Talk:Lena Dunham/Archives/2017/November

Added direct quotes

Other passages in the book recounting interactions of a sexual nature, starting when she was seven years old, with her then one-year-old sister Grace also attracted significant controversy, Dunham wrote “My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina”. In another passage that has attracted critics she describes trying to persuade her sister to “kiss her on the lips for five seconds” by offering gifts of sweets or coins. “Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl, I was trying,” wrote Dunham. and prompted numerous think pieces about children's sexuality and personal boundaries. 66.24.129.41 (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Is this a repeat of earlier attempts to coatrack silliness into the article? At any rate, the issue has been discussed and secondary sources would be required because media excitement fails WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of "shame" paraphrasing

I have reverted an edit which misrepresents the cited reliable source in a manner which may violate BLP. To say that Dunham said the accusation was "a shame" is, in my opinion, not supported by the source, and is an inflammatory paraphrase, at best. While it's true that Dunham used the word "shame" in her comment at one point, that use of the word may or may not be read to describe the accusation itself as "a shame." (Note that the actual direct quote would be "a true shame.") If there is a consensus that sources consider that reading of the comment appropriate, perhaps it's appropriate here - but I think it's a matter for cautious discussion and consensus rather than revert-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Shaming the victim is what her tweet did and what she apologized for. Your prose that she was defending Miller is false and is why it misses the mark and why you seem to be having difficulty with exact quotes. She apologized for, not retracted, her tweet. Her tweet is an accusation that it was part of the shameful 3% of false rape reports. She apolohized for that characterization. She did not apologize for defending Miller nor did she retract it. That is fine, but it requires that fundamental understanding of what she wrote and what she apologized for in order to write the paragraph. Namely, her tweet attacked the accuser, she was hit with an avalanche of criticism for attacking the accuser and she apologized for attacking the accuser. It had nothing to do with whether she believes or supports Miller. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, Dunham's original statement wasn't a tweet, it was an extended statement to Variety magazine, as the cited BBC source explains. You might not have made this mistake had you thoroughly read the cited source, so perhaps you should take a second look. The cited source says specifically The star of Girls, Lena Dunham, has apologised for supporting a writer on the US TV series who has been accused of sexual assault. That's how the source phrases it. "Apologised for supporting a writer," not "Apologized for shaming someone." The cited source doesn't say Dunham shamed anyone. That phrasing is entirely your creation and that's what's objectionable here. You are taking a source which says one thing and using it to claim another, which you have apparently synthesized from it. That's not permitted. If you can't cite a source that says what you want the article to say, you can't just pretend it does anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Lena Dunham Shames Black Actress For Accusing A White, Male ‘Girls’ Writer Of Rape. I am not even calling for the racial aspect as Duham didn't mention race. But she did say "shame." It means what it means and it isn't rocket science to recognize shaming. Critical thinking is required if you can't discern what she apologized for (hint: she didn't apologize or move off her support of her friend). --DHeyward (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hark, a source! A source which supports that reading, and allows us at least to say with attribution that some commentators viewed the statement as victim-shaming. Again, Wikipedia is not "rocket science," it's writing articles based on sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Aurora Perrineau

In November 2017, Dunham described Aurora Perrineau's accusation that Girls writer Murray Miller sexually assaulted her in 2012 when she was seventeen as "a shame" — saying "While our first instinct is to listen to every woman's story, our insider knowledge of Murray’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3% of assault cases that are misreported every year. It is a true shame to add to that number." After an immediate backlash, Dunham quickly apologized for that statement, saying that it was "absolutely the wrong time to come forward with such a statement" and that "every woman who comes forward deserves to be heard, fully and completely, and our relationship to the accused should not be part of the calculation anyone makes when examining her case." This apology came only weeks after an October 2017 apology to Rose McGowan for "missing the mark" regarding sexual abuse accusations surrounding Harvey Weinstein.

References

The above an accurate representation of the criticism of Aurora Perrineau. The BBC also linked it to other apologies particularly the one to Rose McGowan that is part of the current #MeToo avalanche. It is rather tone deaf to characterize he tweet as a defense of Miller. That's not why she was met with immediate backlash. Rather, it was calling out Perrineau and calling her report a shame. Women have long been shamed for speaking out. Dunham used the term "shame" to describe Perrineau's account. Also, Dunham apologised for her tweet. That's different than retracting. She apologized for publicly questioning and shaming Perrineau's report. Presumably she still believes Miller which is fine but it's inaacurate to say she defended him and then retracted that defense. It's also incorrect to say she apologized for defending Miller. She did not. She apologized for her accusations made against Perrineau. We should not characterize her tweets as a defense of Miller folowed by an apology/retraction odf that defense because that is demonstrably false. --DHeyward (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

She said "It is a true shame to add to that number" - no source cited uses that wording to say that Dunham meant that the accusation itself was "a shame" - that is a original synthesis of your creation. If we had a source that created that connection, we could cite it. But otherwise, we can't make it here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say she meant that a false rape report is shameful. Or that it is a shame that there are false rape reports. That is not synthesis, just a straightforward reading of what she said. She brought up that 3% of sexual assault reports are false while referencing this accusation. How could you possibly think she isn't condemning the accuser for contributing to that shameful few false reports? If that tweet was made by Weinstein calling out his accuser, I doubt your judgement that it was part of a shaming attempt would be so clouded. She chose the word shame to convey that it was shameful to accuse Miller. --DHeyward (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what you or I think about anything. The entire point of Wikipedia is that we write articles based upon what reliable sources say about something. If you can't find a reliable source that says Dunham was "shaming" Perrineau, you can't just invent it out of whole cloth on the mere pretext that Dunham used the word "shame" once in her statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There are even more critical pieces that go further than just reading what she wrote. Lena Dunham Shames Black Actress For Accusing A White, Male ‘Girls’ Writer Of Rape. And they recognize victim shaming. --DHeyward (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, look, a source that allows us to say, with attribution, that some outlets viewed the statement as victim-shaming. It's not an outlandish request to ask that we have sources for what we write about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe she is illiterate so it's not difficult discern what "It" is when she says "It is a true shame to add to that number." "It" is clearly the accusation and doesn't require a citation to a grammar reference. It's not ambiguous. --DHeyward (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, why should every story-of-the-day be reported? Come back in six months when secondary sources have commented on the significance of what Dunham did or didn't day. Even if those problems were overcome, the proposed text regarding "shame" is not appropriate because Dunham used that word in a context that is quite different from the interpretation given in the proposed text. As Dunham later said, keeping quiet would have been a much better idea, but apparently Dunham had some reason for thinking as she did when she made a statement supporting Miller. If the original reason was valid (that is, if the report against Miller was known to be incorrect), Dunham's wording about "shame" would obviously mean that any increase in the number of false reports was a shame. At no time and in no way was "shame" aimed at the person making the report. If someone thinks that, they have misinterpreted plain English. If the "shame" incident satisfied WP:N then an article on the incident would be justified. Until that happens, NOTNEWS and UNDUE apply. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, in plain English, nothing she said supported Miller. It was a statement about the accusation being false. The apology was for publicly stating she believed it was false solely on the basis of her friendship with Miller. She lumped the accusation in with the 3% of reports that are false. She used the word "shame" to describe false reports. She was immediately criticized for publicly stating that she didn't believe the accuser. Was it a "true shame" that Perrineau made a report or did she mean that it was a "true shame" that Perrineau added to the number of false reports? What shame was she talking about and why did she have it in your statement? It's her word choice and victim shaming is so prevalent in Rape culture that it's hard to ignore. This wasn't a "rape awareness" statement distancing legitimate rape complaints from a proven false narrative, it was a statement that made a judgement that the reporting party was making a false statement with an added comment that such false accusations were a "true shame." Shaming accusers by calling them liars before they have even been heard is shaming and is why the condemnation was so swift and why she apologized. It's not a novel view. Lena Dunham Shames Black Actress For Accusing A White, Male ‘Girls’ Writer Of Rape. Google "victim blaming" and "Rape Myth Acceptance" to see why the criticism was so quick and condemnation so universal. It's odd that Wikipedia editors would be defending a statement she has already apologized for. --DHeyward (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My comment defended nothing—people stuff up all the time, particularly those who live in the fast lane on social media. There is no reason to record every stuff-up unless a secondary source (looking back on the incident after a few months) notes the stuff-up as significant. Highlighting a particular word ("shame") and speculating about its exact intention is exactly what NOR and NPOV seek to avoid. That is particularly the case when Dunham's remark was in a brief statement for an entertainment media outlet. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This is already the "looking back" phase. The criticism is for a pattern of comments. Here's another Lena Dunham accused a woman of lying about her rape. It fits her controversial past. and Lena Dunham accused of 'hipster racism' after she initially defended 'Girls' writer. I guess we can attribute the term "racism" instead of "shame" if we want the reflective angle in the LA Times. --DHeyward (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)