Talk:Not That Kind of Girl/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use of term "Sexual predator"

@Neptune's Trident: Several sources mention Dunham's use of the term "sexual predator". Dunham herself specifically apologized for the use of the term, and admitted that it was in poor taste. This is supported by the LA Times which is used as a source for the sentence on that phrase. The article even uses the apology for the term as its title. Since it's clear from the title and content of that article that the apology is the only reason the LA Times is even mentioning it, it makes a lot more sense to mention this as part of the paragraph on the apology than it does to plonk it down in its own paragraph without any context. If you want to figure out some other way to phrase this, go nuts, but the current wording is awkward and misleading.

If you think this article is unduly flattering, by all means make updates, but the article's condition when you created it was so limited that it needed to be expanded to prevent it from becoming an WP:ATTACK PAGE. For the record, I have never read the book, or seen her show, and I don't have any particular stake in this, I'm just trying to keep this from becoming a propaganda piece. Grayfell (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Grayfell, if you don't want this to be a propaganda piece then please do have the decency to recuse yourself from editing both this page and the Lena Dunham page. Your claim that you don't have a stake in this is completely unconvincing when put against the history of your activity concerning the whole issue. Rulatir (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please consider, instead, that I might simply not share your perspective. If you think that my activity is enough evidence to show that I have a WP:COI then you should go to a notice-board, or message an admin or something, because I have just told you I don't, and that's a serious issue that should be addressed. If, instead, you think that I should recuse myself because I have strong opinions about WP:BLP and am willing to discuss my viewpoint on the article's talk pages, then you are completely mistaken about how Wikipedia works. Grayfell (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works and everything to do with how you work Wikipedia. Rulatir (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

As I just posted on Dunham's talk page in response to Grayfell, the conflating of Dunhman's use of "sexual predator" with the single event when Dunham was 7 and her sister was 1 completely ignores the facts & Dunham's own narrative. Her use of the term "sexual predator" describes a pattern of behavior that continued until Duhman was 17, including bribing her sister with candy & TV privileges for long kisses on the lips, cuddling, and other sexual behaviors; emotional abuse involving delivering news of deaths and frightening stories of disaster that were (again, in Dunham's own words) designed to break her sister down and make her emotionally dependent & needy so Dunham could control her; and masturbating when her sister was sharing a bed with her.

The wording in this article makes it sound like it was only that single incident that occurred when they were very young & ignores the context. This gives a false impression of Dunham's behavior and misrepresents her description of the events of their lives.JamesG5 (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I also disagreed with the current description on Dunham's talk page, however we can't go too far in the other direction and violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and imply what reliable sources haven't. We currently describe her apology for the use of the term "sexual predator" but don't give proper context to that usage. Also, The Daily Beast describes negative reactions towards Dunham's comments from liberals, that may also be useful here.LM2000 (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this shouldn't be a hit piece on Dunham, but the current wording doesn't reflect the facts about what she said. As noted, the characterization of emotional abuse is based on her own words about what she was doing & why. To wit: "What I really wanted, beyond affection, was to feel that she needed me, that she was helpless without her big sister leading her through the world. I took a perverse pleasure in delivering bad news to her - the death of our grandfather, a fire across the street - hoping that her fear would drive her into my arms, would make her trust me." So while use of the term might be NPOV, leaving out her description of her behavior & the rationale behind it in order to excuse the controversy as being a flap over a single incident is also inaccurate.JamesG5 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm very surprised this article hasn't been much more heavily edited. When this article was created,[1] as I saw it, it was such a WP:COATRACK that it either needed WP:TNT, to be turned into a redirect, or expanded with enough context keep it from becoming an attack page. It's obvious that it passes WP:GNG, even without the controversy, so I threw together some info to try and expand it and flesh out the details enough to have a foundation to build on. It still needs a ton of work. My goal (in building an article about a book I have never read, and don't really care about) was to preemptively cut-off WP:BLP violations. This was not intended to be a comprehensive article (it doesn't even have a "Content" section) and accusing me of whitewashing or having a COI or something is counterproductive. Yes, the information on the controversy is incomplete, I agree. It should be corrected and expanded. However, after the barrage of insults [2] and juvenile conspiracy theory crap (from people who don't actually edit the pages themselves) I think it might be someone else's turn to have a go at it. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I endorse those sentiments, and might have a go at the controversy section at some point. For now I'm going to remove the word "conservative" from "conservative outlets", for two reasons, firstly the source is an opinion blog by a guest blogger, secondly the number of sources covering the story is too large to ascribe a consistent political outlook to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC).

There needs to be coverage fo the flase rape story - perhaps in a seperate section. The story is covered by NRP and Random House will be changing future editions. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/09/369600711/book-news-random-house-promises-changes-to-lena-dunham-book — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.56.129 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"When she was 7"

The sentence as it stood gave the impression all incidents occurred when she was 7, which is not the case. I've corrected that and updated the text to better reflected the secondary sources and her own descriptions (in the book.) Better we don't take liberties with our descriptions as this is a controversial topic. EmonyRanger (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Expert comment on sexual abuse

@Grayfell: The current text is:

In her book, Dunham describes examining her sister Grace's genitals when they were children, bribing her with candy for kisses and masturbating while laying in bed with her. Williamson characterizes this as sexual abuse,[11] but Lena, Grace, and several child psychologists, sexual abuse experts, and researchers in human sexuality reject the notion.

I take issue with the characterization of those who reject the notion. It's sourced to a single Slate blog, not under editorial control and not written by an expert in the field. In the piece there are two quotes from an expert:

“This is clearly not a case of abuse,” says developmental psychologist Ritch Savin-Williams, director of the Sex and Gender Lab at Cornell University. and

“It sounds, from what Dunham is writing, that it’s just playful activity. One would seriously have to question that harm was done,” Savin-Williams says.

We can summarize them but we definitely can't generalize them to support the current text. EmonyRanger (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please look closer. That passage summarizes the rest of the paragraph, which is several sourced comments by experts refuting the characterization. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry I missed the quote/source citing Sharon Lamb and Amy Lang. Fair enough to include them but again, we can't source one expert in each of three fields to suggest that all experts in all three fields agree. Even using plurals when we have one of each is innappropriate. EmonyRanger (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can trust that readers understand that the use of plurals does not imply that every single expert has weighed in on this. Using a qualifier like "some" implies that there is a specific reason to believe some experts do not agree. If we had any examples of experts disagreeing with that characterization, that might change things, but lacking that, saying that only some experts describe it that way would be a different type of misleading. Think of it this way, if we said "one expert each in x, y, and z fields agreed with the sisters..." it would be implying that they're a holding a fringe against a onslaught of criticism, and that's not true. They were (if I remember correctly) specifically asked their opinions as examples of academic perspectives, so in this case it seems fine to use a general case. Grayfell (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, that's why I debated my initial wording change, but saying "experts" when it's "expert" is factually inaccurate. We cannot use the existing sources to represent it as the general opinion of experts in the field. My previous text, "and a number of experts reject the notion", since reverted, was factually accurate. Can you think of a better factually accurate way to describe it? EmonyRanger (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there any experts that contradict the experts mentioned in the source? If not, it is perfectly OK to use a generic "experts". - Cwobeel (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It can not be "perfectly OK" when it's factually inaccurate. It doesn't even meet verifiability. I have no objections to your latest edit to better reflect sources by the way. EmonyRanger (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is, as it's consistent with WP:MOS. We don't need to talk down to readers, they know what "experts" means. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Generalizing a single expert's opinion to that of an entire field has nothing to do with WP:MOS, I'm sorry. EmonyRanger (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are multiple experts in RS that say "maybe":

• http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/11/06/lena-dunam-sexual-abuse-sister-grace-exploration-lawsuit/18524915/
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/sibling-sexual-assault-is-epidemic-no-wonder-lena-dunham-caused-an-uproar/

About equal to the number who say "no" - either way a significant enough percentage that the text "and child psychologists, sexual abuse experts, and researchers in human sexuality reject the notion" is unsupported. EmonyRanger (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

• First source: This type of touching and exploration is relatively common...

also: There's not even anything sexual here...

and Do I think it's sexual abuse? I really don't

• Second source: Drawing a conclusion about Dunham’s interactions with her sister is impossible without much more contextual information about her family. Which is literally the only thing he personally says about Dunham. He's just using the incident to talk about something else. Later he says:

To be clear, sexual curiosity in children is normal. All children explore their bodies and may engage in visual or even manual exploration of a sibling at times.

Did you actually read those sources? Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course I did. We have a number of experts claiming it's not abuse, I never suggested otherwise. But from those same sources we have "maybes." For us to generalize (i.e. keep the existing text) requires "maybe" to be fringe, which it's not:

"If it's sexual in nature, if there is the intent to arouse or be aroused, even if it's not fully articulated, then it is a gray line. It's not very black and white." -Laura Berman, Chicago-based sex and relationship therapist

"We could make up a whole story of how Lena was molested. We could paint these behaviors and slant them toward red flags for sexual abuse. But they could just as easily be totally innocent, non-sexual, non-molesting exploratory behaviors." On the face of it, says Berman, "I don't think anything presented is necessarily a huge red flag." -Laura Berman, Chicago-based sex and relationship therapist

"Drawing a conclusion about Dunham’s interactions with her sister is impossible without much more contextual information about her family." -John V. Caffaro, professor at the California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles and author of Sibling Abuse Trauma

"Some draw the line when the interaction includes oral-genital contact or intercourse. Others believe coercion is the difference between natural curiosity and abuse." -John V. Caffaro, professor at the California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles and author of Sibling Abuse Trauma

Cwobeel does this satisfy your objection? EmonyRanger (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I would review WP:BLP again, if I were you. We have many, many experts, including all of the ones you just quoted, saying that nothing she did was clearly abusive. Every expert cited has agreed on this. You cannot imply that experts have even vaguely suggested that her behavior was abusive based on what you've presented. Her behavior, as described, was not abusive, and implying that some experts might disagree is misleading at best. Statements about vague, hypothetical situations in which it might have been abusive, or details that could come out which would make it more likely abusive, are speculation, and don't support your case. How would you present it? "Some experts say it wasn't abusive, but others say it probably wasn't abusive?" This is a dead end, even without the BLP issues. Grayfell (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP restricts inclusion, not exclusion. And there is no need to make this personal. The issue is straightforward: We correctly attribute the "sexual abuse" characterization only to Williamson. We can claim several experts have rejected that characterization because several, citeable experts have but we can not imply that the majority of "child psychologists, sexual abuse experts, and researchers in human sexuality reject the notion" because they haven't. Several, citeable experts say that without further information they can neither accept it nor reject it and the majority have said absolutely nothing. So the question is: what citeable wording would you find acceptable? EmonyRanger (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal? Your suggested edits do not align with policy. BLP is about exclusion as well as inclusion, and that distinction is not meaningful in this context. Your proposed changes are not an improvement, and your arguments do not match my understanding of Wikipedia policy for the reasons that have already been thoroughly explained. Wikipedia articles describes majority opinions like this all the time. Most major articles, in fact, use this. The first article I looked for an example: "Historians believe that Jackson's presidency marked the beginning of an era of decline in public ethics." Another: "The problems other philosophers have had with Mill's position center around the following issues:..." speaking in clear, straightforward tones like this is preferable to hedging every single claim, which introduces weasel words, and insults the intelligence of the reader. Every source agrees that experts have rejected the notion that her behavior was abuse, and the contrary notion is a WP:FRINGE argument advanced by no reliable sources. That's plenty. We don't need to accommodate the opinions of those who have said nothing, because that would be absurd. Nobody would assume from the current wording that these people might not theoretically exist, and that they might not theoretically disagree. Attempting to undermine this position by implying that only some experts agree on this is a form of editorializing, and is inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the article per Grayfell's consensus wording in this edit. The use of "sexual" in the phrase "normal childhood sexual development" appropriately follows our description (here) of the experts: "Child psychologists, sexual abuse experts, and researchers in human sexuality." EmonyRanger (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not going to work. That sentence on the other article followed a general indicator of a larger controversy. This article is discussing the issue in more detail. No experts are accepting Williamson's characterization of the behavior as sexual abuse. Saying that the the passages are too ambiguous to make that call is another way of rejecting that claim. Just because they are experts on sexuality doesn't mean that the behavior is automatically sexual, that's just ridiculous. The experts are the ones who decide if it's sexual or not, that's the whole point. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I find it strange you'd reject your own wording. The statement is true and representative. "Saying that the the passages are too ambiguous to make that call is another way of rejecting that claim." is clear WP:OR. Where experts say the passages are too ambiguous to judge we will say that experts say the passages are too ambiguous to judge. This is non-controversial.

I'm not sure what you're getting at in your last few sentences - genital play, kissing and masturbation in childhood all relate to childhood sexual development. That is the correct term. I conceeded to the less correct term "childhood development" in the Lena Dunham article because repeated mentions of "sexual" in that context could prejudice the reader. Here it follows the phrase: "child psychologists, sexual abuse experts, and researchers in human sexuality", so what prejudice it engenders is already present, and here we clarify the exact behaviors involved. One of the experts is even quoted in the article claiming these behaviors are "within the norms of childhood sexual behavior." Would you like to excise sexual from the quote as well? If you object to what the sources say, find new sources, we will not misrepresent existing sources.

I have to say I'm bewildered by your repeated objections. You seem able to articulate "what you don't like" but not "why you don't like it." Perhaps it's a comprehension issue on my part. Cwobeel do you have any input? EmonyRanger (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously context matters. Words that might have been acceptable in one place are not necessarily acceptable in another. This hinges on the characterization of the behavior as "sexual abuse". No experts have accepted that characterization. They either say it's wrong, or they say that such a judgement cannot be made. Wording it to say that experts have said that the behavior might have been abuse is technically true but grossly misleading. They aren't damning her with faint praise, they're saying that there is no evidence of abuse. The default position, both logically, and from a BLP policy point of view, must be that failure to make a committed statement is the same of rejecting the claim. In other words, saying that there is no evidence of reprehensible behavior must be treated the same as denying it. This isn't about vague controversy, this is about specific claims of sexual abuse.

As for the use of the word sexual, experts on sexuality do not agree that genital play and playing doctor are unambigiously sexual, and so that word is loaded in this context, since it is implying a motive which cannot be attributed. As I said on the other talk page, "sexuality" has its place in this discussion, but this isn't the right place to go into that issue. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell. This is becoming one of these tl;dr discussions. Maybe it is time to leave this alone for a while? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Trivial disagreements I can accept but misrepresentation of sources is not something we do (or should) take lightly. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC) -user blocked as a sockpuppet of EmonyRanger

Thank you. It is clear, now that you've rejected even your own wording, this will not be resolved on the talk page. I will bring it to the appropriate noticeboard. EmonyRanger (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Reception section

The receptions section violates WP:UNDUE. Two of the four paragraphs are sourced to partisan sources that have a beef with Dunham. These opinions could be included, but in a summarized manner for balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)