This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative music Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Hip-hop Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Women in Music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Annual readership Template:Vital article Template:Not forum

Should this section on controversies surrounding Del Rey be included in the article? KyleJoan^talk 14:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Del Rey has been the subject of multiple controversies.^[1] In May 2020, she attracted criticism for an Instagram post in which she defended herself against accusations of glamorizing abuse in part by naming other female artists, mostly women of color, and citing their respective successes with works about "imperfect sexual relationships".^[2][3] Del Rey responded to the criticism by stating that her remarks "were taken out of context" and that the artists she'd listed "were among her favorites".^[4] In the same month, she received further criticism after posting a video of looters during the George Floyd protests.^[5]

In addition, if you support the inclusion of the controversies section, annotate which of the two wordings detailing Del Rey's response you prefer:

A: Del Rey responded to the criticism by stating that her remarks "were taken out of context" and that the artists she'd listed "were among her favorites".

B: Del Rey responded to the criticism that race was the theme of her post by saying "To be clear because I knowwwwww you love to twist things. I fucking love these singers and know them. That is why I mentioned them," and "when I said people who look like me — I meant the people who don’t look strong or necessarily smart, or like they’re in control etc."

• Support version B: I think it is best to give her full response to the "look like her" statement which was tied to the views on feminism already mentioned in this article. This particular statement was a major point of contention. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support section inclusion and A as proposer. These controversies surrounding Del Rey have been documented extensively in reliable sources, so including the section is appropriate per WP:DUE. Regarding how to phrase her response, I find a simple, clear account per a reliable source more effective than unnecessarily lengthy direct quotes. KyleJoan^talk 16:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Version B It's better as it is her own statement. ~ HAL333 21:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither Frankly this is not encyclopedic content at all. This is fodder for stan Twitter. Trillfendi (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support B per KyleJoan and HAL333 - Given the extensive sources/attention on this I'd say this is encyclopedic, IMHO we should include her whole response not just snippets. –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support B per points raised above. Idealigic (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "Social Views" currently contains the following statement:

"As of 2020, Del Rey has identified herself as a feminist and has voiced her support for a third wave of feminism."

This statement is sourced to an Instagram post (primary source) with the following text concerning feminism:

“Let this be clear, I’m not not a feminist -but there has to be a place in feminism for women who look and act like me – the kind of woman who says no but men hear yes – the kind of women who are slated mercilessly for being their authentic, delicate selves, the kind of women who get their own stories and voices taken away from them by stronger women or by men who hate women.”

The use of the double negative ("I'm not not a feminist") and immediately following with a qualifying statement implying that there isn't a "place" for her in feminism is not exactly an unambiguous statement of "identification" as a feminist. The text of the original source is very informal (spelling errors, punctuation errors and loose formatting) and it's not necessarily clear if the use of "not not" is an intentional double negative, a typo of repeating a "not" which was intended to appear once, or a typo of turning what was intended as a "now" into a "not". Without secondary sources to interpret the meaning of this sentence and contextualize it in Del Rey's public history, I don't think it is appropriate to use it in the article the way it is used now. The semantic content is not apparent from the primary source.

The statement that Del Rey "voiced her support for a third wave of feminism" is also (potentially) confusing to the reader and might require further qualification or contextualization than the current text has. The currently-cited source actually does not discuss any "waves" of feminism, but they are discussed in another primary source (https://www.instagram.com/p/CAghpnsJ8Sm/). The following text is relevant:

"...I want to say that what I was writing about was the importance of self advocacy for the more delicate and often dismissed, softer female personality, and that there does have to be room for that type in what will inevitably become a new wave/3rd wave of feminism that is rapidly approaching. Watch!"

Based on this primary source, there are two issues with the text that currently appears in the Wikipedia article. The first is of Del Rey's "support" for a third wave of feminism, which is again not clear from the source material. Del Rey says that a "third wave" of feminism is "inevitable" and that it needs "room for [her] type". Saying that something is inevitable is not equivalent to saying that you support it. The usage of the term "third wave" in reference to something that is "rapidly approaching" (i.e. in the future) is also potentially confusing to readers of the Wikipedia article since the current scholarly and popular consensus is that there have already been a third and fourth wave of feminism. Secondary sources should be added to contextualize and explain how Del Rey's conception of the history of feminism fits with the conception found in other Wikipedia articles.

I therefore propose the following re-writing of the section in the Wikipedia article:

'As of 2020, Del Rey wrote that she was "not not a feminist" and expressed a belief that a "new wave" of feminism characterized by validation of female fragility "is rapidly approaching."[instapost1,instapost2]'

104.13.110.123 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word poet is regularly added to the infobox or the introduction paragraph. I am aware she will soon be releasing a collection of poems, but even after that, her Wikipedia entry should not present her as a poet. It is not what she is known for and only creates confusion. Unless she actively pursues poetry by putting out successive other publications and gains recognition as a poet in her own right with some consensus in the field of literature, it is inaccurate to describe her as a poet. AleXMetz^{❯❯❯Reach me!} 18:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrelussier (talk • contribs) [reply]

She has regularly stated that poetry was her first passion. The fact that she didn't just released her first collection, but also announced a second one coming out March 2021 is enough to add poet to her infobox. It's like when celebrities do this one time design with some brand and you have them being called fashion designers on their infoboxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.106.22.34 (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s what I think. There is no question about it, the publication of del Rey’s collection of poems, Violet Bent Backwards Over the Grass, is worthy of mention on her Wikipedia page. For instance, the upcoming publication of her poetry collection is already covered in the section titled: 2020: Chemtrails over the Country Club and poetry collections. It might be too early (or maybe not) but creating a section dedicated to her ventures into poetry could be suitable. However, in an encyclopedia, we need to be careful and balanced when using classifications. I think Lana del Rey has yet to reach the notability threshold that would justify the addition of “poet” to her occupations. Therefore, I opine that we should refrain from presenting her as a poet in the infobox, or in the lead section. In the editing history, one user explains why he believes "poet" should be added to Del Rey's occupations. Here's what it says:

"With the launch of the Violet Bent Backwards Over the Grass audiobook, Lana is officially a poet, as the book is composed of poems written by herself. This is undeniable. Several websites wrote about it, she received expert reviews about the audiobook. We cannot hide the fact that she is a poet just because she is not famous as a poet. And to be honest, it is noticeable how the audiobook stood out in online sales, so we cannot say that she is not recognized as a poet. And later, as a writer."Misscupcakke's Revision of "Lana Del Rey"

I thinkt it's imoportant to clarify that no one denies that del Rey is putting out a collection of poems. That’s an incontestable fact. This is not what I'm questioning here. The user refers to “expert reviews” but unfortunately doesn't provide the sources to corroborate. If you're in possession of such sources, you should provide them without hesitations, the page will only be more accurate for it. I’ve searched to see if I couldn’t find the reviews in question. Indeed, several articles have been written about Del Rey's collection of poems and published on diverse platforms. Still, among all the publications I was able to gather, in terms of source quality, none would have been considered as highly reliable.Furthermore, as I’m writing this, I am not able to find a single literature-centric publication mentioning it. In all truth, up tp now, most of the media coverage it received took the form of features merely advertising the recent release of the audiobook and foreshadow the September release of the hardcover. The newspaper The Guardian^[1][2] and the online publications The Independent^[3] and Pitchfork^[4], all published reviews; as of now, these sources are arguably the most reliables. Finally, the user writes that “we cannot hide the fact that she is a poet just because she is not famous as a poet”—ay, there's the rub. Indeed, this is precisely the reason why I believe it would be inaccurate to present her as a poet.

All this had me wondered how many Wikipedia articles belonged, at the same time, to these two categories: singer-songwriters and poets. An advance search on Wikipedia for bioraphies of person attached to the two produces a modest number of hits. I believe this speaks volumes about how balanced we need to be when we allocate a category, an occupations, or any other classifier, within an encyclopedia. It is also pretty revelatory to observe who are the members of this very select group, so here are a few of them.

• Bob Dylan authored numerous publications of all sorts and was the recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2016.
• Patti Smith published her 25th book in 2019.
• Nick Cave has published nine books. He wrote some collections of poems, as well as some novels and essays. He also ventured into screenwriting.
• Jim Morrison has published some collection of poems at the turn of the ’70s. Some editors later published another part of his writings posthumously.
• Tupac Shakur has not published any collection of poems, yet scholars have recognized the importance of his work as a lyricist. Several renowned universities offer entire classes that focus on his writings.

Honestly, albeit I have a fragmented knowledge of these artists' production, I am not a fan of any of them by any means. I have never been; I don't think I'll ever be either. I'm mentioning it not to give the impression that I'm engaged in a partisan debate. It is absolutely not the case. I merely pick them because they are great models of artists who have gained recognition from the music industry, who are part of pop culture, but whose work also has been legitimized by authorities within the field of literature. It illustrates how the validation process isn't identical in both spheres. It also shows that, no matter how much an artist is lauded and adored, it doesn't mean that the appreciation for his work is readily commutable to all disciplines for the sole reason he or she is a celebrity. Having said that, I still recognize the important contributions these artists have made to the arts and I totally respect them. At this point it's only a question of personal preferences. At any rate, I just wanted to underline that beyond their legendary stature, these figures all have something in common, and it is the academic appraisal their respective productions have received.

In conclusion, I've garnered some excerpts from the Manual of Style of Wikipedia to support my rationale.

I Wikipedia's best practice regarding the lead paragraph. (The same practice applies to the infobox)

Shortcut

• MOS:ROLEBIOMOS:ROLEBIO

"The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph."

II Wikipedia's best practice for biographies, to establish a person's notability.

1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.
3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

III Wikipedia's best practice for biographies of creative professionals (poets are part of that subcategory), to establish a person's notability in his or her field.

Shortcut

• WP:POETWP:POET

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.°°°° AleXMetz∆°^°˚TALK 21:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I read the comment above and I definitely agree with many things you say. I really don't think Del Rey is currently famous as a poet, but it seems weird not to portray her as a poet in her wikipedia.

Let's talk about profession. There are many examples of celebrities who are portrayed as a singer and actress, but in fact she is mostly known as a singer or as an actress. This is normal. It is not just because the person is better known for one profession that it negates the other. I believe from the bottom of my heart that when reading his own Wikipedia, Del Rey would love to see "poet" written.

As I said above, there are many things said that are true. What I don't understand, exactly, is what would change if had a simple word "poet" added on Wikipedia. For example, in Brazilian Wikipedia, we already have Del Rey as a poet.

Besides, will she release a book and will you again prevent her from being classified as a writer? Which again, is strange. She is clearly a poet and will be a writer, has two releases scheduled, I don't understand how it would make people confused when reading "singer, songwriter, writer and poet" in her wikipedia if she really is. (obviously, the word writer should only be added after the book is released).

Anyway, as a fan, I believe that would not change anything by two more words on the page, being consistent with what Del Rey actually does, which is singing, composing and writing poems. I also believe that there are many other people who think like me.

Regardless of all this, if you really maintain the decision not to put Lana Del Rey as a poet, I believe that eventually it will happen. At one time or another she will become a great poet and that will appear on your Wikipedia, it is inevitable.

Finally, forgiveness for my English. I hope you can read and understand what I meant.Misscupcakke (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factually, I agree with what you say, and you’re utterly right when you say that lately, Del Rey has been focusing on the publication of her writings. Yet, I think we ought to be rigorous. For the same reasons, I’ve detailed above. But chiefly, we need to apply the best practice detailed within the Manual of Style.

Before I go further, I need to come back to something you’ve written in your last paragraph. You say, “If you really maintain the decision [. . .]”. Let me start by saying that even though our opinions might differ, my goal is not to oppose you personally. I want to stress on this; I believe in no way this decision is mine to make, nor that I have more authority on this than anyone. I’m only voicing my opinion, albeit one informed by the reading I’ve made of the Wikipedia Manual of Style to try to stay as objective as possible. Before we add “poet” to the page, I believe we should reach some form of consensus. If a majority of users think we should add it, I will happily comply with the decision. We could also address ourselves to an editor with more seniority for counsel. But sincerely, I’m not out on a mission to oppose you. That said, I want to address a couple of things you’ve pointed out to express, maybe a little better, where I stand.

Neutrality

One of the most fundamental characteristics of an encyclopedia is its neutrality. Henceforth, we should completely detach ourselves emotionally from the task. In the case of pages about people, it shouldn’t make any difference if you are the most dedicated fan of the subject or, on the contrary, if the page is about someone you loathe. Above all, an article on Wikipedia should never be to laud neither to degrade someone. Fact-based evidence with references to various sources. Finally, the fact that Del Rey might love, or not, to see “poet” written on her Wikipedia page is utterly irrelevant and not something we should consider. Ever. In contrast, steering away from these considerations is what is required.

Organization

Organizing the information is of capital importance. To maintain its efficiency, Wikipedia relies on a complex classification system detailed in the Manual of Style. Users need to conform to these guidelines to the best of their abilities. You're arguing that adding one word to the page wouldn’t make a difference, and you're right: it would not. Though, it would if the same reasoning was applied all over Wikipedia. Feelings, inclinations, or opinions should not influence these choices.

Recognition

You've indicated that singers are sometimes also credited as actors. Indeed, this happens frequently. These categories have proven to be more permeable. Even though they required different skills, one exists in the vicinity of the other. I’d also argue within the realm of celebrities, without the shadow of a doubt, singers, actors, and actresses are, by far, the most ostentatious representation of pop culture. They became so ubiquitous that lines get blurred. Also, the crossover is so frequent that I think it became banal. But you’re right, the transit between both is less guarded.

The path to recognition is not always the same across different media and disciplines. In the context of pop culture, the legitimization process lies with the public. Nevertheless, it is usually not the case in literature. On the one hand, there’s the fast-paced, showy pop culture powered by powerful financiers with the means to propel the career of someone virtually unknown to the dizzying peaks of fame in matters of months. On the other hand, in the literary world, recognition doesn’t usually happen overnight as your first book gets published. In light of that, it is not surprising that these two spheres of artistic expression function in very different ways.

In literature, an author is getting recognition from his peers: authors, literary critics, academics, researchers, etc. This is a sharp contrast with mainstream artists for whom record-breaking is often the path to recognition. For instance, topping the charts, breaking sale records, making incendiary statements, or giving exuberant performances. In many ways, this type of competition resembles professional sports.

Also, let us not forget that what interests us is not literature, but poetry, a medium even more arcane with even fewer practitioners. In these circles, fame power has very little to do with recognition. Authors are judged solely on their body of work. How unique is their voice? How innovative is their poetry? Is their poetry a good representation of the period? And other aspects inherent to their writings. Exceptions aside, to gain recognition in literature, publishing a single book is assuredly not enough. We've all known dilettante dabbling in poetry, but great poetry requires commitment and consistency.

Proposition

Del Rey has yet to release her first collection of poems at the end of September (I know the audiobook’s out). After the release of this book, Del Rey will reach a total of 1 publication. With that number in mind, I think we can all agree that it would be hasty to define her as a poet. It makes much more sense to wait and give her time to grow and publish some more collections (if she ever does), and then reconsider.

Just for the sake of illustration, a way to test that could be to imagine her Wikipedia page presenting her solely as a poet:

Elizabeth Woolridge Grant (born June 21, 1985), known by her pen name Lana Del Rey, is an American poet.

Even if this is an incomplete representation of who she is, my point is that if she had gained recognition as a poet, the description should still feel somewhat accurate. I’ve been actively following Lana Del Rey’s career and releases for years, and this description would seem extremely far-fetched to me. And for anyone who knows of Lana Del Rey, but does not systematically follow her every move, I think it would feel like a gross misrepresentation and even appear flat-out wrong.

I'm only proposing we refrain from adding "poet" to her occupations in the infobox and the intro paragraph. I'm not saying we should remove every allusion to poetry. On the contrary, I believe we have to talk about it. For the moment, section 1.6. covers her impending publications. Maybe we should add a section dedicated to poetry after the launch.

In conclusion, to be clear, my position on this subject has absolutely nothing to do with my appreciation of Del Rey’s work. These types of considerations should not rely on anything other than methodology and objectivity. I’m not trying to assert if Del Rey is or isn’t a poet or whether she is or isn’t a talented writer. All I’m saying is that literature is a different animal than pop culture. The mere act of publishing alone doesn’t make you an established poet. Tons of authors publish books every year, but some are more impactful than others. Del Rey might be a celebrity, but she did not get any recognition from the field of literature yet. In my opinion—and also according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style—this is the requirement.°°°°AleXMetz∆°^°˚TALK 02:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

change "As of 2020, Del Rey has identified herself as a feminist and has voiced her support for a third wave of feminism." to "In May 2020, Del Rey identified herself as a feminist in an Instagram post and voiced her support for a third wave of feminism." YehudaHaNasi (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TheImaCow (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Stevie Nicks under associated acts. Both have a song “Beautiful People and Beautiful Problems”. 2600:1700:3990:4350:F108:3CF9:FAFF:F9F8 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done:, the associated acts field is specifically not for "the One-time collaboration for a single song" --Paul ❬talk❭ 18:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to ensure this page does not look like a gossip column. Who she dates is her personal life and really should not be included in the career section as it is not her personal life. The only way to include that is if you have a section for her personal life. It is only a rumor about her being engaged, one which she has not confirmed directly. Also, how a media source interprets her words is not a controversy pertaining to Lana Del Rey herself, but the media outlet that chose to misinterpret her. That kind of controversy should instead be included on the page for the media source that misquoted her as that is poor and inaccurate reporting on the source in question (Complex), rather than Lana. Bias media reporting especially when it comes from music publications and celebrity gossip sources is not reliable and does not meet proper journalistic standards. Also when it comes to religion she was raised Catholic but that is not the same as being a practicing Catholic. This also pertains to her personal life and no such personal life section exists here. --108.54.32.185 (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Life and career" format of her biography implies that her personal life is included in the entry. See Taylor Swift and Katy Perry. WP operates on notable media sources; you can mention Del Ray's response and multiple perspectives offered by reputable outlets, but controversy is relevant.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are baseless. Another thing that damages the credibility is the failure to spell her name correctly. But hey, lets allow wikipedia to be a place for radical feminists to smear women they see as a threat. --108.54.32.185 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the WP:PA. The edits are sourced by notable and reliable media outlets. I can fix the typo, but you're not offering solid, MoS or credible basis to revert the edits you're reverting. I'm open to discussion, but not if you continue to defame other editors.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this page has looked like a gossip column. The user has a point. I work in the industry as a mixer. Is this page about how the media (which is very bias) responds to her words, or is it about her career? Also, I would caution against bringing in a political agenda. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix Hi! Bringing in an agenda would be in violation of WP:POV. Del Ray's comments in interviews have received substantial coverage in The Washington Post, Vulture, CNN, and Pitchfork, which accounts for their notability. All of these meet WP:RSP, which quality as unbiased sources by Wikipedia's standards. I'm confused about what the issue is here.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? Only after one source, that being Complex Magazine took her words out of context. Other sources picked up on Complex's misinformation. Its like playing telephone. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix Billboard reported her comments during a BBC interview here, as did the Washington Post here, and Vulture here. Do these mention Complex report? NME wrote articles about the Capitol remarks and the album artwork here and here. Further reports on the subject were issued by the Los Angeles Times here, USA Today here, and Pitchfork here, all their own reporting. Again, I'm confused about the issue here. Your claims of bias aren't extraordinarily applicable here.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you include this content if an artist such as Beyonce made statements like this? Of course not. She is a hard core feminist and suits the agenda of certain people. It looks to me like you just dislike Lana Del Rey and want to bring this into the article to make her look bad so you can harm her career. If every statement that got misquoted by the press got included in the controversy section of every artist's wikipedia page, it would just be an article about controversy. It seems to me that you are interested in engaging in revenge editing because Lana Del Rey's words rubbed you the wrong way. --108.54.32.185 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it were covered by notable news outlets, absolutely. I've edited this page in the past, completely separate from the controversy section. Your accusations of bias against me are essentially baseless and don't serve your argument.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will you two act like adults? Neither one of you is behaving in a civilized manor. While I agree that this page for Lana Del Rey does not look professional and it resembles a tabloid rather than a professionally written article, getting into an edit war is ridiculous. Leave the article alone. Keep the controversy about the Capitol and race out. Race baiting should be avoided on here and the Capitol attack issue and Del Rey's words were taken out of context. But the name calling on here is out of hand and neither one of you have a case for overhauling this article. Lana Del Rey is a musician, the page should be about her work. And that can be done without name calling and edit wars. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix I have tried my best to remain civilized and have specifically avoided edit wars by participated in discussion on the talk page. Thank you for offering your feedback. You still haven't responded to my rebuttals about WP's manual of style and notability policies for inclusion. I'm tempted to open an RfC. For consensus to be reached, there must be thorough, evidence-based discussion, not general statements.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every and I mean every musician gives their opinion when asked. Its simply isn't notable to include it in the controversy section. If we were to do that, this entire page would be all about every controversial statement she has made because anyone who is famous who expresses an opinion gets some people pissed off and the press talks. This isn't like a sexual harassment case when you have substantiated claims. We have free speech in the united states and using that right should not warrant additions to a controversy section every time a public figure opens their mouth. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix As I previously said: it was notable enough to be reported by several news sources and stirred significant controversy in reports by The Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, etc. Her social views and controversies are the subject of the section. Political views and controversies are included on the pages of all public figures: see Letitia Wright, Scarlett Johansson, Woody Harrelson, Cindy Crawford, etc. Free speech doesn't protect from encyplodeic additions - the two have virtually nothing to do with each other. These aren't one-off soundbites, these are political comments accompanying album promotion and releases that have received widespread coverage in the media.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, all those figures you mention are white. Sounds like reverse discrimination. And those sources you mention are all bias. CNN is very slanted. So is the Washington Post. --108.54.32.185 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, now are we really going to start a race war on this page? Those sources which you say are bias are indeed bias (much like FOX News is bias), but the bottom line is this misinformation started when one source (Complex Magazine) FIRST reported her words. Since other media outlets love clickbait they ran with it without doing their own work. That is how you argue against including this. You don’t do it by accusing someone else of being a racist. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix I won't dignify the accusations with a response, but thank you very much for your comments. I understand that you feel the comments were "misinterpreted" for "clickbait"; however, unless you can find concise, objective reports saying so, it doesn't really stand, constituting as WP:ORIGINAL. You might state that the sources are biases, but again, according to WP:RSP, they are perfectly reliable and useable for biographical additions.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Del Rey herself gave rebuttals to the bias reporting by clearing it up here: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CJ9j8wuhZTh/

This is where she stands. Her word stands above that of the media because she was misquoted. Also as someone who works in this industry, the way certain media outlets reported on this constitute libel. Now I don’t think libelous information should stand on here either. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix If she decides to sue for libel, that's independent from WP inclusion unless the report is actually redacted. See Prince Harry or Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. I believe her rebuttals to bias should be included, but unfortunately, that does not diminish substantial, notable reporting, which is what her entire biography is based on.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the press never redacts misinformation as they are for-profit entities. --TheGreatMix (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? if faced with legal pressure news outlets have absolutely redacted or commented on the article itself disputing their report. There is little to indicate otherwise.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the point of who she dates, that should not be included in her career section. Is there a personal life section? No. Should there be one? Maybe. Is she engaged? Well without Lana Del Rey herself confirming it, no it should not be included.

As for the album cover, she responded to Instagram comments who were commenting on the race. Lana informing people that there are people of color on the cover is not a racist act. Also having a cover of all white people isn’t racist either. So that does feel like a gossip column. It is very dangerous to suggest someone is a racist when they have not engaged in a clear racist act. It’s not like we have seen her walking around in a white sheet burning crosses. Also her Instagram post about other artists have nothing to do with race she didn’t say “black people”. But the media decided to take something which was not about race and make it about race. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the point of who she dates, that should not be included in her career section. Is there a personal life section? No. Should there be one? Maybe. Is she engaged? Well without Lana Del Rey herself confirming it, no it should not be included.

As for the album cover, she responded to Instagram comments who were commenting on the race. Lana informing people that there are people of color on the cover is not a racist act. Also having a cover of all white people isn’t racist either. So that does feel like a gossip column. It is very dangerous to suggest someone is a racist when they have not engaged in a clear racist act. It’s not like we have seen her walking around in a white sheet burning crosses. Also her Instagram post about other artists have nothing to do with race she didn’t say “black people”. But the media decided to take something which was not about race and make it about race. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix Her dating life is biographical according to the notable sources that reported it - see the integration of relationships in the biographies of WP:FA articles Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, and Lorde, regardless of the public figure's comments. I understand your defense of Del Rey and frustrations with the media, but again, WP doesn't decide what the media "makes" something about as long as it abides by WP:RSP. You could include Del Rey's defense and any articles written in her defense to create balance in the section - it is very much welcome! But you can't dismiss biographical and encyclopedic additions based on what you think comments should be interpreted as by the mass media at large, that's not how WP operates.

Also she states clearly she voted for Joe Biden: https://mobile.twitter.com/LanaDelRey/status/1349097587756863490

Trying to paint her any other way is libelous. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix If you truly believe it constitutes a legal threat, follow WP:LIBEL. The additions aren't trying to "paint" her as anything. The addition of information from WP-standard, reputable, notable sources that is the subject of widespread media coverage is not defamation under WP policy. I've already said that both the criticism and the defense should be included, but WP doesn't operate based on what information might "paint" the public figure as. See the biographies I linked above - for instance, when Wright posted a comment questioning the COVID vaccine, it wasn't included to portray her as some sort of conspiracy theorist caricature, but rather, to include information provided by notable, widespread media reports.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the radical feminists hate her so they don’t care. This page is a smear campaign. Wikipedia should not be a smear campaign. --108.54.32.185 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t this this is an issue of “radical feminists”. This is more an issue of making something out of nothing and taking words and wanting to make someone’s good intentions to point out an issue into something bad. Wikipedia itself should not be based on gossip. Even Major news sources have gossip columns. There is a difference between gossip columns and political analysis. But Lana Del Rey is not a politician. Once she runs for office that changes. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix Thank you. As I have reiterated, multiple times, Del Rey's status as a non-politician is irrelevant to the inclusion of her political beliefs. While newspapers may have gossip columns, the reports in the major newspapers and agencies I've linked were not in those columns and featured as reputable news reports.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, there is no such thing as reputable anymore without the fairness doctrine. --TheGreatMix (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix Doctrine or not, they remain reputable sources according to WP standards / WP:RSPSOURCES, unfortunately. That is the protocol WP operates on.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for “standards”, that is entirely subjective. QAnon has standards too and they will buy anything hook line and sinker. --108.54.32.185 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Qanon doesn’t help this discussion --TheGreatMix (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, back on point, she has criticized Donald Trump before and that is already mentioned. It probably does not need to be mentioned every time she criticizes the traitor-in-chief. I separate section about her politics would be fine, but it does not need to be about controversy. Just state her views on Trump and the fact that she voted for Joe Biden and the fact that she is politically liberal. Not that her politics is anyone’s business. The only new thing about her politics that is new and notable worth mentioning is the fact that she voted for Biden and celebrated his win. --TheGreatMix (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So leave the article alone. Maybe mention she voted for Joe Biden and “celebrated” his victory. --108.54.32.185 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix But again, you don't get to decide what is notable and what is not notable. The section can be labelled about her social views and politics; WP has a list of reputable, notable news outlets. If the news outlets issue widespread press coverage on a subject, that is automatically notable. Her politics is encyplodeic as a public figure. On Wikipedia, what is worth mentioning is dictated by precedent and notable press coverage, not individual preference.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the news outlets misinterpreted her words. The only reliable source is the exact BBC interview itself because it has not been interpreted through the lenses of slanted sources. --TheGreatMix (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. The BBC radio interview is the original source. Why would you go through a source which intentionally twisted her words? The lying media has an agenda. Wikipedia should not uphold that agenda. --108.54.32.185 (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix Again, Wikipedia decides if media outlets are slanted, and therefore, if they "misinterpret" reports. Individual editors cannot decide this. If a notable news outlet substantially reports on a subject, we include in biographically, barring actual libel. We can include the widespread press coverage on her comments and her own defense and any other defense issued by secondary sources.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix Please come to a consensus or compromise on the talk page before adding relevant information, per WP policy.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it in a way which is fair and impartial. This has gone on long enough and I think the way I fixed it works. It’s a fair compromise that doesn’t give the impression of bias. --TheGreatMix (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMix You "fixing it" according to your terms and timing is not compromise. I still disagree with the exclusion of the Capitol and cover artwork comments; if you still disagree with the inclusion and its defense, then we have not come to consensus. If we are unable to come to a solution, I'm willing to call in a third opinion or RfC according to Wikipedia policy.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What she was saying about the Capitol was not exclusively about the Capitol. It was about the broader issue of Trump’s madness and his mental state. Listen to the interview. --TheGreatMix (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you did, TheGreatMix. This seems like a solution that is not twisted by media reporting. You posted a link to the entire interview. The news articles just take snippets. --108.54.32.185 (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatMixI know this and included it in my original edit. Again, content nonwithstanding, "fixing it" according to your terms and timing is not compromise. Let me reiterate my argument: her comments in the interview as well as the posts accompanying the Chemtrails album release received widespread press coverage (four or more articles) from sources listed in WP:RSPSRC. This merits notable inclusion per WP guidelines as well as WP:CENSOR. Per your reasoning, I am happy to include Del Rey's defense as well as any reports defending her. I disagree with your proposal mentioning only a few, singular quotes, instead of the notable and reputable media reports and commentary, as well as excluding her personal relationships alltogether. If you disagree with this proposal, I am willing to follow the procedure for dispute resolution.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her response to that is already mentioned on the page for the album. She was stating a fact that there are people of color on the cover. That is already taken care of. --TheGreatMix (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheGreatMix Once again, this issue is not "already taken care of" because one editor says so. We have not reached consensus for the content of this article. Refusing to collaborate is a violation of WP:ETIQ.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two users say its fine. Me and the guy with no username. I am currently sick with COVID and this back and forth isn’t doing me any favors nor is it doing this page any favors. Keep it simple. What I did works. Even with COVID I can offer up a solution. I included her attitudes about our genius president who will soon part ways with the nucular football. --TheGreatMix (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you have coronavirus. It’s sad that you still have to debate this while sick. --108.54.32.185 (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. As I said, this keeps it from looking like a “gossip column” like you were complaining about. I agree that this is the best way forward. --TheGreatMix (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still don’t think that her dating life should be included in the career section though. --108.54.32.185 (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The spoken word album should be included. Its a spoken word album, but not a studio album. Separate sections. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Works of artists separate from their mainstream form of work (i.e acting, writing, etc.) are typically synthesized into the chronological sections regardless, see Halsey and her poetry book, or Taylor Swift and her film roles. Hope this helps.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s still a spoken word album which is recorded in a studio with a producer and engineer. --TheGreatMix (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple albums are often featured in section titles, "Violet Bent Backwards over the Grass" could be added just before the "Chemtrails" feature in the heading for emphasis.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]