Talk:Lena Dunham/Archives/2015/January

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 -- . 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" or "misguided", or point out that it was developmentally normal. 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'. 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 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 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)