Talk:Lena Dunham/Archives/2014/November

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)

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 [1] [2] 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: [3]. 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)