Talk:Lana Del Rey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Britney Spears as an influence?

The lead lists Britney Spears as one of Del Rey's influences and cites The Guardian; however, the cited link fails to provide support for this claim. I am currently listening to Del Rey's interview on BBC's 6music and Del Rey does indeed cite Elvis Presley and Antony and the Johnsons as among her musical influences, but makes no mention of Britney Spears. Could someone provide: (1) a source to support the claim that Spears is among her primary musical influences and (2) an indication that Spears's influence is significant enough to merit her inclusion in the lead paragraph of Del Rey's biography? Countercouper (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In that BBC interview, she mentions as the first thing about her influences, that she was always very much into Nirvana and got inspired when seeing the video to "Heart shaped box". This is not included under her musical influences, and should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilpimp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

→Is the reference to John Waters a mis attribution to Roger_Waters? Jabberwoch (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the 'influences' info is starting to get old hat; I mean, the volume of artists quoted as being an influence at one time or another reaches into double figures, and IMO demeans the entry. Time to remove? 157.203.255.2 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Countercouper (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

by lilydo12 : Lana Del Rey's interviewed by NME on 21 January 2012, the video is on Youtube (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRAFNSgk1Ns), Lana cites Nirvana as her first influence,then Frank Sinatra,Elvis (Presley), Bob Dylan, Eminem & the masters of every genre... That interview is a great source to understand her influences,art and background...

I can't believe that she doesn't cite ANY dream pop bands or singers as that's exactly what she sounds like. Her self-described "gangsta Nancy Sinatra" is beyond silly. She should at least mention Mazzy Starr (Hope Sandoval) above anyone else.--98.119.14.40 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Jaguar F-Type images

I found some freely licensed outtakes from her Jaguar F-Type shoot. Which one do you think we should include in the article?

• 
• 
• File:Lana Del Rey Jaguar3.jpg

--Thevampireashlee (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The one on the end is much larger, but I cropped it. The image might be appropriate for the infobox, if someone can crop it without ruining the sharpness. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There are few more, available under the same license, that I did not upload. Find there here:

• https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jaguarcarsmena/8039217629/in/photostream/
• https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jaguarcarsmena/8039217815/in/photostream/
• https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jaguarcarsmena/8039218803/in/photostream/

--Thevampireashlee (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should just use this picture without cropping it. Cropping it would definitely ruin the sharpness and I do think the entire car should be included in the photo since that's what she's promoting in the photo. Also, I don't think we should use (obviously) edited photos in the infobox (like the photo that's in there now and the one before). But we can't take a section from a photo from this photoset since unfortunately the qulity isn't good enough to crop them. teammathi (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Good work digging up that photo. I love the clarity, but it might be too big to do the article services in that, by including it, her face will be washed out. Not that the current image is much better. Guess there's only one way to find out...--Thevampireashlee (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

We could also crop that photo to the size of this photo. That way, one can see a big portion of the car but still recognize Del Rey. And it wouldn't be an edited version. Also, those photos aren't from a promotional photoshoot, they're from the unveiling of the Jaguar F-Type at the 2012 Paris Motor Show. teammathi (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Obvious typo

In the section "Musical style and influences" -
Pontiac Grandamn
should be corrected and hyperlinked as:
Pontiac Grand Am
72.89.145.84 (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! --TV (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The misspelling appears in a direct quote. I changed the text back to the misspelling and added the sic template instead. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I figured that - forgot about sic! --TV | talk 16:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Easy mistake to make :). I forgot about it too until I was actually knee-deep in the edit. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Lizzy Grant photo

I do think a photo from that time is worth more than an audio snippet. This was the reason for adding the snippet: "Adding a fair-use sound clip to help illustrate Del Rey's earlier style, since we do not have images." (Thevampireashlee). A photo is worth a lot more here. teammathi (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Her old songs sound similar to her new songs so I think an image would better fit. As her image changed drastically, but her music didn't. Although I think there would be too many images. Maybe take out a different photo and use an older one. --MrIndustry (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone want to add anything to this? I'm just not interested in participating in an edit-war. teammathi (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree. I think her musical style is significantly different. I would avoid using more non-free content, especially considering the controversy surrounding every image of her on the wiki. I think the sound clip better illustrates that section and is more visually appealing as well. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It is more of a liability to use sound clips over images. But we'll wait until someone goes crazy over the use like the images. TV | talk 16:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You yourself (Thevampireashlee) said "Adding a fair-use sound clip to help illustrate Del Rey's earlier style, since we do not have images." Her musical style hasn't changed that much, her image has. Also, the snippet is already used in two other articles. teammathi (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We're definitely overusing it if it's already in two other articles. TV | talk 16:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not deny saying that, but I have changed my perspective. Surely as people do from time to time. I originally uploaded the clip to be used for this article, so if we remove it from an article, I would recommend that it's another one. The clip has sufficient rationale to be used in all three articles though. I think there is a stronger case for using the audio versus the image, in that the text of the article refers directly to the EP upon which the song is located and is supported by sources. The change in her appearance is not supported by sources and is thus original research until proven otherwise. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want my honest opinion, I don't think the article is improved or degraded by having either the picture OR the sound clip there. As it stands, it's a mere quibble about interior decorating -- not improving the encyclopedia entry. If I had to chose, I would definitely choose the audio clip. It's about a musician, and there are enough visual aids to help illustrate the topic. The subject of the article is musician first, not fashion icon. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Although it appears the result of the moot was to keep the audio clip and ditch the photograph, but I recently unearthed a source that verified my claim. According to Shirley Halperin of The Hollywood Reporter, Del Rey's Grant-era music departs from her current sound in that it is happier and jazzier.[1] I have included this into the article, to further cushion against possible OR claims and to defend my original argument. The Hollywood Reporter is published by Prometheus Global Media, who also publish Billboard, so they seem quite reliable on the subject. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

"A music video created by Del Rey for the song was posted on YouTube in August 2011 and became a viral internet hit. Del Rey then signed a joint deal with Interscope and Polydor in collaboration with Stranger Recordsin July 2011." doesn't make sense to me. teammathi (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What is confusing about it? It's correct English. That aside, there are noticeable flaws in the lead. The first being that there are sources in it. According to WP:LEAD, the lead should contain no sources. All text in the lead should summarize what is sourced in the article body. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's grammatically correct but it doesn't make sense that she posted the video in August and then signed a deal in July 2011 (sorry, for some reason I forgot to copy the July 2011). Yes, we should correct that, too. teammathi (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This is even more confusing than I thought. First, I'm looking at the Vogue source, which seems to be the most reliable. In it, it says that Del Rey signed her first record deal at age 20, contradicting the first sentence of the article; it says 21. Next, it says that she signed the joint contract with Interscope and Polydor in October 2011. The article expresses that she signed a deal with Stranger and 5 point to release "Video Games" before anything with Interscrope/Polydor happened. The sources seem to contradict that statement as well. As it stands, I'm not entirely sure of how to revise it, since I'm not entirely sure WHAT happened. Here's the source I'm using: http://www.vogue.co.uk/spy/biographies/lana-del-rey --Thevampireashlee (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sources contradict on many topics considering Ms. Grant. I think the problem with the age at her signing has something to do with Del Rey's actual birthdate being in 1985, not 1986. The United States Copyright Office and many other sources support this (). In this interview, David Nichtern (5 Points records owner) says she was signed in 2007 so maybe we should add that to the article (). In this interview form January 28, 2010 she's 24 that'd mean that she's 27 now (). teammathi (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A common trend in the music industry, it appears. On the Nicki Minaj article, we've encountered similar problems. Record labels want to their artists to be younger on paper. Younger = sexier = better sales. I think we should use whichever dates and numbers are the most common among sources -- despite what we know is true. For all we know, she could be a 700 year old vampire. Would explain why she changed her name so many times. ;) All of this aside, I attempted to mend the lead with the Vogue. I added other information I thought was relevant. Once we decide which dates and ages are the most common, we can fix it further. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sadly we don't have many reliable sources saying she's 27. teammathi (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No Kung Fu

I initially believed that Paradise was her third EP, following Kill Kill and her self-titled Interscope debut. However, I recently uncovered (ANOTHER!) hidden release from Miss Lizzy. Apparently, it's called No Kung Fu. If we could procure more reliable sources, we could write an individual article on it, but I'm surprised it has not even been mentioned on the artist's article. I think I saw something about it on List of Lana Del Rey songs or was it List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs before it was deleted? Could the EP perhaps have been a fan creation, or was it an unreleased demo like Sirens? Here are some unreliable sources that I uncovered:

• http://lyrics.wikia.com/Lana_Del_Rey:No_Kung_Fu_%282007%29
• http://www.yourmusictoday.com/2012/02/13/lana-del-rey-kung-fu-complete-2007-demo/

Looks like all the tracks were used on her debut, Lana Del Ray a.k.a. Lizzy Grant. Thoughts?

No Kung Fu is just a fanmade EP with demos. Somebody said that it was a demo that was given do David Kahne in 2007, but it isn't, some fan just created it. And the list of unreleased songs is now here: User:TV/sandbox/List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs. teammathi (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift replay, Teammathi. I decided to create a redirect for No Kung Fu, anyway. Future readers and editors may search for information on a similar topic, so I feel its necessary to at least acknowledge it and point them toward illumination. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Jaguar

Ok, I know this may sound trivial, but Del Rey drives a Jaguar XK. Since she is also the face of Jaguar and she most probably got her car through that deal I thought it may be notable and could be included in the personal life section. I can provide a source if it should be included. teammathi (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Performances

Since I have nominated Born to Die Tour (which I created myself) for deletion because it has never officially been named that and the 2013 tour doesn't have a name, I suggest that we add a "Performances" section to this article discussing tours, performances on TV shows etc. teammathi (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - are you going to extract the data from the Tour article before it is deleted ? RGCorris (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I added it to my sandbox. teammathi (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought but perhaps the information would be better suited for the Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) since the venues are being used to promote that album? --Thevampireashlee (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

veracity of the biography

what are your sources for the personal life biography of her? Especially the parts about being an alcoholic teenager and then having lived in a trailer park . It sounds contradictive to the fact her rich father helped her finance , market her album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.84.169 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The source for her alcoholism is her GQ interview, the source for her living in a trailer park is her interview with The Huffington Post. There's nothing in the article about her father financing her life or the marketing her album because it's not true. teammathi (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you wrote this about her father yourself in this page :" Her father, Robert Grant, helped with the marketing of the album,[23] which was available for purchase on iTunes for a brief period before being withdrawn."Then it is at least partly true to you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.84.169 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok, then maybe he did help her out. She did live in a trailer park though. How is that contradicting? teammathi (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have actually encountered this argument before: "no one would live in a trailer park unless they were desperate", and "no one with a wealthy family member could be desperate". I have not yet seen any WP-policy/guidance-related objection to the content here, and on short review, I don't see a problem with the trailer park bit.User talk:Unfriend12 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

well someone can be desperate in any situation and context, rich or poor, but saying she was homeless sounds a bit overemphasized if you do some research and find out about her backgrounds.Might be true or not, It all sounds a bit like a cinderella story and It's good to do some research before believing anything interview magazines say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.84.169 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

She wasn't homeless, she lived in a trailer park. I've done plenty of research and she definitely did live in a trailer park, she's said that plenty of times. teammathi (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"saying she was homeless" - Be aware that wp:BLP applies to talk pages as well as article pages, 90.46.84.169. Are you saying there is an article that claims she was homeless? If there is and there is no source, please link it or fix it, but next time, please put the comment on the talk page for that article, and perhaps see wp:talk.User talk:Unfriend12 21:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The only mention of "homeless" here involves her work with homeless outreach... helping the homeless.User talk:Unfriend12 21:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, once again, this is said in your artcile itself, in similar words : " I felt trapped before I got to the trailer park because I had nowhere to live". anyways,these are just her own words, I personally don't believe someone who's been lying about things as obvious as her surgery. I guess everyone saw these images that are talking more than words, then it's up to you what you like to believe. http://alteredidentity.com/lana-del-rey-plastic-surgery-before-and-after/ peace out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.223.155 (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

First, please sign your posts so Sinebot will stop its spam. ;)

"what you like to believe" - I don't "believe" any of it. "Does it appear in a wp:reliable source?" If so, my belief does not matter, if not, it doesn't belong. wp:NOR - our own personal beliefs or knowledge simply don't matter. If what you mean is "Do you believe the source, that she actually said that?" then again it doesn't matter. If you think the source listed does not meet wp:RS, then perhaps consult the archives at wp:RSN to see if it has been challenged... and decide if it should be... and challenge it if it seems best. Personally, my question is "Why do we need this in an encyclopedia article about a performing artist?" which has nothing to do with the subject of this section.User talk:Unfriend12 23:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And the large quote is sourced only to a blog entry at HP. Dropped.User talk:Unfriend12 23:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As a note, checking wp:RSN shows that blog entries at Huffington Post are... blog entries, no good in and of themselves as wp:RS, and most certainly not good enough to put something like this quote into a wp:BLP.User talk:Unfriend12 23:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

?

Hello editors article. I'm a fan of Lana Del Rey and wonder if they can carry this picture for me, it is down there. George miranda do nascimento (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jaguarcarsmena/8039217931/in/photostream/

Hi there, I have now uploaded this image in full (there is already a cropped version of the image in the wikimedia commons), here it is Lana Del Rey Jaguar F-Type 2012. Hope this helps. BrotherDarksoul ^Blether 15:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Is she of English descent

Her name is very English sounding.86.184.143.180 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

She is of Scottish descent, it's in the article. teammathi (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Show in Finland

Hey! Lana is coming to Finland 16.6. Can someone add that to article? Thanks! :) --82.181.245.234 (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lives in London

Lana confirmed at last night's Brit Awards that she lives in London. Not NYC or LA as stated in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.85.19 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

nominations

Lana is also nominated in world music awards in the categorie "World's Best Entertainer of the Year" so you can add that to your table: Awards and nominations. My source http://www.worldmusicawards.com/#!worlds-best-entertainer-of-the-year/clqm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.38.120 (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 March 2013

In 'influences' section, 'Alan Ginsberg' should be spelled 'Allen Ginsberg'--redirect works though. 76.24.30.73 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done someone has taken care of this. Nice catch. :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 March 2013

This is my first edit so forgive my inexperience. I want to add to this page that Lana Del Rey is a supporter of Liverpool Football Club. Here is my source: http://nesn.com/2013/03/lana-del-rey-makes-first-anfield-visit-watches-liverpools-dramatic-victory-over-tottenham/ Here is another source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2291380/Lana-Del-Rey-good-luck-charm-watches-Liverpool-FC-beat-Tottenham-Hotspur.html Flawlesst (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Teo

 Done teammathi (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Performances section

Looking through the article, it's doing quite well. One glaring issues that pops out at me is the section titled "Performances" below the "Artistry" section. Is this section necessary or notable? Skimming through featured articles about solo female pop singers (i.e. Mariah Carey and Kylie Minogue) no such section exists. Certainly their performances are notable, but why are they not included? I vote for the removal of this section on the Lana Del Rey article. It seems like trivia and clutter, frankly. I would also consider splitting it into a separate article called List of Lana Del Rey performances or something similar. Again, I'm not sure the information is crucial to the encyclopedia. That aside, I think more could be said about Del Rey's music video artistry and public image. Thoughts welcome. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think information about her performances should be included somewhere, maybe a less detailed version of the text in the performances section could be added to the life and career section. teammathi (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Splitting of life and career section

I don't think "2011–2012: Born to Die, Paradise, and product endorsements" and "2013–present: third studio album and The Great Gatsby" should be split. She is currently on her tour promoting Paradise and her song for The Great Gatsby was originally supposed to be on Paradise. I think we should start a new section when the "Born to Die and Paradise-era" is over and we start getting more information on her third studio album.

"On February 14, 2013 the music video for "Burning Desire" was released.[98] At the 2013 BRIT Awards, she won the award for International Female Solo Artist, making it her second BRIT Award to date.[99] Del Rey's win surprised critics who highly anticipated Taylor Swift to win the award.[99]" - this doesn't even have anything to do with the next album or Gatsby. teammathi (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

This article is loaded with links that revert back to the article. Thmazing (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you maybe list these links? teammathi (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Young and Beautiful (Lana Del Rey song) was redirected back to this article. I'm assuming that's what is being referred to. --74.67.72.168 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

I just found out that List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey exists, now I'm not sure whether her awards should only be listed here or there. teammathi (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The article still exists. I've flagged this article for merge, because it has higher traffic than the other one. I also added a link to that article in her nav template {{Lana Del Rey}}, to rescue it from orphan-hood. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Genres

Since we seem to have silly genres constantly added, can anyone point out solid sources that actually support 'alternative rock' and 'alternative hip hop'? --Michig (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I looked into this farther. It appears the genre Alternative rock sticks because she won the Best Alternative Act award, as well as her music being labeled under that genre on both Amazon.com and the iTunes Store (cue "Young and Beautiful". Additionally, her genre as rock seems to stem from all of her songs charting on the Hot Rock Songs Billboard chart in the U.S. This MTV considers her music rock as well (although it seems somewhat dubious). The alternative hip hop genre is propped up by a Pitchfork Media article that only seems to loosely suggest the music is hip hop, focusing instead on how her vocals compare to rapping. However, there are sources that seem to suggest her music is hip hop, including this one at Slant Magazine. There's another one from So So Gay on the Lana Del Rey (EP) article under the composition section for the song "Blue Jeans". There are a plethora of sources that call her "pop" (MTV, SPIN, and E! to name a few). With Allmusic calling it both retro-pop, alternative, and indie here. She places us in a difficult situation because critics are baffled by her output in terms of genre, each song having different placements from "Ride" being called soul pop and "Summertime Sadness" being trip hop and shoegazing. I think adding Alternative rock, hip hop, and pop are the vaguest, best-sourced genres we have for Del Rey. In terms of BLPs, broader genres tend to be best. I would stray from adding sadcore to the article. Although it is widely sourced, the page is flagged as being a potential neologism and was probably created by Del Rey fans in an attempt to validate the genre. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The 'sources' for most of these genres are either unreliable or vague, and classing her genre as hip hop simply because someone thought her vocals sounded a bit hip-hop-ish doesn't really make sense - occasionally doing a bit of rap-like vocal doesn't make something hip hop. The MTV nom doesn't really support alternative rock as a genre as other nominees include Goldfrapp, The Prodigy, and Florence and the Machine, and the only mention of hip hop in the Slant article is a view that she 'references' it, which is incredibly weak to support it as a genre. Why can't we do what the guidance for the infobox suggests and just have the broader category of Pop music, which is undeniably what it is, whatever different influences and elements it has, rather than listing every term that has been mentioned in articles about her? --Michig (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that vaguer is better, as my previous comment already illustrated. I do, however, disagree with omitting alternative rock as a genre, when her music clearly falls under indie pop, a subgenre of pop and alternative music. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say that is anything but clear. Stylistically she has little similarity to indie pop. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Lana's Voice Type

I'm questioning how necessary it is to have a section for her voice type at the moment, especially considering that her voice type itself is constantly up for debate and different opinion. Although our sources do say she is a contralto, I feel like those sources including all the sources I can find regarding her voice type are created out of the interpretation and opinion of the writer. And of course, contradict each other. There's no doubt that Lana has sang and recorded a great range of notes... As far as image and opinions go, she is famous for singing low. But she's also famous for her girlish tone, unlike the typical contralto. I'm unsure if we can really define her voice type (contralto, mezzo-soprano, soprano, etc) just yet. Sources in our article do say that she has said she used to sing high, and purposely tried to lower it to be taken more seriously. That gives me the impression that, in my personal opinion, she perhaps is not a natural contralto (again, my opinion, not something to cite). But I don't know if there's anywhere documented where she herself, or some one close to her, has said what her voice type is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.17.106 (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

artistry section needs changes.

I rarely edit, so I could be wrong, and I don't feel like making an account, but some of the artistry section sounds bad. It says " the chapbook Leaves of Grass" and "a poem called Howl" when both of these works are very well known. It also refers to David Lynch as a "neo- noir" director, when his genre and style tend to vary.

I remove the word "neo-noir". You're right. I checked the accompanying sources to see if it was included there, but it was not. As far as removing the words "chapbook" and "poem", I decided against it. They seem to serve the purpose of briefly describing the medium without the reading needing to click the link to the next article. Before reading your edit request here, I had no idea what either work was. I assumed they were songs. Just goes to show that what they are is not necessary common knowledge. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

I'm requesting that an authorized person adds information about her mentioning she may not produce another album, effectively ending her singing career. The following information is crucial and should not be left out despite that she's still a living person. The information below is from this website: http://www.nme.com/news/lana-del-rey/61850

The 25-year-old told Vogue magazine that she didn't know if she could add anything by recording another album. She said: "I don't think I'll write another record. What would I say? I feel like everything I wanted to say, I've said already."

The sentiment echoes previous comments she made in an interview with the Press Association, during which Del Rey, real name Lizzy Grant, said her priorities had changed in the years spent as a struggling artist.

She said

Rejection and not getting anywhere changed me. I've gone from wanting to be a world-famous singer to wanting to focus on becoming an active, helpful member of my community who lives their life with dignity and grace.

Also, it needs to be noted that the announcement came shortly after the badly received performances on SNL and especially David Letterman. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This interview pre-dates the release of the Paradise Edition of Born To Die, which, if not a complete new album, suggests that she has more to say RGCorris (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case, this new information should be added as well. Her announcement and her expression of disappointment is too important not to mention. Also, observing feedback about that album at DrownedInSound would suggest it's not Lana Del Rey having more to say. Instead it suggests the album was a timely release for Christmas to make money. Also, Lana Del Rey didn't say anything about releasing new albums. She only mentioned recording another album. The actual release of albums is not up to her, but up to her producers. Besides, whether or not LDR feels she has 'more to say', her expression of disappointment and the follow up (not recording new material) is noteworthy and relevant.Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I can edit myself as I have become an auto-registered user. Nevertheless I'd still like to invite interested people to discuss first. To summarize the situation for your convenience: Lana Del Rey expressed her disappointment about her career. She repeated that sentiment again, whilst announcing she'd not produce a new record, after her live performances on SNL and David Letterman were criticized. RGCorris indicated new records are being produced nevertheless, though the records do not hold original material. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Who changed the date of birth to being a year older? it was originally set set 1986, now it's changed to 1985, I'm pretty sure she was actually born in 1986 as it was before, I even double checked and in a biography of her states her birth year was 1986. Zak Hammat (talk) 2:11, 30 June (ASST) I have just seen the talk articles and proof that her actual year was 1985 and 1986 was just a misinformed year, resulting in most interviews and articles that her age being mentioned was misinformation, so is 1985 really the year of birth? if she was then she would have been 20 the first year being active in 2005, which seems a bit old and Google still says the birth year 1986, which I thought was more likely accurate. Zak Hammat (talk) I've double checked for proof and it is found that IMDb confirms 1986 was her actual birth year, turns out the fault was in the early articles. Zak Hammat (talk) 3:18, 30 June (ASST) There is another link supplied confirming 1986 is factual, in the early life section there is a URL to an interview with her from October 7, 2011 and she herself says in this interview she was in fact 25 at the time, therefore it is 1986 so she today is 27(source). 11:48, 30 June (ASST) So if those 2 early articles mentioned are correct, then that must mean Lana lied about her age in the link of October 7. 2011. 3:14, 1 July (ASST) Deneuve15, the one responsible for changing the birth date has been blocked from editing by Kww, and if he ever changes the birth date without consensus again he will be blocked permanently, birth dates should never be changed and are to be left alone, her year of birth was in fact 1986, therefore it should be staying this way. Zak Hammat (talk) 12:52, 5 July (ASST)

I haven't been blocked, so you can remove your comment - thanks: the birth date should be correct and the source I provided is correct, the birth date can be changed if there is agreement that the source is valid, remember Wikipedia is about factual information:Deneuve15 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You were blocked, you just were unblocked later. Zak Hammat is correct that if you change it again without getting a consensus here, you will be blocked again, per the terms of your unblocking.—Kww(talk) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You really have it in for me don't you! just because I want to put up a valid edit. I'm aware of your 'unblocking' terms and as you can see I added my request to edit on the talk page with the source link below. I completely disagree that the year of birth can't be changed which is what I stated to Zak Hammat in the comment above where he states the birth date can never be changed - if it's wrong it should be changed. I really don't see what the problem is - wiki is about FACTS with reliable sources. You clearly have some 'control issues' going on and can you please unblock my user page or I will go to admin boards as you don't seem to know what you are doing. Deneuve15 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Merely correcting your comment where you stated that you "haven't been blocked". Your user page doesn't show that you are currently blocked: I fixed that for you when you asked.—Kww(talk) 19:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

But merely 'avoiding' correcting comments that are actually relevant to wiki editing i.e. the date of birth can never be changed; which is nonsense it all comes down to reliable source information which, you actually chose to remove and then block me. You seem to be making this all very personal which isn't what wikipedia is about! this needs to go to adminDeneuve15 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have in fact noticed that she did not start writing until she was 18 but there is no particular year set for this, all there is that her first year active is 2005, yes I have seen those sources there, and I actually stopped changing that birth date but I'm not the reason you got blocked, it was Kww who blocked you for it cos you need consensus, and if you change it again without consensus he will block you permanently, I read his message, however I can see there is misinformation about the age, it is confusion but I see birth dates should not be changed all the time, her year of birth is set to 1986 and can no longer be changed cos the page is now secure, but really nobody's birth date at should be getting changed a lot, usually IMDB is more accurate, you need to stop messing around with this, but really I'm sick of seeing them play with us like this.Zak Hammat (talk) 00:43, July 14 (ASST)

I hate to tell you this, no offence but I'm with Kww on this, I highly doubt he has any problem, it's you, because like I said birth dates should not be messed with, there is now a new source about her upcoming video "Tropico" and it still states her with her mostly confirmed age right now 27, so it in fact should just be left to alone, it's up to the owners of the page.Zak Hammat (talk) 1:16 July 15 (ASST)

Zak Hammat I hate to tell you this but you don't seem realise no one owns the page. This is clearly stated by Wikipedia "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." What Wiki is concerned about is the source and how reliable it is. What concerns me is the extent that you and Kww have gone to to try and stop the source being used which is why it is going to admin to sort out. Even after seeing the United States copyright agreement which clearly states the correct year of birth and previously agreeing it is correct you now have changed your mind? Wiki is about facts not preferences. Also if you are going to mention sources at least cite them so they can be determined as valid ...or not.Deneuve15 (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Year of Birth needs correcting

The birth date should be correct and the source I provided is very reliable: Elizabeth-Woolridge_Grant applied for copyright at the United States Copyright Office in 2005 twice and once in 2012 where she submitted her correct year of birth because it's a legal document

- go to http://cocatalog.loc.gov and enter; grant elizabeth woolridge in search option and select name - 3 separate copyrights made by Elizabeth Grant with year of birth 1985. This was also confirmed by close family friend and publisher Ron Jackson in an article on the T.R.A.F.F.I.C journal site which her father is involved, it stated she was celebrating her 23rd birthday on June 21st 2008 and also in an interview with her father back in January 2010 where it states her age as 24 at that time. Can add these other links if needed. Deneuve15 (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

other sources;
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2008/dailyposts/07-04-08.htm Published July 4, 2008, age 23 - trade publication "Domain Name Journal" Publisher-Ron Jackson
http://www.dnjournal.com/columns/rj_bio.htm Ron Jackson Bio - broadcast journalist
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2011/dailyposts/20111024.htm Ron Jackson family friend to the Grant's
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/510931 Publication- newspaper adirondack daily enterprise January 28, 2010, age 24
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/lana-del-rey-body-music-video-shoot_n_3528514.html published 07/01/2013 age 28
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2322773/Lana-Del-Rey-admits-struggles-people-dislike-music-strips-shoot.html Published 21:16, 10 May 2013 age 27
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/4991466/lana-del-rey-sizzles-in-red-underwear-to-play-stripper-in-video.html By TIM NIXON Published: 01st July 2013 By Tim Nixon, age 28
http://news.radio.com/2013/08/16/interview-lana-del-rey-on-leaks-immitators-haters-summertime-sadness/ August 16, 2013, "I went back to listening to Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, whose life path really influenced my life path 10 years ago when I was 18".

Deneuve15 (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel,you added this in your edit;
Elizabeth Woolridge Grant (born June 21, 1986) She was born in 1986 not 1985. Please see the talk page and the link here before you change her year of birth. name=plastic/"Lana Del Rey." Gale Biography in Context. Detroit: Gale, 2012. Biography In Context. Web. 15 July 2013."Lana Del Rey." Contemporary Musicians. Vol. 76. Detroit: Gale, 2013. Biography In Context. Web. 15 July 2013

Suggesting to see a link when there is no link? Also Given that the specific part of the article is about Elizabeth Woolridge Grant and not the persona Lana Del Rey shouldn't your links reference Elizabeth Woolridge Grant, they currently suggest the information relates to a persona rather than Elizabeth Woolridge Grant Deneuve15 (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

From Vogue Magazine:

Lana Del Rey is an American singer/songwriter and Vogue cover girl. Born in New York in 1986, her birth name is Elizabeth Woolridge Grant.

Vogue Magazine is a reliable source and according to Vogue the "persona", as you call it, and Elizabeth Grant are one and the same person. QED.

From Glamour magazine:

Name Lana Del Rey Birthday 21 June 1986 Biography Lana Del Rey, real name Elizabeth Grant, is an American singer/songwriter

Again: Another reliable source. No distinction between "persona" and real person. QED #2.

From AllMusic:

Born June 21, 1986 in Lake Placid, NY Aliases Elizabeth Woolridge Grant Lizzy Grant May Jailer

QED #3 and so on...

Do you see the pattern here? Conclusion: Until such time as you produce very strong reliable sources, refuting the multitude of reliable sources currently in the article and saying that the DOB of the "persona" is different from the DOB of Elizabeth Grant, the information supported by the six reliable sources has to stay in the article. You are entitled to your theories, of course, except they cannot be added to the article at the present time because without the support of reliable sources they are simply original research. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A link is not suggested or required. See WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries, or in off-line sources."

Full agreement with Dr.K on this nonsense about personas. You can't dismiss a half dozen reliable sources and then concoct a theory about a persona with a separate birthdate without a shred of evidence.

You have no legal document nor any evidence that this alleged document means what you say it does.

Unless any actual evidence is presented I think we're just spinning our wheels here. Gamaliel (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well said. I agree completely. Thank you Gamaliel. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel Δρ.Κ.It has been quoted on many reliable sources that Lana Del Rey is a persona of Elizabeth Woolridge Grant, so accusing me of making up "nonsense about personas" is in fact incorrect. I'm surprised you are editing on a BLP that you seem to know so little about. I have added an extract below taken from Billboard cover story on Lana Del Rey in which her producer David Kahne clearly states she created a persona. This is why the year of birth changed her date of birth is 1985 but in all PR and therefore bio's on Lana Del Rey that were subsequently released her birth date has changed. As David Kahne states in his interview below "I think she wanted to be Lana Del Rey and didn't want to be Lizzy Grant. That was her family name, and she's very dramatic. She wiped [out] this other person. I think she actually thinks that she's that other person"

David Kahne, who produced Grant as well as albums for Paul McCartney, Regina Spektor and Kelly Clarkson, thinks otherwise. Agreeing to work with her in 2008 after 5 Points connected them, he witnessed the beginnings of her reinvention from a platinum blonde guitar-cradler to an alt-indie princess. Contrary to what Del Rey asserts, Kahne is under the impression that she bought the rights back from 5 Points to stifle future opportunities to distribute it-an echo of rumors that the action was part of a calculated strategy.

"I think Lizzy Lana owns it, so [her team] wanted it out of circulation. That's why they bought the rights from them," Kahne says. "I think she wanted to be Lana Del Rey and didn't want to be Lizzy Grant. That was her family name, and she's very dramatic. She wiped [out] this other person. I think she actually thinks that she's that other person, and she probably is. So that was the decision that she made, that she didn't want traces of that whole person around, as far as I can tell." He hasn't worked with her since 2008.

To jump-start her transformation from Grant to Del Rey, she relocated to London and spent 2010 taking meetings with "every label," but, she says, she was repeatedly rejected. Though his work with Del Rey ceased after they recorded three post-album songs, including "Yayo" and "Gramma," Kahne observed the physical transformation that's become a focal point of criticism.

"She looks different. [She] doesn't sound different to me, though," Kahne says

Obviously trying to find sources to prove Elizabeth Woolridge Grant's year of birth is 1985 has been made difficult as Kahne says "she didn't want traces of that whole person around / She wiped [out] this other person" but it's not impossible. I personally think as there is enough evidence of this and her persona and it hasn't even been included in the - article it should be. It was a huge story at the start of her launching herself as Lana Del Rey. It's also evident that Lana Del Rey herself and her management/team cannot be relied upon to supply facts because Kahne also states in his interview above that Lana Del Rey bought the rights to her fist album which she tried to deny (as she had claimed to being very poor, also part of her persona) but after this interview was released she backtracked in an interview with the BBC and admitted to buying the rights to her album on leaving her first label this was also confirmed in a later interview with the label owner David Nichtern. So there is clearly a problem with attaining facts in the case of Lana Del Rey as she is a persona.
Also my point was that you stated there was a link in your edit it isn't actually a link but a reference to a source I was merely pointing out you should clean up your edit as when you made it you added no link just a reference. Deneuve15 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamalieljust to answer your point about the United State copyright agreement "not being evidence that this alleged document means what you say it does" you can cross check anyone's year of birth with that catalogue and they all come up correct with what wikipedia has. The year of birth is normally just included with the first few copyright claims for example search title: Eraserhead / written, produced, and directed by David Lynch - states Lynch, David, 1946- that is his year of birth, in fact of the many I have cross checked only Elizabeth Woolridge Grant's is different to what wiki has Deneuve15 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Are you are referring to the note that reads "Please see the talk page and the link here before you change her year of birth."? As you can see from my only edit to this article, I did not insert that note. Again, please read Help:Diff, which will help you understand how to distinguish between the edits of different contributors and to link to them so you don't have to repeatedly cut and paste large blocks of material into talk pages.

• You already know my opinion about this web catalog. I do not feel that it meets the criteria for reliable sources on Wikipedia, and even if it does I certainly don't feel it trumps six other reliable sources. You are welcome to seek a different opinion on the reliable sources noticeboard.

• It is fact that Grant has a stage name or persona or whatever you want to call it. What is your theory is that this persona includes a new birthdate for the new persona. You need to provide a source that directly makes this claim before we can even consider this matter any further. Connecting a couple of alleged discrepancies with some comments from interviews to create a theory about a new birthdate for a new persona is what we call original research and is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel Δρ.Κ. shouldn't this information be included in the article as information on her BLP, as far as I can see there is no mention of the extent that Elizabeth Woolridge Grant went to to create a new persona.Deneuve15 (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been quoted on many reliable sources that Lana Del Rey is a persona of Elizabeth Woolridge Grant, so accusing me of making up "nonsense about personas" is in fact incorrect. I'm surprised you are editing on a BLP that you seem to know so little about.

Did you bother to read my quotations from above? That's exactly what they say. That Lana is a persona of Elizabeth. So please do us a favour and do not misrepresent what we told you. That Lana is the persona of Elizabeth Grant is self-evident and hardly an issue here to be "surprised" about as you seem to be. What we do not agree with is your far-fetched thesis that the two have different birth years as you are trying to push without backup from any reliable sources. So, again, please read our replies before you make any other random comments feigning surprise. As far as including any details about the "persona" in the BLP that's an entirely different issue and you should open a new thread about it. This thread is about the alleged YOB discrepancy and you seem adequately confused about the issues that we don't need any more issues to create more confusion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ. Thanks I appreciate what you are saying, the thing is I haven't as you said "concocted a theory about a persona with a separate birth date without a shred of evidence", I have seen the evidence it's very easy to run background checks on people everyone's data is stored and it's very easy to obtain so I have the evidence; in fact if anyone ran a basic public record search on Elizabeth Woolridge Grant NY it turns up the same date of birth on all of them - 21st June 1985 - what I'm obviously having a problem with is providing that evidence in line wikipedia guidelines. So please do me a favour and stop implying that I have no foundation to state my discussion on and have a bit of respect that I wouldn't come and edit on wikipedia without knowing this to be absolutely certain.
I'm happy to open up a separate heading on a 'persona section' and was not 'feigning surprise' it's quite clear the changed date of birth came with the launch of the persona Lana Del Rey, clearly the problem with our 'discussions' is I'm fully aware I am correct as I have the evidence but you believe I'm talking 'nonsense' this would obviously lead to a conflict of interests in a 'discussion' but probably explain my persistence.
I don't believe I'm confused about the issues I believe wikipedia restricts adding access to factual information based on a set of rules and as in most 'institutions with rules' this stifles transparency. I should just be happy with the fact that my 'original research' is backed up by many public records, I just don't seem to be allowed to share that with anyone on this platform.Deneuve15 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
• WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to move the topic too far from its original point, but there currently is a section in the article about Del Rey's many personae. Here's a quick link: Lana Del Rey#Musical style and personae. If substantial text regarding her different personae is added (and, naturally, accompanied by reliable sources) I would not object to splitting it into its own sub-header. Any way. Resume. :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As Gamaliel says just above we are not allowed by policy (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) to go about snooping for tidbits of information so that we can make the case that Lana is younger than Liz. That is completely unacceptable. We are here to build an encyclopaedia not a news agency looking for the latest scoop. We are editors not investigative reporters. Tell you what. Why don't you go to the New York Times and tell them what you found. If they find it intriguing enough and publish it then we can also consider publishing it. But not before then. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ. You are aware that all the links that have been cited came from one source; Shore Fire Media. Shore Fire Media is Lana Del Rey's PR company who send out their information to all the sources and publications you have cited, that's how PR and media works. So if wiki considers a PR company to be a more reliable source than a record of a legal document with a US government agency, wiki has got a problem. I don't know how the media works in Greece (I doubt it's any different) but in the U.K. the media is corrupt, 70% of the population agree. It would be great if there was a source that separated itself from that but clearly wikipedia can't be relied on to provide factual information, it basically rehashes the garbage that's already out there, which then gets mirrored and spread around the globe and you are contributing to that... 'voluntarily', wow.Deneuve15 (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. When everything else fails there is nothing better than a few personal comments against your opponent to try and "shame" him into submission. It won't work. For your information this is a wiki. This page is watched by 120 editors and is read many times per day. I am not acting in a vacuum. None of these 120 editors who watch this page or those who read it daily has come to either support you or refute me or Gamaliel. This should tell you that they have given us their tacit support. So please leave your personal comments about me and find another way to benefit this project. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ. Merely returning the tactical favour, if you notice at the top of this page there are some guidelines that do apply to you, Gamaliel and everyone else; be polite, and welcoming to new users, assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. I'm not into shame but I like the truth and facts and if anyone started a tactic of shame and submission you both need look no further than your own comments above. Isn't there a saying hypocrite, take the gigantic chunk of dirt out of your own eye then you will see clearly to remove the speck of dust in your friends. Suggesting that the 120 editors who watch this page have given you their tactical support is a bad move and only backs up what I was saying.Deneuve15 (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I repeat my offer, Deneuve15. If you collect a group of sources that support 1985 and a group of sources that support 1986, I'll help you craft an RFC that will get editors from all over Wikipedia to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Deneuve15. Your theory that the birthdate is wrong rests on a number of assumptions that we do not share:

• The web catalog represents, with 100% accuracy, the contents of some unknown alleged legal document.
• The information in this unknown alleged legal document is 100% accurate.
• The conflicting birthdate in all other sources is inaccurate.
• Shore Fire Media (or some other agent of Lana Del Rey) is the source of this inaccurate information.
• Shore Fire Media is engaged in a deliberate campaign of deception the birthdate.
• The inaccurate birthdate is part of a campaign to conjure a new persona.

This sort of thing may indeed happen all the time in the realms of media and publicity. What does not happen all the time on Wikipedia is this: we do not accuse public figures of being engaged in deliberate campaigns of deception based on our own conjecture or theories. It isn't ethical, it doesn't further truth or accuracy, and it is against Wikipedia policy. The latter is what I think Dr. K was getting at when he mentioned those 120 editors. Not that they have our back in this fight, but that Wikipedia policy reigns here, and you may shame or cajole a few editors here into agreeing with you, but it doesn't matter, because those other ed itors, and thousands more, and the Wikimedia foundation will enforce that policy. If you feel that we have interpreted policy incorrectly, or disagree with the policy itself, then please discuss that matter at a relevant noticeboard like WP:BLPN or WP:RS, but not here.

I admire your passion for truth, but Wikipedia is not the forum for uncovering new truths, new discoveries, new creations or revelations. You should bring your theory to the proper forum, perhaps something like Gawker or Spin, and should they examine your theory, find it accurate, and publish it, we will gladly use that publication as a source for this article. Until then, or until you come up with a reliable source that adheres to Wikipedia policy, I don't think we have anything else to discuss here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gamaliel for your well-made comments. You interpreted the spirit of my arguments very well and you provided solid policy-based advice. I have nothing else to add to your comments or those made by Kww other than to say that I agree with both of you. I also think that there is nothing else to add to this discussion because it has become an utter waste of time since Deneuve is now engaging in personal attacks which indicate that there is no benefit in trying to assist that editor further. So I am done here. If new reliable sources are found explicitly supporting 1985 as the YOB, as opposed to doing original research and using synthetic inference to support it, then we can reopen the discussion. But not until then. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Published sources in 2013, as age 28 (please see sources at start of topic) therefore Y.O.B 1985. As far as I'm aware these sources are considered reliable and adhere to Wikipedia policy, more to follow shortly....Gamaliel I'm still not sure why you dispute a record of a copyright agreement made by Elizabeth Woolridge Grant for her song writing (including a song from her album Born to Die), it is a record of a legal copyright claim, so I will be taking administrator Kww up on his offer once I have collated all sources. ThanksDeneuve15 (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, if these sources don't mention 1985 explicitly they are useless. For example I did not use this very reliable reference because it does not mention 1986 explicitly: The Daily Telegraph: Lana Del Rey, Hammersmith Apollo, review, article by James Lachno 6:07PM BST 20 May 2013, quote: "Unusual” was one way to describe the 26-year-old New Yorker as she baby-talked and pouted her way through an hour and 20-minute set of songs from her chart-topping album, last year’s Born To Die...." But I just added three more reliable sources specifically mentioning her birthday as 21 June 1986. We now have nine reliable sources explicitly mentioning 1986 versus zero mentioning 1985. You do the math. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Also your method of searching for the string "Lana Del Ray 27 year old" is flawed. For example: You have a link to the Daily Mail which calls her a 27-year old. I have four recent links from the same newspaper which call her a 26-year old:

• by KIMBERLEY DADDS PUBLISHED: 21:12 GMT, 15 May 2013: Quote: "The 26-year old turned up to the Cannes Film Festival Opening Ceremony..."
• Daily Mail 26 May 2013: The 26-year-old singer was performing an intimate gig in the city as part of her European tour...
• Daily Mail 3 June 2013: The 26-year-old also wrapped up her long legs in panty-hose and finished off the outfit with a pair of tall lace-up black boots.
• Daily Mail 4 June 2013: The 26-year-old singer rocked a sleeveless floral mini dress with a print that could have been a childhood favourite.
• Another example: New York Daily News: "Lana Del Rey poses nude for British GQ Posted on 2012-09-11 Lana Del Rey had some things to get off her chest. The 26 year-old "Video Games" crooner ditched her clothes and her inhibitions for a nude photo shoot and even more revealing interview in the latest issue of British GQ magazine." 26-year old in September 2012. That means 1986 is her YOB. Similarly, you used the Huffington Post to call her 27-year old in 2012,
• here is the Huffington Post in May 2013 calling her 26-year old: "The stunning 26-year-old wore a vintage-style embroidered gown by Austrian designer Lena Hoschek." Conclusion: The evidence points strongly to 1986 as her YOB despite your efforts to prove otherwise and the sources you found are confused about her YOB and thus are not reliable.
• Another Huffington May 2013 26-year old,
• Guardian May 2013 26-year old,
• The Hollywood Reporter 31 July 2012: 26-year old,
• "Woman Of The Year: Lana Del Rey" GQ Magazine: 01 October 2012: "The truth of Del Rey's story is this: born Elizabeth Grant in New York City 26 years ago, she was raised upstate in Lake Placid.",
• Elle Magazine "Jul 17, 2012 - H&M tapped 26-year-old singer and songwriter Lana Del Rey for her first modeling job in the brand's fall campaign",
• the BBC 27 February 2013: Speaking to Newsbeat after her win, the 26-year-old said:,
• The Sun 26 January 2012: The 25-year-old — who describes her unique style as “Gangsta Nancy Sinatra”,
• Philly.com: July 17 2012: On Monday, H&M confirmed that the 26-year-old is the global face of the Swedish retailer's autumn/winter ad campaign,
• The Daily Mirror March 2013: The 26-year-old fitted in with the supporters by taking her place in the stands,
• ENET.gr: May 2013: The 26-year-old's album “Born to die” has sold more than three million copies worldwide.,
• The Daily Telegraph Fashion: 25 June 2012: The 26-year-old, who took to the stage at BBC Radio 1's Hackney Weekend, was signed up by Next Models in January, joining...
• The Scotsman 14 May 2013: The 26-year-old then pulled out a recent copy of Vogue, carrying a recent photoshoot, to prove who she was to the shop assistant.,
• Reuters 27 January 2012: Rarely has a pop star just starting out been so loved and loathed as Lana Del Rey, the 25-year-old....
• Billboard magazine 21 January 2012: Lana Del Rey: The Billboard Cover Story The 25-year-old songstress became one of 2011's most seemingly organic upstarts.
• NY Daily News 6 April 2012: Lana Del Rey, Axl Rose rumored to be dating despite 25-year age difference. Do you see the trend? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your diligence is impressive! And exhausting to watch. ;) Gamaliel (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Gamaliel for your nice comments. All in a day's work on wiki. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

She's 28. https://www.dobsearch.com/people-finder/view.php?t=1374605159&searchnum=146878410703 Littlecarmen (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

She's 28, actually. Here Lirimefaut (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Does that rule apply to talk pages as well as articles? If so, that's a ridiculous catch-22. We're debating a discrepancy over a date of birth which can only be truly resolved by referring to public records. I know there's things in the guidelines about using common sense, not being completely captive to the rules, and using editorial discretion. This seems like a situation where that should apply. Evilentity1 (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you see the part in WP:BLPPRIMARY which bolds the do "not use" and italicises the "not" for even more emphasis?

Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

This material is clearly unacceptable. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We can certainly discuss the issue on the talk page. But I don't see how this unknown website "dobsearch.com" is going to convince anyone to forget about the 472 thousand other sources Dr. K cited above. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gamaliel. :) I have more where these came from:

• The Guardian, The Observer 21 January 2012: However, fame did happen to someone called Lana Del Rey, a 25-year-old sultry, seductive songstress who is the current hottest name in US music ... Of course, Lana Del Rey and Lizzy Grant are the same person.. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you completely missed my point. Did you not see the part where I said "Does that rule apply to talk pages"? Let me rephrase my question as a hypothetical: Imagine we had just two articles from reliable sources with conflicting dates of birth for a person. Now imagine we have access to public records which resolve which one is correct. Obviously we would not be able to use that as a source on the article page, but is that rule really intended to bar us from using that information on the talk page to determine which article is accurate and can be used as a source? (Whether our situation here is at all analogous is a completely separate question and one which we can debate.) Evilentity1 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I responded directly to your point when I said we could discuss the issue on the talk page. Obviously we can discuss this in exactly the manner you suggest here. The second part of my response engaged in that very discussion, when I said that I thought that this link you want to discuss was of dubious worth compared to the sources gathered by Dr. K. Gamaliel (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I intended my last post in response to Dr. K. Ok, so do we agree we can discuss supporting evidence here that might not be appropriate to cite in the article itself? If you consider the public records on dobsearch.com "dubious", what public records would satisfy you? (Also, some additional supporting evidence that also might not be appropriate to cite in the article itself is that Lizzy Grant herself lists her DOB as 1985 on her personal Facebook account.)

Statements that there are "472 thousand" sources for 1986 "versus zero mentioning 1985" are as much hyperbole as they are unhelpful. There is no good reason not to consider the Domain Name Journal, Adirondack Daily, HuffPo, Daily Mail, or Sun articles supporting 1985 Deneuve15 cites as less reliable than the articles listed supporting 1986. The argument that you can't base it on her stated age and publication date is spurious. I also don't see why a LoC copyright filing shouldn't be considered reliable supporting evidence. The reality is there are some number of reliable sources for each date which absent contradictory sources would provide more than sufficient documentation on the article page for either. We must decide which are more credible. While I agree that there are a larger number of sources supporting 1986, and that in such disputes some weight should be given to the side with more sources, I disagree that that should be the deciding factor. Relying on the number of articles ignores the possibility of circularity. These articles likely relied on each other or information from Lana's management for sourcing. And ask yourself, where else might they have got their information? (Hint: Click your article tab.) But how do you explain so many disparate sources-- her personal Facebook account, her filings with the Library of Congress Copyright Office, any public records search, and a number of articles from reliable sources dating all the way back to 2008 up until the present-- in agreement supporting a 1985 DOB? The most plausible explanation is the 1986 sources parroted inaccurate information disseminated by Lana and her management. Any other conclusion strikes me as willfully obtuse.

At the very least, shouldn't the article be edited to note that there are discrepancies between reliable sources and her DOB is disputed?

Evilentity1 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

no, the article shouldn't note that, because you don't have sources that meet Wikipedia requirements. You don't have a copyright filing, you have a web catalog. You don't have a public records search, you have a commercial web site of unknown reliability listing numerous people who may or may not be Lana del Rey. You don't have an official Facebook account, you have an unverified one which may be a fan creation. (And if she is engaged in a deliberate deception, why leave up her old Facebook?!). Perhaps there are a few articles, but as Dr. k has demonstrated, the preponderance of sources is against you. What you folks don't seem to understand is that we aren't gatekeepers who need convincing to bend the rules, we are just some people explaining to you what the rules are. We didn't create them and we can't break them. Bring your new evidence to Gawker, because we can't use it. Gamaliel (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, I was able to pull up her voter registration info in the state of New York here entering the county (Essex) and zip code (12946) of her hometown of Lake Placid and her 1985 birth date. It does not work if you use 1986. At this point I don't feel the real world facts are really in dispute. That's pretty definitive. We have a set of reliable sources that meet Wikipedia standards that align with the facts (the articles mentioned in my last post that Deneuve15 cited). We should use them. Evilentity1 (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

UTC)

If you think you have a convincing case, here is my advice: put together some consise bullet points, leave out the lengthy harangues, and present it at WP:BLPN for the opinion of numerous editors experienced with these policies and issues. Im not prepared to throw out hundreds of sources based on this, but perhaps you will find a different opinion there. Gamaliel (talk)

I agree. What is being attempted here is the rejection of the who is who of reliable sources using synthesis and original research from primary sources. We have dozens of sources including music industry leaders such as Billboard magazine dedicating a special piece to her and verifying her YOB as 1986, GQ magazine giving her premium billing as the "Woman of the Year" and doing the same and we are being asked to reject all this in favour of original research and synthesis? This is exactly the situation WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:BLPPRIMARY have been designed to prevent and it flies in the face of literally dozens of reliable sources which clearly support 1986 as her YOB. If, despite all this evidence, more advice is needed by these brand-new accounts, they should seek a second opinion at a different forum. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you are conflating big name prestige with reliability. Especially considering I can even cite articles from "music industry leaders" (including your "reliable" GQ Magazine) that establish her age as a year younger than 1986, not older (age 24 in 2011 = 1987 DOB):

• Oct. 6, 2011 GQ Magazine article calling her a "24-year-old woman"
• Sept. 27, 2011 NME article calling her "24-year-old Lizzy Grant"
• Nov. 29, 2011 Clash music article: "the twenty-four-year-old’s startling talent"

Why shouldn't we trust a local daily paper (Adirondack Daily) to get the age of a local girl right? Why shouldn't we trust a trade journal (Domain Name Journal) discussing a June 21, 2008 reunion of two men it did separate cover stories on, including her father Rob Grant, and showing a photograph of the two men with Lizzy at her hometown airport on that day, that it "was also Rob's daughter Lizzy's 23rd birthday"? Shouldn't we find sources in agreement dating back to 2008 up until the present more credible than differing sources that consist only of highly managed interviews/profiles over a much shorter interval?

Also, here are a few additional secondary sources supporting her current age as 28:

• Fall 2009 Blurt magazine profile: "24-year old Lizzy Grant"
• Dec. 12, 2011 Oyster magazine interview where she states she moved to New York at age 18 and has "been there for about eight years now"
• May 8, 2013 Fashion magazine profile referring to her as "the 27-year-old talent"

As I said before, shouldn't the article at least be edited to note that some sources differ from the 1986 DOB? WP:V states "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."

At this point, WP:OR or not, WP:BLPPRIMARY not-- and I would argue not since there are reliable secondary sources that can be cited that confirm the 1985 date-- I think with the voter registration I've presented as conclusive evidence as you can get short of a birth certificate that she was in fact born in 1985. Given that, isn't anyone concerned about the feedback loop this article is creating? I mean, I could present all my evidence to Gawker as sarcastically suggested, but is anyone really going to publish an article just to correct this fact? And without such a "Lana Del Rey Actually Born in 1985" headline, your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines will torpedo any correction. Meanwhile, more lazy music journalists will "fact check" her DOB with this article, adding to the "dozens of reliable sources which clearly support 1986 as her DOB", and round and round it goes... To draw an analogy, I feel like the interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines being applied here would favor a whole bunch of secondary sources claiming Barack Obama was born in Kenya in the face of a public record of his birth certificate confirming his birth in Hawaii (because that's WP:OR and WP:BLPPRIMARY!), even if a number of reliable secondary sources also claiming Hawaii existed and dated farther back. Evilentity1 (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are conflating big name prestige with reliability. I do not. Reuters, the BBC, The Guardian, Billboard magazine and many others, are all very reliable sources and you cannot dismiss them as big name prestige. Either you like it or not, Wikipedia recognises them as reliable sources WP:RS and many of them have explicitly stated her YOB as 1986. There is no point wasting any more time trying to argue these points in a circular fashion. As we told you before go to WP:BLPN and repeat your arguments there. You can also go to the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN. Until then and since the vast majority of reliable sources has determined her YOB as 1986, there will be no change to the article regarding this information. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I will make a case at WP:BLPN. However, you still do not adequately address why the many sources indicating a 1985 DOB (or for that matter a 1987 DOB) shouldn't be considered reliable (other than that they are a minority). As WP:V states "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Completely disregarding reliable sources indicating a 1985 DOB without an independent reason to doubt their veracity is not giving each side its due weight or maintaining a neutral point of view. I would be satisfied with an "although some sources say 1985" addition to the article or something of the sort. At least that has some potential to avoid the feedback loop issue as it would hopefully prompt journalists to look into the matter rather than simply echo this article.

However, assume for a moment I'm correct and the date actually is 1985 and the 1986 references are erroneous for whatever reason. What evidence that I haven't presented would satisfy you? It seems to me that a near impossible bar has been set here. Would a correction by a source for the 1986 date be enough? An article in a secondary source looking into her voter registration records? A long-form birth certificate? I'm honestly curious. There must be some threshold of evidence that's possible to meet that does not essentially boil down to "I have MOAR sources than you! (Never mind whether they were blindly quoting each other, Lana's press kit, or this article.)" I'd also like to register my complaint that the atmosphere has seemed rather hostile here including denigration of newbs (WP:DNB anyone?) and smacking of attempts to shut down debate. Evilentity1 (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel and I have made the same arguments repeatedly so repeating them again is not going to serve any purpose. It is good that you chose to go to BLPN for a second opinion. As far as being a newb, let me put it this way: Apart from the fact that all these brand new accounts do not appreciate the guidance and advice that were given to them, making this a very thankless task, a brand-new account who comes on a talkpage with their very first edit and continues the discussion where a previous new user just left off, invoking all kinds of policies and policy or essay acronyms, does not look all that newbish. But I will leave it at that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you've inappropriately interpreted our actions as hostile. For example, my suggestion that you bring your theory to Gawker was not sarcastic, it was genuine. Many errors in Wikipedia have been corrected by establishing facts in a published forum. The most famous example is perhaps Philip Roth's letter to the New Yorker regarding his novel The Human Stain. As for your contention that no one would be interested in the subject, I've personally used as a source for Wikipedia a lengthy newspaper article mostly on the subject of the real birthdate of Jeane Dixon. If we were hostile to new editors, we would not spend so much time trying to explain and guide you through Wikipedia polices and procedures. I think that what has happened here is that you see us as gatekeepers inappropriately interpreting and applying Wikipedia policy, instead of two editors just trying to explain to you the same thing any other two editors would. If that is the case, I think it is time for Dr. K and I to stop engaging in this discussion and for you to engage other editors at a relevant noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well said. I fully agree. Thank you Gamaliel. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Evilentity1 has interpreted your actions correctly and is experiencing the same resistance as I did. There are clearly enough conflicting 'reliable' sources to show that there is an inconsistency in the Y.O.B., clearly showing the year 1986 is uncertain, let alone that public records and legal records confirm 1985 as the correct Y.O.B. Unfortunately Δρ.Κ. removed an edit made by Auric;Year of birth uncertain, which given the amount of 'reliable' sources that are conflicting, seems an inappropriate edit. Luckily there are many editors and administrators on wiki, I think administrator Kww offer of an RFC that will get editors from all over Wikipedia to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion is a good option as Δρ.Κ. and Gamaliel do appear to be strangely resistant to any other view than the one they currently have. If I remember correctly; while specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred (this has been shown) but some secondary sources are conflicting. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, (again this has been shown) Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, (again this has been shown). This is no longer as Δρ.Κ. and Gamaliel suggested original research (OR) as reliable published sources exist that confirm the primary source. Also Gamaliel I would just like to add that considering you class the BBC etc.. as reliable sources I would have to disagree with that statement, when for example; the BBC footage claimed to be form an IRA propaganda video was in fact from a computer game. When they used fake footage claiming child slavery that was acted out for the BBC to make a story and the Frozen Planet series claiming footage shot in the Arctic that later emerged as polar bear scenes that were filmed in a zoo. I could go on but I could fill many pages with how 'unreliable' your so called 'reliable' media sources are so I'll leave it at that so there is room to discuss the current inconsistency with the Y.O.B.Deneuve15 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. All our advice was offered in good faith. I'm sorry you've chosen to disregard it and interpret it as hostility and resistance. Good luck with your efforts, I hope that you listen to the responses from other editors with a different, more charitable state of mind. Gamaliel (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What Gamaliel said so eloquently. Plus please take up your statements about the status of BBC as a reliable source with the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN and try to convince them that it is not a reliable source. You can also assist EvilEntity1 with taking this matter to the BLP noticeboard located at WP:BLPN and try to gauge their opinion there if you think it could be different from ours. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Just received this reply from a BBC News Planning Editor in response to a correction request I made:

"Dear [redacted] – thank you for getting in touch. We work very closely with artists and other figures in the music industry.

Should Lana Del Rey or her management team change the personal information they give out then we will change our reporting of it accordingly.

Given that there seems to be some dispute over this we would wait until it was resolved and they alerted us to any changes"

Posted without comment. Evilentity1 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey in recent interview with radio.com August 16, 2013, "I went back to listening to Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, whose life path really influenced my life path 10 years ago when I was 18". http://news.radio.com/2013/08/16/interview-lana-del-rey-on-leaks-immitators-haters-summertime-sadness/
Deneuve15 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture

She looks uncharacteristically bad in the first picture. I think it should be replaced, because people won't easily recognize it as her face. Is it even? She looks SO gross in that picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.233 (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree... People won't recognize her at all with that photo. Zovator (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. I recognized her right away when I first saw it. Are there any other high-quality and recent photos of her on Wikipedia right now? --Thevampireashlee (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that you guys are talking about different images because of edits. I agree, I couldn't recognize her in the image I saw. I changed it from Del Rey at the Echo Awards 2013.jpg File:Lana Del Rey at the Echo Awards 2013.jpg to File:Lana_Del_Rey_Cannes_2012.jpg, which I feel is both more flattering and more recognizable. -- itistoday (Talk) 16:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this photo is rather bad, her face is rather screwed up. There is a lot better photos of her. Also, the photo in the Performances section is rather dated. I think it should be replaced with one from the Paradise Tour Lirimefaut (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The performances section should not even be in the article. It's cluttered and trivial. Which is why it's flagged to be merged into Paradise Tour. Other parts should be moved to Born To Die (Lana Del Rey album). Listing all of her performances is quite daunting and frankly unnecessary. We could mention where she performed certain songs on their respective pages, such as we see on Video Games (song)#Live performances. And which picture are you referring to? The reddish one from the Cologne performance? I rather enjoy that picture, finding it quite characteristic and beautiful. Additionally, it faces from left to right, toward the article text, which helps keep a reader's eyes facing toward the article, instead of away. Psychology shows that this type of placement prevents distraction and is quite a common rationale for image arrangement on articles here on Wikipedia. As far as the infobox picture goes, I rather like it. I don't find it "gross" or "screwed up". I think it's beautiful. Plus, it's a high-quality, full-frontal, recent picture of her where she is smiling and gorgeously made-up. The image that has been suggested for replacing it is very grainy, low-quality and you can hardly see her face. This image: File:Lana Del Rey Cannes 2012.jpg makes her look like Cindy Lou Who, her face looks lopsided, and she is quite possibly nude (not that that's particularly relevant). This image I would also consider as pleasant alternative, despite it being slightly less recent than the current one and of slightly lower quality. All in all, I vote for the current image (i.e. this one should stay, because the proposed one, is (and pardon my crudeness) "garbage". --Thevampireashlee (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I vote for this image as well, it is a large improvement. I think it should be changed.Pouvoir1 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I also (like Thevampireashlee) vote strongly for the image from the Echo award, cause it´s high res and sharp, up to date and not a posed one like the Cannes-Version. Also, the Cannes image does not look in any way like her in recent times. -- Captain Herbert (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You're obviously a hater and you want her to look in the worst way possible. There are far better images of Lana Del Rey available, it is laughable that you would want to use the current one over the others. Nowadays she does not even look like she did at the ECHO awards. Come on, you can do better. 84.30.93.169 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Name meaning

Lana del Rey means "wool of the king" in spanish. I think it's important to add that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.234.231.75 (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

edit request

In the 2013 section it says Summertime Sadness peaked at 9 but it peaked last week at 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.192.165 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Billboard Hot 100 does show that it peaked at number six.[2] I just need to figure out how to cite the chart. —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 October 2013

In the first paragraph of the Life and Career section(1986-2010: Early Life and Career beginnings)Lana Del Ray is quoted and it reads "it bridged the gap between God and science. I was interested in God and howtechnology could bring us closer to finding out where we came from and why.". Howtechnology is a typo and should be corrected to read "it bridged the gap between God and science. I was interested in God and how technology could bring us closer to finding out where we came from and why." 122.57.112.40 (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Trópico

Hi everybody, I come from the Spanish Wikipedia, and there the info about her is updated at the same time than this one. But... didn't she said that Trópico will be released at the end of September? We're on October 11, and I still didn't hear anything about it. And... is she finally going to quit? If someone knows something, please tell. --Ideator 2.0 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Age she signed her first recording contract

The first paragraph says "Del Rey started writing at the age of 18 and she signed her first recording contract when she was 22 years old with 5 Points Records in 2007". Her birth year is listed as 1986. She would be 20 and 21 in the year 2007, not 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.183.79 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC) That's because her actual birth year is 1985, however Wikipedia editors are reluctant to list that, even though there are various official sources to support this.84.30.93.169 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits involving images and page layout

Due to the incessant nature of the edits I have had to make to this article, and because of the character limit in the edit description bar, I am explaining my recent edits] to this article here. First, I have removed File:ParadiseTour2013Paris.jpg from the Tropico section and marked it for deletion at the Commons. I believe it is quite clear that the uploader faked ownership of the photo simply to add a recent image of Del Rey to this article. Second, I have moved the File:Lana Del Rey Cannes 2012.jpg to take its place, moving it to the right side of the article, as her gaze faces inward toward the text, which has been unspokenly preferable for articles on Wikipedia. Third, I have omitted File:Lana Del Rey @ Plaza.jpg from the "Influences section" (for the second time) for two reasons: 1). because the image is of Del Rey performing at the Irving Plaza, and another, higher quality image (File:Lana Del Rey at Irving Plaza.jpg) is already in use at "Musical style and personae" 2). the image is low-quality; Del Rey can barely be seen, the image has been edited to be only black and white. Thus, I have decided to replace it with File:Lana del Rey cropped.jpg, which is a good-quality image that shows her entire face, and her stance faces toward the text of the article, as was my rational for moving the Cannes image as well. This positioning of images helps divert the focus of our readers toward the text, instead of away. Fourth, I have replaced the previous position of the Cannes image with a new image, File:Lana del Rey @ Bowery Ballroom.jpg. Not only does this image show her performing at the Bowery Ballroom (a well-sourced performance that seemed to define a portion of her career). This image has been placed there since the article's creation, it is high-quality, and again, her posture faces the text, increasing readability and enhances the overall visual appeal of the article.

Structurally, I have reverted the article sections back to their previous form, with "Early life" being a sub-header of "Life and career". Not only does this format match the running trend for BLP articles, but other articles nominated as "good" also employ the same standard. Although we are not required to merge the sections, articles such as Lady Gaga use it, and it works very well, especially for such a short section. I have also re-added the word "personae" to the "Musical style" section, as the section contains more information than what would clearly be constituted as "Musical style"; the section contains many reliably-sourced sentences that mention previous names she's given to her act, her public image, and common personae she likes to "play" on stage and in music videos. I am not against the word "personae" being replaced with "public image" or even "image", so long as something is added to specific (and clarify) for optimal reader navigation and simple truthfulness. Removing the {{clr}} template from the bottom of "Other venues" stems from the fact that it makes the article appear disjointed, and there is no media in the lower sections that would be obstructed by its slight overlapping into them.

Please, before reverting my changes, discuss the edits with me either here or on my talk page. Hopefully, we can reach a consensus that benefit the article and put an end to the edit warring. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please mention this dispute in the pending changes log, as another of these edits occured a few minutes ago. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the pending changes log is for. It's for recording changes to the protection level of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2014

==Discography==

Main article: Lana Del Rey discography

Studio albums

• Sirens (2006)
• Lana Del Ray (2010)
• Born to Die (2012)
• Ultraviolence (2014)

Extended plays

• Kill Kill (2008)
• Lana Del Rey (2012)
• Paradise (2012)
• Tropico (2013)

Lideana (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sirens was never officially released. Littlecarmen (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Paradise Tour article

I have nominated the article Paradise Tour for deletion, I would appreciate it if you could participate in the discussion here. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Birth year is 1985. Not 1986

You can argue that many news sources cite her as being 27 years old, but that is almost certainly because her age that is listed on this Wikipedia article is wrong. There are many older sources that point towards her birth year being 1985 and not 1986. But the strongest source is this: you can punch her details into the New York Voters Register website (she was raised in Essex, Lake Placid, ZIP code 12946). Her record appears if you enter her birth date as June 21 1985 but not 1986. It's an official document and website so this is the strongest source (other than a long form birth certificate). Lana simply chooses to say that she is one year younger than she actually is. Also, her very first EP 'From The End' was registered in 2005 and her birth year is stated to be 1985. Source: United States Copyright Office Mpwilliams (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The voter register should not be used as a source. Quoting WP:BLPPRIMARY: " Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the 'United States Copyright Office' a usable source for her birth year- or does it count as a 'public document'? Considering the EP does exist and has leaked onto the internet, the entry for the EP definitely belongs to her. I think it's important to list her real birth year, but there is a lack of sources that state it because people keep looking at this wiki entry for confirmation to write their articles and also because she keeps lying about her age. In the case of Paloma Faith, it was believed that she was 28 until records showed that she was actually 32. Similarly, do we have to wait for an official announcement from Lana herself or wait for more news sources to pick up on the lie? Can I suggest we remove her birth year from the page or say '1985 or 1986'? - Mpwilliams (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It would not be the first article to get double-dated like that. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sections

Shouldn't Tropico be in the same section as Born to Die and Paradise? Paradise is an afterthought to Born to Die and Tropico wraps all of that up and includes three songs from Paradise. I think Ultraviolence should have its own section. Littlecarmen (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Capitalist viewpoint of wikipedia?

Why do all the wiki websites of famous people start by showing us how much money they have made and how successful they are so far? Does the Websters English dictionary preface every word by its rate of occurrence in general speech? Certainly not, since such is basically trivia. I know that I'll lose this argument, so I send it into the oblivion of wikipedia "talk", but an encyclopedia should not be so concerned with popularity as is wiki at current status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.45.195 (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Active article editors take note: WC/WW

The verb "spawned" is used twice in close proximity in the lede to this non-biological article, in neither case with best descriptive value, accuracy of meaning, or reader impact.

In the first case, the simple "included" would allow us to forego a formal piscatorial reproductive reference.

In the second, the sentence:

"With the release of her third EP, Paradise, Del Rey spawned her second top ten album in the United States, debuting at number 10 on the Billboard 200 with 67,000 copies sold in its first week."

might read better (and shorter) as:

"Paradise, Del Rey's third EP, sold 67,000 copies in its first week, debuting at number 10 on the Billboard 200 and giving her a second top-ten album in the U.S."

While these simplifications are less creative, they acknowledge that the creative process of songwriting and album production deserve better imaginative associations than the current allusions supply.

LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.245.225 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Lana Del Rey

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lana Del Rey's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Guardian":

• From Misty Eye: Sullivan, Caroline (9 August 2012). "Aiden Grimshaw: 'Misty Eye' - review". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
• From Ultraviolence (album): "Lana Del Rey announces new album title: Ultraviolence". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom: Guardian Media Group. December 5, 2013. ISSN 0261-3077. OCLC 60623878. Retrieved December 24, 2013.
• From Frisky & Mannish: Logan, Brian (20 August 2009). "Frisky and Mannish's School of Pop - Comedy review - Culture - The Guardian". London: guardian.co.uk.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2014

Change the picture to an updated one!!!! 98.118.56.191 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. NQ (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• The image is probably the most recent free image available. The license rules for images are pretty strict; we can't use just any picture found on the internet. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's terrible. She looks weird. Please change it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.121.72.69 (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Hi guys, I'm new to the Wikipedia editing committee of sorts for this page and I do have proof that she was indeed born in 1985. It's in the US Copyright Office records, and as it's 3 AM where I am right now I am too lazy to link so you can just search Grant, Elizabeth Woolridge yourself....

Furthermore I want to add that her sister Chuck was born on November 19, 1987. I've obtained proof from local records of houses Chuck has rented out in New York; again I am too lazy to link but Chuck herself has stated on Twitter that her birthday is on November 19. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpmir (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want something changed, you'll have to provide sources. Del Rey really was born in 1985 and there are various sources that confirm this. This very recent interview with her, for example, but other editors have been very against changing her date of birth. I definitely don't think the sources that are currently being used are reliable enough, they're not even decent articles, just lists of facts they got from Wikipedia. And if we keep her birth date as 1986 on here, this will continue happening. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

I think the infobox picture should be changed from Del Rey at the Echo Awards 2013.jpg this picture to this picture. The latter picture displays the person discussed in the article looking straight-on into the camera with a neutral expression and shows the way Del Rey looks better than the picture that is currently being used. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed change, and I have reverted the change back to the original image placement. This has been discussed quite thoroughly here: Talk:Lana Del Rey/Archive 1#Picture. Del Rey at the Echo Awards 2013.jpg The image currently in place is a full-frontal shot with the singer smiling. It is a flattering photograph, where as this one is quite unflattering and makes her look bored. This aside, the current image is more recent. Besides the Jaguar image is the infobox image used at List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey. The variety is tasteful, with the superior image in terms of focus, age, and image quality being on the artist's main article. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessarily discussed thoroughly. Five people didn't like the Echo picture, and three did. The picture from the Paris Motor show shows Del Rey looking directly into the camera straight on without bending her neck, laughing (distorting her face), and making her look bloated and not at all what she usually looks like. The lights also illuminate only half of her face. Whether she looks pretty or not is completely up to personal opinion (obviously, several people in the previous discussion had different opinions on that). I don't think how recent the picture is plays a role here since the Echo picture was taken only one month after the Paris Motor Show picture, she didn't change her appearance in that time whatsoever. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, album artwork is not fair use in an article about the artist, so it has been reverted. Secondly, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to promote the subject. --Michig (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2014

"Lana Del Ray" should be changed to "Lana Del Rey" Sammmiex (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You haven't specified what exactly you want changed where. "Lana Del Ray" is mentioned several times in the article. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey as a Mezzo Soprano rather than Contralto

This article states, under the artistry section, that "Del Rey possesses an expansive contralto vocal range". It also includes a sound excerpt from 'Million Dollar Man', stating that "this demonstrates Del Rey's contralto range".

I think a general consensus has been reached that Lana Del Rey is a mezzo soprano, especially following the release of further work. Her album 'Ultraviolence' is generally higher and shows more of her upper register. The site 'Diva Devotee' lists Lana Del Rey as a mezzo soprano: http://www.divadevotee.com/2012/01/lana-del-rey-vocal-profile-range-3.html

The quote that follows in the article, saying that Del Rey intentionally lowered her voice to be taken seriously, suggests that this is not the range she is naturally comfortable in and seems in opposition to the statement that she is a contralto.

However, I am aware that the article does not actually say she is a contralto, rather that she has a contralto range. This does not seem accurate either, because her range (reaching to approximately C6) is atypical of a contralto.

I propose that the article is amended to suggest more clearly that she generally sings in a contralto range but her natural tessitura is higher than a typical contralto.

Lilahcub (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Got engaged to Francesco Carrozzini (VOGUE magazine editor's son)

http://news.mtv.it/gossip/lana-del-rey-con-il-nuovo-fidanzato-italiano-a-portofino-scopri-chi-e-foto/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iltex74 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention anything about engagement, only about him being her new boyfriend. I'm not sure we should add that either, though, since they are really just rumours and gossip. She confirmed her relationship with Barrie O'Neill herself, we should probably just wait until she does the same with this guy. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox picture

File:1337700277lanadelrey.jpg

Picture #2

How would we feel about using this picture for the infobox? It was taken less than a week ago, and personally I just think it is a more flattering picture of her than the one currently being used. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It was actually taken in November 2013 at the party for her Nylon Magazine cover, but yes, I think we should use it. Littlecarmen (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Littlecarmen: Then in that case it would appear as though there is an issue with the licensing; a Commons user uploaded this image with the description "Lana Del Rey at at Sunset Marquis Hotel in 2014" with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, which would appear to be false information. My second-favorite image on Commons was Picture #2, which I still think is a better angle of Lana than the current image. What do you think of it? WikiRedactor (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I like it but I feel like her laugh may be distorting her face a bit too much. I like this picture (or maybe this cropped version) quite a bit. She looks beautiful and happy, and it shows her face well. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Littlecarmen: That's a good point, I like both of your suggestions and would be happy with either one! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@WikiRedactor: Great! What about the cropped version? I think it would be better for an infobox. Littlecarmen (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Littlecarmen: Sounds like a good idea to me! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@WikiRedactor: Okay, I have changed it! Littlecarmen (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Littlecarmen:, @WikiRedactor:, I don't think that's a good picture to use honestly. There's more recent pictures that are of better quality, I believe that the picture previously used in the infobox was better. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jjj1238:, I don't think the picture that was used before is good at all, her face is distorted from laughing, it doesn't show her face directly from the front, and the lighting is odd. I think this picture gives the reader a better idea of what Del Rey's face looks like. The picture is also only two years old and the only thing that has changed about her appearance is her hair colour. Littlecarmen (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Littlecarmen: I'm not sure what image you're talking about but I was talking about "File:Lana Del Rey at the Echo Awards 2013.jpg". That picture clearly shows her face, is of good quality, is recent, and isn't distorted. The image currently being used is of bad quality and old. Two other images better for the infobox than the one being used currently would be "File:Lana Del Rey Releases Music Video For New Track 'Burning Desire'6crop.jpg" and "file:Lana Del Rey Cannes 2012.jpg". Both of which were previously used and at least deserve a spot somewhere in the article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jjj1238: That Echo picture is what I was talking about. Her face looks bloated and, since it is only lit from one side, looks wonky. The quality of the picture we are currently using is good enough to show what Del Rey's face looks like and, as I said, nothing about her appearance, except for her hair colour, has changed since March of 2012 so I don't think it's a problem the picture isn't extremely recent. The Echo picture is over one year old, so it really isn't that recent either. With "distorted", I mean that her facial expression is exagerrated by the dramatic lighting, making a nice smile look bad. I also like the Cannes picture, I wouldn't mind it being included somewhere in the article, maybe in the personal life section? I don't really like the picture from the F-Type unveiling, she looks so miserable and stiff. I don't think it should be used in the infobox, but it could be included somewhere else appropriate. Littlecarmen (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"a poem called Howl"

Hi, thanks all for this very informative page about a singer/songwriter with whom I've only recently become familiar but who is rapidly winning me over! One niggling criticism: the poem Howl is very famous as is Allen Ginsberg. It's a little like saying, "a song called Help by the Beatles", no? Perhaps upon the next, probably more substantive edit, this might be rectified, too? Please say 'the poem "Howl" by Allen Ginsberg' Sanderatlarge (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I've changed it. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Artistry Section

In the Musical Style part, does the first sentence (the second half of it) really need 7 references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:1500:C90:2148:ECC1:F792:4060 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Also lives in London

Lana stated in an interview at the Brit Awards in March that she spends alot of time living at her apartment in London. Can a proper source be found for this and added to the article, as it states she only lives in NYC or LA, but from the lady's own mouth that's incorrect.

London doesn't have 'apartments'. They're a Yankee notion. In London there are flats, pied-a-terres, studio flats, even maisonettes, but not 'apartments'.

an apartment is just another word for a flat (also no-one in London beyond an estate agent would call it a 'pied-a-terre'. This is pointless nitpicking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastathon (talk • contribs) 23:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Record labels

There should be mention about music produced by different record labels, I think it is and it will be very important. Interscope is a label related to the perverse crap Atlantic Records, so it is Warner and so it is bloody AOL. The other label is Polydor. Nothing really bad to say about this label but I really suggest that there is a simple mention on a separate paragraph about the record labels. I don't want to talk about politics and economy but for sure as a music addict since the Punk Rock era (70-80s) I can say that the "world" will be cut in two so in that way, Mrs. Del Rey is maybe playing (or not...) with that fact. No more comment. Thank you for your consideration and attention! — Hydrocarbonic 22:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Real age

In the new Rolling Stone article, it's written that she is 29 years old (not 28) and is often reported to be a year younger. Is this finally a reputable source that can be used to back up the correct information? See 3rd paragraph in image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bs03DStIAAAOV7z.jpg 84.30.93.169 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

While there was sufficient evidence of this before that other Wikipedians chose to dismiss, this is exactly the kind of evidence—a well-known reputable secondary source citing her correct age and noting reports of her being a year younger are incorrect—they said would be required to warrant changing it when I lobbied for this in the past (see here). Now that we have this, it's time to change her age to the correct age of 29 and her birth year to the correct year of 1985, citing this Rolling Stone article as well as the Domain Name Journal, Adirondack Daily, and Blurt magazine sources mentioned in the talk history I linked. However, I'd hesitate to use any of the other sources I'd listed there with her correct age. They are right for the same reason all the other sources are wrong: a feedback loop. They were written during brief periods of time when her Wikipedia article was edited to reflect her correct birth date, proof positive of the feedback loop effect that has been going on here. Evilentity1 (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The correct birth year of 1985 along with Rolling Stone, Domain Name Journal, and Blurt as sources, has been added to the article. I didn't add Adirondack Daily because you need a subscription to see the content and we have enough other sources. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice work! FYI, the Adirondack Daily source is archived dead link‍] here. Evilentity1 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a short follow-up piece by the author of that Rolling Stone interview about "her real age" that says she "just turned 29 – not 28, as it's usually reported". I'd add these myself, but I've never edited an article page before, just talk pages. Evilentity1 (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Cult Leader

The interview that's available online that references the cult leader says she 'considered joining' the cult, not that she was part of it. Also since Lana is a character and not Lizzie herself, can we also consider this part of the 'mythology' of Lana (since beyond naming a 'cult' there's no further back up for it, ie. name of cult, leader, people, etc) and make it less of a concrete fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastathon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have the magazine that is used as a source for that sentence. Here is her statement in German:

"Ich gehörte mal zu einer Underground-Szene, die von einem Guru beherrscht wurde. Der umgab sich mit jungen Mädchen und hatte eine Wahnsinnsausstrahlung, der auch ich mich nicht entziehen konnte. Ich war also bei dieser, ich nenne es mal Sekte, weil ich mich nach Liebe unde Geborgenheit sehnte. Aber dann stellte ich irgendwann fest, dass dieser Guru kein guter, sondern ein böser Mensch ist. Er fand, dass man Leute erst brechen muss, um sie wieder aufzubauen. Am Ende stieg ich aus."

And here is my translation:

"I used to belong to this underground scene that was ruled by a guru. He surrounded himself with young girls and had an amazing presence even I couldn’t resist. So I was in this, let me call it a cult, because I longed for love and security. But someday I realised that this guru wasn’t a good, but a bad, person. He felt like you needed to break people down to build them back up. At the end I got out."

How do you know that "Lana Del Rey" is a character and this story is fictional? She says it like it really happened to her so that's how we need to write it. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

She was never in a cult. That's clearly defined in the New York Times source. Which I would find more credible. Which source do you think people are going to read? The one in English or the one in German? It says: "The lyrics also mention a “cult leader,” and Ms. Del Rey said the song looked back to a time soon after she moved to New York City, when she considered following a guru who “believed in breaking you down to build you back up again" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/arts/music/lana-del-rey-still-stirs-things-up-with-ultraviolence.html?_r=1 Cheers!2601:4:1500:C90:F8CF:BCB5:9098:73D4 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

In the German interview, she very clearly says she did belong to an "underground scene" which she called a cult. The German interview directly quotes her while the New York Times article paraphrased whatever she told them. Both sources are credible. They both conducted interviews with her. I actually find the German interview more important as a source since she is directly quoted. This should not be ignored just because The New York Times is more well-known than Grazia. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, New York Times reporter Jon Pareles conducted an interview with her himself.

https://www.facebook.com/lanadelrey?filter=3

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/popcast-lana-del-rey-downcast-superstar/

http://tribune.com.pk/story/722588/lana-del-reys-love-for-death/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/lana-del-rey-wish-dead_n_5491375.html

On her facebook page, she refers to his article as being the truth. Has she made any statement that the quotes in Grazia are the truth? I have removed the quote until sources are confirmed one way or another. Dkspartan1 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know he conducted an interview. I never said he didn't. I was just saying that her Grazia statement is a direct quote and the NYT paraphrased whatever she said in the interview. Unless Del Rey says otherwise, every statement of hers in every interview must be seen as the truth. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What I was saying is that the cult leader isn't named, an actual time period isn't named, the guru isn't named. I understand she said it in an interview and I'm not saying you have to take it out, just that maybe it's a good idea to change the wording of the sentence as it is all quite vague and nebulous as a statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.15.110 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014

Can the entire page be proof read. Her name is Lana Del Rey and not Ray. It says Lana Del Ray in the known a space too and throughout the document. Jamiehenriques12 (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, no changes necessary. She did release her first album with the spelling Ray, so that is correct to refer to the album and her during that time period. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong information.

she is 27 years old not 29. the brith date is wrong. it was correct a few days ago so somebody changed it recently.

See the section above you. She was born on June 21, 1985, and is 29 years old. Littlecarmen (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Under the "Career" heading, subsection "2011–13: Born to Die, Paradise, and Tropico," Paragraph 3, it says "Ride" became available for purchase on September 25, 2013. Shouldn't that be 2012, since that's when the "Paradise" EP was released? Bnewall1 (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Littlecarmen (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Contemporaneity

I read:

Amongst her musical influences, Del Rey cites several contemporary artists such as Elvis Presley, Antony and the Johnsons, Frank Sinatra, Eminem and Amy Winehouse.

Elvis Presley: long dead. Frank Sinatra: long dead. Eminem: alive, but a name from the past. Amy Winehouse: dead (though recently so). (Antony and the Johnsons: I've no idea.) What does "contemporary" mean here? -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It occurred to me that "contemporary music" might have some additional, non-obvious meaning. Sure enough, "contemporary music" takes me to "contemporary classical music", which tells me: "Contemporary music" and "Contemporary art music" redirect here. For other forms of contemporary music, see Popular music. (But the word "contemporary" appears nowhere within the latter article.)

How about: Amongst her influences, Del Rey cites several popular musicians such as Elvis Presley, Antony and the Johnsons, Frank Sinatra, Eminem and Amy Winehouse?

(I note from the top of this talk page that it's not just me who's puzzled by "contemporary".) -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Big Brother and the Holding Company's 'Cheap Thrills' is not a compilation album, by our common definition of that term. Also, Elvis Presley is inaccurately referred to as a contemporary of Del Rey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.156.7 (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Pretty When You Cry (song)

Pretty When You Cry (song) was recently expanded from a redirect, but contains little information. Is this song notable enough for its own article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Earlier father estrangement

I can't seem to find it again, but she had set the record straight in an interview about how she hadn't spoken with her father in years and all of a sudden people were saying he financed and helped her album, which was weird for her and untrue. This is notable and should be included as a real life example of Igby Goes Down/privileged people distancing themselves from their family at one point or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.108.33 (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Proofreading

The quote "...stifle future opportunities..." should be closed with a quote mark before the two citations. The quote actually comes from the 2012 Horowitz article in Billboard, so the 2012 Ayers article in MTV should probably be cited second since it supports the point but doesn't source the quote. Inkwzitv (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Genre warring

Re: recent genre warring concerning the inclusion of "psychedelic rock" in the genre box. To begin with a reminder, Wikipedia guidelines state that genres included in the infobox should "aim for generality" rather than specificity and clutter. As far as I can see, the designation "psychedelic rock" has received no consensus across multiple sources—literally being listed only by one source in reference to one of her albums—and does not warrant being included in the genre box based on that flimsy designation. Even the intent of that one cited source is far from definitive:

The album [Ultraviolence] feels like a sprawling American desert [...] Certainly the rock ballad suits her retro preoccupation; the lead single “West Coast” evokes the opening riff of The Beatles’ “And I Love Her” and the chord progression from The Stooges’ proto-punk “Dirt.” She seems to have found confidence in psych-rock and narcotized swing.

It seems obvious (to me) that the writer of the piece is stating that psych-rock (and narcotized swing) are styles that Del Rey has amorphously engaged with on Ultraviolence. I don't see any evidence for the statement to be understood as using the term in relation to Del Rey as an artist in total, or to be designating any significant portions of her career output as falling under the heading of psychedelic rock (or narcotized swing, for that matter, for if we are to include psychedelic rock in the infobox based on this statement, surely by this logic we would have to include "narcoticized swing" as well?) Another source, in support of this interpretation, notes "the psych rock influences" on the first song of the album, but nowhere refers to the album as "psychedelic rock." Accordingly, I moved psychedelic rock to the "Musical style" section and listed it as a style that Del Rey has engaged with or touched on in her music, and removed it from the infobox, as it seems to me an utterly disingenuous stretch to interpret that particular statement so loosely.

Simply put, unless any additional cross-source consensus can be found to suggest that Lana Del Rey is a psychedelic rock artist, or that significant portions of her work can be explicitly categorized as psychedelic rock, the genre should not be kept. As always, the burden of proof lies on the editor to justify their interpretation of a source with consensus and due support. In this case, we simply have one source—referring to one particular style (among others) pursued on one particular album— being used to justify a comprehensive genre tag in the infobox.urs145 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Regardless of your personal feelings on the subject, the citation explicitly refers to Del Rey when saying that "she" has found comfort in the genre of psychedelic rock. This particular source was removed from the Ultraviolence page because it was referencing Del Rey more-so than the album. You may personally disagree with the author's sentiments and/or the consensus interpretation, but that does not warrant the removal of the genre and source. As a side note, self-promotion (your blog link) is not allowed in this section of Wikipedia. User:ilovetati91 (talk)

Again, User:ilovetati91 I'm not sure how "she" finding comfort makes the statement any more applicable outside discussion of the particular album—it's no different, for example, than saying (as many critics have) that Talking Heads found comfort in (or, more simply, created) a kind of Afrofunk on their album Remain in Light. Despite the ostensible validity of this observation, none of those sources refer to Talking Heads as an Afrofunk band, or Afrofunk as a general description of their career output—it is simply a style they explored on a particular album, among others, and which would fall under more general tags such as "new wave" and "post-punk". You also haven't addressed the fact that "psych-rock" is one of two styles listed with equal weight alongside "narcotic swing". Do you suggest "swing" should also attributed to Del Rey in the infobox as well? If not, I don't see the coherence of your sentiments.

Also, blog link? I'm not sure what you mean, as the sourced link is from an online article by a print publication apparently founded in the 1990s. Unlike what you appear to be, I'm not a Lana Del Rey devotee incessantly curating her Wikipedia pages. User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Directing personal insults towards me does not validate your ambiguous, rootless argument. "Narcotic swing" would obviously not apply as a genre tag because it was a term/description coined by Auerbach and Del Rey themselves and does not exist as a recognized genre. The article in question clearly states that Del Rey as an artist has found a comfort in that genre. It's an explicit reference in literary diction and I don't think your personal opinion is enough to deter that, unfortunately. User:ilovetati91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with LDR (and many other) articles is that there are some editors who look for any genre that is mentioned in any source and add them all in the the infobox. It could be one source mentioning one genre in relation to a component of one track, and people add that as her genre. It's nonsense. Lana Del Ray is not a psychedelic rock artist. Or a trip hop artist. Or an indie pop artist. Or... --Michig (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You have a point there! Del Ray's infobox genres should be ones that are supported by many sources, not one or two outliers. The genre of one song or one album does not automatically become the genre of the artist. Genres for the artist should be drawn solely from sources that talk about the artist's genre. And many sources should be tallied to get the main ones. Remember the infobox instructions tell us to keep it general. Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you spell the artist's name correctly, but are suddenly experts on what genre her music is? She's quite clearly an indie pop and trip hop artist, as evidenced by the majority of her work and multiple sources solidifying that. She has explored the psychedelic rock genre quite extensively in recent works and the cited article reflected that in saying she had found comfort in the genre. It's disheartening to see a certain level of inherent sexism directed towards a popular alternative female artist and the reluctance to include her in alternative genres despite music that quite clearly fits in this realm and is reflected by sources. User:ilovetati91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't need self-appointed 'experts' here, we need people who understand the guidelines on the infobox and how to interpret sources correctly. Baseless accusations of sexism just show how weak your argument is. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't claim to be an expert, but solely reiterated that we must go by what has been written by sources rather than the generalizations or biases of the users above me. I noticed you didn't address any of the content of my argument, thus solidifying what I was saying. We only have the sources and their explicit references to go by and your personal feelings cannot deter from that. User:ilovetati91 (talk)

From doing a Google search on Lana Del Rey and psychedelic rock it appears that there a number of third party references. What maybe is the issue here is that we perhaps have a 'chameleon' type artist who uses different stylistic elements. Or as this Rolling Stone review outlines: "The fact that nobody has been able to verify which camp she belongs to [...] makes her one of the most compelling performers of our time". Dan Auerbach obviously injected some psychedelic elements into her music, as that RS review Caryn Ganz (now with the NYT) points out. Her latest album has been described as 'almost-psychedelic' in this Papermag review while it is mentioned twice in this Quietus review.

In the end, defining the genre remains a subjective issue. And this case IMHO is quite complex as the artist is genre hopping and carving out a distinct style of her own. From the majority of reviews, I guess we are getting largely dream pop with cinematic elements and an alternative slant, all in a 1960s style. I suppose the psychedelic rock fits in with that?

So, the question really is, do we list the various elements that appear to influence her and which are attributed properly in the style section, or do we stick to three main genres? IMHO this would be a good discussion to have, to avoid continuous reverts and genre warring. Karst (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe she fits into any one of the narrow genres that people keep adding, and the sources don't support classifying her in those narrow genres. There are elements of different things in different songs. We should go with the broad genre of Pop music as per the template guidelines. If there are specific styles that were influences or that songs/albums contain elements of they should be discussed in the prose in the articles on those albums/songs with appropriate sources, not listed in the infobox. --Michig (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct, Karst. Dream pop is a deriviant of psychedelic rock, which is why both are commonly referenced together regarding Del Rey by critics. It is hard to assign a genre to her since her music embodies so many various types, so we can only really go by the explicit sources we have right now. I also don't think a broad genre like "pop music" would fit her at all. Yes, she's a popular artist, but she's typically referred to as "alternative" or "alternative pop" by legitimate sources when referring to the actual genre of her music. It's important to make this distinction. User:ilovetati91 (talk)

It seems true that the overwhelming majority of sources that attempt to describe her music ultimately refer to it in widely disparate ways not affiliated with genre tags ("orchestral," 'retro," "50s Americana", "cinematic," etc.) or otherwise suggest it is a largely unclassifiable merger of different styles, so I wonder if perhaps its better to just leave the genre section of the infobox blank. There is already a short and effective description of her general style and sound in the lead that doesn't bother referring to stolid genre titles, and a Musical Style section is already devoted to a detailed explanation of the different tenants of her music. Rather then ineffectively attempting to simplify an artist's sound to the requirements of the infobox, this would simply defer questions of her musical style to the complexities such a designation would seem to warrant as per the majority sources.User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I stated above, it seems like general consensus is that none of the listed genres are terribly appropriate, so I'll tentatively remove them all.User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

From the above, I think the generic pop music has been pretty much agreed upon. I would slot that in rather then keep it blank, which will perhaps invite further genre warring. Maybe add a hat not referring to this discussion? Karst (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

From this discussion, it's clear a consensus has not been reached. Half of the users feel the genres should be kept and are appropriate and half want there to be no genres cited. In this case, cited information must be kept. There are too many reputable sources listed for these genres for a few personal opinions to have them removed. You may "feel" a certain way, but that does not trump information given by valid sources on multiple occasions. Her music incorporates quite a few different genres (which is reflected on the wiki page) and there are too many sources saying that her music is decidedly anti-pop in sound. As a result of these aforementioned reasons, the genres are to stay. User:ilovetati91 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who on this page has explicitly stated or suggested that they believe the genres are well cited, accurately represent the artist, and should all be included in the infobox besides you, User:ilovetati91? On the contrary, every other commenter on this topic (4 different users including myself) has suggested that the genres currently cited don't accurately apply to Del Rey as required by the general guidelines of the infobox, or that the citations regarding one album or song do not qualify, or that such citations are narrow and reductive in respect to her sound. And quit it with the rhetorical garbage ("you may 'feel' a certain way"), the fact is that consensus seems to suggest the genres do more damage to the page than good—considering how much you seem to have invested in maintaining her page, it's alarming that you're so quick to put Del Rey in reductive and simplistic categories when her music clearly stands outside them. At the end of the day, genres are not required in the infobox, they are only there to help elucidate an artist. User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Resorting to petulant personal criticisms and harsh rhetoric do not help to solidify these rootless propositions.

From this infinitesimal number of respondents (5) in this discussion that you seem to consider a significant sample size, there are two users that have explicitly stated that a multitude of sources support the genres and parallels were drawn between the various genres. These genres were added a year ago with the help of a major contributor after a consensus was reached based upon in-depth research of what experts identify her genres as being. We concluded that overarching, general labels were too restrictive for an artist as multidimensional as Del Rey is and selected the few that popped up most often, baroque pop, dream pop, rock, indie pop, trip hop. Psychedelic rock was added after the release of Ultraviolence as sources began to reflect that she was pursuing this genre (which is an offset of dream pop) increasingly. This was also done to prevent overeager fans from trying to label her as a successful "pop" artist despite the majority of sources saying that she rejects this genre in her actual work. As mentioned earlier, it's important to recognize the distinction between a "popular" artist and the genres that their music embodies. I hope this helps to clear up your concerns. I've also noticed your talk page has quite a few warnings based upon your "disruptive editing" and "violations of Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles,from editing." As I have noticed this as well, further edits of this kind will result in reports and editing bans, so I would rethink your editing patterns. User:ilovetati91 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to be offensive or rude, but your persistent attempts to color the page according to your personal fringe preference is glaring, and your pretentious assumptions of authority in the service of getting your way is condescending and uncalled for.

• Number 1: 5 correspondents is a perfectly normal sample size of talk page contributors—have Wikipedia guidelines stated a minimum of contributors necessary for talk page consensus? Did you expect 17 contributors to weigh in?
• Number 2: "These genres were added a year ago with the help of a major contributor." That's a nicely vague appeal to a nonexistent thing—considering we're on the talk page, would you care to share where this apparent consensus and major contributor's advice is located, so that we might be enlightened? I don't see any evidence of such a discussion on this or your talk page. Sounds absolutely made up.
• Number 3: "after a consensus was reached based upon in-depth research of what experts identify her genres as being." When you get past the pretentious rhetoric of "in-depth" and "experts", this is another way of saying "we already made our own decision on exactly what you're explicitly questioning, so it's all taken care of and you should forget the whole thing."
• Number 4: "Psychedelic rock was added after the release of Ultraviolence as sources began to reflect that she was pursuing this genre" One source is cited on the Ultraviolence page as saying so, which we've already explicitly discussed—but thanks for repeating it in lofty terms. Coincidentally, there's also a cited source describing the album as desert rock, and yet I don't see you making the same argument for that source (presumably because it doesn't fit your preference? hmm).
• Number 5: "this genre (which is an offset of dream pop)" Really? So now we're just making historically inaccurate musical pronouncements with a false tone of authority?
• Number 6: "despite the majority of sources saying that she rejects this genre in her actual work." Proof? Plenty of sources describe how she's different from typical pop stars, but I see no massive consensus of sources saying she's definitively non-pop.
• Number 7: "it's important to recognize the distinction between a "popular" artist and the genres that their music embodies. I hope this helps to clear up your concerns." Not really, considering my point is that there's no reason to include any genres in the infobox at all, be they pop or otherwise. Sticking in some genres to keep out other ones when they're both inadequate just seems a bit silly, now doesn't it?
• Number 8: "I've also noticed your talk page has quite a few warnings based upon your "disruptive editing" And yet that seems to have no effect on my ability to see through your stubbornly preference-based editing style. Let's worry about the topic at hand, shall we?

User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You're simply continuing to implement personal attacks while projecting your own motives onto me. I'm following the guidelines of Wikipedia by adhering to sources while you're attempting to exert your opinions onto this page, which is apparently a habitual habit of yours and has been addressed extensively on your talk page.

I'm not going to engage you in this argument to allow you to distract from following rules. To answer your question of why "desert rock" has not been added as a genre. The sources explicitly describe the album, Ultraviolence, as being desert rock, but Del Rey is never once called a desert rock artist. "In-depth" research was lent towards the organization of these genres in the past and in subsequent updates, which are easily accessible. "Experts" are the critics established in Wikipedia guidelines as legitimate sources for music genres. Also, when I referenced dream pop as being relational to psychedelic rock, that derived from the genres' actual wikipedia pages and categorization, which are easily accessed. And yes, it is very important to make the distinction between the genre of pop and a "popular" artist. That is clearly the point of the genre section in the infobox. I notice you deeming the genres "inadequate," but the legitimate sources we have blatantly deny that. Again, this is why you must separate your own preferences and opinions towards the artist from what critics have established. I understand the passion of Del Rey fans and wanting her to be seen as a popular artist, which she is, but when clarifying genres, we must go with the specific ones designated by legitimate sources, which have already been collected and organized. Since these points/rules have been exhausted and explained to you multiple times, I hope reiterating them now solidifies your understanding. User:ilovetati91 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This is getting decadent. First of all, where are the personal attacks you're accusing me of? I made a conscious attempt to address specific comments you made. Is this the best you can do to justify your position? Some further points: 1) Yes, Del Rey is not called a "desert rock artist." Nor is she called a "psych-rock artist" (it's sid that she has "found comfort in psych-rock"), but you've gone and decided, completely arbitrarily, that that one deserves the infobox tag. 2) Again, if you could please direct me to this "in-depth" research (it just sounds to me like you looked at these articles in question and decided they were up to your standard a year ago, and now that their legitimacy has come into question you're pretending they have some extra substantial basis). 3) " but the legitimate sources we have blatantly deny that"/"critics have established this is literally the very assumption this discussion is meant to investigate (and appears to be rejecting, as it were). Stop restating basic premises as if they have suddenly become solutions. Whether these sources are actually legitimately referring to Del Rey in a way that can be applied to her as an artist generally is the very thing we are debating here. Is this point not clear? You seem to be running out of ways to simply repeat yourself and hope you get your way.User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Decadent, indeed. And your personal accusations and original research rather than adhering to rules continue, so I've reported this to the administration to allow them to resolve the page's continued vandalism. It's been established above that the sources were valid and explicitly described the artist's genres in a specific, concise, and accurate manner. Hence, their application to the infobox. Again, it wasn't decided on my own or arbitrarily. You can easily review past edits and hidden discussions of the page in which other users and I came to the consensus based on sources rather than our opinions or those of the fans that kept inundating the page with original research. I have been attempting to explain this procedure to you, but it's constantly met with the aforementioned aggressive tone. User:ilovetati91 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Last time. Show me this where "It's been established above that the sources were valid and explicitly described the artist's genres in a specific, concise, and accurate manner" and the matter can be dropped. Thus far, however, these claims are entirely unsubstantiated, and the problems brought up by other contributors above bear this out. Meanwhile, you've carried out a personally-motivated attack on my talk page in clear violation of Wikipedia policy and basic decency.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In this particular section, which was motivated by original research itself. The genres were explained, sources verified, and a differentiation was made between popularity and particular genres for the sake of specificity and accuracy. It's not personally-motivated when there have been clear violations of rules and disruptive editing on this page. Please stop trying to deflect. User:ilovetati91 (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Having received validation from additional Wiki admins elsewhere on this matter (accessible through my talk page), there's no reason to continue this back and forth. I'm removing the genres which are 1) only cited by one source 2) clearly only used to describe Del Rey on particular releases or 3) used to describe particular parts of her music, and leaving genres which have 1) multiple sources as support and 2) which are clearly used to describe her career output in general terms.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't trip hop stay as well since sources have referenced that genre during every release of Del Rey's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.63.251 (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Should Del Rey be considered a philosopher under "Occupations"?

Lana Del Rey DID study metaphysics. But since she never graduated, I'm debating whether she is a philosopher. I'm sure she considers herself to be one, based on her personality and interests. Just wanted your opinions on this. ZachDelRey (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Only list Del Rey as a philosopher if you can produce some evidence that she is notable as a philosopher. Assuming she has never written a book or treatise on philosophy, nor taught the subject at a university or college, and that no reliable, published source has described her as a philosopher, I would say that "philosopher" should not be among her occupations. General Ization ^Talk 22:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with your opinion. Thanks! ZachDelRey (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

This image of her has been up for over three years now, while there are a handful of other better, and more recent images of her (specifically ones of her performing). Why exactly is there a notice to consult on the Talk page before changing the photo? At this point, the photo of Del Rey in 2012 promoting her first album would be better placed in the body of the article for context, while a more recent photo would make more sense in the infobox (especially since her physical appearance has slightly shifted). Scottdoesntknow (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Three years in the context of a BLP page is not unheard of. I would be worried however (considering your talk page) what image you had in mind and if it would qualify under copyright rules. Karst (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The current infobox image choice is strange, seeing as it's from 2012 (we have more recent images) and it looks very washed-out and overexposed. All of these images are more recent - why not one of them?

May 2012

February 2013

March 2013

November 2013

April 2014

My preference would be for the May 2012 or March 2013 images as they are of the highest quality with the clearest shots of Del Rey's face. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Scottdoesntknow and Karst: thoughts? –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

May 2012 would have my preference too. Karst (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2014 is the one I'm partial to, mainly because I think it gives a good profile of her face with the addition of her being live in performance; it may be silly, but I always find photos of musicians/singers "in action," so to speak, to be the best types of infobox photos. The image would need to be cropped to focus on her face though, which I could do. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I personally would go for March 2013; has quality capture of face and is more recent than May 2012 Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with either May 2012 or March 2013. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone except Scottdoesntknow prefers the May 2012/March 2013 pictures. From there, Karst prefers May 2012 and SNUGGUMS prefers March 2013. Dr.K has not expressed further preference. I initially did not either, but lean towards May 2012 due to the brighter lighting and less-distracting background. I will go ahead and change the image to this one, but if anyone finds this controversial then feel free to revert and we can keep this discussion going (BRD). –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The current image is pretty awful. I think the Seattle meet and greet pic is probably the best choice as her hair is now at that color again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovetati91 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor User:ZachDelRey has managed to add a number of images under copyright to the page. Some of them are in the process of being removed from Commons but that might take some time. When adding an image, please check that he is not the uploader and that the image has the right copyright notice attached. For the moment I have added the November 2013 image (listed above). Karst (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else saying that the May 2012 picture is the best option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovetati91 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think a photo just showing her entire face properly would do fine 😉☺ Moley87 (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed it back to the May 2012 image as that appears to have the consensus at the moment. Karst (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys. Sorry for any wrongful edits I have made - I'm new to Wikipedia. I was wondering if we could please find a photo of Lana from 2015 for her picture? Her look has changed a lot and I know a lot of the Lana Del Rey fandom would prefer a more recent picture. Pleaseeeee consider this! ZachDelRey (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is a suitable picture that has no copyright attached to it, then I'm sure we can all consider it. Karst (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

http://lanadelrey-.tumblr.com/image/133287717338 How about the picture on this link? ZachDelRey (talk • contribs) 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No indication of who owns the copyright on that one, Zach. Karst (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any copyright on that photo, I looked all up and down Getty Images (which took most of the photos at that event), and that one isn't listed. I asked the owner of the tumblr, and as far as they know, there's no copyright on it. Can we use it? ZachDelRey (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You would have to make sure that it is released under a creative commons license. This can't just be a guess. Otherwise it will be removed from Commons again. Karst (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys! I realized I had a bunch of pictures taken of Del Rey from the concert in which I went to this year. There is no copyright on them, and they encapsulate her face and aura very well. I'll upload one - if you don't like the pic, feel free to contribute to the talk page. :) ZachDelRey (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting picture, although the microphone is covering her face somewhat. Zach, you can't blame us for being sceptical after you previously uploaded a number of copyrighted images that you passed off as your own. I'm willing to apply some WP:GOODFAITH on this one and let it stand. If others agree. But I would ask you to maybe step away from adding pictures. There seem to be plenty of them now. Perhaps work on some of the other aspects of the article, like adding good references. Karst (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I assumed this pic was okay after that picture of her from 2013... I couldn't see her face in that one at all... But thank you for having faith, I promised that there is no copyright on this pic at all. I've been editing other stuff too, thank you! :) ZachDelRey (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I should think a closeup of her face would be best for the infobox, so I support having the March 2013 photo. Regarding the June 2015 shot from Zach, I am suspicious of its copyright status as it was shot with an iPhone on December 9, 2015, about 200 miles west by southwest of the Xfinity Center venue which is claimed here. The iPhone should have set the date as June 9, 2015. From the same concert, there is a YouTube video taken from this exact perspective, which makes me think we are looking at a screen cap of the video: check out the scene at 3:20 to 3:50 where she's singing with her left hand wrapped over the top of the mic stand. So the June 2015 image is not ready for Wikipedia, as its copyright status is in question. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

FOR THE LAST TIME. The video is MINE! I uploaded that video. You obviously know nothing about an iPhone. If I screenshot a YouTube video (which is mine), it won't automatically save under the location or date the video was uploaded! If it's my video and screenshot, there is no copyright, as I put no copyright on my own YouTube video. I'm leaving the picture up, you're just being stubborn. ZachDelRey (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I TOLD you in the first place that I took a screenshot of MY video. Stop acting like this is news to you. ZachDelRey (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's an easy fix, then. @ZachDelRey: On YouTube, in the comments to the video, add a note that you have taken a screenshot of the video and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. Make sure you do it from the same account that you used to upload the video. If the usernames match, then doubt is removed on whether that source video on YouTube is in fact yours. (Or, technically, that the uploader affirms that the image can be put on Commons.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred Ok? Sure. I can do that... But even if it wasn't my account, fan-taken YouTube videos are not copyrighted, and this is ridiculous.ZachDelRey (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Fan-taken videos are most likely uploaded under the standard YouTube license, and that does not automatically allow end users to make derivative works or otherwise download them. And yes, the videos are under copyright—in the eyes of Wikipedia, all creative works are under copyright unless the creator explicitly releases them for public use. —C.Fred (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted back to the Cannes picture as the 2015 image is under copyright dispute at Commons. Using is screenshot from a video in the infobox is not desirable, certainly not when more high quality images are available. Also removed it from the gallery above. Karst (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. Maybe one of you could find a picture of her from the Billboard Women In Music Awards yesterday. That would be HQ and up-to-date. But I think I'm done trying to find a better picture, as I seem to not be good at it. ZachDelRey (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

But not necessarily free. Any press image taken at the event would be under a restrictive license. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I understand that. But I obviously am not good at this. If any of you cared at all about Del Rey's page, you would want an up-to-date picture for her. So please, can one of you find one? ZachDelRey (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The current one is fine and widely used through Wikipedia in other languages. This is an encyclopaedia, not a news-site. In those terms, an image that is three of four years old is perfectly acceptable. Especially as her appearance has not changed drastically. Karst (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I understand your point. But I really think a newer picture would be a nice touch. I don't know why everyone is fighting me on that point. ZachDelRey (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There are bigger issues to worry about with the article than finding a newer picture. Also, the image must be a free image; it can't be something copied off of somebody else's website, YouTube video, etc. That limits the number of pictures we could use pretty severely. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be great if we could just use any picture we find. As Fred says. We cannot. And you obviously have found that out yourself, judging by your Userpage on Commons. As I said before, perhaps concentrate on other aspects of the set of Del Rey articles. There is plenty left to do. Happy editing Zach. Karst (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I have a question. Would we be allowed to use a photo of Del Rey taken by Getty Images, if we gave credit to them? Like what if under the photo, in addition to its description, we put: (Photo by Getty Images). Would that be allowed or no? ZachDelRey (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@ZachDelRey: No, we can't use it. Getty images are under non-free licenses. We can't use any non-free images in the infobox, and the non-free content guidelines don't allow the use of images from press services like AP and Getty. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Oh ok, thanks for letting me know. ZachDelRey (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Voice type

Lana's voice type should be changed to dugazon, both Diva Devotee and Critic of Music consider her one. 50.101.50.24 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

Please add the name "Annie Lloyd of Get Fat BK" as the tattoo artist that did the "trust no one" tattoo on Lana's hand. I am the assistant to the artist. I was present when the tattoo was done. 173.56.76.169 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: Please read our guide on reliable sources --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lana Del Rey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130110031234/http://www.spinner.com/2012/05/31/lana-del-rey-may-jailer/ to http://www.spinner.com/2012/05/31/lana-del-rey-may-jailer/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120210165030/http://www.amazon.com:80/Kill/dp/B001L2AQW8 to http://www.amazon.com/Kill/dp/B001L2AQW8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130110031234/http://www.spinner.com/2012/05/31/lana-del-rey-may-jailer/ to http://www.spinner.com/2012/05/31/lana-del-rey-may-jailer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

I want to change the current profile picture to this:

File:Lanadelrey

Lana Del Rey on the pre-Grammy gala. 2016.

Lauraroselvy (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The image does not exist. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Signature

I have noticed that there are actually pictures of Del Rey's signature uploaded on the commons. Is there any way we can add one to her page? If you look at Adele's Wikipedia page, her signature is there. ZachDelRey (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. It needs to be confirmed as her signature though somehow. Adele's comes from a book that was sold at auction and was authenticated. You uploaded one that you got from a Tumblr page. There is a second one, uploaded by Jodelrey19. that looks different to the one you uploaded. It is described as his 'own work' pointing to a possible fake? Karst (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The one I uploaded is most likely her signature, because I've seen lots of fans post pictures of things Lana signed of theirs, and the one I uploaded looks just like it. But don't take my word for it, because I haven't met her. :) If you do some research though, you'll probably match most pictures of her signature with the one I uploaded. ZachDelRey (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Zach. But we need something that really confirms it is hers. We can't risk having a fake signature on the page. Karst (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

Under the 'career' section and 2014: Ultraviolence sub-section, there is need for a citation on the third line of the paragraph "On February 20, Del Rey posted a picture of herself and Dan Auerbach on Twitter with the caption "Me and Dan Auerbach are excited to present you Ultraviolence".[citation needed] " I have found the post on twitter, it can be seen be this link: https://twitter.com/lanadelrey/status/436561354686595073?lang=en-gb

Ashleycal1066 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lana Del Rey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150923061143/https://nz.7digital.com/artist/lana-del-rey/release/honeymoon/ to https://nz.7digital.com/artist/lana-del-rey/release/honeymoon/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for change in article

Hey guys,

I can't edit the page, so I put my request here: Under the section of 2016, it is stated that Lana already recorded a new single & will release it in August '16. This is not true and there aren't any sources which verify those claims.

Thanks for letting us know. This has now been removed (NB - please sign your posts). Karst (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2016

I would like to edit this article because I know more facts about Lana Del Rey than the original writer.

Nirvlana (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. @Nirvlana: Then tell us here what one thing is you want to change and what reliable source you'd base the change on. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2016

Hello! I uploaded a non-copyrighted polaroid from July, 2016, of Lana Del Rey onto the commons, and I was wondering if her Wikipedia picture could be changed to it? The file is: File:LDR backstage MontreuxJazzFestival2016.jpg

Thank you so much! R.omeo (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for adding additional content

Under “2015 Honeymoon” there is little information as to why she created her record Honeymoon. I found an article that would add insight and dialogue from Lana Del Rey as to what place in her life she was at when writing the songs for Honeymoon. The article states that Lana Del Rey said “I guess the first thing that was going on was that I really wanted to have one more record out that was able to speak for me, even if I wasn’t in a place where I felt like speaking for myself” (A Letter from Lana, 2). In the beginning of the second paragraph, after the sentence “In June 2014, she said “I have this idea for this record called Music to Watch Boys To, so I’m just kind of thinking about that and what that would mean”. [130] Del Rey later confirmed in an interview with Billboard that her new record would be entitled Honeymoon. [131],” the quote along with the sentence below should be placed.

“Lana was once asked in an interview what her frame of mind was when she wrote Honeymoon, she answered “I guess the first thing that was going on was that I really wanted to have one more record out that was able to speak for me, even if I wasn’t in a place where I felt like speaking for myself”.

--Munozkiana5 (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 28 September 2016 (UTC) Horner, Al. “A Letter From Lana.” NME – New Musical Express, Dec. 11. 2015., pp.20-22,24

The NME is referenced on the page of the album, which is very detailed. Personally I do not see the need to add further material here. Also, the sentence "Lana was once asked in an interview what her frame of mind was when she wrote Honeymoon" is vague. What interview is that referring to? And "frame of mind" is rather non-descript. Karst (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Born/Raised, NYC or Lake Placid

The lede of the article has her born and raised in NYC, but then the text of the article says that she was raised in Lake Placid, and her origins are listed as Lake Placid as well. Can we straighten this out? 2A02:C7D:CA32:CC00:9F5:E4C4:71C9:888D (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Lana no longer top streamed artist

Hi, Lana has sinced faded much. She's no longer top streamed artist on Spotify. Please let's remove that post.

"As of 2015, Del Rey is the most streamed female artist on Spotify in the United States, and the fourth worldwide:

http://singersroom.com/content/2016-03-08/rihanna-beyonce-top-spotifys-list-oftop-streamed-female-artsists/

 Done--The sentence has been removed on basis of updated records.Thanks for your information.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 15:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo

I propose changing the photo to File:Lana Del Rey "Burning Desire" Video 2013.jpg or File:Lana Del Rey at the Echo Awards 2013.jpg. The photo in use at the moment is relatively low quality, outdated, and (in my opinion) looks very amateur. Thanks.

I do not see either picture currently featured in the article? I would argue that there are currently enough included on the page. Karst (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Karst: I am referring to the main infobox photo. TheKaphox T 21:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to change the current photograph as featured in the infobox. Karst (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Excessive detail

This article has been padded out with trivial information, such as specific dates for release of promotional announcements by closely connected sources, inclusion of information identified as rumours in the sources, etc. Can't some of this be removed, so that the article focuses more on the actual albums, concerts, and other real events, which are mostly sourced to professional reporters and critics?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

it has a nice amount of referencing, its well backed, better than some scientific journal articles, but yes the article needs work it could be much better still, but, its not clear anything is objectively "trivial" when it comes to a Lana Del Rey article... Ooma Huntress-Protectress (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

Genre art pop 68.194.161.188 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Billboard article, the review is currently already featured in the article. We had a lengthy discussion on what needs to be included in the infobox above previously. Karst (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lana Del Rey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402090103/http://lakeplacidnews.com/page/content.detail/id/522368/Robert-E--Grant.html?nav=5006 to http://lakeplacidnews.com/page/content.detail/id/522368/Robert-E--Grant.html?nav=5006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601132218/http://www.grammy.com/nominees?genre=30 to http://www.grammy.com/nominees?genre=30
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721222329/http://www.virginmedia.com/music/news/story/2014/06/23/lana-del-rey-is-inspired-by/ to http://www.virginmedia.com/music/news/story/2014/06/23/lana-del-rey-is-inspired-by/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Coachella – Woodstock in My Mind"

There is lots of confusion re: the relationship between "Coachella – Woodstock in My Mind" and the album Lust for Life. I've redirected the article for now, but feel free to expand this page if/when notability is established. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lana Del Rey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018045023/http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/celebrity/pictures-today/2012/10/11/lana-del-rey-ride-music-video-santa-monica to http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/celebrity/pictures-today/2012/10/11/lana-del-rey-ride-music-video-santa-monica

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lana Del Rey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402170408/https://sg.entertainment.yahoo.com/news/lana-del-rey-happiness-process-003000606.html to https://sg.entertainment.yahoo.com/news/lana-del-rey-happiness-process-003000606.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120602174707/http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/77282/LISTEN-Unheard-Lana-Del-Rey-Album-Leaks-Online- to http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/77282/LISTEN-Unheard-Lana-Del-Rey-Album-Leaks-Online-
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://billboard.kargo.com/entry/view/id/36380?KSID=d484ffab298b29ae43789596b9c919bd%2F
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.clixie.co.uk/listen-lana-del-rey-ride/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017112901/http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=1 to http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=lana_del_rey_channels_blanche_dubois_in_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023015950/http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/lana-del-rey to http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/lana-del-rey
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120602174707/http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/77282/LISTEN-Unheard-Lana-Del-Rey-Album-Leaks-Online- to http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/77282/LISTEN-Unheard-Lana-Del-Rey-Album-Leaks-Online-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

New picture

Hello all,

I was wondering if there was any way some research could be done into finding a more recent picture of Lana for her Wikipedia page (that doesn't violate copyrights of course), preferably from 2016 or 2017? 5 years is a pretty long time to keep the same picture for her... If you find any new ones please upload them to the talk page so we can choose one!

Thanks! ZachDelRey (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. It looks like another user has used a more recent photo of her playing the guitar which I had incorporated in the body of the article a couple of weeks ago. It is high quality and looks nice in the infobox, so I vote to keep it there. The photo from 2012 that has been used for years is lovely, but at the same time, it has been just that—used for years. There are numerous free-use photos on the Commons of her that are more recent and just as good, if not better. --Drown Soda (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I definitely think there may be better pictures out there, that picture doesn't really focus on her face too much. But until we find the perfect one, this one's ok! ZachDelRey (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017

I just wanted to know why the page shows an old picture of lana, I feel like it should be a more current one, perhaps this one which was from this years Lollapalooza in Paris. Just a suggestion, it's a current photo and one where she looks lovely.

Honhonparadise (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The image is a copyright violation. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

2. Numbered list item

New image request

I would like to propose that Lana's infobox photo be changed to this: [3], which is a valid file that is more current. The current photo has been the same for a long time and it's from 2012. I don't see why there would be any objections to changing it. AgWoolridge (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The existing image is technically superior. The proposed replacement hides the lower part of her jaw with the microphone and the exposure is not up to standards. Dr. K. 18:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at the image being proposed here, and it's being deleted at the moment because the Flickr copyright license is not appropriate. I don't know why so many people on here are obsessed with uploading copyrighted images of her over and over—that isn't how it works. You have to work with what images are available under free-use. The 2012 photo is getting old now and I understand wanting more current photos, but they have to be available. If you want a new photo so badly, a solution? Attend one of her concerts, take one yourself, and upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. I have a few photos of her that I took in 2013 from the front row of one of her shows in Seattle—I can dig those out of my hard drive and upload them if anyone wants. --Drown Soda (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It's just that that image was extracted from this one [4], which is a valid file so I assumed it would be okay, sorry I can't always tell for sure which images are allowed. Plus I have seen her in concert and taken up close photos, but I don't think any of them would be good for her infobox. AgWoolridge (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

My Suggestion

This is a request to add onto the article. There was a lock and was unable to edit anything. This can be added if it's relevant.

In 2012 Lana Del Rey was the center of controversy when in her music video "Ride" she puts on a Native American headdress while dancing around and shooting guns. She defended wearing this stating that her video was "an ode to the spirit of dance and freedom.".

--Seich24 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

References

add record producer to her occupation

shes a producer too so itd like make sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:21F2:FE00:7170:610F:4DF0:C118 (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support she is credited as a major producer on both of her most recent albums —AgWoolridge (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing "close connection" tag

Personally, I believe the "encyclopedic tone" tag is more than sufficient to assist in helping the article. I read over the article, and yes, some of the poor sentence structures used in this article make it seem less "encyclopedic", but the article appears to have sourced and objective facts about the singer. Therefore, I removed the "close connection" tag. --Aleccat 10:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lana Del Rey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nylonmag.com/articles/lana-del-rey-interview-nylon
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410054156/http://www.mtvhive.com/2012/01/30/lana-del-rey-first-album-5-points-records-interview to http://www.mtvhive.com/2012/01/30/lana-del-rey-first-album-5-points-records-interview/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109010750/http://www.mtvhive.com/2012/01/30/lana-del-rey-first-album-5-points-records-interview to http://www.mtvhive.com/2012/01/30/lana-del-rey-first-album-5-points-records-interview/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://strangerrecords.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304172519/http://read.mtvhive.com/2012/01/30/lana-del-rey-first-album-5-points-records-interview to http://read.mtvhive.com/2012/01/30/lana-del-rey-first-album-5-points-records-interview
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150818040256/https://instagram.com/p/5H_7x_TAXS/?taken-by=honeymoon to https://instagram.com/p/5H_7x_TAXS/?taken-by=honeymoon
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160526203733/https://www.instagram.com/p/59zz2-zAXZ/?taken-by=honeymoon to https://instagram.com/p/59zz2-zAXZ/?taken-by=honeymoon
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110064742/http://hk.asiatatler.com/culture-lifestyle/arts/interview-lana-del-rey to http://hk.asiatatler.com/culture-lifestyle/arts/interview-lana-del-rey

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Genre - add sadcore

We should add sadcore as one of her genres. Nicholas S8 (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Associated acts per Template:Infobox musical artist

Rather than edit-warring over the names of associated acts in the infobox, why don't we discuss each of the proposed listings with regard to the instructions at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts? Pinging ZachDelRey. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lana Del Rey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605033333/http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/510931.html?nav=5050 to http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/510931.html?nav=5050

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Add formal stage names

Sparkle Jumprope Queen. Lana Ray Del Mar LanadelGay (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

They're in the article. --Aleccat 19:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sirens in Discography section

The album was shelved, but enough information is available on it to where it has significance in this section, especially considering it has its own article. Could the addition of Sirens (2006) be added with an additional footnote stating its shelved release. Let me know any thoughts on the matter --Ottamieh (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How do you pronounce her name

I know, I live under a rock, but would it be too much to ask for an IPA pronounciation to be added to the first sentence of the article? →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Does the line about her tattoos contribute anything valuable to the article?

Isn't this considered trivia, which should be removed? "Del Rey's left hand is tattooed with the letter "M", referencing her grandmother, Madeleine,[79] and the word "paradise". Her right hand is tattooed with the phrase "trust no one". -Melodies1917 (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Dugazon Not Contralto Vocal Range.

In the Biography section of her IMDB page, it says that she is a dugazon not contralto. A contralto's voice is deeper than those types of singers.

Whilst a dugazon is like a mezzo bordering on soprano specifically the dramatic type. That should be corrected.

Good night,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

unreleased songs article

Just created a new article (List of unreleased songs recorded by Lana Del Rey) and would love help adding new info! The primary source is https://lanadelrey.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_unreleased_songs but obviously BMI and various news outlets have provided the most sufficient info. Please contribute and integrate into the main article on Del Rey. Thanks!--Ottamieh (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

i see its been moved to a draft but is her Wikia really a reliable source, though?Melodies1917 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Melodies1917, it will be when it gets transferred to the fandom.com domain in late February/early March. Several musicians wikis like Katy Perry for sample already moved to that URL in early October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.163.178 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

To the IP above any Wiki including Fandom as well as Wikipedia are not reliable sources and should not be used in a article Abote2 (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2019

<! genre= baroque pop. Stupidpianist (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Already done That genre is already present. General Ization ^Talk 22:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

'Queen of Indie Pop

Is it really justifiable- right at the top of the article, no less- to state 'the media' considers her 'the queen of indie pop', simply on the basis of one provided source (and, at that, not a particularly high-level one; a Singaporean fashion magazine? It'd maybe be a little different if it were the New York Times, or something!)? I mean, I get this article was probably mainly worked on by people who like her rather than hate her, but still... The total Google search results for this phrase in conjunction with LDR number three; I note one article from a similarly minor source from the two days ago referring to her in the same way; the problem is journalists look at Wikipedia articles as a source, and thus a 'title' like this gains traction. Or was this all a clever tactic by her management? ;) At any rate, 'the media' is a considerable exaggeration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.112.43 (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC) And looking at the social media linked at the top of the magazine's website: under 20,000 followers on Facebook; under 20,000 on Instagram; under 6,000 on Twitter; 310 on YouTube. Hardly a major publication by any measure, in this modern age where numbers are what matters. Compared to the nearly 6 million population of Singapore (say 3 million female), this is not particularly impressive, and even less so considering the site is in English and thus accessible to all English-speaking countries. This is simply insufficient as a basis for claiming that 'the media' call her by this name, and, frankly, insufficient to justify its inclusion here (how would one phrase it? "In May 2017, an online Singaporean fashion magazine referred to Lana Del Rey as 'the queen of indie pop', since when two other minor media sources have used the same name"? Ridiculous, no?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.112.43 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't that kind of constitute quite the exaggeration? "The media" really ought to reflect widespread (or at least significant) usage; some random fashion site doesn't cut it, surely? If they'd started using it, and it'd caught on, then fine, but as it stands I couldn't find any major media using the "title" either... It does kind of make you wonder why the emphasis is being put on it; I mean, like you said, I doubt her management would have any complaints if it became widely used. RBWhitney12 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

when should the Norman Fucking Rockwell redirect be removed and the article be recreated?

so far 3 songs from the upcoming album have been released. i think there is enough coverage to redo the article for the album, even as as a stub. the track list section would be difficult though, because the full list has not been confirmed by Lana (social media) or anywhere like itunes and spotify. im asking here because NFR currently redirects here. thoughts? Melodies1917 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

She might release the long player as a gift for her 34 birthday. Most likely when the article gets resurrected from a vanishing nonexistence. It will make sense that her ahem unofficial debut under her birth name of Lizzy Grant began the string of decades known as the 10s. Lastly Adele's fourth will end the decade namely December 27.

Night,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Bloated article

I added a few more typical headings, but this article is super bloated, especially given she's an artist with only 8 years of career. To have a legacy section is just a bit outrageous. I am not NOT a fan, but this page is just in dire need to trimming and clenaup. She's got a new release but even that information is buried under the deluge of nonsense on this page. The volume is in the way of actually conveying information. If she was someone with a 20 or 30 year career it would be one thing, but egads. I mean, 294 citations, and not all of them crucial / the highlights. 1940CStreet (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Be bold then. (I do agree the legacy section is ridiculous. Give it another 10 years.)Trillfendi (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I am going to work on trimming this thing down. Too many extraneous details, plus a notable overabundance of references that repeat the same information. I will start working on making this a bit more palatable and less bloated with trivial information. --Drown Soda (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

If there are sources supporting a legacy, I don't know why the length of her career should be a reason to remove all of that. Sure there are some pieces of the article that can go, but I wouldn't say that part. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m putting an overly detailed tag. Trillfendi (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Occupation

I've removed some of the occupations that were stated in the introduction and in the infobox. In my opinion this should state as clearly as possible what the person does. I think it's safe to say that everybody would primarily consider Lana del Rey as a singer and a songwriter first and foremost. I really think it would be misleading if her page stated otherwise.This should not be a list of all her abilities, but rather the one in which she invested herself consistently and for which she has gain recognition.

I am well aware that she has directed a lot of her own music videos and that she also has directed some shorts. Yet, I think calling her a director doesn't make much sense. There is a difference between doing and being, and so, yeah, she did act as director on a couple of her shoots, but this is in direct relation to her craft as a singer-songwriter and her brand development. Saying she is a director is an exaggeration in my opinion and I couldn't find in the media anything either praising or critical of her work as a director. It has nothing to do with the level of talent she may holds or not for the medium of cinema. Simply put, at this particular time she doesn't hold the credentials to be recognized as a director and I really don't think, she, herself, would describe herself to be a director

Also, I don't think record producer applies here, for roughly the same reasons. If she were producing for people other than herself, yes. But producinng herself is a natural extension of her occupation as a singer and doesn't constitute a whole different body of work for which she has gained recognition. She a also is not an actress an has never been publicly recognized. All that she did on film is merely a representation of herself or characters very much into the realm of her singer persona. Nor is she a model. Being an egeria for a brand, the face of some products is a different thing than modeling. Having your picture taken doesnt't make you a model. When she re represents a brand, she represents it as the singer Lana del Rey. Finally, I'm aware, she is about to to drop some poetry collections. Since this has not happened yet, calling her poet is prematured. Also, even when that is released, I really don't think she should be described as a poet unless she pursues that path with successives publications and gains recognitions in the literary fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrelussier (talk • contribs) 02:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Just removed "poet" once more from occupations in the info-box. Don't revert this unless you can provide sources stating she is regarded as a poet in her own right with some sort of consensus, that she is actively pursuing poetry and has published collections of poems (preferably more than one) for which she has gained recogition. Ideally those would be sources from publications that have authority in the field of literature. If you can prove it, submit the sources you have to support that claim on the talk page first, so it can be discussed before a change is made.AleXMetz^{❯❯❯Reach me!} 21:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrelussier (talk • contribs)

Career

Since this section is so long, a separate page would be the best for all the details. I believe it's best to slowly start removing information to make this sense dense and incorporate it on the page Career of Lana Del Rey.--Ottamieh (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, I really think the page "Career of Lana Del Rey" should be deleted and whatever relevant information on it that are not already on the main page "Lana Del Rey"XX could be added to it. Having a page about her career is just redundant and it has no distinct purpose than the main page. What is the distinction between the two ? She's on Wikipedia because of her career, that is already what this page is about. Also, there is no limit to the length of pages; this is simply not a thing, as long as the information is relevant. In fact, the page is well organized and nicely presented and if the information is divided in different sections thoughtfully planned, it is a good thing not a bad one to be able to find the core of the information on the same page. Of course, there are some reasons for which it is justified to create satellite pages. Pages focusing on an album or a single or a tour are obviously very useful. Specific pages on discography or videography or list of awards are also totally justified. A page on her career though is really not helpful, in my opinion it even makes thing more complicated and the risk of contradiction between the two pages would be really high. It's best if everybody contribute to the same page in order to create some sort of consensus and with good team work achieve something very polished instead of dividing our efforts. It would be ok to have a second page if she had a career a totally distinct field, if she also was a renown scientist or an elected politician, then a second page on that topic would be ok, but this does not apply here. I don't know what other contributors think, but for my part, I'd argue that the page "Career of Lana Del Rey should be deletedAleXMetz^{❯❯❯Reach me!} 09:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hence why I put the overly detailed tag. Hack this thing down to a half and maybe we’ll get a Good™ article out of it. But frankly put, Lana is not yet on the calibre of artists who need separate pages for different aspects of their life. She’s got a long way to go for that. Trillfendi (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey infobox genres

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What should we put as the main infobox genres? Choose from the following genres, listing them in order of preference. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• A: Pop music[5][6][7]
• B: Baroque pop[8][9]
• C: Dream pop[10]
• D: Rock music[11][12]
• E: Indie pop[13]
• F: Sadcore[14]
• G: Hip hop music[15]
• H: Jazz[16]
• I: Trip hop[17]
• J: Psychedelic rock[18]
• K: Alternative pop[19]

Straw poll, no discussion

• ABCD. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• ABCE. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• EBCD. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• ABCD. Blueberry72 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• BCDI. [[User:jumpropeking(User talk:jumpropeking) 11:10 12 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.226.213 (talk)
• BCDFI. ilovetati91 (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• ADBIF. Prioritize the general genres, then get more specific. KyleJoan^talk 10:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• B(E)IJK as far as I’m concerned. Trillfendi (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• (EAKBC)(JD)(FGI) One from each group, organized by preference within group and between groups. I think it's important that the infobox have both general labels as well as a diversity of labels. Having 3 different labels for "pop" isn't particularly useful, but having 3 really specific genres like trip hop and sadcore isn't helpful either. So the groupings and preferences are trying to strike a balance between generality, breadth, and specificity. (Summoned by bot) Wug·a·po·des​ 00:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Four years ago there was a discussion on this talk page about Del Rey's genres, archived at Talk:Lana_Del_Rey/Archive_1#Genre_warring. No clear consensus emerged, but Baroque pop, dream pop, rock, trip hop and indie pop generally stayed in the infobox for the next three years, despite bouts of genre warring, especially involving sadcore. The guideline for Template:Infobox musical artist#genre says we should "aim for generality" and that two to four genres should be displayed in the infobox, not the five or more that has been so commonly seen here. Of course, all the other genres can and should be described in prose in the article body. The discussion four years ago and the edit summaries from recent genre warring make me think that not enough of us are trying to figure out what genres are most commonly found in the media sources. Let's drop the personal viewpoints and examine the sources to choose four main genres. Remember that song and album genres are not necessarily the genre of the musical artist. We should be looking for media sources that are describing Del Rey the artist or her music in general. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• One thing I'm noticing about the sadcore genre is that a bunch of sources report that Del Rey uses the term for her own music, but they don't embrace the term themselves, unlike with Cat Power who has been called the Queen of Sadcore. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, so it's more important to us what third-party reviewers think than what the artist calls themselves. Of course we can tell the reader what the artist has said about their genre, but it doesn't define the genre. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Why isn't alternative pop[20] included in the genre choices? I'd also like to point out that this source states that there is nothing "pop" about Lana's music, for anyone who might be interested by that. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    •  Done. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it acceptable that an anonymous user votes pretending to be a registered user? Blueberry72 (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

IP users are allowed to edit here, even if they post a signature that isn't a registered username. Binksternet (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I only found it strange that he/she tried to pretend to have an account Blueberry72 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have an account, but I'm still allowed to vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.226.213 (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course, I just felt strange that you tried to pretend to have an account called "jumpropeking". Blueberry72 (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't "pretend," I tried to edit it to make a name, but I guess I have to create an account to do that. Also, it looks like baroque pop, dream pop, and rock are the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.226.213 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the following vote (although there isn't supposed to be discussion up there) - "(EAKBC)(JD)(FGI) One from each group, organized by preference within group and between groups. I think it's important that the infobox have both general labels as well as a diversity of labels. Having 3 different labels for "pop" isn't particularly useful, but having 3 really specific genres like trip hop and sadcore isn't helpful either. So the groupings and preferences are trying to strike a balance between generality, breadth, and specificity." Only thing is that "dream pop" isn't technically a pop label, but rather more in the rock genre according to the page. The consensus picks are Baroque pop, dream pop, and rock and are consistent with sources, breadth and specificity. They also don't contradict sources (like those we have saying "pop" by itself is not an accurate genre). We could also discuss adding trip hop because of the above quote? ilovetati91 (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opinions?

Does Ms. Del Rey believe that the .org domain should be sold to the highest bidder? EllenCT (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@EllenCT: What are you talking about? --Drown Soda (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I withdraw the question. Her father is famous for brokering domain names, and she had an opinion on squatting them once, but it's not appropriate for the article even if she does. It was just an idle curiosity. EllenCT (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

New photo

I think that this photo (recently uploaded to the Commons) would make a great, newer infobox photo. Thoughts? --Drown Soda (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a good infobox photo. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I was looking at the same picture on Google Image a minute ago. I think it's a fair depiction of her current image. It is recent enough and under a Creative Commons License. Why not use it? It shows her style evolution, and her looks on this photograph are more consistent with the esthetic she currently puts forth. Of course, before making any substitution, it needs to undergo the vetting process. But I assuredly think people should start expressing themselves on the matter to see if we can get to a consensus.AleXMetz^{❯❯❯Reach me!} 23:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrelussier (talk • contribs)

Anti-Semitism

I think her boycott of Israel should be included in the "Social Views" section.[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeslifts (talk • contribs) 13:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

We have this thing called neutrality. It is not “anti-Semitic” that she said she wanted to perform in both Palestine and Israel but couldn’t, so she backed out. It is not her duty to wade into international geopolitics anyway, it’s her duty to perform for her fans. If they won’t let her then, oh well. ⌚️ (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I very strongly agree that being pro-Palestinian is not anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, or anti-Jewish, but she isn't even pro-Palestinian as much as strictly neutral. To see that position being called anti-Semitic is abhorrent. EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As has been said above, supporting Palestine is not anti-Semitic, and it is unacceptable to imply that it is. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur. These assumptions are so disingenuous. To be fair, she merely became one among numerous entertainers who suffered some form of disapprobation or backlash tied to some performance on Israel soil. Making such gratuitous allegations is in itself a proof of partiality. I'm disconcerted by how belligerent this contrived rhetoric is. I think it's pretty safe to admit that in that whole narrative, she bears little to none responsibility. In that regard, she dealt with the situation perfectly.

A lot of media pointed out that diverse political groups had weaponized Del Rey's performance to the festival. As one journalist pointed out, Israel is well aware that having celebrities visit and perform in their country can help improve the way they are perceived across the world. On one hand, this makes them look more "normal" and gives the impression their actions are more legitimate and justified. On the other hand, it ties them with the Western World, a bond they use as a demonstration of strength and superiority toward their neighboring countries. Within the Middle-East, it sets them apart from other countries that are left out of almost every international tour itinerary. It's not something they use explicitly, but they're still showing off the fact they are being favored using it as a reminder that they are not all the same.

So when Del Rey announced her participation in the Festival, it was great news for Israel, who used that to boaster. Then, the controversy arose, which led Del Rey to retract. At this point, Israel swiftly changes the narrative and starts to complain about alleged antisemitism. We've seen it times and times again.

Del Rey's decision was not heinous or antisemite in the slightest way. She did not take a stance or supported neither group or ideology. She merely stood out for her values, something she is entirely entitled to do and should do. Through it all, she remained very apolitical. That said, I believe it's an important story and it should appear on her Wikipedia page. I am not entirely sure that the "Social Views" section is the right one, since it does not tell much about the way she sees the world, but it is relevant enough to be included on the page, for sure.AleXMetz^{❯❯❯Reach me!} 22:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrelussier (talk • contribs)

Filmography before Discography?

Why is the Filmography section placed before the Discography? LDR is primarily known for her music/studio albums and it is a bit puzzling to see the Filmography listed first. For non-fans, this can be confusing too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlapdashOrPersnickety (talk • contribs) 11:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Done --MusicAndArtFan (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

BRD - Controversy section

This is a good edit. It is reasonable to give her defenses against a major controversy. It it fades into obscurity it can be removed. Also feel the same about (other) feminism-related information if it is cited to RS. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

One should wait to see how it plays out before posting about it on the spur of the moment. If it’s a prolonged controversy that lasts months in the press then maybe. But everything someone posts on social media doesn’t warrant a controversy section. --MusicAndArtFan (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the overall theme of feminism, which the instagram post was related to as far as I remember, has become relevant to her biography. The other incident is relevant because it builds on that controversy. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Her views on Feminism have already been documented. I also included her support of the me too movement. --MusicAndArtFan (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I updated the information on her views on feminism to defect those views as of 2020. This should do. As for the controversy, just see how it plays out before adding things. Give it a month or two.--MusicAndArtFan (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Judging from this paragraph some instagram posts are more important than others? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I was clarifying that it was Navajo Nation where she built houses. There are many Native American reservations. As for the mass shootings, again, this was to bring clarity to the issue she was raising awareness of through her philanthropy; this issue of gun violence in the United States as the US is one country. Not to confuse it with gun violence in other places. Most performers every now and again put something on social media that generates controversy and then it dies down. Since the post comparing herself to other artists, that news item has died down. News cycles are short. It’s not like she has been involved in a prolonged controversy lasting months. A two week period is not a long time. As for her video from the protest, she deleted the one showing the looting. She corrected a mistake. Why make it one mistake a topic for a Wikipedia discussion. Now if we were talking about David Duke, yeah you would have to talk about racism with him as he runs the KKK. That is relevant for him. As for Lana Del Rey, she said some things on Instagram, some folks didn’t like it. People moved on. If we are to include all of Lana’s minor Instagram controversies on here, then perhaps all of the minor social media Controversies of everyone else should be on their respective Instagram pages. I can name a handful of musicians who have made many more controversial statements than Lana ever did and even they don’t have controversy sections on their Wikipedia page. Wikipedia needs to be impartial and a social media controversy pales in comparison to someone like Eric Clapton getting up on stage and using racist words like he did decades ago. It pales in comparison to when Michael Richards went up on stage and started shouting the N word repeatedly in front of the audience. Lana Del Rey’s Instagram posts don’t measure up to any of that and therefor don’t need to be included. If she went out there and started using racist words then that would be different, but she has not done that. If her Instagram controversies are still occurring another month or two from now, then maybe it could be included and that is still a big maybe. --MusicAndArtFan (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@MusicAndArtFan: I don't see how In the early-2000s, Del Rey worked at a homeless shelter and did humanitarian work, including building houses at Navajo Nation. , sourced to a tweet, is more relevant than controversy that was covered in MANY secondary reliable sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I re-added the controversy section to the article with more robust sourcing, including a Billboard reference that documents her having been involved in multiple controversies. As the article stands, the controversy section is supported by four reliable sources per WP:RSP, while the philanthropy section contains zero. Given that the section now meets the requirement to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources per WP:DUE, the inclusion of the controversy section is perfectly appropriate. KyleJoan^talk 04:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @KyleJoan: regarding this edit, while I support the restoration of the Controversy section, obviously, I much prefer my version, especially the full quote of what she said about people who "look like" her, which was tied to feminism in the original post. Feminism is a theme on this biography. Also, please note that we are in a WP:BRD cycle and you should participate in this discussion rather than just proceeding with your preferred outcome before it is decided here. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

BRD does not fully apply here because the "R" in BRD describes an inclusion that cannot be immediately fixed by refinement, which we have disproved per the re-inclusion with more sources. That aside, I restored most of what you wrote sans the Alison Roman comparison and the quote, the latter of which I replaced with quotes from a USA Today analysis. I'd like to hear why you believe both of these bits should still be included. Regarding the full quote, we can obtain other users' opinions on which of these two proposed inclusions are more appropriate.

1. 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".
2. 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."

I personally believe that the two essentially convey the same message but that the direct quotes read more confusing and unnecessarily lengthy.

Edit: I've copyedited the materials further, so I concede that there is a significant disparity between your original inclusion and the version present in the article. Now that we've established that the inclusion of the section is appropriate, we can open an RfC to obtain more editors' views on which version of the section is more appropriate if you'd like. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 05:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing and interpretation for recent comments on feminism

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)

RfC about proposed controversy section

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

Controversies

Del Rey has been the subject of multiple controversies. 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". 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". In the same month, she received further criticism after posting a video of looters during the George Floyd protests.

Del Rey's response

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."

References

Survey

• 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)
• 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)
• Support Version B It's better as it is her own statement. ~ HAL333 21:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neither Frankly this is not encyclopedic content at all. This is fodder for stan Twitter. Trillfendi (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

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)

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

Poetry

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)

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)

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 and the online publications The Independent and Pitchfork, 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)

"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.

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020

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)

 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)

Discography

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)

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)

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)

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)

Associated acts

I believe The Weeknd should be added to Lana's Associate acts. This seems fairly obvious to me. They are close collaborators and friends. They are regularly seen together. They have collaborated 5 times, on the following tracks:

• Prisoner
  
• Lust for Life
  
• Stargirl Interlude
  
• Party Monster
• Remix of Money Power Glory
  

ASAP Rocky is an artist who similarly meets the criteria. They are also close collaborators and friends, and they have collaborated 3 times. I am unsure as to why The Weeknd does not appear on the list, yet ASAP Rocky does; they have more collaborations.
N.B. I completely agree with Rocky being on this list, I just believe The Weeknd should be on it as well, and he is arguably more deserving. Benarnold98 (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I recall The Weeknd saying that Del Rey is the female inspiration of all his songs. That too should be more than enough of a reason to be an associated act. Trillfendi (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fine! --Alextwa (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Written Like a Gossip Column

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

? 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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@TheGreatMix That's awful, and I hope you feel better, but the unnamed user's reasoning is extraordinarily lose at best and is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, if their Q'anon and radical feminist accusations toward me are anything to go by. In terms of legitimacy, this is a two-person dispute and again, consensus has not been reached and it is never up to just one editor to determine what "works". I plan on starting a third opinion or RfC to prevent further back and forth at risk to your health.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

I have taken a look at this because of the ANI thread - now I have to agree with the IP (and other editors) that rumours about the dating life of the article subject do not go on WP, because that would indeed make this read "like a gossip column"... Also agree with some other points, such as the mention of which politician she voted for being unecessary (is she a politician? no. is politics otherwise a large part of her life? that seems to be the subject of the RfC below, but I'd guess no otherwise) or the like. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian I see your point about her relationships, and thank you for your commentary. IMHO, her political views have been widely reported enough (see above) to render them encyclopedically pertinent to her biography, but yes, that is the subject of the below RfC.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m a reviewer, and as I was editing this page it was brought to my attention that there was a dispute. Give me time to review this issue and I’ll take a position. Just give me time. --Alextwa (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC about the inclusion of political commentary and controversy in relation to Del Rey's page.

Requesting community-wide feedback after failure to come to consensus after this reversion. Should her comments following the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and the release of her newest album's artwork, reported in major sources listed in WP:RSPSRC, be included in the "Social views and controversies section?" To what extent? Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, as they're issues related to major world events covered substantially in reliable sources. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, per above comment and your very valid points in the original discussion prior to the RFC. If there was little to no coverage of the matter then there would be no need to mention it at all. As it stands however, the issue was widely covered by multiple reliable news+ent sources and thus more than meets the notability requirements for inclusion. Properly wording and citing a controversial issue in an article is in no way an attempt to "smear" or "further smear" the individual in question's character.To me, bias appears in adamant attempts to prevent the information from being addressed at all. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes as comments were covered substantially per WP:NOTE in sources meeting WP:RSPSRC.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. There is coverage from legitimate sources. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. There is significant RS coverage. That said, I think the comments following the Capitol storming could be usefully summarised, maybe to just one sentence. Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I can't think of anything more relevant to include in a "Social views and controversies" section than Del Rey's controversial views on an societally significant event. Eggventura (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviewer’s Take

Blocked sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have reviewed this dispute as well as the evidence and the facts. I have drawn the following conclusions; 1. There seem to be too many vested interests in this dispute, hence the edit war which has taken place here. The edit warring must stop. 2. The Washington Post article which is cited is technically an opinion piece and not an impartial take on the controversy. I listened to the interview with the BBC that Ms Grant did and after looking at news reports, it is clear that her words were indeed taken out of context. This is commonplace within the entertainment industry. Media publications will take words, twist them and then misreport. They will misreport because they want viewers. This is not exclusive to Lana Del Rey. This has been done to other performers and it doesn’t get included in the controversy section on said performer’s Wikipedia page. After her words were taken out of context she put a video up on her Instagram page responding to the media’s coverage. That coverage was indeed bias. She did not say that former President Trump was no responsible. She was offering a take on the former president’s mental state and how that mental state has impacted him and how he as an individual have affected society curtesy of his mental state. Back on the topic of the Washington Post article, the Post also wrongly reported on the Covington Catholic High School student who was at a Right to Life protest where he was confronted by a Native American man. The misreporting led to a lawsuit against the Post and both parties settled. The Post has in the past misreported on these sensitive topics and the situation with Lana Del Rey appears no different. Lana Del Rey did not single out the Post in her Instagram video but instead mentioned Complex Magazine. Now when we look at how things were reported, Complex ran the first article misreporting Ms. Grant’s words. Other publications followed Complex is wrongfully reporting on her words. 3. Ms Grant’s (Lana Del Rey) response to the album cover was a response to false comments Instagram users were making. Those users were falsely claiming that there was no diversity. Ms. Grant confirmed the facts that there are women of color in the photo. In this case she was trying to correct false statements made my Instagram users. Correcting false statements should not be viewed as a “controversy”. 4. Lana Del Rey herself has attracted a lot of scrutiny and is often misquoted and misunderstood by media publications. This is likely to continue. As I mentioned above, media publications twist the words of public figures very often because there is a motive to get viewers and readers. Viewers and readers help these outlets make money. Wikipedia is not for profit. Wikipedia provides a unique free service to the public, which is why Wikipedia needs to be fair and impartial. The way parts of this controversy section are written do not appear to be fair and impartial based upon the facts we know. 5. As I mentioned, whenever Lana Del Rey gives an interview, there is a good chance her words will be misquoted. Whenever that happens, do we add to the controversy section? If so, the majority of this page will be about Lana Del Rey related controversies. This can get out of hand and redundant very easily. In conclusion, that section should basically simply point out to the fact that she stated that former President Trump is a narcissist who suffers from sociopathy. There is no need to mention it in the context of the Capitol terror attack because in the BBC interview she was talking about the former president in general terms. The Capitol attack was a current event when she did the interview. The part about her response to the album cover should not be included because all she was saying was a response to false statements about the diversity of those in the photo on the album cover. As for the face mask comment, she stated that the face mask had a protective layer. This is another case of misreporting on her actions. If the mask had a protective layer then it offered protection then it is inaccurate to say it offered no protection. I also would like to add that it is questionable to imply racial bias on Ms Grant’s part. There is no evidence of her treating non-whites in an inferior fashion compared to whites. One could argue that it is irresponsible to suggest racial bias when race was not the intention. Now there appears to have been a dispute over including content about who Ms Grant has dated. Now this article has no “Personal life” section. That kind of content should be included in a personal life section and this article perhaps could have a section like that similar to other performers. However, Ms Grant does not seem to be too public with her private life, so a personal life section might not work. Anyway, this is my take. I strongly advocate to changing the controversy section so that it is not influenced by news reports which have taken the performer’s words out of context. As time goes by, a section like this controversy section can get way too long and out of hand. --Alextwa (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Alextwa Thank you for your unbiased review. While I concur that Wikipedia is a free service that should always be impartial, I have a few thoughts: I don't know if the generalization that reputable, non-tabloid media sources (including ABC News, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, Pitchfork, etc. from a quick google search) "misquote" Del Rey repetitively over multiple issues can be made here (WP:ORIGINAL) - can editors really decide if WP:RSP are deliberately misreporting? The BBC interview can be a primary source, but her comments regarding her album cover were widely reported themselves, and widely regarded as a preemptive response. If one were to believe that the mass media reporting was misconstructing Del Rey's controversies, then the entirety of the section (which has been previously debated) including her Instagram comments on other singers, her posts regarding the George Floyd protests, etc. would have to be called into question. This would essentially equate to the "smear campaign" mentioned during the dispute, opining that every public controversy Del Rey has ever garnered lays the blame at the foot of the media, which is a significant and heavy accusation to make against reliable news sources. Nothing about the current content indicates that Del Rey is enacting racial bias - her own comments incited social media feedback and reporting highly relevant to her "Public image", the section this content is listed in. Her formatting of "Life and career" is consistent with the pages of other artists in her league, such as Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga, both of which have their most significant personal relationships listed in chronological order for biographical relevance. A technical question - while of course, your opinion as a reviewer is incredibly relevant to the dispute, there has already been user consensus on the topic itself in the RfC above. I am unaware if one outweighs the other - perhaps further feedback is required.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC) It is possible and it is clear in this case, that Ms. Grant's words were misquoted. This is fairly common when someone does a radio interview and a radio interview which is over 40 minutes. A lot gets said, publications then focus on a few sentences uttered in a long interview. Now I can't comment on a "smear campaign", but it is common for public figures to be misquoted. What I did is I listened to this interview and listened with an impartial ear. Again, I am not extremely familiar with Ms. Grant. I know who she is and I know about her music. Now for me as a personal of color, I did not take her comments in her May 2020 Instagram post as being racist. I don't think race was her intention. She was talking about who was popular and she did mention two artists (one white, one hispanic) who were not black. I do not see her words as being "racial bias". As for social media, so much happens on there but it happens in a vacuum and is not reflective of the real world. A lot of people use social media and leave nasty comments, performers see those comments. Some performers take it personal and respond, others don't. Looking at this discussion, valid points were made, even by those who were getting emotionally charged. However, when one gets emotionally charged, your leverage goes down and its hard to make an argument. As a reviewer, this is how I will re-work the section; firstly the topic on the May 2020 Instagram post will stand. I will elaborate on her viewpoints on Trump, but the source I use will be the BBC interview itself, rather than a news article which interprets it in a tabloid like manor. The Washington Post is a news source, but the way that article was written is written like an opinion piece. It is not the place for wikipedia to be opinion-based. As for the mask issue, I will remove that because its really more of a tabloid-like celebrity gossip topic. And it has been stated that the mask was safe and had a protective layer. Now on to the album cover, the issue of the album cover is mentioned in the wikipedia page on the album itself. It does not need to be repeated in two places. Instagram users falsely claimed the cover had no people of color and that claim was untrue. Lana Del Rey corrected that false claim. As a personal of color myself, I see no racial bias there. So I will re-work the section and hopefully, god willing the edit warring will stop. I will monitor the page afterwards. If I see edit warring persisting then I will petition to have the page locked. --Alextwa (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Alextwa Thank you for your input. Again, I don't believe it is up to Wikipedia to decide if Del Rey's words were misquoted or if her actions were "racist" - mainstream media reporting covered the mere controversy surrounding the issue. There is clear consensus by multiple editors for the reporting of major, reliable news sources I listed above to be included - does your review, of your own initiative, overrule that? Please link me toward WP policy that says so.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC) I fixed it up. All I ask now is for users to refrain from edit-warring. --Alextwa (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Alextwa Again, WP:CONS says nothing about own-initiative reviewers being able to override explicit consensus on their own merit. Please show me the WP policy that states you are able to do so here.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC) I'm able to do this as a reviewer. All I ask is for all parties to refrain from edit warring. I have seen too many vested interests on both sides of this debate and it needs to end. Hopefully this change keeps the peace. If not then locking the page could be an option. --Alextwa (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Alextwa The edit warring in question defied consensus and was resolvable under that. You keep stating this - Please link to a verifiable Wikipedia policy that gives you the privileges you claim to have over editor consensus before you make further changes.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC) It is very much worth letting go of this dispute. Putting text in boldface just escalates an already bad situation. Not letting this go will only lead to more disputes and more tempers flaring. As I have mentioned this is not in anyone’s interest. But I must pose this rhetorical question; how does re-working the section hurt those involved in this dispute. Does it alter one’s life? Of course not. There are times to let things go and this is one of them. No one wants to be issued a warning over edit-warring. It won’t fix anything. There is nothing to take personally especially when the objective is to be impartial. After looking at the arguments here on both side I see vested interests all over the place. My edit will keep the page fair and balanced and free from vested interests. I’m looking at the edit history on this page and this has gone on for too long. It is in everyone’s interest to move on and keep the peace. --Alextwa (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Alextwa I am once again asking for you to provide Wikipedia policy that enables you to override consensus. The matter was resolved before you offered you "take", with the edit warring having ceased since I left warnings on the editors' pages. Re-working the section goes against mainstream media reporting, widespread reliable press coverage, and overwhelming majority consensus by other editors. Please provide a WP policy that enables you, as a reviewer, to override consensus. If not, I don't see how you have any grounds or authority to make the changes you're making against consensus.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC) I could respond and ask another rhetorical question; what gives you the right to engage in an edit war with other users? I can see other users changed things and you reverted edits. I can also see that you had initially misspelled Ms. Grant’s stage name (Lana Del Rey) wrong. It looks to me like perhaps on the spur of the moment that you decided to change things because maybe Ms. Grant’s words upset you. If this is the case and it was then followed by an edit war, then that is unfortunate. I could also ask why you didn’t propose making changes to the page by discussing your proposal in the talk section first before going all in. Looking at the time stamps, you edited the controversy section first, then other users reverted your edits. Then one of the other users rightfully brought the dispute into the talk page despite not resorting to diplomacy. Then another user without an account got in on the edit war and the discussion on here. None of this was handled properly. After reviewing this, I feel that the way I fixed this is a fair compromise and I simply ask for the edit to be respected and to let it stand. In fact, I added content which makes the section clearer and perhaps easier to navigate. This is simply a good time to move forward and not take things personal. There has been too much of that going on and it needs to stop. There are much bigger problems in the world than this article. I just ask for everyone to keep the peace. --Alextwa (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Alextwa My initial spelling error does not automatically denote "her words upsetting me" - the reason I am pushing this hard is because I believe, conceptually, the sheer amount of reporting and mainstream media is significant enough to include it biographically. I did not engage in edit wars, if I did I always apologized, and I believe I abided by the three-revert rule. Regardless of your content and opinion at "fixing things" - let me remind you I held a previous open discussion that ended in an RfC that concluded the matter, which you just reversed. I have asked you three times to show me the policy that allows you to do so. If you are unable to provide one, I don't see how the implementation of your self-initiated review should remain. I will seek further arbitration if needed for the encyclopedic merit of the page, not the various independent opinions of users or reviewers who ignore consensous and seek to implement their own, sole views.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC) As I have stated before, now is a good time to simply move on and keep the peace. I would like to move on to as there are other pages I would like to review and work on. This accomplishes nothing. Pages get changed and pages evolve. This is just one case of that, one case of many. The arguments I see in this talk page are redundant and overly emotionally charged. Frankly, I should be issuing warnings to users involved in the edit war, but since I’m in a generous mood I won’t be doing that. I am asking everyone as nicely as possible to move on. This has gone on for way too long. --Alextwa (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC) While I respect your contributions as a reviewer, there is nothing here to indicate that your opinions can override consensus. This is the final time I will ask: Are you verifiably qualified to override overwhelming consensus? If not, your review cannot be implemented, and I'm afraid I will manually revert per WP:CONS and possibly seek further arbitration based on any future disputes that may occur afterward. I apologize if I come off strong, but your contributions were at your own invitation and the matter had been resolved by explicit consensus - the edit warring that took place was in contradiction of that and had ceased before your arrival. I stand by my contributions based on their integrity and the article's integrity, agreed upon by other users. --Bettydaisies (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC) I’m a reviewer and having reviewed everything, this is a fair solution I have edited into the article. Now when I look at your user page, you identify yourself as a feminist and interested in Black Lives Matter and civil rights issues. Nothing wrong with that. But then for you to edit a page on a musician who has not identified with the ideology that you have to me suggests that you might not be in the best position to offer a non-bias take. What is clear to me is that self-identified feminists don’t like Lana Del Rey. However she is free to identify how she wants. So I have to ask, what is your personal opinion of her? Do you like her as a person? As a musician? Do you believe her to be a racist? Or opposed to women’s rights? If this were jury duty and a bus driver was being sued, a juror who drives a bus probably won’t be able to be impartial. I don’t see any of you in this dispute as being impartial. And this is the problem I see and this is why I fixed it the way I did. I see way too many conflicts here and this is why I say move on and why I ask to keep the peace. --Alextwa (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Regardless of my opinions, I have edited Del Rey's page in the past - I've replaced images for clearer and beneficial reviewing, I've edited wording for syntax, I've added content - making baseless assumptions about my views on her won't serve to any benefit. I could say about your user page and contributions that you have not edited Wikipedia in ten years - a hefty time jump that might require in-depth re-familiarization with conduct and formatting. You have not proved, in any capacity, that you are qualified as a reviewer to override consensus. As I previously stated, I will proceed to thank you for your edits and manually revert your rework on that basis unless you can prove otherwise. --Bettydaisies (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC) As I have said before. Let it go and move forward. I am coming really close to petitioning to lock the page and hand out warnings over edit warring. Putting text in boldface just amounts to shouting and is not seen as being part of a constructive discussion. This has gone on long enough. I re-worked the section in a manor which is fair and impartial. I ask that to be respected and not reverted. --Alextwa (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)  Note: The above review has been rendered void due to this arbitration agreeing that Alextwa/TheGreatMix was not within their rights as a reviewer to override consensus and subsequently had it revoked.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

Francessco Carozini Or whatever should have a link to his wiki page :) 47.55.121.244 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Tol | Talk | Contribs 00:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

Lanasqueenofdisaster (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth Woolridge Grant, known professionally as Lana Del Rey also known as “The Queen of Alternative”, is an American singer-songwriter.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.   melecie   t 10:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"D(singer)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect D(singer). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#D(singer) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

" Del Rey collaborated with Ariana Grande and Miley Cyrus on "Don't Call Me Angel" for the action comedy Charlie's Angels (2019), which peaked at number 13 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100, becoming her highest charting song." --> Isn't Summertime Sadness her highest charting song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1EBF:E7D0:685A:1932:49C1:D758 (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021

change "glamor" to "glamour" Dadenney (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done glamour appears to be the more common spelling even in American English. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glamour Cannolis (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

On the main Lana del Rey Wikipedia page it is mentioned that her highest charting song on the Billboard Hot 100 is the Charlie's Angels collaboration with Ariana Grande and Miley Cyrus "Don't Call Me Angel", which is not true. Her highest charting song on that chart is "Summertime Sadness", remixed by Cedric Gervais. She IS mentioned as an artist and therefore that is her highest charting song, as can be seen on the OFFICIAL Billboard website. https://www.billboard.com/artist/lana-del-rey/chart-history/hsi/ Hope you can make this change because what is said is simply wrong. Andrea Dujo (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. That's weird. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)