Talk:Lena Dunham/Archives/2015/March

TO ALL

Yes, I made a nasty comment about Dunham in an edit summary, which has since been deleted from viewing. Those who believe my personal distaste for Dunham "and her oeuvre", as one put it, disqualify me from editing this article are, I respectfully submit, mistaken. Judge the edits and deletions for what they are, not for the opinions the editor may hold. However, I will take a brief break to decompress. Quis separabit? 12:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about the edit I revdel'd here, you don't remember it right. The edit summary was fine; it merely said and still says (for it has not been deleted) "replies". What you did was post a full, elaborate, extremely nasty attack, right on the page, which has now been revision deleted. It's probably a good idea to take a break from this subject. Bishonen | talk 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC).

I was thinking of an article edit summary that was hidden. The edit you refer to must have been opinions posited here on the talk page, which I guess I assumed were held to a lower standard for BLP. But whatever, I'll take the break and decompress. Quis separabit? 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Your assumptions was incorrect - WP:BLP applies to ALL spaces. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Out-of-context quote

I have removed a pair of selectively-quoted snippets as being unnecessary and out-of-context. The full quote in question is as follows: I don’t care what conservative white men think about me, but I do care if anything I write is painful for survivors of sexual abuse, or if anything I write is painful for other feminists. The difference between not caring what your ‘enemy party’ thinks of you and caring about how you affect people whose values line up with yours is very vast. [1] By selectively quoting the opening phrase and two other words in the middle, while removing everything else, the meaning of this particular statement of Lena's is ignored and rendered a nullity. That is not a proper way of using direct quotes, and violates MOS:QUOTE's prescription: Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm, and hmm). Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text. Perhaps the full quote belongs in the article, but the extremely-selectively-quoted version certainly does not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You were right to remove them, of course; it's an obvious violation of MOS:QUOTE. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

THAT IS NONSENSE: The full quote from Salon.com is this: "I can spell it out really clearly ... I don't care what conservative white men think about me, but I do care if anything I write is painful for survivors of sexual abuse, or if anything I write is painful for other feminists. The difference between not caring what your enemy party thinks of you and caring about how you affect people whose values line up with yours is very vast.”

Note also how @NorthBySouthBaranof selectively omits the enemy party comment. Thus, I am forced to note here the following [2], in which again a clear quote has been removed by a partisan editor -- coincidentally (?) right after I agreed with Bishonen to take a break from editing the Dunham page -- which I don't know if that prevents me from participating in a colloquy on the talk page but whatever -- as out of context, when it is not remotely out of context, as shown above. The quote is from Salon.com, hardly a right-wing manipulator of quotes. Reminder: there is not supposed to be any censorship on Wikipedia. As I intend to abide by my agreement with Bishonen, please discuss amongst yourselves and when I return from my enforced R&R I will fix as I have no intention of allowing this travesty to stand. Include the whole quote by all means, however, if that is your wish. Quis separabit? 16:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You have it entirely backward. The "enemy party" comment you defend here is selectively quoted out-of-context and has no business in her biography outside of its complete and full context.

Quite frankly, if you continue to push a negative POV against Dunham, I intend to request enforcement action no matter how long your self-imposed "break" is. You have already demonstrated your vehement personal vendetta against this article subject, you have just expressed your intent to continue to edit her biography in ways that portray her negatively, and you flatly have no business editing her biography at all. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to further your personal feelings about her — Wikipedia is a platform to write an Internet encyclopedia. If you do not agree to a long-term or permanent self-imposed topic ban, I will request that one be imposed upon you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

coincidentally casting aspersions against other editors much? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The "enemy party" comment you defend here is selectively quoted out-of-context and has no business in her biography outside of its complete and full context.

Er, how is enemy party selectively quoted out of context if I copied the entire quotation? Quis separabit? 18:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"You have already demonstrated your vehement personal vendetta against this article subject, you have just expressed your intent to continue to edit her biography in ways that portray her negatively, and you flatly have no business editing her biography at all. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to further your personal feelings about her — Wikipedia is a platform to write an Internet encyclopedia. If you do not agree to a long-term or permanent self-imposed topic ban, I will request that one be imposed upon you."

I am taking a break from editing the page. I have no intention of never editing the article again. Your own partisan POV is apparent. I believe in being judged on my edits, not upon my very rare negative talk page comments about subjects of Wikipedia articles, living or dead. I make no effort to disguise my feelings about Dunham, in the exact way many editors make negative talk page comments about subjects, but manage to adhere to the principles of BLP. And you continue to refuse to explain how the enemy party quotation, even in its entirety, is out of context. Quis separabit? 18:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If / when you return, you will need to stop casting aspersions at other editors. Discuss the content and the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

When I return I will likely add the entire quote (as cited above): "I can spell it out really clearly ... I don't care what conservative white men think about me, but I do care if anything I write is painful for survivors of sexual abuse, or if anything I write is painful for other feminists. The difference between not caring what your enemy party thinks of you and caring about how you affect people whose values line up with yours is very vast.” until someone can explain how the enemy party comment is out of context. If someone would deign to explain, perhaps we could avoid this recurring dispute and I can finally remove the article from my watchlist. Quis separabit? 19:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Rms125a@hotmail.com, I advised you above to take a break from this subject, not just from editing the article. After all, it was here, on this talkpage, that you made the remark I had to revdel. Please then don't go on arguing here on talk. I don't even understand what you mean by saying "Note also how @NorthBySouthBaranof selectively omits the enemy party comment." No, he didn't, he described your quotation technique exactly: "selectively quoting the opening phrase and two other words in the middle, while removing everything else". Your passage, that NBSB removed was in full: "She responded to this controversy by saying, "I don't care what conservative white men think about me. She went on to refer to these critics as members of the "enemy party"." You know, it can get pretty disruptive to force people to explain the same thing over and over again. You should take a break from this talkpage as well, before you're topic banned from the whole shooting-match. Taking it off your watchlist is a good idea. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC).

May I ask one question? I am not playing word games or splitting hairs but what is the subject or topic, as opposed to this article? I thought Dunham is an individual BLP article. What is the subject/topic -- all politics? Quis separabit? 19:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

All right, engaging all my AGF, I'll assume that you're not in fact playing games. The subject or topic is Lena Dunham. It includes the article Lena Dunham, its talkpage (this page), and any mentions of, or hints at, the person Lena Dunham on other pages. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC).

Summary treatment for book controversy

@Cwobeel: went ahead and removed all text pertaining to the controversies regarding her book, citing WP:SUMMARY. The thing of it is, he has failed to leave any kind of summary of the controversy in the article. Simply saying she published the book is not a "summary" as described in the guideline. Brief mention that there was/is a controversy certainly belongs in the article... readers can then go to the book's article for more information. Marteau (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and revert. Anyone who wants to come up with a proper summary and substitute it for that, go ahead, but simply removing all information about the controversies is improper and not the intention of WP:SUMMARY Marteau (talk)

WP:SUMMARY means that we need to summarize the article. You can mention salient aspects, but describing the controversies and without any context about other salient aspects of the book is not acceptable. I will attempt to craft such a summary. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that summarizing will include significant changes to a contentious the article, it might be a good idea to run your proposed summary by the editors here on the talk page before committing them to the article space. Marteau (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see your message, and made the edit. Look, this should not be that difficult: we have an article on the book, and this should be a simple summary. Interested readers are a click away from the full article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the obvious WP:UNDUE issues here, I concur with Cwobeel's edit. Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Cwobeel's edits, the section was the largest section by far and most of the content is already in the book article. This brief summary works best on the BLP.LM2000 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)