Talk:Lena Dunham/Archives/2012/October

Obama campaign ad

I rephrased the item, because there's no literal "comparing" going on by Dunham, but the conservative blog says there is. Note that while I prefer this version over the prior version, I still don't fully like the claim, and do invite further revision and refinement of it. --Lexein (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"According to a right-wing blog reaction" What???? Have you seen the video? Anyone with two ears can clearly see she is comparing voting for Obama to losing one's virginity. A sick marxist tactic. Even the official Youtube video is titled as such: Lena Dunham: Your First Time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.33.188 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I know this is disappointing, but she doesn't use any comparison language such as "first-time voting is like first-time sex." It's just not there. She makes an implication, and it's a double-entendre, but neither The Atlantic nor the quoted blogger say those things, so neither can we. I was quoting the right-wing blogger quoted by The Atlantic. Sticking with MOS. Not naming the blog is okay, as long as "as quoted in" remains. --Lexein (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

People. Look. The Atlantic called the blog "right-wing". Shall we not? Shall we pretend that the quote was a quote of The Atlantic? I say, "no". Shall we leave out Reagan's prior use? Why? Discuss, and stop the edit warring. --Lexein (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, Lexein, but it seems like you are trying to push the POV that there's nothing wrong with the ad due to "precedent" with the Reagan note and the "right-wing" qualifier. I personally prefer the version I left it at. It sticks with the source and says the she spoke a monologue in the ad of double entendres. The note about Reagan is irrelevant to the issue, and having the terms "left-wing" or, like in this case, "right wing" just speaks POV to me, as in everyday conversation the terms are used with a negative connotation. In short, just stick with what the source says, say it in an NPOV way, and let people go elsewhere for their daily source of partisan attacks and defenses. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 05:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the qualifier that it did come from a right-wing blog (though perhaps "conservative blog" would be a better way of wording it). However, I do agree with CRRaysHead90 that the Reagan mention is out of place, even though it is true. Reagan otherwise has nothing to do with the subject, and we really don't need a "even though they did something similar 30 years ago" disclaimer on every plausible political topic on Wikipedia. Kansan (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion appreciated. But I wasn't pushing any POV. First, I merely tried to get our summary of the The Atlantic report to be more accurate than prior versions. CRRaysHead90, your comment about me, and your conveniently selective diff that I:

(quoting:) push the POV that there's nothing wrong with the ad due to "precedent" with the Reagan note and the "right-wing" qualifier.

abusively misrepresent my edit. I actually corrected factual errors and POV in somebody else's addition. I don't really care if the Reagan is in or not. I don't mind changing "right-wing" to "conservative" either - that blog author might care, since the blog self-identifies as "right". --Lexein (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's my fault for not looking at the diffs more, I apologize and will strike that part of my comment, but I still stand by the rest of it. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 18:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, sincerely. I hope you don't mind that I added a bit from the end of the Fox piece. Of course, now it seems too "quotey", and even "scare quotey", even though I'm quoting Fox, not its sources. But paraphrase seems dangerous as well. Suggestions? --Lexein (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added the bit in there about Regan's prior use (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lena_Dunham&diff=520195660&oldid=520169636). The intention was not to provide a precedent, but rather to put the claim of "controversy" in perspective. The language I used may not have imparted that intention sufficiently, however, I do think it is important to provide some kind of context to a so-called controversy, or not use the word at all. I admit bias, but the only controversy I saw was created by conservative media -- the general populace woke up the following day with a distinct lack of outrage. The current article, which says Fox News expressed the opinion that "some didn't find it offensive" wouldn't pass muster were it were simply written here in a Wikipedia, so it doesn't seem any more encyclopedic to quote the opinion and throw a link on there. "Some" say that the reaction is a fabricated distraction. We're going for impartiality and fact here, not conservative or liberal spin control. 75.119.90.35 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Some justification, in order, for not including Reagan at the moment:

1. Dunham's ad is relevant in her article as a thing that she did.
2. Reaction to it follows, naturally, and we describe that.
3. Then (if it goes on for any length of time, with extensive coverage as a significantly reported event with reverberating consequences), secondary reactions and corrections to the primary reaction follow - this would include the history, including Reagan, and other presidential campaigns which directly or indirectly use this tactic.

I think one point Kansan and CRRaysHead90 were making is that we're not "there" yet to justify adding the Reagan claim, because this isn't an article about "first time" or "campaign tactics" or even "getting out the vote" (which is why I didn't add Dunham's own remark about the ad's seriousness about supporting women's rights). It's just about Lena Dunham. So I agree with not including Reagan at the moment.

Now, mention of Reagan definitely belongs along with mention of this ad in an article including a section on notable political campaign messages, but I don't know where that is, and I say "section", not "article", because the topic might not meet WP:GNG yet. --Lexein (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)