,  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)


 * per WP:BLP. Quis separabit?  20:26, 15 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)