Talk:Lena Dunham/Archives/2015/April

Unreliable source

I have removed a link to Breitbart from this article; there exists longstanding consensus that Breitbart is not an acceptable reliable source in BLPs and in particular for claims about people it disagrees with, most notably because of its longstanding reputation for partisan hackery and its documented history of using misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright fabrications to target its ideological opponents. Use of unacceptable and unreliable sources in biographies is a violation of the BLP, and I strongly suggest that no one attempt to reinsert it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination

‎NorthBySouthBaranof, hey there, I saw that you had planned on adding more to the Career section of the article. How close do ou think we're getting before Good Article status? What else is missing? Didn't she just do an Eloise movie on HBO?--The lorax (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"Alleged" sexual assault

User:DHeyward has been removing the word "alleged" from the following sentence: "In the book, Dunham details an alleged sexual assault by an Oberlin College classmate, which resulted in a case of mistaken identity." Well, in my opinion it seems important to mention that this is an alleged incident because nobody was ever convicted and there are no independent third-parties to vouch for the the veracity of Dunham's claims. The so-called "Barry" has even considered suing Dunham for libel. I'm not saying that her claims are wrong either--it's just important not to endorse them by leaving out the word "alleged" Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody need s to "vouch" her claims of rape/sexual assault. "Alleged" implies there is doubt per WP:ALLEGED. This would be true of she claimed a specific individual had raped/sexually assaulted her. However, that is not the case. She has not named any identifiable person, only that it occurred and that the word she uses to describe it is "rape" or "sexual assault." There is no need for "alleged" rape/sexual assault any more than we need to say she "allegedly" wrote the book. I can't think of a good reason to doubt that she was raped/sexually assaulted and there is no one being accused of a crime. "Alleged" should not be used to express doubt in the manner you are using it in the article. --DHeyward (talk)

You can try it out for other type crimes. E.g. "Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered." No need for alleged. No one named. Same for "Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered by a John Doe." But "Nicole Brown Simpson was allegedly murdered by her former husband" needs alleged because it refers to a real person. Lena Dunham has stated that it is a "John Doe", not an identifiable person. To that extent, "alleged" implies she was not sexually assaulted rather than protecting an accused person of a crime. Once you flipped it to doubt as to whether she was sexually assaulted or not, it became a problematic word to avoid. There is no reason to doubt she was sexually assaulted. --DHeyward (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The word "alleged" does not mean doubt is implied, as DHeyward thinks it does. It simply means there is a statement with no proof, which is different, and which is indeed the case here. DHeyward's example of the Nicole Simpson murder holds no weight and is not applicable because there is proof Nicole Simpson was murdered. Furthermore, educated writers have used the term "alleged" properly in reference to this incident, e.g. the Associated Press referred to the assault as as allegation (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/12/09/arts/ap-us-books-dunham.html), as does the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/lena-dunham-rape-allegation-buzzfeed_n_6301222.html) Gawker (http://gawker.com/who-is-lena-dunham-s-alleged-rapist-1671002935), CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/passage-on-assault-to-be-clarified-in-lena-dunham-book/), the Boston Herald (http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/books/2014/12/passage_on_assault_to_be_clarified_in_dunham_book), the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/lena-dunham-and-the-challenges-of-memoir/2014/12/10/10db2002-806d-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html) and the Seattle Times (http://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/passage-on-assault-to-be-clarified-in-dunham-book/). Furthermore, the WP:ALLEGED guideline DHeyward cites allows such a usage. It says, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". This is exactly the case. Dunham asserts, her assertion has never been determined. It does not imply doubt, simply that the statement has never been tested... there is a difference and that is exactly the case here and a perfect and exact categorization and description. Also, the very fact that Dunham will not point to a specific man, that she never reported the incident, and that there is in fact no evidence makes calling this an "allegation" a perfectly fine and proper use of the term, and a usage in keeping with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Marteau (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

All your examples are about clarifying that she isn't alleging a particular person committed a crime. Again, read WP:ALLEGED. She says she was sexually assaulted and won't/can't/did/t/whatever say who did it. There are many, many women that are sexually assaulted but don't get a conviction or file a complaint. We don't claim they weren't sexually assaulted as if it is up to them to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or to name their attacker. We don't use "alleged" to assert truthiness of a subjective experience. Dunham writes that she was sexually assaulted. That's her subjective experience that really isn't open to being tested. She's not alleging a crime though. She's not naming a perpetrator and she is not pursuing prosecution. What, exactly needs to be covered as "alleged"? You don't have to believe her, but we don't need weasel words to do describe very simply "Dunham wrote that she was sexually assaulted in college." Let's put it this way: DNA tests have freed persons that were wrongly convicted of rape. That does not negate that a rape took place. The person that reported the crime, got tested, testified at trial and got a conviction was raped. The fact that it wasn't the alleged rapist that was convicted has no bearing on the subjective experience that the victim was raped. They got the wrong guy. But we don't suddenly doubt the victims account of being raped because the perpetrator wasn't caught. Remember this is Duham's account of being sexually assaulted, properly attributed to her as her experience. There is no higher authority on the subject and it isn't in wikipedia's voice. --DHeyward (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The word "allegation" simply means a statement made without proof. It does not mean the statement is in doubt, just that it has not been proven. That is in fact a proper categorization of the situation. And despite your assertion that "every one" of my cites use the term "allegation" to refer to "Barry" the very first one, for example, clearly uses the term "allegation" to categorize the assault per se, and not her "Barry" pseudonym. Marteau (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

is there a need to editwar about this? really? Please read WP:ALLEGED. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

How insulting. I did read it. It said, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". That is a perfect description of the situation. Marteau (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that adding "alleged" is a BLP violation, as it casts a doubt on Dunham's own words. Removed again per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Please do not restore without achieving consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I like Marteau's proposed alternative--"In the book, Dunham claims she was sexually assaulted..." There's really nothing subjective or unfair about this version. Seems like a reasonable way of describing what Dunham says without taking sides. And in response to Cwobeel, I do not think that casting doubt constitutes a BLP violation. If a claim is doubtful (by definition, without any proof), then it shouldn't be represented as the absolute, indisputable truth. Yes, Lena is entitled to presumed innocence, but so is "Barry," even if Dunham didn't use his real name and only made it 99% clear who "Barry" was a reference to. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

For our purposes there is no difference between "claimed" and "wrote" except "claimed" is a word to avoid in MOS WP:ALLEGED. Her account isn't any more doubtful than anything else. And no, expressing a story as "john Doe" is not the same as naming a living person. There is no doubt that Dunham wrote about a sexual assault. Period. Nothing more to say. --DHeyward (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As Marteau cites, most RS's that discuss this issue question the truthfulness of her claims, and there is little doubt that they include some degree of fabrication. Based on RS content, "alleged sexual assualt" is being generous. The issue has attracted sufficiently signficant coverage that discussing the controversy over its untruthfulness would not be undue. Restoring "alleged" would be a reasonable compromise for now. Cwobeel has his WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE on the wrong foot. If the alleged rape is to be mentioned at all, the burden is on the proponents of its inclusion. Leaving it out entirely would be disingenous. Again, noting that it is a claim or allegation seems the best NPOV solution. Footnoting to the sources cited above seems appropriate. As usual, the goal should be to give the reader some guidance to the issue and the ability to do any additional research he may desire. John2510 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

the current text, describes this accurately, including the controversy about accuracy. There is no need to use "alleged". In the book, Dunham writes about being sexually assaulted by an Oberlin College classmate, which resulted in controversy over the accuracy of her account. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"Alleged" is correct and appropriate here, as indicated by WP:ALLEGED. My $.02 Eclipsoid (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)