Talk:Lena Dunham/Archives/2017/October

The article is a pure puff piece...

I agree; there's nary a mention of her repeatedly molesting her little sister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C48C:5D0:1D15:568C:F743:C82 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, WP:NOTFORUM, self-admitted rambling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It reads like a People Magazine "bio" and manages to pretty much include her entire resume' within the "content". A significant portion consists of quotes about how great she and her work are, including a few from others and at least one talking about herself. If I'm not mistaken there are some personal items from her past that are certainly noteworthy if most of the rest of what is included is. I can't recall specifics because she's pretty unimportant overall, but wasn't there something about her and incestuous/abusive behavior involving her younger sister? I saw the vague reference to it, but to say it was very lightly touched upon is putting it MILDLY. I'm not big on airing dirty laundry like that but the article could definitely use a little balance and something besides adulation and praise and fluff for a person who is overall barely "notable" if it wasn't for the "shock value" of her "work". That she CLAIMS to have been "sexually assaulted" is very front and center. That she PUBLIC COMMENTED about the family situation in what could be called a "confession" isn't even mentioned. Once again, I'm not big on dirty laundry and dragging out skeletons that have been dragged out of closets repeatedly, but we're talking about two of her OWN statements about sexual "experiences" during the course of her life, SHE made both of them public and SHE received a significant amount of attention FROM THEM. If you're not going to at least QUOTE HER and leave it THERE, why even fake "objectivity" and make a vague, mundane and "nothing to see here" reference to her childhood "experience"? Not to mention, given her AGE at the time of the events, it seems to me that since MOST PEOPLE'S PERSONAL LIVES are reported CHRONOLOGICALLY in Wikipedia articles in those sections of their articles, the childhood "story" should come FIRST. Especially since it adds a little context to her much later claim to have been sexually assaulted herself. Honestly, if it weren't for the existence of articles on people MUCH LESS "notable", this article would be better candidate for DELETION than an upgrade in "status", based on how its written alone. The only truly famous and widely known celebrity mentioned in the article besides prominent politicians is Judd Apatow, and his positive opinion and statement/quote are pretty sloppily worked into the article. They're almost afterthoughts after the earlier praise and quote from a relative nobody. Almost as if somebody realized the article needed more "gravitas" and hastily added the few sentences on Judd Apatow. The questionable "objectivity" and obvious reluctance to put anything like a REALISTIC "spin" on her public life continues right down the page and all the way to the brief blurb on her political activity. Her political activism goes or at least went a little further than just "supporting Barack Obama" and writing some support message for Hillary Clinton. If I remember correctly she was pretty involved in Hillary's campaign early on and did several campaign events with and for Hillary and there was a significant amount of "buzz" and publicity WHEN she and Hillary became public BFFs, as long as it lasted. In fact, that was a pretty significant story early in Hillary's campaign when she NEEDED some positive publicity post-email speech. And for a short period of time, it was positive publicity, but I believe a realistic and objective person looking back would have to say not only did neither Hillary or Ms. Dunham benefit from their association, they both had "setbacks" as a result. Interestingly enough, Ms. Dunham's "big hit" TV program was canceled within a few months of her quantum leap from relative obscurity to more mainstream "fame", and clearly her support didn't put Hillary in the White House. So its hard to see their short political "romance" as a positive for either. The public response wasn't exactly overwhelmingly positive and there was significant public "discussion" in the "media" of the rather "racy" nature of Ms. Dunham's television program and the amount of nudity, profanity, etc. Some of the discussion at the time suggested it seemed contrived, gratuitous, unnecessary and off-putting. I'm not asserting a cause-and-effect relationship, but at roughly that point at least one prominent and decidedly more-famous-than-Ms. Dunham Hollywood actress by the name of Susan Sarandon started publicly criticizing Hillary. I find Ms. Dunham's political activism as irrelevant as her career when viewed from a "building an encyclopedia" position, but if its "notable" in the article, telling the WHOLE STORY and doing so accurately could only make the article MORE "encyclopedic". If the pure puff pieces and the "controversial" and "political" sectinons, vague and incomplete as they are, get taken out of the article, there IS NO article. Overall, I'd say the article needs a significant amount of "cleanup" and a much more comprehensive documentation of Ms. Dunham's relatively short and mediocre career and celebrity existence with something besides IMDB profile fluff and promotion dominating the content. If people were interested in her TV program and other "work", they'd know who she is and be familiar with them. If you're not going to make the "personal" sections of the article informative and descriptive of her larger existence and history, why even have the article? The internet and celebrity fantatics already have IMDB, after all. And no end of other celebrity puff pieces online for the Googling. That brings up something I frequently wonder about if the goal is truly to "build an encyclopedia", which is a simple question of "Will it ever be FINISHED if pop culture and politically-motivated authorship and editing take precedence over encyclopedia content. We DO HAVE THE INTERNET, after all. Is "Lena Dunham" or any other pop culture overnight "celebrity" or movie or video game or Top 40 song that comes along "notable enough" for inclusion in what I presume is supposed to be an ACADEMIC publication? I find myself wondering the same thing when I browse the Talk page of the WomenInRed project and half the questions and topics are pleas from help from one editor to other editors looking for information to prove the "notability" of a female or trans person they've already created an article on or are attempting to create an article on. I hope the supposed "inequality" on Wikipedia and claimed disparity in the number of male editors and female editors hasn't convinced some editors that they need to play "catch up" and create at least as many articles about women as there are about men. I know for certain that few if any MALE editors look at the creation of an article about a man or some "male-focused" topic as a "Chalk another article up for the GUYS!" situation. And I see very few Talk page discussions where an editor is seeking sources and information to prove an male article subject is "notable" UNLESS that editor happens to be the SUBJECT or someone acting on his behalf. I'm rambling, but all I know is that quotas never produce quality. They produce quantity and invariably quality is the victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.60 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)